Review Commentary: Lionhearts by Nathan Makaryk

An older review, given new life and more rants.

May 23, 2025

My backlog of book reviews is quite lengthy and occasionally I like trotting out an oldie to see how it’s aged in my mind. This book was originally reviewed on my old blog back in September of 2020 and it is…well, you’ll see. New thoughts in bold and for clarity’s sake, both this book and its precursor are loosely inspired by the legend of Robin Hood.

Well. This was my other most anticipated book of the year (here’s the other one which is linked below). So much for it being worth the wait. Prepare yourself. The salt is thick with this one.

This book fails on three fronts: the plot, the women, and the men. Otherwise known as “the core reasons for this book existing.”

The plot is needlessly detailed and drawn out. The book’s timeline could’ve started later without losing much. Instead I chewed on this tough jerky for a month. This cumbersome journey is further shipwrecked by an intolerable cast. I would redo this paragraph if writing it today, so three cheers for being a better writer now.

The guilty parties:

In my Nottingham review (this book being the sequel) I mentioned how all the women are modern. Nothing has changed. In fact, it’s gotten worse. They attribute many of their failings to…wait for it…misogyny. (A word not invented for another five hundred years, but I digress.) No no. It is a valid digression to point out mindsets that don’t really exist yet. Words are created when a need arises and if there is no word, that thing isn’t popular enough to warrant a dedicated word. And for the love of Sherwood, STOP FORCING MODERN IDEAS INTO ANCIENT HISTORY. Ahem. Please. Continue. What about failures being the result of recklessness, disorganization, miscalculations, bad friends, no common sense, no leadership skills, a bland personality, failure to communicate, oversleeping, skipping breakfast, or just anything personal? By blaming everything on misogyny they’re/the women are saying that nothing is their fault, and everyone else is to blame. Accountability is for all, even those “strong and independent” women. Try arguing against that with a straight face.

“[Marion] did not hate learning to become a lady at all, she simply hated that she was not simultaneously learning how to become everything else.” Who in their right mind would ever think they could—or should—learn “everything else”? That has to be it: Marion is just talented enough to hide her clinical insanity. I mean, she literally has no practical skills and barely passes for a lady and yet she thinks she has the brain power to do all? What kind of arrogance must you have to imagine you could reach omniscience? If she truly thinks she could learn to become “everything else,” why hasn’t she? Could it be that she has limitations in body and mind? *gasp* Positively shocking. I can feel the disgust and insult radiating from my past self, and I approve.

Marion in a nutshell:

1. She doesn’t know what she’s doing

2. No one likes her overbearing attitude

3. Everything she does ends as an inferno (and if I remember correctly, one of these books had a big fire that was a direct result of something she did or did not do)

4. Her reputation is merrily in flames

5. She’s more trouble than she’s worth

But of course it’s not her fault. It’s ye olde misogyny, like it always is. You gotta watch out for that ye olde misogyny; it’ll get ya if you’re not careful.

Caitlin parades her ugly attitude and foolishly doesn’t consider the consequences. Her dearth of sound leadership destroys any chance of respect. And how is she fat? She’s had to survive off stolen goods for years. Does no one find her girth suspicious? I’d wonder if she hasn’t got a secret stash and I’d demand an investigation. It reminds me of Lost (before the “answers” were revealed) when everyone was wondering why what’s-his-face was still fat after being on the island for so long. You cannot have characters living in dire straits who are still noticeably overweight. Either they’re starving, or they’re getting supplemental foodstuffs, which this character supposedly wasn’t. Giant plot hole.

Zinn is awful. A twelve-year-old who thinks she deserves leadership status over adults, degrades people who don’t know what she knows, employs crude humor and insults, and thinks her feisty attitude covers her worthless personality, is beyond saving. I don’t remember this character, but I once again find her intolerable.

Arable is in her thirties?! That’s alarming. I thought she was sixteen. She acts like it. The concept of teenagers wasn’t invented until the 1900s so she should be very mature. But no. I’m assuming her name is a typo and it’s supposed to be Arabel, but who knows? I don’t have the book to confirm. It’s funny though; I’m leaving it. This shock at her age is another anachronism; in the twelfth century, you were in sight of the grave at that age and not acting like a child.

I know the author has willfully set aside historical accuracies but this feminist choice is garbage and spits on real women. NOT ALL WOMEN CRAVE POWER. STOP WRITING THEM AS IF THEY DO. Where are the women who don’t try to imitate men? Where are the women who don’t give a flying chip about politics? Where are the women who will gladly command the home? Where are the women who aren’t desperate for head honcho-ness? Where are the women who realize they can’t go it alone? (Looking at you, Arable.) Where are the women who are content to let the men make the choices and take the fallout? Where is Thomas Cromwell when you need him?! Story time! On the author’s Twitter, he took phrases from five and one star reviews to make a sales pitch/banner for this book. (He said the one-star reviews were better at selling the book.) Guess what line he took from my review? (I actually rated it two stars on Goodreads because I had a bout of niceness; I’ll change it.) He picked “Where are the women who are content to let the men make the choices?” That’s right, he left out the last part of the sentence, like only a person without integrity would. Completely ignored all my other criticisms and took a line out of context to fit his little leftist mindset. And yes, he is a leftie; I checked, like a woman of integrity. I also find it curious that he hasn’t written a third book, even though he left it wide open for another one. Bad sales?

I just read The Mirror & the Light (my updated review) and I was refreshed to see those women portrayed in an accurate light. It’s infinitely more interesting and inspiring to see women accomplishing things from the shadows while still maintaining their household and womanliness. Why must other historical fiction make women toilet fodder? Hehe. Toilet fodder. Might have to use that again. How about writers stretch a little and get creative? Power-hungry women are massively overused. No one wants to see boring, predictable shrews anymore. Write decent women already.

Women hating men and then turning around to complain about misogyny is hypocritical in the extreme and it’s sad they don’t realize that. “Misandry” is an overlooked word and we need to bring it back to highlight the gall of these women.

Unfortunately, the men aren’t much better. None are worthy of praise because they’re all dirtbags, worthless, unstable, weak, villainous, unchivalrous, or in general, unlikable. I said in my review for book one that this book would need “a wise, logical and levelheaded man…” who, sadly, never appeared. I do still kinda like Prince John, but he’s only the best of the worst. I just don’t understand how every character could suck. People can be bad and still likable (The Lies of Locke Lamora comes to mind) but this book can’t manage it. I think the root problems are the rife stupidity, greed, thoughtlessness, and poor leadership. Basically, the men aren’t MEN. And there we have it, the crux of modern storytelling’s failures. Make men strong again. PLEASE!

Why is Tuck criticized for his faith? Back then the church was hugely important and powerful. No Englishman would’ve professed atheism, and yet it’s a common thing here. Pretty sure proclaiming to be an atheist would’ve resulted in being burned at the stake. In other words, it’s not something you’d say out loud. And where did Tuck get his Bible? It would’ve been handwritten (in Latin), ginormous, and rare or not even available outside churches, and yet he has one in the forest. No. I make some great points in this review. Way to go, past self.

I vaguely recall liking the writing style in the previous book, but now I’m not seeing much to applaud. It’s fine, but whatever made Nottingham special to me is now missing. And enough with the modern swearing! When characters swear in every conversation, they sound like an idiot. Not that these characters needed help in the idiocy department, but the constant swearing does get in the way of compelling dialogue.

No one is capable of prolonged intelligence, logic, diplomacy, charisma, manners or levelheadedness. The combined folly should result in everyone who didn’t die in this book, dying in the next one. And it would be a better world. Yes.

Now that I’ve said my piece, you may be wondering why I even stuck with the book in the first place. Part of it is obligation. I was unable to get an ARC (advance reader’s copy) from Netgalley (a site that gives out ARCs), but since I really wanted to read it, I contacted the publisher and surprisingly they sent me the link i.e. access to an early copy. So I figured after the trouble I went through to get it, I should finish it. The other part is I kept hoping something amazing would happen, some last minute twist to make it all worthwhile. Regrettably, nothing made me wish I could have the next book right now. And if I had this book before me today, I wouldn’t finish it at all.

What could’ve been a great sequel resulted in a loose plot and a cast of characters who fail in every regard. It’s also made me question the goodness of the first one. I still question whether or not the first one was as good as I thought. But I’m not interested enough to confirm/disprove my thoughts. I’m definitely not anticipating the final book. Good thing, since it might never exist.

One quote for the road:

“Outlaw implies they live outside the law, suggesting there’s a place where rules don’t matter.”

That’s one of those quotes that sounds good at first blush, but immediately falls apart upon closer inspection. There’s nothing about an “outlaw” that implies rules don’t matter. What it means is they broke the rules, or that the rules are so bad, some people are seen as rule breakers when they’re really just trying to correct an injustice, which is the original Robin Hood story.

SOME SPOILER THOUGHTS FOR THOSE WHO’VE READ THE BOOK. OR FOR THOSE WHO DON’T CARE BUT WANT TO HEAR SOME EXTRA RANTS.

For possible future reference, the dead include: Arthur (stabbed by Charley/Bolt), Beneger de Wendenal (killer unknown), Caitlin and Alfred (shot by their own crew, ha ha), David (crushed by an oil cask), Nick and Peetey (died helping Robert escape his arrest), and my faith in good fictional females (which was already on life support). I think that’s all. I have as many clues as you do for who these people are.

Marion is treading very close to adultery, another reason not to like her. Go women, right?

Five bucks says Arable will need help from a man when she gets to her new land, despite her assurances that she doesn’t need any help. I’m doubting myself now; maybe that is her name.

It’s some sweet irony how Marion and Arable spout their feminism and then as soon as trouble hits, Arable’s wondering why Amon isn’t there to protect Marion. She don’t need no man, until she does.

Why would Alfred assume that the archery contest would actually result in land for them? Over promise and under deliver is Villainy 101. Blazing IQ, that’s why.

Once again Jacelyn did basically nothing. She didn’t even kill Will. I don’t know who these people are.

Amon being gay is completely irrelevant to the story. Everyone’s chill attitude toward it is another inaccuracy. He’d have been dead, banished, or at the very least, not a knight. He would never have revealed it in the first place.

The greenbeard side quest never lived up to the importance it hinted at. Their whole time trying to enter the Red Lions didn’t need to be drawn out. Caitlin’s perspective also added nothing. Sounds reasonable.

I’m foreseeing some difficulty with Arable’s pregnancy. I also feel sorry for the kid. I want to make a joke about her name, but I don’t think it would land.

I thought the book would end with the real French army arriving.

I was so hoping they’d send Marion and Co. to rescue Richard and they’d all die horribly and it’d be great.

How in the world did Ferrers survive? And why didn’t Ben stab him repeatedly before throwing him out the window? Villain Killing 101: make sure they’re dead. I also have no idea who these people are, but yes, always make sure your target is dead.

Marion’s treason charge is *chef’s kiss* If I knew for sure it would result in her death, I would be tempted to read the next book. The ending we’ll never get: Marion being beheaded.

I don’t think I did many rant reviews back then, but I remember having a jolly time writing this originally and coming back to it was fun. Long story short: don’t read this book.

And don’t be a misandrist and then go running for the closest guy when things go sideways. Looks bad.

And so you know I’m not lying or taking things out of context, here’s the link to the tweet. Was he right to take my quote out of context? What line from my review would you use?

Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to like, comment, share, and subscribe if you haven’t yet! You can show your support by upgrading to a paid subscription or leaving a tip with Buy Me A Coffee.