I’ve been on a ancient Greece/Rome kick lately, since I’ve found that I can better enjoy historical fiction that isn’t set in the middle ages. After reading The Song of Achilles, this novel was recommended as one that fully embraces history as complex, especially regarding sexuality. Although this novel isn’t a romance, it’s a brilliant sketch of Alexander’s world, almost to a fault. It’s heavy on the war campaigns and light on the personal relationships. If you’re interested in the time period, I recommend giving it a go, but if you’d rather read a novel that gives a good sketch of Alexander as a person, you may need to look elsewhere.

Things I Liked

1. Hephaistion: Renault’s book brilliantly captures Hephaistion’s devotion to Alexander, wavering between fierce devotion and awful reverence. Although the focus isn’t entirely on Alexander and Hephaistion’s relationship, the fact that it was there was very much appreciated. I also loved the closeness of the characters despite Hephaistion’s unrequited love and Alexander’s reliance on his friend for emotional support.

2. Alexander’s Parents: I loved that Alexander was torn between his mother and father, even if their squabbles were somewhat petty or overdramatic. What I did appreciate was Alexander feeling like his loyalties had to lie with one parent over the other, and I think the effect it had on him is wonderfully played out.

3. Prose: Renault’s writing is very lyrical and full of beautiful descriptions here and there without feeling weighty.

Things I Didn’t Like

1. Narrative Fluidity: The narrative jumps around from time to time, and Renault has a tendency to do so between paragraphs without offering a line break to give readers a heads up. Renault also holds back from using Alexander’s name too much, preferring to call him “the boy” and using pronouns to the degree that if there is more than one person in a scene, the pronoun references can become confusing. A little more support would have helped me follow the story more closely.

2. Alexander’s Characterization: Alexander is written as good at everything he does. While he does have some flaws, they’re not entirely detrimental, and I would have liked to see the character written a bit more humanly, with his own struggles, dislikes, and weaknesses rather than the best of everyone.

3. Focus on History: Don’t get me wrong - I love a historical novel that engages with complex political history. But in doing so, I prefer to have a story that shows readers both the political side and the personal one, and with this novel, it was largely political, almost like reading a history book. It was difficult to follow, with a lot of names and locations thrown together, detracting from the portrait of Alexander.

Recommendations: I would recommend this book if you’re interested in Alexander the Great, ancient history, wars, political campaigns, empire, politics, and coming of age stories.

Renault's writing might be a little bit too vague for me - she has excellent, flowery style and is a master of describing the atmosphere and the place - but to be honest her Alexander was so idealised that I had a constant gnawing feeling that he is just a symbol, not a real character. He was constantly described as a young God whom everybody loves and idealises, his golden locks and strong muscles and noble character and the divine smell of his armpits - and everybody has sex except him, because he is not that kind of guy. His parents are far more realistic - I had a genuine affection for his father, one-eyed Macedonian king Philip (whom history conveniently remembers as a bully, in comparison to glowingly blameless Alexander) and was terrified of his perpetually angry, scheming and manipulating mother Olympias.

The only reason why I don't think of her highly as say, Marguerite Yourcenar is because Renault can be (in my personal opinion) so extremely cautious when dealing with her gay characters, that I would read the sentence three times and still was not sure what am I reading. I understand she was from different generation and very, very touchy about it, but this specific signposts and hints are too complicated for me. Take for example this sentence: "Hephaistion thought, I am in the King’s gift too, a favour he can take away. Presently, having no more words, he offered instead the sadness of Eros, for this at least brought sleep." What does this mean? Am I imagining things? What IS the sadness of Eros? All trough the novel we witness beautiful friendship between Alexander and his friend Hephaestion and we are told that everybody suspects they are lovers but everything was always left unspoken and now suddenly there is the sadness of Eros?

Well written historical fiction. Can't add much to all the other positive reviews except to say that it's very engaging writing while expecting a certain level of historical knowledge. Good read!

This is my second copy of this book. I bought another one years ago, tried to read it, found I couldn't get into it and sold it. This time, I started reading it and could barely put it down. Go figure.

Since Fire from Heaven is the first volume of Mary Renault's trilogy about the life of Alexander the Great, it's not very surprising that this book is about Alexander's childhood and youth. Like I said, I found it a very compelling read, but not so much because of the plot, but because I didn't want to stop reading. It wasn't so much about needing to find out what was going to happen but more about the way it was told. I think Mary Renault's way of writing may not be for everyone (then again, whose is?), but I find it to be beautiful and elegant.

My favorite aspect (apart from my most favorite, which I'm going to mention in a bit) were the quiet, peaceful moments she managed to include, like when Alexander and Hephaistion visit the fallen Thebans after the battle. Those moments left a deep impression on me.

Now for my most favorite thing about this book, and also the main reason why I wanted to read it: the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion. Mary Renault writes them as lovers, and it's rather touching to see how their relationship blossoms. I'm having some trouble to find the right words for this, but like with any slash pairing I read - while it may be nice that they're lovers, what impresses and touches me is the immense love these characters feel for each other, and it's like that here.

In any case - if one set out to read this book expecting a love story, one is bound to be disappointed. I found it a great historical novel, however, and I cannot wait to read the second volume.

I did not enjoy reading this novel but, as it is highly regarded and was shortlisted for the Lost Man Booker Prize list, I persevered. Mary Renault tells the story of the future Alexander the Great from childhood through to the moment he becomes king of Macedonia. The novel is at its best when Renault focuses on Alexander’s relationships with his family and friends, from his parents to his “companion” Hephaistion and tutors including Aristotle. There are also fine descriptive passages that imagine sacred rites and ceremonies. But, for much of the time, it gets bogged down in the politics, tribal rivalries and conflicts of the period, using Ancient names for countries, regions, cities and tribes without providing clues about who they are. (I’ve read about and studied Ancient History but who the **** are the Phokians? You shouldn’t have to be Googling every 10 minutes when reading a novel.) A map would have been useful, and maybe a glossary too. Having read Renault’s superior novel The Charioteer, about gay men in World War Two, I noted her distinctive style of inference, putting a great onus on a reader to pick up hints and nuances to decode what is going on, what she or her characters are talking about, and what their motivations are. At times, this lack of clarity is very frustrating. There are two sequels to this book but I can’t face them.