Rating: 
Summary: SPQR I
Review: The beginning of young Decius career. He meets Milo, Clodius, and Clodia. And was he naughty with Clodia! A good mystery too, especially since the logic of the story is very plausible from a historical aspect. I enjoyed the read and look forward to English publication of the rest of this series.
Rating:
Summary: lightweight-ish historical fiction, yet entertaining...
Review: The King's Gambit, the first of SPQR series by John Maddox Roberts, is a quirky mess than generally works. Compared to the Colleen McCullough's Roman historical fiction series The King's Gambit is almost shambolic on the historical bits. Compared to Steven Saylor's Gordianus Roman historical detective series, the characterizations are weak. And worse, John Maddox Roberts simply fails to produce prose to the standards of anything resembling better-than-average literature. Yet I liked The King's Gambit. Why?Like the Gordianus novels, The King's Gambit introduces us to a sleuth unravelling a rather complex series of murders and mishaps. Naturally the corrupt and very wealthy politicians of the day are behind all this. While much of the story seems to lack inventiveness, John Maddox Roberts does manage to twist matters around in a most interesting fashion (..no spoilers here). And thankfully, the ending is rather good. Bottom line: a good story somewhat poorly told. However the end justifies the means, and so even fans of more finer ancient Roman historical novels will enjoy The King's Gambit.
Rating:
Summary: lightweight-ish historical fiction, yet entertaining...
Review: The King's Gambit, the first of SPQR series by John Maddox Roberts, is a quirky mess than generally works. Compared to the Colleen McCullough's Roman historical fiction series The King's Gambit is almost shambolic on the historical bits. Compared to Steven Saylor's Gordianus Roman historical detective series, the characterizations are weak. And worse, John Maddox Roberts simply fails to produce prose to the standards of anything resembling better-than-average literature. Yet I liked The King's Gambit. Why? Like the Gordianus novels, The King's Gambit introduces us to a sleuth unravelling a rather complex series of murders and mishaps. Naturally the corrupt and very wealthy politicians of the day are behind all this. While much of the story seems to lack inventiveness, John Maddox Roberts does manage to twist matters around in a most interesting fashion (..no spoilers here). And thankfully, the ending is rather good. Bottom line: a good story somewhat poorly told. However the end justifies the means, and so even fans of more finer ancient Roman historical novels will enjoy The King's Gambit.
Rating: 
Summary: Flimsy stuff
Review: This series is pretty lightweight. You don't feel that you've visited ancient Rome -- the city doesn't come alive, the people do not behave as we expect, e.g. Milo, Cicero, Cato, to behave. The scenary feels like cardboard, and it is hard to care about any of the people, including the 'hero' Decius. Historical detective fiction has been done a whole lot better than this. Lindsay Davies' 'Falco' novels are far better written, and much more fun to read. The funny thing is that Roberts can write a good tale when he wants to. But he seems to know nothing about ancient Rome, and it shows. I was disappointed, anyway.
Rating:
Summary: Flimsy stuff
Review: This series is pretty lightweight. You don't feel that you've visited ancient Rome -- the city doesn't come alive, the people do not behave as we expect, e.g. Milo, Cicero, Cato, to behave. The scenary feels like cardboard, and it is hard to care about any of the people, including the 'hero' Decius. Historical detective fiction has been done a whole lot better than this. Lindsay Davies' 'Falco' novels are far better written, and much more fun to read. The funny thing is that Roberts can write a good tale when he wants to. But he seems to know nothing about ancient Rome, and it shows. I was disappointed, anyway.
Rating: 
Summary: historical inaccuracies distracting
Review: While I don't pretend to be an expert on Roman history, I do have some knowledge of the time period. I found this book to have so many glaring inaccuracies that it was difficult to read. The one that sticks out in my mind is the description of Cato as consorting with his slaves and producing children. The author has confused Cato the Censor with the Cato who was a contemporary of Caesar's. Cato the Censor was the great (I believe) grandfather of this Cato and he was the one who consorted with his slaves. Indeed, that side of the lineage is what produced Caesar's nemesis Cato.
In fact, this is really the only thing from the book which sticks out in my mind, in addition to other historical problems which needn't be addressed here. I can't really remember the plot points and I just finished it a couple of days ago.
There are definitely better books in this genre.
Rating:
Summary: historical inaccuracies distracting
Review: While I don't pretend to be an expert on Roman history, I do have some knowledge of the time period. I found this book to have so many glaring inaccuracies, that it was difficult to read. The one that sticks out in my mind is the description of Cato as consorting with his slaves and producing children. The author has confused Cato the Censor with the Cato who was a contemporary of Caesar's. Cato the Censor was the great (I believe) grandfather of this Cato and he was the one who consorted with his slaves. Indeed, that side of the lineage is what produced Caesar's nemesis Cato. In fact, this is really the only thing from the book which sticks out in my mind, in addition to other historical problems which needn't be addressed here. I can't really remember the plot points and I just finished it a couple of days ago. There are definitely better books in this genre.
| 
