-
x

Meet New Friends!

Recommended friends are based on your interests. Make sure they are up to date.

Friends
Kidzworld Logo

The Tasters' Guild Book Review (The Poisons of Caux #2)

Oct 12, 2010

In book one of The Poisons of Caux series (The Hollow Bettle), eleven year old Ivy helped to end the reign of the “Deadly Nightshades”—a evil king and queen who ruled Caux with poison and fear.


The Ancient Prophecy

In book two, The Tasters Guild, it’s up to Ivy to fulfill and ancient prophesy declaring that a Noble Child will cure King Verdigris, the true king of Caux. But the powerful Tasters Guild still spreads fear through Caux, and behind it all is the eyeless Director of the guild, Vidal Verjouce.


The Belly of the Beast

In order to fulfill the prophecy, Ivy must find the one and only door into Pimcaux, the land where the king resides. But it’s a dangerous mission, one that will bring her into the heart of the Tasters Guild. With the help of her friend and taster, Rowan; two trestlemen, Axle and Peps; her new cat, Six; and her own advanced knowledge of plants and poisons, Ivy must breach the walls of the Tasters Guild and complete her mission…without getting caught.


The Bottom Line

The Poisons of Caux #2: The Tasters Guild by Susannah Appelbaum is a creative story. It brings you into the land of Caux where the world is somewhat different from our own. It has a timeless quality, not in the past, present or future, similar to Angie Sage’s Septimus Heap series. Unfortunately, the writing style may be a little difficult for YA readers. It’s hard to visualize and often hard to follow. This book is definitely a challenge, and not for a reader who wants a fast-paced adventure.


Related Articles
3 Comments

Related Stories

Micro_thetoymaker-micro
One secret sends Mathias's world into chaos. Kidzworld reviews The Toymaker by Jeremy de Quidt.
Experience the life-changing journey of Edward Tulane, a china rabbit who travels the world and l...
Amy and Dan Cahill travel to Japan in search of the third clue to their mysterious family secret....
F1119385641609

Which Plant Sounds Worse?

  • Poison Ivy.
  • Stinging Nettle
  • Deadly Nightshade
  • Poison Oak

Random In The Forums

-Gwen9--
-Gwen9-- posted in Debating:
"AlphaT" wrote: "donteatcarrots" wrote:​no. it's mainly the people who are given the guns that need to be properly checked. the guy who killed 49 people in orlando had mental health problems and trouble with the fbi was still given a gun. this doesn't make sense at all to me. yeah he probably has knives and stuff at home which could do just as much harm- so is the gun necessary in the first place? No one is given a gun. A person has to acquire a permit, and then has to buy a gun for themselves.  Okay, yes, mental health is an obvious issue. But it needs to be for specific mental health problems. It can't be just because someone has a mental illness, because many mental illnesses won't effect the operation and use of a gun, or make it more likely for a person to hurt someone else with a gun. I support background checks which would include mental health history, but only if it's done right. Similarly, the guy who killed 49 people in Orlando was taken off the FBI watchlist. This tells me that there are flaws with the way that the watchlist is currently being used. Once that system is redone, then we can restrict those on it from buying firearms. But at its' current success rate? Not a chance.  And it's not about what's necessary...well to an extent it is, but hear me out. Weapons are used for self defense. No matter how many gun laws you have, criminals will still use firearms in their crimes. Citizens require at least an equal amount of protection that criminals use to break the law.  In other words, if you were to be the victim of gun violence, would you rather have with you a knife or a gun? Would you honestly bring a knife to a gun fight?  First of all, I agree with you. Mental health is definitely an issue! But together these issues can be addressed!!!! And as I said earlier, we can control our weapons. The government can create a harder way to get a gun or any weapon. Look at criminal records!!!! Even before getting a permit, or a license, CHECK THE RECORDS!!! This will help prevent these mass shootings.
reply about 2 hours
Hoellu
Hoellu posted in Debating:
"-Gwen9--" wrote:The second amendmant in the United States Constitution is the right to bare arms. If they take away our weapons, then they take away the second amendmant. The amendmant is there for a reason. Weapons are useful for protection. Protection is going to keep us alive. The human population, as a nation, and as a world! If we take away our weapons now we are all dead! We don't want that.  Now, killing 50 people in the Orlando shooting. That is just not right at all. It was not the gun's fault, it was the person. Same thing with the death of Christina Grimmie. Now, I personally believe that we should not take guns away, but we should find a harder process into buying a gun or some other weapon, and we should be trained properly! Look at people's criminal records, look at their other records. I don't care! As long as we still have protection, but less mass shootings! Omg, so true.
reply about 2 hours
AdeleQxeen
AdeleQxeen posted in Electronics:
I have one. I got it for my birthday last year, it's a Samsung Core Prime.
reply about 2 hours
Hoellu
Hoellu posted in Debating:
If there are polices, why are there weapons for almost anyone?Or at least they should have an special permission.
reply about 2 hours
AlphaT
AlphaT posted in Debating:
"donteatcarrots" wrote:​no. it's mainly the people who are given the guns that need to be properly checked. the guy who killed 49 people in orlando had mental health problems and trouble with the fbi was still given a gun. this doesn't make sense at all to me. yeah he probably has knives and stuff at home which could do just as much harm- so is the gun necessary in the first place? No one is given a gun. A person has to acquire a permit, and then has to buy a gun for themselves.  Okay, yes, mental health is an obvious issue. But it needs to be for specific mental health problems. It can't be just because someone has a mental illness, because many mental illnesses won't effect the operation and use of a gun, or make it more likely for a person to hurt someone else with a gun. I support background checks which would include mental health history, but only if it's done right. Similarly, the guy who killed 49 people in Orlando was taken off the FBI watchlist. This tells me that there are flaws with the way that the watchlist is currently being used. Once that system is redone, then we can restrict those on it from buying firearms. But at its' current success rate? Not a chance.  And it's not about what's necessary...well to an extent it is, but hear me out. Weapons are used for self defense. No matter how many gun laws you have, criminals will still use firearms in their crimes. Citizens require at least an equal amount of protection that criminals use to break the law.  In other words, if you were to be the victim of gun violence, would you rather have with you a knife or a gun? Would you honestly bring a knife to a gun fight? 
reply about 2 hours