Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
This topic is about
Pride of Carthage
Monthly Group Reads
>
OCTOBER 2013 (Group Read 1) Pride of Carthage by David Anthony Durham
message 151:
by
Nate
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Oct 11, 2013 03:49AM
Okay I just finished the part with Monomachus and the Gauls. (view spoiler)[Wow, that was brutal. Although I was half-expecting him to spit that dude's nose out at Hannibal's feet like he said he was gonna :) (hide spoiler)] Derek, you were right about him.
reply
|
flag
Not satisfied yet, but it is getting better :). Although I am starting to realize that I am probably more on the pro-Rome team...
Michal wrote: "Not satisfied yet, but it is getting better :). Although I am starting to realize that I am probably more on the pro-Rome team..."That's interesting. I'm fascinated by pretty much all things ancient Rome yet I still like to see them lose. The utter panic that Lake Trasimene and Cannae must have caused in the Senate would truly be something to witness. All those pompous patricians soiling their togas :D
Nate wrote: "Michal wrote: "Not satisfied yet, but it is getting better :). Although I am starting to realize that I am probably more on the pro-Rome team..."That's interesting. I'm fascinated by pretty much..."
That is certainly true, on the other hand common Italians behaved quite well under the threat of Hannibal (not gonna continue so there are no spoilers). Anyway, I think it is the whole issue with the culture for me again. It was not presented enough so I could not identify with it (what values do they stand for? Vengeance, pre-emptive action? I would need more description of what happened to the father and someone being haunted by it to understand vengeance. Glory? Description of some code of honour was missing... Seems like ambition, but it is not described well...), and Hannibal the way he is portrayed is just a shadow of Alexander. Also, I still have this slight cringey feeling when I read Carthaginian calling somebody else a barbarian. :) I am starting to like the other characters more tho, so I'll see how it's going to develop...
@Michal: I'm now within sight of the end of the book, and I can say that Durham does quite a bit of development of Hannibal's character. He's no Alexander, whose goal was to conquer the world. Hannibal wants to see Rome in utter ruins, which is something else entirely.
I thought Durham was quite bold in how he has the Barcas criticise Rome's imperial project. So that it's not just hatred for Rome, for past deeds, hatred their father has taught them. Durham has them believe Rome is bad for the world. Along with the Africanness he's given the Carthaginians, and the outright African pride. Most novels on the ancient world don't get across any sense of political urgency like this, don't resurrect the cause in the way this one does. It's hard to put this right, but that was one reason this book was a rare animal for me. But then I tend to be against Rome.
I haven't quite finished the book, but I have to agree with you so far, Bryn. A rare animal indeed.
Bryn wrote: "I thought Durham was quite bold in how he has the Barcas criticise Rome's imperial project. So that it's not just hatred for Rome, for past deeds, hatred their father has taught them. Durham has th..."You're absolutely right. Here's an excerpt from the section of the book where Hannibal is responding to Hasdrubal's question of if the war is really necessary:
"You ask an honest question, and in answer to it I will speak of two points. Yes, I do hate them. I had the joy of spending more years with our father than any of his sons. He burned with a hatred for the Romans. They have robbed us of so much. They are treacherous and remorseless and cunning. I believe our father to have been among the wisest of men. He hated Rome; I do as well."
He continues, "But I'm no fool. Hatred is to harness, not to be harnessed by. I wouldn't attack Rome simply out of hate. The truth is we've no choice. The Romans have a hunger different from any the world has yet seen. I have many spies among them. They bring me the pieces of a puzzle I've been fitting together for some time now. I have enough of it clear before me to know that Rome will never let us be. Perhaps they'd allow us five years of peace, perhaps ten or fifteen, but soon they'd come for us again. They grow stronger yearly, Hasdrubal. If we don't fight them now, on our terms, we will fight them later, on theirs. Father knew this as well and schooled me in it while young. Nothing he said on this matter has proved mistaken. We all want power, yes. Riches, yes. Slaves to satisfy us. Carthage is no different. But in their secret hearts the Romans desire more than just these things. They dream of being masters of the entire world. Masters of something intangible, beyond mere power or riches. They'll settle for nothing less. In such a dream, you and I would be slaves."
I loved this part and found it very telling.
I have finished this book, and I must say I enjoyed it. I like looking at it from the other super power of the Mediterranean. Although I tend to favour Rome.I would recommend this book.
Nate - History proved Hannibal correct in the long run as it was quite certain that Rome would never allow another superpower around their sea! I don't know that there is any historic evidence that one of these parties was less ambitious though. In the case of Hannibal, there was certainly a vendetta on the part of the Romans it seems.
Michal wrote: "Not satisfied yet, but it is getting better :). Although I am starting to realize that I am probably more on the pro-Rome team..."I am never pro Roman. I avoid Roman perspective novels and love to see the Romans 'get theirs'. ;)
Nate wrote: ". You're absolutely right. Here's an excerpt from the section of the book where Hannibal is responding to Hasdrubal's question of if the war is really necessary:..."Such a powerful passage. Especially that last line
"They'll settle for nothing less. In such a dream, you and I would be slaves".
I'm not terribly far into the book but there's a lot of very quotable passages already. I really like his dialogue.
message 164:
by
Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd
(last edited Oct 12, 2013 07:51PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
He is a clever writer. I wonder whether his fantasy are equally clever. I have heard they are boring and wordy to some...but then some would regard Pride of Carthage as boring and wordy too. It is a style that does not appeal to all taste.
Terri wrote: "He is a clever writer. I wonder whether his fantasy are equally clever. I have heard they are boring and wordy to some...but then some would regard Pride of Carthage as boring and wordy too. It is ..."Oh, he has fantasy stuff too? I was wondering about his other work. I'll have to check that out. If it's as good as this book it's an easy sell for me. I've always been one of the people that holds that historical fiction and fantasy are kindred genres.
Man....What a great, beautifully written book. I can't say enough good things about it. I've just finished..so I should probably let it sink in...but right now, I'm tempted to call it one of the best books that I've ever read. I could go on & on..but I won't. I don't want to spoil it for anyone else. It clicked perfectly with me.
I want to thank this group. I'm quite certain that if I weren't a member here, I would have never even heard of this book. It moved me...
I want to thank this group. I'm quite certain that if I weren't a member here, I would have never even heard of this book. It moved me...
I wish Durham would write more in the ancient HF genre. It would probably be hard to top this book, in my eyes anyway, but I wish he'd try!
Derek wrote: "Man....What a great, beautifully written book. I can't say enough good things about it. I've just finished..so I should probably let it sink in...but right now, I'm tempted to call it one of the be..."Oh that is just so wonderful! :D
I am really pleased to see you appreciate it this much. I always say it is one of my favourite reads too, only I have the contradiction of giving it 4 stars. I couldn't give it 5 because for me it lost me a couple times, but overall, I loved the book. Would read it again one day (when I don't have so many books sitting here in front of me to read) and I will always recommend it to HF readers that I regards as 'thinkers'. :)
@Justin: Ok, looking forward. I am at the place were Hannibal shows himself to be the strategic genius we know him to be from the history. @Bryn: That's what I do not understand, why they see Rome as so utterly bad for the world. Carthage does not seem to be any better, actually it seems to be even worse (with the genocides against the whole cities etc.). Hence Hannibal's surprise (view spoiler) Hannibal is basically saying: "we need to obliterate Rome because they are too much like us, and probably better in it" :).
@Terri: well, I also generally like the underdog... On the other hand, what I love about Romans is their pragmatism and no nonsense attitude. I agree that their ambition is quite annoying tho. That's why I love Harry Sidebottom's Ballista - he is Roman in his pragmatism, but he is also an outsider and therefore he lacks the ambition and narcissism.
Nate wrote: "I've always been one of the people that holds that historical fiction and fantasy are kindred genres"I tend to agree, though I'm still trying to figure out why. I think it partly has to do with the author taking us to a different world?
Justin wrote: "Nate wrote: "I've always been one of the people that holds that historical fiction and fantasy are kindred genres"I tend to agree, though I'm still trying to figure out why. I think it partly has..."
I agree too....but these are my top two genres.
@Michal, on war and atrocity, I'd say he's heavy on the theme that by fighting your enemy, you become like him... heaviest towards the end. However, his Carthaginians don't want empire in the same way his Romans do.
@BrynIn all fairness, I think it is most likely the Carthaginians were interested in an empire like Rome. They dominated the African sphere, and I think had they successfully crushed Roman power, would have spread through Mediterranean Europe. After all, they already had Iberia (Spain)
I don't make any claims about the history of it, Daniel, God forbid. That's why I took care to say 'his' Romans and 'his' Carthaginians. In the novel, I think Hannibal himself or others are challenged with this very question, 'aren't we just like the Romans?' 'what's so different about you?' I seem to remember that once, one of them gives a specific answer, 'what we were doing in the neighbourhood was different because of this, this and this.' But Durham doesn't think about it simply, either. No simple terms for him.
Bryn wrote: "I don't make any claims about the history of it, Daniel, God forbid. That's why I took care to say 'his' Romans and 'his' Carthaginians. In the novel, I think Hannibal himself or others are challen..."Noted :).
@Bryn: You might be right. I think it was at the part of the book where I did not know what to think about Hannibal so I thought it might have been a lack of self-awareness.In any case, I am finally done with the book. The form almost killed me. And it's a pity because I am sure I would enjoy the book on second reading. But who has time for that...
Michal wrote: "@Justin: Ok, looking forward. I am at the place were Hannibal shows himself to be the strategic genius we know him to be from the history."I've heard it argued, and I tend to agree, that in a military sense Hannibal lacked strategic skill. He was a brilliant tactician, in that he could defeat the Romans in nearly every battle he was in. But when it came down to his overall war strategy, he failed. He didn't have a clearly defined end-game in mind, beyond the ruination of Rome. He could win battles, but he couldn't defeat Rome. I'm still noodling through how any of that plays into this novel. I think it does, which makes it, in my mind, even more powerful.
Michal wrote: " I am sure I would enjoy the book on second reading. But who has time for that....."
exactly! Rereading is a luxury I can ill afford. I see you suffer the same problem.
It kills me that I don't make time to reread. I own so many books, and yet hardly ever crack them after I've read them. I do love to look at them on their shelves, though...
problem is that for us avid readers it is not a matter of 'making time', it is more a matter of not having time. Isn't it? :)We all have so many unread books to get to, we will hardly ever have time in our reading schedules to reread.
I'm a big re-reader. :) Wouldn't miss it.
How often do you find the time for rereads, Bryn?
Hmm. Maybe I have less of late, since joining Goodreads and getting heaped with new material.But, the books most important to me, I've read 5+ times. Better to read them five times and extract everything I can, than to read four others that aren't going to mean a fraction as much to me. That was my old thinking, I'm not sure I'm living up to it these days.
I really like that philosophy, Bryn. I think I can use that to get some rereading in. Like you, Goodreads has given me so much more to read. But it's also made me a much better and more discriminating reader. I wonder if some of my favorites weighing down my bookshelves would hold up to my (more refined?) standards today.
That's my issue. The books I loved two years or more ago...would they hold up to my scrutiny now? Do i want to open that door?I reread maybe once a year.
On the whole, Justin, I've had happy experiences with cracking open the old favourites. And I see depths I didn't see then, and so on. Quite often they're better than I remember, or better than I dared to think they are, nowadays. Or better than I had the capacity to judge, then.
I find the same, on rereading, for the reasons you mentioned, Terri.
I agree with Bryn, I used to reread quite a lot before I started to be more active on GR :). Now I have too many suggestions to look forward to. I know I've reread LOtR or SOIF at least 3 times, and I always liked to go back to re-read my favourite passages. I am embarrassed to say that I had it similar with Harry Potter - liked to reread it when I was supposed to be studying for my exams :).I know I am a bit cautions with re-reading books that were mostly intellectually stimulating without a strong story. Once I liked the story then I am not worried, but intellectual stimulation is not all that lasting for me. The only annoying thing is that I am more likely to pick up on historical inaccuracies. That can be quite a joy-killer.
In any case, I've read some research suggesting that re-reading and re-watching is much more enjoyable than first reading (even when you do not do it by choice). I know they experimented even with spoilers, and surprisingly, overall people enjoyed the experience more when they knew the spoilers, and if I remember correctly the same effect could be seen in "surprise thrillers". Think I should follow up on the paper, it is really interesting line of research.
@Justin: That is exactly what I was thinking (thanks to pointing to my sloppy use of words tactic and strategy)! If Hannibal was a Roman, then there would be no republic after a year or two, and he probably wouldn't need elephants. He did not use any economical or political warfare, that's why he was so surprised that no one was joining him with real help. He wanted a large decisive victory when he should have focused on taking over the country (like Romans would do)...in that sense he really was not building an empire, he was just plundering.
Michal wrote: "Started on Kane's Hannibal: Enemy of Rome to see how he approaches the topic."I'm interested in this book. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say about it. I tried one other Ben Kane book, but it was too graphically violent and sexual for me.
Justin wrote: I'm interested in this book. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say about it. I tried one..."I do not mind that sometimes, as long as it has some purpose in the story. On the other hand I am not sure how I feel about Kane's fusion of fantasy and historical fiction literature... I am much more comfortable with Cornwell's approach, where he leaves magic and prophesies as something that can be explained by tricks/science as well as by magic. Ben Kane made prophetic gift of one of the character a driver of the story in The Forgotten Legion. Hope he will not do that here. What Ben Kane can really do well, is to let his POV characters to look around and describe what they see. It is really enjoyable so far. And yes, he started by description of Carthage :).
You're getting your Carthage fix at last! :)
Yes, was deciding whether to get ahead and start with the next month's group reads, but then I thought that it might be better to stick with the theme. However, these two books are almost a different genre. Durham's book was very epic, the story was written as if it was a destiny, and only what was a part of the "epos" was included. Kane's format is more personal, focusing on ordinary life of few characters and the large context happens more outside of the story, even though I suspect that the characters will participate on it later in the book. Gonna let you know how it goes, some reviews suggest that I should expect some cheesy parts...
Michal wrote: "Yes, was deciding whether to get ahead and start with the next month's group reads, but then I thought that it might be better to stick with the theme. However, these two books are almost a differe..."well I am relieved that you are not yet going to start on next months group reads. Much more fun when people start together. :)
I'm around page 300 and I think this is an excellent book. The cast is nice and big and they all have their own nuanced personalities. So far I'm finding Hanno, Silenus, Vaca, Imilce and of course Hannibal the most interesting. Monomachus is also probably one of literature's great psychopaths.
I really liked the personalities of the characters too, Nate. And yes, Monomachus is off the hook psycho.
Monomachus is definitely described as a psycho in this book but I don't know that he was that much of a psychopath in the context of these times. Razing a city, killing and enslaving everybody was common. He was just willing to push things a little bit further. I imagine he would been very much at home with Genghis Khan, Attila and Tamerlan.I agree with Nate, I really enjoyed the various point of view and the ending is truly touching.
I truly wonder what would have happened had Hannibal had total support from the Carthage council. It's clear that Rome was not willing to give up, but things could have dragged on for much longer and been much more painful for them. Especially if others like Philip of Macedonia and various Gaul tribes would have jumped in on the side of Hannibal following more success. A good what-if for sure.
While I'm enjoying many of the characters (I'm no fan of Imilce) the story itself isn't really grabbing me. I want to enjoy this book, but I'm finding it a bit meh. I don't dislike it, but I'm not loving it either. If I were to rate it now, I'd give it a GR 2 'it's okay'.
Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction
Books mentioned in this topic
Ash: A Secret History (other topics)A Secret History (other topics)
The Forgotten Legion (other topics)
Hannibal: Enemy of Rome (other topics)
Walk Through Darkness (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Mary Gentle (other topics)Harry Sidebottom (other topics)
