

|
Loading... The Murder of King Tut (edition 2010)by James Patterson, Martin Dugard
Work detailsThe Murder of King Tut by James Patterson
None. James Patterson is an arrogant prick and this book is terrible. Terrible, awful, horrible. This was a very interesting book and it was a very good read. I liked all the details about Carter and his excavation work over the decades. Also, the intrigues at the Egyptian palaces was intriguing. The one thing that bothered me, and I've said this in other reviews, is the book jumped back and forth in time. I find that frustrating as it tends to pull me out of the story. History of King Tutankhamen, boy king of Egypt in about 1324 and how Howard Carter found his tomb in the valley of the Kings under rubble and pyramid builder houses. King Tut was king only for a short time until he was murdered. I enjoyed the history did did not like the 2 chapters that gave too much information between him and his wife and a maiden. It also contained some history of how author as he writes the story. Nothing of much interest here.
Patterson doesn’t buy that Tut died of a infection. And that’s all fine and good, but he does nothing other to follow his gut to come up with abruptly fingering likely murder suspects. There is no true evidence; just supposition. Dare you question him? Writes Patterson, “There was that gut instinct of mine again — the reason, I think, that TIME magazine had once called me ‘The Man Who Can’t Miss.’” That level of arrogance is astounding, especially when Patterson lays out his theory and writes, “Case closed.” Um, no. For one thing, other authors have beat him to this conclusion and with far more credibility — see Michael R. King and Gregory M. Cooper’s WHO KILLED KING TUT? and Bob Brier’s THE MURDER OF TUTANKHAMUN, from 2006 and 1999, respectively — so his hunch that Tut was the victim of homicide is nothing new, nor those he accuses of it. He’s just found a way to turn it into a surefire hit to pay for that golf membership.
No descriptions found. The authors describe their investigation into the death of King Tut, recounting how they drew on forensic clues, historical information, and the writings of Howard Carter to conclude that Tut did not die of natural causes. (summary from another edition) |
Google Books — Loading...
Popular coversRatingAverage: (3.06)
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What's more, I already read this theory, back in 1999. Bob Brier's book, The Murder of Tutankhamen, is more professional and convincing, though I believe his theories were discredited by modern scans on the mummy of Tutankhamen. Still, though Patterson tries to have a more personal touch, depicting real love affairs between Nefertiti and Akhenaten, and between Tutankhamen and Ankhesenamen, I found it less interesting and less absorbing than Bob Brier's more historical, detailed account of Tutankhamen's life and death. (