The Golden Mean by Annabel Lyon is narrated by Aristotle and tells the story of his time spent teaching Alexander soon to be “The Great.” In the process we also get some flashbacks of Aristotle’s boyhood and how he came to be the great philosopher.
As with all historical fiction one must remember this is, well, fiction, and not history or biography. Curious about Aristotle’s real life, I checked out his entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a fantastic and reliable resource by the way). In the novel liberties are taken with Aristotle’s timeline and just how close his relationship with Alexander was. According to the encyclopedia, Aristotle was 38 when he became the teacher of 13-year-old Alexander (my math on Aristotle’s age) and taught him for only two or three years, though some scholars dispute this and say it was as long as eight years. But we do know that by the time Alexander was 15 he was already going out on campaigns with his father, Philip II. The book takes what seems to be the eight-year number approach.
In the book Aristotle sees himself as providing a balance to the martial education Philip is providing Alexander and insists that to be a good ruler, Alexander must find the “golden mean,” the balance between extremes. Aristotle is presented as a pacifist of a sort, but some sources I read in addition to the Stanford article, indicate that Aristotle encouraged Alexander to conquer Asia. Whatever the case, little concrete information is known about what Aristotle actually taught Alexander and what kind of relationship they had.
A very curious change was made to one real historical figure in the book, Alexander’s half brother, Arrhidaeus. In the book he is made to be severely mentally disabled and Alexander hates him. In the book Aristotle takes Arrhidaeus under his tutelage, treats him like a person, teaches him letters and music, how to ride a horse, essentially lifts him up from being an animal into being the mental equivalent of a young boy with the body of an adult. However, in reality, Arrhidaeus had only a mild mental disability and Alexander loved him dearly. On Alexander’s death, Arrhidaeus became Philip III of Macedon. Granted, he was more a figurehead than anything and neither his life nor his reign lasted long, but why the big change about this in the book? It really doesn’t serve any purpose to have written Arrhidaeus and Alexander’s relationship to him so very differently.
Ok, so like I said, The Golden Mean is a novel, fiction, it doesn’t have to adhere to reality. But even forgetting all of the historical transgressions, I didn’t much like the book. When I was still in the first third of the book a coworker asked me what I was reading lately and I mentioned The Golden Mean and what it was about. She commented that it sounded interesting. I replied that I had thought so too but that it was actually a boring book. If it weren’t for the fact that I read it for the Slaves discussion, I would not have finished it. It got marginally better by the end but I still didn’t enjoy it. Nothing happens in the book, which isn’t a bad thing, but if nothing is going to happen in a book it needs to have interesting characters. The characters should be interesting, I mean Aristotle and Alexander, but they are not. Nor is their relationship. Nor are there any secondary characters or relationships that are interesting.
Nonetheless, when I finished the book and read all the glowing blurbs on the back cover I feared I had missed something. I mean, it was a bestseller in Canada, published in six languages, was nominated for the Giller prize and won a few other prizes. Maybe the book was better than I thought? But after I did a little research on Aristotle and Alexander I began to trust my reaction a bit more. And then Rebecca didn’t give it many stars on Good Reads and suddenly I feel much better about my take on the book.
But it is my take. Lots of people in Canada liked it so not everyone who reads it will come away with the same experience I did. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone though.
I read this for the Slaves discussion. Discussion doesn’t start until September 30th but I decided to post early because Friday night is not a good night for sitting down and writing about a book. All are welcome to join in and/or follow the discussion that will happen on the Slaves’ blog and on the Slaves’ discussion board
Stefanie, this is SO bizarre — just last night I was in the Chapters bookstore and picked this book from the shelf and was leafing through it. I was attracted to the book because of its GORGEOUS cover [the new trade-paper cover] and because I had JUST finished Linden MacIntyre’s 2009 Giller-winning book, The Bishop’s Man.
This one, The Golden Mean was on the SHORTLIST [5 Books] that same year.
So I figured, Hey, maybe it would be a real doozy of a good read [as The Bishop’s Man definitely was].
I must admit, as I did peruse the thing, it seemed to sort of lack a lustre WITHIN the pages. So, thank you for this review — I will leave off my fascination with this book for now, as I very much trust your judgment.
Wishing you all the best,
Cip
LikeLike
I didn’t do too well with this one–not really the fault of the book–I just didn’t get far enough into it to decide whether I liked it or not. I’ve been easily distracted by other books lately and something else has just had me glued to the story so this one has been sitting and waiting, and then time got away from me. The premise sounds appealing, so maybe I’ll try again later. I’ll be very curious to listen in to the discussion. From the blurb I was sort of expecting exciting things to happen, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case.
LikeLike
I must confess, I forgot all about it. I’ve signed up to way to many group reads this month and am paying for it by being behind in them all! I do feel guilty as I love the Slaves, but in a way I am sneakily relieved if this wasn’t a real cracker of a book. At least I didn’t miss too much. I’m looking forward to eavesdropping on the discussion in any case!
LikeLike
Cip, what a coincidence! The concept of the book is a good one and I was really looking forward to reading it, but, as you noted, within the pages there is a lack of lustre that would be hard to bear especially after you have just finished a really good book.
Danielle, in a way you could say it was the fault of the book that you didn’t get far. If it has been really interesting you might have been more willing to keep reading it and put your other books on hold.
Litlove, understand about being overextended! don’t feel guilty about it, especially since you didn’t miss a spectacular book.
LikeLike
Thank you for your honest sharing, Stefanie. I’ve got this book from the annual book sale for $1.50, like new copy. Love the cover but as I read a few lines into it, I decide to wait since I’ve got so many on my TBR boxes. I’ve got The Bishop’s Man too, the winner of the Giller’s that year… glad your first commenter liked it. Yes, not knowing the books and the authors, I’d pick The Golden Mean just for its cover and for the female writer living in my neighboring province, B.C. But of course, the reader’s enjoyment is more important as you’ve shown here.
LikeLike
This had been on my list of must reads until I tried out a few pages at the local bookstore. Then I wasn’t quite so sure. The nail in the coffin came when I went to a reading and heard the author talk about why she’d chosen those particular characters and listened to her read selections from the book (selections chosen, presumably, for interest’s sake). I could not have been more unimpressed with the selections or her approach to the characters. Put me off it entirely. It sounds like I made the right decision.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Golden Mean | Of Books and Bicycles
I’m glad that we both agree on this, although it would have been more fun to have loved it. I wonder if the changes made to the Arrhidaeus character are to highlight Aristotle’s humanity in comparison to other characters? It shows him to be compassionate, and also to have a wider idea of human possibility than other characters have. Or perhaps she’s making some kind of point related to the golden mean idea — although I’m not entirely sure what …
LikeLike
I think you’re right–had it totally caught my attention from the first I wouldn’t have set it aside. I seem to be reading mostly page-turners at the moment–anything too thoughtful just flies over my head. Maybe there were some other issues, though, with this story from the sound of things?
LikeLike
Arti, the cover of the book is great and very eyecatching. You might like the book, my expectations for it were just different than what I got which meant much disappointment. And if you do read it and don’t like it at least you are only out $1.50🙂
Inkslinger, I’d be interested in hearing her talk about why she chose the characters she did. I’d have lots of questions for her! But yeah, if you weren’t thrilled with her reading then you made a good choice to not read the book/
Rebecca, I really, really wanted to the like the book. I even voted to read it! I suppose if the book is trying to set up the golden mean idea there needs to be extrememes for Alexander to be set off from and Arrhidaeus provides one of the extremes. And in a way it shows that Aristotle, the extreme intellect, wanted to raise others up, though sometimes I wondered if Arrhidaeus was nothing more than an experiment.
Danielle, this was definitely not a page-turner and I can imagine to have set aside your other books which were, this one would have been an even greater disappointment. But these things happen now and then.
LikeLike
You’ve just reminded me of why I tend to shy away from historical fiction. I’d much rather read a well-written history (even if it, too, might contain some fictions).
LikeLike
Emily, yeah, I tend to prefer history too but I do like good historical fiction. This one just didn’t make it into the good category for me.
LikeLike