Slow moving, unbearably slow moving, and... creepy. This book is filled with caricatures of Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhism (the former except for a single individual, doltish and venal, the latter salacious and superstitious). I finally gave up at the point where the protagonist was crawling through a tunnel towards an assignation with the superior of a nunnery, whom he found personally repellent but hoped would help him survive. Whatever.

This sort of fantasy hinging on a generally unknown ethnic group living in a mysterious territory was excusable in the 19th century, but I am not sure why it would be published in the 1960s let alone reprinted in the 21st century. ( )

Slow, ponderous, dull - any more bad adjectives. I read Kolymsky Heights some years ago + think I enjoyed it so thought I would try this. I've now given up. Noticed when adding this book that I was reading the 2016 paperback edition but there is an earlier (1962 or 1969 or 1994) hardback edition which probably din't make it to paperback 'cos it is awful !!!

I have once again fallen into the publisher's trap of reissuing old, failed books by authors who have finally written a successful book. DOLT! ( )

One of the symptoms of madness is the repeated performance of the same action with an expectation of a different outcome. I am, therefore, slightly worried about my own sanity. A few months ago, having been sold the dummy by fervent encomia from a number of writers whose works I have enjoyed, I succumbed to the grievous error of buying Lionel Davidson's Kolymsky Heights, which proved to be one of the most fatuous and irritating novels I had read in a long time.

I had promised myself that I would not make that mistake again, so, when I saw Davidson's The Rose of Tibet being lauded by Anthony Horowitz I should have known better. I had, however, just read two books by Horowitz that I had greatly enjoyed, so I foolishly succumbed and decided that the Kolymsky Heights debacle might have been an unrepresentative blot on Davidson's literary escutcheon.

Sadly not. I estimate that I have read about five thousand books so far, and I am struggling to recall one that was more irritating, fatuous and worthless than this one. I can't definitively say that I haven't read a worse book, but if I have, then some protective streak in my consciousness has erased it from my memory. ( )

I ploughed through this with difficulty. Hard to care about any of the characters, or what happened to them. Disappointing after Kolymsky Heights, which I really liked. ( )

Rose of Tibet tells the story of Charles Houston, a footloose school teacher who goes to India in 1950 in search of his half brother who disappeared along with several other members of a film crew. Houston discovers that the film crew vanished into Tibet, which is facing tremendous pressure from Communist China. Houston secures a Sherpa guide & makes his own illegal entry into the forbidden country. He proceeds to get involved with ancient prophecies, religious disputes, Chinese/Tibetan political clashes and four sacks of emeralds.

Were it not for a truly ponderous narrative structure, the story is told by a fictional Lionel Davidson who is a book editor, this would be a thriller of the highest rank. As is, it scores a tier below Davidson's own high standard as set in Kolymsky Heights which I highly recommend.