What do you think?
Rate this book
The Waters of Babylon: A Novel About Lawrence After Arabia
A brilliantly imagined and elegantly written novel that speculates on the enigmatic life of the legendary T. E. Lawrence following his retreat from celebrity as "Lawrence of Arabia," "The Waters of Babylon" focuses on the story of Lawrence's life after Arabia -- although in fully creating its character, the narrative ranges from his childhood as a troubled boy and youth, to his first adventures in the Middle East, through his years in India and his final days at Clouds Hill. Peopling his story with some of the great figures of the twentieth century, author David Stevens has created a challenging portrait of a man who gave up fame to pursue his ideals. For decades, the story of T. E. Lawrence has been shrouded in the trappings of modern mythology -- thanks in great part to his immortalization on film as a charismatic, larger-than-life figure -- and for all intents and purposes his life ended at a point of glory and celebrity. As depicted in David Stevens's novel, however, the reality was far different from the myth.
In fact, following his brief but shining moment in the spotlight of public consciousness, Lawrence attempted a retreat into anonymity, abandoning his celebrity and joining the Royal Air Force -- not as a ranking officer, as would have been his due, but as a regular airman, an erk. This much of Lawrence's story David Stevens knows to be fact, because Stevens's father spent time in the Air Force with Lawrence (whom he disliked). Using his father's recollections as a springboard, and employing extensive research, Stevens has crafted an amazingly rich and detailed novel about the life Lawrence may very well have led during his years as a soldier, and after.
Thenovel begins with Lawrence, who has reinvented himself as T. E. Shaw, headed back to the part of the world in which he had initially gained recognition and notoriety. With his return comes a flood of memories and associations, some of them sweet, many of them painful. As he adjusts to his new life as an ordinary airman in the RAF, he gradually surrenders his privacy, and a bond develops between him and the other men. An odd kind of love/hate relationship even arises between Lawrence and another of his bunkmates, a loner named Slaney.
Over the course of the novel, which carries the reader all the way to Lawrence's death, we learn much of the background for this enigmatic man's behavior, including details of his upbringing (by a harsh, religiously fanatical, unforgiving mother) and of his romantic experiences (mostly furtive and unacknowledged longings after men, although one proves the exception and becomes the basis for his fantasies).
Part a search for love, part confessional, part detective story, "The Waters of Babylon" is a fascinating, multilayered portrait of a remarkable, complex man who became a legend in his own lifetime -- and who spent the rest of that life trying to escape his own fame.
In fact, following his brief but shining moment in the spotlight of public consciousness, Lawrence attempted a retreat into anonymity, abandoning his celebrity and joining the Royal Air Force -- not as a ranking officer, as would have been his due, but as a regular airman, an erk. This much of Lawrence's story David Stevens knows to be fact, because Stevens's father spent time in the Air Force with Lawrence (whom he disliked). Using his father's recollections as a springboard, and employing extensive research, Stevens has crafted an amazingly rich and detailed novel about the life Lawrence may very well have led during his years as a soldier, and after.
Thenovel begins with Lawrence, who has reinvented himself as T. E. Shaw, headed back to the part of the world in which he had initially gained recognition and notoriety. With his return comes a flood of memories and associations, some of them sweet, many of them painful. As he adjusts to his new life as an ordinary airman in the RAF, he gradually surrenders his privacy, and a bond develops between him and the other men. An odd kind of love/hate relationship even arises between Lawrence and another of his bunkmates, a loner named Slaney.
Over the course of the novel, which carries the reader all the way to Lawrence's death, we learn much of the background for this enigmatic man's behavior, including details of his upbringing (by a harsh, religiously fanatical, unforgiving mother) and of his romantic experiences (mostly furtive and unacknowledged longings after men, although one proves the exception and becomes the basis for his fantasies).
Part a search for love, part confessional, part detective story, "The Waters of Babylon" is a fascinating, multilayered portrait of a remarkable, complex man who became a legend in his own lifetime -- and who spent the rest of that life trying to escape his own fame.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1987
About the author
David Stevens
6 books4 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
David Stevens is an Australian writer, screenwriter and director.
David Stevens is an Australian writer, screenwriter and director.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 26, 2026
This novel describes itself as 'Part a search for love, part confessional, part detective story...a fascinating, multilayered portrait of a remarkable, complex man who became a legend in his own lifetime -- and who spent the rest of that life trying to escape his own fame' (from the GR synopsis which is taken the publisher's blurb on the jacket flyleaf of 2000 harback edition from Simon & Schuster [please see my footnote *1 below]).
I want to begin by saying that this is a well written, readable, indeed compulsively readable novel which I enjoyed very much, but I do have problems with it, though those problems have less to do with the author's skills then his subject matter. So most of my review is going to be about things I disagreed with or disliked but there is much I found very good, particularly if you are interested in T.E. Lawrence, but maybe even more if you are not.
As a prelude I want to make clear that although I have one very important quibble with the author's 'making up' history (of which more later) in general I applaud his 'imaginative' attempt to provide an understanding of Lawrence. I believe that in the case of complex historical figures or periods where there is an information 'black hole' to our understanding of motivation or causes that fiction is often the perfect vehicle for bringing out a truth even if we can never know that it is 'The Truth'. An example of this would be any of Mary Renault's fictions on ancient Greece but in particular 'The Persian Boy'.
'The Persian Boy' is also a perfect example because Alexander the Great is a historical figure of whom we know a great deal but, like T.E. Lawrence, ultimately slips through our fingers. Also 'The Persian Boy' is about Alexander the man just as 'The Water of Babylon' is about Lawrence the man and both novels attempt to explore their protagonists as men who loved men.
Let me be clear Mr. Stevens does not think Lawrence was 'gay' and I agree with him because I think the application of the term 'gay' to historical personages is inaccurate in so many ways. I do believe Lawrence was sexual interested in members of his own sex and David Stevens exploration of this is really what the novel is about. I think the way he places the roots of Lawrence's conflicted sexual feelings in his upbringing - in particular his mother (see my footnote *2 below) is excellent. I am less convinced by Stevens acceptance of Lawrence's insistence that he had no interest in 'sex' because that depends on what you mean by sex (I am surprised that Stevens writing this novel so close top the time of President Clinton's honest but completely deceptive denial of ever having had sex with Monica Lewinsky seems unaware of how slippery any discussion sex without specifics can be). In Lawrence's time and even now many people imagine that 'gay' sex means sodomy but that was not the case in the past nor now. In his published and private writings and talks Lawrence danced around what he meant by various things he had written and said. Contemporaries who spent time with him during the years 1911-1914 when Lawrence was at the archaeological dig at Carchemish, like the archaeologist Leonard Woolley, denied there was anything between Lawrence and Dahoum. But the intense homophobia of those times meant that for men like Woolley to have admitted that they had known Lawrence was in any kind of physical relationship with a member of their own sex and did nothing about it, indeed accepted it by not publicly denouncing it, would have brought opprobrium and condemnation down on themselves.
Which brings us the question Dahoum who is presented in the novel as Lawrence's great 'love' and the reason Lawrence sets off on his 'campaign' to bring freedom to the Arabs via the desert revolt. This is also the interpretation of many 'gay' reading of Lawrence's life. But even Stevens in this novel has Lawrence admitting that he never expected that Dahoum and him were ever going to have a future together. Boys like Dahoum would grow up and get married, he might at some stage have a relationship with a boy, but once he became a man he would never have a 'sexual' relationship with another man. Which is why I find Stevens egregious creation of a death bed scene between the dying Dahoum and Lawrence offensive because it is simply wrong. I do think Lawrence came to view both Dahoum and his years at Carchemish through sentimental rose tinted glasses, but as time before everything is spoilt by growing up and becoming an adult.
In fact Lawrence's relationship with Dahoum has many similarities with the one he had with John Ross - the young Scottish working class youth who Lawrence had beat him on-and-off over twelve years (if you arrange to beaten until you orgasm is that not sex?) - and his insistence, post war, on serving the ranks of the RAF is an indication of a preference for 'relationships' with younger less educated males. There was nothing unique in Lawrence about this - it a common pattern amongst many middle class gay men in those times (see J.R Ackerley or E.M. Porster).
Of course this is a novel not a biography and most of it is told by Lawrence but unfortunately I can't help feeling that the author was overly influenced by the Lawrence created by David Lean in his famous film. Unfortunately the reading of Lawrence in that film has more-or-less made canonical the idea that Lawrence felt betrayed by Britain's imperialist war aims in the Middle East and because he was betrayed/lied to he had betrayed/lied to the Arabs he worked with and also his great love Dahoum for whom he fought to free the Arabs. My problem is that I take this with a huge pinch of salt - Lawrence may have said these things post war but it is hard to square them with his very long term involvement in British imperialist efforts in the Middle East as an intelligence agent - which goes back to his years working at Carchemisch from 1911. When war broke out in 1914 Lawrence continued to work in intelligence. He must have believed in the British empire (which makes David Stevens attempts to suggest he had nationalist Irish feelings very unlikely) and he continued to serve that empire even once he retreated into a lowly position in the RAF. Most importantly although David Lean's film portrays Lawrence as ignorant of the Sykes-Picot treaty (please see my footnote *3 below)
but he almost certainly did. Lawrence lied to the Arabs but it is unlikely that he was lied to - he knew what he was doing. That he became disillusioned with his role and blamed himself is almost a certainty but Lean's film, and by extension this novel, reduces this complex man (who post war was friends with Churchill and many other 'establishment' figures) into a one dimensional cliche. That Lawrence himself was never happy or sure of who he was - and said and wrote so many different and often contradictory things that many regarded as no better then a liar - would be a fascinating study for a novelist - but there I am arguing about the book David Stevens didn't write.
What I find interesting is that even in 2000 a writer like David Stevens (who was himself gay) felt it necessary to tread so delicately about Lawrence's same sex desires - they could be admitted but not acted upon. I can't help feeling that he may have made compromises so as not to frighten off USA readers.
This is a very good novel - I think it could have been a lot better if the author could have escaped more thoroughly from the Lawrence legend and accepted a more flawed and also physical/sexual Lawrence. I would refer anyone interested in a really first rate portrayal of Lawrence in a novel to 'Dreaming of Samarkand' by Martin Booth. The novel is not about Lawrence but Lawrence plays an important role.
*1 For some inexplicable reason GR has listed as alternate editions of this book 'An den Wassern von Babylon' which was original published by the exiled Austrian writer Robert Neumann in English in 1938 'By The River of Babylon' but has nothing to do with Lawrence of Arabia.
*2 Unfortunately Sarah Lawrence's motivations are stated but not examined but trying to explain the motivations of a fiercely puritanical Evangelical Christian who runs off with a married man and has five children deserves a novel in itself because the beliefs she forced fanatically on her children were so in opposition to how she led life.
*3 I do realise that the Sykes-Picot treaty probably means nothing to most reading this review but to explain would make my review even more discursive - Google it - as it is worth knowing about.
I want to begin by saying that this is a well written, readable, indeed compulsively readable novel which I enjoyed very much, but I do have problems with it, though those problems have less to do with the author's skills then his subject matter. So most of my review is going to be about things I disagreed with or disliked but there is much I found very good, particularly if you are interested in T.E. Lawrence, but maybe even more if you are not.
As a prelude I want to make clear that although I have one very important quibble with the author's 'making up' history (of which more later) in general I applaud his 'imaginative' attempt to provide an understanding of Lawrence. I believe that in the case of complex historical figures or periods where there is an information 'black hole' to our understanding of motivation or causes that fiction is often the perfect vehicle for bringing out a truth even if we can never know that it is 'The Truth'. An example of this would be any of Mary Renault's fictions on ancient Greece but in particular 'The Persian Boy'.
'The Persian Boy' is also a perfect example because Alexander the Great is a historical figure of whom we know a great deal but, like T.E. Lawrence, ultimately slips through our fingers. Also 'The Persian Boy' is about Alexander the man just as 'The Water of Babylon' is about Lawrence the man and both novels attempt to explore their protagonists as men who loved men.
Let me be clear Mr. Stevens does not think Lawrence was 'gay' and I agree with him because I think the application of the term 'gay' to historical personages is inaccurate in so many ways. I do believe Lawrence was sexual interested in members of his own sex and David Stevens exploration of this is really what the novel is about. I think the way he places the roots of Lawrence's conflicted sexual feelings in his upbringing - in particular his mother (see my footnote *2 below) is excellent. I am less convinced by Stevens acceptance of Lawrence's insistence that he had no interest in 'sex' because that depends on what you mean by sex (I am surprised that Stevens writing this novel so close top the time of President Clinton's honest but completely deceptive denial of ever having had sex with Monica Lewinsky seems unaware of how slippery any discussion sex without specifics can be). In Lawrence's time and even now many people imagine that 'gay' sex means sodomy but that was not the case in the past nor now. In his published and private writings and talks Lawrence danced around what he meant by various things he had written and said. Contemporaries who spent time with him during the years 1911-1914 when Lawrence was at the archaeological dig at Carchemish, like the archaeologist Leonard Woolley, denied there was anything between Lawrence and Dahoum. But the intense homophobia of those times meant that for men like Woolley to have admitted that they had known Lawrence was in any kind of physical relationship with a member of their own sex and did nothing about it, indeed accepted it by not publicly denouncing it, would have brought opprobrium and condemnation down on themselves.
Which brings us the question Dahoum who is presented in the novel as Lawrence's great 'love' and the reason Lawrence sets off on his 'campaign' to bring freedom to the Arabs via the desert revolt. This is also the interpretation of many 'gay' reading of Lawrence's life. But even Stevens in this novel has Lawrence admitting that he never expected that Dahoum and him were ever going to have a future together. Boys like Dahoum would grow up and get married, he might at some stage have a relationship with a boy, but once he became a man he would never have a 'sexual' relationship with another man. Which is why I find Stevens egregious creation of a death bed scene between the dying Dahoum and Lawrence offensive because it is simply wrong. I do think Lawrence came to view both Dahoum and his years at Carchemish through sentimental rose tinted glasses, but as time before everything is spoilt by growing up and becoming an adult.
In fact Lawrence's relationship with Dahoum has many similarities with the one he had with John Ross - the young Scottish working class youth who Lawrence had beat him on-and-off over twelve years (if you arrange to beaten until you orgasm is that not sex?) - and his insistence, post war, on serving the ranks of the RAF is an indication of a preference for 'relationships' with younger less educated males. There was nothing unique in Lawrence about this - it a common pattern amongst many middle class gay men in those times (see J.R Ackerley or E.M. Porster).
Of course this is a novel not a biography and most of it is told by Lawrence but unfortunately I can't help feeling that the author was overly influenced by the Lawrence created by David Lean in his famous film. Unfortunately the reading of Lawrence in that film has more-or-less made canonical the idea that Lawrence felt betrayed by Britain's imperialist war aims in the Middle East and because he was betrayed/lied to he had betrayed/lied to the Arabs he worked with and also his great love Dahoum for whom he fought to free the Arabs. My problem is that I take this with a huge pinch of salt - Lawrence may have said these things post war but it is hard to square them with his very long term involvement in British imperialist efforts in the Middle East as an intelligence agent - which goes back to his years working at Carchemisch from 1911. When war broke out in 1914 Lawrence continued to work in intelligence. He must have believed in the British empire (which makes David Stevens attempts to suggest he had nationalist Irish feelings very unlikely) and he continued to serve that empire even once he retreated into a lowly position in the RAF. Most importantly although David Lean's film portrays Lawrence as ignorant of the Sykes-Picot treaty (please see my footnote *3 below)
but he almost certainly did. Lawrence lied to the Arabs but it is unlikely that he was lied to - he knew what he was doing. That he became disillusioned with his role and blamed himself is almost a certainty but Lean's film, and by extension this novel, reduces this complex man (who post war was friends with Churchill and many other 'establishment' figures) into a one dimensional cliche. That Lawrence himself was never happy or sure of who he was - and said and wrote so many different and often contradictory things that many regarded as no better then a liar - would be a fascinating study for a novelist - but there I am arguing about the book David Stevens didn't write.
What I find interesting is that even in 2000 a writer like David Stevens (who was himself gay) felt it necessary to tread so delicately about Lawrence's same sex desires - they could be admitted but not acted upon. I can't help feeling that he may have made compromises so as not to frighten off USA readers.
This is a very good novel - I think it could have been a lot better if the author could have escaped more thoroughly from the Lawrence legend and accepted a more flawed and also physical/sexual Lawrence. I would refer anyone interested in a really first rate portrayal of Lawrence in a novel to 'Dreaming of Samarkand' by Martin Booth. The novel is not about Lawrence but Lawrence plays an important role.
*1 For some inexplicable reason GR has listed as alternate editions of this book 'An den Wassern von Babylon' which was original published by the exiled Austrian writer Robert Neumann in English in 1938 'By The River of Babylon' but has nothing to do with Lawrence of Arabia.
*2 Unfortunately Sarah Lawrence's motivations are stated but not examined but trying to explain the motivations of a fiercely puritanical Evangelical Christian who runs off with a married man and has five children deserves a novel in itself because the beliefs she forced fanatically on her children were so in opposition to how she led life.
*3 I do realise that the Sykes-Picot treaty probably means nothing to most reading this review but to explain would make my review even more discursive - Google it - as it is worth knowing about.
November 26, 2017
Neumann erzählt die Geschichten von Juden, die alle schließlich nach Palästina auswandern. Russische Bauern, Amerikanischer Boxer, Deutsche Schriftsteller, Französische (jedenfalls da lebend) Studentin, englischer Snob. Radikal unterschiedliche Erzählweise, teilweise in einem selbst für mich kaum erträglichen Zynismus. Die Geschichte der Französin zum Bespiel in Briefform an ihren Ex-Geliebten, der inzwischen König (oder Pringzregent oder so) in einem kleinen osteuropäischen Land ist.
Am Schluß Bibelsprache, sehr schön, aber was der Autor mir sagen will, bleibt leider mir verborgen. (7/10)
Am Schluß Bibelsprache, sehr schön, aber was der Autor mir sagen will, bleibt leider mir verborgen. (7/10)
November 23, 2018
I was on a bit of a Lawrence of Arabia kick in early 2010, and that's how this ended up on my "to be read" list. If I had to summarize this book in 5 words or less, I'd say: "Lawrence of Arabia slash fiction." The novel touches on his earlier experiences in Arabia but focus much more on the later era that most people know a lot less about. I enjoyed the novel but suspect a die-hard Lawrence scholar would be annoyed with it.
May 6, 2019
Tien met elkaar verbonden verhalen over Joden, die na de confrontatie met het antisemitisme in Europa besluiten om naar Palestina te gaan. Hierbij dient opgemerkt te worden dat het boek in 1939 geschreven is, dus los staat van de latere stichting van de staat Israël, al baseert het zich natuurlijk wel op een soortgelijke gedachtegang.
Veel belangrijker zijn de beschrijvingen van historische voorbeelden van antisemitisme, waarbij het gaat van de verdrijving van alle Joden uit Spanje in 1492 tot de pogroms in Oost-Europa (en met name die in Chisinau (Moldavië) in 1903). De verhalen zijn erg divers wat narratieve structuur, taalgebruik, ruimte en tijd betreft; er is slechts één constante lijn: leed.
Veel belangrijker zijn de beschrijvingen van historische voorbeelden van antisemitisme, waarbij het gaat van de verdrijving van alle Joden uit Spanje in 1492 tot de pogroms in Oost-Europa (en met name die in Chisinau (Moldavië) in 1903). De verhalen zijn erg divers wat narratieve structuur, taalgebruik, ruimte en tijd betreft; er is slechts één constante lijn: leed.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews