He had a bone disease, no, he was murdered, no, it was malaria. Sounds like an episode of House? Not exactly.
I wanted to read a James Patterson book considering he just died recently. Ok, he didn't die, some other crime/thriller guy passed away in the last couple of months and when I chanced upon The Murder of King Tut last week, I thought Patterson was that man who died and I picked up a copy.
(Aside: and what is this King Tut talk? Is it like Les Miz because Americans can't be bothered to say the word "miserable". In my day, he was Tutankhamun. This Sarah-Pallinisation of the English language will not stand. I'm fine with Tut for texting or Tweeting, but, otherwise, Tutankhamun, please!)
I'm not going to review the book. Let's just say it's not literature. The narrative is split in three timelines: 14th century BC dramatising King Tut's life and (supposed) murder, 20th century AD discovery of the tomb by Howard Carter and Patterson himself talking to the reader about thinking on King Tut whilst playing golf on Donald Trump's course. The last odd narrative choice is meant to convince the reader how Patterson really believes Tutankhamun was murdered. Before Patterson, it was believed the boy had died of a bone disease. It's also clear Patterson wanted to cash in on the Tutankhamun exhibit that has been touring the world for the last few years and which is now in Toronto.
Just a couple of days after finishing The Murder of King Tut, the New York Times reports that scientists now believe the boy pharaoh likely died of malaria.
[NYT]
No comments:
Post a Comment