Empire of Ashes by Nicholas Nicastro

[John Drake]

Following this thread--very interesting. I actually read Empire of Ashes and found it the most refreshing, most original take on Alexander's legend I've seen in a long time. Please note I say it is about Alexander's LEGEND--about how he was viewed by certain contemporaries, especially Athenians. It seems that certain posters here miss this point.As for its "vulgarity"--I found it no more vulgar than many other critically acclaimed books. Newsflash, folks: Alexander's world was not a tea party.I don't know who Marcus Pailing is--and I don't know why we should care about what he thinks. But his pompous pronouncements about this fine book are completely wrong...IMNO

[marcus]

Hi John,Sorry if my 'pronouncements' appeared pompous. They were intended only as my honest opinions about the book - Jan did ask, after all.We are all entitled to our opinions, and you're certainly welcome not to care a jot for what I think ... just as you're entitled to like the book as much as you like.So, sorry if I appeared to be pompous, but, as I say, we were asked for our opinions and I gave mine.All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi John,Sorry if my 'pronouncements' appeared pompous. They were intended only as my honest opinions about the book - Jan did ask, after all.We are all entitled to our opinions, and you're certainly welcome not to care a jot for what I think ... just as you're entitled to like the book as much as you like.So, sorry if I appeared to be pompous, but, as I say, we were asked for our opinions and I gave mine.All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

I have to say, by the way, that I agree with you about the so-called "vulgarity". As it happens, I don't remember there being much in the way of this - I think perhaps a few comments, which were all in the speech of one of the characters anyway; but, as you say, there's certainly no more than in many other books - and I like your line, that it wasn't a tea party ... it certainly wasn't! :-)All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

I have to say, by the way, that I agree with you about the so-called "vulgarity". As it happens, I don't remember there being much in the way of this - I think perhaps a few comments, which were all in the speech of one of the characters anyway; but, as you say, there's certainly no more than in many other books - and I like your line, that it wasn't a tea party ... it certainly wasn't! :-)All the bestMarcus

[John Drake]

My apologies for getting a little overheated in my own posting. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and to express it.For my part, Empire of Ashes is obviously a flawed book, but has its worthy qualities. Does it have a "Persian bias"? I don't think so, but if it did wouldn't that be refreshing! Show me an Alexander book without a "Greek bias" and I'll fall out of my chair.To paraphrase what you said, Nicastro certainly doesn't follow up on all his ideas. But then again, I for one prefer a book that has 10 good ideas and follows up on only a few, to a book that has no original ideas at all (and I don't need to name any--the Alexander literature is full of those).Having attempted a few novel-length fictions myself, I know how hard it is to write a book. It's harder yet to write one with any merit--and harder still to get one published and out for people to see. That's maybe something to keep in mind when folks post messages on sites like this, which is not difficult at all.

[John Drake]

My apologies for getting a little overheated in my own posting. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and to express it.For my part, Empire of Ashes is obviously a flawed book, but has its worthy qualities. Does it have a "Persian bias"? I don't think so, but if it did wouldn't that be refreshing! Show me an Alexander book without a "Greek bias" and I'll fall out of my chair.To paraphrase what you said, Nicastro certainly doesn't follow up on all his ideas. But then again, I for one prefer a book that has 10 good ideas and follows up on only a few, to a book that has no original ideas at all (and I don't need to name any--the Alexander literature is full of those).Having attempted a few novel-length fictions myself, I know how hard it is to write a book. It's harder yet to write one with any merit--and harder still to get one published and out for people to see. That's maybe something to keep in mind when folks post messages on sites like this, which is not difficult at all.

[marcus]

Hi John,No need to apologise yourself. I think it's difficult always to express oneself the way one wants to, in emails and this sort of post, so while I might not have meant to come across in a certain way, I accept that others might not read it the same.The best idea that Nicastro had, which I felt he failed to carry through, was the one about Arrhidaeus' involvement in the campaign. That was a shame, because I thought it was an intriguing idea. It was that which made me so disappointed in the book. Having come up with the idea that Arrhidaeus was so important, he did seem to attribute things to Alexander that I felt he should have attributed to Arrhidaeus. I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't read it, but I assume you know what I'm talking about?ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Hi John,No need to apologise yourself. I think it's difficult always to express oneself the way one wants to, in emails and this sort of post, so while I might not have meant to come across in a certain way, I accept that others might not read it the same.The best idea that Nicastro had, which I felt he failed to carry through, was the one about Arrhidaeus' involvement in the campaign. That was a shame, because I thought it was an intriguing idea. It was that which made me so disappointed in the book. Having come up with the idea that Arrhidaeus was so important, he did seem to attribute things to Alexander that I felt he should have attributed to Arrhidaeus. I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't read it, but I assume you know what I'm talking about?ATBMarcus

[John Drake]

Whether or not his notions of Arridhaeus' role is carried as far as they should be is a matter of opinion--the story comes from the narrator, who I don't regard as completely reliable anyway. The narrator, after all, is not necessarily the same as the author of the book.I liked a whole bunch of other ideas--the framing and handling of the trial, and the way he shows how Alex's legacy was a contested thing, not handed down from Heaven. I liked the way he paid some attention to the Persian religion, which he shows is a lot closer to our modern version than anything the Greeks believed. His portrayals of Roxanne and Bird (or Pigeon, or whatever his name was) were fresh and humorous. He also put flesh on the bones of the old Branchidae story, which the narrator is not alone in accepting (cf. Michael Wood).According to the Beyond Renault site, Jeanne Reames is going to be reviewing the book for Amphora this month. Should be interesting.John

[John Drake]

Whether or not his notions of Arridhaeus' role is carried as far as they should be is a matter of opinion--the story comes from the narrator, who I don't regard as completely reliable anyway. The narrator, after all, is not necessarily the same as the author of the book.I liked a whole bunch of other ideas--the framing and handling of the trial, and the way he shows how Alex's legacy was a contested thing, not handed down from Heaven. I liked the way he paid some attention to the Persian religion, which he shows is a lot closer to our modern version than anything the Greeks believed. His portrayals of Roxanne and Bird (or Pigeon, or whatever his name was) were fresh and humorous. He also put flesh on the bones of the old Branchidae story, which the narrator is not alone in accepting (cf. Michael Wood).According to the Beyond Renault site, Jeanne Reames is going to be reviewing the book for Amphora this month. Should be interesting.John