Customer Reviews

Valley of the Kings: A Novel of Tutankhamun

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Uninteresting, purposeless characters lost in a book in which they obviously have no desire to appear -- I am a strong fan of Cecelia Holland, have been since "The Firedrake," and found myself checking and rechecking the front cover because I could not believe this was a Holland book. Howard Carter is a faceless, personality-deficient automaton, the Egyptians are tiresome paper dolls. I still cannot understand why on earth Holland would have written this, let alone let it go to print.

Skip this one and go directly to "Jerusalem" and "Great Maria" or any of Holland's wonderful prior works such as "Until the Sun Falls," "Rakossy," "The Kings in Winter" and "Two Ravens." Why these are OP I cannot fathom, but they are readily available at used book services on line, and are worth seeking out. Please pass on this hopeless, fortunately uncharacteristic waste of time and paper.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and chose it to review for my "Lost Civilizations" class. The characters in this book are largely based on their "true life" counterparts and if some people think that makes for dull reading then so be it. I was engaged through the entire text and found Ms Holland's interpretations of the Pharaoh's life to be very enlightening and interesting. Something obviously happened to this young man for him to die so young and the very idea that his wife murdered him added depth and intrigue to a very shaded and long-ago time. Her characterization of Howard Carter, the man who devoted his life to digging in the desert, is very straightforward and very much as my professor told the story in his lectures. Frankly, I recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in King Tut, Egyptology, and the Valley of the Kings. If you don't have an interest, or want to know then leave it on the shelf, otherwise it's a story that you won't be able to put down.

At her best, Cecelia Holland is matchless. She resists sentimentalism and excels at kicking off the confines of time and space. In *Valley of the Kings,* however, she casts herself in the unusual role of a "re-teller" and not as a spinner of tales--a fact nearly totally obscured by the book's advertising, printing, and packaging. Make no mistake. The story of Howard Carter, who fancies himself a realist even as he cherishes misconceptions of ancient Egypt's serenity, is beautifully antiphonal to (though far from seamlessly connected with) the story of dying Queen Nefertiti, petulant Tutankamon, and the "commoners" whom they exploit. It's a good read--just as good as it was when I read it the first time through, as the original work of Carter's grand-daughter. It is difficult to see what Holland has added, or why she has so disappointingly changed course. Keep reading Holland. Get an old copy of *Rakossy* or *The Kings in Winter* or *Firedrake* or *The Two Ravens* or *Until the Sun Falls* and revel in the breadth and originality of her vision, her "real" and recognizable characters. Don't settle for Holland as the back seat driver she appears to be in *The Valley of the Kings.* You will under-rate a gifted writer if you do.

Cecelia Holland divides her book into two parts - Howard Carter's expedition in the early 20th century and the events leading up to the death of Tutankhamun thousands of years before. The concept intrigued me and, having heard much of the work of Cecelia Holland and being fascinated with Ancient Egypt, I was anxious to get this book into my collection. I hate to say it, but what a disappointment!

After so many people raved about Ms. Holland's talent and skill, I was astonished to find her character development to be so flawed and inadequate. While Howard Carter is a somewhat believable figure, Tutankhamun and his wife Ankhesenamun are simply flat. Little if any motivation can be found to justify their actions and neither character possess depth.

In my opinion too much historical material exists about the restoration of traditional Egyptian Gods in the aftermath of Akhenaten's monotheism for such an uninteresting book to be written. I had really hoped for better.

I thought I would really like this book. While it did entertain me for an hour or so, I didn't think it was a keeper. The story should have been divided into two distinct parts, rather than the abrupt change at chapter 9. The first part is from the point of view of Howard Carter. The second part is a third person view of King Tut and his family. There for a while I wondered why they had placed Tut's story after Carter, but then some of the nuts fell into place. But the characters have no depth. You don't get to know the Carter gang well enough to care, and they are very shallow. Tut is shown as a spoiled, whiny little brat with his shallow wife. The ONE thing I did find interesting was the theory behind Tut's death.

Go ahead and read this book, but don't expect to be overwhelmed. I enjoyed "Great Maria" much better.