Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I liked the first half better than the second half, likely because I was already familiar with the history so didn't have to work so hard to keep track of names and events. Plus I was more comfortable "going with the flow" when I felt I knew where the author was giving me a severely skewed version of reality -- the last third of the book I was really struggling with that, with my skeptical self's mutterings in the background of what would otherwise be a ripping yarn. The first part I could shush my skeptical self with, "yes, yes, not everyone agrees with that," but the last part I really had no ammo -- and no serious desire to do the research, either.

As a novel, though, I thought the book a success. I wouldn't have felt the need to keep some of the characters straight if I hadn't been trying to place them in history, and understanding exact relationships was rarely necessary to enjoy the story. Graves' Claudius is a fascinating, well-drawn character who held my interest beginning to end, and I found his version of various other historical characters to be interesting as well. But Claudius -- and Graves -- were a bit too willing to believe the worst and revel in the sordidness of the supposed bad guys for my taste.

Also could not find it credible that Livia had Augustus quite so wrapped around her finger. I could buy a lot of the poisoning and other things she was accused of that are not clearly fact, but that went too far into fiction for me.

Which, I suppose, is why I rarely read fictionalized history -- I end up arguing with the author instead of just enjoying the book!