Leave it to James Patterson to rewrite history — and I don’t mean that in a good way — in THE MURDER OF KING TUT: THE PLOT TO KILL THE CHILD KING. Written with (by?) Martin Dugard, it’s the mammothly successful author’s first “nonfiction thriller.”
What precious few works of Patterson’s I’ve read in the past, I’ve hated. This one being nonfiction and on the subject of Egyptology, which I enjoy, I opted it give it the ol’ college try, entering with an open mind and no expectations. Could I unearth a good time? The short answer: Nope.
MURDER plays out in three alternating narratives, from three very different time periods. First, the 1330s BC, when King Tutankhamun ruled Egypt as Pharaoh; second, the early 1900s, when archaeologist Howard Carter became obsessed with finding Tut’s tomb; and third — and most arrogantly — the present day, with Patterson himself in Palm Beach, Fla., taking it upon himself to solve the mystery of Tut’s death once and for all. (Never mind he’s never depicted as doing any actual research — he has an assistant to do all that for him.)
None of the three narratives work, despite super-short chapters and uncomplicated prose designed to keep you turning the pages. The Egyptian one fails because it reads theatrical, with sniveling, conspiratorial dialogue. It also reads anachronistic, with the real-life characters speaking modern-day phrases, such as Tut’s wife/half-sister Ankhesenpaaten declaring, “I’m late.”
Carter’s story may be the most interesting, because he started out as kind of a joke — “the Don Quixote of Egypt,” he’s called at one point. Starting in 1907, he labored for years to find Tut’s tomb before finally striking gold in 1922. The problem is we know Carter will succeed — and when — so no suspense exists around him.
And the less said about Patterson’s part, the better. In these portions, he manages to plug his other books and series; thinks about Tut as he plays on Donald Trump’s golf course; and speaks strangely, in ways that people don’t really talk: “This is James Patterson calling. Is Michael around? I have a mystery story to tell him.”
Patterson doesn’t buy that Tut died of a infection. And that’s all fine and good, but he does nothing other to follow his gut to come up with abruptly fingering likely murder suspects. There is no true evidence; just supposition. Dare you question him? Writes Patterson, “There was that gut instinct of mine again — the reason, I think, that TIME magazine had once called me ‘The Man Who Can’t Miss.’”
That level of arrogance is astounding, especially when Patterson lays out his theory and writes, “Case closed.”
Um, no. For one thing, other authors have beat him to this conclusion and with far more credibility — see Michael R. King and Gregory M. Cooper’s WHO KILLED KING TUT? and Bob Brier’s THE MURDER OF TUTANKHAMUN, from 2006 and 1999, respectively — so his hunch that Tut was the victim of homicide is nothing new, nor those he accuses of it. He’s just found a way to turn it into a surefire hit to pay for that golf membership. —Rod Lott
“Tut gazed up at her and supported her body by clasping her breasts. She leaned forward and began rocking slowly, all the while caressing his face with her hands. … She was usually very quiet in bed, but on that morning she was sure she woke all of Thebes as she climaxed. The sensation seemed to go on and on, a wave of pleasure that rolled through her once-barren body just as surely as the Nile flowed through Egypt’s desert sands.”
OTHER BOOKGASM REVIEWS OF THIS AUTHOR:
• STEP ON A CRACK by James Patterson
• THRILLER: STORIES TO KEEP YOU UP ALL NIGHT edited by James Patterson
Related posts:
- King-Cat Classix: The Best of King-Cat Comics and Stories
- Stephen King returns to ‘SALEM’S LOT with super-sized edition
- Exquisite Corpse: Surrealism and the Black Dahlia Murder
- The Execution of Willie Francis: Race, Murder, and the Search for Justice in the American South
- Stephen King Goes to the Movies
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t Patterson dis any worse than any one else in trying to tell the story. Evewry writer has a differnt styl of worinting.
Unless you have something more postive to show why not just let the story go on as it has for years?
Forgive the first note,
I do not think Patterson did any worse than others who have written on this subject. Every writer alsways adds his or her touch to a story they are telling. Unless you have something better or new why not just let Him and others continue to tell their story as they see it?
You know no more about what happen to tut than any one else, and untill you have something new to add you should just let it go.