07-20-2011, 10:31 AM
The question is whether Rome’s last pagans went out fighting or meekly accepted their fate. Cameron argues that they simply accepted their fate. His method of operation is to systematically attack each and every point of each and every historian who has argued for a pagan resurgence in the late fourth – early fifth centuries.
This is a double-barrelled shotgun approach, aiming to devastate all opposing arguments. Just like not all shotgun pellets hit the target, some of his ideas were unconvincing. However, as a whole the target has been hit and his case is made. If he was a defence attorney, his client would probably walk free. He does a masterful job, and this book is liable to keep historians working for the next decade or two in an attempt to answer him. This is easily one of the most stimulating non-fiction books I have read for years.
One problem is that the book is a refutation. As he admits in the last paragraph, it is extremely negative, only destroying the arguments in favour of a pagan resistance. He offers very little alternative, which is a major disappointment.
I want to reiterate several points other reviewers have made. First, it is not for novices. He expects the reader to know the time period, know the personas, know the sources, and know the arguments. If you aren’t familiar you spend a lot of time doing background research. Like I did, for instance. Secondly, when Cameron says “Rome” he means, almost exclusively, the city of Rome. He only discusses paganism in rural areas or other cities as a comparison to the city of Rome.
Then there is something other reviewers haven’t mentioned, which is that Cameron is not a good writer. I don’t know why people ignore this when it comes to non-fiction books. Someone could be a genius, a master theoretician or historian, but if he can’t communicate effectively his ideas are no good. Cameron uses odd sentence structures, ungrammatical phrases and awkward compounds. He has a predilection for parenthetical asides, which I believe is a result of his inability or unwillingness to structure a complex thought coherently.
Sometimes a single sentence has the ability to cause hours of confusion. This sentence is obviously incorrect, but the writer is obviously brilliant, so what is going on here? What did he mean? Evidently no one knows, because Cameron has broken the cardinal rule of writing, which is to strive for clarity.
Overall, though, the impression left by the book is extremely positive. It is almost overwhelming, and I would probably need another reading or two just to grasp this accomplishment. I don’t know if it will truly change the consensus about this time period, but if it doesn’t probably nothing will.
This is a double-barrelled shotgun approach, aiming to devastate all opposing arguments. Just like not all shotgun pellets hit the target, some of his ideas were unconvincing. However, as a whole the target has been hit and his case is made. If he was a defence attorney, his client would probably walk free. He does a masterful job, and this book is liable to keep historians working for the next decade or two in an attempt to answer him. This is easily one of the most stimulating non-fiction books I have read for years.
One problem is that the book is a refutation. As he admits in the last paragraph, it is extremely negative, only destroying the arguments in favour of a pagan resistance. He offers very little alternative, which is a major disappointment.
I want to reiterate several points other reviewers have made. First, it is not for novices. He expects the reader to know the time period, know the personas, know the sources, and know the arguments. If you aren’t familiar you spend a lot of time doing background research. Like I did, for instance. Secondly, when Cameron says “Rome” he means, almost exclusively, the city of Rome. He only discusses paganism in rural areas or other cities as a comparison to the city of Rome.
Then there is something other reviewers haven’t mentioned, which is that Cameron is not a good writer. I don’t know why people ignore this when it comes to non-fiction books. Someone could be a genius, a master theoretician or historian, but if he can’t communicate effectively his ideas are no good. Cameron uses odd sentence structures, ungrammatical phrases and awkward compounds. He has a predilection for parenthetical asides, which I believe is a result of his inability or unwillingness to structure a complex thought coherently.
Sometimes a single sentence has the ability to cause hours of confusion. This sentence is obviously incorrect, but the writer is obviously brilliant, so what is going on here? What did he mean? Evidently no one knows, because Cameron has broken the cardinal rule of writing, which is to strive for clarity.
Overall, though, the impression left by the book is extremely positive. It is almost overwhelming, and I would probably need another reading or two just to grasp this accomplishment. I don’t know if it will truly change the consensus about this time period, but if it doesn’t probably nothing will.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
