Top critical review
4 people found this helpful
The Amulet of Samarkand was way better...
on 8 August 2006
Nathaniel is an utterly repulsive, unlikeable character with few reedeming qualities at all. He's changed a lot since the first book, and not for the better. This would have worked (and indeed did in the Amulet of Samarkand thanks to Bartimaeus) but not so this time. Bartimaeus doesn't even make an appearance until around about page 70, and then he feels to have a far more minor role than Nathaniel. As well as Bartimaeus and Nathaniel, we also have chapters dedicated to Kitty's story.
To be honest, too much of the book went on about Kitty's past (whilst interesting, I felt a lot of it could have been told in a much quicker fashion) then there was the whole Golem incident (which was rather dissapointing all in all). This book was too long, with not enough happening. I cursed the author many times for simply TELLING us that Bartimaeus and Nathaniel had had a conversation (since I just love to read their interactions) Bartimaeus' foot-notes, this time, added little much really, were jarring and often too lengthy. There was far too much time spent to characters doing nothing (at least a chapter on the Resistence basically passing time!) I really enjoyed the first book, but this was nowhere near as good.