New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Recommend, or otherwise, books on Alexander (fiction or non-fiction). Promote your novel here!

Moderator: pothos moderators

system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by system1988 »

"...Let s see let s see... What would make my son understand my absolute authority as a King ? Whatever means i have used so far has failed ! EUREKA ! I will put my left hand between his thighs that will keep rising ...He will understand the message won t he ? Or maybe not ?( because he is also a bit of an idiot regarding matters of sexual nature ) Or do i need to go further ? After all why not ? He is a beautiful gay ! "



Please .
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by sikander »

Greetings,

Interesting. It's obvious that you read the book in an entirely different way, seeing a worse scenario than I did. And nothing was said about being "gay"... the word isn't even in the book, because 1) the word wasn't in the culture (although sexual behaviors between men and boys, men and men were), and the modern political/religious divide wasn't there, 2) that is not the focus of the story and 3) it's obvious that Philip had no intention to actually sexually assault Alexander- it was a ploy. Nor was the theme behind the attack on Alexander about sex- it was about intimidation, using a terrible means to create the perception of threat to someone else and so on. Worse has been done by fathers in history when it comes to thrones.
But how a person reads, and what they read into a story- that's what makes a horse race.
Be that as it may, I plan to read the rest of the trilogy, because I feel the author makes the times and the characters come alive in all the ugliness and beauty of human nature.

Regards,
Sikander
Sweetmemory41
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:07 pm

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by Sweetmemory41 »

I read that scene based on my understanding of the different bases of power (i.e., legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and information).

I thought that Philip was using coercive power at its worst - demeaning, degrading, immoral, shocking - with the intention to subjugate, intimidate, and break Alexander. It was meant as the ultimate threat to break Alexander’s spirit, self-efficacy, and will. Philip was trying to push Alexander (to the max) to do something stupid so that he could remove him (Alexander) as a perceived threat.

Throughout the book, you see Philip exercising authority, which is legitimate power. (As the king, he had legitimate power in abundance.) Alexander never questioned it. It was when Philip turned coercive, Alexander started to feel fear (“the dark lord” episodes), mostly for Hephaestion. I thought that the “touching scene” was all about the demonstration of brute coercive power, intended to keep Alexander afraid for himself and Hephaestion, and the subsequent course of events proved it. (So challenging to write without giving away the storyline.)

In corporate anti-sexual harassment training in the U.S., one of the first premises is that sexual harassment is more about power than about sex. I processed that scene with that understanding and thought that while the author made Philip II too dark, it was done for a purpose. Like Sikander, I also thought that, it many ways, this book was a treatise in power, in all its forms. (It is also about friendship and the origin of the soul relationship between A and H.)

Anyway, we all process information based on our knowledge, backgrounds, experiences, and mental filters. It is what makes opinions about books/art fascinating.
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Abou the historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by system1988 »

Reply to Sicander
Greetings,

Regarding remark no 1 : When i mention the word 'gay' , i mean 'man' not 'gay man ' I am sorry if you took it that way. I am aware of the current bibliography on the subject ( very expencive hobby !) so i sincerely hope your teaching is aimed at younger readers. no 2: No it is not the focus of the story ,but it leaves a very bad impression on the narration .I think it irrevocably characterizes a gigantic personality like that of Philip , whose legacy incidentally, according to several historians ,architects and archaeologists overshadows that of his son .no 3 :I dont think that the author convinces the readers that the purpose of King Philip was intimidation -but even so it reduces the King to the level of an animal don t you think ?

It goes without saying that you will read the entire trilogy since you like it.Why not ?
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: Abou the historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by sikander »

Greetings ,

"Regarding remark no 1 : When i mention the word 'gay' , i mean 'man' not 'gay man ' I am sorry if you took it that way. I am aware of the current bibliography on the subject ( very expencive hobby !) so i sincerely hope your teaching is aimed at younger readers. "

Hmm, my comment was referencing your use of the word, <shrug>

"no 2: No it is not the focus of the story ,but it leaves a very bad impression on the narration .I think it irrevocably characterizes a gigantic personality like that of Philip , whose legacy incidentally, according to several historians ,architects and archaeologists overshadows that of his son"

I don't think it does. I, too, am aware of the views of certain historians, etc- and I have never denied Philip's legacy as a King in context of his times.

".no 3 :I dont think that the author convinces the readers that the purpose of King Philip was intimidation -but even so it reduces the King to the level of an animal don t you think ? "

I feel the intimidation factor -and the NON-completion of a thing- was plain. It was a deliberate ploy to force a reaction. No, I don't think it reduces Philip to an 'animal" (outside of the fact we are all animals). That kind of force and show of power is not rare in the human species, whether in families, communities or nations- tragic, but all too real. It is interesting how people can be so distressed over such a scene while being somewhat "accustomed" to scenes just as appalling- such as war, battle scenes, even individual murders, etc. And people seem seldom to question the intermarriage of uncles and nieces- perhaps it seems "less worrying".... but one wonders what the niece might have thought.

Regards,
Sikander

Regards,
Sikander
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by Alexias »

Spoilers

I am struggling with this book. I am only up to page 91, and struggling to want to pick it up again.

First off, in the opening chapter we spend a lot of time investing in Hephaestion's great-grandmother's fears and his removal by his uncle (nothing about his mother's fears/grief). Then we switch to an infantile Alexander complaining that Hephaestion won't play with him. It turns out that Hephaestion's great-grandmother is dead and Hephaestion wants to go to her funeral. Was she murdered? We are shown nothing of Hephaestion's grief, his struggles to adjust to a new life with his uncle, and his great-grandmother's death is simply an excuse for Alexander to try to arrange an escape from the castle (in a rubbish cart) so they can go to her grave. No idea if they ever got there or not as we are not shown, and we are shown nothing more about this or Hephaestion's reactions. What was the point in starting with the tension of Hephaestion's great-grandmother if you are not going to follow up on it?

Hephaestion then disappears as we embark on a series of unconnected vignettes of Alexander acquiring new 'friends'. What was the point in starting with Hephaestion if we don't get to see Alexander through his eyes? We are constantly being told that Alexander is different and special, precocious, but we are not shown this, only told. He is constantly trying to escape, but there is no sense of real constraint on him, and the imaginary threats we are told of feel far more medieval than Homeric (I deliberately used 'castle' above). The lack of freedom Alexander has, and the constant asking for permission to take him anywhere, just doesn't feel right.

Then we move on to the episode where Philip, baulked of having sex with Olympias, goes to rape his seven year old son and is thwarted by Hephaestion waking up. Bizarre and unconvincing. If Philip wanted a child, he would have taken a slave, not his own son. There is no hint in the histories that he was that depraved, or a peodophile. And the episode has no consequences. We are not shown Philip avoiding his son, or experiencing regret or anything. And the boys don't know it was him, so why put the episode in?

Olympias then murders a slave boy she saw Alexander talking to and forces Alexander to eat some of his heart. This sort of episode would have seriously unhinged Alexander, but we are shown him fawning all over his mother in fear that she will stop loving him. Surely he would recoil from her in revulsion and fear? I am not saying Olympias wasn't capable of something like this, but surely she wouldn't risk damaging her son like this?

And then again, the episode has no consequences. The next chapter jumps two years in the future with a boring discussion on Amphipolis. What was the point in racking up all that tension if you aren't going to use it? This is the point at which I have got stuck.

If the author is out there, I would love to know what his thoughts are. The history and fitting the jigsaw pieces of Alexander's character seem to take precedence over painting a convincing and engaging picture. We haven't yet seen this Alexander from the inside.
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by sikander »

Greetings,

This was an interesting review.

"First off, in the opening chapter we spend a lot of time investing in Hephaestion's great-grandmother's fears and his removal by his uncle (nothing about his mother's fears/grief). Then we switch to an infantile Alexander complaining that Hephaestion won't play with him. It turns out that Hephaestion's great-grandmother is dead and Hephaestion wants to go to her funeral. Was she murdered? "

I think the author covers the important points well, introducing historical details and persons that are not central to the story and briefly, but not dragging the scenes out. There are many characters in the tale and not all of them are important. The older woman's POV was the one that mattered, not Hephaestion's mother. And the great-grandmother's death by heart attack/old age is implied in the line "for in her chest a pain was growing and she knew she would not live to see the boy again." Sometimes, a thing does not have to be stated to be understood.

"We are shown nothing of Hephaestion's grief, his struggles to adjust to a new life with his uncle, and his great-grandmother's death is simply an excuse for Alexander to try to arrange an escape from the castle (in a rubbish cart) so they can go to her grave. No idea if they ever got there or not as we are not shown, and we are shown nothing more about this or Hephaestion's reactions. What was the point in starting with the tension of Hephaestion's great-grandmother if you are not going to follow up on it?"

IMO, the author made an artistic choice NOT to dwell on Hephaestion's grief- children are often more resilient than we think, they don't usually dwell on grief like adults do- and while the author DOES address Hephaestion's unhappiness in the scene at the pool, his wanting to go back home, his unhappiness at his uncle's house, Philip mentioning his crying, etc, it is not the story the author wanted to tell.

"Hephaestion then disappears as we embark on a series of unconnected vignettes of Alexander acquiring new 'friends'. What was the point in starting with Hephaestion if we don't get to see Alexander through his eyes? We are constantly being told that Alexander is different and special, precocious, but we are not shown this, only told. He is constantly trying to escape, but there is no sense of real constraint on him, and the imaginary threats we are told of feel far more medieval than Homeric (I deliberately used 'castle' above). The lack of freedom Alexander has, and the constant asking for permission to take him anywhere, just doesn't feel right."

The point of the bits on acquiring friends is obviously to introduce the major characters in the story to come. Hephaestion is still seen in several scenes in the chapters, as he is still there, and interacts with Alexander, and the fears are not imaginary but are real- the threat from other people is built up through the conversations of children, interactions with them- children who are ALSO the children of potential rivals to the throne. I thought that was handled well without making it a tale of and for children. The underlying current of reality in their world is being built by the author without making it a dramatic focus.

"Then we move on to the episode where Philip, baulked of having sex with Olympias, goes to rape his seven year old son and is thwarted by Hephaestion waking up. Bizarre and unconvincing. If Philip wanted a child, he would have taken a slave, not his own son. There is no hint in the histories that he was that depraved, or a peodophile. And the episode has no consequences. We are not shown Philip avoiding his son, or experiencing regret or anything. And the boys don't know it was him, so why put the episode in?"

Having worked with hundreds of children in bad situations, this was a believable plot for me. Drunk people are capable of things they would never do otherwise, and they give no thought at the time to consequences. And often, people who have done a wrong thing deny their guilt or blame by transferring that onto the object of their guilt. It's not depravity or pedophilia- it's drunkenness, coupled with anger and opportunity. Alexander is shown to be affected in the scene with his mother. The next chapter takes us to a year later; there is no need to drag us through a few months of dealing with that incident, since 1) nothing happened and 2) had Philip come awake sober and realized what he'd done, he would not have addressed it for the reasons above. And history does not show him as a man who apologized for his actions.

"Olympias then murders a slave boy she saw Alexander talking to and forces Alexander to eat some of his heart. This sort of episode would have seriously unhinged Alexander, but we are shown him fawning all over his mother in fear that she will stop loving him. Surely he would recoil from her in revulsion and fear? I am not saying Olympias wasn't capable of something like this, but surely she wouldn't risk damaging her son like this?"

I understand that reaction. I read it as a device to introduce the mysticism of the times, the reality of the gods and goddesses (in reality, trauma plays with people's minds) and we are also told that it might not have been what Alexander thought it was- and it also plays on the idea that kings cannot afford friends from a certain level of society, repeating the question surrounding Kleon from an earlier chapter.

"And then again, the episode has no consequences. The next chapter jumps two years in the future with a boring discussion on Amphipolis. What was the point in racking up all that tension if you aren't going to use it? This is the point at which I have got stuck."

I think this book is written in a style similar to Dumas- with early episodes being drawn into play later, fleshed out. Because I am familiar with the style, I was comfortable with it.

"If the author is out there, I would love to know what his thoughts are. The history and fitting the jigsaw pieces of Alexander's character seem to take precedence over painting a convincing and engaging picture. We haven't yet seen this Alexander from the inside."

I asked the author about joining Pothos. I wonder if the author DID finally join, if they would feel inclined to "defend" the book, anymore than any other author would! Each person reads differently and wants a different story, each reader brings his or her own biases into the book they read. However, the author has provided a link to their website in the book, so perhaps those with questions could go there and ask? It doesn't hurt to try.

Ah well, that's what makes a horse race, as I've said. I have read fictional accounts that spent pages upon pages on battle scenes, or with Alexander being a megalomaniac or a one-dimensional character, or written like a modern boy/man in a world designed after the modern world with no regard to the age or culture he lived in; I liked this one because the many facets of the human condition have been explored and each character is given individual personalities that are slowly built upon and developed.

Regards,
Sikander
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by Alexias »

Thanks for your reply on this. I am aware of why the author made the choices he did - for example, the racy opening scene is designed as a hook to pull the reader in, to show him that this is a dangerous world and that the novel is not one for children. However, for me the narrative failed to deliver on the hook and the expectations raised in this chapter. An author must fulfil any expectations they raise or they will fail to engage the reader.

I am not saying that this is a bad novel, it is well written but I feel that the overall narrative could do with tightening and the direction made clearer. I will finish it as I don't like giving up on books, but I cannot yet say that I am engaged with it. Perhaps I will contact the author once I finally finish it if I have any questions that I cannot answer.

I am not sure if you edited your post about the author trying to join pothos and getting a message about not be able to join. There was a forum on Alexander that gives the response you mentioned, but it has been closed for about 12 years. There are no restrictions on joining pothos - we get plenty of joiners, most of them spammers. The only restriction is that a new member's post are moderated to protect the site from spam.
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by sikander »

Greetings Alexias,

"Thanks for your reply on this. I am aware of why the author made the choices he did - for example, the racy opening scene is designed as a hook to pull the reader in, to show him that this is a dangerous world and that the novel is not one for children. However, for me the narrative failed to deliver on the hook and the expectations raised in this chapter. An author must fulfil any expectations they raise or they will fail to engage the reader."

I suppose I take the view that NO author can write for everyone and expectations differ. Racy opening scene? Not sure I would consider it racy. However, I could see what the author was doing with the first chapter, in keeping the boy unnamed (I assumed he would come into the story later).

"I am not saying that this is a bad novel, it is well written but I feel that the overall narrative could do with tightening and the direction made clearer. I will finish it as I don't like giving up on books, but I cannot yet say that I am engaged with it. Perhaps I will contact the author once I finally finish it if I have any questions that I cannot answer."

I appreciated the quality of the writing.

"I am not sure if you edited your post about the author trying to join pothos and getting a message about not be able to join. There was a forum on Alexander that gives the response you mentioned, but it has been closed for about 12 years. "

I did, since I felt I may have been misquoting- it's been a while, as I said. However, I sent you a private message about the site acting up when *I* tried to post- it kept saying I was not logged in. Altho considering the age of my computer and system being used, the problem could well be on my end.

" There are no restrictions on joining pothos - we get plenty of joiners, most of them spammers. The only restriction is that a new member's post are moderated to protect the site from spam."

I have always understood that, which is why it was puzzling, and then I ran into a posting problem, so thought "If it happens to me, it may well have happened before to someone else"... ah, technology!

As a moderator, I understood the spammer issue. But so far, you've done a good job of keeping on it! By the time I check the site, most of it has been handled.

Regards,
Sikander
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by sikander »

Greetings,
Just wanted to say Vol 2 of Argent Wood's trilogy just came out: "Aniketos"... and I am enjoying it as much as the first book.
It isn't for everyone, and the Alexander is not everybody's Alexander, but I am finding it absolutely feasible in terms of the characters and action; further, it is a well-written book.

Regards, Sikander
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by Alexias »

Glad you're enjoying it, though I doubt I will bother. The first book did not engage me (and I think this was partly because the author's inexperience of novel writing clearly showed), and I was left with no clear picture of Alexander's character to draw me back. *SpoIler* Plus, the rape of Hephaestion and Alexander's subsequent overprotection of him - keeping him away from combat and command - is, I'm afraid, pure fanfiction. There are plenty of valid historical reasons why Hephaestion wasn't given major battlefield commands and was late to independent commands. He may have just not been ruthless enough.
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by sikander »

Greetings Alexias,

Thanks- I think <laughing>

"Glad you're enjoying it, though I doubt I will bother. The first book did not engage me (and I think this was partly because the author's inexperience of novel writing clearly showed), and I was left with no clear picture of Alexander's character to draw me back. "

"One man's meat is another man's poison."

Interesting. The author actually uses a writing devices in classical stories. I would agree it is not written as a 'modern' novel; I felt a reader of today would have some challenges with it as it isn't cut-dried... for myself, I find most modern fiction tailored to less a specific level and not engaging enough. As one editor said to a sci-fi writer friend, "you have to keep it simple, short sentences and not over 100,000 words because the average reader can't digest that much." Sadly, she changed HER book to suit the modern style and I found it a much weaker- and predictable- book.

*SpoIler* Plus, the rape of Hephaestion and Alexander's subsequent overprotection of him - keeping him away from combat and command - is, I'm afraid, pure fanfiction. There are plenty of valid historical reasons why Hephaestion wasn't given major battlefield commands and was late to independent commands. He may have just not been ruthless enough."

We'll have to agree to disagree here. It's not 'fanfiction' to me, but all quite plausible in the context of the story and the exploration of the times.
It is just as much "anti-fan fiction" to make Hephaistion "not ruthless enough", "fundamentally stupid", "weak", "malicious" etc as historians have imagined in their works, fiction and non, in any exploration looking for reasons for behaviors that followed their childhood. I was comfortable with the writer's posed possibilities, especially in view of the type of court it was, how control can work in powerful families and so on, and, indeed, all through the stories of the ancient world- and modern, for that matter.

Also, in this story, there was a reason beyond your interpretation as to why Alexander kept Hephaistion away from battle which had to do with the prophecy- it made sense, from a practical pov-

I will continue to enjoy the story. Would be interested to hear which fictional account you rate as worth reading. I seldom read fiction, but in the past two years I have been given several fictional books on the times and so far, Wood's has been the one I found most compelling and not tinted with modern perspectives. Altho for a fantasy, 'Tramping in the Land of Woe' held my interest to the end.

I am getting ready to read Lion of Macedon by Simms- have you done so?

Regards,
Sikander



.
[/quote]
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by Alexias »

Interesting. The author actually uses a writing devices in classical stories. I would agree it is not written as a 'modern' novel; I felt a reader of today would have some challenges with it as it isn't cut-dried... for myself, I find most modern fiction tailored to less a specific level and not engaging enough. As one editor said to a sci-fi writer friend, "you have to keep it simple, short sentences and not over 100,000 words because the average reader can't digest that much." Sadly, she changed HER book to suit the modern style and I found it a much weaker- and predictable- book.
I am not sure what writing devices you are referring to as I can't remember enough of the novel, but I am referring to the structure, not the style, which I don't have an issue with. I've already (in a previous post) mentioned the misleading technique of opening with a character who never appears (and is barely mentioned once) subsequently. You can get away with this sort of opening in a movie if the character is clearly cannon-fodder and is blown away on screen, but not in a novel where the reader is being invited to identify with the character. It leads the reader down a blind alley, as it is never really made clear that this is Hephaestion's grandmother as the child doesn't appear. I've also already mentioned the scene where Philip considers raping his son, and we then get a total break in the narrative to a different time, subject and place. What we should be seeing is the effect the incident had on the two young boys, how Philip subsequently behaved around his son. Cause and effect is one of the ways you show the development of a character, but if there is no effect then all you have is a series of nicely written vignettes that have no structure, no linking themes or motifs that are developed and expanded.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. It's not 'fanfiction' to me, but all quite plausible in the context of the story and the exploration of the times.
It is just as much "anti-fan fiction" to make Hephaistion "not ruthless enough", "fundamentally stupid", "weak", "malicious" etc as historians have imagined in their works, fiction and non, in any exploration looking for reasons for behaviors that followed their childhood. I was comfortable with the writer's posed possibilities, especially in view of the type of court it was, how control can work in powerful families and so on, and, indeed, all through the stories of the ancient world- and modern, for that matter.

Also, in this story, there was a reason beyond your interpretation as to why Alexander kept Hephaistion away from battle which had to do with the prophecy- it made sense, from a practical pov-
It is a trope in fanfiction to paint Hephaestion as a victim, to be raped, beaten, feminized and made vulnerable. This is partly Jared Leto's fault, and it is used to make Hephaestion different from his contemporaries. In the novel we don't know much about the rapists, I don't think they appear before or after. We don't know if they are punished, I don't think we know if Alexander and Hephaestion know that Philip is involved. My memory may be failing me about this as the book had already lost me by this point, but all I seem to recall is passive acceptance. Given Pausanias's reaction, murderous fury and vengeance would seem a more probable Macedonian reaction.

Sorry, I don't remember anything about a prophecy.

I have read so many stories about Alexander, many dull chronicles of his life, but most of it fanfiction, some of which is dreadful, some of it is very good, so that I am afraid this novel offered nothing new. The only novel I can recommend, apart from Renault, is Lord of the Two Lands by Judith Tarr, but that isn't even principally about Alexander. Nor is 'A conspiracy of Women'. Yes, 'Trampling in the Land of Woe' was an excellent read, but not really about the historical Alexander and Hephaestion. I haven't read Sigrid Simms yet as I was put off by the length and the price (plus postage). Let us know what you make of it!
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by sikander »

Greetings,

" I've already (in a previous post) mentioned the misleading technique of opening with a character who never appears (and is barely mentioned once) subsequently. You can get away with this sort of opening in a movie if the character is clearly cannon-fodder and is blown away on screen, but not in a novel where the reader is being invited to identify with the character. It leads the reader down a blind alley, as it is never really made clear that this is Hephaestion's grandmother as the child doesn't appear. .."

I am not certain what character you are referring to- Hephaistion is taken from his grandmothers house to the court; the man who took him does appear again and then his absence is constructed clearly; the grandmother obviously is dying so her appearance in unnecessary; the boy (Hephaistion) appears and is taken away and comes into the story soon.. so which character are you referring to?

"I've also already mentioned the scene where Philip considers raping his son, and we then get a total break in the narrative to a different time, subject and place. What we should be seeing is the effect the incident had on the two young boys, how Philip subsequently behaved around his son. Cause and effect is one of the ways you show the development of a character, but if there is no effect then all you have is a series of nicely written vignettes that have no structure, no linking themes or motifs that are developed and expanded."

I saw it differently- all the bits that followed the Philip scene were directed at showing the effect through Alexander's actions and emotions- and the subtle changes in him-. There were no histrionics, no big dramas, the changes were subtle but clear to me...even when he finally returned to Philip's palace, there were obvious signs of the effects. Also, they were not boys by then- they were young men in a very different culture from most modern ones.

"It is a trope in fanfiction to paint Hephaestion as a victim, to be raped, beaten, feminized and made vulnerable. This is partly Jared Leto's fault, and it is used to make Hephaestion different from his contemporaries. "

I don't see rape as "feminizing"; it IS an attempt on the part of the rapist to use power and rape as control, dominance, etc, but it is not an attempt to feminize the victim. I felt it was something that set him apart from the others, and made him less understood, perhaps, but he wasn't vulnerable to others...later, hated, yes, because he was seen as a block to access to Alexander, etc... I probably read it differently than you

"In the novel we don't know much about the rapists, I don't think they appear before or after. We don't know if they are punished, I don't think we know if Alexander and Hephaestion know that Philip is involved. My memory may be failing me about this as the book had already lost me by this point, but all I seem to recall is passive acceptance. Given Pausanias's reaction, murderous fury and vengeance would seem a more probable Macedonian reaction."

It's interesting you didn't catch the part when Hephaistion and friends DO go out and kill the men who raped him- there was certainly not passive acceptance. There was DELAY, because wounds have to heal and the mind, too, has to deal with aftereffects- I've seen this happen in real life with people, so it made perfect sense to me in the story. For me, WHO they were was not a critical issue- not any character plays a major part, and henchmen are seldom critical to the story, except that they DO die as a device to show revenge is taken and allowed as a cultural construct, even if not satisfied...

"Sorry, I don't remember anything about a prophecy."

The reason for protecting Hephaistion (against his will, I add) and assigning him to less risky work was due to the prophecy of his and Alexander's deaths being tied to each other. That is actually brought into play several times in the book. In a way, I felt it was somewhat selfish of Alexander, because it carried a cost for Hephaistion- but again, it worked with the story.

"I have read so many stories about Alexander, many dull chronicles of his life, but most of it fanfiction, some of which is dreadful, some of it is very good, so that I am afraid this novel offered nothing new. The only novel I can recommend, apart from Renault, is Lord of the Two Lands by Judith Tarr, but that isn't even principally about Alexander. Nor is 'A conspiracy of Women'. Yes, 'Trampling in the Land of Woe' was an excellent read, but not really about the historical Alexander and Hephaestion. I haven't read Sigrid Simms yet as I was put off by the length and the price (plus postage). Let us know what you make of it!"

I read fanfiction (not about Alexander) in the 1970s as part of an event I was sponsoring; it must have been quite different from what you have read... I don't see the comparison, but it's probably not important, since we read the book differently anyway.

Tarr's book was given to me and I read it but I can't remember much about it. But then, I'm not that fond of 'romance novels' in general, don't read them, and the female "convincing" Alexander etc was weak.. the book was a plod for me. 'Tramping', I didn't look for historical details at all, as it was a fantasy. I'll let you know about the Simms book. It's going to take a while.

Thanks for your thoughts. The thing our perspectives have shown is that there is a reader for every book and a book for every reader!

Regards,
Sikander

I haven't read much fiction for enjoyment, as I said. My area is socio-political and cultural non-fiction, with natural science (biology/zoology? taking a close second. But I have enjoyed Argent's work and can see the direction she is going- I don't think Book 3 will be an easy read, but it will be interesting for me to see where she takes each character, if Book 2 is any indication.
Sweetmemory41
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:07 pm

Re: New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

Post by Sweetmemory41 »

Greetings Sikander:

I also enjoyed reading ‘Aniketos.’ I thought it was an easier read than the first book, which was made difficult by an unusually harsh portrayal of both Philip and Olympias. If the first volume was a treatise on power, the second one was on change and immutability. In a world of change following Alexander’s ascension to the throne, Hephaestion and Alexander’s steadfast devotion and friendship was an immutable factor that governed their life. Like you, I also think that the final volume will be a difficult read.

I really enjoyed Sigrid Simms’ Lion of Macedon. I thought she did a great job in recreating a fictionalized world of Alexander. Beware of the shades of Renault in it though…

Both Wood and Simms are able to put forward a believable story regarding the connection that Alexander and Hephaestion had. I am usually a bit wary about narratives that feature a first person point of view due to the unreliable narrator problem. Happy to note that both Wood and Simms avoided this issue; their Hephaestion is a reliable and credible narrator. It is fascinating to see Alexander through his eyes. Both of them remain true to the ancient biographers of Alexander with respect to the major events and people in Alexander’s life. More importantly, both are able to portray a realistic sense of the power distance between Alexander and Hephaestion. They are able to capture the man who elicited such a monumental display of grief and devotion from Alexander.

Regards,

Memory
Post Reply