You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.23 AVERAGE
4.23 AVERAGE
In my opinion the worst book of the three I read written by Williams. The story of two of the greatest Roman Emperor are told like a sad telenovela, where the epistolary form of the book contributes to rend it even more convoluted, between flashback and forwards and also name changing. It's still a good book if you are into history novelization and maybe not "Roman" like me.
Secondo me il peggiore dei tre libri di Williams che ho letto fino ad ora. La storia di due dei piú grandi imperatori romani, raccontata come se fosse una telenovela triste, dove la forma epistolare del romanzo contribuisce, con i salti temporali e i cambi di nome, ad una complessitá inutile della forma per una trama poi banale. Resta comunque un buon libro, a patto che siate fanatici dei romanzi storici e non siate "romani" come me.
Secondo me il peggiore dei tre libri di Williams che ho letto fino ad ora. La storia di due dei piú grandi imperatori romani, raccontata come se fosse una telenovela triste, dove la forma epistolare del romanzo contribuisce, con i salti temporali e i cambi di nome, ad una complessitá inutile della forma per una trama poi banale. Resta comunque un buon libro, a patto che siate fanatici dei romanzi storici e non siate "romani" come me.
My goodness! How can one write a review about a book he admires and yet has issues with? Yes, this is the case of John Williams Augustus.
Here is this young man, somehow rejected for a time by his mother and stepfather, brought up by his grandmother, and having to show his great-uncle his worth. As a kind of scholar and a soldier, Octavius became Rome’s first Emperor, the one that brought peace, stability, and prosperity to a vast reign riddled with the corruption and evil ideals of a dying republic. After Augustus, Rome came to be a peaceful and prosperous empire only when the Nerva-Antonino dynasty came to power in A.D. 96. Despite the great mind and political capabilities of Augustus, as any human being who is met with the power to govern upon others, he had to play the political chess he thought to be the best for Rome. Regardless of the conquests he achieved, his biggest failure seems to be the problems he had with his succession, not to mention that some of his chosen successors might have been poised and brought to death before his own death. Yet, somehow, his long reign and what it meant to Rome was his greatest legacy and one that might have avoided a worse destiny for the Roman Empire.
As for Williams’ book, it is clear that he opted for a different path in writing his novel. While his previous novels, Butcher’s Crossing and Stoner, followed a usual narrative style with superb results, Augustus is an epistolary novel, resulting in closer emotional contact with the characters by the reader, and a sense of pertaining to the historical moment as it took place in the world. Yet, the documents that form the novel and give the reader a sense of who was Augustus and what the world was like then, I don’t think I could sense that each person had its own voice, but a single one that spoke for them. I mean, I could not notice different stylistic usages of speech or self-expression, thus Julia’s writing in her journal was no different from Agrippa writing to Augustus, or Cleopatra writing to Marcus Antonius, or Maecenas letters, and even the long letter Augustus writes to Nicolaus of Damascus, and so on. The only difference in these documents was some tone used to differentiate the documents written by the women from that by the men. In some ways, these letters had a melodramatic feeling to it, like Augustus' long letter. And regardless of the fact that Williams wanted to write something different from a historical novel, it ended up reading just like one.
For all of this, I believe the novel didn’t reach its full potential, regardless of the fact that I respect Williams’ options and I admire him even more for that because taking risks is no easy deal in everyday life; just imagine in the literary world, then.
As a final note in relation to John Williams 3 great books, there is this feeling that Stoner, Andrews and Augustus, these three men long for something they can only have a hint of what it is, but hardly apprehend it because fortune has ways that we are not meant to know in advance; it is something much wider than power or money, which are means to something, not its final destination. It is not happiness either, this very contemporary object of desire. It is something closer to a fair and properly lived life.
As for any comparison to Yourcenar’s “Memoirs”, an epistolary book that also deals with the life of a Roman emperor, Hadrian, these are the only two possible connections between the two of them. There's a tendency to see the "Memoirs" as historical fiction, but it is something very different, it is more philosophical than historical or political.
Here is this young man, somehow rejected for a time by his mother and stepfather, brought up by his grandmother, and having to show his great-uncle his worth. As a kind of scholar and a soldier, Octavius became Rome’s first Emperor, the one that brought peace, stability, and prosperity to a vast reign riddled with the corruption and evil ideals of a dying republic. After Augustus, Rome came to be a peaceful and prosperous empire only when the Nerva-Antonino dynasty came to power in A.D. 96. Despite the great mind and political capabilities of Augustus, as any human being who is met with the power to govern upon others, he had to play the political chess he thought to be the best for Rome. Regardless of the conquests he achieved, his biggest failure seems to be the problems he had with his succession, not to mention that some of his chosen successors might have been poised and brought to death before his own death. Yet, somehow, his long reign and what it meant to Rome was his greatest legacy and one that might have avoided a worse destiny for the Roman Empire.
As for Williams’ book, it is clear that he opted for a different path in writing his novel. While his previous novels, Butcher’s Crossing and Stoner, followed a usual narrative style with superb results, Augustus is an epistolary novel, resulting in closer emotional contact with the characters by the reader, and a sense of pertaining to the historical moment as it took place in the world. Yet, the documents that form the novel and give the reader a sense of who was Augustus and what the world was like then, I don’t think I could sense that each person had its own voice, but a single one that spoke for them. I mean, I could not notice different stylistic usages of speech or self-expression, thus Julia’s writing in her journal was no different from Agrippa writing to Augustus, or Cleopatra writing to Marcus Antonius, or Maecenas letters, and even the long letter Augustus writes to Nicolaus of Damascus, and so on. The only difference in these documents was some tone used to differentiate the documents written by the women from that by the men. In some ways, these letters had a melodramatic feeling to it, like Augustus' long letter. And regardless of the fact that Williams wanted to write something different from a historical novel, it ended up reading just like one.
For all of this, I believe the novel didn’t reach its full potential, regardless of the fact that I respect Williams’ options and I admire him even more for that because taking risks is no easy deal in everyday life; just imagine in the literary world, then.
As a final note in relation to John Williams 3 great books, there is this feeling that Stoner, Andrews and Augustus, these three men long for something they can only have a hint of what it is, but hardly apprehend it because fortune has ways that we are not meant to know in advance; it is something much wider than power or money, which are means to something, not its final destination. It is not happiness either, this very contemporary object of desire. It is something closer to a fair and properly lived life.
As for any comparison to Yourcenar’s “Memoirs”, an epistolary book that also deals with the life of a Roman emperor, Hadrian, these are the only two possible connections between the two of them. There's a tendency to see the "Memoirs" as historical fiction, but it is something very different, it is more philosophical than historical or political.
An enjoyable read, an interesting telling of the life of Caesar Augustus. This was part of my quest to read all National Book Award winners for Fiction. The narrative is pushed forward through a series of letters, journal entries, poems, and other fragments written by those whose lives intersected with Augustus. Williams uses the device effectively and the plot of the story moves along nicely and coherently.
I feel like this is a book that, to me, lacked profundity. . . it never wowed me with opening up a world that I haven't seen before, but it was an enjoyable read, providing nice insight into the early Roman empire. And it was light years better than the 1973 co-winner Chimera by John Barth.
I feel like this is a book that, to me, lacked profundity. . . it never wowed me with opening up a world that I haven't seen before, but it was an enjoyable read, providing nice insight into the early Roman empire. And it was light years better than the 1973 co-winner Chimera by John Barth.
If you are familiar with the overview of Octavian's life, this book will be enjoyable and enriching. It's not really a good choice for someone to jump into reading Roman history. The book is structured as a file of relevant letters between the major players in ancient Roman politics.
The story gradually incorporates Julia, daughter of Octavian, as a major character. Her story is quite interesting.
The story gradually incorporates Julia, daughter of Octavian, as a major character. Her story is quite interesting.
Told in the format of fictional letters and journals, Williams put together a biography of Gaius Octavius, better known as Augustus, the first Emperor of the Roman Empire. I knew that I would love this book, both because I am a total sucker for classical history, and because after reading “Stoner” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2034127807), Williams’ talent is not something I question. And he could not have picked a more fascinating subject for his final novel: Augustus was a privileged but bookish young man, and while he had some military training, he was not the warrior his great uncle Julius Caesar was. He inherited Caesar’s titles and estate when he was only nineteen, and surprised pretty much everyone by not only rising to the occasion, but by solidifying his power with remarkable intelligence – and ruthlessness.
Williams begins his narrative a few months before the assassination of Julius Caesar, and covers Augustus’ entire reign, from the early struggles for power with the triumvirate, his military campaigns, his marriage, his friendships and ultimately, his death. If you know your Roman history, none of the events taking place on these pages will surprise you, but the quality of the writing, the strength of the characterization of those well-known historical figures and the depth and range of their human experience makes up for the lack of suspense (always a problem with historical fiction: we know how it ends!).
The epistolary format is beautiful and immersive, but it also means that readers with no background knowledge of Roman history and politics might be a little lost on occasion, as Williams provide little to no exposition – I kept a copy of Plutarch nearby, just in case I blanked out on who did what, when. But if you are already a fan of the so-called makers of Rome, this is a delightful recreation of their style of writing, and a vivid reimagining of key moments of Roman history. The many perspectives on this story also draw a complex, multi-faceted portrait of Augustus, and shows the complicated blend of flaws and strengths that such a man must have been to have reigned over the Empire for as long as he did. I understand why Williams chose to use Augustus’s voice only at the end (more on that later), but I admit I would have liked to see the events through his eyes a few times more.
I have always been fascinated by the eloquence and the intensity of the well-known figures of the early Roman Empire. It’s impossible to read Cicero, Plutarch or even Julius Caesar’s own writing without being awed by the (potentially exaggerated, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt) verve with which they express themselves and praise or insult each other. Williams was obviously fond of their tone as well, because he captures it in the fictional letters with a realism that impressed me. Compared to some, Augustus as written by Williams is a reserved and cold-seeming man, his strong self-discipline holding back his emotions – but we see that this struggle of mind over passion costs him dearly, especially when it comes to his only daughter Julia.
Julia’s story is that of a woman torn between her duty, as daughter of the Emperor, and her desire to simply live her life. And Augustus’s decisions regarding her are those of a man equally torn between wanting what is best for his beloved city, and what is best for his equally beloved daughter – whom he had nicknamed his “little Rome”. They can seem cold on paper, those two titans of history, but through Julia’s diary entries, Williams summons the strength of their personalities and depth of their feelings masterfully.
The final section, narrated by Augustus, is an incredibly moving reflection on ageing and dying, on looking back at life and seeing things so differently from how we did when we were young.
Just like “Stoner”, this is a great novel, with a quiet and contemplative tone, that fans of historical fiction will love, and fans of good books in general ought to check out. If I have one complain, its that I wished it was longer: I would have loved even more details about Augustus’ reign and the fascinating and intricate characters that surrounded him through his life. I’m going to go re-watch “Rome” now…
Williams begins his narrative a few months before the assassination of Julius Caesar, and covers Augustus’ entire reign, from the early struggles for power with the triumvirate, his military campaigns, his marriage, his friendships and ultimately, his death. If you know your Roman history, none of the events taking place on these pages will surprise you, but the quality of the writing, the strength of the characterization of those well-known historical figures and the depth and range of their human experience makes up for the lack of suspense (always a problem with historical fiction: we know how it ends!).
The epistolary format is beautiful and immersive, but it also means that readers with no background knowledge of Roman history and politics might be a little lost on occasion, as Williams provide little to no exposition – I kept a copy of Plutarch nearby, just in case I blanked out on who did what, when. But if you are already a fan of the so-called makers of Rome, this is a delightful recreation of their style of writing, and a vivid reimagining of key moments of Roman history. The many perspectives on this story also draw a complex, multi-faceted portrait of Augustus, and shows the complicated blend of flaws and strengths that such a man must have been to have reigned over the Empire for as long as he did. I understand why Williams chose to use Augustus’s voice only at the end (more on that later), but I admit I would have liked to see the events through his eyes a few times more.
I have always been fascinated by the eloquence and the intensity of the well-known figures of the early Roman Empire. It’s impossible to read Cicero, Plutarch or even Julius Caesar’s own writing without being awed by the (potentially exaggerated, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt) verve with which they express themselves and praise or insult each other. Williams was obviously fond of their tone as well, because he captures it in the fictional letters with a realism that impressed me. Compared to some, Augustus as written by Williams is a reserved and cold-seeming man, his strong self-discipline holding back his emotions – but we see that this struggle of mind over passion costs him dearly, especially when it comes to his only daughter Julia.
Julia’s story is that of a woman torn between her duty, as daughter of the Emperor, and her desire to simply live her life. And Augustus’s decisions regarding her are those of a man equally torn between wanting what is best for his beloved city, and what is best for his equally beloved daughter – whom he had nicknamed his “little Rome”. They can seem cold on paper, those two titans of history, but through Julia’s diary entries, Williams summons the strength of their personalities and depth of their feelings masterfully.
The final section, narrated by Augustus, is an incredibly moving reflection on ageing and dying, on looking back at life and seeing things so differently from how we did when we were young.
Just like “Stoner”, this is a great novel, with a quiet and contemplative tone, that fans of historical fiction will love, and fans of good books in general ought to check out. If I have one complain, its that I wished it was longer: I would have loved even more details about Augustus’ reign and the fascinating and intricate characters that surrounded him through his life. I’m going to go re-watch “Rome” now…
On top of the world, he is alone. Great man or small people, human soul desires the same.
adventurous
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Olihan se paras mahdollinen esimerkki historiallisesta romaanista, kerrontaratkaisuista, elävistä hahmoista kerrottuna kirjeromaanissa...
Williams on saanut niin monta asiaa nappiin. Rooman juonittelut ja myös ylhäistön arki tulevat lihaksi ja henkilöhahmojen tragedian kautta kerrotaan monta opetusta elämästä: huipulla on yksinäistä, raskaat uhraukset yhteiseksi hyväksi jäävät vaille kiitosta, maailmaa ei voi ohjata ja
Teos on täynnä lauseita, jotka kuulostavat antiikin ikiaikaisilta viisauksilta. Valitsin niistä yhden, hyvin miesajattelun täyttämän helmen, jonka loppu on kuin suoraan Shakespearelta:
Nuori mies, joka ei tunne tulevaisuutta, näkee elämän eräänlaisena eeppisenä seikkailuna, odysseiana vierailla vesillä ja tuntemattomilla saarilla, missä hän koettelee voimiaan, todistaa ne ja löytää sitä kautta kuolemattomuutensa.
Keski-ikäinen mies, joka on elänyt sen tulevaisuuden, josta joskus haaveili, näkee elämän tragediana, sillä hänelle on selvinnyt, että hänen valtansa, vaikka olisi kuinka suuri, ei kestä niitä sattuman ja luonnon voimia, joille hän antaa jumalten nimiä; hänelle on selvinnyt myös, että hän on kuolevainen.
Mutta jos ikämies esittää hänelle osoitettua roolia asianmukaisesti, näkee hän väistämättä elämän komediaksi. Sillä hänen onnistumisensa ja epäonnistumisensa sulautuvat yhteen eivätkä kummatkaan anna aihetta sen paremmin ylpeyteen kuin häpeään; eikä hän ole sankari, joka on pitänyt pintansa noita voimia vastaan, eikä toisaalta päähenkilö, jonka nuo voimat ovat murtaneet. Kuten kaikki huonot, säälittävät näyttelijät, hän oivaltaa lopulta esittäneensä niin monia osia, ettei häntä itseään ole enää olemassa.
Sekä:
Ihminen ei petä itseään tekojensa seurauksista; ihminen pettää itseään siitä, kuinka helppoa noiden seurausten kanssa on elää.
Williams on saanut niin monta asiaa nappiin. Rooman juonittelut ja myös ylhäistön arki tulevat lihaksi ja henkilöhahmojen tragedian kautta kerrotaan monta opetusta elämästä: huipulla on yksinäistä, raskaat uhraukset yhteiseksi hyväksi jäävät vaille kiitosta, maailmaa ei voi ohjata ja
Teos on täynnä lauseita, jotka kuulostavat antiikin ikiaikaisilta viisauksilta. Valitsin niistä yhden, hyvin miesajattelun täyttämän helmen, jonka loppu on kuin suoraan Shakespearelta:
Nuori mies, joka ei tunne tulevaisuutta, näkee elämän eräänlaisena eeppisenä seikkailuna, odysseiana vierailla vesillä ja tuntemattomilla saarilla, missä hän koettelee voimiaan, todistaa ne ja löytää sitä kautta kuolemattomuutensa.
Keski-ikäinen mies, joka on elänyt sen tulevaisuuden, josta joskus haaveili, näkee elämän tragediana, sillä hänelle on selvinnyt, että hänen valtansa, vaikka olisi kuinka suuri, ei kestä niitä sattuman ja luonnon voimia, joille hän antaa jumalten nimiä; hänelle on selvinnyt myös, että hän on kuolevainen.
Mutta jos ikämies esittää hänelle osoitettua roolia asianmukaisesti, näkee hän väistämättä elämän komediaksi. Sillä hänen onnistumisensa ja epäonnistumisensa sulautuvat yhteen eivätkä kummatkaan anna aihetta sen paremmin ylpeyteen kuin häpeään; eikä hän ole sankari, joka on pitänyt pintansa noita voimia vastaan, eikä toisaalta päähenkilö, jonka nuo voimat ovat murtaneet. Kuten kaikki huonot, säälittävät näyttelijät, hän oivaltaa lopulta esittäneensä niin monia osia, ettei häntä itseään ole enää olemassa.
Sekä:
Ihminen ei petä itseään tekojensa seurauksista; ihminen pettää itseään siitä, kuinka helppoa noiden seurausten kanssa on elää.