Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.05 AVERAGE
4.05 AVERAGE
Not as good as I, Claudius, but still one of my favorite Ancient Rome reads
adventurous
informative
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I finished Claudius the god. Again I enjoyed it very well written with lots of interesting history mixed with the fiction. Interesting seeing how even a noble leader like Claudius starting to use his power to settle personal scores. Also his apathy at ruling after the reval of Messalina's "activities" and eventual betrayal was really well done as that kind of thing could definitely break a man. Also it was a very fitting way of winding down the story and by extension claudius role in history, since despite the intrigue around Agrippina the Younger and Nero it was beyond the scope of his life. Which based on the 3 accounts of his death I agree was probably poison.
Despite thinking it could have been handled more naturally since it seems to come into the story left field and then leave again close to the end I liked the stuff with Herod Agrippa, the Jews and the references to christ and early Christianity.
My only criticisms if you could call them that is I wished it was longer and went into more detail about stuff. But i understand it is a novel and not a history book so it would loose focus if it did
Despite thinking it could have been handled more naturally since it seems to come into the story left field and then leave again close to the end I liked the stuff with Herod Agrippa, the Jews and the references to christ and early Christianity.
My only criticisms if you could call them that is I wished it was longer and went into more detail about stuff. But i understand it is a novel and not a history book so it would loose focus if it did
I loved the show first - I, Claudius on PBS Masterpiece, early days. I read I, Claudius and discovered it was only half the story. The best half - if by best you mean the sickest - is in the "sequel."
I picked up I Claudius and Claudius the God, because I remembered really liking the BBC Series, which we watched in Latin Class. I approached the first book with some caution, not sure if they would live up to the TV series, after all, these books were written almost 80 years ago. I was not disappointed. They're great. Really great. It is written in a manner that projects a lot of authenticity, yet very pleasant to read.
'I Claudius' deals with Claudius' childhood up until Caligula's assassination, in the form of an autobiography. 'Claudius the God' describes Claudius' life as emperor of Rome until his death.
It's obvious that Graves knows his stuff and that he has done a lot of research. Granted, he does portray some of the wild stories that Suetonius and the like wrote about as being true, and most historians will tell you to take this with a pinch of salt. But hey, I remember loving those stories in my Latin classes, the crazier the better. I adored Caligula, he was just awesome. Horse elected senator, war against Neptune, oh man. Good stuff.
So many times while reading these, I came upon facts, or names or whatever and I would have an 'ohhhh yeah!' moment and remember things that I'd been taught years ago. These two books are a must-read for people who are interested in Roman stuff. Graves does tend to go into a lot of detail, so make sure you're a total geek before you start. Myself, nine times out of ten, I was very interested. And there's always epic battles, murder, deceit, banishment and adultery to mix things up.
Personally, I enjoyed the first book a little more than the second one, but that might be because the first one has historical V.I.P.'s such as Caligula and Augustus (who is, by the way, probably a little slower and a little more pussywhipped than the real Augustus was), but they are both still very much recommended. By me.
'I Claudius' deals with Claudius' childhood up until Caligula's assassination, in the form of an autobiography. 'Claudius the God' describes Claudius' life as emperor of Rome until his death.
It's obvious that Graves knows his stuff and that he has done a lot of research. Granted, he does portray some of the wild stories that Suetonius and the like wrote about as being true, and most historians will tell you to take this with a pinch of salt. But hey, I remember loving those stories in my Latin classes, the crazier the better. I adored Caligula, he was just awesome. Horse elected senator, war against Neptune, oh man. Good stuff.
So many times while reading these, I came upon facts, or names or whatever and I would have an 'ohhhh yeah!' moment and remember things that I'd been taught years ago. These two books are a must-read for people who are interested in Roman stuff. Graves does tend to go into a lot of detail, so make sure you're a total geek before you start. Myself, nine times out of ten, I was very interested. And there's always epic battles, murder, deceit, banishment and adultery to mix things up.
Personally, I enjoyed the first book a little more than the second one, but that might be because the first one has historical V.I.P.'s such as Caligula and Augustus (who is, by the way, probably a little slower and a little more pussywhipped than the real Augustus was), but they are both still very much recommended. By me.
3 1/2 stars: While I, Claudius was a gossipy, warts-and-all mix of history, politics, and dysfunctional family drama narrated with unflinching candor by a reluctant player of the game, Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina is much less gossipy and an altogether slower narrative. Whereas before he was a witness recounting the turmoil roiling around him, Claudius is now the central focus. This is a significant difference since his general stability and competence makes for a comparatively less turbulent narrative, and that's somewhat to the novel's detriment.
Late in the book, Claudius states he's "merely a historian and no doubt most people would call me, in general, dull and prosy." Definitely prosy (which I enjoyed), but dull? I confess, sometimes my patience and interest were tested. I started this not long after finishing I, Claudius but I put it aside several times. Beginning the novel by backtracking to tell Herod Agrippa's history before returning to the narrative some 60 pages later was a bit testing. (This history and politics of the empire's Far Eastern provinces flare up periodically in the story until they draw to a somewhat anticlimactic payoff—just after that quote, actually.) He also spends another good 60 pages recounting the history of the tribes of Britain, Rome's forays into subduing the isle, and then the campaign that eventually succeeded in its conquest. (I don't fault the attention to it, since it's one of the crowing achievements of his reign, but it was again a bit testing, so I put it aside again until I could come back with a keener interest.) In between we get exhaustive details about his legal duties, building projects, and the smaller points of governance. What we don't get is a lot of what made I, Claudius so much of a page turner. We see incidents and flashes of foreshadowings of what's to come throughout, but it's not until the last 70 pages, when his life gets very messy again, that the spirit and flow of the earlier novel returns and adds a much needed vibrance to the story.
There comes a moment the chapter before those last five when it seemed that Claudius was trying to exhaust the mundane subjects before tackling the infamy of Messalina. I really felt for him, knowing what tragedy awaited. And yet, I can't help but wonder if some of the mundanity of the novel had been summarized more…But while it may not make for the most exciting reading, it's all so very consistent with the character of Claudius the thorough, if dull historian. Ultimately, the book is a substantial, worthwhile read. Claudius is undoubtedly one of historical fiction's greatest narrators.
I will fault Graves for ending with Seneca's cruel lampooning of Claudius, even if it's an interesting contemporary perspective of a writer trying to please the succeeding emperor, Nero. It might have been best to end with the three brief historical accounts of Claudius's death and immediate aftermath, to let Claudius's voice echo longer without an enemy's strident ridicule drowning it out.
Late in the book, Claudius states he's "merely a historian and no doubt most people would call me, in general, dull and prosy." Definitely prosy (which I enjoyed), but dull? I confess, sometimes my patience and interest were tested. I started this not long after finishing I, Claudius but I put it aside several times. Beginning the novel by backtracking to tell Herod Agrippa's history before returning to the narrative some 60 pages later was a bit testing. (This history and politics of the empire's Far Eastern provinces flare up periodically in the story until they draw to a somewhat anticlimactic payoff—just after that quote, actually.) He also spends another good 60 pages recounting the history of the tribes of Britain, Rome's forays into subduing the isle, and then the campaign that eventually succeeded in its conquest. (I don't fault the attention to it, since it's one of the crowing achievements of his reign, but it was again a bit testing, so I put it aside again until I could come back with a keener interest.) In between we get exhaustive details about his legal duties, building projects, and the smaller points of governance. What we don't get is a lot of what made I, Claudius so much of a page turner. We see incidents and flashes of foreshadowings of what's to come throughout, but it's not until the last 70 pages, when his life gets very messy again, that the spirit and flow of the earlier novel returns and adds a much needed vibrance to the story.
There comes a moment the chapter before those last five when it seemed that Claudius was trying to exhaust the mundane subjects before tackling the infamy of Messalina. I really felt for him, knowing what tragedy awaited. And yet, I can't help but wonder if some of the mundanity of the novel had been summarized more…But while it may not make for the most exciting reading, it's all so very consistent with the character of Claudius the thorough, if dull historian. Ultimately, the book is a substantial, worthwhile read. Claudius is undoubtedly one of historical fiction's greatest narrators.
I will fault Graves for ending with Seneca's cruel lampooning of Claudius, even if it's an interesting contemporary perspective of a writer trying to please the succeeding emperor, Nero. It might have been best to end with the three brief historical accounts of Claudius's death and immediate aftermath, to let Claudius's voice echo longer without an enemy's strident ridicule drowning it out.
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
funny
informative
reflective
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes