![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Barrett, Tracy - Anna of Byzantium
Sat, Feb. 12th, 2005 12:28 amAnna Comnena is the first-born and heir of Emperor Alexius I of Byzantium. She anticipates a life of learning statesmanship and diplomacy, and later ruling over a huge empire. But her grandmother, her father's most trusted advisor, soon sees that Anna is learning her lessons on governing too well, and suddenly, all of Anna's privileges start slipping through her fingers.
I had no idea that Anna was a historical character, but it does make the story more interesting in hindsight, given that she probably would have been the villain of a historical text. I liked Anna herself very much -- she is arrogant and not particularly kind. Heh. Aside from her strong personality and the clashing personalities of her mother and grandmother, the book wasn't bad, but it wasn't outstanding either. There were the usual issues about slavery and the right to have servants and etc. that seem to be in all historical fiction today. I don't mean to complain about addressing these issues, because I think they are important, but I'm not quite sure if the book does so in a manner that is useful and not merely perfunctory. At least Anna doesn't turn wholly into a bleeding-heart liberal (so speaks the bleeding-heart liberal writing this). But I sort of felt that a princess born with every luxury probably wouldn't care all that much.
Barrett does show Anna to be spoiled and selfish, which I was interested in, because the back of the book seems like it is all about female power, seeing as how Anna's position as heis is eventually taken over by her younger brother. I liked that there were strong women in the book and that the book was mostly about their interactions. And I was interested while I was reading the book, but it just hasn't stuck that much with me.
I had no idea that Anna was a historical character, but it does make the story more interesting in hindsight, given that she probably would have been the villain of a historical text. I liked Anna herself very much -- she is arrogant and not particularly kind. Heh. Aside from her strong personality and the clashing personalities of her mother and grandmother, the book wasn't bad, but it wasn't outstanding either. There were the usual issues about slavery and the right to have servants and etc. that seem to be in all historical fiction today. I don't mean to complain about addressing these issues, because I think they are important, but I'm not quite sure if the book does so in a manner that is useful and not merely perfunctory. At least Anna doesn't turn wholly into a bleeding-heart liberal (so speaks the bleeding-heart liberal writing this). But I sort of felt that a princess born with every luxury probably wouldn't care all that much.
Barrett does show Anna to be spoiled and selfish, which I was interested in, because the back of the book seems like it is all about female power, seeing as how Anna's position as heis is eventually taken over by her younger brother. I liked that there were strong women in the book and that the book was mostly about their interactions. And I was interested while I was reading the book, but it just hasn't stuck that much with me.