Attila: The Scourge Of God (2007) - Plot & Excerpts
Didn't hit the mark for me.The premise was sound, I thought - an interesting time in history, chock full of big personalities and momentous events - and Laidlaw seems to have done his research - the author includes a discussion on this topic, and each chapter is opened with a quotation from a primary or secondary source. The characters showed seeds of greatness - Boniface, Aetius, Attila - all three, I got the sense, had the capacity to be compelling, fascinating characters. Even the fictional "everyman" with a good dose of luck on his side, Titus, induced my sympathies, highlighting key dilemmas, and I rooted for him to overcome his obstacles, though I didn't quite find his character compelling. Some of the best moments in the book were when the "ordinary" fictional characters set out on adventures or had challenges to overcome - particularly when there was a strong element of risk involved, such as in Gaius' self-imposed forced march complete with crucial time limit - the tension racheted up significantly and I was tearing through the pages to see what would happen in these chapters.However, there were issues which I feel held the book back from being as good as it could have been. Whilst I was intrigued by the big names such as Boniface, Aetius and Attila, I didn't feel like they got enough page space, or "screen time" if you will. The novel is told from multiple points of view, not just the above three characters, but also fictional character Titus, and at times various characters in the Eastern Roman Empire, members of Titus' family, peripheral characters in Attila's court or the Western Roman Empire's court, even random characters in Britain and Gaul whose stories filter into what later happens but have no impact or effect on events whatsoever - and thus could have been left out without losing anything for it. I understood that Laidlaw was trying to set the scene so that as a reader I could better comprehend the circumstances of the times and why the wider picture was as it was, but it was unnecessary, and I wish more time had been spent on these three compelling, historical main characters, because as it was I felt like I had only glimpsed these fascinating characters about which I wanted to know much, much more, but never really got inside their heads or behind their motivations. Laidlaw does go to considerable effort to try and get inside Attila's head - but Attila, as a character, naturally presents a problem for any writer. The historical figure's brutal reputation dominates, and whilst I think it should be possible to write a brutal Attila that is still compelling, what if you wanted to write, as Laidlaw seemed to, an Attila whose psychology readers can understand and even feel empathetic towards? Laidlaw's Attila is an aspiring intellectual, risen above his fellow Huns, and regretfully and reluctantly forced into ever more brutal acts by the pressures of his people. This just didn't ring completely true for me; moreover I felt that Attila was too weak and had trouble connecting to such a character.Another issue was connected to the aforementioned one; not only were there multiple viewpoints throughout the novel, but often the novel changes medium too. The baseline seems to be third person past tense with an omniscient narrator, but at times it switches out. In certain chapters, Titus keeps a first person past tense diary, characters write first person present tense letters to one another or go off into third person past tense flashbacks, a chronicler keeps a travelogue/chronicle of a year in Attila's life (in which he secretly travels across Asia to consult a Chinese sage... fictional, I presume), and a character presents an account of his own tale within Titus' diary - a story within a story within a story. This had the effect of feeling like there was a lack of consistency in the writing style, but it presented another issue. Many of these switch-outs to other formats are used when the novel wishes to jump ahead several months or years, and then the diary or letter or whatever it may be is used as a vehicle to catch the reader up on what has been happening. But it's too obvious and has the feel of ham-handed info-dumping whilst at the same time making the text overall feel choppy and disjointed with only snippets and interludes which we get to experience "firsthand" unfolding before our eyes in the story.Also, the endings, focusing on first Attila and then Aetius, felt rather anti-climactic and like they just tailed off, not particularly exciting.4 out of 10.
AACK! He read ahead and oh man did he have some comments to make about inappropriate materials. YIKES. I have to be more on top of things, and staying ahead of his reading!Oh man am I having a hard time getting into this book. But, Malachi wants to study about Attila the Hun. We have two we are reading. (He is listening to it on CD and then we talk about it) Then he "earns" time on AGe of Empires to fight as Attila. It worked well when we read Ghengis Khan by Harold Lamb (we really liked that one) But this has been harder. I'll let you know.
What do You think about Attila: The Scourge Of God (2007)?
