Review: The Murder of King Tut by James Patterson
The Murder of King Tut
by James Patterson, Martin Dugard
"Michael [Patterson's editor], I have a hunch that Tut was murdered. And I hope, at least on paper, to prove it."
- James Patterson, The Murder of King Tut
Described as a “non-fiction thriller”, The Murder of King Tut is James Patterson’s exploration of his hunch that King Tut was murdered. Never mind that King Tut’s death has been explored in many previous books (Who Killed King Tut? and The Murder of Tutankhamen, to name just two of the more recent titles); James Patterson has a gut feeling that compels him to write his own version. While his co-author Martin Dugard goes to Egypt and researches one of the most famous Egyptian pharaohs, Patterson stays at home working on his dozens of other books and playing golf.
“Wait a minute,” I can hear you saying, “Why are you talking about the author? Shouldn’t you be describing the book itself?” Well, I am. In several chapters scattered throughout this book, Patterson writes about himself. He describes how terribly busy he is on his many writing projects, details conversations with editors about writing the book on Tut, as well as bragging about his generally awesome life. He makes sure to slip in plenty of grandiose reminders about what an awesome writer he is; in the opening chapters it is recalled to the reader that TIME Magazine called him “the man who never misses”. The hubris of James Patterson throughout the book is just unforgivable.
But first and foremost, this is supposed to be a book about one of history’s unsolved mysteries - the cause of death for King Tut, pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. However, Patterson’s approach is not a scholarly or journalistic one. He treats the subject as fiction, imagining scenes from Tut’s ancestors and childhood by creating characters and dialogue, and does nothing to distinguish where the historical record ends and his imagination takes over. Because of this, it’s a downright deceptive to call the book “non-fiction”. At best, it’s historical fiction…but historical fiction filled with errors about Egyptian life and practices.
In one of the opening chapters, Patterson depicts a group of Nubian slaves being slaughtered after completing the tomb of a pharaoh. Egyptologists generally agree that specialized workers built the rock tombs of the Valley of the Kings, not slaves; further, it would have been unthinkable for foreigners from Nubia to build something as holy as a pharaoh’s eternal resting place. It would fly in the face of Egyptian religion and national pride! Later, Akhenaten’s vizier Ay lusts for Nefertiti, which is really disturbing because a prominent theory suggests that Ay was her father. Eeew.
A further insult to the reader was that Patterson never really gave his evidence for why the man he suspected of killing Tut was, in fact, the murderer. No motivations, no archeological evidence…it was just the say-so Patterson’s almighty hunch, which ought to be good enough for anyone.
Ugh, and the dialogue was so stiff and trite! It was the sort of thing I’d expect from a fourth or fifth grade writer. See this example between Nefertiti and Tutankhamen:
"Tut, there's something else we need to talk about. I need you to pay attention to what I have to tell you now."
"Yes, Mother?"
"You are just a boy and have not yet been trained in the ways of the pharaoh. But you must know that this is your destiny."
The boy stopped her. "I don't understand."
"You will be pharaoh one day, Tut."
Set aside the silliness of Nefertiti referring to him as “Tut” - a 20th century nickname for him - and it’s still completely unbelievable between stepmother and son. Also, at this point in time, Tut’s name was Tutankhaten - his name was changed soon after he became pharaoh as the heretical religion of Akhenaten was replaced with older gods.
The story of Howard Carter, discoverer of Tutankhamen’s tomb, is also included, alternating chapters between the tales of Tut and Patterson. There’s no real way to tell which parts are real events from Carter’s life, and what was made up by Patterson’s pen. While it’s an interesting story, it has been done before -In the Valley of the Kings was published only a few months before Patterson’s book, while Howard Carter himself wrote about his work in The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen. Patterson’s account just felt so unnecessary to his main thesis that Tut was murdered.
I just can’t think of anything good to say about this book. It was truly, truly awful. I’d picked up the audio book version to listen to on a road trip with a friend. I’m a fan of historical fiction and Ancient Egypt; she’s a fan of James Patterson. The Murder of King Tut seemed like the perfect compromise between our two interests. Neither of us was the least bit pleased with this badly-written, poorly-researched mess of a novel.
0 out of 5 stars
To read more about The Murder of King Tut, buy it or add it to your wishlist click here.
by James Patterson, Martin Dugard
"Michael [Patterson's editor], I have a hunch that Tut was murdered. And I hope, at least on paper, to prove it."
- James Patterson, The Murder of King Tut
Described as a “non-fiction thriller”, The Murder of King Tut is James Patterson’s exploration of his hunch that King Tut was murdered. Never mind that King Tut’s death has been explored in many previous books (Who Killed King Tut? and The Murder of Tutankhamen, to name just two of the more recent titles); James Patterson has a gut feeling that compels him to write his own version. While his co-author Martin Dugard goes to Egypt and researches one of the most famous Egyptian pharaohs, Patterson stays at home working on his dozens of other books and playing golf.
“Wait a minute,” I can hear you saying, “Why are you talking about the author? Shouldn’t you be describing the book itself?” Well, I am. In several chapters scattered throughout this book, Patterson writes about himself. He describes how terribly busy he is on his many writing projects, details conversations with editors about writing the book on Tut, as well as bragging about his generally awesome life. He makes sure to slip in plenty of grandiose reminders about what an awesome writer he is; in the opening chapters it is recalled to the reader that TIME Magazine called him “the man who never misses”. The hubris of James Patterson throughout the book is just unforgivable.
But first and foremost, this is supposed to be a book about one of history’s unsolved mysteries - the cause of death for King Tut, pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. However, Patterson’s approach is not a scholarly or journalistic one. He treats the subject as fiction, imagining scenes from Tut’s ancestors and childhood by creating characters and dialogue, and does nothing to distinguish where the historical record ends and his imagination takes over. Because of this, it’s a downright deceptive to call the book “non-fiction”. At best, it’s historical fiction…but historical fiction filled with errors about Egyptian life and practices.
In one of the opening chapters, Patterson depicts a group of Nubian slaves being slaughtered after completing the tomb of a pharaoh. Egyptologists generally agree that specialized workers built the rock tombs of the Valley of the Kings, not slaves; further, it would have been unthinkable for foreigners from Nubia to build something as holy as a pharaoh’s eternal resting place. It would fly in the face of Egyptian religion and national pride! Later, Akhenaten’s vizier Ay lusts for Nefertiti, which is really disturbing because a prominent theory suggests that Ay was her father. Eeew.
A further insult to the reader was that Patterson never really gave his evidence for why the man he suspected of killing Tut was, in fact, the murderer. No motivations, no archeological evidence…it was just the say-so Patterson’s almighty hunch, which ought to be good enough for anyone.
Ugh, and the dialogue was so stiff and trite! It was the sort of thing I’d expect from a fourth or fifth grade writer. See this example between Nefertiti and Tutankhamen:
"Tut, there's something else we need to talk about. I need you to pay attention to what I have to tell you now."
"Yes, Mother?"
"You are just a boy and have not yet been trained in the ways of the pharaoh. But you must know that this is your destiny."
The boy stopped her. "I don't understand."
"You will be pharaoh one day, Tut."
Set aside the silliness of Nefertiti referring to him as “Tut” - a 20th century nickname for him - and it’s still completely unbelievable between stepmother and son. Also, at this point in time, Tut’s name was Tutankhaten - his name was changed soon after he became pharaoh as the heretical religion of Akhenaten was replaced with older gods.
The story of Howard Carter, discoverer of Tutankhamen’s tomb, is also included, alternating chapters between the tales of Tut and Patterson. There’s no real way to tell which parts are real events from Carter’s life, and what was made up by Patterson’s pen. While it’s an interesting story, it has been done before -In the Valley of the Kings was published only a few months before Patterson’s book, while Howard Carter himself wrote about his work in The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen. Patterson’s account just felt so unnecessary to his main thesis that Tut was murdered.
I just can’t think of anything good to say about this book. It was truly, truly awful. I’d picked up the audio book version to listen to on a road trip with a friend. I’m a fan of historical fiction and Ancient Egypt; she’s a fan of James Patterson. The Murder of King Tut seemed like the perfect compromise between our two interests. Neither of us was the least bit pleased with this badly-written, poorly-researched mess of a novel.
0 out of 5 stars
To read more about The Murder of King Tut, buy it or add it to your wishlist click here.