A review by wolvereader
Knights of the Black and White by Jack Whyte

1.0

Holy shit, I just saw that this is book one of a trilogy. I think there are laws about publishing that much crap. This might be the worst book I've read since--man, I don't even know. It's worse than even the Da Vinci Code, and I read that like 5 years ago. I'm going to try to finish it, but I can guarantee you that I'll be staying far away from Jack Whyte and his templars after I choke this one down.

I'm not done yet, but since I don't see how the author could possibly make me love the book in the last third, I think it's safe to start my review.

Basically, this book is a fictional account of the founding of the Knights Templar. Fine, with historical fiction, you get some slack for a ridiculous story. Besides, the author has to try to fit into the genre that the mouth-breathing fans of Dan Brown have created (truth-bending, exposition-heavy, plot-light, historical-conspiracy-fiction). Even with those low expectations, this book is awful. We follow the main character Hugh de Paynes starting with his initiation into a secret society of French-nobility crypto-jews at age 18. We suffer a bunch of exposition. Then we fast-forward to the first crusade. We suffer some exposition, then Hugh is knocked out cold and we miss most of the battle. Then we fast-forward another 10 years or so.... It goes on.

The character development is about the level of the Hardy Boys, where we're told exactly what everyone's (very cardboard) character traits are. The dialog is George Lucas-bad. The author spends paragraphs on detailed description of items that have no actual bearing on the plot...

This book is awful. If you read it after reading this review, I want you to let me know so that I can remove you from all of my contact lists.