Jack Whyte (1940–2021)

The ninth and final book in the Camulod Chronicles. I liked it more than the previous one - we spent some of the time in Camulod! People talked to each other about things besides war! Lots of recognisable stuff from the legends came to pass! And as a medical minded person I got a kick out of this scene where a knight falls down a cliff and breaks his leg, and they have to treat it and get him home again with tools they improvise from what they can find in the woods. But overall, the ending show more of this series was much weaker than the beginning. It’s a shame, I loved the beginning, I wanted it to stay good.
It says in the blurb that Jack Whyte had always considered the Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot love triangle to be the heart of the Arthurian story, so I was disappointed by how little this version impacted me, and how little these three interacted on page. Arthur and Gwinnifer had a political marriage, and they liked and respected each other but were never really in love. Clothar and Gwinnifer liked each other too, and we’re told they eventually fell in love and got married after Arthur’s death, but everything was strictly platonic before then. And Arthur and Clothar were supposedly the very best of friends, but that just didn’t ring true for me. It’s frustrating, because I know Whyte can do better! Publius Varrus and Caius Britannicus from the first and second books in the Chronicles had a special friendship that I was very invested in. If Varrus had told Caius “You and my wife are the two people I love most in the world, I need you both to be safe”, I would have accepted it without question and felt feelings about it; but when Arthur said that to Clothar I was just like “… Is that true, though? Really? I’m gonna want some more evidence than just you saying it”.
Overall, I found this ending unsatisfying. The thing about the Arthurian story is that it’s a tragedy, and this version took away a lot of the power in that. There was nothing between Clothar and Gwinnifer, Mordred always knew he was the product of incest but he didn’t care and neither did anyone else, he was openly acknowledged as Arthur’s son and heir, Clothar left Camulod before it fell because Arthur ordered him to get out and take the queen with him, and Arthur lost his final war not due to betrayal or anyone’s fatal flaws but simply due to the overwhelming might of the enemy. It was nice, but somehow felt hollow to me. show less

This is challenging to review. On the one hand, I read it, and didnt put it down. On the other hand, I cant really say that this book “worked” for me. The parallel narrative with the previous book made me slightly curious about filling in the gaps, but also made the book drag a bit at times (and the points where the author “fast forwards” while reminding you of Merlyn’s perspective were very jarring). The main issue I had is that the character development and progression of Uther show more is just not great. Honestly, Merlyn’s wasnt either, and I found myself missing Publius Varrus and the general tone and theme of the first two books. There’s a lot of chaos in this one - armies appearing out of nowhere to put Uther into bigger and bigger messes that, while atmospheric, never really made a lot of sense. If Lot is so unlikable and nuts, how is he convincing thousands of mercenaries to show up and fight whomever they see on the road? Maybe the world was really like this, but from a reader’s perspective, it just felt like senseless chaos, and Uther’s abnormally developed sense of honor was completely at odds with the situations he found himself in. Concepts didnt develop in this book the way they promised to in the first 2-3. We didnt learn more about the concept of Camulod, or even Cambria, and overall the philosophical style of the first two books was totally absent.

Maybe all of this was intentional (to some extent, it surely was), but the books are definitely trending in a direction I’m less curious about, and thats disappointing. I’ll keep reading, but I look forward to the next less than I did before.

As a note, I read this after The Eagles’ Brood because that’s how my books were numbered. Realizing now that maybe that was not the correct reading order, but while reading it felt reasonable/natural. show less

The author's done a very good job in fulfilling his purpose he set out to do in his 'Author's Note': to explain influences on Bruce and why Bruce acted as he did at important stages of his life. This was accomplished through certain life experiences and the effect of the sound advice of others, most particularly his grandfather and great uncle. I recommend this book highly. Since it's Book 1 of a trilogy, I'm assuming the sequels will tell of military campaigns. I'd call this a show more Bildungsroman, since it's Bruce as boy-to-man.

The story begins when Bruce [called Rob in the novel] is ten years old; his father, the Earl of Carrick, another Robert Bruce, is hosting a meeting of King Edward of England, King Alexander of Scotland, and Angus of the Isles. A bloody fight brings home to the young Rob, as he's called, the importance of stamping out hatred, through mutually beneficial alliances. As Rob grows, through many examples given by his tutor, Great Uncle Nicol and Grandfather Bruce, he learns the importance of the definition and examples of 'manipulation', of how one can be blinded by one's wrong perceptions. As a squire he learns of the unpredictability of the English king. He learns from Grandfather that the king, a widower, only loved his wife, and something Grandfather calls 'kingship': statesmanship, but with an eye to increasing personal power and land. Rob learns of politics between England and Scotland. After the feckless Scottish king John Balliol's reign, Edward seizes control of Scotland. Rob sees for himself the brutal mistreatment of his people by English soldiers, so this decides him to fight for the people; he will be King Edward's creature no longer.

I liked reading about Bruce's psychology and the forces that may have shaped him. I felt the author did his research; there was no bibliography though. Scots dialogue used was easy to follow, although there was a short glossary. Characterization was well done. Writing flowed along smoothly. I felt the book was a bit long, however and could have been cut because of repetition. I liked his meeting William Wallace, the Scots freedom fighter [or rebel, depending upon your point of view]. I can see why the book was entitled as it was: there were three Robert Bruces in the story, each one important, although the young Rob [later Sir Robert] was the actual protagonist. show less

Skystone by Jack Whyte, is the first in a series set late 4th to early 5th century in Britain. It is a much grittier and violent version of the Arthur Legends.

Caius Britannicus, a Roman Patriarch born in Britain, held the long view that Rome was rotting at the core and would soon be forced to withdraw her troops from outlying posts to defend Rome. Even before retiring from the Legions, he began planning and preparing his lands for the vacuum in power which would follow withdrawal of the show more Legions from Britain.

What I love most about this series is the underlying theme of nation building, laying the very foundations and rules of law upon which Britain would be born. To this was added the wedding of the Celtic royal line with the Roman to create a new people.

What I have struggled the most with is the overwhelming thrust of a much harsher and violent time. Whyte makes no excuses for the archaic belief systems and behavior of his characters, good guys and bad guys alike. show less