What do you think?
Rate this book
Forever King #3
The Third Magic
When Arthur Blessing discovered he was the reincarnation of King Arthur at age 10, destined to reclaim his throne and begin a new golden age, people started trying to kill him. Now eight years later, the teenager is still on the run.Arthur and his friends are stationed in the American Midwest, armed with plenty of protection. After all, a team of resurrected Knights knows a thing or two about combat. But nothing can prepare Arthur for what lies ahead. From descendants of evil magicians determined to spread terror, to those addicted to murder, Arthur's enemies can destroy far more than he might be able to repair. As terror strikes and the omen of death crawls closer, Arthur knows this ultimate battle will be no cakewalk. And as he starts to understand more of the importance of becoming High King, he realizes it won’t be long before he has to take on an even bigger For a chance at love, and for the sake of the greater good, he must determine his own destiny.
464 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2003
27 people are currently reading
517 people want to read
About the author
Molly Cochran
34 books89 followersaka Dev Stryker
Born in Tokyo, Japan, Molly Cochran lived in Europe and was educated at the University of Pittsburgh and the Sorbonne in France. She has written 26 books, including 12 ghosted novels, and the non-fiction bestseller, Dressing Thin, before her own first novel, Grandmaster, was a New York Times Bestseller.
Since then, she has written almost a dozen other suspense and fantasy thrillers, including the international best-seller, The Forever King.
Born in Tokyo, Japan, Molly Cochran lived in Europe and was educated at the University of Pittsburgh and the Sorbonne in France. She has written 26 books, including 12 ghosted novels, and the non-fiction bestseller, Dressing Thin, before her own first novel, Grandmaster, was a New York Times Bestseller.
Since then, she has written almost a dozen other suspense and fantasy thrillers, including the international best-seller, The Forever King.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
November 16, 2011
Alright, I admit that I wasn't expecting much from this book. I stand - well, sit - here corrected.
You see, I have a slight tic when it comes to anything to do with the Arthurian Cycle. The problem is that I'm a Celtic Studies student, and I know that the legend has much earlier roots than most people bother to acknowledge.
This was not the case with Ms. Cochran. I am suitably impressed with the amount of research that plainly went into this narrative. The fact that Author was plainly a British king - that is to say, King of Britain after the Roman retreat, made me smile. As a Celticist (is that even a word?), I get thoroughly annoyed when people ignore the Celtic roots of, well, anything, in much the same way that Classicists get annoyed if you don't believe Greece or Rome were the foundation of all civilisation everywhere.
I might be slightly bitter.
I digress.
I especially like how Ms. Cochran navigated the difficulty of acknowledging both the actual basis for the legend, and the later iterations of that legend. Making Lancelot a Gaulish swordsman, tipping her hat to the later invention of the Gueneviere/ Lancelot narrative by French bards, was a stroke of genius. I adore that the abduction of Gueneviere played a part in this story. That is to say, the abduction of the queen by Melwas - an earlier tale than the forbidden love previously mentioned.
There is a fine balance to be struck when tackling any fiction to do with Arthurian legend between pleasing those who have done any research whatsoever, and those who haven't at all and assume that Arthur is a late medieval invention.
There were a few factual errors that bothered me a fair amount. The worst possible error was the use of England and Britain to mean the same thing. It seems paradoxical to me that the King of England would be fighting against the Saxons since the English and Saxons (and Jutes for that matter) were allies.
The King of England, would be English, which is to say, Anglish, which is to say, an Angle, which is to say, part of the Germanic horde (Anglo-Saxon)that was invading Britain, against whom King Arthur fought.
Get my drift?
Britain and England are not synonymous, and most certainly NOT at the time the offending scenes were set. England did not yet exist. Certainly now anyone who was English, would be considered British, but that was not always the case. The Angles fought the Britons. Arthur fought for the Britons. Ergo, he cannot be the King of England.
Granted, the English did later take him on as their hero...
Anyway, the substitution of one for the other indiscriminately irked me enough to give a visible tic beneath my eye whenever it occurred.
However, that is forgivable... I suppose.
That's enough of the factual stuff. Now to the writing.
The narrative itself was clear and easily read. It didn't possess any of the mastery of language and description I so admire in Steven Erikson. All the same, it was a great read - enough suspense and adventure to keep me reading at any rate. The story was surprisingly moody - which I rather like, thank-you very much!
Some of the knights verged on being caricatures, rather than characters, falling into the mildly amusing Classical description of Celts (loud, lusty drunkards). It irked me some, but the need for such comic relief was necessary. I'm pretty sure it only bothered me because I am such a fan of Celtic culture. I'm sure it wouldn't bother normal people.
All in all, a very worthy read. I do recommend this book to any urban fantasy lovers, and yes, even to Arthurian legend nuts. You'll be pleasantly surprised at how true to form this book is.
Well played, Ms. Cochran. Well played.
You see, I have a slight tic when it comes to anything to do with the Arthurian Cycle. The problem is that I'm a Celtic Studies student, and I know that the legend has much earlier roots than most people bother to acknowledge.
This was not the case with Ms. Cochran. I am suitably impressed with the amount of research that plainly went into this narrative. The fact that Author was plainly a British king - that is to say, King of Britain after the Roman retreat, made me smile. As a Celticist (is that even a word?), I get thoroughly annoyed when people ignore the Celtic roots of, well, anything, in much the same way that Classicists get annoyed if you don't believe Greece or Rome were the foundation of all civilisation everywhere.
I might be slightly bitter.
I digress.
I especially like how Ms. Cochran navigated the difficulty of acknowledging both the actual basis for the legend, and the later iterations of that legend. Making Lancelot a Gaulish swordsman, tipping her hat to the later invention of the Gueneviere/ Lancelot narrative by French bards, was a stroke of genius. I adore that the abduction of Gueneviere played a part in this story. That is to say, the abduction of the queen by Melwas - an earlier tale than the forbidden love previously mentioned.
There is a fine balance to be struck when tackling any fiction to do with Arthurian legend between pleasing those who have done any research whatsoever, and those who haven't at all and assume that Arthur is a late medieval invention.
There were a few factual errors that bothered me a fair amount. The worst possible error was the use of England and Britain to mean the same thing. It seems paradoxical to me that the King of England would be fighting against the Saxons since the English and Saxons (and Jutes for that matter) were allies.
The King of England, would be English, which is to say, Anglish, which is to say, an Angle, which is to say, part of the Germanic horde (Anglo-Saxon)that was invading Britain, against whom King Arthur fought.
Get my drift?
Britain and England are not synonymous, and most certainly NOT at the time the offending scenes were set. England did not yet exist. Certainly now anyone who was English, would be considered British, but that was not always the case. The Angles fought the Britons. Arthur fought for the Britons. Ergo, he cannot be the King of England.
Granted, the English did later take him on as their hero...
Anyway, the substitution of one for the other indiscriminately irked me enough to give a visible tic beneath my eye whenever it occurred.
However, that is forgivable... I suppose.
That's enough of the factual stuff. Now to the writing.
The narrative itself was clear and easily read. It didn't possess any of the mastery of language and description I so admire in Steven Erikson. All the same, it was a great read - enough suspense and adventure to keep me reading at any rate. The story was surprisingly moody - which I rather like, thank-you very much!
Some of the knights verged on being caricatures, rather than characters, falling into the mildly amusing Classical description of Celts (loud, lusty drunkards). It irked me some, but the need for such comic relief was necessary. I'm pretty sure it only bothered me because I am such a fan of Celtic culture. I'm sure it wouldn't bother normal people.
All in all, a very worthy read. I do recommend this book to any urban fantasy lovers, and yes, even to Arthurian legend nuts. You'll be pleasantly surprised at how true to form this book is.
Well played, Ms. Cochran. Well played.
December 5, 2012
A horrible end to a promising series. The Forever King trilogy had a lot of things going for it, mainly the first book,the second was atleast readable. However this book all but kills the entire series. This has to go down in history as the LEAST satisfying ending ever to a book, let alone a trilogy. The story was non-sensical and it spent way too much time going back in time to whatever this Third Magic thing is.
When reading this, I actually stopped part way through and checked Wikipedia to see what happened. I thought maybe the author got sick part way through and couldn't finish it or something. It seemed more like an unfinished draft or second tier fan fiction.
The story is filled with inconsistencies and inane story telling. The only reason I finished the book was to complete the series. If you're starting the series, I would suggest you stop at the second book and write your own ending. It will seriously be more satisfying than this.
When reading this, I actually stopped part way through and checked Wikipedia to see what happened. I thought maybe the author got sick part way through and couldn't finish it or something. It seemed more like an unfinished draft or second tier fan fiction.
The story is filled with inconsistencies and inane story telling. The only reason I finished the book was to complete the series. If you're starting the series, I would suggest you stop at the second book and write your own ending. It will seriously be more satisfying than this.
November 19, 2013
Molly Cochran’s third Arthurian novel is both exciting and exasperating – exciting in the passages set in modern-day North America, exasperating when the action shifts to Dark Age or prehistoric Britain. In the descriptions of the young reincarnated Arthur living in the American Midwest, and the characters he encounters and the situations which develop, Cochran has that sure touch that comes from following the advice that all debutant writers are given: write about what you know. Within the thriller genre that she utilises, these episodes work well, with reasonably complex characterisation and hugely enjoyable edge of the seat action.
Cochran’s Dark Age Britain is not one that I even vaguely recognise, however. The characters have anachronistic late medieval names taken from Malory, Orkney [sic] seems to have become a land-locked forest kingdom instead of the island archipelago it is, knights speak like actors in early 20th-century British talkies (“I say,” is their usual preamble) and, most preposterously of all, Arthur’s people are referred to as the English, who then fight against the Anglo-Saxon invaders, the real-life ancestors of the English! This is such a clumsy mash-up from different literary sources. In addition, feminist fantasy takes on the Matter of Britain (which is what The Third Magic in part is) don't need to justify themselves but I feel Cochran’s mixing of genres in this novel -- thriller, historical fiction and feminist fantasy -- is both unsuccessful and mistaken.
Despite these strictures, this novel by the end repays persistence, and the final resolutions are unexpected and lyrical. Possibly worth a second look, The Third Magic is a book to borrow rather than to buy and keep; but on the basis of this exemplar I shan’t be in any hurry to explore the previous titles in this sequence (the first two co-written with Warren Murphy), however magical they may claim to be.
http://wp.me/s2oNj1-3rdmagic
Cochran’s Dark Age Britain is not one that I even vaguely recognise, however. The characters have anachronistic late medieval names taken from Malory, Orkney [sic] seems to have become a land-locked forest kingdom instead of the island archipelago it is, knights speak like actors in early 20th-century British talkies (“I say,” is their usual preamble) and, most preposterously of all, Arthur’s people are referred to as the English, who then fight against the Anglo-Saxon invaders, the real-life ancestors of the English! This is such a clumsy mash-up from different literary sources. In addition, feminist fantasy takes on the Matter of Britain (which is what The Third Magic in part is) don't need to justify themselves but I feel Cochran’s mixing of genres in this novel -- thriller, historical fiction and feminist fantasy -- is both unsuccessful and mistaken.
Despite these strictures, this novel by the end repays persistence, and the final resolutions are unexpected and lyrical. Possibly worth a second look, The Third Magic is a book to borrow rather than to buy and keep; but on the basis of this exemplar I shan’t be in any hurry to explore the previous titles in this sequence (the first two co-written with Warren Murphy), however magical they may claim to be.
http://wp.me/s2oNj1-3rdmagic
October 26, 2022
That was a lot of build up over 3 books to come to a very "meh" end.
June 24, 2011
The Third Magic by Molly Chochran
Merlin’s magic creates a situation where a modern boy may be the reincarnation of King Arthur.
If recollection serves me, this is a follow up to the Forever King. Admittedly it was 12 years ago that I read the book so I may be in error. The Forever King was co-authored with Warren Murphy. I remember thinking it was an exceptional book and looked at my data base and saw I had rated both it and The Broken Sword as excellent. This book was good.
Arthur Blessing was a sad character as was Gwen/Guinevere/Brigid. Seems like as a couple they could never get a break. That aspect was a bit sad. The story had the Knights of the Roundtable riding motorcycles. That was amusing. There was a juxtaposition of Camelot’s tale with a modern story. It was disorienting some times. I am a sucker for King Arthur stories and I still recommend the book but it is not up to the standards of it’s predecessors.
I recommend the book .
Merlin’s magic creates a situation where a modern boy may be the reincarnation of King Arthur.
If recollection serves me, this is a follow up to the Forever King. Admittedly it was 12 years ago that I read the book so I may be in error. The Forever King was co-authored with Warren Murphy. I remember thinking it was an exceptional book and looked at my data base and saw I had rated both it and The Broken Sword as excellent. This book was good.
Arthur Blessing was a sad character as was Gwen/Guinevere/Brigid. Seems like as a couple they could never get a break. That aspect was a bit sad. The story had the Knights of the Roundtable riding motorcycles. That was amusing. There was a juxtaposition of Camelot’s tale with a modern story. It was disorienting some times. I am a sucker for King Arthur stories and I still recommend the book but it is not up to the standards of it’s predecessors.
I recommend the book .
September 12, 2008
This is the final book in the series. It gets really convuted and confusing towards the end. I really liked the idea of the whole series, not wholly satisfied with how it wrapped up. Your mileage may vary.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 12, 2009
This book started out great. interesting people and a great story. Then about half way through it just died. the story didn't progress at all then the language got bad. The ending was awful. not worth reading.
June 23, 2022
Well, that was definitely an ending... and kind of a beginning, I suppose. It's a cycle, after all. I think that's at least part of the point of The Third Magic. The cycle goes on and interrupting it in hopes of a continuation doesn't really have the best consequences for those involved. And then it goes and does that thing where we hit the reset button to basically undo everything... I mean, I choose to read it as an alternate timeline where Merlin didn't do "The Second Magic," but I gather from the other reviews I've read, I'm the only one.
The Third Magic features a pretty complete retelling of the Arthurian legend interspersed with the continuation of Arthur Blessing's story and Taliesin's education, apparently. It does contradict re-tellings and even events from the earlier books (mostly The Broken Sword); however, it's basically a retcon and doesn't actually affect the story that much. In fact, given that I personally disliked The Broken Sword and the retcons, one could probably just skip it. Everything's re-explained in a satisfactory enough manner, I think. There's also a complete swap of Morgan for Morgause in The Third Magic that just had me tilting my head every time she appeared. I kind of understand why, but at the same time I'm just like... those are two different people in Arthurian Legend and you've apparently decided to combine them and give them the lesser known one's name... because Orkney needed to be involved. Anyway, I digress.
Again in this trilogy, I wasn't super impressed with the "villain" of the piece. I think there probably should have just been focus on Arthur and his crisis of person-hood rather than throwing in Titus and Pinto, but apparently someone had to help restart the cycle so... "villains." However, Titus was at least more interesting than Aubrey and so I'll forgive him being around. Pinto... Titus just needed someone to take care of him apparently. He didn't really do much other than cause a little chaos so... yeah.
My issue with the knights was still here. I understand they're from medieval times and it's fun to have them causing chaos because apparently medieval courts were just super rowdy all the time... but I'm still not convinced they would have been as annoyingly inept as they're portrayed. *shrug* Another just me thing, probably.
There's also a large focus on the whole Launcelot/Guenevere thing that annoys me every time I read it, whether it's supposedly true or else just rumors. I've never enjoyed this part of the story and revisiting it this time actually reminded me a lot of The Mists of Avalon so that's not great. I get it, it's the melodrama of it all, but that was actually something I liked about The Forever King and The Broken Sword. Mention it. Mention how it was basically the start of Arthur's downfall and move on. But no, gotta linger on it... a lot. *Insert rolling eyes here*
Anyway... overall The Third Magic was alright. I read it in basically three days, so it definitely had my attention and did clip along at a good pace. The ending wasn't exactly the best, but, like I said at the beginning of this review, gotta do the cycle thing. I completely understand why a bunch of people didn't think it was satisfying. Heck, I personally think this trilogy went through highs and lows and this one just happened to do both in one book. I just tend to talk about stuff that annoyed me because I don't want to spoil things for others.
The Third Magic features a pretty complete retelling of the Arthurian legend interspersed with the continuation of Arthur Blessing's story and Taliesin's education, apparently. It does contradict re-tellings and even events from the earlier books (mostly The Broken Sword); however, it's basically a retcon and doesn't actually affect the story that much. In fact, given that I personally disliked The Broken Sword and the retcons, one could probably just skip it. Everything's re-explained in a satisfactory enough manner, I think. There's also a complete swap of Morgan for Morgause in The Third Magic that just had me tilting my head every time she appeared. I kind of understand why, but at the same time I'm just like... those are two different people in Arthurian Legend and you've apparently decided to combine them and give them the lesser known one's name... because Orkney needed to be involved. Anyway, I digress.
Again in this trilogy, I wasn't super impressed with the "villain" of the piece. I think there probably should have just been focus on Arthur and his crisis of person-hood rather than throwing in Titus and Pinto, but apparently someone had to help restart the cycle so... "villains." However, Titus was at least more interesting than Aubrey and so I'll forgive him being around. Pinto... Titus just needed someone to take care of him apparently. He didn't really do much other than cause a little chaos so... yeah.
My issue with the knights was still here. I understand they're from medieval times and it's fun to have them causing chaos because apparently medieval courts were just super rowdy all the time... but I'm still not convinced they would have been as annoyingly inept as they're portrayed. *shrug* Another just me thing, probably.
There's also a large focus on the whole Launcelot/Guenevere thing that annoys me every time I read it, whether it's supposedly true or else just rumors. I've never enjoyed this part of the story and revisiting it this time actually reminded me a lot of The Mists of Avalon so that's not great. I get it, it's the melodrama of it all, but that was actually something I liked about The Forever King and The Broken Sword. Mention it. Mention how it was basically the start of Arthur's downfall and move on. But no, gotta linger on it... a lot. *Insert rolling eyes here*
Anyway... overall The Third Magic was alright. I read it in basically three days, so it definitely had my attention and did clip along at a good pace. The ending wasn't exactly the best, but, like I said at the beginning of this review, gotta do the cycle thing. I completely understand why a bunch of people didn't think it was satisfying. Heck, I personally think this trilogy went through highs and lows and this one just happened to do both in one book. I just tend to talk about stuff that annoyed me because I don't want to spoil things for others.
September 16, 2019
È davvero difficile recensire questo libro. Quasi quanto lo è stato leggerlo. Alcune cose, anche tralasciando le solite orride incongruenze con i due volumi precedenti (il Graal relegato a elemento di contorno è davvero imbarazzante), le ho apprezzate: ad esempio è bellissimo che, così come il primo era il libro di Galahad e il secondo il libro di Merlin, questo sia indiscutibilmente il libro di Arthur. Anche i concetti di un cerchio infinito e delle infinite possibilità della vita umana hanno senso. Ma c'è semplicemente troppa carne sul fuoco; troppe reincarnazioni, troppe coincidenze, troppi sottintesi, troppe storie che cercano di incastrarsi per forza l'una nell'altra. La mescolanza di elementi religiosi pagani e cristiani è interessante, ma non funziona. Gli antagonisti si relazionano a tutto il resto come i cavoli a merenda. La storia aggiuntiva di Launcelot ci sta, ma non porta niente a una trama già fin troppo ramificata. È come se la Cochran avesse voluto "complicare" la storia, con l'unico risultato di renderla più pesante. Non mi sentirei di consigliare la lettura dell'intera trilogia: il primo volume da solo avrebbe detto tutto quel che c'era da dire.
March 17, 2021
Not badly written, though there is a tension vacuum in the middle somewhere, but this book is not a worthy conclusion of what started in the Forever King. The logic of the drivers of the newly introduced antagonist made no sense at all. His actions were forced by the author to achieve this flattened out outcome that was an escape from the more fulfilling one that was the promise of book 1. And then there was the Second Ending, that was a total opt-out of the First Ending. Choices had to be made, but were avoided.
I read the book to its conclusion, though, despite my disappointment, thinking more fulfillment was inevitable. It was not.
I read the book to its conclusion, though, despite my disappointment, thinking more fulfillment was inevitable. It was not.
February 20, 2020
Not my favorite ending to a fun series of books. I thought it started out fine and I was even okay with imagining the Knights of the Round Table at the Sturgis motorcycle rally, because this is a series of books on a modern retelling of King Arthur and I can take some irreverence but I felt like the author spent too much time switching back and forth between the different times in this book. Because I didn't even know the two book sequels to "The Forever King" existed until recently, I'm glad I was able to read both of them.
March 26, 2023
Something about this book just felt off. I’d sit and read but after a chapter or two I’d find my mind wandering. It felt odd as I was looking forward to reading it and finally seeing Arthur come of age become the legend people have been waiting for.
I can’t really say anything that hasn’t already been said by other reviewers but suffice to say once I did manage to finish it I felt a bit disappointed.
A series that started with a lot of promise but didn’t go the way I expected, that doesn’t make it bad just not what I had hoped for.
I can’t really say anything that hasn’t already been said by other reviewers but suffice to say once I did manage to finish it I felt a bit disappointed.
A series that started with a lot of promise but didn’t go the way I expected, that doesn’t make it bad just not what I had hoped for.
June 27, 2025
2.5 stars.
Pretty decent storyline over the 3 books in the trilogy, but inconsistencies between the books get annoying. I know there are 2 authors in the series, but it seems like each author just wanted to write what they wanted to write, regardless of what had been established in the earlier book(s).
Overall a fun take on the King Arthur legend if you can ignore the inconsistencies.
Pretty decent storyline over the 3 books in the trilogy, but inconsistencies between the books get annoying. I know there are 2 authors in the series, but it seems like each author just wanted to write what they wanted to write, regardless of what had been established in the earlier book(s).
Overall a fun take on the King Arthur legend if you can ignore the inconsistencies.
January 8, 2018
Better than the second book, not as good as the first. I wasn't crazy about the ending.
April 14, 2020
very disappointing series. Disconnected and crudely violent. No real sense of mythos.
December 20, 2023
I have enjoyed this whole series very much.
March 11, 2023
The backstories and personal stories of the characters it's what I've enjoyed the most even thought it made me feel like I was missing the main plot sometimes.
I didn't expect that finale, very sudden. I'd liked to have seen more building on that.
Sorry for the mistakes, English it's not my first languague!
I didn't expect that finale, very sudden. I'd liked to have seen more building on that.
Sorry for the mistakes, English it's not my first languague!
July 19, 2016
A great many readers will feel as I do that the last two books in this series did not fulfill the promise of the first book. I really enjoyed the breadth of history given in the first book as well as its fresh take on the Arthur legend. The second book seemed like to much of a repeat of the first so I was a bit disappointed; however, the story did progress and I really like Hal and Arthur. This book, on the other hand, seems to be a very obvious attempt to persuade us all of the idea of recurring lives. It was altogether too "new age-y" for my tastes and while the story holds together and the ending fits the book, it felt like we had been taken on a hard left turn into eastern religion. I completely understand the anger other reviewers have felt, but some of the clues to this ending were present even from the beginning. I guess I just didn't want to buy what the author was selling. The story of the Innocent at the end was a bit overdone, and while I wanted to know more of her, this was what I had in mind. It felt like an afterthought in terms of fitting her in at the end of the story. Others may really love this book, but for me the last two books never being written would not have affected me at all, and in some ways I
It would have left the first story as truly unique.
It would have left the first story as truly unique.
July 14, 2011
The Knights of the Round Table on Harleys at Sturgis? What could be better?
OK. So something could be better.
It wasn't bad, just not as good as The Forever King. It got a bit weird when Arthur started taking on Messiah-like powers, and to be quite frank I think the book struggled a bit with identifying a central character. A lot of stories going on at once.
One thing I've quite enjoyed about this whole series of books is the history segues--the story behind the story told in real-time, rather than as narrative flashback. All interesting takes on the characters and on the Arthur legends.
OK. So something could be better.
It wasn't bad, just not as good as The Forever King. It got a bit weird when Arthur started taking on Messiah-like powers, and to be quite frank I think the book struggled a bit with identifying a central character. A lot of stories going on at once.
One thing I've quite enjoyed about this whole series of books is the history segues--the story behind the story told in real-time, rather than as narrative flashback. All interesting takes on the characters and on the Arthur legends.
May 7, 2009
I didn't realize there were three in this series. I read the first and enjoyed it so much when I saw the Third I couldn't wait to read it, literally. I may still read the second book even though I know what happens.
I was a little less enamored with Hal and Arthur but it was still a very good book. The knights are funny without being clowns. The bad guy was bad and complicated but his back story was a little far fetched. Also wanted more with Ginny/Gwen (name??) and Arthur. Really wanted more there. I recommend to any King Arthur fan.
I was a little less enamored with Hal and Arthur but it was still a very good book. The knights are funny without being clowns. The bad guy was bad and complicated but his back story was a little far fetched. Also wanted more with Ginny/Gwen (name??) and Arthur. Really wanted more there. I recommend to any King Arthur fan.
March 2, 2011
This the last book in this series. The quality of the books seemed to decrease with each one. I thorougly enjoyed the first book, "The Forever King". The second book, "The Broken Sword" was not quite as good, but I still liked it. This book was a bit confusing. I didn't mind the flipping back and forth in time. On the contrary, I rather liked the visits to Arthur's post Roman Britain. What I didn't like was the odd mish mash of Arthurian and Celtic legends and modern day bad guys, that never quite came together to form a cohesive story.
May 28, 2012
There were some inconsistencies between this book and the first two, which annoyed me a little, but they did help the plot along. And the plot needed help, having become a bit convoluted. I might have wished for a slightly different ending, but it did leave me with a paler version of "wishing things had ended better" that the actual Arthurian legend always imparts. That same sense of longing, in a much milder form.
September 8, 2009
after an outstanding start with book 1, this one just didn't make it.It seemed like the authors just ran out of steam and to get the word count up retold portions of the Arthur story over and over again. They needed a villian and couldn't quite come up with one and had a cop out ending. Read book 1 and leave it go at that.
March 7, 2011
Pile of incoherent babble. The plot seems to be "Merlin is immature and shouldn't do stupid things with magic." Nothing else matters. People get shot repeatedly and then get up unhurt because of unexplained magic that only happens sometimes.
Wow I didn't even notice this was part of a series. Why can't books be more obvious about such things?
Wow I didn't even notice this was part of a series. Why can't books be more obvious about such things?
December 21, 2016
Outstanding last book in series of 3. Each a little more intense and a little more imbued with deeper meaning. Many layers are pealed back revealing Truth and Love.
I loved the wisdom woven into this wondrous story. Each character evolved and grew with the story.
And it was funny, suspenseful, interesting and well written.
I loved the wisdom woven into this wondrous story. Each character evolved and grew with the story.
And it was funny, suspenseful, interesting and well written.
March 6, 2015
A brilliant finish to a wonderful series. The authors have a magical way of combining many stories into the one that was easy to read and not convoluted and hard to follow.
Did not want the story to end.
Did not want the story to end.
January 14, 2017
A King Arthur tale set in modern times. Not the best King Arthur story I've read, but interesting and compelling with the three concurrent time periods experiencing similar situations. It can get confusing at times.
November 17, 2008
Great premise - poor execution.
October 12, 2009
A fun read with an interesting twist on the legend that King Arthur would return in the future.
March 13, 2017
Read from The Page Walker.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews