The Afghan Campaign

[aleksandros]

How did you find this Steven Pressfield's book?

[amyntoros]

Alexanthros - am not sure if I understand properly. Are you asking for members' opinions of the book? If so, I could probably contribute, although I took the book out on loan, covered it with post-it notes meaning to write up references, and then forgot about it until it was four weeks overdue and I had to whip it back to the library! I did, for the record, read it from cover to cover this time. (I say that because I couldn't manage it with Pressfield's previous Alexander novel.) Anyway, I know that there are others who have read the book and perhaps they can post their thoughts which will give me time to gather my own and may also help jog my memory a little.

Best regards,

[marcus]

How did you find this Steven Pressfield's book?

I haven't yet read the new one, although I did have a quick look in the bookshop on Saturday to see if it was there ... but it wasn't.

I confess that I wasn't hugely keen on "Virtues of War"; but I will still be reading the new one. From what some people have already said about it, in various posts, it seems as if it is 'better' (which is difficult to quantify or qualify, but by that I mean that it seems as if it will appeal to me more). So I do look forward to reading it.

I shall also be interested in reading more responses to your question. It will be really helpful if people, when responding, could put some flesh on the bones - what they did or didn't like about it, for example, rather than just "it's good" or "it's bad" (or whatever).

When I finally do read it, I will aim to write up a proper review of it. Unfortunately, one area of the main site that I have not been able to edit is the book review area, so I have previously had to rely on others to post my reviews. Maybe with the new version of the site (in progress) I will be able to edit that area myself ... not least because the review section has rather been neglected for the last year or so.

ATB

[ruthaki]

I guess I'm prejudiced because I'm a huge fan of Pressfield and have had some personal email contact with him. I really enjoyed the book. It's unique voice is accessible to anyone who normally wouldn't read historical fiction, and from the point of view of someone who was once a marine, he 'thinks' like a soldier would. So much of it could be related to todays situation in Afghanistan (because those tribal lords still conduct themselves very much the same way now as they did then. Only the weapons are different.) Besides, take a look at the dedication. I am honored.

[jan]

Keep your friends while you may. Now seriously, this book is very imaginative, and the author helps the reader to understand his own special lingo with a glossary in the back of the book. That is a very important clue to reading this book. Steve is speaking in his own language.

This time, Steve speaks as a foot soldier, who is having to travel with a part of the huge army of the great Macedonian leader, Alexander. Alexander is occasionally seen in this novel that is mostly romance, and inside Steve's mind, attitudes of soldiers who accompany Alexander in his ascent into Sogdiana.

The love story is a sweet story, and basically, the book shows how lonely and isolated all these men are who have traveled so far from home and family. My only real criticism of this book is that while Steven usually has paragraphs full of torture, cruelties, and bone crushing horror, this book seems to be a bit more mild and free from that kind of vivid description. It no doubt will have a sequel as the story demands to be continued...

There is no real conflict, but there is an interesting respect for an adversary of Alexander which I found so illuminating to read. Perhaps in a serious conflict in an upcoming book there will be more bone crushing grit that I love so well in Pressfield's books.

He reaches the visceral better than most authors and brings to life the reallity and harshness of war. This book is a teaser...and I appreciated his dedication to Ruthie, not knowing whether that means our own Ruthaki or some other Ruthie.

[ruthaki]

Of course it is presumptuous of me to thing "ruthie" necessarily is me. A clue though, was the first line of the book, regaring Alexander's marriage to Roxane as Steve P knows she figures importantly in my novel. I enjoyed your comments on the book and thought they were fair and straightforward. It is a FICTION piece of course, but I think the way he wrote it would be interesting to anyone who normally wouldn't touch a Historical Fiction book.

[aleksandros]

I could write many things about this book but i will write about how i didn't like the fact that Steven didn't describe the events during the crossing of the desert right after the descent of the Hindu Kush. eg Alexander's denial to drink the last cup of water or how many men died drinking water from Oxus being thirsty for days...

[ruthaki]

Because it was a fiction work, in thepoint of view of a new young recruit sent from Macedonia to join the campaign, I can't remember exactly, but I think he arrives there when theya re already in Soghdiana (Afghanistan) so perhaps that incident happened earlier. And also, who knows if it was edited out of the final draft????? (I'm a historical fiction writer and running into the problem of way too many pages. Sometimes I don't want to go into detail about certain (historical) things when I am focusing on one particular character's point of view.
Just a thought, from another writer's point of view.

[jan]

I just too another look at the book and I know it is dedicated to you! Steve is wonderful! Love, Jan

[amyntoros]

I decided days ago to post my own opinion of this book; unfortunately, I couldn’t find enough time. I regret this now because it may seem like this post is a response to previous comments rather than my own first thoughts. Too late though.

I was determined not to let (what I feel are) small anachronisms get in the way, and for the most part I succeeded and I won’t even discuss them here. I launched into the book and found myself becoming more and more disturbed about the contents as I continued – specifically the portrayal of the enemy, and Afghan women in particular. (I don’t want to refer to them Afghans or Afghanis; but Pressfield has forced my hand.) Here are some parts that stuck with me from the book – remember, I read it a couple of months ago on loan from the library and these are my lingering impressions.

Captured or displaced native women are used to carry baggage for the Macedonians because they are cheaper and more efficient than mules; whipped and, in one instance, beaten to within an inch of death by a native overseer who clearly regards them as lower than the animals. These poor women must wrap their bare feet with strips of rags, yet while Macedonian soldiers suffer frostbite and worse whilst traversing the terrible snow-covered mountains, the women apparently survive and even flourish - the protagonist’s woman (whom he bought from the overseer after a severe beating) becomes “more beautiful than ever,” even though she still has little in the way of warm clothing and was apparently never given shoes. She learns fluent Greek by listening to our protagnist speak at night. We are told that this same woman’s family will kill her and our protagonist if they ever meet because only a male family member is permitted to rescue or avenge a female. It would have been better if she had died.

Young, respectable females in the towns where the Macedonians make camp sneak out at night, to the horror of their families, and prostitute themselves to the soldiers. Women in enemy camps, portrayed as more horrific than harpies, inflict the worst horrors and torture upon captured Macedonians to the amusement of the male Afghans. One young woman who eventually feels some compassion and treats the wounds of a captive is summarily executed by a male family member. Did I mention the frightened native child (in an already conquered village) who finally indicates to the Macedonians where a stolen money bag has been hidden? She is beaten, perhaps to death, by her family! A native woman, mistress of a Macedonian, lives like a princess and is much loved by her partner. Later on, she inexplicably poisons him …

I could go on, but if I do I may well give away the entire substance of the book. Afghan men fare a little better than their women, however, by the time our protagonist expresses some slight feelings of respect for (the nobility of) his enemy, it is much too little, way too late, and simply not credible.

I really question Pressfield’s intent with this novel. Are we supposed to think that Alexander’s campaign was justified simply because the enemy was so despicable, so unworthy, so lacking in humanity that they were deserving of conquest? And why, on the one hand, is a single woman idealized while all other females are portrayed to their considerable detriment and even, on occasion, dehumanized? Apart from the fact that there is NO historical evidence for this portrayal – does anyone really believe that young Bactrian/Sogdian women were so attracted by the wealth of the Macedonians that they snuck out of their homes at night to prostitute themselves? – I find the fact that Pressfield has said he wants the reader to draw modern parallels most disturbing. I quote from the interview on his website:

RH: What are the contemporary parallels in The Afghan Campaign?
SP: It's an absolute prototype for the wars we're fighting today in the Middle East -- and for the conflicts we're likely to get involved in, in other places, for the rest of this century.

A prototype for the wars we’re fighting today … hmmm, well, perhaps? But is this a reasonable depiction of the enemy – an enemy defending their own land? I would really like to encourage anyone else who has read the book to participate in this discussion. Am I the only one who had this reaction? Many people may think that I started this novel determined to find fault with it because I disliked Pressfield’s previous Alexander book so much that I wouldn’t read the whole thing. It isn’t the case. You would have to pay me to read Charles Dickens at this point in my life, except for the one book, A Tale of Two Cities, which I have read for pleasure half a dozen times. I am open to liking a novel of Pressfield’s. Unfortunately, The Afghan Campaign isn’t it. It gives me too much cause for concern. . .

Best regards,

[aleksandros]

I hope that Pressfield means by making that parallel that the kind of defence is the one thats similar between the two eras. I hope he doesnt mean that the motives are similar to what US are doing in middle east...

We all know why Alexander invaded Bactria and Sogdiana and we all know why US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ruthaki maybe i have to ask Pressfield himself.

[ScottOden]

While I can't speak to Pressfield's intent, I can only reiterate the one thing that always bothers me regarding the common refrain of "did it happen/it didn't happen this way": he's not writing history. 'Historical Fiction' is called such because it's set in the past, not neccessarily because it purports to describe an era with any accuracy. In the world Pressfield created for The Afghan Campaign, the enemies of his Macedonians are considered vile creatures -- befitting when you realize the story is told through the eyes of a young Macedonian. In literary terms this is the "untrustworthy protagonist": we see his opinion, his shading and coloring of the truth, not the truth itself.

When I refer to the world Pressfield created, I mean exactly that. Every book regardless of genre has its own self-contained sense of history; the author creates, or in the case of historical fiction researches, the parameters of his/her world, keeping what resonates with them as an author, what fits into their timeline, their plot. The rest is discarded. Pressfield most likely discarded the scene Alexanthros describes because it did not fit into the framework of the story he was telling -- a story that was not about Alexander, but about the young Macedonian protagonist and his transition from callow youth to veteran in the context of Alexander's 'Afghan Campaign'.

Knowing Pressfield was a Marine, and that he may have seen combat in Vietnam (I'm not sure about that, but he is of the right age), you can see how he weaves his own experiences into his narrative -- along with the experiences of those soldiers he's befriended who have fought in the modern Afghan war. A theme he has revisited time and again, from Gates of Fire on, is that soldiers and war never changes. His Greeks, his Macedonians, even his Persians behave very similar to their modern counterparts: they curse, favor gallow's humor, use nicknames, essentially have their own language. This is where I've seen him take the greatest amount of flak from his readers.

Is it a good book? I liked it. Not as good as Gates of Fire, but few books are. I can forgive his modernizations because I've been guilty of the same sin in my own books. I can even forgive his 'going off reservation' where the historical record is concerned for the same reasons. Historical fiction authors should receive more latitude than historians because of this one fundamental difference: historical fiction authors aren't writing to educate you, they're writing to entertain you and hopefully to entertain countless others who might not normally read a book about Alexander (or [insert your favorite time period/figure here]).

Georg Ebers (1837-1898), Egyptologist and Writer, said it best:

"The Historical Novel must be enjoyed like any other work of art. No one reads it to study history; but many, the author hopes, may be aroused by his work to make investigations of their own . . ."

Best,

Scott Oden


PS: Amyntoros, I'm glad to hear you enjoyed Memnon!

[amyntoros]

Hi Scott:

In the world Pressfield created for The Afghan Campaign, the enemies of his Macedonians are considered vile creatures -- befitting when you realize the story is told through the eyes of a young Macedonian. In literary terms this is the "untrustworthy protagonist": we see his opinion, his shading and coloring of the truth, not the truth itself.

That's not the way I interpreted the book, I'm afraid. I had little impression of shading or coloring of the "truth" through a character's eyes. The events I described are told as they happen, not especially filtered through the eyes of our wonderful Macedonian protagonist - a young man who was actually opposed to killing when he ran away to war! But even when situations are occasionaly filtered through the eyes of the young man, the real problem lies in the fact that there's no contrast, no positive exploration of Sogdian mores, no real demonstration of how they felt, no attempted justification of their behavior (if that were possible), etc. Frankly, they are not represented as having any culture at all, as if they truly were uncivilized barbarians. To me, the novelization boils down to an attempted justification of Alexander's campaign even though Alexander didn't need any excuse. He wanted/needed to conquer the territory in order to move eastwards. It wouldn't have mattered if the Bactrian/Sogdian way of life was the high point of civilization. They would have been warred upon and subjected to Alexander's rule just the same. So why make his enemy such appalling people? To what end?

Historical fiction authors should receive more latitude than historians because of this one fundamental difference: historical fiction authors aren't writing to educate you, they're writing to entertain you and hopefully to entertain countless others who might not normally read a book about Alexander (or [insert your favorite time period/figure here]).

Yes, I understand this, Scott - one doesn't have to be a writer of historical fiction to understand the nuances of the genre. The keyword in your above paragraph is entertain and I know that's what a novel is all about. However, I wasn't entertained so much as disturbed, which is why I didn't like the book. I’m not concerned with “did it or did it not really happen this way” – as I said, I ignored the small anachronisms. It’s the apparent demonizing of an entire culture that troubles me.

I really liked your book, by the way (and I will get around to reviewing it soon, I promise) – and I’m not saying this just because of your presence on the forum. I would happily share my impression of The Afghan Campaign with Pressfield himself. In fact, I did! I sent a copy of my post to him today; not to let him know that I didn’t like his book, but to express my real concern of how disturbing I found it and because of the fact that, even though it's a novel, he encourages the drawing of modern parallels. And my concern would remain even if the book wasn’t about Alexander.

Best regards,

[ScottOden]

Hi Amyntoros

That's not the way I interpreted the book, I'm afraid. I had little impression of shading or coloring of the "truth" through a character's eyes. The events I described are told as they happen, not especially filtered through the eyes of our wonderful Macedonian protagonist - a young man who was actually opposed to killing when he ran away to war! But even when situations are occasionaly filtered through the eyes of the young man, the real problem lies in the fact that there's no contrast, no positive exploration of Sogdian mores, no real demonstration of how they felt, no attempted justification of their behavior (if that were possible), etc.

Ah, but the story is in first person: everything is told through the protagonist's eyes, whether it appears that way or not. He's telling us the story, and he's leaving out things (obviously), which is why he is an unreliable narrator. Myself, I would have loved to see more exploration into the Afghan culture. But, to do it effectively Pressfield would -- IMHO -- have had to double the size of the book and switch to a third-person point of view.

I really liked your book, by the way (and I will get around to reviewing it soon, I promise) – and I’m not saying this just because of your presence on the forum.

I fully expect to be beaten with a stick for some of the liberties I decided to take in Memnon. It was a struggle to portray Alexander as someone Memnon found distasteful; I had to resort to following the lead of Victor Davis Hanson to some degree, though I found a happy middle ground that explained why some loved him and some hated him. To those who can write a whole book about Alexander . . . my hat's off to you

To UK members: [begin shameless pimpage ] Transworld Publishers will be releasing a paperback edition of Memnon over there on or about August 1, 2007. I think they handle Australia/NZ, some of the European Union, and South Africa, too. [end shameless pimpage]

Best,

Scott

[aleksandros]

Amyntoros i disagree with you cocerning the natives of Sogdia and Bactria. I have studied much i think and as far i am concerned they were far more barbaric than they are depicted in the book.

ScottOden i understand your point but i feel i have read many Pressfield's interviews and he almost always stresses the fact that Alexander's invasion is much like US invasion there. He makes these comments not as a fiction writer but he rather addresses his historical knowledge. When a writer makes such public statements then he can't say that he is just writing a historical novel. For the plot and the details yes, but not about the comparison he is trying to pull through.