Emperor at the Gates of Rome...

[fajrdrako]

This morning I finished reading the novel Emperor: The Gates of Rome by Conn Iggulden.

This was recommended to me by Jack Whyte as a good historical novel in a world of mediocre historical novels. Flush from my enjoyment of the Steven Saylor novels, I picked this up because it was about Rome, and discovered that the hero was a boy named Gaius, son of Julius (and his friend Marcus). I was delighted - I'd guessed it was about one of the later Emperors, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius or something. It turns out to be my Julius Caesar. It didn't have to say so.

But though I found it more readable than Colleen McCullough, I didn't enjoy it much more. It was heavy on violence, light on fisticuffs. For the first section, young Gaius and Marcus get beaten up by a neighbour. Then they get a gladiator to teach them to fight, and he beats them up Then the rebelling slaves attack the estate and they fight. Then Gaius goes to Rome and his uncle makes him prove himself in a knife fight. And so on. Much violence. Minimal sex. Almost no women in the story, though we go get a few entertaining bits with female points of view - his aunt, and a slave who is Gaius' first love, his first wife. This young Caesar isn't bisexual, not by any stretch to the imagination. No, this is a very het viewpoint. Even his deep friendship with Marcus is perfectly straight.

It's when he marries that we get his full name for the first time - Gaius Julius Caesar - nice to have it confirmed, but it wasn't as if I was in any doubt. That left me to guess about Marcus. My guess was that Marcus' name would turn out to be Antonius.

But no, it's Brutus.

Huh? If this is the Brutus who killed Caesar in the end, then shouldn't he be a generation younger? In this version, I guess not.



In the notes at the end, Iggulden explains some bits of the history he took liberties with - for instance, he makes Marius Caesar's mother's brother, while, he said, in fact Marius was an uncle on his father's side. So why make the change? I couldn't think of a reason for it.

I didn't feel I was getting a full picture of Rome or its society. With Saylor, I felt as if I was seeing the place with my own eyes. With Iggulden, it was just glimpses. And some I didn't understand: for instance, Marius has a Triumph. He' goes throught he streets of Rome in a fancy throne. Caesar is standing behind it. There are men and horses. I couldn't picture it - were they on a carriage? a float? was it wheeled, or carried by men? I couldn't tell from the description.

Will I read the sequel? Maybe. maaseru was teasing me about reading books that bore me through to the end. But I want to see what's being written in the field, even if I don't like it. And I want to read about Caesar.

Ah well. Back to Suetonius and Plutarch!

Comments

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I stopped reading Iggulden very soon because his novel had little to nothing to do with history, judging by the beginning. Incidentally, since Marcus Antonius' mother was a Julia and Caesar's cousin, he wouldn't have been of the right generation, either. As for Brutus - Marcus Brutus was the son of Servilia, with whom Caesar had his most long-lived affair (hence the probably still untrue rumours about Brutus being his son - probably untrue because the affair started somewhat later, that's all). You might recall from Steven Saylor's Catilina's Riddle the (completely historical) anecdote that Caesar, who was speaking against the death penalty for the conspirators, received a note during the senate debate; Cato (who was Servilia's half-brother) demanded the note should be read out loud, since it could be from the conspirators, and was very embarassed when it turned out to be a note from Servilia.

Have you read Thornton Wilder's The Ides of March and/or George Bernard Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra? Elegantly written, short, witty and moving, both of them.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

What a wonderful icon! I'm looking forward to seeing the original movie of "The Lion in Winter" this afternoon - it's too long since I've seen Kate Hepburn.

As for Iggulden; yes, precious little to do with history, and though it was Rome, I didn't get the sense of Rome's power and uniqueness as I did in Saylor, or as I do in the original sources. They simply seemed like another type of barbarian, as brutal and any other. Not that there wasn't vi0lence and warfare in Saylor and the original sources: but the attitude was different, and to my eyes, more authentially Roman.

Yes, it seemed clear to me that Iggulden was fudging the age of Marcus, whichever Marcus he might have been. No hint as of the end of the first book who Marcus' mother was.

I have The Idea of March out from the library as the next book to read. I have read Caesar and Cleopatra many times - we studied it in high school and it was one of the first works that made me love Caesar. I've seen it on stage but it's years since I've seen it or read it, and I've never seen the movie. (Do you know if it's any good?)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'm looking forward to seeing the original movie of "The Lion in Winter" this afternoon - it's too long since I've seen Kate Hepburn.

It's one of my favourite movies. I'm curious about the TV one with Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close as well (hasn't made it across the Atlantic so far), but K.H. reigns supreme.

Sense of Rome: that's one of Saylor's greatest strengths. A lot of these Roman mystery novels are either deliberately anachronistic, like Lindsey Davis, with a wink towards the reader which is cute but kind of one note, or they tend to infuse their characters with magically political correct attitudes. Whereas Saylor reads as if he's translated from the Latin. Also, he's really good with ambiguous characters like Catilina or Clodia, not so much rewriting history as making partisan stereotypes human.

I've never seen the movie. (Do you know if it's any good?)

Not as a film - it's very static, no inventive cinematography, and you can see the "translated from the theatre" aspect. However, Claude Rains is excellent as Caesar (naturally, he can do sardonic very well), and Vivien Leigh (who had a horrible time during the production - she had a stillbirth) is great as Cleopatra as well. Stewart Granger is swashbuckling fun as Apollodorus but both he and the director obviously thought he would have had to make up for Apollodoros' interest in fashion by going extra macho just to exclude any sexual ambiguity. (Whereas good old Shaw couldn't have cared less.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I'm curious about the TV one with Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close as well

It'd good. I've now seen both within the last month and the 1968 version is better; but the 2004 version is still well worth seeing. Jonathan Rhys Myers is phenomenal as Philippe.

Yes, I agree about Saylor. He really captured the culture in ways most authors don't even try. It like the way he takes known facts and reinterprets or twists them - plausibly.

I must watch the Caesar and Cleopatra movie. I'm primed for it. It sounds like a great cast.