A review by siria
Romanitas by Sophia McDougall
2.0
The first of a projected trilogy, Romanitas is an interesting novel, even if it's one that I don't think entirely works. Set in a world where the Roman Empire fell, where Christianity never took hold, slavery is still legal, and where the pax romanum holds sway from America to China, the possibilities are definitely intriguing. McDougall's prose is clear, and often inventive and striking without being purple. (Mostly: there are a couple of metaphors and similes which could have used an editor's touch) Some of her characters fall a little flat, and some of her relationships are a little too by-numbers, particularly the main romantic relationship. Most of them, however, are drawn quite realistically, and she resists the temptation to make them too nice or good in the pursuit of making them sympathetic.
The main place in which the book falls down, though, is the same thing which made me pick it up in the first place. Her extrapolation of the Roman empire forward into the 21st century simply didn't work for me. Perhaps it's merely because I've spent three years studying the empire in college, and a lifetime before that reading about it, but it was very obvious to me that she wasn't a classicist by training. There was no depth to her imagining of a greater Roman empire, no colour to it. For all the visual nature of her writing, there is no clear picture of what the empire has become, what it is; and in a work which hinges around the fact that this is the Roman empire, now, that is a very great failing indeed. The book is called Romanitas, and yet I got very little sense of what that means from the book.
Lastly, on a purely historical level: the empire survived because of Pertinax? Are you kidding?
The main place in which the book falls down, though, is the same thing which made me pick it up in the first place. Her extrapolation of the Roman empire forward into the 21st century simply didn't work for me. Perhaps it's merely because I've spent three years studying the empire in college, and a lifetime before that reading about it, but it was very obvious to me that she wasn't a classicist by training. There was no depth to her imagining of a greater Roman empire, no colour to it. For all the visual nature of her writing, there is no clear picture of what the empire has become, what it is; and in a work which hinges around the fact that this is the Roman empire, now, that is a very great failing indeed. The book is called Romanitas, and yet I got very little sense of what that means from the book.
Lastly, on a purely historical level: the empire survived because of Pertinax? Are you kidding?