What do you think?
Rate this book
Hunter of Sherwood #2
The Red Hand
Guy of Gisburne, knight and agent to Prince John, is all that stands between England and anarchy, fighting a shadow battle to protect the kingdom from those who would destroy it.
Returning to England after foiling a plot to destroy Jerusalem, Guy of Gisburne is arrested and hauled to the Tower of London; John, England's regent in the absence of its monstrous King, needs his knight once more. A killer has broken into the Prince’s most secure castle in the north and left a message, drawn on the skin of one of his victims: 'the circle is closing,' signed with a handprint in blood. Is the threat genuine? Who or what is the Red Hand? Someone is killing John's men, and the obvious culprit—the most dangerous man in the Kingdom, Hood himself—has an alibi even Guy can't deny.
Returning to England after foiling a plot to destroy Jerusalem, Guy of Gisburne is arrested and hauled to the Tower of London; John, England's regent in the absence of its monstrous King, needs his knight once more. A killer has broken into the Prince’s most secure castle in the north and left a message, drawn on the skin of one of his victims: 'the circle is closing,' signed with a handprint in blood. Is the threat genuine? Who or what is the Red Hand? Someone is killing John's men, and the obvious culprit—the most dangerous man in the Kingdom, Hood himself—has an alibi even Guy can't deny.
470 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 30, 2014
12 people are currently reading
176 people want to read
About the author
Toby Venables
9 books34 followersToby Venables is a novelist, screenwriter and lecturer in Film Studies at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge. He grew up watching old Universal horror movies when his parents thought he was asleep, reading 2000 AD and obsessing about Beowulf. There was probably a bit more to it, but he can't quite remember what it was.
He has since worked as a journalist and magazine editor—launching magazines in Cambridge, Peterborough, Oxford and Bristol—and once orchestrated an elaborate Halloween hoax for which he built and photographed a werewolf. He still works as a freelance copywriter, has been the recipient of a radio advertising award, and in 2001 won the Keats-Shelley Memorial Prize (both possibly due to typing errors).
His first novel (for Abaddon) was The Viking Dead—a historical-zombie-SF mashup which has been described as "A fantastic mix of history, violence and horror" and "ludicrous fun."
He has since worked as a journalist and magazine editor—launching magazines in Cambridge, Peterborough, Oxford and Bristol—and once orchestrated an elaborate Halloween hoax for which he built and photographed a werewolf. He still works as a freelance copywriter, has been the recipient of a radio advertising award, and in 2001 won the Keats-Shelley Memorial Prize (both possibly due to typing errors).
His first novel (for Abaddon) was The Viking Dead—a historical-zombie-SF mashup which has been described as "A fantastic mix of history, violence and horror" and "ludicrous fun."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
January 14, 2021
Never before had it been made so clear, the extent to which Hood's legend had taken foot. Seeing it now, Gisburne despaired for England. It also presented him with a practical problem to which he had no solution. He could fight a
man. But how did one fight a legend?
Toby Venables’ Hunter of Sherwood: Knight of Shadows was a great action-packed historical fiction retelling of Robin Hood, from the point of view of Guy of Gisburne as main character and good guy, after so many appearances in 9th and 20th century variants of the Robin Hood legends as Prince John's hired killer, romantic rival for Maid Marian's love, Sheriff of Nottingham, sometimes friend to the Prince of Thieves, and much more.
Gisburne's blood turned to ice. First, Tancred's men had seemed to possess knowledge of the Red Hand. Now there was evidence that Hood's
men had had contact with Tancred. The nightmare was becoming reality.
"Marian came under the influence of Took. The intensity of their relationship raised eyebrows – though I do not believe there was anything
physical in it. If anything, it was worse than that - a meeting of minds."
Second novel of the trilogy is not suffering at all of Second Book Syndrome, but is a far bettter and entertaining tale with me with its well fleshed characters, a so vivid depiction of XII century England, you can nearly feel London live and breath, and a thrilling murder mistery storyline echoing Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Hound Of The Baskervilles, with a “dragon” in place of the dog and Guy, Galfrid and Mélisande, playing the roles of Holmes, Watson and Irene Adler.
A giant. A dragon. A demon. A pagan Norse god... Gisburne fought to banish thoughts of them all from his mind, staring hard at the gigantic footprints, telling himself this man -
whoever he was - was as real, and solid, and fallible as he was. He breathed air and drank water, and blood ran in his veins. And he could be stopped, and killed - if only he could determine how.
A page-turning cinematic read filled with action, adventure and humor, with a tormented main character, something like a medieval 007 in the service of a benevolent Prince John with engineer Llewellyn as a James Bond’s Q/Assassin Creed’s Leonardo mash-up, former Templar knights founding apocalyptic sects and scheming to haste the end of a corrupt world, and Robin and King Richard as the villains in an original reversal of their classic roles as hero and good king.
He shook his head in dismay and swigged from his ale cup. "It's said they rob from the rich to give to the poor."
Locksley roared with laughter, slapping his thigh. "What an idiotic idea!" Several of the men joined in.
Gisburne raised his cup to him. "Here's to you. You're lucky to be alive."
"Luck?" said Locksley, his laugh dying away. "It wasn't luck."
And Guy’s visits to a prisoner Hood scenes reminded me a lot the ones in The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and The Prestige (2006) movies.
Hood spread his hands. "Magic tricks. Remember those? I remember them. People always loved my magic tricks."
"I've no time for your mindless riddles," said Gisburne. He turned again and hammered his fist on the door. "Guard!"
"You see, the essence of a magic trick," persisted Hood, wagging a raised finger, "is that the most important thing of all is happening while
everyone is busy looking somewhere else."
So, if you are not a fan of back and forth flashbacks filled storytelling, or you can't stand a tale where King Richard and Robin Hood are a couple of bloodthirsty psychos, or suspend your disbelief in order to appreciate fearless warrior maidens with hashashins training or medieval serial killers wearing arrowproof armours and wield greek-fire hand-flamethrowers, just stay away from these pages.
"But there's another thing..." said Gisburne. "Yesterday - quite independently, it would seem -
that same place was visited by another friend of ours."
Galfrid couldn't think of any friends; and if Gisburne meant enemies, the list was too long to even contemplate.
"Bearded," explained Gisburne. "Extremely tall. Likes to put on armour and bash people's brains in..."
"He was there?"
For what concerns me, I loved this book so much that I'm going to forgive again a few annoying word typed twice typos, giving it five full and well deserved stars, and start immediately reading the following and final novel of this trilogy.
All stopped dead, and Günther - lost in the fray once the mêlée had begun - was once again revealed. He and his men stared in amazement.
Standing in the space, sword in one hand and mace in the other, her hair wild, was Mélisande, bloodied men sprawled all about her.
*Well, there goes the secret identity," muttered Galfrid."
December 19, 2015
Hunter of Sherwood: The Red Hand is the sequel to Hunter of Sherwood: Knight of Shadows.
Guy of Gisburne is a knight and agent to Prince John. Gisburne is returning to England after having saved Jerusalem from going up in flames. But he has hardly landed on England’s shores before he is “summoned” to a meeting with Prince John. Someone has killed a knight and it seems that more will be killed by the “Red Hand”! Now it’s up to Gisburne to find out who the killer is and stop him.
When I read a book that has over 500 pages it better be good, it better not have a lot of fillers. This book hasn’t a lot of fillers. When I was somewhere in the middle I thought back to everything I had read and realized that every scene I had read was important to the story. That’s a good feeling. So I just plowed through the book enjoying the adventure, the action, the humor and the very well written story. And of course, tried to get my brain to grasp the fact that it’s Gisburne and Prince John that are the heroes in this book, not Robin Hood and Richard the Lionheart (damn you movies)!
But I must admit that I had a soft spot for Robin Hood and some of my favorite scenes involved him and Gisburne. And somehow it was really nice to see a darker side to Robin Hood (can be because I‘m more of fan of antiheroes than heroes)
This a terrific book, perfect for anyone that likes adventure, action and humor all in one!
Thank you Netgalley for providing me with a free copy for an honest review!
Guy of Gisburne is a knight and agent to Prince John. Gisburne is returning to England after having saved Jerusalem from going up in flames. But he has hardly landed on England’s shores before he is “summoned” to a meeting with Prince John. Someone has killed a knight and it seems that more will be killed by the “Red Hand”! Now it’s up to Gisburne to find out who the killer is and stop him.
When I read a book that has over 500 pages it better be good, it better not have a lot of fillers. This book hasn’t a lot of fillers. When I was somewhere in the middle I thought back to everything I had read and realized that every scene I had read was important to the story. That’s a good feeling. So I just plowed through the book enjoying the adventure, the action, the humor and the very well written story. And of course, tried to get my brain to grasp the fact that it’s Gisburne and Prince John that are the heroes in this book, not Robin Hood and Richard the Lionheart (damn you movies)!
But I must admit that I had a soft spot for Robin Hood and some of my favorite scenes involved him and Gisburne. And somehow it was really nice to see a darker side to Robin Hood (can be because I‘m more of fan of antiheroes than heroes)
This a terrific book, perfect for anyone that likes adventure, action and humor all in one!
Thank you Netgalley for providing me with a free copy for an honest review!
January 26, 2015
THE RED HAND showed up on the "fantasy" shelf at Chapters, but it really is more of an historical action piece.
What we have here is the second book in a series featuring Guy of Gisburne, traditional enemy of Robin Hood, re-imagined as the hero of the piece, serving a benevolent Prince John, England's last (and deeply misunderstood) hope for good rule during the reign of a "monstrous" King Richard the Lionheart. Robin Hood himself is a charismatic psychopath in this version. This much you already know if you read the first book. If you haven't read the first book, why are you reading this review?
I gave the first book a good review. This one is better, but I don't have the option of a sixth star.
Don't get me wrong: it's a great historical action book; it's not Sarah's Key or To Kill A Mockingbird. But if you like your action carved up with a sword, with a dollop of gore, spiced with a little 14A sex, a dash of action-hero "bromance", a spoonful of horror elements, rich servings of cinematic and literary homage, a twist of ingenuity, and plenty of humour, this dish is for you.
Based on the two books I've read so far, Venables is going places in the action/horror/fantasy genres; you might as well get on board now.
What we have here is the second book in a series featuring Guy of Gisburne, traditional enemy of Robin Hood, re-imagined as the hero of the piece, serving a benevolent Prince John, England's last (and deeply misunderstood) hope for good rule during the reign of a "monstrous" King Richard the Lionheart. Robin Hood himself is a charismatic psychopath in this version. This much you already know if you read the first book. If you haven't read the first book, why are you reading this review?
I gave the first book a good review. This one is better, but I don't have the option of a sixth star.
Don't get me wrong: it's a great historical action book; it's not Sarah's Key or To Kill A Mockingbird. But if you like your action carved up with a sword, with a dollop of gore, spiced with a little 14A sex, a dash of action-hero "bromance", a spoonful of horror elements, rich servings of cinematic and literary homage, a twist of ingenuity, and plenty of humour, this dish is for you.
Based on the two books I've read so far, Venables is going places in the action/horror/fantasy genres; you might as well get on board now.
November 23, 2014
Disclaimer: ARC via Netgalley
What is it about the bad boys? Okay, I’m not talking about those stalker types of bad boys, but those bad girls that in some way are sexier and more intriguing than the heroes. Take for instance, Guy of Gisburne in the BBC’s recent Robin Hood series. Smoldering Richard Armitage, enough said, right? Gisburne is bad, but not too bad, he is redeemable. To be fair, this trend in Gisburne seems to have been the Robin of Sherwood series, where Gisburne is revealed to have come from an abusive house, is more intelligent than the Sheriff he serves, and is the second Robin Hood’s half brother.
Guy has come a long way since first appearing as a mercenary sent to kill Robin Hood, hasn’t he?
So it’s hardly surprising that Venables makes use of the idea of Guy of Gisburne as hero. It’s more surprising that he seems to be the first author to have done so.
Venables combines the older version of Gisburne, the mercenary/knight with the more current theme of Gisburne as good girl. Of course, in the series, Gisburne is the hero.
This is the second book in a series, and I haven’t read the first. There was times when I wanted to know more, but the lack of knowledge in no way effected my understanding of the plot. It’s the type of series that you can jump into and not get frustrated (or at least it is in the terms of the second book).
The weakest part of the book in some ways is Gisburne himself. He is, at times, almost a too perfect character in general. He is smart, brave, intelligent, loyal, has a wonderful horse, and a dedicated squire. This is a danger that is always there when writing a story where the normal villain becomes the hero, an over use of the reverse of sin. It’s strange, though. Venables also presents Prince (later historically speaking King) John as another wrongly maligned figure, except John isn’t the paragon of perfection that Gisburne is; undoubtedly this is why John is a scene stealer.
It’s good to be the king.
Even if it is a king in waiting.
Despite this weakness of a too perfect character, the book is rather good. It’s a rollicking adventure of a roller coaster ride, to use mixed clichés and what not. Gisburne finds himself tasked so find the mysterious killer of knights, a killer who seems to be waiting to get to John. Then there is the question of the Hooded Man, a believable version of Robin Hood, but one that challenges the image of Hood in so many novels, movies, and television series. There is the question about Marian, though why Gisburne cares about Marian where Melisande is a far more interesting woman, I have no idea.
One would think that the character of Melisande would be the most annoying because in some ways she is most unbelievable, an Amazon of a woman. Yet, if Venables is drawing on the older ballads for his Gisburne, this Melisande makes sense because there is a tradition of her in Renaissance stories – Brandmante anyone? Like John, Melisande does manage to steal scenes, and she has some wonderful lines.
Gisburne too for that matter, in particular a good crack about sanity.
The most interesting part of the novel, aside from the action, is the play with the idea of story and legend. Why does Hood get the press and Gisburne doesn’t? What is it about stories, in particular stories about heroes subverting the rules? And what happens when people gain names they don’t want? Why does society remember things a certain way. This is the idea that Venables is playing with as Gisburne races to save those he is sworn too.
What is it about the bad boys? Okay, I’m not talking about those stalker types of bad boys, but those bad girls that in some way are sexier and more intriguing than the heroes. Take for instance, Guy of Gisburne in the BBC’s recent Robin Hood series. Smoldering Richard Armitage, enough said, right? Gisburne is bad, but not too bad, he is redeemable. To be fair, this trend in Gisburne seems to have been the Robin of Sherwood series, where Gisburne is revealed to have come from an abusive house, is more intelligent than the Sheriff he serves, and is the second Robin Hood’s half brother.
Guy has come a long way since first appearing as a mercenary sent to kill Robin Hood, hasn’t he?
So it’s hardly surprising that Venables makes use of the idea of Guy of Gisburne as hero. It’s more surprising that he seems to be the first author to have done so.
Venables combines the older version of Gisburne, the mercenary/knight with the more current theme of Gisburne as good girl. Of course, in the series, Gisburne is the hero.
This is the second book in a series, and I haven’t read the first. There was times when I wanted to know more, but the lack of knowledge in no way effected my understanding of the plot. It’s the type of series that you can jump into and not get frustrated (or at least it is in the terms of the second book).
The weakest part of the book in some ways is Gisburne himself. He is, at times, almost a too perfect character in general. He is smart, brave, intelligent, loyal, has a wonderful horse, and a dedicated squire. This is a danger that is always there when writing a story where the normal villain becomes the hero, an over use of the reverse of sin. It’s strange, though. Venables also presents Prince (later historically speaking King) John as another wrongly maligned figure, except John isn’t the paragon of perfection that Gisburne is; undoubtedly this is why John is a scene stealer.
It’s good to be the king.
Even if it is a king in waiting.
Despite this weakness of a too perfect character, the book is rather good. It’s a rollicking adventure of a roller coaster ride, to use mixed clichés and what not. Gisburne finds himself tasked so find the mysterious killer of knights, a killer who seems to be waiting to get to John. Then there is the question of the Hooded Man, a believable version of Robin Hood, but one that challenges the image of Hood in so many novels, movies, and television series. There is the question about Marian, though why Gisburne cares about Marian where Melisande is a far more interesting woman, I have no idea.
One would think that the character of Melisande would be the most annoying because in some ways she is most unbelievable, an Amazon of a woman. Yet, if Venables is drawing on the older ballads for his Gisburne, this Melisande makes sense because there is a tradition of her in Renaissance stories – Brandmante anyone? Like John, Melisande does manage to steal scenes, and she has some wonderful lines.
Gisburne too for that matter, in particular a good crack about sanity.
The most interesting part of the novel, aside from the action, is the play with the idea of story and legend. Why does Hood get the press and Gisburne doesn’t? What is it about stories, in particular stories about heroes subverting the rules? And what happens when people gain names they don’t want? Why does society remember things a certain way. This is the idea that Venables is playing with as Gisburne races to save those he is sworn too.
February 2, 2015
I received a copy of this book from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Well, I love re-imaginings of classic stories, so I'm definitely the target audience for this one. Ever since Disney released its Robin Hood movie I've had a crush on that rascally fox... perhaps I've said too much. However, I know Robin Hood entirely through films, most of which have been...variable... in quality. I don't know if there's one I've liked better than the Disney version, honestly.
So, I just looked up Guy of Gisbourne on Wikipedia, and I have to say, I hope his story as the Hunter of Sherwood does not end the way his legend does. Guy has always been viewed as a villain, a cutthroat killer and a rival to Robin Hood.
So, Toby Venables has brilliantly made him the hero instead. Robin Hood is a sociopath, charming and brilliant, but lacking in humanity. How's that for a twist? Marion is in these books as well, along with Prince John and King Richard, all with a different twist on their normal portrayal. Although King Richard is not shown especially flatteringly, from what I know of history, it's reasonably accurate. It's all in the point of view. After all, no one actually considers themselves the villain. Everyone wants to be the hero of the story. I loved the take on history, because I am a fan of English history and love different interpretations of it. Yes, history is as much art as science.
In this book, Guy also has to become a detective of sorts. Men are being killed, and the link between them is difficult to see, but there's a pattern: a monstrous Red Knight is involved in the killing. There's a Q like (Bond, not Star Trek), wizard-like, inventor who makes gadgets for Guy and who allows a slightly larger-than-life element of the fantastic into the story. This book is sort of like an action movie. Don't think too hard about plausibility, and you'll have a fine time. This is the retelling of a legend, after all. I'm in for the next adventure.
Well, I love re-imaginings of classic stories, so I'm definitely the target audience for this one. Ever since Disney released its Robin Hood movie I've had a crush on that rascally fox... perhaps I've said too much. However, I know Robin Hood entirely through films, most of which have been...variable... in quality. I don't know if there's one I've liked better than the Disney version, honestly.
So, I just looked up Guy of Gisbourne on Wikipedia, and I have to say, I hope his story as the Hunter of Sherwood does not end the way his legend does. Guy has always been viewed as a villain, a cutthroat killer and a rival to Robin Hood.
So, Toby Venables has brilliantly made him the hero instead. Robin Hood is a sociopath, charming and brilliant, but lacking in humanity. How's that for a twist? Marion is in these books as well, along with Prince John and King Richard, all with a different twist on their normal portrayal. Although King Richard is not shown especially flatteringly, from what I know of history, it's reasonably accurate. It's all in the point of view. After all, no one actually considers themselves the villain. Everyone wants to be the hero of the story. I loved the take on history, because I am a fan of English history and love different interpretations of it. Yes, history is as much art as science.
In this book, Guy also has to become a detective of sorts. Men are being killed, and the link between them is difficult to see, but there's a pattern: a monstrous Red Knight is involved in the killing. There's a Q like (Bond, not Star Trek), wizard-like, inventor who makes gadgets for Guy and who allows a slightly larger-than-life element of the fantastic into the story. This book is sort of like an action movie. Don't think too hard about plausibility, and you'll have a fine time. This is the retelling of a legend, after all. I'm in for the next adventure.
December 16, 2014
High adventure and a well written story.
Guy of Gisburne is one of those detectives that gets by with a little help from his friends, a lot of help actually.
A fresh new take on the Robin Hood mythos. While being part of a series, it isn't necessary to read the first book in order to enjoy this one. Enough back story is referenced to make this a stand alone novel.
Some great plot points in this one. Well written and researched based on the time period with good vernacular without being so thick as to be difficult to decipher.
I believe the best part of this one is the character interaction. The interconnectedness of everyone in this story is so well laid out and presented that you don't need to reference a flow chart during the story.
This is a long one, and for adventure and action, that is usually a good thing. Not so much for a mystery, and that is the part that suffers just a bit here. This one tries hard to keep adventure fast paced, and move the mystery along while still conveying all the intricacies. That's not to say that this is loquacious by any stretch. There is no wasted descriptions or dialog here.
All this and a cliffhanger ending.
Guy of Gisburne is one of those detectives that gets by with a little help from his friends, a lot of help actually.
A fresh new take on the Robin Hood mythos. While being part of a series, it isn't necessary to read the first book in order to enjoy this one. Enough back story is referenced to make this a stand alone novel.
Some great plot points in this one. Well written and researched based on the time period with good vernacular without being so thick as to be difficult to decipher.
I believe the best part of this one is the character interaction. The interconnectedness of everyone in this story is so well laid out and presented that you don't need to reference a flow chart during the story.
This is a long one, and for adventure and action, that is usually a good thing. Not so much for a mystery, and that is the part that suffers just a bit here. This one tries hard to keep adventure fast paced, and move the mystery along while still conveying all the intricacies. That's not to say that this is loquacious by any stretch. There is no wasted descriptions or dialog here.
All this and a cliffhanger ending.
March 1, 2019
Charged. That's my new favorite word for filling a cup.
Book two of this trilogy was great! I came right into it from the first and I am firmly stuck in England of the 12th century.
I absolutely adore this retelling of the story of Robin Hood and Guy of Gisburne.
As much as the first book was very heisty, this was a murder mystery. It had twists and turns, and it did not turn out well for everyone. Guy also learned more than he bargained for about his own past. The characters are well written in my opinion and I feel a strong connection with them. Guy, his squire Galfrid, his love Melissande, even Prince John.
Overall I really enjoyed this book and can't wait to jump into book 3. Onward!
Book two of this trilogy was great! I came right into it from the first and I am firmly stuck in England of the 12th century.
I absolutely adore this retelling of the story of Robin Hood and Guy of Gisburne.
As much as the first book was very heisty, this was a murder mystery. It had twists and turns, and it did not turn out well for everyone. Guy also learned more than he bargained for about his own past. The characters are well written in my opinion and I feel a strong connection with them. Guy, his squire Galfrid, his love Melissande, even Prince John.
Overall I really enjoyed this book and can't wait to jump into book 3. Onward!
December 28, 2015
The second book in the series continues on the high level of the first book.
It is a great medieval thriller with a unique view on Guy of Gisburne (in this case the good guy) and Robin Hood (in this case a man with traces of a psychopath.
It is a great medieval thriller with a unique view on Guy of Gisburne (in this case the good guy) and Robin Hood (in this case a man with traces of a psychopath.
August 3, 2015
The second book in the unique series where Guy of Gisbourne is the good guy. I have found these books to be well-written and very enjoyable. This series would make a great movie or tv show... I am looking at you BBC!
April 9, 2016
:'( what happened?! What has become of one of my favorite Robin Hood series.what have you done?!
Good god, this was such a let down. Especially since I was expecting so much after the awesomeness that was "knight of shadows".
So, I obviously loved book one. Even reread and rereviewed it in preparation for this book. :D However, "the red hand" seemed like a huge step down from that. Not to say it was awful. I've definitely read worse books. Robin Hood and others.
the nice, detailed writing is still there. I love the writing. :) the opening was great. Disgustingly great. some of the scenes were really good, making me think the author is a fan of Sherlock and "silence of the lambs." The archery competition was my favorite part of the entire novel, since this was the first time I've scene it told from the traditional bad guy's point of view.
But over all, the book felt bogged down. To complicated. To boring.
So, the book's plot centers around guy of gisborne and his faithful squire Galfrid trying to stop a dangerous killer known as the Red Hand as he systematically goes about killing Prince John's close friends and supporters. All while Robin Hood's legend is growing ever stronger, even as he sits in the Tower of London and John's grip on the kingdom slipping.
Sounds cool, huh? And it was... Sort of. I mean, a mystery was a great idea in theory. I liked it. To a certain extent anyway. It just seemed way Overly complicated, with lots of victims to keep tract of and all this sudden to information about Guy's father and John and his friends to keep track of... It could be terribly overwhelming at times. Especially when we're suddenly taken from the main characters points of view to be stuck in the heads of a victim who I couldn't care less about. I mean, I guess it was there to show us the brutality of the Red Hand, but really. Did we seriously need to spend so long in the head of a guy who was just going to be offed right afterwards? I would rather have been in Melisande's p.o.v that his. (I can't even remember his name!)
Idk, maybe I would have liked it more if it had been dumbed down a bit. It was just so... Over done, like the writer was try to hard. Or maybe this is all my issue and not the books, since the very few mystery novels I've read have been intended for middle grade and Young adult readers. :/
Also, the ending. We were to who the Red hand was before the end of the big climatic big battle scene. Kinda took away from the suspense for me :/ I would have liked it better if they'd waited till the last second to tell us. You know, yanked his dragon helmet off like the masks off the bad guys in Scooby doo? But again, this might just be my personal inexperience with mysteries.
Although! I did really like Widow Fleet and the street urchin kids. :) this totally made me think of Sherlock Holmes. He to used street kids to help him find the baddies. & guy writing all over the walls and Widow Fleet yelling at him made me think of Sherlock and Mrs. Hudson from BBC's "Sherlock"
Of course, my liking of this part is kind of a double edged sword. I liked that bit, but for the most part Gut turning into a detective was kinda annoying. He just seemed... Out of character. I can't really explain but he seemed off. There was also a lot less banter between him and Galfrid, who I thought got really freaking Whitney this time around. :/ he seemed off to. Very annoying.
Then there was John. He was mostly a plot device in book one. There to give narrator type speeches to send Guy on his way to steal the skull of John the Baptist and tell him about how he might not like it, but he was probably gonna end up being remembered as a villain. He was also show as a caring but misunderstood ruler. And personally, I sensed a lot of very deep friendship (& chemistry. I ship it!) between him and guy. I liked him.
But! Here in "the red hand" he annoyed the carp out of me. He seemed like such an idiot! Not realizing when something was a trap. Not knowing how to keep his trap shut even though he's in disguise. Keeping information from Guy even though it might be useful to his case... Just ugh.
So! So far, an over complicated plot and 3 of the books most important male characters acting weird have made the hard to enjoy. Anything else?
Oh, I know! How about the most annoying love interests I've ever had the misfortune to read about in a Robin Hood novel? Even more annoying than the idiot maid Marian's who do nothing but wait to be rescued.
Melisande. Now Mel is clearly meant to be our strong female lead. As is so often demanded from today's readers. & she is bad ass. I think I'm supposed to like her.... -_- I can't. Because after over a 1000 pages invested in the series, I still don't know shit about this chick.
She's a bad ass assassin chick, loyal to King Philip of France. She's a counts daughter. She clearly likes guy. But that's it. That's all we fucking know about her. WHY does she fight? WHY is she loyal enough to her King to be a secret agent, going so far outside the rules her male dominated society? Why does she keep showing up as a fucking magicial cop out savior for guy and galfrid? Why isn't guy pissed off at her, since she clearly only helped him to insure that the skull got into hood's thieving blood soaked hands. I don't know about her! I don't know the what's and how's and why's! Fuck. I don't even know if she likes horses as much as guy or if she likes fancy architecture like Galfrid.
I DONT KNOW.
AND I DONT FUCKING CAR!
If I don't know about a characters strength and weaknesses and motivations, how can you expect me to give a fuxk if the live or die? Frankly, I found any scenes with Mel agonizingly dull. I just wanted her to go away and get out of the book. All her stupid scenes probably could have been edited out of the story and it wouldn't have hurt the plot in the least.
I like a strong female lead as much as the next gal. But not when I don't know shit about them. Not when i don't know what her game is. Not when she's one of the only people to stand against the red hand and live. Fully armored and seasoned Knights drop like fucking flies around him, but the one chick lives. Not that that is really a bad thing. But it is when she clearly only lived so she can keep being a distraction to guy.
Maybe he could have solved the case more quickly if he hadn't been worried about her all the time.
Again. Female characters are good. But they need to be ROUNDED characters just like the male characters. Badass-ness isn't enough.
Ugh, can you tell I hate her?
And tancred. The bad guy from the 1st book. What the fuck happened to him! He was in book one, a prominent player! And in the beginning part where they're in the sewers. It's set up like the move
Will be about Guy and Galfrid searching for him. To get revenge for tormenting him and Melisande. But then he's practically dropped out of the world until the very last page.
Ugh. Just ugh. Lost potential people. Lost potential that was replaced and wasted with a confusing mystery part I could only part way like.
& what happened to the more historical part of the story? Huh? "Knight of Shadows" was filled with details of battles, King Richard, Saladin! & here the ball is dropped, leaving us with only Small brief mentions of John's rules in irland and passing comments that the Kings been taken hostage. :/ I liked the historical backdrop & it seemed almost forgotten here. :/
Anyway! Let's move on to something i did like: the parts with hood.
I love this dude, he's so crazy. What a messed up little sociopath. >:) I loved how we learned a little more about him, saw more of him and the merry men. Especially the Rose/Marian thing. Where's that going to go, I wonder? All the scenes with guy and him in the cell were so well done. (Made me thing of Hannibal Lecter and agent starling in silence of the lambs) and the archery competition. Again, fav part and so cool. The ending of it with Marian! :'( bout broke my heart! The every ending of the book where we see hood and gang in the stables and Micel's (much's) point of view in the last chapter were great. It really showed just how bad things actually are in hoods gang. Maybe no one IN the gang can see it yet, but things are rotten in the group. robins nutty than a pecan tree. Marian is wasting away. Much is in with SUCH a bad crowd.
Should have listened to guy, little man!
These parts are the whole reason I gave it two stars instead of one. The parts focused on Hood were the true high light of the novel. If the whole book had been focused on this (& maybe on expanding Melisande's character) I'm sure it would have gotten a much higher rating.
Now remember, despite all the rankings, I didn't hate it. It was ok. Just not brilliant. Definitely suffered from middle book syndrome. Since obviously there MUST be a 3rd book with that ending. There is room here for redemption and I seriously need a mind blowing book three to make up for the mixed feelings I have here.
Recommended for Hoodies who read book one and like to finish what they star. Especially those hoping for a book 3. Any fans of "Sherlock" since there are obvious shout outs to it.
Good god, this was such a let down. Especially since I was expecting so much after the awesomeness that was "knight of shadows".
So, I obviously loved book one. Even reread and rereviewed it in preparation for this book. :D However, "the red hand" seemed like a huge step down from that. Not to say it was awful. I've definitely read worse books. Robin Hood and others.
the nice, detailed writing is still there. I love the writing. :) the opening was great. Disgustingly great. some of the scenes were really good, making me think the author is a fan of Sherlock and "silence of the lambs." The archery competition was my favorite part of the entire novel, since this was the first time I've scene it told from the traditional bad guy's point of view.
But over all, the book felt bogged down. To complicated. To boring.
So, the book's plot centers around guy of gisborne and his faithful squire Galfrid trying to stop a dangerous killer known as the Red Hand as he systematically goes about killing Prince John's close friends and supporters. All while Robin Hood's legend is growing ever stronger, even as he sits in the Tower of London and John's grip on the kingdom slipping.
Sounds cool, huh? And it was... Sort of. I mean, a mystery was a great idea in theory. I liked it. To a certain extent anyway. It just seemed way Overly complicated, with lots of victims to keep tract of and all this sudden to information about Guy's father and John and his friends to keep track of... It could be terribly overwhelming at times. Especially when we're suddenly taken from the main characters points of view to be stuck in the heads of a victim who I couldn't care less about. I mean, I guess it was there to show us the brutality of the Red Hand, but really. Did we seriously need to spend so long in the head of a guy who was just going to be offed right afterwards? I would rather have been in Melisande's p.o.v that his. (I can't even remember his name!)
Idk, maybe I would have liked it more if it had been dumbed down a bit. It was just so... Over done, like the writer was try to hard. Or maybe this is all my issue and not the books, since the very few mystery novels I've read have been intended for middle grade and Young adult readers. :/
Also, the ending. We were to who the Red hand was before the end of the big climatic big battle scene. Kinda took away from the suspense for me :/ I would have liked it better if they'd waited till the last second to tell us. You know, yanked his dragon helmet off like the masks off the bad guys in Scooby doo? But again, this might just be my personal inexperience with mysteries.
Although! I did really like Widow Fleet and the street urchin kids. :) this totally made me think of Sherlock Holmes. He to used street kids to help him find the baddies. & guy writing all over the walls and Widow Fleet yelling at him made me think of Sherlock and Mrs. Hudson from BBC's "Sherlock"
Of course, my liking of this part is kind of a double edged sword. I liked that bit, but for the most part Gut turning into a detective was kinda annoying. He just seemed... Out of character. I can't really explain but he seemed off. There was also a lot less banter between him and Galfrid, who I thought got really freaking Whitney this time around. :/ he seemed off to. Very annoying.
Then there was John. He was mostly a plot device in book one. There to give narrator type speeches to send Guy on his way to steal the skull of John the Baptist and tell him about how he might not like it, but he was probably gonna end up being remembered as a villain. He was also show as a caring but misunderstood ruler. And personally, I sensed a lot of very deep friendship (& chemistry. I ship it!) between him and guy. I liked him.
But! Here in "the red hand" he annoyed the carp out of me. He seemed like such an idiot! Not realizing when something was a trap. Not knowing how to keep his trap shut even though he's in disguise. Keeping information from Guy even though it might be useful to his case... Just ugh.
So! So far, an over complicated plot and 3 of the books most important male characters acting weird have made the hard to enjoy. Anything else?
Oh, I know! How about the most annoying love interests I've ever had the misfortune to read about in a Robin Hood novel? Even more annoying than the idiot maid Marian's who do nothing but wait to be rescued.
Melisande. Now Mel is clearly meant to be our strong female lead. As is so often demanded from today's readers. & she is bad ass. I think I'm supposed to like her.... -_- I can't. Because after over a 1000 pages invested in the series, I still don't know shit about this chick.
She's a bad ass assassin chick, loyal to King Philip of France. She's a counts daughter. She clearly likes guy. But that's it. That's all we fucking know about her. WHY does she fight? WHY is she loyal enough to her King to be a secret agent, going so far outside the rules her male dominated society? Why does she keep showing up as a fucking magicial cop out savior for guy and galfrid? Why isn't guy pissed off at her, since she clearly only helped him to insure that the skull got into hood's thieving blood soaked hands. I don't know about her! I don't know the what's and how's and why's! Fuck. I don't even know if she likes horses as much as guy or if she likes fancy architecture like Galfrid.
I DONT KNOW.
AND I DONT FUCKING CAR!
If I don't know about a characters strength and weaknesses and motivations, how can you expect me to give a fuxk if the live or die? Frankly, I found any scenes with Mel agonizingly dull. I just wanted her to go away and get out of the book. All her stupid scenes probably could have been edited out of the story and it wouldn't have hurt the plot in the least.
I like a strong female lead as much as the next gal. But not when I don't know shit about them. Not when i don't know what her game is. Not when she's one of the only people to stand against the red hand and live. Fully armored and seasoned Knights drop like fucking flies around him, but the one chick lives. Not that that is really a bad thing. But it is when she clearly only lived so she can keep being a distraction to guy.
Maybe he could have solved the case more quickly if he hadn't been worried about her all the time.
Again. Female characters are good. But they need to be ROUNDED characters just like the male characters. Badass-ness isn't enough.
Ugh, can you tell I hate her?
And tancred. The bad guy from the 1st book. What the fuck happened to him! He was in book one, a prominent player! And in the beginning part where they're in the sewers. It's set up like the move
Will be about Guy and Galfrid searching for him. To get revenge for tormenting him and Melisande. But then he's practically dropped out of the world until the very last page.
Ugh. Just ugh. Lost potential people. Lost potential that was replaced and wasted with a confusing mystery part I could only part way like.
& what happened to the more historical part of the story? Huh? "Knight of Shadows" was filled with details of battles, King Richard, Saladin! & here the ball is dropped, leaving us with only Small brief mentions of John's rules in irland and passing comments that the Kings been taken hostage. :/ I liked the historical backdrop & it seemed almost forgotten here. :/
Anyway! Let's move on to something i did like: the parts with hood.
I love this dude, he's so crazy. What a messed up little sociopath. >:) I loved how we learned a little more about him, saw more of him and the merry men. Especially the Rose/Marian thing. Where's that going to go, I wonder? All the scenes with guy and him in the cell were so well done. (Made me thing of Hannibal Lecter and agent starling in silence of the lambs) and the archery competition. Again, fav part and so cool. The ending of it with Marian! :'( bout broke my heart! The every ending of the book where we see hood and gang in the stables and Micel's (much's) point of view in the last chapter were great. It really showed just how bad things actually are in hoods gang. Maybe no one IN the gang can see it yet, but things are rotten in the group. robins nutty than a pecan tree. Marian is wasting away. Much is in with SUCH a bad crowd.
Should have listened to guy, little man!
These parts are the whole reason I gave it two stars instead of one. The parts focused on Hood were the true high light of the novel. If the whole book had been focused on this (& maybe on expanding Melisande's character) I'm sure it would have gotten a much higher rating.
Now remember, despite all the rankings, I didn't hate it. It was ok. Just not brilliant. Definitely suffered from middle book syndrome. Since obviously there MUST be a 3rd book with that ending. There is room here for redemption and I seriously need a mind blowing book three to make up for the mixed feelings I have here.
Recommended for Hoodies who read book one and like to finish what they star. Especially those hoping for a book 3. Any fans of "Sherlock" since there are obvious shout outs to it.
February 8, 2025
Accidentally read this before the first one, but didn't struggle because of it.
Slightly slow to start, but well paced through the middle and ending, with plenty of action and excitement. Definitely want to go and read the first one now, and will look out for others by the author.
Slightly slow to start, but well paced through the middle and ending, with plenty of action and excitement. Definitely want to go and read the first one now, and will look out for others by the author.
December 30, 2014
Book two of a refreshingly entertaining series. While not quite hitting the heights of the first one, this is a clever take on the story of Robin Hood and his nemesis Guy of Gisburne. The twist in these stories is that Prince John and Gisburne are the good guys and King Richard and the likes of Robin Hood are not. Gisburne (and his squire) act as agents for Prince John and in this adventure they are tasked with tracking down “the Red Hand” who is killing Knights from John’s past and the ultimate target appears to be John himself. The Red Hand himself appears half man and half mythical beast and looks to be unstoppable, and, somewhere in the mix, are old enemies and maybe even Robin Hood….
The first book had a lot of travel and gave a lot of backstory, here most of the action takes place in London, we still get bits of backstory and a strong sense of the time, both in politics and culture. This is still a page turning adventure though, and the author writes very well and avoids many clichés. Gisburne and his squire are a great duo, but they are not carbon copies of Sharpe and the like, there are distinct personalities and Gisburne is a bit of a moody git at times. Also enjoyed the ongoing alternative view of the Robin Hood legend, some very clever alternative perspectives.
The series is a really entertaining one, I am surprised the first one did not get more acclaim, it deserved it. This is a good follow up and leaves us definitely wanting more.
The first book had a lot of travel and gave a lot of backstory, here most of the action takes place in London, we still get bits of backstory and a strong sense of the time, both in politics and culture. This is still a page turning adventure though, and the author writes very well and avoids many clichés. Gisburne and his squire are a great duo, but they are not carbon copies of Sharpe and the like, there are distinct personalities and Gisburne is a bit of a moody git at times. Also enjoyed the ongoing alternative view of the Robin Hood legend, some very clever alternative perspectives.
The series is a really entertaining one, I am surprised the first one did not get more acclaim, it deserved it. This is a good follow up and leaves us definitely wanting more.
January 27, 2018
Im so excited to have found a new (er) Robin Hood series that isn't boring!!
May 17, 2019
I liked this, but it wasn't as good as the first book in the series. It probably didn't help that I took 3 weeks to read it, but equally this wasn't a book that gripped me so that I'd stay up late to finish the next chapter.
When I reviewed Knight of Shadows, I mentioned that there were flashbacks within flashbacks. This book had less of that, but there was still an element of "two steps forward, one step back". E.g. one chapter might end with them setting off on a journey. The next chapter would then start with them arriving at their destination, then a few pages later we'd get a description of them approaching the destination. Personally, I don't like that approach, but it seemed to get dropped about half-way through the book anyway. Hopefully the next book won't have it at all.
My main concern about this book is that it walked a fine line between historical fiction and a superhero story. I read a lot of superhero comics, so I'm fine with that as a genre. I've also enjoyed some stories that put superheroes in a medieval setting, e.g. "Kal" (an Elseworlds superhero story) or Kurt Busiek's first "Avengers" storyline. However, it felt a bit jarring here. This started with code names (e.g. the eponymous "Red Hand") and costumes (e.g. Guy's horsehair tabard), but it got to the point where it was stretching credibility for humans to actually do the things described.
There was also a scene in chapter LVII that could have done with better proof-reading.
This isn't disastrous, but it disrupted the flow of reading (more so than a simple typo). When I'm reading a scene that involves lots of people, I try to picture it in my head and keep track of where everyone is. If the description doesn't match my mental image, that may mean that I've skimmed over something important, so I'll go back to re-read the previous pages and find what I missed; it's therefore mildly frustrating if the author/editor wasn't paying the same amount of attention to the story. I've made similar comments about other books before, e.g. alt.Sherlock Holmes (also from Abaddon) and How Green This Land, How Blue This Sea.
On the plus side, I did like the new slant on familiar stories, e.g. the silver arrow. This reminded me of Neil Gaiman's concept for "Sandman", where he retconned an existing character to make it seem as if they were inspired by something much more detailed. As a Londoner, I also appreciated the references to local geography. I visited the Tower of London a few months ago, and that helped me to visualise what was happening during some scenes (e.g. the references to the White Tower).
The ebook has some "deleted scenes" at the end, which were cut for length in the printed copy. However, the author also has a similar document on his website:
https://tobyvenables.files.wordpress....
This includes extra detail which isn't in the paper book or the ebook.
When I reviewed Knight of Shadows, I mentioned that there were flashbacks within flashbacks. This book had less of that, but there was still an element of "two steps forward, one step back". E.g. one chapter might end with them setting off on a journey. The next chapter would then start with them arriving at their destination, then a few pages later we'd get a description of them approaching the destination. Personally, I don't like that approach, but it seemed to get dropped about half-way through the book anyway. Hopefully the next book won't have it at all.
My main concern about this book is that it walked a fine line between historical fiction and a superhero story. I read a lot of superhero comics, so I'm fine with that as a genre. I've also enjoyed some stories that put superheroes in a medieval setting, e.g. "Kal" (an Elseworlds superhero story) or Kurt Busiek's first "Avengers" storyline. However, it felt a bit jarring here. This started with code names (e.g. the eponymous "Red Hand") and costumes (e.g. Guy's horsehair tabard), but it got to the point where it was stretching credibility for humans to actually do the things described.
There was also a scene in chapter LVII that could have done with better proof-reading.
This isn't disastrous, but it disrupted the flow of reading (more so than a simple typo). When I'm reading a scene that involves lots of people, I try to picture it in my head and keep track of where everyone is. If the description doesn't match my mental image, that may mean that I've skimmed over something important, so I'll go back to re-read the previous pages and find what I missed; it's therefore mildly frustrating if the author/editor wasn't paying the same amount of attention to the story. I've made similar comments about other books before, e.g. alt.Sherlock Holmes (also from Abaddon) and How Green This Land, How Blue This Sea.
On the plus side, I did like the new slant on familiar stories, e.g. the silver arrow. This reminded me of Neil Gaiman's concept for "Sandman", where he retconned an existing character to make it seem as if they were inspired by something much more detailed. As a Londoner, I also appreciated the references to local geography. I visited the Tower of London a few months ago, and that helped me to visualise what was happening during some scenes (e.g. the references to the White Tower).
The ebook has some "deleted scenes" at the end, which were cut for length in the printed copy. However, the author also has a similar document on his website:
https://tobyvenables.files.wordpress....
This includes extra detail which isn't in the paper book or the ebook.
December 30, 2014
Riveting medieval thriller!
This medieval story based around a legend of the past combined with riveting action captivates and ensnares.
Guy of Gisburne and Galfrid have returned to England. Pleased to be back after his horrific time in Jerusalem Guy finds himself once more fighting a pitched battle against nameless foes with little more than his intellect,his experience and trusty squire to rely on. Prince John's stronghold at Nottingham has been breached and it's up to Guy to find out who is threatening England. Who has sent John a macabre message written on the skin of one of John's men, signed with a bloodied handprint with the sinister message that 'the circle is closing?' It seems two of John's knights have been murdered and their hands removed.
' A red hand is coming...' a remembered utterance from one of Tancered the renegade Templar's knights in the sewers of Jerusalem. And a new fear...Dragons!
Is Hood involved? He has the perfect alibi. What is happening? Someone or some persons are threatening England. Anarchy and chaos are on the threshold. Prince John calls Guy to solve the mystery, to shed light on the source of the threat.
I love this fresh new take on the Robin Hood myth. Guy of Gisburne is the unsung hero who has steadily grown in stature and leaves in his wake a new legend. In this retelling of the story of Robin Hood, Guy's support of John is presented in a kinder light. Richard is exposed as a headstrong, careless King who views England merely as a vast source of funds for his beloved Crusades. As Gisburne remarks to John, 'Men are rarely remembered as they truly were...Kings even less so.' Until now I'd whole heartedly supported the traditional Robin Hood story. Now I find myself in charity with John and angry with the selfishness of Richard.
The fact that this series shatters my previous conceived ideas around the legendary figure involved and turns them on their head without causing me to miss a beat is really quite unexpected and all kudos to Toby Venables writing skills. Guy has become my new hero and Robin or rather Hood, the new villain. As the story progresses the slight shift of names amongst Hood's followers is cleverly interwoven as these once familiar characters are reintroduced in a more sinister fashion. Friar Tuck has become FriarTook, a radical, anarchist monk afire with his mission, Will Scarlet is Will Gameswell, now Will the Scarlet, and Little John is John Lytell.
The supposed love triangle between Robin, Marion and Guy is also dealt a swift blow.
Beyond this is Venables flow of descriptive prose. His portrait of a London has you there, on horseback with Gisburne, the flow and ebb of people and animals, the smells and sounds, both harrowing and fearful. Guy's sardonic thoughts about the people telling, 'The survivors formed a species entirely their own...these creature were called Londoners.'
A gripping, fast paced medieval thriller continuing the story and high standard set in the previous title in the Hunter of Sherwood series, Knight of Shadows.
A NetGalley ARC
This medieval story based around a legend of the past combined with riveting action captivates and ensnares.
Guy of Gisburne and Galfrid have returned to England. Pleased to be back after his horrific time in Jerusalem Guy finds himself once more fighting a pitched battle against nameless foes with little more than his intellect,his experience and trusty squire to rely on. Prince John's stronghold at Nottingham has been breached and it's up to Guy to find out who is threatening England. Who has sent John a macabre message written on the skin of one of John's men, signed with a bloodied handprint with the sinister message that 'the circle is closing?' It seems two of John's knights have been murdered and their hands removed.
' A red hand is coming...' a remembered utterance from one of Tancered the renegade Templar's knights in the sewers of Jerusalem. And a new fear...Dragons!
Is Hood involved? He has the perfect alibi. What is happening? Someone or some persons are threatening England. Anarchy and chaos are on the threshold. Prince John calls Guy to solve the mystery, to shed light on the source of the threat.
I love this fresh new take on the Robin Hood myth. Guy of Gisburne is the unsung hero who has steadily grown in stature and leaves in his wake a new legend. In this retelling of the story of Robin Hood, Guy's support of John is presented in a kinder light. Richard is exposed as a headstrong, careless King who views England merely as a vast source of funds for his beloved Crusades. As Gisburne remarks to John, 'Men are rarely remembered as they truly were...Kings even less so.' Until now I'd whole heartedly supported the traditional Robin Hood story. Now I find myself in charity with John and angry with the selfishness of Richard.
The fact that this series shatters my previous conceived ideas around the legendary figure involved and turns them on their head without causing me to miss a beat is really quite unexpected and all kudos to Toby Venables writing skills. Guy has become my new hero and Robin or rather Hood, the new villain. As the story progresses the slight shift of names amongst Hood's followers is cleverly interwoven as these once familiar characters are reintroduced in a more sinister fashion. Friar Tuck has become FriarTook, a radical, anarchist monk afire with his mission, Will Scarlet is Will Gameswell, now Will the Scarlet, and Little John is John Lytell.
The supposed love triangle between Robin, Marion and Guy is also dealt a swift blow.
Beyond this is Venables flow of descriptive prose. His portrait of a London has you there, on horseback with Gisburne, the flow and ebb of people and animals, the smells and sounds, both harrowing and fearful. Guy's sardonic thoughts about the people telling, 'The survivors formed a species entirely their own...these creature were called Londoners.'
A gripping, fast paced medieval thriller continuing the story and high standard set in the previous title in the Hunter of Sherwood series, Knight of Shadows.
A NetGalley ARC
April 17, 2015
Started off reasonably well, but gradually went downhill. Where do I start?
Well, the plot was extremely contrived, and over-complicated - without including spoilers, the main aim of the bad guy could have been achieved a lot more simply and in a much less convoluted way. It didn't hold much credence, and what little credence it held diminished further as the book went on. The end was, frankly, ridiculous.
Over-descriptive of completely non-essential details. I got bored of unnecessary minutiae.
What was with all the flashbacks? Maybe they'd make more sense had I read the first book; but they were just irritating, and introduced back-story that could have been dealt with much more efficiently.
I was also irritated by the impossible chronology. Again, I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but suffice it to say that one of the characters is shown - in one of those annoying flashbacks - as being in the middle of England in February 1193, yet at the beginning of the book the same character manages to be in Jerusalem only a month later. Physically impossible for at least six hundred years. As it is, I found it difficult to believe that the protagonist could be in Jerusalem in March, and back in Nottingham in May of the same year. Even *two* months seems very unlikely, if not impossible, for such a journey in the 12th century.
Having said all this, I did actually manage to finish the book. And the writing was decent enough for me to conclude that I could hardly "hate" it - hence two stars rather than one.
Well, the plot was extremely contrived, and over-complicated - without including spoilers, the main aim of the bad guy could have been achieved a lot more simply and in a much less convoluted way. It didn't hold much credence, and what little credence it held diminished further as the book went on. The end was, frankly, ridiculous.
Over-descriptive of completely non-essential details. I got bored of unnecessary minutiae.
What was with all the flashbacks? Maybe they'd make more sense had I read the first book; but they were just irritating, and introduced back-story that could have been dealt with much more efficiently.
I was also irritated by the impossible chronology. Again, I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but suffice it to say that one of the characters is shown - in one of those annoying flashbacks - as being in the middle of England in February 1193, yet at the beginning of the book the same character manages to be in Jerusalem only a month later. Physically impossible for at least six hundred years. As it is, I found it difficult to believe that the protagonist could be in Jerusalem in March, and back in Nottingham in May of the same year. Even *two* months seems very unlikely, if not impossible, for such a journey in the 12th century.
Having said all this, I did actually manage to finish the book. And the writing was decent enough for me to conclude that I could hardly "hate" it - hence two stars rather than one.
January 8, 2015
This is a very well written medieval fantasy with no jarring mistakes noted. I like the way the language and conversations are handled, giving it an authentic feel without turning the brain to mush trying to understand anything. The characters are well thought out for this book with good development. The entire book has great flow with no sluggish points to put the reader to sleep. Each character feels perfectly groomed for their place without becoming anything negative. Overall this is a really good book and one I can easily recommend. An e-ARC was provided in exchange for an honest review. This in no way influenced my opinion.
November 22, 2015
A pretty good action murder mystery, I enjoyed the red hand very much. The second in this series, with less action than the first. The red hand didn't keep me on the edge of my seat the way knight of shadows did. I look forward to reading the next chapter of Hunter of Sherwood.
April 2, 2017
The Red Hand, the second in Toby Venables ‘Hunter of Sherwood’ series which reverses the positions of Robin Hood and Guy of Gisburne to make the former the villain and the latter the hero, is marginally less successful than the first novel.
It shares most of the strengths of its predecessor, including a clever narrative structure, solid action, a strong cast of supporting characters, a firm sense of place and time, accurate historical details and a welcome unwillingness to dumb things down or resort to clichés. However, what it lacks is a story that is as compelling or satisfying as the first novel’s.
There are several key problems with the story that Toby Venables decides to tell. The first is that it’s really too slight to sustain the book’s length, dragging painfully in places and becoming repetitive. The second is that it feels overly contrived, with too many lucky or unlucky coincidences and manufactured twists inserted along the way. Finally, and possibly most damagingly, the Red Hand simply doesn’t convince as an antagonist and isn’t that interesting either. Whilst Tancred in the first book felt like a genuine and plausible threat to Gisburne and his allies, the seemingly indestructible Hand simply doesn’t. Not only does his anonymity render him rather bland but the idea that one man could wear armour that rendered him impervious to any form of arms just doesn’t work. It’s a flight of fancy too far and jars painfully with the book’s otherwise realistic portrayal of medieval England.
All of which is a great shame, because there is still a great deal to enjoy about The Red Hand. The parts dealing with Hood remain a high point, and Gisburne continues to grow as a protagonist. Fortunately the weaknesses of the Red Hand are not enough to put me off picking up the 3rd novel in the series, Hood, which promises to bring the most compelling part of both the first two novels, the battle between Gisburne and Hood, to a fine and exciting conclusion.
It shares most of the strengths of its predecessor, including a clever narrative structure, solid action, a strong cast of supporting characters, a firm sense of place and time, accurate historical details and a welcome unwillingness to dumb things down or resort to clichés. However, what it lacks is a story that is as compelling or satisfying as the first novel’s.
There are several key problems with the story that Toby Venables decides to tell. The first is that it’s really too slight to sustain the book’s length, dragging painfully in places and becoming repetitive. The second is that it feels overly contrived, with too many lucky or unlucky coincidences and manufactured twists inserted along the way. Finally, and possibly most damagingly, the Red Hand simply doesn’t convince as an antagonist and isn’t that interesting either. Whilst Tancred in the first book felt like a genuine and plausible threat to Gisburne and his allies, the seemingly indestructible Hand simply doesn’t. Not only does his anonymity render him rather bland but the idea that one man could wear armour that rendered him impervious to any form of arms just doesn’t work. It’s a flight of fancy too far and jars painfully with the book’s otherwise realistic portrayal of medieval England.
All of which is a great shame, because there is still a great deal to enjoy about The Red Hand. The parts dealing with Hood remain a high point, and Gisburne continues to grow as a protagonist. Fortunately the weaknesses of the Red Hand are not enough to put me off picking up the 3rd novel in the series, Hood, which promises to bring the most compelling part of both the first two novels, the battle between Gisburne and Hood, to a fine and exciting conclusion.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews