Fictional Characters

[Nathan Ross]

Over in this thread, Ben Kane discusses a novel in which the hero appears to have unbelievable abilities, or just very good luck.

I wondered what those of you who enjoy reading novels set in the ancient world look for in a fictional hero/protagonist/main character?

Do you prefer to read about characters based on real people (Caesar, for example, or Hannibal)? Or do you prefer an author to create a new character to fit the story?

Do you prefer to read about very realistic and believable characters, who think and act in the way that people of the times would have done and have no special or remarkable abilities, or do you prefer heroes with more 'heroic' qualities?

And what about the presentation of women in these novels? There's been a fashion lately for feisty female characters, who are apt to reveal an unexpected skill in swordfighting, for example... Is this a good thing in a novel, or do you prefer female characters who more closely reflect the realities of women's lives in ancient times?

Lastly, does anyone have a particular favourite character from ancient-world fiction?

:?:

[Kegluneq]

I'm sorry to admit that the only 'literary' book series set in the ancient world that I've read is Robert Graves' I, Claudius and Claudius the God. The rest have generally been what I'd refer to (unfairly) as supermarket thrillers - i.e. Simon Scarrow, Ben Kane, Harry Sidebottom - who tend to write in a particular 'alpha warrior' style. I think Harry Sidebottom's Warrior of Rome is my favourite of those, due to the time period discussed and his enthusiasm for exploring social and political issues in the backgrounds of his narratives.

I also like R.S. Downie's Medicus series, which at least has a civilian central character (after the first or second book certainly). They're not especially scholarly but unusually they are quite funny.

Do you prefer to read about characters based on real people (Caesar, for example, or Hannibal)? Or do you prefer an author to create a new character to fit the story?

Do you prefer to read about very realistic and believable characters, who think and act in the way that people of the times would have done and have no special or remarkable abilities, or do you prefer heroes with more 'heroic' qualities?

I think a lot of writers conflate the two - ancient Roman legionaries are described as behaving like the special forces heroes of Andy McNab or Chris Ryan novels, and sometimes use recogniseably modern techniques. It's sort-of believable, as it is more relatable, but I'd like to see ancient protagonists acting in particularly pre-modern ways more often. Of course, the problem then is that we don't really know how they'd have thought and acted at the everyday level, so it's inevitably going to be a shot in the dark.

And what about the presentation of women in these novels? There's been a fashion lately for feisty female characters, who are apt to reveal an unexpected skill in swordfighting, for example... Is this a good thing in a novel, or do you prefer female characters who more closely reflect the realities of women's lives in ancient times?

Bit of a can of worms there - it is plausible that women who grew up around soldiers might have used a weapon at some point but gender roles in the Roman world seem to be a lot more prescribed. Done badly, it can just be an excuse to make a women seem like 'one of the guys' - and earn respect by doing manly things, because only they matter. It seems to be the films that are more guilty of this, probably because fight scenes are a lot easier to sell to an 18-35 audience than domestic ones. I do like the representation of women in the Medicus and Warrior of Rome series though - although secondary characters in both cases, the wives of the protagonists are distinctive and interesting.

Lastly, does anyone have a particular favourite character from ancient-world fiction?

I have a soft spot for the long suffering Gaius Petreius Ruso, the titular Medicus. I don't think the series as a whole is the best written, but I did enjoy the proto-detective storylines.

[Medicus matt]

Lastly, does anyone have a particular favourite character from ancient-world fiction?

:?:

Maximus, in Wallace Breem's 'Eagle in the Snow' is my personal favourite. Admittedly his characterisation is heavily coloured by Breem's own very British attitudes with regards to loyalty, duty and honour but he's very, very human.

A close second (although not strictly 'Ancient' is the character of Cerdic in Duggan's 'Conscience of the King'. The complete opposite to Maximus in terms of character but, again, a very human lead character, so I suppose that's what I like.

[Epictetus]

I think the main thing I look for is a complex, interesting character. The best ones are slightly odd, or unusual, or act and think in ways that seem strange to me but fit their personality. This makes them fascinating. One that follows all the generally-accepted rules for ‘heroic’ behaviour – don’t steal, be loyal, be brave, etc. – sometimes come out a bit shallow. Similarly, the ‘villain’ character can’t be two-dimensional, either. This is what bothered me about Agamemnon in The Song of Achilles. Some sort of ambiguity or moral dilemma is good. I don’t want watered down black and white characters.

It doesn’t matter to me if the character is based upon a real person or is entirely fictional. But the problem with real people in fiction, as Aristotle pointed out, is that the reader has preconceptions on what that person is like, and what he would or would not do. That constrains the character development, to some extent. If Julius Caesar is suddenly a coward, in an otherwise magnificent book, the reader will rebel.

Depending upon what the book is trying to accomplish, realism doesn’t matter to me. Some of my favourite characters in fiction are in completely unrealistic scenarios, like the Buendia family in the magical realism of One Hundred Years of Solitude or Billy Pilgrim’s bizarre science fiction time travel (or is it post-traumatic stress? – the uncertainty is part of the appeal) in Slaughterhouse-Five.

I don’t mind “modern” strong women in historical fiction. In fact, the ancients wrote very powerful women into their own fiction, women who engaged in battle, made decisions and told the men what to do.

I’m not sure if I have a favourite character in ancient-world fiction, but if I had to choose it would probably be Graves’ Claudius.

[Kegluneq]

I don’t mind “modern” strong women in historical fiction. In fact, the ancients wrote very powerful women into their own fiction, women who engaged in battle, made decisions and told the men what to do.

Generally in villainous (or overtly supernatural) roles, though. :/

[Lyceum]

I don’t mind “modern” strong women in historical fiction. In fact, the ancients wrote very powerful women into their own fiction, women who engaged in battle, made decisions and told the men what to do.

Generally in villainous (or overtly supernatural) roles, though. :/

Not at all, see post classical literature (Hellenistic), especially the novellae. I'm not sure what the situation is quite like with Latin, I know the Greek Hero kai Leandros was heavily influenced by Ovid though so there's probably something.

As for me with characters and historical fiction I don't fully know. In general as a Classicist I try to avoid it since it almost universally makes me cringe, there are a few stand out novels though that I don't hate like Cameron's first two Tyrant novels, Sidebottom, Bradshaw, that sort of thing.

I like characters that act conceivably as Greeks or Romans would and aren't superman. Generally speaking complex descriptions of fighting always put me off since it unanimously sounds stupid. I think the ideal is something like Cameron's descriptions in those short vignettes....nothing technical anyone could pick a bone with, but somehow conveys the sense of speed and danger.

For favourite historical characterisation....hm....it has to be Odysseus or Akhilleus in Lindsay Clarke's work.

[Nathan Ross]

there are a few stand out novels though that I don't hate like Cameron's first two Tyrant novels, Sidebottom, Bradshaw

I read Cameron's first book recently, and was very impressed. His hero, despite the prophetic hallucinations, seemed very believable as a 4thC BC Greek soldier - he also wasn't in his late teens or early twenties, as so many of these characters seem to be (to attract the younger reader?)! I like Sidebottom too. He seems to be getting more confident as he goes on though - perhaps he feels less need to cater to a pulp readership and so allows himself more fun with the scholarship and literary allusions? mile:

Done badly, it can just be an excuse to make a women seem like 'one of the guys' - and earn respect by doing manly things, because only they matter.

That's a good way of putting it. It's sometimes argued that the presentation of women in this way is empowering, but I tend to think it's the opposite - several millennia of women's experience is disregarded in novels because it doesn't fit a 'manly' adventure model. Plus, of course, a lot of this stuff is just a male fantasy anyway!

Interesting responses though - thanks. I agree that the question depends on the kind of novel - the hero of a sword and sandal adventure could hardly have the psychological complexity of Margerite Yourcenar's Hadrian (or Broch's Virgil!), or the plot would atrophy. But there does seem to be desire for more depth and realism in fictional characters, whatever they might be doing...

[Lyceum]

Hmm Nathan I think you hit the nail on the head there actually regarding age, there seems to be an overflowing of these odd tween wonders which can get annoying in volume. I actually enjoy the prophetic, fantastic, elements actually and think it really adds to the atmosphere. I don't know, there's something evocative over the whole world despite the odd flaw here.

With Sidebottom I just like the characters, although I admit to smiling at M Clodius Ballista as an Angle! I think the problems there compared to Cameron is one of style. The prose doesn't flow as smoothly especially in sentences where he tediously gives a Latin term and then glosses it in English. I do enjoy some of the literary allusions and it is interesting spotting some of the scholarship I admit but it is rather a case of "academic trying hand at novel" rather than full on novelist. I'm sure the latter ones will be even better though.

I agree with what is being said about most female characters in fiction, unfortunately. I'm trying to think of a few stand outs. Erm...Lavinia in Le Guin's "Lavinia"?

[LVCIAN FIDELIS]

I think my favorite fictional Romans have to be Caius Britannicus and Publius Varrus; from Jack Whytes, "Camulod Chronicles" (A Dream of Eagles).

It is not often that our Hero's are shown with Long Term plans or dreams. It is usual, in modern literature, for the hero to be thrust into a single short term scenario they are uniquely qualified to solve. Or a string of ever increasing perils, in which the hero is never in any real danger.

Protecting an ideal and a way of life is much more Epic in scale.

If you haven't read it, The history is good(if not great), the story compelling, and the character development is fantastic.

[Alexand96]

As an avid reader with no reading time to waste, I'll put it bluntly - no, I don't enjoy reading literary bullshit where the protagonist is a divine gift given to man from the gods above.

As well, and even more of a turn-off for me when reading anything set in a historical setting, I absolutely cannot stand when an author imputes modern cultural and moral values upon characters living in the past.

I have read I, Claudius, which was a fantastic, quick read, that satisfied these two criteria completely. Other than that, I am in the process of reading Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series. McCullough's books are masterful, particularly the first two, but I must admit that I am being worn down a bit on Caesar - he suffers from the 'divine gift' phenomenon that I mentioned above. Undoubtedly, Caesar was a great man in many ways; exceptionally capable militarily and politically. But he was not as perfect as portrayed by McCullough. Personally, I found her characterization of Sulla to be far more interesting...and likeable for that matter. What McCullough does absolutely fantastically is bring the culture, the morality, and the physical world of ancient Rome to life with startling talent. Of course, I know she's taken her liberties with many details that are more a matter of debate than known fact, but still, you cannot deny that the novels exude what I think is a realistic sentiment of ancient Rome.

I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings with this statement, we all like what we like, but I feel that far too many of the novels about ancient Rome being produced these days suffer from superhero-itus, just as Hollywood does. And to me, there is nothing in a superhero story.

Regarding the age issue, I would tend to agree, despite the fact that I'm only 25. The majority of my friends and colleagues are not as discerning when it comes to their entertainment...or reading, if they read any.

[Kegluneq]

I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings with this statement, we all like what we like, but I feel that far too many of the novels about ancient Rome being produced these days suffer from superhero-itus, just as Hollywood does. And to me, there is nothing in a superhero story.

To be fair, the ancient world had its own superheroes from the ancient past as well (and contemporary ones in the arena). Superhero/alpha warrior stories may be shallow but they're also ancient in their own right!

[Alexand96]

To be fair, the ancient world had its own superheroes from the ancient past as well (and contemporary ones in the arena). Superhero/alpha warrior stories may be shallow but they're also ancient in their own right!

You are right, of course (Hercules, Achilles, Aeneas, etc.). But then again, I still feel that the flavor of those stories was a bit different than the superhero of today. Just a preference I guess.

[Robert Vermaat]

I've rad a load of historical novels and I've found the main characters whom I like best are the ones with the most human traits. Most characters are not very worked out in depth (I never liked flat gung ho heroes or super-cunning charicatures), but some writers try to give their chracters a past. Actually, I like the 'damaged' types, those wo are imperfect and have a past that limits them in the present. Rosemary Sutcliff's Artos (Sword at Sunset) is one of my heroes with her Aquila (Lantern Bearers) a close second. Not the eloquent heroes who are always easy-going with a load of friends, but the ones who are damaged, loners perhaps, who nevertheless lead when called for.

But then, it's a personal thing of course.

[ParthianBow]

I use late teen characters a lot of the time for one reason only. That is because if I am to represent accurately the age that they would have fought and died at within the time periods of my books, which can span decades, it is the only thing that works. E.g. I have a series going about the Second Punic War. In order to have a man who can fight through 16+ years of war and not be a total wreck at the end of it, I need someone approximately 16-18 years old at the beginning. It's a different matter if, as in Cameron's books, the time periods are much shorter. In my proposed books about Kalkriese, the main protagonist is in his late twenties/early thirties.

[richard robinson]

puck of pook hill is a favourite
rosemary suttcliffe wrote well
loved Colleen mcCullochs characterisation
enjoyed pompeii (the aquilla thriller)
mostly look for Bernard Cornwalls these days as i like his underdog action ndepictions in his arthurian, anglo saxon and napoleonic sagas.
sorry if thats no help
richard