I'm reading "Tyrant" by Valerio Massimo Manfredi, but it looks like I may not finish it.
The author is a classical scholar, but he fails to really engage in character thoughts - he uses such an oblique Third Person Objective perspective that you never really get an idea of individual character thoughts and motivations, and there's little depth to their exploration.
Possibly that's a good thing - the lead inTyrant - Dionysios - is an awful stereotypical "warrior rebelling against authority". His earlier descriptions basically have him up as someone who prefers to fight than talk, yet somehow we're supposed to like that.
We're also supposed to like that he pretty much falls madly in love with a girl within 24 hours. Er...okay.
Aside from possible anachronisms at the beginning, the writing is pretty shallow and cliched - the Point of View use is frankly awful - everything is a superficial experience, and there's no real character viewpoint.
I don't really think I'm going to finish reading this mass of pseudo-historical pulp .
The author is a classical scholar, but he fails to really engage in character thoughts - he uses such an oblique Third Person Objective perspective that you never really get an idea of individual character thoughts and motivations, and there's little depth to their exploration.
Possibly that's a good thing - the lead inTyrant - Dionysios - is an awful stereotypical "warrior rebelling against authority". His earlier descriptions basically have him up as someone who prefers to fight than talk, yet somehow we're supposed to like that.
We're also supposed to like that he pretty much falls madly in love with a girl within 24 hours. Er...okay.
Aside from possible anachronisms at the beginning, the writing is pretty shallow and cliched - the Point of View use is frankly awful - everything is a superficial experience, and there's no real character viewpoint.
I don't really think I'm going to finish reading this mass of pseudo-historical pulp .