Reviews

People often say that the middle book in a trilogy is often the most difficult to write and least enjoyable to read, since it does not introduce the promise that comes with a first book and cannot hold the dramatic conclusion of a final book, and I feel this applies to Aeschylus as well. I have actually seen this performed in Greek before, and even that I did not feel was particularly great, though the actual quality of the performance was fine (when modern performances of Greek plays are often terrible). The main piece of interest is Orestes’ dilemma between his duty to avenge his father and the disgrace that comes with killing one’s mother, but it is still clear here what choice he will make, even if you are somehow unfamiliar with the story (and I think Euripides’ Electra, which is later, actually gives Orestes more of a conflicted conscience and actually shows him agonising over the choice while Electra (who I feel is woefully underwritten here – Aeschylus is not much of a fan of women unless he can portray them as menacing and evil) attempts to egg him on – I think I prefer this version of the story more, but I am biased towards Euripides as I tend to prefer him to the other tragedians anyway.

This is short (and quite easy to get through if you are already familiar with the story) and so on that basis I think I enjoyed it more in English than going more slowly through the Greek would have allowed for, since apart from the obvious climax there is less substance and eventfulness in the middle play compared to the beginning and end of the trilogy. It provides some progression for the plot but I don’t feel it stands out from the Agamemnon or the Eumenides much at all, but, like many middle books in trilogies, seems to provide more of a setting-up for the final book as its primary feature more so than anything else.

More...