This type of setting sparks a great deal of interest for a lot of people - we just love postulations about post apocalyptic worlds.

Another aspect is the setting - a far future feudal society where we get a glimpse of what our world might become if we managed to trigger a nuclear singularity. The prose really allows you to escape, to live as someone else, and even though that someone else is an irredeemable psychopath, the effortless escape is just so appealing to a lot of people. It is vivid, it is visceral, and it feels so real. I think it is easy to understand why people do not like this book, so I think the better question would be what is it that people like about this book? One aspect is the writing - the prose is just so effective at transporting you away and putting you directly in Jorg's head. He knows he probably should care or feel bad about the things that he is doing, but he doesn't. They get to see Jorg's uncaring reminiscence of when he raped those farm girls before setting them on fire. Readers get to see, through Jorg's eyes, the cold apathy with which he dispatches his enemies. Jorg is a sociopath, a willing participant, and readers get to experience the world through his damaged viewpoint.

Prince of Thorns is a confronting story, deliberately so, that follows a 13 year old boy named Jorg who leads a gang of marauders as they pillage their way across the countryside. The book has been out for a couple of years already, the arguments for various perspectives have already been well established, but I hope I can still add something new to the conversation. Prince of Thorns by Mark Lawrence is a book steeped in controversy - a book that seems to have divided the Science Fiction and Fantasy community with regards to what is acceptable for people to like and enjoy.

King of thorns by mark lawrence