Customer Reviews

Kingdom of the Wicked

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Anthony Burgess' profound learning is on display in a fascinating piece of historical fiction, The Kingdom of the Wicked. Picking up just days after the crucifixion of Jesus, we find the founding fathers of Christianity rendered realistically in an often hilarious book. From the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, to the imperial court of the mad Caligula, Burgess' novel takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of the Mediterranean during the first century. Though a well-crafted story filled with luminosities of language, it is the historical perspective that is perhaps most rewarding to the reader. Anyone who has spent time reading the Bible or has heard the stories of early Christendom will undoubtedly, unless a scholarly type, have difficulty referencing them in a real way. The various letters of the apostles provide only subservient snippets of the time while Burgess' novel takes us into the very rooms of the apostles as they write and commences on into their minds while monitoring everything from their lustful proclivities to their bowel movements. The learning combined with the lurid language at hand make The Kingdom of the Wicked a marvel. However, the leapfrogging from one story to another leaves the final storyline disjointed and the reader sometimes perplexed. Also, the learning has a darker side for, whereas details are lavishly furnished throughout, sordid specifics of Caligula's court are enough to make most readers turn quickly to the next page. It's enough to make one claim that some history deserves to be buried, but this is Burgess' bold statement to the contrary.

I have read five books by Burgess, and I must say that this is not his best, that is not to say that it is a bad book though. In fact, I liked it (as my rating shows). It showed his thorough knowledge of ancient Rome, and Jerueselem. The characters were well portrayed, and both people with, and without great knoweldge of the time will find the book quite enjoyable to read, for its descriptions.
I have two complaints, however, the list of characters grows and grows, until I find myself thoroughly confused. Also, the storyline seems to flow together less and less towards the end, and it seems as if Burgess wanted to finish up the novel, so he just wrote down everything that was supposed to happen, without peicing it together with any sort of transitions.
The book still has its charms, the characters are all very interesting, and the descriptions of the ancient empire are very well written.
In the end, I would say that if you have a strong interest in ancient Rome, you should read this, as it tells history while making it enjoyable. I would not, however, recommend that this be the first book by Burgess that you read, as it is longer, and differently written than almost all his other ones.

This is a really hard book to rate. On the one hand, the actual execution -- writing, style, structure and so forth -- is great. The voice, that of a retired Roman clerk, is consistent throughout and the take on the Roman Empire and early Christianity is believable and interesting.

On the other hand, the story really fell short for me. As it went on, it became less of a coherent story and more of a list of (mostly dire and unpleasant) events. While at the beginning it seemed that the characters had some relationship to one another and that the story had a point, by the end it all seemed random and arbitrary. I enjoyed the narrator as a character, but I kept expecting his story to tie in with the main story. It never did, and I was left wondering why it was he felt so compelled to tell the story in the first place. As well, the ending fell flat. I was looking for at least one or two of the characters to undergo some change or experience some kind of redemption. Maybe I missed something, but it didn't seem like that happened. As a result, I was left feeling cheated.

I'm going to preface my review by stating that I'm a history buff so I already had an interest and understanding of the book's content.

Kingdom of the Wicked is a fictional retelling of the the lives of the Apostles during the "Acts" period after Jesus' death in one story arc and the the inner workings of the Roman Imperial political machine from late in Cesar Tiberius reign to the middle of Cesar Vespasian's in another story arc. The two "times" intermingle often as the world of Jerusalem and Rome are destined to collide over and over again.

The fictional narrator Sadoc tells the story switching between first person when talking about his writing of the story to the reader, and then switches to third person omniscient during the actual story. There are a few places where this gets confusing, but for the most part is easy to follow.

Some reviewers have mentioned that the book is hard to follow because of the constant influx of new characters, a lot of which seem to have the same name. My understanding of the time period that the story takes place in made it easy for me, but I could see how it might be difficult for some.

The writing is very English and of a slightly older style, so the prose is a little more dense than what's on book shelves today. Again, some may appreciate Anthony Burgess' ability as a wordsmith and other may simply find him wordy. There is also a lot of typical British dry humor, sarcasm, and toilet humor that reminds me of modern English authors like Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett.

Pros:

1.) Wonderful writing with rich characters and scenery.

2.) Anthony Burgess demonstrates the ability to deftly use a number of literary tools with precision and effect. His writing never comes off as a book of "look what I can do" as an author.

3.) Being a student of religious history and enjoying books set in historical settings, I thought this had a brilliant background.

Cons:

1.) Some Christians may find the book and it's characters offensive. Burgess made his characters very human with very human failings.

2.) People without an interest in history may find this book confusing or boring.

3.) Like "A Clockwork Orange" the ending is morally ambiguous and somewhat open ended. Some readers might find this annoying.

Bottom Line:

This is an awesome book by an awesome writer if you have the mind for it. Some might not find this book to be their cup of tea, and others will probably find it crude or offensive. I honestly don't think the author cares much about the opinions either of those two audiences.

I admit I have a total weakness for anything Anthony Burgess has written, so all you will get here is praise for this novel.

Set in the first years of Christianity we have the story according to Burgess of the trials and tribulations of the Apostles counterpointed with the cruelties and depravities of Imperial Rome.

Paul is the central figure in the story but it switches over to events involving Caligula and Nero( a couple of very stable individuals!)

As well as a great story this is really well researched and there is a history lesson as well.

There is a definition of God in the first pages where the narration begins -

......perhaps his God was a metaphor of the only thing that will save the world - the exercise of decency, tolerance and humorous scepticism.

That would be the best definition/ explanation that I have ever heard.

As always with Burgess this is 'bloody good', its such a shame the majority of people only associate him with " A Clockwork Orange"

This is Burgess's version of the early story of Christianity, beginning at the crucifixion and ending with what appears to be the inevitable downfall of the Christian sect. He bases his work on Acts, Josephus etc, but the best part was obviously the fact that he injects the unapologetic, frequently-shocking, always-honest Burgess style. As such, expect a lot of explicit sex, violence and other things that made those times what they were.

The account is more cynically-historical than reverentially-religious, or at least that's how it appeared to me, however if you are a Christian I don't think this book is *bound* to alienate you, though it may. Burgess also parallels the development of the story of Peter, Paul et al with that of the comtemporary Roman emperors and their lives. This is where it becomes unstuck at some point as there is sometimes no connexion. Besides this flaw, I found it to be a very enjoyable read - an intelligent and ironic take on the past.

The major problem with this book is its disregard for the supernatural: the church's spread throughout the Roman Empire was the work of the Holy Spirit; Burgess chooses to give 'natural' causes for all the miracles mentioned in Acts, from the discredited 'swoon theory' of the Resurrection, to Saul's conversion explained by a supposed epilepsy, not to mention Peter's escape from prison due to- if I remember Burgess' contrived plot correctly- the clever machinations of John Mark! It's this disregard for supernatural realities that makes me say 'this book lacks realism'. I should mention that Burgess prior book, Man Of Nazareth, although flawed by inventions, did seem to preserve a sense of the supernatural. On the other hand I didn't mind the accounts of Roman decadence, but am not knowledgeable enough to know where he exaggerates or fails in other ways. The sexual scenes were always combined with brutality and selfishness in a way that seemed to preclude any sense of the erotic or the romantic, two features almost always presented as aspects of sexuality in contemporary art. I feel this did underline the decaying culture of Imperial Rome, which all it's politicians and stoic philosophers could not overcome. If Burgess had been more realistic in acknowledging the activities of the Holy Spirit, his book, the Kingdom of the Wicked, would have been a much more successful enterprise.