What's the last book you read?

[Ursus]

I couldn't agree more here, Ursus! I have been threatening to review this for the Forum myself - and do intend to do it - unless you wish to take the honours. I did giggle an awful lot through the opening third but then found it all got a bit 'samey'. Other projects and real life have actually got in the way of my finishing the final few chapters, but I will rectify this very soon. I was, however, impressed with the level of research that must have gone into it, and the fact that the author managed to get the information across without flinging heavy sholarship in our faces. We coould, of course, each do our own review - but we may well come to the same conclusion, which wouldn't be of help to the Forum.

 

 

Well .... I've already done the review, it's sitting dead last in queu. But it's probably the most perfunctory review I ever wrote, I just really couldn't play with it. Perhaps you can write a better review than I did. There's always room for two reviews. I'll private message you what I wrote.

[Nephele]

I read Vicki Le

[DecimusCaesar]

I've just finished "Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome" by Lesley Adkins and Roy A. Adkins.

 

The wealth of information contained in this book is amazing, it's got to be a must for anyone interested in ancient Rome.

 

It's also a favourite book of mine. It's always handy to have it at hand.

 

Lesley Adkins and Roy A. Adkins also wrote the Dictionary of Roman Religion, which was recommended by Ursus in his top 5 list. That's another great title that's worth getting as well.

[cornelius_sulla]

Just finished 'Barbarians' by Terry Jones (Brian's Mum in 'The Life Of Brian')

Interesting, to say the least. Chock full of anti-Rome sentiment and very witty with it. Much better than the television series, so my partner tells me.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

It's also a favourite book of mine. It's always handy to have it at hand.

 

Lesley Adkins and Roy A. Adkins also wrote the Dictionary of Roman Religion, which was recommended by Ursus in his top 5 list. That's another great title that's worth getting as well.

 

Thanks for the tip DC, if it's as well written and researched as the "HandbookTo....." then I'll certainly be adding it to my collection.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Just finished "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. Fascinating but controversial book.

[Silentium]

been painfully working my way through Dawkins' "The God Delusion" for several months.

One of the best books I've read in...years.

 

Last books I read are "The Rhaeto-Romance languages" by John Haiman and Paola Beninca and "Essays on Politics, Language and Society in Luxembourg" by Gerald Newton

[Camilla Optima]

The latest books I've read are Conn Igguldens Gates of Rome and Death of Kings. While it is a fun read as far as daily roman life goes, I am discovering SO many complete lies in his books. And I am far from an expert.

 

Here are some of the "historical facts" of these books:

 

Julius Caesar and Marcus Brutus are best friends, the same age and grew up in the same household.

Servilia is a prostitute.

Octavian is a pick pocket living in pverty in Rome with his mom Atia.

Cato is very corrupt.

Caesar kills Mithridates.

 

I always check facts with my boyfriend who knows more about Roman history than me, and he continues to be shocked at how this man "rapes roman history". My major problem is that so many interesting things happened in real history, so there shouldn't be any need to make up facts. Anyone read any of these books?

 

One better piece of historical fiction I've read is Alfred Duggan's Three is Company about Lepidus. I rather liked that one.

 

~ Camilla

Edited February 12, 2008 by Camilla Optima

[Lanista]

The latest books I've read are Conn Igguldens Gates of Rome and Death of Kings. While it is a fun read as far as daily roman life goes, I am discovering SO many complete lies in his books. And I am far from an expert.

 

Here are some of the "historical facts" of these books:

 

Julius Caesar and Marcus Brutus are best friends, the same age and grew up in the same household.

Servilia is a prostitute.

Octavian is a pick pocket living in pverty in Rome with his mom Atia.

Cato is very corrupt.

Caesar kills Mithridates.

 

I always check facts with my boyfriend who knows more about Roman history than me, and he continues to be shocked at how this man "rapes roman history". My major problem is that so many interesting things happened in real history, so there shouldn't be any need to make up facts. Anyone read any of these books?

 

One better piece of historical fiction I've read is Alfred Duggan's Three is Company about Lepidus. I rather liked that one.

 

~ Camilla

 

I'm not convinced that the Emperor series are historical fiction, they're more historical fantasy. Iggulden does, in his notes, say what really happened and why he changed things.

 

Accuracy is always up for debate when you're writing historical fiction - I'm guilty of changing things in "Gladiatrix" myself, and I was aware of what I was doing, but decided to do it anyway. Sometimes, authors make decisions for the benefit of not only their story, but also the audience. The vast majority of people who read a novel are not going to be students of Roman history - a case in point, Donna Gillespie's "The Light Bearer" is regarded as one of the finest pieces of Roman fiction ever written (go check amazon, and see how many folk say "it changed my life") - yet Donna refers to the Flavian as the Colosseum. Now she, as well as we, knew well that it was called the Flavian at the time of Domitian, but as a writer, you make a decision that you believe will help the book and help the audience. In my own book, I changed the pairings of gladiatrices that fought each other, and I have them in less armour. I did this for dramatic purposes - that's my excuse, and when I was writing it it worked for me. But of course, to Romanophiles it's an unforgiveable sin. (if you want to read a review, there's one at RAT which exposes my guilty secrets!)

 

The truth is that - as indefensible as it might be to purists - a novel isn't a work of fact, it's a work of fiction: especially in Iggulden's case where his work is plainly (well to me at least) more fantasy based in reality.

 

Cheers

 

Russ

[Primus Pilus]

The truth is that - as indefensible as it might be to purists - a novel isn't a work of fact, it's a work of fiction: especially in Iggulden's case where his work is plainly (well to me at least) more fantasy based in reality.

 

Cheers

 

Russ

 

The problem I have with works such as Iggulden's is not just that it's work of fantasy, it's that he uses such well known historical figures and events in that fantasy. Sure, had he made up several characters and set them in the backdrop of the later Republic it wouldn't have had such mass appeal, but then he wouldn't have been guilty of butchering historical reality (at least not as badly).

 

And by the by... to me, calling the Flavian Amphitheatre the Colosseum isn't nearly so much a stretch as some other things. While it wasn't necessarily called that so early (though the possibility exists since Nero's Colossus was standing there and who can be certain when the people started using the term), it did come to be known as that eventually. To me, it would be almost like using the term sword instead of gladius in a book like yours. Gladius is correct of course and provides more fitting atmosphere, but everyone on earth knows what a sword is.

[The Augusta]

I have just started the second volume of William Napier's Attila series (I didn't know there'd been a first!) and it seems OK, but I am struggling with info dumps and long boring descriptions of every muscle and sinew of Attila's physique! I'll let you know how it pans out.

 

Please do - I've got the first one - I've had it for ages and because of one thing and another, I've not opened it (shame on me!).

 

Cheers

 

Russ

 

OK, Lanista - I can definitely recommend it. I was impressed enough to go out and buy the first volume which deals with Attila's childhood. As I know next to nothing about Attila and his Huns (BTW, Calders, thanks for a great review today!), I could sit back and enjoy this as a tale.

 

Pros: Evocative, atmospheric, firmly set in its own time. I shivered along with the Huns as they crossed the frozen Steppes etc. And there was no danger of seeing this as modern fiction in costume, unlike the modern trend....

 

Attila is portrayed with all his warts and all, which is always a good thing. By the end of the book, I decided I quite liked the old devil! Presumably the author has done his research: Attila does some surprisingly decent things by his own lights. But then just as you think he's going soft, he acts with 'Hun-like' pragmatism. A nice touch from the author.

 

Cons: I will forgive the author, as this is only his second novel, but please William, lose the info dumps, and describing every new character all at once in minute detail. I think I'd know Attila in the dark among sixty thousand men after reading the first two chapters!

 

But all in all, the mood was brilliant and the prose convincing enough to keep me reading past these stumbling blocks.

 

I think you'll like it Lanista. And a nice sideline - a switch of POV and Voice for the middle of the work, where the story switches to Byzantium to be narrated by Priscus - a delightful character.

 

I've read worse, and I will see the trilogy through.

[Colin]

I always check facts with my boyfriend who knows more about Roman history than me, and he continues to be shocked at how this man "rapes roman history". My major problem is that so many interesting things happened in real history, so there shouldn't be any need to make up facts. Anyone read any of these books?

One better piece of historical fiction I've read is Alfred Duggan's Three is Company about Lepidus. I rather liked that one.

(Disclosure: I'm the boyfriend.)

 

Man, I remember your telling me about a young Caesar saddling up with Brutus to go after Mithridates, and somehow I just knew it, and you confirmed.. yep, they killed him. In two nights of guerilla attacks. With blowguns. Ok, I made up the blowguns part, but why not? He made up the rest! I regret using the word "rape", but I feel bad for that friend of yours whose only source of Roman history was this series.

 

I agree with a later poster: choosing figures about whom so much is known is the misstep. If you want to interpret, be lazy, sloppy, or just plain make s--- up, best to pick some back-bencher, not someone from history's front row. What Duggan did in writing about the second Triumvirate was to pick the dull one no one cared about and make him the star.

 

I remember reading a murder mystery set in the Flavian period when I was in high school, "The Silver Pigs". We should look for that series, since we could use some more context for that period.

[Lanista]

OK, Lanista - I can definitely recommend it. I've read worse, and I will see the trilogy through.

 

Thanks so much for the recommend, Augusta. I'm just in the middle of the "The Legionary" at the moment and will move on to Atilla when I'm finished.

 

Again, thanks for passing on the information, much appreciated.

 

Cheers

 

Russ

[Lanista]

The problem I have with works such as Iggulden's is not just that it's work of fantasy, it's that he uses such well known historical figures and events in that fantasy. Sure, had he made up several characters and set them in the backdrop of the later Republic it wouldn't have had such mass appeal, but then he wouldn't have been guilty of butchering historical reality (at least not as badly).

 

I don't think it was his intent to butcher history. I tend to think of "Emperor" more as an "alternate reality" piece. I thought the books were really entertaining reads, full of stirring adventure, derring do: real page turners with characters that we (sort of!) know.

 

And by the by... to me, calling the Flavian Amphitheatre the Colosseum isn't nearly so much a stretch as some other things.

 

No, of course not...it was just the only example I could think of off the top of my head! The point is that decision was taken with audience in mind.

 

To me, it would be almost like using the term sword instead of gladius in a book like yours. Gladius is correct of course and provides more fitting atmosphere, but everyone on earth knows what a sword is.

 

Heh - I use both, and I'm guilty of arming my thracians with them - becaues I think they look cooler than sicas - even though I know the bendy bit of the sica was to get over the big shield of their heavy armed opponents *lol*

 

But I think what I'm trying to say here is that I think that most historical fiction digresses from fact to a greater or lesser extent. As students of Roman history, I think we need to learn to disengage from what is right and what the writer thinks makes a good story. And that's the key thing - we may well think that a story doesn't need changing or embellishing or having certain bits omitted. But the writer has chosen to do "make it so" for reasons best known to him or her like I say above, I chose straight swords because I like them and thought that the scenes played better in my mind. But this sort of thing can make people gnash their teeth with fury, saying "Why can't he just use the sica, everyone knows that's what they used!"

 

The great thing about this is that it's all very subjective - the inaccuracies don't bother me at all, I know what really happened with Caesar, so Iggulden's take is fun an interesting to me at least. I know it's not accuarte, and as I say, I don't think it's supposed to be really - it's a good old page turner.

 

Cheers

 

Russ

 

PS - my excuse is now going to be "Gladiatrix takes place in the provinces where the rules for gladiatorial combat were not as formal as they were in the Capitol." Sh*t...that actually sounds like I know what I'm on about....

[Primus Pilus]

I don't want to turn the focus of this thread entirely on Iggulden, because he's certainly come up a few times around here. Suffice to say that while he clearly has many fans, there are also many, like me, who can't or refuse to see past the historical facts (or lack thereof). One may call it closed-minded, but if I am going to read fiction, I don't want it to dispute history. As an alternative, Harris' Imperium on Cicero is a fiction of perhaps Rome's most well documented person in Cicero (thanks to Cicero himself, of course). While the details are fiction, he stays true to the underlying record.

 

I enjoy reading fantasy, because it is has no basis in reality. For me there is nothing to dispute because it is entirely up to the author to present his world as believable or not. My personal favorite is George R.R. Martin. I also found Brian Ruckley's recent "Winterbirth" to be quite promising for a first time novelist.

 

By the by, I am currently reading "World Without End" by Ken Follet. The sequel to the brilliant "Pillars of the Earth" is wonderfully written, but I am finding it to be just a little too much of the same basic idea, only with different characters. Despite Follet's skill at weaving a tale, I am struggling to get through it.

 

Also recently finished "Sulla the Fortunate" by G.P. Baker. I had never read it and wanted to as a comparison to "The Last Republican" by Keaveney. While less "dry" than some straight histories, I found it to be anecdotal and terribly dated at best.