MANFREDI TRILOGY

[Ambrosia]

Hello everyone, I am in the process of re-reading Valerio Massimo Manfredi Trilogy on Alexander. I remember enjoying it the first time through, and find myself enjoying it very much again. (Especially the third one, The Ends of The Earth) I have read some posts in the past on Pothos criticizing the series. I would like to hear some of your thoughts and opinions regarding Manfredi's trilogy. I understand it may not be historically accurate on all accounts but it still in my opinion reads great, and would make a marvelous film, or TV series.
Thank you and look forward to hearing your opinions.
Peace...

[neneh]

The first time I read Manfredi's trilogy I didn't really like it that much. But having just finished re-reading it, I must say I've changed opinion. I think it's really good. On a literary note I think it leaves a few things to be desired, but it compares well to most other "fiction" on Alexander. In the epilogue on the third book, Manfredi himself is explaining a few "adjustments" he's done in order to keep the story more comprehensible (cutting down on the number of non-great Alexanders by turning a couple of them into the same person for example). Compared to Renault's books, I think Manfredi's are a lot better, and they do offer a portrait of Alexander that feels refreshingly new (at least to me).All the best,Neneh.

[jan]

I just finished reading John Prevas's book Envy of the Gods which surprised me a lot. He actually uses several items that appeared in Manfredi's book that I had thought probably were invention. Apparently not, as Prevas cites them as historical: the scene when Alexander has a dream about seeing Kleitos appear with Paremnio and Philotas, the battle between the Greek and the Macedonian. I had thought these were fiction but not so. Prevas wrote of them too.I have not reread the trilogy but I still like it.

[marcus]

Hi Jan,Just because Prevas wrote about them doesn't mean that they're not fictional, of course!As it happens, the episodes that you mention are in the sources; but they could easily not have been. :-)All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

Wow, it's quite amazing how greatly people's opinions can differ over the same book. To my mind, Manfredi's books rank amongst the worst novelizations ever written - I've not been able to completely read them once, let alone twice! I think his Alexander is wooden and completely without personality, while Renault literally breathed life into Alexander and made thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people fall in love with him. At the same time, I have to acknowledge that Manfredi's books are also very popular, so there must be a good number of people who agree with you.
Amyntoros

[marcus]

Hi Jim,My main problem with the books was not on the basis of historicity, but on the basis of literary merit. I found them very dull, and the characters were hardly three-dimensional. I do always try to qualify this by accepting that it might be the translation, rather than Manfredi's fault.However, it did seem to me that Manfredi was determined to get *everything* in the book, and therefore showed no source criticism. There are a few episodes (but don't ask me to recall exactly what they were at the moment) which come from the vulgate but which probably (almost certainly?) were not recorded by Ptolemy; yet the books purport to be Ptolemy's history. That rankled.All the bestMarcus

[kate]

Hi,Like Linda and Marcus I found the Manfredi novels really dull. For me it was a case of literary ineptitude rather than poor history, his Alexander was absolutely wooden and that annoyed me so much I just couldn't finish the books. Maybe the translation was at fault? Still, each to their own, but I think Renault is a million times better.Cheers,Kate

[neneh]

When I first got interested in Alexander I read the Renault novels and I thought they really added personality to the character I'd read about in the non-fiction books. I suppose when I read the Manfredi books the first time I was still under Renault's spell and found it difficult to accept the picture of Alexander that Manfredi painted.I do agree that it's not the best written books ever written, there's certainly things that I'd done differently if I was a novelist or whatever. I especially dislike the more "erotic" scenes, which feel very awkard and somewhat forced. I guess my criticism of Manfredi has nothing to do with his qualities as a historian, but more with his qualities as a fictional writer, if that makes any sense. To add insult to injury, when I read the Swedish translation (which is a fairly new one) it was full of spelling errors and general mistakes. But even so, I couldn't put the book down. All the best,Neneh.

[neneh]

Uhm... That message I just posted didn't make much sense, but that's what a few glasses of wine can do to you. Hope you got the jist of it. :-)All the best,Neneh.

[ruthaki]

Guess I'll put my two-bits worth in. I tried twice to read "Child of a Dream". Couldn't get past page 35. I found the writing dull, almost at a juvenile level. Sorry, but I simply couldn't spend more time trying to 'enjoy' it. I still love Renault and refer to her work constantly as she's a sort of 'literary mentor' to me as a historical fiction writer. I have great admiration for the way she made Alexander's character so 'alive'. The only one of her books I didn't like was "Funeral Games" which I thought was almost documented but that was her last just before she died, so perhaps she was hurrying with it and just putting together her years of research to suit a publisher that probably had commissioned her to write it. (My w.i.p. follows the same period of history as Funeral Games but I'm trying to give more attention to development of characters in particular that of Alexander's child and the women in his life.)

[amyntoros]

Don't worry, I understood you. As far as erotic scenes go, I've always had the feeling that Manfredi identifies himself with Alexander so he wrote this trilogy as some kind of male "Mary Sue," if there is such a thing. He isn't satisfied with Alexander having sex with women - Alexander must have sex with as many women as possible! So we find the slave girl waiting in Alexander's bedroom for him to return; Alexander's friends "saving" a prostitute for him at the symposium; a woman (can't remember who) traveling a long distance just to 'lie' with Alexander, only to find him busily bedding the Amazon Queen, etc., etc. Blechh!! Someone on another forum once used a phrase that I find very appropriate - although I'm not exactly sure that they were referring to these books - and that is Alexander 'rutting his way through Asia'! However, if all of this were absent from the books it wouldn't make any difference to the way I feel, I'm afraid. I still find his Alexander to be characterless and pretty much emotionless - a generic superhero if you like - and I think this is unforgivable. But, as Marcus has said before, much of it may be in the translation.Don't get me wrong - I don't expect everyone to agree with me. We all have different tastes and I'm often out of the mainstream. For the life of me I can't understand the popularity of Stephen King and there's only ever been one Anne Rice book that I actually liked. :-)ATBAmyntoros

[marcus]

Hi Ruth,Interesting what you say about "Funeral Games". I know what you mean, although I do like the book enormously, myself.I've just started "House of the Eagle" but Duncan Sprott, which is the first of a series (if the others ever get done) about the Ptolemies. As far as I can see, there's not a single piece of direct speech in the entire book, and for a bit I thought that it was a cop-out and basically a re-rendering of Diodorus ... but it's really quite a good book. I don't think he writes about Alexander fairly, but that's an interpretation issue ...ATBMarcus

[dean]

Hello,I must admit that I found the trilogy to be lacking in literary merit-, compare Renault, yet i think that it provides us with just about the "best" synthesis of the sources and undoubtedly Mandfredi must have spent considerable time working out which source to use in each stage of the "epic".Best regards,
Dean

[marcus]

Yes, I suppose you could look at it that way. He tends towards the Vulgate, but not entirely. However, I don't think he should purport to be writing *Ptolemy's* account if he goes more Vulgate than Arrian. (I know that only we aficionados would notice, or even care, about that; but that's my view.) :-)ATBMarcus

[dean]

Hello,It is true that Manfredi writes supposedly from Ptolemy's viewpoint yet we only find this out in the last two pages as up till then Manfredi hasn't mentioned anything about it- maybe it was something that occurred to him last minute.With regards to the texts- I think that Manfredi chose a number of different texts usually the most spectacular- eg. in Gaza he chooses Curtius's version of things(copying Achilles and all that)When talking about the "Vulgate" with regards Alexander, what exactly does that mean?Best regards,
Dean.