Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Collen McCullough's Rome Series

User avatar
Margaret
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 2440
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: I can't answer this in 100 characters. Sorry.
Favourite HF book: Checkmate, the final novel in the Lymond series
Preferred HF: Literary novels. Late medieval and Renaissance.
Location: Catskill, New York, USA
Contact:

Post by Margaret » Mon February 23rd, 2009, 7:31 pm

Interesting that you liked Roma better than the mysteries, SPB. I had exactly the opposite reaction. I felt like Roma just tried to cover too much ground, so that the individual stories were given short shrift. In the mysteries, on the other hand, Saylor generally takes a particular aspect of Roman history and uses the mystery format to explore it in great depth - in contrast to the usual historical mystery which often gives short shrift to some of the deeper questions of history. Of course, Roma gives a sense of the grand overall sweep of Roman history that's probably impossible to do in any other format. Very much in the spirit of James Michener or Edward Rutherford.
Browse over 5000 historical novel listings (probably well over 5000 by now, but I haven't re-counted lately) and over 700 reviews at www.HistoricalNovels.info

User avatar
sweetpotatoboy
Bibliophile
Posts: 1641
Joined: August 2008
Location: London, UK

Post by sweetpotatoboy » Mon February 23rd, 2009, 7:40 pm

[quote=""Margaret""]Interesting that you liked Roma better than the mysteries, SPB. I had exactly the opposite reaction. I felt like Roma just tried to cover too much ground, so that the individual stories were given short shrift. In the mysteries, on the other hand, Saylor generally takes a particular aspect of Roman history and uses the mystery format to explore it in great depth - in contrast to the usual historical mystery which often gives short shrift to some of the deeper questions of history. Of course, Roma gives a sense of the grand overall sweep of Roman history that's probably impossible to do in any other format. Very much in the spirit of James Michener or Edward Rutherford.[/quote]

Would be boring if we all liked the same thing! It's just me: historical mysteries rarely work for me, but I'll keep trying them. I didn't mind Roman Blood; I just wasn't thrilled enough with it to continue with the series. Yes, Roma follows the format used by Michener and Rutherfurd. I adore Michener and have loved some of Rutherfurd's work, so I am very comfortable with that grand sweep. Saylor's book finishes just at the point where most books on Ancient Rome start, and for that reason I found it fascinating for covering the earlier neglected periods. It's not of the calibre of Michener, or even Rutherfurd at its best, but it makes a valiant attempt and is worthwhile in my view.

Ani
Scribbler
Posts: 5
Joined: February 2009
Location: Vermont

Post by Ani » Sat February 28th, 2009, 2:56 am

I really liked Roma. This is the first book I read by Stephen Saylor. I'm now interested in trying out his mystery series. Incidentally another book, which lacks the sweep of Roma, but gives a very interesting view of Romulus and Remus is Alfred Duggan's Children of the Wolf.

SusannaG
Scribbler
Posts: 18
Joined: June 2009
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Post by SusannaG » Thu June 25th, 2009, 9:41 pm

I think my favorites, generally speaking, are at the front half of the series. In the latter ones, she's just a little too in love with Caesar. I think my favorite two are The First Man in Rome and Fortune's Favorites (Grass Crown is a little long for my taste). I find Sulla fascinating - like a snake!
South Carolina is too large for a mental asylum, and too small for a republic. - James Pettigru, 1856

User avatar
siouxzee
Scribbler
Posts: 8
Joined: August 2009
Contact:

Post by siouxzee » Sun August 16th, 2009, 8:25 pm

I've read all of them except Antony and Cleopatra (it's sitting in my to-read pile) and they are some of my favorite historical novels! Especially the first two. Not only did I find them a gripping read, but I learned A LOT about Roman history.

User avatar
Frigate
Scribbler
Posts: 11
Joined: December 2009
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Frigate » Fri December 11th, 2009, 8:35 pm

I adore McCullough's Rome series - in fact it is one of those I restart ever so often and reread the whole thing (probably hoping each time Caesar will not die this time lol) It took me a couple of tries to start it too but once I got past the half-way mark in The First Man in Rome I was well on my way. Fell totally in love with Caesar before the thing was done, of course, which sort of ruined The October Horse for me after his death. In fact, I thought that was the weakest of the series (haven't read A&C - as I personally detest both characters) for after Caesar's passing the rest of that novel seems to drag on interminably as if her heart just wasn't in it either. The depth of research in her work, however, and the well-drawn character development makes these classics of their time and genre.

Kallithrix
Scribbler
Posts: 19
Joined: December 2009

Better scholar of Rome than Greece?

Post by Kallithrix » Thu December 17th, 2009, 2:05 pm

I haven't read McCullough's Roman series because after reading Song of Troy I was somewhat sceptical of her research credentials - there were certainly glaring inaccuracies in her translation of Greek, leading her to some very questionable interpretations of the Iliad! And although historical authors are perfectly entitled to take poetic licence with their source material, especially when that material is itself poetic, still... it was UNFORGIVEABLE what she did to the characters of Diomedes and Odysseus, and all because she wanted us to feel sympathy for the deeply unsympathetic character of Achilles. All I can say is that her Roman novels had better play a little fairier with the historical figures than she did with the mythological ones!

User avatar
Frigate
Scribbler
Posts: 11
Joined: December 2009
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Frigate » Wed December 23rd, 2009, 3:00 pm

And I haven't read Song of Troy! :D I'm not sure about accuracy in the Roman novels - there is a daunting amount of historical material with which she had to become very well acquainted and a great deal of complicated human characters that had to be humanized - but she succeeded at least in my mind in making a world come to life. Yes, she's a bit biased here - if you are a Cicero fan you might get a bit irked, but in the end it's the good writing and the ability to maintain a complicated cast of humanized yet distant characters through a long writing exercise that holds me.

Kallithrix
Scribbler
Posts: 19
Joined: December 2009

Pro Cicero

Post by Kallithrix » Thu December 24th, 2009, 3:30 am

Oh dear... I am indeed a Cicero fan (hard not to be when you're already a Demosthenes fan) so I might give the Rome series a miss, as I'm likely to get rather cheesed off if she's said anything to malign him...

I loved Robert Harris' characterisation of Cicero in Imperium though - if you weren't very fond of the pompous old Republican windbag when you startd, you will be after you finish reading that! :-)

Gaslight
Scribbler
Posts: 12
Joined: January 2010

Post by Gaslight » Thu January 14th, 2010, 1:31 pm

I also like the first few books in the series better than the later ones (haven't read A&C yet either), but maybe that's because I've re-read the first 4 about 3 times each and the later ones only once. I started the series at the same time I was majoring in Greek and Roman History, so they were VERY helpful in livening up the dry history tomes we had to read. And with great characters like Publius Rutilius Rufus and his letters to "fill you in" on the goings-on, it was simply great fun.

The Republic era is much more fascinating to me than the Caesar pre-Empire, so I'm more fond of the early books. Plus Sulla is one of those characters I rooted for, even during the whole conscription purges. Something about the man turned me into a drooling fangirl... :D

Same thing for Cato. What a prude, but I cried during his messy suicide in October Horse. Didn't want him to leave!!!

We had to read Roman Blood for one of the Roman history classes (prof was a buddy of Saylor's, and detractor of McCullough's), but I couldn't get into it. Mysteries just aren't my thing, historical or not. I can watch them on TV, but in book form they're an instant zzzzzzzzzzzzz........

Post Reply

Return to “Ancient”