Ode To Colleen Mccullough

[Iulius]

Colleen McCullough's books The First Man in Rome, The Grass Crown, Fortunes Favorite, The Women of Caesar, Caesar, and the October Horse are some of the most intriging and detailed roman books i have found. She has imensly developed charaters and a deep knowledge of the roman as a people. I suggest everyone at least read first man in rome.(sorry for spelling)

 

 

 

Ave,

Iulius

[Primus Pilus]

Reaction to her work is mixed here. We talked about it a bit in one of these threads. I personally am I great fan at least of the first couple of books. They lost a bit of their lustre as they went on, but I read them all eagerly. She did a fantastic job of sticking to known historical facts, and explained any dissention in the form of footnotes as she went.

 

The main reason for detraction for those who dislike her is that if they wanted to read history, they would read the actual sources, instead of what they perceived to be her dry style of fiction. Still though, the series is highly regarded by fiction fans and scholars alike.

[Ursus]

Yeah, I tried reading it. Just couldn't get into it. The writing style threw me off. A lot of other people seem to like it, though. *shrugs*

 

To anyone who wants to read about the fall of the Republic, I suggest Rubicon by Tom Holland. It's by a historical scholar, but his writing style almost enlivens it to the level of a novel. It's the flip side of McCullough, who is novelist trying to write like a historian.

 

Rubicon covers the social wars to the death of Augustus. Sometimes it goes into greater detail than I would have liked, but on the whole it is a quick and very entertaining (not to mention informative) read.

[paolo]

Ursus,

 

ah you think like me. I wrote down that "Rubicon" recommendation too.

[Crysnia]

I absolutely loved Caesar's Women. I plan on reading the others also, as soon as I get the chance.

[Primus Pilus]

Finally, another McCullough fan, lol.

[simplus]

I'd have to support those people who think the Masters of Rome series is good. Personally, I found them a great read! In fact, they're the reason I became interested in Roman history. I'd never read anything about Rome before, found The Grass Crown in a second-hand bookshop, bought it, and was instantly hooked. I *HAD* to read more!

 

I agree with primuspilus' comment, though, that the later books aren't as good as the earlier ones. I actually think they became a little more soap-opera-y. But, still, she did a good job. And, as I've started reading more classical sources, as well as "official histories", I realise that she did a good job "bringing history to life".

 

However, she does seem to bend over backwards to demonstrate that Caesar was merely a good person (who happened to be a genius!) who was wronged by the Senate and had to do what he did to clear his name, while everything else I've read tries to show him as someone who wanted to be a tyrant from day one.

 

Hmmm???

[Primus Pilus]

I think Caesar grew up with a desire to achieve greatness and the ultimate Roman 'dignitas' but I don't think he was a tyrant from birth. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Still McCullough does treat him with a bit of hero worship, but thats offset by the accuracy and the proper context in which she includes known historical events.

[phil25]

I looked for this thread, as I am currently re-reading the series after a lapse of some years. (I bought the hardback of the first volume when it was initially published and devoured it and subsequent ones as they came out - until now I have not read them as a series.) I was impressed by McCullough's evident research, and her devotion to getting into the detail - it is a different sort of historical novel, aimed at filling a gap between the history book and fiction, by allowing "serious" speculation about those aspects that the academic approach will not permit. Filling gaps and providing personalities for names. It's a brave and challenging task and I'd certainly give McCullough six or seven out of ten, and more for effort and endurance!!

 

By bringing characters of whom little is known back to life and giving them personalities (although these have to be created from whole cloth in many cases) the author does breathe some life into what can be quite dull academic material. I'll freely admit that there were aspects of the marius/Sulla contest, Carbo and Saturninus - in the early books - that I had never really understood before, that I began to get a grip on after reading these books.

 

But she does either like or dislike personalities - thus Cicero largely does not get a good press from her; neither does Clodius, and she obviously HATES Cato!!

 

I actually came back to these books (now in a slightly larger format p/back in the UK which makes for easier handling and reading) with even greater admiration than I had first time round. They are not written in the most stimulating prose and some of her characters don't work (it's not that they are cardboard, they simply don't spring to life for me). But given the size of her cast that should not be surprising I think.

 

Two examples of failings in this regard seem to flow from McCullough's tendency to hero-worship certain figures (as mentioned above). I did not find the development of the noble marius of the first book into the nasty tyrant credible; it is not enough, I think, to just give him a stroke. I simply don't think her heart was in the older version of the man.

 

The reverse is rather true of Caesar - he is too perfect, never makes a mistake, and is whitewashed of all "sins" (so his relationship with the king of Bithynia is all malicious gossip). He never makes mistakes - other's do but Caesar doesn't. While the portrait is impressive, it might have been more interesting had he had a few black-marks or failings.

 

But these are quibbles. McCullough provides what the TV series "Rome" did with greater fidelity to historic fact and academic precision. Not that McCullough is not capable of re-arranging or glossing over events when it suits her. But for those who found "Rome" too quick-paced, and as missing out the detail of the politics and political machinations - then this series provides the remedy.

 

It is really with that question in mind that I have posted here.

 

How do others feel that "Rome" the TV series and (perhaps the relevant volumes of) the "First Men in Rome" series compare and contrast.

 

Personally, I like both - but I have written enough for now,

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

I have heard rumour she is currently writing another for the series - based in large part on Augustus

[M. Porcius Cato]

I generally agree with Phil's assessment of the Masters of Rome series.

 

McCullough clearly did a great deal of homework on Roman social life, and she did a good job of bringing Rome back to us. The value of this kind of work can be compared to how we understand flight: it's one thing to read an aeronautic manual or learn the laws of aerodynamics, but actually seeing an airplane fly makes it all simultaneously memorable and wonderful.

 

Phil is also right that the effectiveness of her story is undercut by her adoration of Caesar and her hatred for his opponents. I'm just glad Phil said it first.

[Germanicus]

Phil is also right that the effectiveness of her story is undercut by her adoration of Caesar and her hatred for his opponents

 

It only lacks effectiveness for you because it differs from your own view. Kind of an obvious observation I suppose....

[M. Porcius Cato]

Phil is also right that the effectiveness of her story is undercut by her adoration of Caesar and her hatred for his opponents

It only lacks effectiveness for you because it differs from your own view. Kind of an obvious observation I suppose....

Not really--I finally got around to starting Addison's Cato, and I find its one-sidedness equally annoying. Maybe it will get better...

[Tobias]

I've read the Colleen McCullough Masters of Rome series, and i thoroughly enjoyed the entire series. It's historical accuracy and it's literary licence is very well combined i believe, and she especially portrays Caesar in an interesting light, and as was mentioned above, she has no love whatsoever for the Boni, which, to tell the truth, made the later books appeal even more

[phil25]

My problem with McCullough's portrayal of Caesar has nothing to do with my personal views on him or others, but on the reading of her text:

 

- every criticism of him (whether his relationship with the King of Bythinia or his severing of hands at Uxellodorum is excused, portrayed in a good light, or made the groundless "smears" of his opponents. Even his temper is frightening but controlled. Events NEVER take him by surprise. he handles women, troops, daughters, wives, brilliantly...... I could go on.

 

A bit of a "dark side" might actually have made McCullough's Caesar more interesting - a youthful gay fling that would prove a potential weakness; his epilepsy, his baldness, being wrong-footed now and again.

 

But this character is almost "Superman" he has no flaws, no weaknesses... and that makes him slightly unbelievable, though not unsympathetic.

 

It is clear in the context of the whole series that from the start the six books are about Caesar (almost McCullough's Harry Potter!!) even before he is born. Marius is initially seen in his dealings with the Julii, and Sulla given a Julia as a wife. Caesar is evidently the author's hero - and I would argue that it is HER views of him (perfervid adoration almost) that are a flaw in an otherwise laudable, useful and reliable series.

 

Phil