Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

It is almost unfair for me to have expected this book to be as good as its predecessor. I absolutely loved The Fifth Knight when I read it a few years ago. I fell in love with the characters of Theodosia and Palmer. It was such a great book that I am afraid to read it again because it might not be as good as I remember it.

The Blood of the Fifth Knight, while entertaining, was just not as great as I found The Fifth Knight to be. There are several reasons for that, which again, are somewhat unfair, because how can I expect the author to basically rewrite the first book?

Let me just point out a few comparisons between the two books which left me disappointed in this one:

-Theodosia and Palmer's relationship has a totally different status quo in in book 2. Book 1's was very compelling, because they were getting to know each other, going from not trusting each other, even hating each other, to slowly falling in love despite their best efforts. It was a compelling, character-driven subplot. In book 2, all that is resolved and there's no conflict between them at all. While it is really the only way the story could go on for a second book, I have to say my favorite part of book 1 was their relationship, and in this book their relationship is a given that never changes.

-Book 1 seemed much less scattered in its storytelling. This has to do with Palmer and Theodosia being split up almost the entirety of book 2, and therefore having separate (while related) story-lines. In book 1, we got to see Theodosia and Palmer both from their own perspectives, and the perspectives of the other, which was very interesting to read and gave a fuller picture of their characters.

-We also occasionally go to Raoul de Faye for some important explanations of what's going on, but those are not very compelling sections because nothing happens except him thinking about his plans.

-In book 1, Fitzurse was such a great, hateable antagonist. None of the bad guys in book 2 can quite capture that level of coolness and evilness. He makes a short appearance in a flashback in book 2, and even then he outshone everyone else.

Lastly, and there is a spoiler for this book ahead, let's talk about (view spoiler)[Joan. From pretty much her first appearance, I figured she was lying and had evil intent. However, certain things in the narration made me think that the author was telling me that no, she actually was trustworthy. Not in a misdirection, oh you just read too much into it kind of way, but in that way where an author seems to say without a doubt that you shouldn't worry about this character. Of course, Joan turned out to be evil. I felt a little manipulated. Maybe I read too much into that narration that told me "don't worry about her" (not a direct quote at all). But there were no real clues, nothing in Joan's character, that could have tipped me off, or at least that would have fallen into place when she finally was revealed as evil. There was no "remember this and this and this? You thought it meant this, but it really means I'm evil." It was just her acting one way and then dropping it. And maybe I just missed it, but I'm guessing Joan killed Lady Ordell? I don't recall that being explicitly stated. How the heck did she manage that? (hide spoiler)]

OK, so there's my review. Not a bad read at all, but disappointing for me since I loved the first one so much. Maybe I just loved it for the budding romance, which is not present in book 2. I will give book 3 a try, but I will not hold out hope that it can recapture the way I felt about book 1.