Scan barcode
codysmovingcastle's review against another edition
challenging
informative
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
This was beautifully written and a much easier read compared to Fire From Heaven. Bagoas was such an interesting choice for a narrator (#1 Alexander stan, #1 Hephaestion hater). It probably can be read as a standalone, but there are a few necessary references from Fire From Heaven and the dynamics from the previous book aren't obvious since Bagoas's perspective is so biased/limited.
The highlight for me is just how immersive Renault's writing is. You can really tell that authors like Madeline Miller or even CS Pacat had inspiration from Renault's work.
Easy 5 stars, highly recommend the audiobook!
The highlight for me is just how immersive Renault's writing is. You can really tell that authors like Madeline Miller or even CS Pacat had inspiration from Renault's work.
Easy 5 stars, highly recommend the audiobook!
crystalstarrlight's review against another edition
4.0
Bullet Review:
Wow.
That ending!! Where's the next book?! How can it just end like that?!
Full Review:
Alexander the Great (or, according to my personal historian, as his title should be known, in its native tongue, "o Megas Alexandros") is absolutely an awe-inspiring person. When you put into perspective the time period, the cultures, and then think about the things Alexander did, it's absolutely extraordinary.
This is the story of Alexander's later life, as told through the eyes of his Persian "boy", Bagoas, who also (in this story and perhaps in real life) was his lover. Through Bagoas' eyes, we see Alexander's extraordinary feats, but we also see how human Alexander is - how he was flawed, how he tired, how he loved, how he raged.
Last year, I started "Fire from Heaven", the first book in the Alexander trilogy, and my thoughts were all over the place. Mostly, I recall the writing being a challenge to get through (probably because of all the crap young adult I had been reading up to that time where subtlety and complexity are taboo). But I did not find this the case at all with "The Persian Boy". I personally loved the first person past tense used here - even more so because Renault executes it PERFECTLY!
First person is very chic these days, and it can be used well. It's plopping right into the head of your narrator and seeing and feeling and experiencing everything he or she does. That can be awesome - but it can also be limiting, ESPECIALLY for historical novels, or novels where something important happens away from the narrator.
"Eclipse" combated that with a cheesy "Bella is asleep but in her dreams hears Edward and Jacob talk about her" scene. Other novels have characters butt themselves in where they don't belong, miraculously receive information that is just what the reader needs, a chain of messengers, have the narrator skip over that time period and summarize it, or the absolute worst, switch to third person past to relay the scene.
Renault never does that; Bagoas is a pretty prominent character, part of Alexander's court, so it makes sense he would know some of what he does. In the beginning, Bagoas is a lesser eunuch in Darius' court and therefore knows almost nothing about what is going on, unless he is busy asking others questions. I'm not really doing a great job of saying it, but what I mean is: Renault doesn't feel the need to mangle her story so that Bagoas can relay everything to the audience.
I would say most of the characters are very relatable and, most importantly, REAL. Bagoas had his moments where he annoyed me (I think part of him was just in love with being in love with someone), but overall, his story was interesting, compelling, heart-rending, and passionate. I loved how he didn't try to supersede Alexander - such as giving Alexander key advice how to win battles and crap - nor does he also do the other thing I hate in first person: make all the characters he doesn't like evil, wicked people.
Bagoas doesn't like Hephaistion because he wants to be the only one to love Alexander. (By the way, this is the part that aggravated me most about Bagoas, because I LOVED the way Renault wrote Hephaistion and Alexander - if we are going to do that silly "team" thing that got popularized in "Twilight", I am Team Hephaistion.) But at no point does it mean that Hephaistion is an evil guy. Nope, it is clearly Bagoas' opinion. And most authors wouldn't do that. When I read Phillipa Gregory's "The Other Boleyn Girl", it was clear that not only did Mary think Anne was evil (or Jane a busybody), but the author thought that Anne was evil, and Anne was, therefore, written as an evil woman.
There is a HUGE amount of STUFFS that happen in this book, making it a really long book. But unlike many really long books, it's not like there's a scene or a section where I can say, "The Author should have red-inked that". In fact, if anything, I think the author could have put MORE into it. For instance, Bagoas hints that he lives in Egypt with Ptolemy at the end - how does that happen? Did he create a relationship with Ptolemy? If so, I would have loved to see the conversations.
This really is an incredible book looking at the life of Alexander. For a moment, I got to see how MUCH he accomplished, and yet how much more he wanted to do. Renault's Alexander comes alive on the pages through Bagoas' eyes, showing him to be a vivacious, intelligent, larger-than-life man - and yet just a man still.
This is a pretty meaty book, and I found it better to enjoy in larger chunks than a page or two at a time. This, coupled with my occasional aggravation with Bagoas and my desire to leave that final star open for the final book in the series, is what causes this to be rated 4 stars instead of the full 5.
Wow.
That ending!! Where's the next book?! How can it just end like that?!
Full Review:
Alexander the Great (or, according to my personal historian, as his title should be known, in its native tongue, "o Megas Alexandros") is absolutely an awe-inspiring person. When you put into perspective the time period, the cultures, and then think about the things Alexander did, it's absolutely extraordinary.
This is the story of Alexander's later life, as told through the eyes of his Persian "boy", Bagoas, who also (in this story and perhaps in real life) was his lover. Through Bagoas' eyes, we see Alexander's extraordinary feats, but we also see how human Alexander is - how he was flawed, how he tired, how he loved, how he raged.
Last year, I started "Fire from Heaven", the first book in the Alexander trilogy, and my thoughts were all over the place. Mostly, I recall the writing being a challenge to get through (probably because of all the crap young adult I had been reading up to that time where subtlety and complexity are taboo). But I did not find this the case at all with "The Persian Boy". I personally loved the first person past tense used here - even more so because Renault executes it PERFECTLY!
First person is very chic these days, and it can be used well. It's plopping right into the head of your narrator and seeing and feeling and experiencing everything he or she does. That can be awesome - but it can also be limiting, ESPECIALLY for historical novels, or novels where something important happens away from the narrator.
"Eclipse" combated that with a cheesy "Bella is asleep but in her dreams hears Edward and Jacob talk about her" scene. Other novels have characters butt themselves in where they don't belong, miraculously receive information that is just what the reader needs, a chain of messengers, have the narrator skip over that time period and summarize it, or the absolute worst, switch to third person past to relay the scene.
Renault never does that; Bagoas is a pretty prominent character, part of Alexander's court, so it makes sense he would know some of what he does. In the beginning, Bagoas is a lesser eunuch in Darius' court and therefore knows almost nothing about what is going on, unless he is busy asking others questions. I'm not really doing a great job of saying it, but what I mean is: Renault doesn't feel the need to mangle her story so that Bagoas can relay everything to the audience.
I would say most of the characters are very relatable and, most importantly, REAL. Bagoas had his moments where he annoyed me (I think part of him was just in love with being in love with someone), but overall, his story was interesting, compelling, heart-rending, and passionate. I loved how he didn't try to supersede Alexander - such as giving Alexander key advice how to win battles and crap - nor does he also do the other thing I hate in first person: make all the characters he doesn't like evil, wicked people.
Bagoas doesn't like Hephaistion because he wants to be the only one to love Alexander. (By the way, this is the part that aggravated me most about Bagoas, because I LOVED the way Renault wrote Hephaistion and Alexander - if we are going to do that silly "team" thing that got popularized in "Twilight", I am Team Hephaistion.) But at no point does it mean that Hephaistion is an evil guy. Nope, it is clearly Bagoas' opinion. And most authors wouldn't do that. When I read Phillipa Gregory's "The Other Boleyn Girl", it was clear that not only did Mary think Anne was evil (or Jane a busybody), but the author thought that Anne was evil, and Anne was, therefore, written as an evil woman.
There is a HUGE amount of STUFFS that happen in this book, making it a really long book. But unlike many really long books, it's not like there's a scene or a section where I can say, "The Author should have red-inked that". In fact, if anything, I think the author could have put MORE into it. For instance, Bagoas hints that he lives in Egypt with Ptolemy at the end - how does that happen? Did he create a relationship with Ptolemy? If so, I would have loved to see the conversations.
This really is an incredible book looking at the life of Alexander. For a moment, I got to see how MUCH he accomplished, and yet how much more he wanted to do. Renault's Alexander comes alive on the pages through Bagoas' eyes, showing him to be a vivacious, intelligent, larger-than-life man - and yet just a man still.
This is a pretty meaty book, and I found it better to enjoy in larger chunks than a page or two at a time. This, coupled with my occasional aggravation with Bagoas and my desire to leave that final star open for the final book in the series, is what causes this to be rated 4 stars instead of the full 5.
aminakoii's review
adventurous
challenging
emotional
informative
inspiring
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
As a non native speaker, I genuinely feel exhausted after reading this book; I had to really pay attention to understand what was going on, the writing is a little cryptic imo (but it is fun to read between the lines)
In beetween, there were a few passages that were dragging a little.
Tbh I dont even know much about Alexander the great, i was mainly interested in the character relationships. Also, those are imo the most fascinating parts of the book- the completely traumatized mc seeking (emotional) shelter in the arms of the first person that does not only use him for his own advantage, but is the first in years to see him a human again... explaining the mc's resulting obsession and extreme bias towards Alexander.
Also, the mc experiencing different cultures and traditions, dealing with culture shocks and being drawn between his and alexander's differring views.
Of course, if you actually want to read about Alexander the great, i am not sure if this is the right book for you, as many things that happen are out of the mcs field of view. Since in reality, not much is known about Bagoas, most things concerning him (as well as some concering Alexander) are wild guesses. Like, it could have been that way, bit it could also have been different. (Also there's really not enough Hephaistion)
There is no actual female character, which is a shame, as there are a few historical women who could have appeared. I think the only actual female character is a Syrian fortune teller who says like two sentences.
thesingingbook's review
adventurous
challenging
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
mathieudmrs's review against another edition
slow-paced
2.75
This book is lucky Alexander the Great is so interesting.
samuelachillese's review against another edition
I liked it a lot, just can't read about war right now. I'll revisit it another time.
pauloleary's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
informative
tense
medium-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? No
4.25
kasss's review against another edition
3.5
This book started out incredibly strong, and I appreciated Bagoas as a narrator. After the first book focused on (but was not narrated by) Alexander, I think the decision to look at this part of his life from an outsider's perspective was a good one.
Unfortunately, once Bagoas joined Alexander's party, the story went downhill for me. Turns out I found Bagoas' early days more interesting than his constant obsessive behaviour with Alexander. The story started to drag, and I wish we'd gotten more narrators(and more Hephaestion). The writing is still incredible, but after its strong start, the rest of the book left me feeling a bit disillusioned with this well acclaimed series. Not sure I'll read the last book.
Unfortunately, once Bagoas joined Alexander's party, the story went downhill for me. Turns out I found Bagoas' early days more interesting than his constant obsessive behaviour with Alexander. The story started to drag, and I wish we'd gotten more narrators