<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not too bad, actually . . at least it's readable.
Review: After having been burned in my first venture into Tor's Conan books (Roland Green's atrocious "Conan the Valiant"), I was a little gun-shy to pick up another one. This one was at my local used bookstore for a couple of bucks, though, so I went for it. It won't make you forget Robert E. Howard, but Carpenter's Conan is fairly authentic nonetheless. Conan may be a bit too sentimental at times, but I think that Carpenter captured his character quite nicely overall. The plot is not overly cumbersome, Carpenter creates a few eerie moods, and if you have a good imagination, you should enjoy this book to a degree. Carpenter is bold enough to dispatch some key characters along the way and throw in some conservative plot twists, so it is not an overly predictable book. It isn't a book that you just can't put down, but you probably won't be throwing it across the room either. And don't judge the book by its goofy cover. The ridiculous lizard creature on the cover doesn't actually make an appearance in the book, thank Crom and Mitra, nor is there a female in palace garb sitting primly on the edge of a rampaging chariot. If you are a Conan fan, you could read a lot worse than this.
Rating:
Summary: Not too bad, actually . . at least it's readable.
Review: After having been burned in my first venture into Tor's Conan books (Roland Green's atrocious "Conan the Valiant"), I was a little gun-shy to pick up another one. This one was at my local used bookstore for a couple of bucks, though, so I went for it. It won't make you forget Robert E. Howard, but Carpenter's Conan is fairly authentic nonetheless. Conan may be a bit too sentimental at times, but I think that Carpenter captured his character quite nicely overall. The plot is not overly cumbersome, Carpenter creates a few eerie moods, and if you have a good imagination, you should enjoy this book to a degree. Carpenter is bold enough to dispatch some key characters along the way and throw in some conservative plot twists, so it is not an overly predictable book. It isn't a book that you just can't put down, but you probably won't be throwing it across the room either. And don't judge the book by its goofy cover. The ridiculous lizard creature on the cover doesn't actually make an appearance in the book, thank Crom and Mitra, nor is there a female in palace garb sitting primly on the edge of a rampaging chariot. If you are a Conan fan, you could read a lot worse than this.
Rating:
Summary: An OK Conan pastiche
Review: This title is perhaps one of the weakest entries in the Conan series. The book plods along at an uneven pace, and far too much time is devoted to developing secondary characters. The book, however, is not completely devoid of redeeming qualities. Carpenter's knack for characterization shows through although at the expense of the action many "Conan readers" are accustomed to.
Carpenter wasn't the best of the Conan pastiche writers but he wasn't the worst either. He's far better than Roland Green for example. This book is ok, but a little slow and lacking in Howard-style action and swordplay.
Rating:
Summary: weak..........
Review: Yeah, my title states my opinion. This obviously isn't one of the better books. The summary on the back sounded cool, but it isn't that good. Better than Conan the Gladiator though. It has its moments. For example, when the ghost-kings come up from their tombs, when Conan first sneaks into the tombs, and the end is surprising. I was disappointed at how easily he killed the main villain,however. The guy starts turning into a snakeman and Conan basically throws him into the fire and stomps on him! The part where he beats up the weapons-master at the castle is pretty dumb, too. It has its good moments, but pretty weak overall. I wouldn't specifically recommend it; I only read it because I want to read every Conan book.
<< 1 >>
| 
