Customer Reviews

Child of a Dream (Alexander, Book 1)

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Let's face it - one of the problems with reading about history is that it can be a bit tedious. The trick is in fleshing out the "in-between" time as well as the great events. This is precisely the task ably undertaken by Manfredi in his Alexander Trilogy.

In "Alexander, Child of a Dream", Manfredi introduces Alexander (destined to become quite possibly the most brilliant and most successful conqueror the Western world has ever known) at the knee of his father, the equally impressive King Phillip of Macedon. As Phillip forges ever onward to consolidate his power amongst the warring city-states of ancient Greece, he devotes equal resources toward training the young Alexander to become an equally able conqueror and even better statesman. Manfredi adds in very credible details to bring Alexander to life and make him something more than what we could learn from a straight biography. No, not all of it can be proven, but there is nothing that is not totally plausible.

Manfredi also adroitly handles what might be considered to be "difficult issues" surrounding Alexander. For example, Manfredi pays no particular attention to Alexander's sexual preferences, much in the same way that it was not considered to be anything of particular import by the Greeks themselves. Another example is found in Manfredi's handling of the assassination of Phillip. In real life, Alexander and his mother Olympias, were widely suspected of complicity in the matter. While this may be fodder for Books II or III of the trilogy, Manfredi does not waste a great deal of time with the issue in Book I, as Alexander suddenly has more pressing matters, such as an empire to run.

All in all, this is a very entertaining read. Manfredi might downplay the significance of some events (e.g. the Bucephalus incident, the deeper feelings of mistrust between Alexander and Phillip), but he keeps the story moving at a good clip and leaves enough uncertainty about Alexander to keep the reader wanting more.

That's a little harsh, but that's my honest reaction to this novel. It's not bad, exactly. There's such strong core material here that all Manfredi has to do is put the sentences together to tell it. But that's about all he does. There's nothing in the way of true insight into Alexander and his accomplishments. Nothing that really delves into what we should make of him. He's presented simply as a hero, blessed by the gods and so hot that women shed their clothes in his presence. Where's the complexity? The true humanity - either of Alexander or of the people he starts to slaughter.

Also, I'm not terribly happy with this as a single book. It's not a single novel with a real ending. It's clearly part of one bigger book that the publisher must have decided to break up into three to make three times the cash. I feel like I'm reviewing a book that I stopped reading in the middle. But I won't be fooled - I'm not likely to pick up the next volume.

So, in closing, there's no harm done in this novel. Young people might really enjoy it. But for grown-ups looking for more insight and true historical analysis... You'll have to look elsewhere. I prefer Mary Renault, although she poses other sorts of problems to people. I might try the Steven Pressfield, but a lot of the reviews over there suggest that it's not his best either. Strange that one man can inspire so many works of fiction without any of them rising to undisputed greatness. Same goes for the films...

Having read Mary Renault's Alexander trilogy, as well as Harold Lamb's chronicle of the life of the Macedonian Conqueror, I am of two minds about Dr. Manfredi's first novel in his trilogy on the same subject.

On one hand, I find it to be a very accessible investigation into the life of this famous historical figure. All of the key points are touched upon, such as his barbarian father, King Philip, and how Alexander's dream to conquer Asia first originated with his father. Each piece of actual historical fact that I myself have ever learned about Alexander is at play here.

On the other hand, there are arguments to be made that this Alexander lacks the passion of Mary Renault's hero, or the brutality of Harold Lamb's. The Alexander of Dr. Manfredi exists somewhere in a limbo between these two extremes. Perhaps, this being a book about his formative years, his youth and education, and events that possibly shaped his fierce desire to conquer in and beyond his father's footsteps; there is more to investigate to find the Alexander he became in the remaining two books of the trilogy.

Other strengths of this book are as follows: Alexander, by much historical evidence, is 'rumored' to have been bisexual. This subject is treated well by the author, in the fact that his affairs with both male and female 'paramours' are included, and are examined with care. His involvement with life-long companion and 'love' Hephaestion is given more 'nobility' and 'honour' than his occasional dalliances with servant girl Leptine, but neither seems to indicate a preference over the other.

The book also sets up its sequel nicely, leaving off with a dream shared with Alexander's name-sake uncle before each embarks on his own respective quest, and the explicit orders of Alexander that his duplicitous and murderous mother, Olympias, is not to be given a position of power in his absence.

Alexander also sluffs off the recommendation of his 'staff' that he marry and father a son to allow for his possible death in battle and assure succesion of the throne through his bloodline, which he, of course, declines to do. While I am in no way an expert on this subject, it appears that the author had enough respect for the subject matter to stay as accurate as possible in telling his variation on the story.

I am interested to further examine book two of this trilogy. And while I, of course, make comparisons to Mary Renault, to which I do find this book 'inferior'....it is an entertaining, easy read, and taken in it's own right, a competent study of the life of this valliant, fascinating historical figure.

I have never before hated a book. Never. Until now.

I forced myself to finish it, however, in the hopes that it would somehow redeem itself. I was not rewarded for my tenacity.

Manfredi's work, unlike other books I've seen, has the standard motion picture disclaimer on the page with all the copyright info. You know, the "This is a work of fiction. No resemblance to persons alive or dead is either stated or implied" thing. And, I guess he's right.

Any work of Historical Fiction is going to take some liberties, of course, and perhaps this one takes no more than any other in terms of how events transpired. The problem I had, however, is that this work transformed a man who conquered most of the known world by the time he was 32 into a flat, two dimensional shadow of what the real Alexander must have been.

Perhaps it was Iain Halliday's translation from the original Italian, but the story itself read like a seventh grade history report. Major points of exposition happened in dialogue. People made random decisions for no apparent reason. There was no depth or feeling to the characters. You couldn't understand why these people changed in the way they did. One moment Olympias is pining for the comfort of her husband, but five chapters later she hates him with a passion worthy of Hera. There's no transition, little or no explanation of why things happened the way they did.

And speaking of the translation, Halliday really shouldn't be allowed to translate anything other than family letters going forward. Speech patterns were, in his defense, framed in such a way that it sounded like formal court manner. However, when the King of the Macedonians suddenly bursts out with "Let's go lads!" you get the feeling that someone didn't do his homework and was just trying to get the job done.

Manfredi also takes a 'safe' out in skirting the issue of Alexander's rumored homo/bisexuality. Almost. He would have been better off omitting references to it all together, but instead, it's touched upon only two or three times in a way that makes the entire thing seem dirty or possibly imagined. It's alluded to in such a way as to make it seem like Alexander was almost ashamed of it. Sorry, but in the world of that time, it happened. There were entire ARMIES made up homosexual lovers pledged to stay at each other's side until they were killed. Manfredi also goes so far as to have Aristotle claim that Phillip's affair with Pausanias, his assassin, was wrong or dangerous somehow--Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who was raised in a climate where relationships between men was widely accepted, especially in educational situations such as tutor and student.

The book, on the whole, left me frustrated. Again, it was as if I was reading a seventh grade history report that barely scratched the surface of historical figures that have so much depth and richness to them... it's almost a shame.

It must take a special talent to write about a character as dynamic as Alexander the Great and render him as interesting as a cold lump of grease floating on dirty dishwater, but that's what Manfredi has done here. This book is wooden, stilted, superficial and unconvincing. But at its worst moments the dry flat prose bestirs itself and waxes turgid and silly, and I literally cringed as I read it. The only character that takes on any sort of life at all is Phillip; the character, motivations and nature of Alexander himself are left blank by this mediocre effort at chronicling his formative years. I can only hope the Italian original was somewhat better. Won't be continuing on to read the others. When will I ever learn that "New York Times bestseller" is by no means a sign of quality?

Valerio Manfredi has a very original way of telling us Great Alexander story. The spirit and atmosphere of this period is well described and we are really able to feel it. Gods seems to intervene by dreams and oracles even if we can say it is superstition. But is it real? Doubt is always there! At the same time we meet famous past characters such as great philosophers as Aristotle or Diogenes. Great Alexander has met legendary people but he is himself a legend. And this legend has hidden an other great character , Alexander's father, king Phillip of Macedonia. A good book!

I picked this up as I was exiting a bookstore. It caught my eye (probably the red cover with "Alexander" scrawled across it that did it) and having never read a fictionalized account of Alexander (other than that by Arrian) thought I'd give it a go:
It reads like the book version of a film.
The characters and settings are lavish, utopic and somewhat fanciful. It is almost as though the author has seen a film about Alexander, (hopefully the forthcoming one featuring Mr di Caprio will be good) gone to a couple of lectures on Alexander, taken some chronologically key notes and then written it all down. It is always interesting to read fictional works by such accomplished scholars and this is no exception. What Manfredi achieves, though I have my doubts as to its accuracy, is to portray ancient Macedonia in a Hollwood-esque manner. Maybe Hollywood is right. I hope not.
Anyhow, the novel, in reality, centers more on Philip II and his desire to create a son worthy of a bigger empire. Manfredi's expounding of the character of Philip is excellent, accurate (insofar as the primary sources we have portray him) and gives logical emotional reasons behind the crafting of Alexander. You come out of this first novel gaining the impression that the real achievement here was by Philip. It will be interesting in the Hand of Ammon to see if Alexander can become his own man. For all his rebelliousness over Eurydice and his forging of a fellowship (again, not sure as to the accuracy of that given it looks like it's been lifted directly from the Roman concept of amicitia and Manfredi is a professor in Italy) you can't help feel that he has no control over his life. At least, not yet.
It is also refreshing to slide the inevitable eroticism themes into the background for a change though it remains to be seen if modern scholastic theory about Alexander and alcohol makes it into the remaining novels.
Not having read the original, I can't comment on the translation but the novel is intriguing enough to ensure I'll read the next one.

I bought the entire three book collection by Manfredi, and am unimpressed. Of course one expects something to be lost in the translation from the original Italian, but in this case, I doubt the translator can be blamed. I question the need for any new history of Alexander that cannot improve upon Mary Renault's, and this one definitely does not fit the bill.

Manfredi changes the speech and action of his characters, including Alexander, to match his own modern, middle-class prejudices and opinions. Alexander's Companions sound like Hogan's Heroes. Manfredi blushes at Alexander's bisexuality and therefore cuts it down to a paragraph of reluctant acknowledgement. Hephaestion is now just a best bud. Alexander's sister is elevated from the minor historical role to a platonic love of his life. In Manfredi's books, Alexander is always pining to see his sister, which is odd considering he spent the greater part of his adult life moving Eastward and at war. Manfredi portrays superstition credulously, changing the history to more of a mythology: Olympia is a real witch with supernatural powers that aid Alexander whenever he is at risk.

Far too many pages are taken up with Aristotle's tedious investigation into the murder of Philip. Manfredi wants us to believe Olympia was behind it, and his contrivances to this end are rather forced and silly.

Avoid: choose Mary Renault instead. "The Nature of Alexander" is her nonfiction history, while "Fire from Heaven" is the first of her historical novels concerning Alexander.

I regret having laid down forty-five dollars for Manfredi's series, which I bought on the strength of the "international bestseller" appellation on the cover. I am not sure why anyone would want to pen a new historical fiction of Alexander when Renault's is so good, but because the author is a college professor, tenure suggests itself as a motive.

The book retells Alexander's childhood and adolescence, growing up in the Macedonian city of Pella and moving to the town of Mieza, where he commences his studies with Aristotle as a tutor. Manfredi utilizes a great amount of detail and creates fantastic images. The novel includes suspense, allowing the reader to lustfully engage him/herself. The adventures of Alexander are told in way, evoking sympathy and coompassion and bringing the protagonist of the novel close to heart. I recommend this great book to all people interested in an exciting story of a powerful boy with infite power and a great future ahead, aswell as readers interest in historical information of this era.

I love historical fiction, whether it be loosely based on fact or created out of thin air and applied to a point in time.

Unfortunately,Alexander, Child of a Dream, manages to achieve neither result.

Perhaps the original Italien version really scintillates, but this shallow rendition has all the charm of a shopping list. The characters are cliched, hackneyed and trite, and the story skims across real and imaginary events from Alexander's history, yet never stopping for one moment to really take us inside the man, his mind nor the events that carved him into legend.

In fact, it may well be the fault of Manfredi himself. It appears that he has assembled a chronology of events, but not a story. These events have been loosely put together (following the standard procedure of writing the key events of a story on small cards and then assembling them in an order that is most refreshing; before the writing of the tale itself). In this case Manfredi seems to have all the details on all the cards, but has literally placed them in ABC order without any regard for creating an intensely engaging and wonderful novel. Or is this supposed to be his version of historical journalism?

Whatever, it adds up to a lacklustre piece of writing along the same lines as the scantily word-clad Christian Jaq novels of the life of Ramses the Great. In other words, airport lounge shallow, passionless and Grade 4 literate.

But again, perhaps this is due to the dull back-translation.

I have only read the first of the Alexander trilogy and have not yet decided if the second and third instalments should be tackled. (Once bitten twice shy, I made the mistake of reading ALL five of the Ramses novels.)

And don't be taken in by that silly bright yellow cover with the descriptor 'A huge international bestseller'. Erh, exactly where internationally was that please?

If only this insipid and parts-inventory waffle of a tale been written by the likes of a Bernard Cornwall or a Wilbur Smith. True hommage might then have been paid to history's greatest general with all the blood in the dust masculine soul it is so desperately deserves.

Come back Mary Renault, your own Alexander lady-boy trilogy is completely forgiven.

(Oh, and Mr Manfredi, one star to encourage you to try and do better next time.)