Castle Heart

I read my online enlightenment book no less than three times

I really miss the feeling of reading novels in the past... I read this book back and forth twice. At that time, I thought it was a classic of Western fantasy! Now, time has passed and I have forgotten it again, leaving endless sighs.

I have read this book several times. The criticism points are basically that the protagonist is too idealistic and pursues moral values. The so-called Holy Mother's Heart, this can only be said to be a matter of opinion. Maybe in a few years more people will prefer such positive-oriented works. I am personally very satisfied with the protagonist's character principles... A major feature of this book is that the author has written the chivalry spirit and western fantasy epic in his own heart. The writing style is romantic and romantic, and the writing style does not have the common problem of using Chinese oral habits or vernacular that leads to drama in many Western fantasy online novels. The world view and strength system that the author borrowed and constructed are very complete. There is no plot of the collapse of combat power or the discontinuous change of maps. The protagonist's growth line is divided into volumes through major events, and there are very few meaningless fragments and redundant daily accounts. I think the detailed writing is also very good. Each volume and chapter has a clear structure and a smooth plot. In addition, it seems that the author has his own planning and research on the world view. He has filled in a lot of relatively rich customs, racial differences, and regional differences. It seems to be very immersive. As for the plot, it is not very serious in terms of intelligence or poison, and the golden finger of the protagonist is not indiscriminate. The enemy flow may have no sense of existence, and the intensity is online without destroying the overall balance. The protagonist himself is not the kind of genius who is very counterattack and leapfrog, but relies on his own fighting will and skills to charge into battle and fight against powerful enemies with his subordinates.

There are two types of Holy Mothers, one is compassionate to the weak without any bottom line, and the other is condoning evil without any bottom line. If it were the former, it would still be worth watching, but it's a pity that the protagonist is the latter. Huck at the beginning is a refugee camp leader who takes advantage of the fire to rob the self-proclaimed village chief. He is incompetent, greedy, jealous, and narrow-minded and selfish. If he is allowed to control the refugee camp, the refugees will be exploited and killed by him sooner or later. However, the protagonist actually talks to him about aristocratic rules and reason. Even after saying that he is the self-proclaimed village leader, you still talk to him about aristocratic rules. I am speechless. If it hadn't been for Grace, he would have driven the protagonist away. A virgin like the protagonist is really not suitable to be a friend, because if there is no plug-in to help him solve the disaster caused by indulging in evil, then he will be a lone star of evil, and everyone around him will be killed by him.

It's strange that there are so many other websites and some good novels that end in a sudden death. You guys have the ability to create a book that is now popular?

How long have you been reading? When you learn a term about the Holy Mother, come here and spray it.

WhenNian was a good book, but no one read it. Now this is a magical book, I really like reading it.

Who says knights are righteous? Western knights are like the Confucius family in ancient China. Hypocrite

This book was a good book back then, so you don't need to criticize it from your current perspective!

After reading this book, I suddenly understood that the reason why the savior is called the savior is because he has gathered around him a large number of people who help him. Even if he is a pig, if fate chooses him, as an assistant chosen by fate, you must obey. What's more, I think the most tragic character in this book is the one who was chosen by the author. At the beginning, I wrote about Levi, who traveled through time but was absorbed into the memory of the indigenous people. The sad thing about him is that he appears but there is no part of him in the whole text. It can also be said that more than 20 years of memories that transcend the boundaries of the indigenous people's vision did not have the slightest impact on the indigenous Li Wei who he traveled through. Therefore, the early writing of this book is indeed not very good, at least to me. I understand that the author wants to write a novel imitating Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire, but what I want to say is that imitating cats and tigers is not the opposite of dogs. Since you don't give Levi a role on Earth, don't write about him traveling through time. However, he was absorbed by an indigenous Levi after traveling through time. This is also the saddest thing in the whole article. The knight mottos in the article are regarded by the indigenous people as their belief and nobility. But in my eyes, I regard it as despicable. I think if Earth Levi could affect even one tenth of the indigenous Levi, this book would be more readable and interesting than it is now, especially after watching Game of Thrones. It feels like the original millet porridge has turned into the current black bread, which is difficult to swallow!

The author may be disappointed. How much have we lost? There are still people who can't accept this noble and valuable spirit. Why? Even if some people can't accept it, there is no need to slander this spirit. Don't you feel ashamed?

The protagonist is really childish. It would be understandable if he was really a 15-year-old aborigine. The key is that he still has all the memories of a time traveler and is still so childish, with no mental growth at all. In this case, what is the use of the author writing that the protagonist has the memories of a time traveler? It would be better to directly write about the original people. After getting the heart of the castle, he actually had the idea of ​​​​telling this golden finger. After being framed, others wanted to kill the protagonist directly, but the protagonist only had the idea of ​​​​blaming others face to face. This approach is still the psychological thought of the time traveler after getting all the memories. I can't stand it anymore.

It has become popular now, and I have missed an era.

I re-read dozens of chapters. To be honest, the combat value is controlled really well. I still remember the level settings several years ago. I watched it over and over again, ugh. Just write about small-scale battles, with dozens or hundreds of people fighting. It takes penpower to describe a battle involving tens of thousands, but it is impossible to describe a battle involving hundreds of thousands or millions. Why is no one imitating it? You can also learn from the ideas (The King of the Castle, and the eunuch with only tens of thousands of words). Using this idea, I am changing the protagonist template and content. It feels like another wonderful novel.

I personally tested the poison and was poisoned to death.

I really don't know what to think. An old book written N years ago can still cause controversy. Times are always improving, so just forget it if you don't like it. The concepts of that era are fundamentally different from the concepts of this era. The novel itself is something that is progressing very quickly. It's normal not to like it after so many iterations of style. After all, it has always been popular. Classics cannot be written casually. Besides, you will probably die of embarrassment just by recalling novels written by others, let alone novels written by others. This is really the case. If you like it, just read it. If you don't like it, the author has already finished it. I guess the author doesn't know what you said. There is no need to be so resentful in the comment area.

It's an old book I read a long time ago, and I read it with gusto. Unexpectedly, I have become an author now. I've always wanted to get to know the author of this book (ಥ_ಥ)

The time traveler was fucked to death by the natives, why are you looking at your sister?

Knights in the West are similar to landowners in the East. They may occasionally build bridges, roads and schools, but basically they are just a bunch of maggots.

Comments Many people say that the protagonist Our Lady has many meanings on the Internet. You must first know what it means. The earliest Virgin refers to a gentle, considerate, upright and kind woman, and refers to a person's temperament and conduct. After the fermentation of the Internet, the current Virgin Mary (not the Virgin Bitch, remember to distinguish) refers to mercy without a bottom line. This kind of compassion is extremely irrational and usually does not distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong, right or wrong. Moreover, I don't think this can be called the kindest thing. Obviously, the protagonist in the book is this kind of "Madonna" There is a problem here. Some people say that the protagonist is kind. What is kindness? Is being kind to others called kindness? There is a good metaphor. Kindness is a rose. A rose not only has bright flowers, but also sharp thorns ready to go. Is blind kindness called kindness? If he doesn't scream, he only has the appearance of kindness. He seems to be kind, but in fact he is helping others to do harm and being a villain. In the novel, the protagonist does not distinguish between right and wrong, mistakenly gives good intentions to evil people, and helps evil people get what they want, which is evil. The protagonist's "mercy" not only cost his own life, but also cost the property interests of others. Let me ask, if a self-proclaimed kind person pities a murderer and excuses him, can such "kindness" be called kindness? Kindness is not only a kind of character, but also a kind of ability. King Kong's angry eyes and thunderbolt tactics show the bodhisattva's heart. It is good to hoe the strong and support the weak, to uphold justice and to hate evil as enemies. Kindness is not blind, nor is it "brainless". The protagonist in the novel is a very naive person, and the author wants to write about a naive person. This person does not have much ill will towards the world and has beautiful illusions about others. This kind of childishness is exactly what the author wants to write about, the purity that emerges from the mud but remains untainted. Unfortunately, what I thought was one thing, but what I wrote was another. The protagonist's mind was too childish. He seems to be kind, but in fact he is extremely stupid. As an "old man" who has lived for two lifetimes, he is still a "child" with simple thoughts, a "giant baby" who has not yet formed a sense of right and wrong. In the book, the protagonist doesn't know what is good and what is bad; "doesn't know the difference between right and wrong" doesn't know how much he weighs; "blindly arrogant" doesn't know how to look at the eyes and read the atmosphere; "arrogant" doesn't know how to adapt and is stubborn; "extremely stupid" The biggest problem is that he thinks he is "carefree and unrestrained". If it weren't for Goldfinger, if it weren't for the protagonist's halo, what ability would a daydreamer like the protagonist have to save the day and laugh at this morning? Every time he rushes into the enemy's encirclement, every time he is in danger, every time he slaps someone in the face to make a fat person, if it weren't for the system's cover-up and the author's arrangement, how could a person like him who doesn't use his brain and doesn't distinguish between right and wrong succeed, and how could he save the day from danger time and time again. What the author wants to write is actually very obvious, that he is upright, kind and ignorant of the world. Unfortunately, the plot design is rough and there are too many contradictions. A kind person is not kind when he is bullied by others, but is kind when he helps the weak resist bullying.

I wanted to write a protagonist who abides by chivalry, but ended up facing a village guard who refused to charge other people's tolls and only collected yours. He even asked why this was so, and got angry and increased the price from silver coins to gold coins. Faced with this kind of guard who arbitrarily charges and increases prices to bully the people, as an abide by chivalry, he actually wants to pay gold coins to enter. I don't see chivalry in it.

The writing is pretty good. . The main character is indeed the Virgin. . . After reading a lot of online articles, I still feel that the colorful protagonist is more in line with modern people's understanding. . . After all, the only characters who truly abide by the so-called "Knight's Creed" are in storybooks or ancient times.

... I suggest you go and watch "The Distant Mirror: The Turbulent 14th Century" to see the real nobility and the real Middle Ages! What about chivalry?

Although many people have commented on the protagonist, the Virgin Mary, I just like the Virgin Mary. If it were you and all your friends and colleagues around you were the Virgin Mother, what a wonderful world it would be. In addition, the food side story is great, I like the writing style very much.

In fact, I still like the protagonist with this kind of personality, but it's a pity that the author failed to control it. The author should not have arranged the role of the grandfather from the beginning. A person who adheres to principles and overcomes various difficulties and a person who adheres to principles and relies on the grandfather to overcome various difficulties give people two completely different impressions. The former is a hero, and the latter is a brat who has not grown up. In addition, the protagonist in the author's works is too reckless. For example, in the chapter "Westward Journey", I understand the protagonist's desire to save people quickly, but under the condition that the situation of the shortcut in the swamp is unknown, at least someone should be arranged to investigate whether there is any irresistible danger, rather than directly deciding to take a shortcut. After all, once there is an irresistible danger on this road, the consequences will not be as simple as rescue being delayed by a few days because it takes a long way. I understand that the author wants to describe a principled hero, but based on the current free chapter, the protagonist is portrayed as a principled but overly impulsive child. Heroes are brave and kind, but bravery without wisdom becomes impulsive and reckless, and kindness without wisdom becomes stupidity.

Western fantasy novels are in decline now, and there are not many good ones. I accidentally clicked on this book and read two chapters. I found it quite interesting. I stayed up late to finish it. There are almost no books with this theme. Many people say that the protagonist, the Virgin, is not bad like the Great Love Immortal, but flowers are blooming and each has its own fragrance, right? The protagonist's Virgin is that he has been implementing his chivalry code from beginning to end - sweeping away the darkness, pity the weak, and being fearless I personally think there is nothing wrong with him, but I think he is very pure. It is rare to see such a pure protagonist in our current environment, and this book is particularly good. It is pure Western fantasy, not mixed with other things. I came to Western fantasy to see knights and magic, not to watch cannons beating natives My favorite character in this book is Osiris

Why is this book so popular? To be honest, it's considered a masterpiece even now

This book established my view of knights, their integrity, kindness and bravery.

The first chapter persuaded me to quit. They were all about time travel, just to have a better sense of immersion. The author did the opposite, and the time traveler couldn't beat an aborigine. The sense of immersion is gone, why am I still watching? No wonder the traffic is poor.

System flow, withdrawal... Any system is full of troubles