Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Could do better, 7 Feb 2007
This is a badly written book which reads like a first draft and needs the service of a decent editor. The main problem is repetition. Another problem is repetition, so we are repeatedly told the same thing as if for the first time on several occasions. For instance the removal of a Caryatid from Eleusis by Clarke is told three times in the space of a dozen pages. At one point she manages to repeat herself in the same paragraph.
Dr. King's attempt at narrative history founders on her inability to control her subject matter in a disciplined manner. The plot leaps backwards and forward leaving the reader bewildered. For example, the `Nisbets' are recorded as having returned to Scotland, yet in the following paragraph are still in the Levant. I found myself repeatedly flicking back through the pages with a furrowed brow wondering what I had missed.
One page 222 we are told that `Lancret' was able to read the Greek inscription on the Rosetta stone. This is the only mention of him in the entire book. Who is he? I don't know, the author didn't tell me. On page 21 Miltiades is mentioned, but has to wait several more pages before he is actually introduced as a Greek General.
The really annoying chapter of the book is the one on Marbles themselves. The publishers do not include a plan of the Parthenon, so it is almost impossible to keep track of the descriptions. There is no glossary. The use of abstruse architectural terminology could have been softened with an explanatory diagram but isn't. The end result is confusion and frustration rather then enlightenment.
I am annoyed by this book, as there is a much better book within it. Clearly the publishers had little faith in the work otherwise they would have printed it on better quality paper. As it is, within ten years this book will look older than the marbles themselves.
|
|
|
17 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
just a couple of comments, 1 Feb 2006
Dr King's book has been reviewed by the press it's been long ago (since last year if not mistaken), and there are used books already at Amazon, so why is she accusing people of writing reviews before having read it? I recently read a review by "The Independent" online, which was hardly of praise for the book. Personally I found the book, but also Dr King's Press talks, quite aggressive and passionate and I wonder why and whether this is an appropriate academic behaviour. In addition, I expected to read a book of academic standards, so I did not appreciate the rambling at certain parts and the tasteless jokes and gossips about politicians such as M. Merkouri. Finally, archaeological inaccuracies complete the picture. For example, the Parthenon was mainly a temple devoted to Athena, despite its other uses by the people of Athens. Before the present 5th century BC building there was another Parthenon under construction, but it was destroyed by the Persian attacks. The Parthenon was definitely a building that stood out on Acropolis, and its decorations could be seen clearly, especially as the naturally honey-coloured marble (that the British Museum turned to bright white with surface destruction!) and the individual figures sculpted on it were coloured with bright colours, like red and blue. This is known by few, as the Victorians spread the wrong impression that the Greek temples were 'white as doves'.
|
|
|
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Gamma minus..., 4 Jan 2008
Without doubt the worst and most annoying book I purchased (silly me) during 2007. The 'argument' is shockingly unbalanced and prejudiced - in favour of Elgin when we do finally get there, and against Byron whose stance is seriously misrepresented. It is also littered with inaccuracies and historical errors en route: Demosthenes was a 'famous Greek philosopher' apparently, the date of Athens turning democratic is wrong, dates in modern Greek history are distorted or ignored in order to prop up the 'Elgin' case etc. etc. On top of that, it is tediously repetitous and in places almost even self-contradictory. Don't publishers employ competent editors who know anything any more? Or can edit? (answer: remarkably few, unfortunately). It isn't even a good polemic - for which a case might, just might, be made. Some of the history of the Parthenon is actually interesting and has some value for a general readership, but this is blown by the dubious quality of what surrounds it. Zeus preserve us from some pea-brained TV executive thinking there is a glib programme lurking somewhere in this deeply flawed effort with the self-promoting 'PhDiva' queening it up as presenter...
The author in the Acknowledgements makes a gratuitously catty remark about Evangelos Venizelos, former Greek Culture Minister, not having answered her questions - adding 'but politicians rarely do'. Given 'Dr' King's approach to accuracy and balance, others might also consider that to be rather good advice.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
