“Blood of Alexandria” – a review by Michael Winning

Michael Winning

Went to Waterstomes in someplace, Manchester traffod Centre I think, it wasn’t in a town anyways, lots of car parks and derelict factory hards, all about. New hotels too, all empty. Which is always a bad sign about a place. you know of what I speak.

Bought a copy of “Blood of Alexandria” by some bloke called Richard Blake. I’ve read his earier stuff, Conspiracies of Rome, and The Terror of Constantinople.

One thing I can tell you about this book: it’s different, very different in sublte ways from the first two published works by Blake. Blake’s first two books were bloody violent, laced with naughty sex, graphic and in some ways horrifying.  Now then. Although full of suspense, redolent of the barbarism of the Dark Ages, and yet capturing the residual might of the Eastern Roman Empire which is really what’s left of the earlier Greek one, this new book is FUNNY too.I am about two thrids through it now, and I have to prevent myself gauffawing out loud in bed, in front of my women. They lean over to see what I read, but they’d better not. It’s fairly nasty too, in the details, but it’s more subtle.  But you got to expect that from this Balke guy, as you know the form.

Blake has managed to inject that just right level of comedy into this story. there are some really funny characters this time, Blake has now astered the art of drawing a good pen-picture of a fellow. Then, there are the really funny pompous ones but I shan’t tell you who they are, you will have to see. Then, there are funny objects but I snahant tell you about those either, it would spoil the fun. Just think of urine and, and that stuff, and what I’d call s sort of satire on the iconography of organised medieval religion.

Bloody great change from pig farming, any road.

2 responses to ““Blood of Alexandria” – a review by Michael Winning

  1. Sounds like Richard Blake has hit a good raw nerve there.

  2. Mr Blake has asked me to thank Mr Winning for his most flattering review.