rasha_reads's review against another edition
2.0
I wasn't exactly blown away by this book. It was certainly interesting in that it showed the event of Agamemnon's sacrifice of his daughter from multiple view points. Bu there was something about it that bothered me, mostly the way Odysseus talked. Granted, there is no pretence that the prose conforms to a modernisation of how we believed they would speak, but some of the terminology was so glaringly modern (like refering to someone's CV) that it took me out of the story altogether to say "What the...?"
All I can say is that it was interesting read and let's just leave it at that...
All I can say is that it was interesting read and let's just leave it at that...
katymvt's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
melodywicket's review
4.0
4 stars in terms of ideas, but the author's stylistic choices weaken a pretty solid story.
Recently, I finished Colm Tóibín's [b:House of Names|29344653|House of Names|Colm Tóibín|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1480317414s/29344653.jpg|49581453], a retelling of the Greek tragedy of the House of Atreus, which starts with (spoiler!) Agamemnon's decision to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia prior to sailing his army to Troy. In this book, Barry Unsworth interprets the events leading to that conclusion, a story apparently far less heroic than the bards would have us believe...
One story line follows the wily Odysseus, more devious a character here than we are used to seeing in adaptations. With the help of Agamemnon's advisors, he plays the consummate politician, orchestrating events from behind the scenes with unrepentant glee. Whatever the jargon may have been back then, Odysseus and his cohorts helpfully provide us with 21st century terminology to illustrate what they aspire to do or not do (e.g. 'neutralize', 'marginalize', delegitimize', 'incentivize'), but I found the anachronistic choices to be more jarring than effective, because they were inconsistently applied. Odysseus' story line, as well as the proto-Olympic side plot of the two Ajaxes, were sly and contained a lot of meta references that were admittedly thought-provoking, but they composed only about half of the narrative.
Agamemnon's foreign-born diviner, Calchas, and Iphigenia's slave-girl Sisipyla were the other major point of view characters. The language in their chapters were markedly different (certainly more period-appropriate) and lacked such 'clever' devices. Calchas' eventual fall from grace even as Odysseus' star was (secretly) rising was a tragic thing to see, especially as he served as a kind of Cassandra-esque figure whose efforts to get the king to consider a less brutal alternative were increasingly ignored. By virtue of her role, Sisipyla, meanwhile, lacked agency for much of the story. Her loyalty to the princess is underpinned by intelligence, but also a situational awareness the former is unable to see or appreciate. In the end she too is unable to prevent the fatal outcome. Calchas and Sisipyla are intrinsically sympathetic characters, but the contrasting tone of their narratives compared to the wink-wink-nudge-nudge humor of Odysseus et al is to the detriment of both story lines - two halves that don't neatly fit into a whole.
This book had some great ideas, it really did. But I feel like it would have been so much better if the author had committed to a style rather than teetering between a satire of modern values and a straight reimagining of the legend the story is based on. The intention appears to have been to draw a line between the two as a kind of commentary on how mankind was as susceptible to the same pressures of political machinations and media manipulations then as it is today. But in the end, the book suffers for being neither truly as funny/satirical nor as poignant as it could have been.
Recently, I finished Colm Tóibín's [b:House of Names|29344653|House of Names|Colm Tóibín|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1480317414s/29344653.jpg|49581453], a retelling of the Greek tragedy of the House of Atreus, which starts with (spoiler!) Agamemnon's decision to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia prior to sailing his army to Troy. In this book, Barry Unsworth interprets the events leading to that conclusion, a story apparently far less heroic than the bards would have us believe...
One story line follows the wily Odysseus, more devious a character here than we are used to seeing in adaptations. With the help of Agamemnon's advisors, he plays the consummate politician, orchestrating events from behind the scenes with unrepentant glee. Whatever the jargon may have been back then, Odysseus and his cohorts helpfully provide us with 21st century terminology to illustrate what they aspire to do or not do (e.g. 'neutralize', 'marginalize', delegitimize', 'incentivize'), but I found the anachronistic choices to be more jarring than effective, because they were inconsistently applied. Odysseus' story line, as well as the proto-Olympic side plot of the two Ajaxes, were sly and contained a lot of meta references that were admittedly thought-provoking, but they composed only about half of the narrative.
Agamemnon's foreign-born diviner, Calchas, and Iphigenia's slave-girl Sisipyla were the other major point of view characters. The language in their chapters were markedly different (certainly more period-appropriate) and lacked such 'clever' devices. Calchas' eventual fall from grace even as Odysseus' star was (secretly) rising was a tragic thing to see, especially as he served as a kind of Cassandra-esque figure whose efforts to get the king to consider a less brutal alternative were increasingly ignored. By virtue of her role, Sisipyla, meanwhile, lacked agency for much of the story. Her loyalty to the princess is underpinned by intelligence, but also a situational awareness the former is unable to see or appreciate. In the end she too is unable to prevent the fatal outcome. Calchas and Sisipyla are intrinsically sympathetic characters, but the contrasting tone of their narratives compared to the wink-wink-nudge-nudge humor of Odysseus et al is to the detriment of both story lines - two halves that don't neatly fit into a whole.
This book had some great ideas, it really did. But I feel like it would have been so much better if the author had committed to a style rather than teetering between a satire of modern values and a straight reimagining of the legend the story is based on. The intention appears to have been to draw a line between the two as a kind of commentary on how mankind was as susceptible to the same pressures of political machinations and media manipulations then as it is today. But in the end, the book suffers for being neither truly as funny/satirical nor as poignant as it could have been.
sofipitch's review
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.5
I wanted to like this book more than I actually did. A quick google search showed that this book is symbolic for the author's dislike of the Gulf War. There's nothing wrong with that, I am also against war. But the choice of twisting characters into horrible people as an anti-war message isn't for me. The reason I picked this up is because I like the Trojan War and the characters surrounding it, but in this version no one is accurately represented. It might as well not be the same characters. Menelaus is transformed into a horrible man and husband to say the war was unfounded on getting her back, that she wanted to leave him. Every classical text will tell you this isn't true, Menelaus loved his wife and Helen was a prisoner to Aphrodite. Achilles here is vain and lives only for manslaughter, but in Euripides play which this is actually based on when he finds out the plot to sacrifice Iphigenia he vows to defend her with his life. And while the author acknowledges Achilles romantic relationship with Patroclus, Achilles is constantly described of as overly-vain concerning his appearance, which makes me think I'm smelling some homophobia. And finally Odysseus making up the human sacrifice message from the gods just to boost morale and patriotism so he can go loot a foreign land? I get that it's supposed to represent the US dehumanizing Muslims to go to war in the middle east I get it. But the choice of characters just isn't right. Odysseus tried to pretend he'd gone crazy just so he DIDN'T have to go to war. Yes, Odysseus is a rat at times but he's not evil.
Another huge annoyance is while most of the language is fine, when the kings speak they dip into modern terms. CV, collateral damage, and commander-in-chief are not terms the Ancient Greeks would've used. It takes you out of the historical context of the book and right back to the political message. Although I will give the author credit for a lot of the outfits. Descriptions of clothes and makeup (especially the red dot makeup and Mycenan exposed breast dresses) are more accurate than the classic hollywood white robes/toga. I appreciated that.
Overall, if you love the characters from the Trojan War I wouldn't recommend this. The author used a retelling of "Iphigenia at Aulis" to completly bend the story to fit a political message when maybe he should have written an original book with original characters instead of warping the ones we know and love.
Another huge annoyance is while most of the language is fine, when the kings speak they dip into modern terms. CV, collateral damage, and commander-in-chief are not terms the Ancient Greeks would've used. It takes you out of the historical context of the book and right back to the political message. Although I will give the author credit for a lot of the outfits. Descriptions of clothes and makeup (especially the red dot makeup and Mycenan exposed breast dresses) are more accurate than the classic hollywood white robes/toga. I appreciated that.
Overall, if you love the characters from the Trojan War I wouldn't recommend this. The author used a retelling of "Iphigenia at Aulis" to completly bend the story to fit a political message when maybe he should have written an original book with original characters instead of warping the ones we know and love.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Misogyny, Murder, and Xenophobia
Minor: Rape and Slavery
More...