What do You think about Ghost King (1995)?
Ghost King opened with a character named Gwalchmai, and I muttered to myself, “What’s he doing here? He was in Ironhand’s Daughter!” I read on, expecting some clever twist that would explain the two Gwalchmais were really one person... but the twist never came. Reusing a name is a huge turn-off when there’s no pay-off. That aside, Ghost King was quite a good read, a few notches above Ironhand’s Daughter in terms of readabiltyI finished it and started the sequel, “Last Sword of Power”.By now I've read most Gemmell novels, and yet still some things puzzle me...[MILD SPOILER ALERT] The "Witch Queen" who is the main adversary in Ghost King is also mentioned in Ironhand's Daughter as someone who came through a portal from another dimension in the past. She is also (if memory serves) a character in White Wolf - the first Damned novel by Gemmell. Whether this is the same character or not, I have no idea, but I'm inclined to go with the "Gwalchmai Paradox" in that there is no relation but merely a reused name.) [END OF SPOILER]I wouldn't say the two Stones of Power novels are as good as the other three Sipstrassi books about the Jerusalem Man, but Ghost King + Last Sword are definitely worth reading. Don't expect to love them like you might a Drenai novel, but equally they won't leave you feeling empty like Ironhand's Daughter, Echoes of the Great Song, or Dark Moon.The bottom line is that Ghost KIng is a page-turner. Once you've started, it won't be long before you finish it and move on to the sequel.
—Scott Kaelen
I was a huge fan of David Gemmell a few years ago, but then stopped reading his books so often because I was running out of them and I didn't want to stop having new books of his to read. However, over New Year I decided I was in the mood for some nostalgia so collected this book from my shelf and finished it within a couple of days. It was exactly as fantastic as I remember.David Gemmell's writing is not going to shatter your world, it is functional and definitely engrossing, but nothing more than that. However, everything else in his books manages to be astoundingly good. The plot is compelling, here excellently weaving classical history with Gemmell's own world(s), and with enough twists and turns that I never quite knew what to expect. The world is fascinating and I really want to read the sequel to find more about it. Best of all are the characters, who are the real reason I love Gemmell's books so much. They have all the depth and moral complexity of George R. R. Martin's whilst at the same time there are still clear heroes and villains who you root for. Quite how Gemmell pulls this off I'm not sure, but it works astonishingly well for me. Read it!
—Alex Jones
Okay, generally I find Gemmell’s books to be fairly fun; standard fantasy, with enough interesting characters, twists or references to keep me interested. And you’d think this one would be especially so, since it’s basically about King Arthur (albeit as a young boy). Maybe it’s the fact that this was one of the earliest of Gemmell’s books (as far as I can tell from publication dates), but it really, really didn’t work for me. There was that same moreishness about it in some ways, but I kept getting distracted by the tone, which bounced all over the place. Serious teenage crushes to slightly ridiculed slave/master relationships in a single bound… It’s great that there’s a disabled protagonist. It’s great that in that sex scene between him and the slave, she feels that she has control over the situation.It’s less great that one encounter with the maimed comic relief hero is enough to cure her of her fears and trauma about rape, but that’s a personal bugbear of mine. One good experience doesn’t cancel out one bad experience, people! It’s something like a one-to-five ratio, more like!Anyway, maybe it was that irreverent tone that got to me. The liberal mixing of mythologies (a guy was a proto-Arthur figure, he was also Ares, there might be a link intended with Cú Chulainn, throw in some Babylonian mythology too, and a dollop of Gemmell’s own mythology as well…) really didn’t work: it’s not that I’m fundamentally opposed to it (hell, if you dig into it, that’s exactly what J.R.R. Tolkien did), but it didn’t work. It felt thrown together.I’m not gonna read the sequel; it’s due back at the library anyway, and may the next borrower have more joy of it.
—Nikki
