Scan barcode
A review by tbr_the_unconquered
Alexander: Child of a Dream by Valerio Massimo Manfredi
2.0
History remembers some men and women more than others. This immortality could be on account of deeds good or bad. The name of Alexander of Macedonia is entwined with warfare on a global scale and a conquest the kind of which the world had not seen until then. Personally I find in him a charismatic leader of men, if not for which the soldiers under his command would never have marched to the ends of the earth. Countless books and visual representations later, I still find the topic of this man to be an attractive one. Manfredi however gave me a portrait that was not very interesting to behold.
This is a superficial novel. What I mean by that qualifier is the way in which the author treats his subject and characters. These were larger than life characters : Philip, Olympias, Alexander and all of them were giants of characters and they make good studies of the psyche too if treated properly. Manfredi however resolves to make his novel a soap opera. We are reminded time and again that Alexander had the countenance of a god, Philip was as lusty as a bull in heat, Olympias as crafty as the serpents of legend and so on. More time is spent on musing about the characters fleeting emotions than on the circumstances and the dynamite plot points. I was treated to pages upon pages of descriptions about clothes and make up while the points of history were just brushed against. Let me take an instance : There is half a chapter dedicated to Alexander's first experience with a court concubine and it is lavishly written to say the least. On the other hand, there is his first battle against the famed sacred band of Greece and this is summed up in half a paragraph ! It's like Alexander rode his steed directly into the bristling spearheads of the enemy ranks. And then he defeated them all and came back home.
I was disappointed yes, but I surely will read the other two books of the trilogy. This is for the simple reason that I want to know how the author will treat the campaigns in Persia, Afghanistan and India among others. This is going to be fun.
This is a superficial novel. What I mean by that qualifier is the way in which the author treats his subject and characters. These were larger than life characters : Philip, Olympias, Alexander and all of them were giants of characters and they make good studies of the psyche too if treated properly. Manfredi however resolves to make his novel a soap opera. We are reminded time and again that Alexander had the countenance of a god, Philip was as lusty as a bull in heat, Olympias as crafty as the serpents of legend and so on. More time is spent on musing about the characters fleeting emotions than on the circumstances and the dynamite plot points. I was treated to pages upon pages of descriptions about clothes and make up while the points of history were just brushed against. Let me take an instance : There is half a chapter dedicated to Alexander's first experience with a court concubine and it is lavishly written to say the least. On the other hand, there is his first battle against the famed sacred band of Greece and this is summed up in half a paragraph ! It's like Alexander rode his steed directly into the bristling spearheads of the enemy ranks. And then he defeated them all and came back home.
I was disappointed yes, but I surely will read the other two books of the trilogy. This is for the simple reason that I want to know how the author will treat the campaigns in Persia, Afghanistan and India among others. This is going to be fun.