Dreaming the Lion has one major problem: it looks awful. That title is terrible and the subtitle even moreso. It sounds like a cheap romance novel, and the cover really tries to sell that idea also. I would frankly never have picked up this book had I not recognized the name of the author as a respected historian of Macedon and author of a blog I rather liked.Aside from that it’s pretty close to perfect.This book tells the story of the early years of Alexander the Great with a focus on the relationship between Alexander and his lover Hephaistion. This is an incredibly bold and confident step to make for a debut novel given that it immediately invites comparison with the beloved works of Mary Renault. Fire from Heaven covers the same themes and many of the same events as this book and does so with a charm that makes it still one of the best examples of historical fiction even fifty years after its publication.So how does the book compare? Pretty well actually. I recall the author sounding not overly impressed with Renault’s book (although her main complaints had to do with Alexander’s ideals) so it surprised me just how Renaultesque the book was. Leaving aside subject matter, the book has a similar tone, writing style, and even characterizations. The book doesn’t hide from darkness, but it is still a very pleasant journey through ancient Macedon.And the book is also able to do a number of things that Renault never could. For one thing, Macedonian studies have come a long way since the ‘60s. Renault presented us with a very Greek Macedon while this book explores the differences between Macedonian and Greek culture. And since the author is a professor of Ancient Macedon she’s perfectly positioned to do this. Another aspect is that we’ve become comfortable with a lot more explicit discussions about sex. Not that the sex here is uncomfortably pornographic (though you’re never left unclear about what’s happening) but rather Renault was forced to turn so allusive that it is often impossible to know what she’s describing. For a book focused on showing us the mores of a different time that’s a limitation.The characterizations also show a little more depth. Olympias (or rather Myrtale) is as scary as she’s usually shown, but her more positive side is shown as well. She’s a healer and the manager of the royal household. Philip’s the same distant figure whose incapacity to show affection really screws Alexander’s life up. Alexander himself comes across very positively. Just as in with Renault he’s extremely precocious, although his childish failings are perhaps more plausibly prominent. He’s the epitome of Greek ideals in many ways: loyal, intelligent, determined to pursue excellence at every stage... and yet he still has a streak of untamable emotions that drive him. His distant and manipulative parents have left him with a need for love that is unquenchable. He has to be the best at everything and outdo everyone, but god help you if you ever let him win! And thankfully he has his best friend Hephaistion to shoulder some of the burden.Reames basically wrote the book on Hephaistion (literally) and he gets much more developed than I’ve ever seen before. He’s a loner, a distant, moody, proud boy who has never really gotten over the death of his older brother. As she puts it, he “didn’t show feelings, he selected expressions.” He’s the anti-Alexander in many ways. His family is very close and affectionate, he has few ambitions in life, he conceals his emotions, and he’s much happier being on his own than the center of attention. It’s a classic case of opposites attracting, but also of two people who find a way to fill the emptiness inside themselves with the strengths of the other. I barely remember Renault’s Hephaistion except for his general supportiveness and great excitement at his good fortune. This one is a character I won’t forget and his troubles and conflicts seem more real as a result.Which do I think is the better book? Well, probably still Fire from Heaven. For all this book’s strengths, it just doesn’t have a strong enough plot to work as an independent novel. This is part one of a series and it shows. If I had to summarize the plot it would be Alexander starts his tutelage under Aristotle, fights in his first battle, and falls in love with his best friend. That basic summary does the book a disservice since it’s the journey and the characters that really make it work, but it is a limitation nonetheless and a self-inflicted one at that. Book two seems like it will go up to Alexander’s exile and eventual elevation to king and this, along with the high drama of the invasion of Greece and open feuding with Philip, is what this book needed to really make its climax work. As it is, the work fizzles out with the climax (so to speak) of the love story and then throws in an (admittedly pretty awesome) initiation into the cult of Dionysus. A bildungsroman really needs to follow through to more important character developments.So I really really liked this book. It is fully on the same level as the best books in the field, even if issues of coverage prevent it from achieving its full potential. That is absolutely astounding in a debut novel. I very much hope that she continues with the series past these books and into Alexander’s conquest of Persia (which has never really been shown well in my opinion) and the tragedy of his hubristic overreach and early death. Her review of Oliver Stone’s Alexander tells me that she understands the dramatic potential of this broader story and her handling of this smaller tale shows that she’s capable of dramatizing it.Plot: 6 (Limited and incomplete)Characters: 10 (Well-developed and lovable)Accuracy: 10 (She literally wrote the book on the subject)