It was okay. Just okay. I was hoping to learn more about Aristotle.

slow and boring plot; disliked writing style; over-use of vulgar words made it worse...seemed out of place

While Annabel Lyon’s much-acclaimed novel The Golden Mean, has been received well by critics, I’m afraid it fell short for this reader. The novel deals with Aristotle’s life during his tutelage of Alexander, who would become The Great. Lyon attempts to paint a picture of Aristotle’s own struggle to find balance between depression and joy, passion and reason, and in doing so employs a considerable wealth of research into the historical characters. However, research into the historical milieu is lacking. In the opening Lyon’s describes: “I spent yesterday on the carts myself so I could write, though now I ride bareback, in the manner of my countrymen, a ball-busting proposition for someone who’s been sedentary as long as I have.” Agreed riding bare-back can be a painful experience over the long-term; however, the glaring inconsistency here is the fact Aristotle was writing while riding in a cart. In an era of no suspension, and roughly paved or even dirt roads, the jouncing and ‘ball-busting’ would have had his backside black and blue, and any writing would have been rendered illegible. Further, Lyon fails to illustrate that if paper (papyrus) were used, or more likely parchment or vellum, all would have required sanding and burnishing, tasks not easily accomplished on a bouncing, crashing cart. Moreover, use of any stylus and ink would have been prohibitive. If, however, a wax tablet had been used, which would have been more likely the case, even then any legible cipher would have been an impossibility. The language of the novel was another point of contention for me. Altogether very modern, even to the use of the modern phrase, whapping each other upside the head, the language of the novel didn’t ring true, and consequently a sense of time period and placement left me feeling disoriented. I wasn’t looking for Shakespearean diction here; far from it. But I was looking for something a little less modern street. Around the middle of the novel that modern touch became completely arresting when Lyons writes a scene wherein he and his wife watch snow falling, and Aristotle explains to his wife: “The gods don’t send it,” I say. “It’s part of the machinery of the world. When the air is cold enough, rain turns to snow. It freezes. The water atoms attach to each other and harden.” Now, while Democritus, one of the ancient Greek philosophers credited with the concept of atomic theory, was a contemporary of Aristotle’s, the statement Lyon’s writes reads just a bit too modern and stretches the boundaries of credibility. As to the tone of the language, it is altogether very vulgar, which may be an attempt to reflect a male voice. Instead, at least for this reader, that vulgar tone simply rendered the novel somewhat adolescent and reliant on the use of shock factor instead of writing skill. When analyzing writing skill, there is a profound lack of character development, so that Aristotle himself is merely a talking head, as are most of the enormous cast of characters. There’s nothing there for me to hang on to. And that lack of character development extends to lack of environmental detail, so that what should have been a very alive, vibrant, sensory plunge into ancient Greece and Macedon, instead remain a grey slate waiting for colour. There was no sense of heat or cold, of architecture or furnishing, of environment or countryside. The only explicit detail Lyon ever uses is that of periodic, clinical gore, or base sexuality. It may be that this sensory deprivation was Lyon’s attempt to reflect the lack of depth and character in her protagonist, Aristotle, but for me it was like reading a green screen, waiting for the magic to appear. If Lyon’s novel, The Golden Mean, is the standard by which we now measure excellence, then I am outdated, antiquated and obsolete.

The Golden Mean helped me to remember why I love books. It has been a long time since a book has transported me so completely to another time and place. Everything about the writing rang true and not for a moment did I doubt that this was truly Aristotle's story. There is not a lot of action (really this is a "slice of life" book) but the characters are so well drawn and the dialogue is so well written that the story draws you in. I highly recommend this book to readers who enjoy exceptional characterization and who have an interest in classical history.

I had high expectations for this book. After studying ancient Greek culture and history only briefly, I was looking forward to delving back into that period in time and learning more about Alexander and Aristotle. Sadly, there is very little about either character. Although the story centres on Aristotle, it mostly discusses his thoughts and feelings. The book wasn't awful, but certainly not "dazzling" as the jacket describes. Overall, it fell flat for me.

This historical fiction based on the life story of Aristotle definitely grabby my interest and held it. It was well written and very interesting, but the description of the book is slightly misleading as it certainly focuses on Aristotle's life, with very little about Alexander's. While the novel focuses on the time Aristotle spent in Macedonia teaching the young prince, it is told from his voice and often relates back to the philosopher's youth. Some people also might be turned off by some of the language used but I believe this was the author's attempt to make the characters more authentic. I enjoyed the book, but also understand why not everyone has.

I read this book for a book club without an expectation and that, I think, was what saved me from being disappointed with it. The title sums it up perfectly. In Greek philosophy, the golden mean is the middle ground between two extremes, and it is the case for this novel - neither excellent nor terrible. Lyon's writing style captivated me, the story itself, while interesting, did not seem to have a true motive to it. By the end of the novel, I wondered what I got out from the story. The novelty of the content surely was one of the few reasons why it got as much hype as it did. Historical fiction rarely focuses on a philosopher, mostly on royalty or warriors. If you are hoping to read a lot about how Aristotle's works came about, maybe not. If you are hoping to read a lot about the interaction between him and Alexander, maybe not. But this should not deter you from giving it a go. If you are hoping to read a well written, vividly described fictional account of part of Aristotle's life, do.

I was so excited to read this book and boy did it fail me. I wanted to learn about Alexander and Aristotle and their relationship but I really felt like there was very minimal coverage of that. A lot of dissection and a lot of boring talk. I was bored through most of the book.

I persevered with this novel until I'd read about two thirds of it, at which point I had to quit reading because the story seemed to be going nowhere and yet jumping from one topic to another nonsensically. Many passages seemed misplaced, without a point, and chronologically confused.

When you realize that the story is mostly based on real life, the book becomes more interesting. It is a good read and makes you think of lives led by great minds and conquerors