Byzantium

In a previous novel I read, someone-- probably a high-rolling, big-time investor, or the CEO of a major competitor, hires an auditor and his accounting firm to determine the overall health and stability of a large, multi-national umbrella corporation. Ordinarily, the auditor would rely on his keen business acumen, his finely-honed skills in intelligence analysis and diplomacy, and on the professional abilities of his cohorts, who possess highly specialized and technical skill sets in order to prepare non-routine evaluations or the prospectus for a company potentially worth billions of dollars. Unfortunately, in the case of this particular umbrella corporation, there are serious issues regarding glaring irregularities and unexplained inconsistencies in its financial records, going way beyond the norm, since you know "money doesn't grow on trees," and "it doesn't really rain money." Consequently, the chief auditor forms a panel of experts from among his associates within the firm in order to specifically address these issues. In effect, they have to pay several of the subsidiaries a visit, in order to verify the company's immense corporate assets first-hand and its tremendous holdings up close and personal. In short, they begin to suspect that the chief will ultimately have to advise the client that the company in question should sell or spin-off its unprofitable subsidiaries immediately and curtail their riskier ventures altogether. Luckily for them, the firm's auditors have an uncanny knack for smoothing ruffled feathers, particularly when they approach the job like an unruly team of mercenaries dropped behind enemy lines. Presumably, the good guys would be able to prevent or avoid entirely any incidental blow-back or profoundly unsettling repercussions. In any case, you are naturally confident about the recommendations they will make to the honcho client for improving community relations. You assume the final business report they generate eventually yields promising, "cut and dried" results. Thus, everybody returns home exhausted, perhaps; but completely satisfied with their glorious achievements at the end of the day. Similarly, the book I am currently reading, "Byzantium," written by Stephen R. Lawhead and published in 1996, tells of a humble and devoutly religious monk upon whom is bestowed the dubious task of delivering an important message to the powerful sovereign of a distant land concerning how he should best rule his empire. The operative analogy being, if the country were run like the enigmatic CEO "Ross Perot" ran General Motors, throughout his long and profitable reign at the helm, then all of its citizens-- or obedient subjects, as the case may be, would be much better off, from the perspective of a great people living within the gigantic bubble of a global economy, in the best of all possible worlds' scenario. Let's hold onto this thought for the moment. I haven't gotten very far into the book yet. Reading further, I'm beginning to perceive that the major significant difference between the totally modern, naturally suspicious and hyperactive chief auditor; and the somewhat gullible, guileless, and obscure monk from the Isle of Man during times of antiquity and prevailing iniquity, having lived but a humble, simple, sheltered, and structured rural life appears to be straight forward enough: the heroic auditor relies mostly on his wits, professional training and decisive trouble-shooting abilities, with the panel of experts from the accounting firm backing him up every step of the way; while the monk must stand firm and resolute-- if not entirely alone in the wilderness, in his strong belief that divine Mercy, the Word, and the infinite Power of the Almighty will guide, save, and protect him. We shall see if he gets any help from the brotherhood, a few close friends, and any allies he meets along the way on his quest. The story becomes mighty interesting when considering he's had more miraculous, narrow escapes under his belt than "Harry Houdini." And to think you initially believed that the major difference between the two characters was "one sweats." and "the other salivates!" "Hardly." Regardless, I'm beginning to believe that the monk proves himself to be an excellent judge of character, time and time again, in both word and deed. Hence, his instinctual aptitude for survival enables him to make smoother transitions from one remote location and set of circumstances to another. "When in Rome, he does as the Romans do." In other words, he adapts quite readily to rapidly changing situations and even manages to translate languages reasonably and tolerably well, as might a seasoned UN interpreter. The icing on the cake, because he tends to read people like a book, you think that he will go the distance in life and ultimately achieve his goals. He certainly appears to cover a considerable amount of ground to get where he's going. Were he alive today, he should easily qualify for an entry-level executive intelligence analyst position within the CIA. To summarize, then, I'd have to admit that the novel has very good characterization and plot development, making for a powerfully moving, dramatic, epic adventure. And, your heroes don't perspire excessively, drool uncontrollably, or bleed profusely.

Historical fiction at its best. Great way to learn about the hero and the world he lived in.

Which experience is key in "Byzantium" --life as an Irish monk, as slave to Sea Dogs (Vikings), advisor to the emperor of Byzantium, slave in Arab silver mines, advisor to an Arab leader, betrothed of an Arab woman, or doubter of the faith?What is a monk without faith? How much more is a monk who loses faith and regains it? As the reader travels this incredible journey with Aidan mac Cainnech, she may well question the vagueness of historical timing because there are so many settings. The reader may question the use of multiple subplots with a riot of characters. Ultimately, the question becomes: Is this story possible? Is it credible?These questions were raised by another reviewer on this page. He praised the quality of writing but questioned the omission of a firm time period, raising the very same question for this reviewer. As I read I repeatedly questioned the time period, intending to research it. However, the reader should not need to--such information should be part of the story if its claim is to historical fiction. The reader should not wonder if the time is 500's, 900's (as noted in the Afterword), or 1100's. Just when is it?These comments are in no way critical of the book. In fact, it has become a new favorite and definitely is a page-turner. However, the lack of dates suggests to this reader that perhaps Lawhead wrote with a different thrust in mind: the question of faith. Aidan begins his journey to Byzantium a devout believer, not a fanatic, but a steadfast believer. Fairly early in the story, the Danes become part of the plot. It was during his time with Gunnar as a slave that Aidan has the opportunity to talk about his Savior. The seeds of belief are thus planted in Gunnar's soul. It is through Gunnar that Aidan's faith is re-born late in the novel.The journey through the historical places and people of "Byzantium" is the framework for faith. Whose faith? Why believe? How is it possible to believe in a world of ugly, brutal, and inhumane acts? The answers indicate a central purpose for this novel: a journey of faith through the experiences of one highly intelligent, unusual monk with a propensity for languages, the wisdom of rational and diplomatic thought and deeds, and luck. Luck? Of course not. In a story of faith, luck is really the supernatural made visible. Is it possible for one man to live all these experiences in a two-year time span? The answer is yes, it is possible.Another important theme is that of universality of humans. Each people group to be introduced has a preceding reputation: the Vikings as brutal creatures, who become among the kindest people in the book; the monks as kind, loving people and remain that way; the emperor and his kingdom, who should be representative of wise decisions but portray as much corruption as found anywhere at any time; Arabs about which little was known to Aidan, only to become what people are everywhere--wise, cruel, corrupt, insane, kind. By novel's end Lawhead has demonstrated that people are more alike in their human traits than they are different because of geographic and religious differences.Stephen R. Lawhead has a winner with "Byzantium," for its historical accountings of people groups, for its page-turning suspense and action, for its believable characters that the reader comes to care for or not, and for its central still point of faith.

A very good read.I am a fan of Stephen lawhead.His detail is very good and I feel he is something of a historian with his background facts.this story takes you through many countries in about 10 to 11 century.some of it is a bit gruesome but other parts are intreaging.i like the way he weaves Christianity into the story good and bad.It is a very long book with over 700 pages but so absorbing I was glad to pick it up and be transported away to another time.

Just finished this book ,and it is a great read ,what you come to expect from Stephen lawhead, and he dose not let you down

Outstanding book. Very good story.The story is very interesting, maybe the beginning it's a bit slow, but from then on is very addictive.I have read more famous books and are worse than this.

This was a great read and very hard to put down once you start. Great plot and character building as seen through the eyes of a monk who's faith is severely tested. What a wonderful walk through history. ENJOY!!!

a great read - spanning many years of adventure for a humble monk. One of the best.