OnlineBookClub.org

Kro92813 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2019, 21:33 as for being surprised by the killers identity - I had a feeling it was Valerian, but was thinking it could have been the false king as well.

Ferdinand_otieno wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 01:14

Kro92813 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2019, 21:33 as for being surprised by the killers identity - I had a feeling it was Valerian, but was thinking it could have been the false king as well.

No, I had not suspected Valerian at the end, and did not even think him guilty of killing William's father.

tristenb wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 18:42 All of the loose ends were tied in the end, which is always nice in a story. The author also left it open for a sequel. However, in my opinion, something was missing from the end of the story. I was getting excited about the ending, but it seemed very non-eventful when it actually came. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think the author could have done something different.

As far as the killer, I was not too surprised. He always seemed a bit off, had a position of power before, and knew about the Ant room.

Kro92813 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 18:39

Ferdinand_otieno wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 01:14

Kro92813 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2019, 21:33 as for being surprised by the killers identity - I had a feeling it was Valerian, but was thinking it could have been the false king as well.

No, I had not suspected Valerian at the end, and did not even think him guilty of killing William's father.

See it's interesting how each individual interprets a book in their own way! You didnt suspect Valerian, but I did! Very cool how that works

tristenb wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 18:42 All of the loose ends were tied in the end, which is always nice in a story. The author also left it open for a sequel. However, in my opinion, something was missing from the end of the story. I was getting excited about the ending, but it seemed very non-eventful when it actually came. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think the author could have done something different.

As far as the killer, I was not too surprised. He always seemed a bit off, had a position of power before, and knew about the Ant room.

Kro92813 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 20:05

tristenb wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 18:42 All of the loose ends were tied in the end, which is always nice in a story. The author also left it open for a sequel. However, in my opinion, something was missing from the end of the story. I was getting excited about the ending, but it seemed very non-eventful when it actually came. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think the author could have done something different.

As far as the killer, I was not too surprised. He always seemed a bit off, had a position of power before, and knew about the Ant room.

I thought the false kings appearance was odd, abrupt, and out of place. I also thought it was wierd to revisit Tear at the end. I know Will promised to go back to him, but I thought his character was so insignificant that revisiting him really had no purpose.

Ferdinand_otieno wrote: ↑26 Sep 2019, 00:24

Kro92813 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 20:05

tristenb wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 18:42 All of the loose ends were tied in the end, which is always nice in a story. The author also left it open for a sequel. However, in my opinion, something was missing from the end of the story. I was getting excited about the ending, but it seemed very non-eventful when it actually came. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think the author could have done something different.

As far as the killer, I was not too surprised. He always seemed a bit off, had a position of power before, and knew about the Ant room.

I thought the false kings appearance was odd, abrupt, and out of place. I also thought it was wierd to revisit Tear at the end. I know Will promised to go back to him, but I thought his character was so insignificant that revisiting him really had no purpose.

I actually expected to see the False King around that time, but not to meet a vulnerable Will in person and try to kill him. That was an exciting and unexpected twist that made the book better.

Ferdinand_otieno wrote: ↑26 Sep 2019, 00:21

Kro92813 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 18:39

Ferdinand_otieno wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 01:14

No, I had not suspected Valerian at the end, and did not even think him guilty of killing William's father.

See it's interesting how each individual interprets a book in their own way! You didnt suspect Valerian, but I did! Very cool how that works

The interpretation of a single book by multiple people can trully lead to another complete book.

Kro92813 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2019, 11:07

Ferdinand_otieno wrote: ↑26 Sep 2019, 00:24

Kro92813 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2019, 20:05

I thought the false kings appearance was odd, abrupt, and out of place. I also thought it was wierd to revisit Tear at the end. I know Will promised to go back to him, but I thought his character was so insignificant that revisiting him really had no purpose.

I actually expected to see the False King around that time, but not to meet a vulnerable Will in person and try to kill him. That was an exciting and unexpected twist that made the book better.

I mean, I am glad the false king met his end. He was just talked about throughout the story without ever physically making anappearance. He did at the enend for such a quick scene that it seemed abrupt and bizarre to me.

Ferdinand_otieno wrote: ↑26 Sep 2019, 12:35

Kro92813 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2019, 11:07

Ferdinand_otieno wrote: ↑26 Sep 2019, 00:24
I actually expected to see the False King around that time, but not to meet a vulnerable Will in person and try to kill him. That was an exciting and unexpected twist that made the book better.

I mean, I am glad the false king met his end. He was just talked about throughout the story without ever physically making anappearance. He did at the enend for such a quick scene that it seemed abrupt and bizarre to me.

Like the author remembered another antagonist who might stand in Will and William's way, found the perfect place to insert him in the story, and got rid of him as fast as possible...to make sure the book ended with a fairly resolved plot.