Scan barcode
A review by mediaevalmuse
Fire from Heaven by Mary Renault
3.0
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.
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.