Scan barcode
A review by shannon_b
The Golden Mean by Annabel Lyon
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.