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?