The story was very original and dark. There was no formula.
Yes. By being different than the typical crime novel in making the despicable protagonist a sympathetic character
The first book was narrated by a guy with an accent from the area where the story takes place. This narrator was doing some sort of bad Eliza Doolittle impression. If a book is based in another country, the narrator should be striving to put us in that country. This narrator put us in 19th century London.
Not so much.
I like this author a lot. I like these characters a lot.
Format was lame. Bouncing back and forth in time. Tedious and excruciating.
Maybe. Her last book was a better story with an intereting premise.
Because he reads like the beatles played music. With three chords. Puts you to sleep. Didnt want to finish. I hope everyone who finishes this triathlon for the senses gets a big sexy reward at the end. Im of the belief that the end will make my ass hurt.
This might be enjoyed by people who have an unshakable faith in Ken Follet. Other than that its just drivel.
The seed of a great story that was planted in the first book was ruined by the absurd coincidental proximity that these players all seem to have to famous historical figures and events. The fine line that must be walked in historical fiction just became extremely cheesy because of the ridiculous ubiquity of these moments occurring for all of the players. It was done backwards. Instead of telling a story that included true historical events, historical events were used as a crutch to create a terrible story with terrible dialogue.
The performance wasnt the problem.
Report Inappropriate Content