Colleen Mccullough's Roman Series...

[Sula]

who has read it and what do you think? Liked it, hated it? How close to history do you think it is? Are the character's personalities anywhere close to what the real people where?

I'm new here, and lazy, so if this has been discussed before forgive me.

The books in the series are:

The First Man in Rome.

The Grass Crown.

Fortune's Favorites.

Caesar's Women.

Caesar.

The October Horse.

If this question is inappropriate for this forum forgive me, as I said I am new, but would be interested in your oppions... By the way I am yet to read The October Horse, but don't worry I think I have a bit of an idea what happens to Caesar

[Primus Pilus]

who has read it and what do you think? Liked it, hated it? How close to history do you think it is? Are the character's personalities anywhere close to what the real people where?

I'm new here, and lazy, so if this has been discussed before forgive me.

The First Man in Rome.

The Grass Crown.

Fortune's Favorites.

Caesar's Women.

Caesar.

The October Horse.

If this question is inappropriate for this forum forgive me, as I said I am new, but would be interested in your oppions... By the way I am yet to read The October Horse, but don't worry I think I have a bit of an idea what happens to Caesar

 

I loved the first two books. The series turns into a bit of a Caesar love affair as it continues on, but still is a fairly believable account of how some things may have shaken out once you look past some of that potential bias. But since it is historical fiction, one doesn't need to necessarily make such efforts and can try to enjoy it on its own merits. I felt that each book in the series was progressively of lesser quality, almost as if she was growing tired of writing it as time went on. Perhaps I was simply more irritated by her treatment of the "man god Caesar who could do no wrong" rather than being disturbed by lower writing quality, but that's just how I remember it.

 

More than any other historical fiction I've read though, she was careful to report known historical events as they happened, when and with the proper key players. She may have twisted some details to fit her own vision of these events (ie giving Marius a stroke to explain his abrupt change in behavior), but if it happened in reality, it was in the book. This example may help the reader feel sorry for Marius despite the murders of his final consulship, but while she may be giving him a built in excuse, she didn't entirely remove the proscriptions of Marius and Cinna in order to preserve his character. Her several footnotes (author's notes I suppose) illustrate why she chose to write some controversial events in certain ways. Clearly this was not necessary in a fictional account, but I give her immense credit for being diligent in her research.

[Sula]

Yes, I agree Primus. I'm a Caesar fan and even I thought it was a bit over done.

It is interesting how she constructed the relationship between Aurelia and Sula, though addament that they were never intament the characters keep seeing that Caesar reminds them of Sula, his eyes ect.

[phil25]

I rate the series quite highly as an experiment almost in "faction" - attempting a fictitious account of history in an almost documentary level of detil.

 

I'll admit that I learned a good deal from the author's notes too - she has put a great deal of effort into the research.

 

The series is, it seems to me - very much a "labour of love" and therein lies its weakness. Ms McCullough was fascinated by Sulla (at least the young Sulla) and in love with Caesar. the books change fundamentally when the latter comes on to the scene. As others have said, and I endorse their views - for Ms M Caesar can do no wrong. Everything is explained away - the relationship with Nicomedes; massacres in Gaul; his involvement with Catalina... I began to yearn for some scandal to touch him. It would have made him a more rounded character.

 

I found the depiction of Sulla's rise convincing and complex and the depiction of Marius fleshed out a previously somewhat cardboard character (to me). But Sulla, aged and after his return seems to me unconnected with the earlier person she had developed; similarly with the older, less attractive Sulla. I don't think she understood what changed these men into monsters, and having become attached to them in the earlier stages could hardly bear to see their darker side. So, I think, sentimentality has a part of place in the weaknesses of the books too.

 

I think the greatest successes are in some of the secondary players - Servilia, Livius Drusus, and for me abobe all old Scaurus Princeps Senatus on whom I had never previously focused at all. He emerges as a rounded, realistic political force and develops convincingly as he ages (for me).

 

But Cato, Bibulus and Cicero are cartoons, one-sided and unbelievable and we do not get a rounded picture of them at all. I was particularly disappointed with Catalina of whom I thought much more could have been made.

 

I sometimes wonder whether the weight of her research did not become a burden for Ms M - she spent more time working out schemes as to why flags on the Janiculum were lowered or raised and when; and detail of the Alexandrine campaign became tedious in the last book. Did she run out of energy?

 

Or was it - as I feel is the case with JK Rowling at present - that Ms M's "clout" in the publishing world puts her above being edited and the books suffer as a result - self-indulgence can be a terrible thing.

 

But I'd give the series 7 out of 10 and I am very pleased they have been written.

 

Phil

[Ursus]

I seem to be one of the few people who didn't care for the style. It was a novel that read like a history book, IMHO - not quite a compliment.

 

The opposite of this is a history book that reads like a novel, a recent example of which is Tom Holland's Rubicon which I devoured.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I rate the series quite highly as an experiment almost in "faction"

 

Yes, they were an experiment in faction--though not in the sense you meant, I think.

 

It's been a while since I read the first two books, but I vividly recall the rest. I couldn't put them down (forcifully enough).

[phil25]

Very quick, MPC!! Well done!!

 

Yes - faction has two meanings - both useful in this context, I think.

 

She clearly didn't like your hero/namesake. But neither did i think she served her own purposes by giving us a more rounded character. Had she been a little more subtle about Caesar she had ample scope to show (through MPC, Bibulus etc) why there was so much suspicion of GJC.

 

By making the opposition to him clowns it did not, in my view, increase, but diminish, ones respect and admiration for Caesar as she saw him.

 

She was better, in my view with Clodius and Milo - but only marginally so.

 

One of the things we lost - again just MHO - was the richness of Roman political life (she did well but was too partisan) not least in showing why Caesar threatened the old conventions and balance.

 

One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post was that I liked her Crassus on the whole - bull-like, more likeable than often depicted, and a good corrective to Olivier in Spartacus (always closer to Sulla in my view anyway). But I still have to see Pompeius portrayed in any medium in a way that I find totally convincing.

 

He must have been VERY charismatic and golden in his youth and prime - not least in apeing Alexander - but also in the kudos he had gained. More an organiser, brilliant staff officer than a military genius (in a strategy & tactics sense) he must still have had huge self-confidence and reputation after the pirates and the East. Yet he was always an outsider. Always, I suspect, self-aware that he was hollow - in contrast to what I see as Caesar's very well-based self-confidence. hence why the campaign before Pharsalia was so lacklustre and the defeat so complete.

 

Had he, I wonder, spent the years of the Gallic War following his partner's campaigns and realising just how brilliant Caesar was, and wondering what might happen if they ever clashed.

 

All just my musings of course, and others will almost certainly disagree strongly with my conclusions, but it shows I suppose, that Ms M could never have pleased everyone.

 

But to me that is the value of the sort of detailed historical novel she has written - she can try to re-create character (however suppositionally) in a way no historian writing factual books can ever really approach.

 

Phil

 

[in parentheses, I thought Kenneth Cranham, in ROME, got the breakdown and self-doubt at the end of his career, very well.]

[spittle]

Kenneth Cranham was the character actor that really stood out to me also. I only wish it had started a generation earlier with Sulla, marius and the young Pompey.

Still, the show was fantastic and I look forward to the next series.

 

Augustus v Antony!!! (I wonder who will win?)

[phil25]

Cleopatra!!

[Pertinax]

Well , I got hold of a copy of "First Man ", for exactly one pound sterling today . Awful lot of bonking (as we say in Britain) so far , Sulla with various people in cupboards etc, im waiting for some history to break out.

[G-Manicus]

I've just recently started this series and I love it. I got the first 3 books off of eBay for $6 (incl. shipping! ). I have about 100 pages to go in "First Man of Rome." Was never much of a fan of the Marius / Sulla period but I'm hooked now.

 

According to Wikipedia btw:

 

Due to much lobbying from fans McCullough has undertaken to write one more volume concerned mainly with Antony and Cleopatra, Antony and Cleopatra, to be released in September, 2007, in the UK, and December, 2007, in the US.

[G-Manicus]

PS - I thought it would be bad form to start a new thread without searching first. 5 pages later I found one.

[G-Manicus]

PPS - I found this site to be a useful resource when reading the book. Personally, I had a tough time keeping track of who all the (numerous) characters were. But then again, I'm not the brightest lamp in the living room.