I would actually rate this book closer to a 2.5 but I rounded down. I found this book to be incredibly mediocre. Even though I read the entire novel (it took me a long time as I really had to push myself to finish it) I have no interest in reading any of the other books in the series. There were a lot of parts where the book dragged, and I also never became attached to any of the characters. There were a few interesting elements to the book, and the author has a pretty colorful imagination, but these elements were not enough to make me want to read more from this author. I found this book more attractive than the first in the George Martin opus GAME OF THRONES. Here, I feel more assured that the characters I've begun to identify with are likely to still be around for the denouement. That said, THE KING'S BASTARD stands on its own - the mise en scene, the plot development, the characterizations are all interesting and attractive. Certainly, one could say, "How could so-and-so not see through that?" or "He/she's acting foolishly!", but that's natural because the characters are believable, and we want them to see it as we readers see it - the big picture, so to speak...and a believable character would act as we would, no? That said, Martin's book was excellent, but darker by a good margin, and this is a more "enjoyable" read. I'm going to need a longer break before I return to GAME OF THRONES, whereas here I got online and ordered the second in the series when only 3/4 through Daniells' book. I'd say that's a pretty fair recommendation, is it not?
What do You think about The King's Bastard (2010)?
pathetic. heavy handed and clumsy. everything about it was forced. hated it
—MRodri1993
It had good and bad but just didn't really work for me.
—aeshu
Simply a great book that takes you away from life.
—Afifa
