Customer Reviews
Not worth the time and effort - By: , 03 Sep 1999 
As a follow up to The Forever King, this book is pointless. I felt as though the authors only wrote it because of their ealier success, not because they had a story to tell. The emphasis was not on Arthur or Artherian legend, this book details the life & rituals of Saladin, Arthur's evil rival for world domination.
unnecessary satan stuff.... - By: , 20 Aug 1999 
I have to agree with several of the latest reviews of this book. I read the "Forever King"in a book club earlier this year & enjoyed the creative take on the Authur legend, so decided to borrow the sequel for some fun summer reading! I had to finish just for my piece of mind after the disturbing & unnecessary satanic ritual scenes. Too much emphasis on evil, & not enough on the special qualities of Authur(?)if any... I have also read many different takes on the Authurian legends like a previous reviewer & my personal favorite is "Mists of Avalon", by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Try that one.
unnecessary satan stuff.... - By: , 20 Aug 1999 I have to agree with several of the latest reviews of this book. I read the "Forever King"in a book club earlier this year & enjoyed the creative take on the Author legend, so decided to borrow the sequel for some fun summer reading! I had to finish just for my piece of mind after the disturbing & unnecessary satanic ritual scenes. Too much emphasis on evil, & not enough on the special qualities of Author(?)if any... I have also read many different takes on the Authorian legends like a previous reviewer & my personal favorite is "Mists of Avalon", by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Try that one.
Very dissappointing sequel. - By: , 15 May 1999 This book should not have been written to begin with. The Forever King (the prequel) ended appropriately, & did not need a follow-up. Somehow, the originality of the previous book has lost its luster the second time around. Many of the prolonged passages between Merlin & "the Innocent" are drawn out too long. There is too much emphasis placed on the evilness of the villan. This is mostly done through the graphic depiction of gory, sexual satanic rituals which were not necessary to the story. When I first read the summary of the book, I thought "Reading about the Knightsin modern N.Y. City will be cool," however, there was very little of this. I must strongly urge anyone who read & enjoyed The Forever King to avoid The Broken Sword at all cost.
Aimless and clueless - By: , 12 Apr 1999 Confused & boring. While the main idea is interesting although not original, the characters are lifeless & the story didn't grip me.
The villain is _evil_, so evilin fact, that I didn't even bother to ask myself why he was doing all this. The author tries to make him a character, I think, but he remains a cardboard cutout. I soon began to skip over the chapters about him - they were mostly an orgyin occultic practises, with gory details meant to show the readers how evil he is. I've seen it before in other books.
The good guys seem mostly clueless & nice - although the author tried to make them threedimensional individuals, mostly by showing us a lot of angst. It simply didn't work.
King Arthur's knights, woken from a sleep that had lasted from the Middle Ages, are from the "medieval people looked like & thought much like a motorcycle gang" school of thought. I am not even going to begin discussing my views on that one.
I'm interested in the Arthur Legends, & have read rather a lot of different takes on them. Most of them are vastly superior to this one. If you want to read about Arthur, I can recommend T. H. White's 'The Once & Future King', Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy, 'Camelot 3000' (comic) & Rosemary Sutcliffe's 'The Sword & the Circle'.
