What's the last book you read?

[paulus vevus]

What's the last book you read? What was it about? Did you like it?

Ive just finished reading The Fall Of Rome And The End Of Civilization by Bryan Ward Perkins-for the third time.

Before that- A God Strolling In The Cool Of The Evening by Mario De Carvalho.

The title of the first speaks for itself but Ward Perkins suggests it wasnt so catastrophic all over the empire, and provides

thought provoking alternative evidence to prove it. I'm not really qualified to pass judgement on this work but i would definetly recommend it - it really grabs me!

The second is set in Portugal or 'Iberia' and involves a Roman magistrate, the sect of the fish (ie christianity) and political intrigue to put it in a nutshell.This is definetly an alternative to the usual 'historical' novel - I was enthralled from beginning to end. Both books are worth a read.

[Ursus]

Just read a book on the Greco-Roman-Jewish backgrounds of early Christianity. I have duly submitted a review. Should polemics on either side of the debate use the review as an excuse to flame each other I will have the offending parties crucified.

[historyfanatic]

The Ottomans...

[cornelius_sulla]

Mary Renault's 'Fire from Heaven' and 'The Persian Boy' in an omnibus type book about the life and times of Alexander The Great. I started it being a tad sceptical but was soon riveted and foregoing sleep to get to the end. I am unsure as to how historically correct the books were, but as a read they were excellent.

[WotWotius]

The Roman Triumph by Mary Beard. I have only just started, but I have heard good things about the book.

 

Chronicle of the Pharaohs . Great pictures and illustrations, but I thought the political narrative was a bit dry.

 

This really is a useful book. Not particularly well written, but useful nevertheless.

[Faustus]

I have just finished reading Robert Harris

Edited March 12, 2008 by Faustus

[The Augusta]

Mary Renault's 'Fire from Heaven' and 'The Persian Boy' in an omnibus type book about the life and times of Alexander The Great. I started it being a tad sceptical but was soon riveted and foregoing sleep to get to the end. I am unsure as to how historically correct the books were, but as a read they were excellent.

 

Well, Sulla - Mary is well known for loving Alex warts and all, perhaps in a way that a modern reader would not countenance today, but if you take that on board, these are two of the greatest works of historical fiction ever produced. I will NEVER change my mind about that. I have lost count of the number of times I have read and re-read them, and I'm not even Alex's biggest fan - so that proves the power of the author. Her writing is simply superb. A favourite passage in FFH for me is the part where the child Alexander entertains those Persian delegates before Philip arrives on the scene. It is exquisitely written, and I wish I could quote the entire passage in full here, but that would be an indulgence.

 

There is an awful lot of historical fiction produced today - thankfully, it is enjoying something of a revival - but 80% of it is dross and will be forgotten within ten years. Renault will endure, as she has endured since the 50s - and that says it all really. Scholarship and historical research may change - truly great writing will always have its place, however.

 

Now read the third in the series 'Funeral Games' and enjoy the portraits she paints of Alex's idiot half brother Philip and his scheming but manipulated young wife Eurydike. You won't be disappointed.

[cornelius_sulla]

Yep, you were right Augusta. I'm reading Funeral Games now and it's bloody good. I was put onto Mary Renault by a bookworm friend and am actually embarassed that I was unaware of her work before this. I don't know a whole lot about Alexander, but her characterisations of him and his father and mother, Hyperion, Ptolemy etc, well, it's like you're in the room with them or shoulder to shoulder on the battle field.

I also enjoyed her matter of fact approach to Alexander's homosexuality - I have read other historical fiction about Alex that skirt that issue completely, I presume because of the social mores of the 20th/21st century, and I've resented the authors for it.

I'm a Renault fan now, for life.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I am currently reading "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen.

Ms. Austen, in spite of her obvious talent as a novelist, is not very good at characterization I'm afraid. Her protagonists lack that three-dimensional feel that Dickens conveys so masterfully. A good read nevertheless.

[Ursus]

I am currently reading "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen.

Ms. Austen, in spite of her obvious talent as a novelist, is not very good at characterization I'm afraid. Her protagonists lack that three-dimensional feel that Dickens conveys so masterfully. A good read nevertheless.

 

I tread to read it in college English Lit but couldn't get through it. I skimmed it just enough to complete the requisite essay.

 

I generally adore British lit, but not Jane Austin.

[Pompieus]

That's a magnificent book.

I agree Marcus Portius. What do you think of his interpretation of the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus?

Edited March 16, 2008 by Pompieus

[The Augusta]

I am currently reading "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen.

Ms. Austen, in spite of her obvious talent as a novelist, is not very good at characterization I'm afraid. Her protagonists lack that three-dimensional feel that Dickens conveys so masterfully. A good read nevertheless.

 

I think mouths - or at least fingers, in this case - need to be washed out here! Austen is no good at characterisation? Oh, please.... I suppose this is why characters like Lizzie Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy leap off the page today as they did almost 200 years ago. And as for Mr. Collins? No characterisation?

 

I'm sorry, but this post has left me completely speechless. As for the comparison with Dickens, his characters are more caricature than character - there is a subtle difference.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I am currently reading "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen.

Ms. Austen, in spite of her obvious talent as a novelist, is not very good at characterization I'm afraid. Her protagonists lack that three-dimensional feel that Dickens conveys so masterfully. A good read nevertheless.

 

I think mouths - or at least fingers, in this case - need to be washed out here! Austen is no good at characterisation? Oh, please.... I suppose this is why characters like Lizzie Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy leap off the page today as they did almost 200 years ago. And as for Mr. Collins? No characterisation?

 

I'm sorry, but this post has left me completely speechless. As for the comparison with Dickens, his characters are more caricature than character - there is a subtle difference.

Well, to each his own I guess . I somehow fail to see how Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett "leap off the page" and I find Mr. Collins as hard to visualize as ever. Many Dickens characters are, indeed, caricatures. Quilp, Pumblechook, Fagin, Sykes and Uriah Heep spring readily to mind. I was referring more to the likes of Esther Summerson (Bleak House), Mr. Murdstone (David Copperfield), Mr. Gradgrind (Hard Times), Miss Havisham (Great Expectations), and the unforgettable Sir John Chester (Barnaby Rudge). These struck me as people of flesh and blood even when I first read those novels, hardly as caricatures. At any rate I think "Pride and Prejudice" is an eminently readable and well written story, a true classic.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[M. Porcius Cato]

I have to agree with Augusta.

 

Dickens' characters were almost uniformly unidimensional caricatures, and the result is a comic-book set of plots where everyone who opposes the protagonist does so out of malice and greed, whereas everyone who supports the protagonist does so out of benevolence and charity. Ack!

 

Now compare that to Jane Austen's characters, who--like real people, not like cartoon characters--conflict with the protagonist out of a mistaken sense of loyalty, honor, and duty, as well as out of petty desires, personal insecurity, and just childish aspirations. The result is that Austen's richly motivated characters yield enjoyable plots, sub-plots, and sub-sub-plots, with layers of conflicts (large and small) on every level.

 

I can't say that Austen falls on my list of favorite authors (I'm a sucker for French Romantics like Hugo, Rostand, and Dumas), but in her keen eye for human nature, Jane Austen came closer to Shakespeare than any other British writer. In my opinion, comparing Jane Austen to Dickens is like comparing Mozart to "Twinkle twinkle little star."

[Julius Ratus]

i haven't read any good ancient history books lately. I just finnished Sharpe's Company, part of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series. They are all excellent books, and are well researched, with Cornwell visiting many if the places he describes in the books. When the parts are not historically accurate he mentions so in the back of the book, and tells what really happened.