simmonsmry's review against another edition
4.0
Told in the voice of Aristotle during the time when he became tutor to the Macedonian prince who would become Alexander the Great, The Golden Mean gives readers an intimate glimpse into the well-respected philosopher’s thoughts and experiences. This historical figure, considered to have one of the greatest minds in history, comes off as an ordinary, unsure human being, with flaws, doubts and a tendency towards depression.
Canadian literary author Annabel Lyon takes some dramatic license with the historical events, figures and circumstances; however, she succeeds in capturing the era and going deeper into the lives of these people who have shaped the history of the modern world. Rather than concentrating on the philosophical writings of Aristotle or the epic battles of Alexander the Great, this novel explores their everyday lives, taking us into Aristotle’s household, where we get to meet his wife, his children, and his servants. We are also treated to flashbacks in which the great thinker remembers his childhood when he accompanied his physician father to the homes of his patients.
The Golden Mean is at times erotic, violent and disturbing, in a refreshing way that brings the characters to life rather than depicting them weakly through the historical lens of all they accomplished. The language is curt and somewhat analytical, not tending towards poetic or beautifully descriptive passages. This seems appropriate as the narrator is a man who sometimes thinks without seeing and observes without immersing himself in his subjects. He is apart from the world rather than deeply ensconced in it. As a scientist and analyst, he is somewhat detached from that which he studies. His emotions, while often being close to the surface, are bewildering and troubling to him. He views them as an illness, a bothersome aspect of his makeup that he wishes to avoid and correct. While enlightened in many aspects of the world, he is rather naive in others. Since Lyon chose to write the novel from Aristotle’s viewpoint, all of the other characters are depicted through him and it is interesting to speculate on the accuracy of his judgements. There are times when Lyon hints that Aristotle’s views are arbitrary and mistaken, cleverly written in such a way that the character is not aware of them, although astute readers will make their own conclusions.
The title refers to Aristotle’s philosophy that goodness comes from a general point between two extremes, and much of the book falls into this category. Lyon suggests that Aristotle attempted to live his life in this manner and also expected it of those around him. Extreme behaviour is considered unpleasant and unnecessary, and yet it is in the extremes that true emotions and depths of feeling are experienced. By attempting to avoid the extremes, they become all the more obvious and inevitable. An intelligent and carefully written novel, I would recommend The Golden Mean and look forward to future works by Annabel Lyon.
Canadian literary author Annabel Lyon takes some dramatic license with the historical events, figures and circumstances; however, she succeeds in capturing the era and going deeper into the lives of these people who have shaped the history of the modern world. Rather than concentrating on the philosophical writings of Aristotle or the epic battles of Alexander the Great, this novel explores their everyday lives, taking us into Aristotle’s household, where we get to meet his wife, his children, and his servants. We are also treated to flashbacks in which the great thinker remembers his childhood when he accompanied his physician father to the homes of his patients.
The Golden Mean is at times erotic, violent and disturbing, in a refreshing way that brings the characters to life rather than depicting them weakly through the historical lens of all they accomplished. The language is curt and somewhat analytical, not tending towards poetic or beautifully descriptive passages. This seems appropriate as the narrator is a man who sometimes thinks without seeing and observes without immersing himself in his subjects. He is apart from the world rather than deeply ensconced in it. As a scientist and analyst, he is somewhat detached from that which he studies. His emotions, while often being close to the surface, are bewildering and troubling to him. He views them as an illness, a bothersome aspect of his makeup that he wishes to avoid and correct. While enlightened in many aspects of the world, he is rather naive in others. Since Lyon chose to write the novel from Aristotle’s viewpoint, all of the other characters are depicted through him and it is interesting to speculate on the accuracy of his judgements. There are times when Lyon hints that Aristotle’s views are arbitrary and mistaken, cleverly written in such a way that the character is not aware of them, although astute readers will make their own conclusions.
The title refers to Aristotle’s philosophy that goodness comes from a general point between two extremes, and much of the book falls into this category. Lyon suggests that Aristotle attempted to live his life in this manner and also expected it of those around him. Extreme behaviour is considered unpleasant and unnecessary, and yet it is in the extremes that true emotions and depths of feeling are experienced. By attempting to avoid the extremes, they become all the more obvious and inevitable. An intelligent and carefully written novel, I would recommend The Golden Mean and look forward to future works by Annabel Lyon.
megan_prairierose's review against another edition
2.0
2.5 Stars. I really wanted to love this book. I found the story and characters hard to follow and to connect with. I did enjoy the exchanges between Aristotle and his wife, but the rest of the story fell a bit flat for me.
I think if you are interested in this time period then this would be a good book for you to read.
I think if you are interested in this time period then this would be a good book for you to read.
kateslowreads's review against another edition
2.0
This novel sounded exciting to me at first, because I was sure a story about such prominent and powerful historical figures would be interesting. I felt the book was less focused on history and characters, and more on some of the philosophies Aristotle promoted. The novel focuses greatly on family relationships, that of Aristotle and his own father, of Alexander and his father Philip or his mother Olympias. The relationship of tutor to student was explored, but not as much as I felt was needed. It felt as soon as the author really started to dig into Alexander and Aristotle's relationship, she would pull back and take us back to the musings of Aristotle on other subjects. The book dwelt on unhappy marriages, and often on sicknesses of the mind or body, which affected the actions and decisions of Alexander and Aristotle.
I think that while the book was interesting, it felt very detached and indifferent in many places. I was annoyed because I thought that Aristotle behaved quite stupidly at points in the book, and while some of his writings and ideas can seem silly to the modern mind, he was a brilliant philosopher and an incredibly knowledgeable person. I like the way the author portrayed Alexander, but since I was reading the book through the first-person narrative of Aristotle, I never got to see or hear quite as much of their relationship as I wanted. I felt as though the author was constantly drawing my attention to certain details and my reaction to them was, "Yeah?" Which may be because I didn't get the book on the level I was supposed to, but there are many, including some among my book club, that admired and enjoyed it.
I think that while the book was interesting, it felt very detached and indifferent in many places. I was annoyed because I thought that Aristotle behaved quite stupidly at points in the book, and while some of his writings and ideas can seem silly to the modern mind, he was a brilliant philosopher and an incredibly knowledgeable person. I like the way the author portrayed Alexander, but since I was reading the book through the first-person narrative of Aristotle, I never got to see or hear quite as much of their relationship as I wanted. I felt as though the author was constantly drawing my attention to certain details and my reaction to them was, "Yeah?" Which may be because I didn't get the book on the level I was supposed to, but there are many, including some among my book club, that admired and enjoyed it.
caroparr's review against another edition
3.0
I read this on the recommendation of The Idle Woman, and I'm glad I did although it's not an easy read. Lyon has somehow managed to inhabit Aristotle and his world, not an easy or comfortable place to be. Now on to Mary Renault for another perspective.
kmac2022's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
shannon_b's review against another edition
1.0
I kept reading this because I thought it would get better. It really, truly, did not. Which surprised me considering many of the reviews on this book.
Just for background, I’ve done my undergrad in Classics and I usually don’t read historical fiction because I tend to believe no author can capture the compelling complexity of the real world. So I expected to struggle a bit knowing some facts would be omitted or extrapolated to suit the storyline, but that wasn’t my problem with this book. The research was actually very good, the rest of the book was the problem.
First, the sexism. I have a problem with books that write women (and sex scenes) as this book did. Kudos to Lyon though, she really captured the male gaze writing style.
Second, the writing style itself. This book relies heavily on descriptions of scientific studies done by Aristotle, and there wasn’t much else? All the other scenes are written with so little description, and so many jumps, keeping track of what Lyon is even talking about can be frustrating.
Third- was there a plot? Because there was a lot of philosophical and thematic exploration going on (if you read heavily into what Lyon wrote) but plot was not really a thing in this book.
This whole novel felt like an exploration of theme and style but without any real substance.
Just for background, I’ve done my undergrad in Classics and I usually don’t read historical fiction because I tend to believe no author can capture the compelling complexity of the real world. So I expected to struggle a bit knowing some facts would be omitted or extrapolated to suit the storyline, but that wasn’t my problem with this book. The research was actually very good, the rest of the book was the problem.
First, the sexism. I have a problem with books that write women (and sex scenes) as this book did. Kudos to Lyon though, she really captured the male gaze writing style.
Second, the writing style itself. This book relies heavily on descriptions of scientific studies done by Aristotle, and there wasn’t much else? All the other scenes are written with so little description, and so many jumps, keeping track of what Lyon is even talking about can be frustrating.
Third- was there a plot? Because there was a lot of philosophical and thematic exploration going on (if you read heavily into what Lyon wrote) but plot was not really a thing in this book.
This whole novel felt like an exploration of theme and style but without any real substance.
angeliqueazul's review against another edition
4.0
A very authentic historical novel. I didn't like the structure so much, to me it hindered really getting into the story. However, it also prevented long descriptions and repetitive scenes.
The Golden Mean is an incredibly intelligent book that makes you think. When I finished it I wanted to start again to look for more clues, more hints about Alexander, about everything. The characters were amazingly portrayed. But then again, I would have liked more interaction between them - especially between Aristotle and Arrhidaeus. The violence mentioned now and then and in the afterword quite disturbed me in the light of all the intellectual, calm scenes and moments of the stories before.
The Golden Mean is an incredibly intelligent book that makes you think. When I finished it I wanted to start again to look for more clues, more hints about Alexander, about everything. The characters were amazingly portrayed. But then again, I would have liked more interaction between them - especially between Aristotle and Arrhidaeus. The violence mentioned now and then and in the afterword quite disturbed me in the light of all the intellectual, calm scenes and moments of the stories before.
dannb's review against another edition
3.0
Less about Arisotle and Alexander the Great and more about Arisotle's manic-depression... still interesting
laranda's review against another edition
Can tell very quickly this will be a boring slog
ianomath's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75