Spartacus

Rating:
Summary: The slaves who terrified Rome
Review: Freedom is a tough habit to suppress, and even by using widespread terror the Romans found it very difficult to suppress the freedom of slaves who rose in revolt under the leadership of Spartacus.

Rome was built on exploitation, slavery and terror, says Fast. Interesting, if true. Roman terror was expressed in the crucifixion of 6,000 slaves after the revolt of the gladiators was crushed in 71 BC. Fast goes into exquisite technical details about crucifixion, which could take four days for a victim to die. But he also says even the wealthiest Roman citizens and politicians of that time could walk the common streets without fear of crime.

But the thrust of this book is the quest for freedom. Fast was a victim of the 1950s McCarthyism, and thus knew personally what it means to be persecuted for being out of step with the ruling authorities. Fast's views are briefly expressed by Spartacus, "Our law is simple. Whatever we take, we hold in common, and no man shall own anything but his weapons and his clothes. It will be the way it was in the old times."

Old times will never return. Rome was becoming a society without values or ideals, with the rich addicted to luxury, depravity and wastrel excess and the poor supported by welfare and mindless but increasingly violent games. He makes the Roman Senate sound a lot like the US Senate of the 1950s; proud, corrupt, ignorant and arrogrant. His portrayal of Rome is enough to make anyone cheer Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon to impose authoritative law and order.

The book is a celebration of freedom, without really defining its meaning. Perhaps unwittingly, he credits Spartacus' followers with the same loyalty that turned Rome into a tyranny; as one says, "I want you to place me by your side. Whenever we fight, I want to be at your side. I will keep you safe. If we lose you, we lose the whole thing." The followers of Caesar shared such values, except they were loyal to Caesar; today, supporters of President George Bush are equally dedicated.

If you knew what freedom was, you'd fight for it with your bare hands if necessary, the Greeks told the invading Persians hundreds of years before the rise of Rome. Perhaps "freedom" is impossible to define, since it is different for every individual. Fast is limited to, "Life is the answer to life." But his book expresses the idea that even though the slaves had life, they fought for something more, something intangible, something ill defined, something they all called freedom even though none expressed it with eloquence.

Fast says Spartucus led "an army which suddenly has the knowledge that the victory to which it is committed must change the world, and therefore it must change the world or have no victory." He didn't understand the world does not change with victory; instead, it changes when the seeds of an idea are planted in the minds of people who want more than the mere existence of life itself.

This is a book about ideas, values, commitments and dreams. It is as valid now as when written in 1951; many commnents about Rome sound as if they were taken from today's politics. The great weakness is that Fast thought of freedom as an objective, like capturing a city or a country. He didn't understand it as a perpetual process, a way to live rather than a target to be reached.

Freedom is like the sunrise; different every day, sometimes hidden behind storm clouds, sometimes golden across the whole sky in reflections from high clouds, sometimes obscured in mist and dust, sometimes sparkling and clear and bright in the dawn's early light. It is as easy to explain as the dawn, and just as difficult to understand; yet, take away either, and our lives are dark and gloomy and filled with dispair.

Rating:
Summary: The slaves who terrified Rome
Review: Freedom is a tough habit to suppress, and even by using widespread terror the Romans found it very difficult to suppress the freedom of slaves who rose in revolt under the leadership of Spartacus.

Rome was built on exploitation, slavery and terror, says Fast. Interesting, if true. Roman terror was expressed in the crucifixion of 6,000 slaves after the revolt of the gladiators was crushed in 71 BC. Fast goes into exquisite technical details about crucifixion, which could take four days for a victim to die. But he also says even the wealthiest Roman citizens and politicians of that time could walk the common streets without fear of crime.

But the thrust of this book is the quest for freedom. Fast was a victim of the 1950s McCarthyism, and thus knew personally what it means to be persecuted for being out of step with the ruling authorities. Fast's views are briefly expressed by Spartacus, "Our law is simple. Whatever we take, we hold in common, and no man shall own anything but his weapons and his clothes. It will be the way it was in the old times."

Old times will never return. Rome was becoming a society without values or ideals, with the rich addicted to luxury, depravity and wastrel excess and the poor supported by welfare and mindless but increasingly violent games. He makes the Roman Senate sound a lot like the US Senate of the 1950s; proud, corrupt, ignorant and arrogrant. His portrayal of Rome is enough to make anyone cheer Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon to impose authoritative law and order.

The book is a celebration of freedom, without really defining its meaning. Perhaps unwittingly, he credits Spartacus' followers with the same loyalty that turned Rome into a tyranny; as one says, "I want you to place me by your side. Whenever we fight, I want to be at your side. I will keep you safe. If we lose you, we lose the whole thing." The followers of Caesar shared such values, except they were loyal to Caesar; today, supporters of President George Bush are equally dedicated.

If you knew what freedom was, you'd fight for it with your bare hands if necessary, the Greeks told the invading Persians hundreds of years before the rise of Rome. Perhaps "freedom" is impossible to define, since it is different for every individual. Fast is limited to, "Life is the answer to life." But his book expresses the idea that even though the slaves had life, they fought for something more, something intangible, something ill defined, something they all called freedom even though none expressed it with eloquence.

Fast says Spartucus led "an army which suddenly has the knowledge that the victory to which it is committed must change the world, and therefore it must change the world or have no victory." He didn't understand the world does not change with victory; instead, it changes when the seeds of an idea are planted in the minds of people who want more than the mere existence of life itself.

This is a book about ideas, values, commitments and dreams. It is as valid now as when written in 1951; many commnents about Rome sound as if they were taken from today's politics. The great weakness is that Fast thought of freedom as an objective, like capturing a city or a country. He didn't understand it as a perpetual process, a way to live rather than a target to be reached.

Freedom is like the sunrise; different every day, sometimes hidden behind storm clouds, sometimes golden across the whole sky in reflections from high clouds, sometimes obscured in mist and dust, sometimes sparkling and clear and bright in the dawn's early light. It is as easy to explain as the dawn, and just as difficult to understand; yet, take away either, and our lives are dark and gloomy and filled with dispair.

Rating:
Summary: Good Historical Novel Overshadowed by Great Movie
Review: Howard Fast's 1951 novel was the inspiration for the fantastic Kirk Douglas movie. Compared to the movie, the book is a slow-paced introspective affair. At the outset of the novel, the slave revolt has recently been beaten. A party of rich Romans travels the Via Appia from Rome to Capua. Private travel has just been permitted after 4 years of Servile War. The story is told out-of-order with various peripheral characters recollecting the dead slave leader.

Fast makes much of the poor treatment Romans gave their slaves. Fast goes completely over-the-top when he implies that the Romans engaged in cannibalism, chopping up dead slaves to make sausage for export. This contradicts many classical sources that repeatedly tell of slaves buying or being granted their freedom and becoming important and powerful members of Roman society. After two thousand years who really knows what happened?

The characters of Spactacus and his wife Varinia are poorly drawn. Spartacus is saccharinely depicted as too good to be true. There is an absurd ending wherein Gracchus steals Varinia from Crassus, frees her and then kills himself. This would have been best left out. There is a long chapter dealing with the Jewish slave David that I had to skim through.

The character of the Roman general Crassus is well formed. He is a ruthless man of action much like Olivier played him in the movie. He has no empathy at all for the six thousand defeated slaves he crucifies along the Via Appia. Interestingly, no mention is made of the fact that Crassus met his own grisly fate not long after the events in the novel. He was beheaded after losing a battle against the Parthians.

Fast makes great efforts to fit the Spartacus story into his class struggle/Proletariat versus Capitalist worldview. There is an awkward scene where Crassus takes his young guests to a perfume factory he owns in Capua. Fast writes dialogue that makes the Roman patrician out to be proto-robber baron. In fact, work and especially involvement in business was considered disgraceful among the Roman upper classes. No self-respecting ex-consul would do such a thing.

If the reader can ignore these awkward moments there is a good story interwoven among the dialectical materialism The reader must mentally edit out these tedious digressions much as the War and Peace reader is better off skipping Tolstoy's non-sequiturs about the nature of war. There is, hidden in over 350 pages, a good 250 page historical novel.

Rating:
Summary: This is NOT history!!!
Review: Howard Fast's novel has pretty much become the seminal work on Spartacus, which is really sad. It's like basing a final essay on the movie Gladiator and thinking it's historically correct!

The main problem is that we don't know enough about Spartacus to write an accurate history. The main source we have is Plutarch, but he was a biographer who wanted to tell a good story rather than provide an objective view. The rest of the information we have is from tiny snippets written by other authors such as Orosius; most of the details of the Third Servile War have been, unfortunately, lost over time.

Fast decided to take advantage of this lack of information to adopt his own version of the events. His view, of course, is not backed by any evidence, but I guess that's a minor detail. His details on slavery made me scratch my head in confusion. I know that the Romans used slaves and it was a horrible thing, something we look back on in shame. However, you have to realize that the Romans treated their slaves with FAR more dignity than every other ancient society (other than the Slavs). Believe me, you don't want to know how the Persians, Carthaginians, or Illyrians treated their slaves. Fast has this idea that Romans made sausages out of slaves and sold them to foreigners. This is absolutely idiotic. There isn't a single piece of evidence to justify this erroneous claim.

The communist overtones in this story are just plain nonsense. Spartacus has been incorrectly labelled as a "champion of the masses", Fast claiming that he wished to overthrow the Roman state and establish some sort of socialist society. This is completely untrue. Spartacus wanted his freedom and fought for it; that's it. He had no illusions of conquering a fortified city like Rome. Fast's imagination really ran wild with this idea.

If you want to read this book, remember to take it for what it is; entertainment. If you're looking for history, you won't find it here.

Rating:
Summary: A Classic Story Of Rebellion
Review: I know that this book had political overtones but at the heart of this story is a story of basic rebellion. It is about the underdog going up against a stronger force and almost beating it. It inspires one to question society and make their own stand against the things that they detest. Hence why I loved this book. It was written elegantly and beautifully.

The only thing that I didn't like was there was at times there was things that were not needed.

Otherwise; great novel.

Rating:
Summary: Like good wine: better with age.
Review: Not including the mandatory classics like Moby Dick that we were required to read in school growing up in the 50's and 60's, I recall that Spartacus was one of the first 'adult' book I voluntarily read. I enjoyed it as a 14-year-old kid, but I'm certain I waded through the book from action scene to action scene. What motivated me to read it again nearly 40 years later, I don't know. Nonetheless, I picked it up a month ago and did it again.

The changes in my perceptions were startingly. Frankly, there are not many action scenes, and it amazed me that I was able to hang in there as a boy reading a man's book. More importantly, this is a book about people and great concepts and controversies that have been a part of mankind since the beginning.

As an adult knowing about Howard Fast's background when he wrote the book, I could read his own struggles in the 50's portrayed through the lives of the 'greatest' generation of its time, the people of the Roman Empire.

This is as stunning a book about freedom as you will ever read. Early on when a crucified gladiator tells onlookers, "I will return, and I will be millions," you can easily see the connection between what happened in this little documented yet important episode in history and what has occurred in the subsequent 2,000 years.

The story of Spartacus is not finished; mankind has miles to go before it sleeps. Still, the tale of rebellious gladiators who unite the slave population of Rome through four tumultuous years is an excellent base from which to consider other chapters in the story through 20 centuries.

An excellent book that will hook you through character and conceptual development.

Rating:
Summary: enriched with typical Fastian twistedness :)
Review: Spartacus is a beautiful and romantic novel, with some parts very typical Fastian twistedness and humor, that makes it especially enjoyable. The ending is moving and if I were smaller, I'd probably close the book with tears in my eyes (both ordinary tears and tears of joy) Personally I think this is one of the strongest parts, that makes you, if nothing else, think a lot for days. One thing that might make it hard to enter the Roman world is that it's a bit weird to find Roman characters with American attitudes. But I dont feel good when writing any sort of critic on such a vast work of art, because thats what it really is. Harsh and humane. Poetic and thrilling. Modern and classic. A novel you fall in love with.

Rating:
Summary: WHAT CONTROVERSY?
Review: SPARTACUS is well crafted. "Fast" is an appropriate name. His writing has that enviable fluidity we call "brio." SPARTACUS is a curious mixture. Although it was written in 1950, its chapter headings and narrative are in the style of a 19th-century biblical novel, viz. BEN HUR. Fast's use of peripheral characters to tell his story and his relegation of Spartacus to the role of an idea rather than a fleshed-out character implies that we know little about Spartacus the man. The result is a novel not so much about SPARTACUS himself as about his effect on the Roman world. The film by Stanley Kubrick, of course, turns this around, inventing characterizations, including that of Spartacus, to make a story that satisfies the requirements of Hollywood. Neither book nor film is historically accurate, but each is satisfying on its own terms: the book as novel, the film as drama.

What interests -- and puzzles -- me is the opinion of other online reviewers that Fast is "controversial" -- a vestige, it seems to me, of Cold War mentality. If they didn't know that Howard Fast was a communist, would they so readily find in SPARTACUS the author's anti-capitalist agenda? That wealth is built on the surplus value of labor is not a communist notion at all -- it's a formulation of bourgeois economist Adam Smith, and it's Economics 101 to every investor on Wall Street.

Of course Fast IS anti-capitalist (as am I). But I find no such overt message in this book, which has an essentially liberal theme. The opinion of some reviewers that Fast's views on the injustices of slavery and economic inequality are no more than propaganda is a sorry indicator of just how far to the right this country has moved.

Howard Fast needs neither apologists nor detractors. When reviewers say they enjoyed Fast despite what they imply is his communist propaganda, they patronize him (as in "a credit to his race") and distance themselves from any stigma that might attach to approval of his message. As a novelist-proselytizer, his tone is similar to that of other "propagandists" such as Morton Thompson (THE CRY AND THE COVENANT), Frank Norris (THE OCTOPUS), Jack London (THE IRON HEEL), and B. Traven (another communist) (THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE). Their detractors might find these truth-tellers "controversial." I find them -- and Fast, the communist and novelist -- bold, refreshing, and free of the deception -- and self-deception -- of conventional wisdom.

Rating:
Summary: WHAT CONTROVERSY?
Review: SPARTACUS is well crafted. "Fast" is an appropriate name. His writing has that enviable fluidity we call "brio." SPARTACUS is a curious mixture. Although it was written in 1950, its chapter headings and narrative are in the style of a 19th-century biblical novel, viz. BEN HUR. Fast's use of peripheral characters to tell his story and his relegation of Spartacus to the role of an idea rather than a fleshed-out character implies that we know little about Spartacus the man. The result is a novel not so much about SPARTACUS himself as about his effect on the Roman world. The film by Stanley Kubrick, of course, turns this around, inventing characterizations, including that of Spartacus, to make a story that satisfies the requirements of Hollywood. Neither book nor film is historically accurate, but each is satisfying on its own terms: the book as novel, the film as drama.

What interests -- and puzzles -- me is the opinion of other online reviewers that Fast is "controversial" -- a vestige, it seems to me, of Cold War mentality. If they didn't know that Howard Fast was a communist, would they so readily find in SPARTACUS the author's anti-capitalist agenda? That wealth is built on the surplus value of labor is not a communist notion at all -- it's a formulation of bourgeois economist Adam Smith, and it's Economics 101 to every investor on Wall Street.

Of course Fast IS anti-capitalist (as am I). But I find no such overt message in this book, which has an essentially liberal theme. The opinion of some reviewers that Fast's views on the injustices of slavery and economic inequality are no more than propaganda is a sorry indicator of just how far to the right this country has moved.

Howard Fast needs neither apologists nor detractors. When reviewers say they enjoyed Fast despite what they imply is his communist propaganda, they patronize him (as in "a credit to his race") and distance themselves from any stigma that might attach to approval of his message. As a novelist-proselytizer, his tone is similar to that of other "propagandists" such as Morton Thompson (THE CRY AND THE COVENANT), Frank Norris (THE OCTOPUS), Jack London (THE IRON HEEL), and B. Traven (another communist) (THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE). Their detractors might find these truth-tellers "controversial." I find them -- and Fast, the communist and novelist -- bold, refreshing, and free of the deception -- and self-deception -- of conventional wisdom.

Rating:
Summary: Disjointed Plot, Skewed History, Big Communist Theme
Review: This story is fairly entertaining at parts but when Mr. Fast gets into all of the small details, that's when I get turned off. Also, since I am not too into politics, the parts about the political structure of Rome was kind of boring.

Some parts I felt were not really needed were the quick scenes of sexual tension (ie. between Helena and Crassus, Julia and Caius, etc). They did not contribute to the story at all and it would have been best left out.

The almost mythical tales of Spartacus were my favorites. I have always loved myths and legends--maybe that's why. Varinia described Spartacus in such a way that is just amazing and makes you think deep thought.

All in all, I would absolutely advise you to read this because though it may get boring at time, the general story is worth it.