Note: Whenever I review a Mary Renault book, I try to include
a little disclaimer. Renault always attempted to write books that would be true
to the historical culture she was illuminating. She didn’t try to sanitize or
modernize her characters. This means that pagans in her books act like pagans,
think like pagans, and do lots of pagan things. Which also means that her books
are not for everyone. CAVEAT LECTOR.
Mary Renault writes the best historical fiction I’ve ever
read. The way she brings historical characters to life in a believable,
realistic way, avoiding any anachronism in their personalities and actions, is
simply amazing. I have never seen another author consistently combine good
writing and good scholarship as well as Renault. In this way
The Persian Boy
does not differ from other books I’ve read by her.
The one thing of note about this book that can be discussed,
however, is her choice of narrator. The story in The Persian Boy begins
several years after Fire from Heaven, her previous book about Alexander
the Great, and is narrated by Bagoas, King Darius’s eunuch who becomes
Alexander’s lover. This choice of narrator was a bold move on Renault’s part
and has some definite advantages and disadvantages.
I’ll talk about the advantages first. Renault focuses the
main conflict in the book on the ways in which Alexander attempted to integrate
his Macedonian and Greek soldiers that he brought with him on his campaign with
his newly acquired Persian soldiers. What better way to symbolize that conflict
than to tell the story from the perspective of one who grew up in the Persian
court and is shocked and confused by the customs of these Macedonians? In
addition, Bagoas becomes a rival to Hephaistion for Alexander’s affection, thus
creating a “love triangle” of sorts. The rivalry between the two is there, even
though Alexander is too naïve to sense it, and this well symbolizes the tension
between his Macedonian and Persian contingents that he optimistically believes he
will unify in one new culture containing the best of both worlds.
This being said, there were a number of disadvantages. Bagoas
as narrator didn’t really work for me, and I think it was a misstep on
Renault’s part. While we do get a harrowing and exciting opening to the book
that shows Bagoas being made a eunuch after his family is murdered and a great
introduction to Persian politics of the day, we don’t hear from Alexander for
quite some time. The opening chapters of the book drag on without him. Some of
Alexander’s most iconic victories and battles are relayed briefly by messengers
because Bagoas is at Susa and not
present at the battles. Likewise, most all of the major battles in the book as
well as many of the political conferences have to be relayed second-hand as
Bagoas the eunuch is not invited to such places and occasions. As a result, we
the readers spend way too much time in the bedroom with Bagoas and way too
little time in the field with Alexander.
This lopsided view also extends to the character of
Alexander himself. Alexander’s sexuality was something of an enigma at the
time. No, I’m not talking about the fact that Alexander had male lovers; that
was pretty much commonplace in Greek culture, and no one would have thought
twice about it. I’m talking about the fact that though Alexander did have his
lovers, he appeared to care very little for sex and seemed to desire it little
for its own sake. His self-control in this area was a marvel to those who wrote
about him, especially in comparison with his soldiers and other conquerors of
the time. Mary Renault showed this aspect of Alexander’s character in Fire
from Heaven and makes a few perfunctory nods in that direction here, but,
once again, her choice of narrator for this book forces her into an unbalanced
emphasis on Alexander’s sex life rather than his character as a whole. I felt
like the complex Alexander I came to know and appreciate from the first book is
a bit flat and one sided in this second novel.
And speaking of characters I came to know and appreciate
from the first book, I was very disappointed that Hephaistion played such a
small role in this one. He was Alexander’s dearest friend, oldest ally, and
lifelong comrade. He was the Patroklos to Alexander’s Achilles. And yet,
because we’re getting the story from Bagoas, we, understandably, don’t see much
of Hephaistion. After all, it’s not like he and Bagoas were chums or anything.
Overall, this book didn’t grip me or interest me as much as
the first, mostly due to the issues named above. If Renault had continued the
third person narrative style of the first book or even told the story in the
first person from Alexander’s perspective, it would have done a much better job
of giving the readers insight into Alexander’s character and his legendary
conquest of Persia.
3/5 stars
Comments