In perusing the GoodReads reviews for 'The Thief' after I read it, I was struck by the fact that the majority of reviewers seemed to have read it only to get to this book, persevering through it only because they had heard that the sequel was really good. (Implying, of course, that the Thief was not.) Even people who liked it seemed to say that they greatly preferred 'The Queen of Attolia'. Everyone seemed to agree that that was the better book.I'm not sure if I agree. They are very different books. 'The Thief' is very slow moving, almost more of a character study, until the action begins in the last third or so. 'The Queen of Attolia' has a lot more action. It's full of intrigue and treaties and wars and betrayals and alliances. However, I actually found myself skipping over some of the pages describing the various maneuvers and battles, and for a long time it seemed like there would be little of the 'stupid plans' and clever thefts I'd come to expect and crave from Eugenides. (Luckily I turned out to be wrong about that.)What with the different tone of the book, and the switch from first person to third, it took me a while to really get into the book, and at first I was sure I didn't like it as much. However, by the end of it, I loved it just as much as I had 'The Thief', but in a very different way, because as I said, I feel that they are two very different books.