Scan barcode
megan_prairierose's review against another edition
2.0
2.5 Stars. I really wanted to love this book. I found the story and characters hard to follow and to connect with. I did enjoy the exchanges between Aristotle and his wife, but the rest of the story fell a bit flat for me.
I think if you are interested in this time period then this would be a good book for you to read.
I think if you are interested in this time period then this would be a good book for you to read.
kateslowreads's review against another edition
2.0
This novel sounded exciting to me at first, because I was sure a story about such prominent and powerful historical figures would be interesting. I felt the book was less focused on history and characters, and more on some of the philosophies Aristotle promoted. The novel focuses greatly on family relationships, that of Aristotle and his own father, of Alexander and his father Philip or his mother Olympias. The relationship of tutor to student was explored, but not as much as I felt was needed. It felt as soon as the author really started to dig into Alexander and Aristotle's relationship, she would pull back and take us back to the musings of Aristotle on other subjects. The book dwelt on unhappy marriages, and often on sicknesses of the mind or body, which affected the actions and decisions of Alexander and Aristotle.
I think that while the book was interesting, it felt very detached and indifferent in many places. I was annoyed because I thought that Aristotle behaved quite stupidly at points in the book, and while some of his writings and ideas can seem silly to the modern mind, he was a brilliant philosopher and an incredibly knowledgeable person. I like the way the author portrayed Alexander, but since I was reading the book through the first-person narrative of Aristotle, I never got to see or hear quite as much of their relationship as I wanted. I felt as though the author was constantly drawing my attention to certain details and my reaction to them was, "Yeah?" Which may be because I didn't get the book on the level I was supposed to, but there are many, including some among my book club, that admired and enjoyed it.
I think that while the book was interesting, it felt very detached and indifferent in many places. I was annoyed because I thought that Aristotle behaved quite stupidly at points in the book, and while some of his writings and ideas can seem silly to the modern mind, he was a brilliant philosopher and an incredibly knowledgeable person. I like the way the author portrayed Alexander, but since I was reading the book through the first-person narrative of Aristotle, I never got to see or hear quite as much of their relationship as I wanted. I felt as though the author was constantly drawing my attention to certain details and my reaction to them was, "Yeah?" Which may be because I didn't get the book on the level I was supposed to, but there are many, including some among my book club, that admired and enjoyed it.
caroparr's review against another edition
3.0
I read this on the recommendation of The Idle Woman, and I'm glad I did although it's not an easy read. Lyon has somehow managed to inhabit Aristotle and his world, not an easy or comfortable place to be. Now on to Mary Renault for another perspective.
kmac2022's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
shannon_b's review against another edition
1.0
I kept reading this because I thought it would get better. It really, truly, did not. Which surprised me considering many of the reviews on this book.
Just for background, I’ve done my undergrad in Classics and I usually don’t read historical fiction because I tend to believe no author can capture the compelling complexity of the real world. So I expected to struggle a bit knowing some facts would be omitted or extrapolated to suit the storyline, but that wasn’t my problem with this book. The research was actually very good, the rest of the book was the problem.
First, the sexism. I have a problem with books that write women (and sex scenes) as this book did. Kudos to Lyon though, she really captured the male gaze writing style.
Second, the writing style itself. This book relies heavily on descriptions of scientific studies done by Aristotle, and there wasn’t much else? All the other scenes are written with so little description, and so many jumps, keeping track of what Lyon is even talking about can be frustrating.
Third- was there a plot? Because there was a lot of philosophical and thematic exploration going on (if you read heavily into what Lyon wrote) but plot was not really a thing in this book.
This whole novel felt like an exploration of theme and style but without any real substance.
Just for background, I’ve done my undergrad in Classics and I usually don’t read historical fiction because I tend to believe no author can capture the compelling complexity of the real world. So I expected to struggle a bit knowing some facts would be omitted or extrapolated to suit the storyline, but that wasn’t my problem with this book. The research was actually very good, the rest of the book was the problem.
First, the sexism. I have a problem with books that write women (and sex scenes) as this book did. Kudos to Lyon though, she really captured the male gaze writing style.
Second, the writing style itself. This book relies heavily on descriptions of scientific studies done by Aristotle, and there wasn’t much else? All the other scenes are written with so little description, and so many jumps, keeping track of what Lyon is even talking about can be frustrating.
Third- was there a plot? Because there was a lot of philosophical and thematic exploration going on (if you read heavily into what Lyon wrote) but plot was not really a thing in this book.
This whole novel felt like an exploration of theme and style but without any real substance.
angeliqueazul's review against another edition
4.0
A very authentic historical novel. I didn't like the structure so much, to me it hindered really getting into the story. However, it also prevented long descriptions and repetitive scenes.
The Golden Mean is an incredibly intelligent book that makes you think. When I finished it I wanted to start again to look for more clues, more hints about Alexander, about everything. The characters were amazingly portrayed. But then again, I would have liked more interaction between them - especially between Aristotle and Arrhidaeus. The violence mentioned now and then and in the afterword quite disturbed me in the light of all the intellectual, calm scenes and moments of the stories before.
The Golden Mean is an incredibly intelligent book that makes you think. When I finished it I wanted to start again to look for more clues, more hints about Alexander, about everything. The characters were amazingly portrayed. But then again, I would have liked more interaction between them - especially between Aristotle and Arrhidaeus. The violence mentioned now and then and in the afterword quite disturbed me in the light of all the intellectual, calm scenes and moments of the stories before.
dannb's review against another edition
3.0
Less about Arisotle and Alexander the Great and more about Arisotle's manic-depression... still interesting
laranda's review against another edition
Can tell very quickly this will be a boring slog
ianomath's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
tasmanian_bibliophile's review against another edition
3.0
‘You make the world larger for yourself by conquering it, but you always lose something in the process.’
The philosopher Aristotle was engaged by King Philip II of Macedon in 343 BCE as tutor for his 13 year old son Alexander. This novel, written from Aristotle’s first person perspective, tells the imagined story of the relationship between him and his most famous student: the boy who went on to transform the world as Alexander the Great.
Ms Lyon has crafted an interesting and enjoyable novel around the lives of some key historical figures (Aristotle, Plato, Philip and Alexander) and done so in a way that integrates the broad sweep of history with the very human foibles that each possesses. As depicted, Aristotle is a fascinating character: a blend of contradictions who is both curious about the world around him and caught within the conventions of the times in which he lived. On the pages of this novel, Aristotle comes to life.
Alexander is still being shaped: his training for leadership and war is tempered (in part) by Aristotle’s training in philosophy and the arts. The aim is to find a balance, or the Golden Mean, between the two extremes of deficiency and excess. The objective is to prepare Alexander to succeed Philip, and while Aristotle views Alexander as ‘a violent, snotty boy’ at the beginning, he comes to love and respect him by the end of the novel.
I enjoyed this novel because of its perspective of Alexander. I found the depiction of Aristotle fascinating. While he doesn’t seem terribly pleasant person, he is believable and I could imagine him teaching, challenging and shaping Alexander. For me, one of the most interesting characters was Philip of Macedon, and I would like to read more about him.
‘Never be afraid to enter an agreement you can’t immediately see your way out of.’
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
The philosopher Aristotle was engaged by King Philip II of Macedon in 343 BCE as tutor for his 13 year old son Alexander. This novel, written from Aristotle’s first person perspective, tells the imagined story of the relationship between him and his most famous student: the boy who went on to transform the world as Alexander the Great.
Ms Lyon has crafted an interesting and enjoyable novel around the lives of some key historical figures (Aristotle, Plato, Philip and Alexander) and done so in a way that integrates the broad sweep of history with the very human foibles that each possesses. As depicted, Aristotle is a fascinating character: a blend of contradictions who is both curious about the world around him and caught within the conventions of the times in which he lived. On the pages of this novel, Aristotle comes to life.
Alexander is still being shaped: his training for leadership and war is tempered (in part) by Aristotle’s training in philosophy and the arts. The aim is to find a balance, or the Golden Mean, between the two extremes of deficiency and excess. The objective is to prepare Alexander to succeed Philip, and while Aristotle views Alexander as ‘a violent, snotty boy’ at the beginning, he comes to love and respect him by the end of the novel.
I enjoyed this novel because of its perspective of Alexander. I found the depiction of Aristotle fascinating. While he doesn’t seem terribly pleasant person, he is believable and I could imagine him teaching, challenging and shaping Alexander. For me, one of the most interesting characters was Philip of Macedon, and I would like to read more about him.
‘Never be afraid to enter an agreement you can’t immediately see your way out of.’
Jennifer Cameron-Smith