Complaints of “lack of historical accuracy” will always fall on deaf ears with me when the author explicitly states “xyz was the inspiration, however, I took creative liberty to serve the story”. She makes it clear this is not supposed to be a historically accurate work of fiction. So… I’m not docking points for the book being exactly what the author said it would be.
Malina is upset that Julian prevents the assaulting of war prisoners because they don’t “fetch as much coin”, yet he doesn’t assault her. She is exactly what the rest of them are, but he doesn’t harm her. He doesn’t harm Kara either. That’s not the result of his slaves not fetching a high enough price. That’s just a man who respects the boundary of consent. So, yeah, his motives might not be entirely pure, but I don’t think that makes him a bad man. A broken clock is still right twice a day.
Overall, the plot was more compelling than the characters themselves, so I’m not disappointed the next book will be from a different POV. I was compelled enough by the plot to want to read the next book and I’m curious enough about how the POV character is alive to look forward to it. It was foreshadowed and I was hopeful, and definitely pleased now with her being the focus for book 2.
I’m bummed there was no resolution with Caesar, but I get it. He’s the driving force of the narrative and our overarching villain, blah blah blah. I hate him, though.
Ciprian didn’t really make sense to me? Malina even reflects on how he ended up close to Caesar in the first place given his lack of aristocracy. I also had curiosities around that fact. His brutality doesn’t seem like enough to land him next to Caesar because there are plenty of Roman’s who are equally as brutal as him. I don’t know, I just feel like he wasn’t made out to be the villain enough to be the main antagonist for this book, specifically. Caesar is obviously the villain for the series as a whole, and that’s made obvious. Ciprian just seemed like a speed bump more than an actual foe.
0 comments