Scan barcode
A review by notrealytea
Daughters of Sparta by Claire Heywood
1.0
I'm starting with Helen because, while I can't stand her portrayal, it's less surprising. Helen is as dumb as a box of nails in this... and less interesting. She's so painfully naive. Her relationship with Menelaos is one big massive miscommunication and I hated it. The only interesting things the author added were Helen and Leda's relationship and Helen's trauma from childbirth. Her struggle with not wanting to be pregnant again in a world where having children is viewed as women's primary reason for being was an interesting route to go with Helen and it added depth to her otherwise shallow character.
Helen was a passive pathetic vain and idiotic ball of mush. Paris easily manipulates her into running away with him just from complimenting her appearance. I kid you not, he compliments her constantly and stares at her and she agrees to run away with him because of that. Since the author was going with the Helen-as-a-willing-participant-route I so wanted any sort of depth to their relationship. I liked the idea of Paris manipulating Helen, but it was so obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than 1 that it wasn't interesting or subtle; it was pathetic. He viewed her as a sexy leg lamp from the start and that's all she wanted. I understand that she was lonely and felt neglected and that made her vulnerable, but Paris' manipulation should have been more subtle (or entirely unnoticeable). I liked how Paris readily agreed with Helen's stipulation to not have kids but that should have come up earlier. The author already has them meeting up at night to talk for hours, why couldn't they have talked? He could have plied her with compliments and staring at her the first few nights, then start talking and pretending Helen had anything interesting to say to him, she could confide her post partum depression and fear of childbirth, and He'd drop hints about how he'd never neglect her and he'd be content with her even if they never had a child, before asking her to come with him. And have him ask her to come with him earlier! A few days earlier! Have him beg and plead but say he won't force her (maybe hint that he probably would). Then, the final night, have Leda confront Helen and call her a whore. Let that be the final blow and Helen agrees to go with Paris, only for his promises to have meant nothing once she's on the ship or in Troy.
And her in Troy. There's not much to say about her time in Troy. Poor pathetic Helen is the victim. She feels guilty that her arrival has caused so many deaths. This whole section was a waste of paper. Cassandra isn't well liked by the other women for no apparent reason, but since she's not popular she's bold enough to befriend Helen. There isn't much to say. The author took away Cassandra's ability so at least in this iteration she didn't suffer as much. Helen and Menelaos reconcile for no good reason. Helen isn't smart enough to even try manipulating him and he just magically forgives her humiliating him and cuckolding him because.... He should have cherished her more? I mean, yeah, but why does an ancient Greek man suddenly think of women as more than objects? He's not even mad. Her running away humiliated him and caused a war that lasted 10 years. 10!! Years!! Even the most patient and kind person would be pretty mad after that. But I guess he had to be unrealistically kind and empathetic to Helen because God knows she wasn't smart enough to find a way out of him killing her if he'd wanted to.
I just want to say-- I don't think Helen (the Woman, the Myth, the Legend) is dumb. I don't blame her for the war, whether she chose to run off with Paris or if he forced her. She's not my favorite of Ancient Greek women from Mythology (Medea holds my heart) but I generally can swing with any interpretation of the enigma that is Helen of Troy. I, personally, like the versions of her in Euripedes' plays where she defends herself unerringly and with brilliant arguments that are hard to defeat. But I know that Euripedes wasn't the typical portrayal of women. I could live with a somewhat naive Helen, I could live with a whore that slept around, I could live with her being a perfectly loyal wife that was abducted against her will, I cannot stand whatever this author went with. Helen grew up in Sparta and grew up with the brilliant and brutal Klytemnestra (the Woman, the Myth the Legend) as her sister, I don't think she would be as idiotic as this author portrayed. She also might have been able to fight and defend herself. There were so many interesting ways to write Helen without making her this infuriating fool.
And speaking of the brilliant and brutal Klytemnestra...
Klytemnestra, oh my Klytemnestra.... What has she done to you? The author made Klytemnestra into a pathetic passive wimp. As if that wasn't insulting enough, she was also complacent in her daughter's murder. The Klytemnestra I know would n e v e r. It's not like I expected a modern girlboss kind of character, but I expected a SPARTAN woman to have some teeth. Instead she's a passive observer that can't even fight or struggle to prevent her daughter's murder. Seriously? I might have found a Klytemnestra that was passive but once her daughter was threatened became the rage filled murderess that we know and love. Klytemnestra (the Myth) is a woman who plots to murder her husband for years and succeeds! This Klytemnestra has no substantial plans until the war ends, and almost doesn't kill Agamemnon because.... maybe he changed? He killed their daughter! There is no return from that! And as if making this Klytemnestra into a spineless insult of what she should be wasn't bad enough, she's not even clever. Klytemnestra (the legend) outmaneuvers Agamemnon in the Oresteia. She's a good queen and gets the loyalty of the people during the war, and keeps it after murdering their king. But this Klytemnestra? Well, at least she's not as dumb as Helen. For all that means.
Helen was a passive pathetic vain and idiotic ball of mush. Paris easily manipulates her into running away with him just from complimenting her appearance. I kid you not, he compliments her constantly and stares at her and she agrees to run away with him because of that. Since the author was going with the Helen-as-a-willing-participant-route I so wanted any sort of depth to their relationship. I liked the idea of Paris manipulating Helen, but it was so obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than 1 that it wasn't interesting or subtle; it was pathetic. He viewed her as a sexy leg lamp from the start and that's all she wanted. I understand that she was lonely and felt neglected and that made her vulnerable, but Paris' manipulation should have been more subtle (or entirely unnoticeable). I liked how Paris readily agreed with Helen's stipulation to not have kids but that should have come up earlier. The author already has them meeting up at night to talk for hours, why couldn't they have talked? He could have plied her with compliments and staring at her the first few nights, then start talking and pretending Helen had anything interesting to say to him, she could confide her post partum depression and fear of childbirth, and He'd drop hints about how he'd never neglect her and he'd be content with her even if they never had a child, before asking her to come with him. And have him ask her to come with him earlier! A few days earlier! Have him beg and plead but say he won't force her (maybe hint that he probably would). Then, the final night, have Leda confront Helen and call her a whore. Let that be the final blow and Helen agrees to go with Paris, only for his promises to have meant nothing once she's on the ship or in Troy.
And her in Troy. There's not much to say about her time in Troy. Poor pathetic Helen is the victim. She feels guilty that her arrival has caused so many deaths. This whole section was a waste of paper. Cassandra isn't well liked by the other women for no apparent reason, but since she's not popular she's bold enough to befriend Helen. There isn't much to say. The author took away Cassandra's ability so at least in this iteration she didn't suffer as much. Helen and Menelaos reconcile for no good reason. Helen isn't smart enough to even try manipulating him and he just magically forgives her humiliating him and cuckolding him because.... He should have cherished her more? I mean, yeah, but why does an ancient Greek man suddenly think of women as more than objects? He's not even mad. Her running away humiliated him and caused a war that lasted 10 years. 10!! Years!! Even the most patient and kind person would be pretty mad after that. But I guess he had to be unrealistically kind and empathetic to Helen because God knows she wasn't smart enough to find a way out of him killing her if he'd wanted to.
I just want to say-- I don't think Helen (the Woman, the Myth, the Legend) is dumb. I don't blame her for the war, whether she chose to run off with Paris or if he forced her. She's not my favorite of Ancient Greek women from Mythology (Medea holds my heart) but I generally can swing with any interpretation of the enigma that is Helen of Troy. I, personally, like the versions of her in Euripedes' plays where she defends herself unerringly and with brilliant arguments that are hard to defeat. But I know that Euripedes wasn't the typical portrayal of women. I could live with a somewhat naive Helen, I could live with a whore that slept around, I could live with her being a perfectly loyal wife that was abducted against her will, I cannot stand whatever this author went with. Helen grew up in Sparta and grew up with the brilliant and brutal Klytemnestra (the Woman, the Myth the Legend) as her sister, I don't think she would be as idiotic as this author portrayed. She also might have been able to fight and defend herself. There were so many interesting ways to write Helen without making her this infuriating fool.
And speaking of the brilliant and brutal Klytemnestra...
Klytemnestra, oh my Klytemnestra.... What has she done to you? The author made Klytemnestra into a pathetic passive wimp. As if that wasn't insulting enough, she was also complacent in her daughter's murder. The Klytemnestra I know would n e v e r. It's not like I expected a modern girlboss kind of character, but I expected a SPARTAN woman to have some teeth. Instead she's a passive observer that can't even fight or struggle to prevent her daughter's murder. Seriously? I might have found a Klytemnestra that was passive but once her daughter was threatened became the rage filled murderess that we know and love. Klytemnestra (the Myth) is a woman who plots to murder her husband for years and succeeds! This Klytemnestra has no substantial plans until the war ends, and almost doesn't kill Agamemnon because.... maybe he changed? He killed their daughter! There is no return from that! And as if making this Klytemnestra into a spineless insult of what she should be wasn't bad enough, she's not even clever. Klytemnestra (the legend) outmaneuvers Agamemnon in the Oresteia. She's a good queen and gets the loyalty of the people during the war, and keeps it after murdering their king. But this Klytemnestra? Well, at least she's not as dumb as Helen. For all that means.