- Format: Kindle Edition
- File Size: 904 KB
- Print Length: 224 pages
- Sold by: Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
- Language: English
- ASIN: B00EBRW1VO
- Text-to-Speech: Enabled
- Word Wise: Enabled
- Customer reviews: 18 customer ratings
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #789,238 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
|Print List Price:||£10.00|
Save £7.01 (70%)
Blood of Kings (Unconquered Book 1) Kindle Edition
|New from||Used from|
Customers who bought this item also bought
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Top reviews from United Kingdom
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
It an easy read and keeps you interested which is all I ask from a novel.
First the style; the author attempted to adopt a herioc voice with some grandiose language which I thought was appropriate to give a sense of the historical context and sense of quest. However they were lapses into a more common vernacular with even some Americanisms as well as more general anachronistic uses of words. Ok, I think you get better at that as you write more books and consult a decent editor.
Now the grammar and spelling. Oh dear. The author would make a good greengrocer as he has no idea of the use of the apostrophe, making errors both ways in missing it when it was required and inserting it when it was not. I never got used to reading "thegn's" as a plural. The other major and consistent problem was the choosing of participles in the past tense instead of (mainly) the gerund to give "was sat","was stood", "had wrote", instead of "was sitting (or seated)", "was standing", "had written". Misuse of "of"; inserting it in error to give "outside of", and "off of". Related to this was the modern error, "would of" instead of "would've". That one hurt my eyes!
Then there were Americanisms; so anachronistic and cross-cultural, especially as America had not been "invented" by 1066! Seriously, these did nothing for the historical style. The Americanisms I spotted were, "meet with", "gotten" (could have got away with that one if used consistently and more in the heroic voice as its roots are old English), "practicing" (although this could be just a spelling error), "snuck", "barkeep", and the worst one, "dove" (as in pronounced doav) instead of "dived".
Infinitives were split where not to would have achieved better English and driven that sense of "historic/heroic instead of losing it. An example is where the author chose to write "to not notice" when it was no effort to write "not to notice".
Moving onto spellings, there was, "mote" instead of "moat, "grouped" for groped", "jailors" for "jailers", "creek" for "creak", "feint smell" for "faint smell", "hoofs" for the more usual "hooves" (in fact both are correct but pick one version consistently). Inconsistent also was the use many times of "sheild" for "shield". In defence, these could be typos; but not when the error is actually another similar word.
Some sundry errors, and I will finish with the worst of them. Use of "were" with a singular subject instead of "was". Use of "whose" for "who's" meaning "who is" (effectively yet another apostrophe error). Use of "arrival to" instead of "arrival at or in". Use of both "judgment" and "judgement" on the same line of text. The author possibly is not aware of their different meanings; the former is the record made at the end of a court case, and the latter is what we all exercise each time we make a decision. There was a very odd usage, "off handily" which seems like a mishearing of "offhandedly".
The worst I save to the last (and it was in fact the final error in the book). This one combines incorrect grammar with a misplaced apostrophe in a sentence deliberately written to record our heroes' derring-do. The result destroys the moment. Get ready to cringe; it was "Victory was there's". (If you are not with me on this one which had me exclaiming "No, no, no" out loud, then it is the mistaken use of "there" for "their" combined with an apostrophe inserted to recreate the possessive lost by not using "theirs".)