Reading Wednesday

[troisoiseaux]

I think I'm at a point in my quest to read All The Women-Centric Trojan War (+ Adjacent) Retellings where it's a question of diminishing returns; Jennifer Saint's Elektra was also seriously disadvantaged by the fact I read it after Claire North's Ithaca, because not only did Saint's fall flat - she somehow managed to write a milquetoast retelling of the Oresteia?? - I had North's much more interesting interpretation of the same characters to compare it to. I think the biggest problem with Elektra was a failure to really commit to exploring such an inherently messed-up story. It's easy to cheer for Clytemnestra when she revenges herself upon the husband who killed their daughter, but less so when poor Cassandra, who has already been through so much, is caught in the crosshairs— and Saint decides to avoid such thorny questions of her audience's loyalty by writing Cassandra's death as a mercy killing that she herself requests, and Clytemnestra is reluctant to commit. From this point onwards, I felt very I GUESS.jpg about this book; Saint's characterizations of both Clytemnestra and Elektra, and her narrative choices post-death of Agamemnon, felt very... passive?... and emotionally, pretty shallow/surface-level, and not particularly persuasive. I kept thinking about this one post about how the greatest sin in a fictional character is not to be unlikable or a bad person but to be boring— and, like, if you're worried about your main characters being Unlikeable or Bad, maybe don't write a retelling of the freaking Oresteia???

I had already borrowed Saint's Ariadne - about the princess of Crete who helps Theseus defeat the Minotaur and, ultimately, ends up as the wife of Dionysus - so despite the unpromising first impression of her Greek myth retellings, I read it anyway, and I did like it better than Elektra. I think, on the one hand, it suffered less from comparison— although most of the myths woven into this story were familiar to me, some weren't, and there was a sense of novelty in the way that the stories were strung together into an overarching narrative— and on the other, it just... worked better, as a novel? Despite the title, the story's focus is split between Ariadne and her sister Phaedra, so maybe it's that the two-POV-split is Just Right while Elektra's three-POV-split (between Clytemnestra, Cassandra, and Elektra) tried to cover too much ground in too little space, and ended up spreading the narrative too thinly to give it any real depth...? Interestingly, the ending is super dark - it ends with Dionysus' revenge on Argos and (rather out of left field?) Ariadne's death at the hands (er, eyes?) of Perseus' Medusa-head shield - and packs an emotional punch, so it's clearly not that Saint can't write like that. I feel like Ariadne did a better job of building up the characters and their relationships, so I did ultimately feel shocked and sad when the ending came to pass, whereas in Elektra, I knew the underlying story so well already and was looking for something a little less surface-level plot regurgitation from a retelling?

Comments

[osprey_archer]

Fascinated by the thought process behind "Oresteia, but make the characters likeable!" What's next? Medea's children die in an unfortunate accident for which she is unjustly blamed?

[troisoiseaux]

Interestingly, Medea is demonized when her story comes up in Ariadne, although it's as a tale imparted by Theseus, who is a Lying Liar Who Lies Constantly.

Speaking of making sure that her POV characters bear no culpability for anything, the whole "Phaedra falsely accuses Hippolytus of sexual assault when he turns down her advances on the grounds he is a. sworn to chastity and b. her step-son" thing is played out as Merely An Unfortunate Accident instead— she didn't mean to accuse Hippolytus in her suicide note, Theseus simply interpreted it as such because he is a Terrible Man who assumes that all men are Also Terrible, and kills Hippolytus anyway! Which is... certainly a choice that was made.

(Also, I somehow never made the connection between Theseus of "and the Minotaur" fame and Shakespeare's Theseus, Duke of Athens in A Midsummer Night's Dream until now?)

[osprey_archer]

It sounds like Saint is maybe more comfortable with letting men be terrible than women. But my takeaway from the bit where Theseus abandons Ariadne on the beach has always been that Theseus IS in fact the absolute worst, so that characterization absolutely checks out.

[troisoiseaux]

Oh, yeah, Theseus Is The Worst is definitely a theme of this book. It seemed, for most of the book, that Dionysus was an exception to the overarching theme of Men And Also The Gods Are The Worst, although he grows increasingly dark over the course of it, culminating in the Madness of Argos. Interestingly, Perseus is seen as The Worst - both by Ariadne, who sympathizes with Medusa, and by Dionysus, who hates him for more personal reasons - but when he actually shows up, it's as a fairly sympathetic portrayal, as a mortal who is under pressure by the gods (specifically, Hera)? Daedalus and Hippolytus are also Good, and also Victims.

Ugh, the more I think about this book the more nits I have to pick with it. I'm downgrading it from 1/2 to 0.5/2 on the hit-or-miss scale.

[sovay]

But my takeaway from the bit where Theseus abandons Ariadne on the beach has always been that Theseus IS in fact the absolute worst, so that characterization absolutely checks out.

I genuinely like Renault's revision where Theseus must relinquish Phaedra because she has already been claimed by Dionysos, although I have noticed over the years that she treats the sparagmos with more horror and the madness of the maenads with more masculine judgment than I feel is necessary or appropriate; I would like sometime to see someone who isn't Mary Renault try the same reordering of events. That said, my personal versions of Ariadne all seem to agree that Theseus is the worst.

To everybody in this thread, I want to recommend Pier Paolo Pasolini's Medea (1969), which rushthatspeaks wrote about when we saw it aaagh ten years ago.

[troisoiseaux]

I just put Renault's The King Must Die on hold, since it came up when I was digging through articles on different versions of Ariadne's myth to answer your other question! I look forward to reading it in comparison.

[sovay]

I look forward to reading it in comparison.

Enjoy! I believe it to have been my introduction to Mary Renault. Parts of it I argue with a lot more now, and parts of it I can side-eye historically in ways for which I had no information in elementary or middle school, but parts of it are still intensely important to me. If nothing else, it is good at the alienness of the past, and deep time, and the numinous, which if you are going to dispense with in a retelling of Greek myth, then like Sarah Kane you had better have a good reason.

[sovay]

Merely An Unfortunate Accident instead— she didn't mean to accuse Hippolytus in her suicide note, Theseus simply interpreted it as such because he is a Terrible Man who assumes that all men are Also Terrible, and kills Hippolytus anyway!

We are rapidly appproaching stage "I appreciate you reading these retellings so that I don't have to interact with them myself and blow a fuse."

If you need a chaser, Jules Dassin's Phaedra (1962) is a fantastic modern version that chooses to avert the false rape accusation and is still a tragedy which doesn't require simplistically inverting sympathy for anyone. Also my vehement reactions to some contemporary criticism of it inspired a poem, which is the best possible result of thinking that people are being idiots about art.

[troisoiseaux]

Also my vehement reactions to some contemporary criticism of it inspired a poem, which is the best possible result of thinking that people are being idiots about art.

Ooooooh, that's some VERY good analysis-in-response-to-criticism, and a very good poem! Thank you for sharing!

[sovay]

Ooooooh, that's some VERY good analysis-in-response-to-criticism, and a very good poem! Thank you for sharing!

Thank you so much! I am glad you like it!

I have opinions about all of this stuff.

[asakiyume]

, if you're worried about your main characters being Unlikeable or Bad, maybe don't write a retelling of the freaking Oresteia???

For REAL.

Oresteia is for murderous intentions and revenge dialed to eleven, not likability!

[troisoiseaux]

I want Clytemnestra and Elektra to be UNHINGED and Orestes to be SUPER SAD, goshdarnit!!! (Claire North's Ithaca was *chef's kiss* on all three counts.)

[sovay]

and Saint decides to avoid such thorny questions of her audience's loyalty by writing Cassandra's death as a mercy killing that she herself requests, and Clytemnestra is reluctant to commit.

BZZZZT do not pass Go, do not collect two hundred drachmas.

rather out of left field?) Ariadne's death at the hands (er, eyes?) of Perseus' Medusa-head shield

Do you have any idea why that choice rather than any other from the field of possibility of this myth?

[troisoiseaux]

Do you have any idea why that choice rather than any other from the field of possibility of this myth?

So! It took some sleuthing, but it turns out this actually is an existing version of the myth! However, in the version where "[Perseus] shook in his hand the deadly face of Medousa [i.e. the decapitated head of the Gorgon Medusa], and turned armed Ariadne into stone," this implies that Ariadne is involved in an actual battle at Argos, rather than merely Being Present When Shit Goes Down.

Tangentially, the fact that Dionysus takes an immediate dislike to Percy in the Percy Jackson series suddenly makes SO MUCH MORE sense. (I remember the explanation at one point that he hates heroes because of how Theseus abandoned Ariadne, but I don't think there's a reference to Perseus actually killing her?? I feel like I would have remembered if it was??)

[sovay]

So! It took some sleuthing, but it turns out this actually is an existing version of the myth!

I'm familiar with it! It's just such a downer—and obscure—stinger ending that I am sincerely curious about the author's reasons for using it: what it's doing in the novel, literally in the sense of how it works into or against the overall argument or atmosphere of the book. Even Renault doesn't touch it and The Bull from the Sea is mostly full of the worst possible versions of its myths, which is one of the reasons I dislike it so much. Does Saint talk at all about why she retold the stories in the fashion she did?

[edit] this implies that Ariadne is involved in an actual battle at Argos, rather than merely Being Present When Shit Goes Down.

Totally agreed that not giving Ariadne a fight scene is a missed opportunity here.

(I remember the explanation at one point that he hates heroes because of how Theseus abandoned Ariadne, but I don't think there's a reference to Perseus actually killing her?? I feel like I would have remembered if it was??)

I feel especially in a children's series, that would have stood out.

[troisoiseaux]

I'm familiar with it! ... I am sincerely curious about the author's reasons for using it: what it's doing in the novel, literally in the sense of how it works into or against the overall argument or atmosphere of the book

Ohhh, gotcha, gotcha. I had never heard of it before so I was just *record scratch* about it's inclusion in the first place. I guess it ties into the overall theme of Bad Things Happen To People Who Get Entangled With Gods, since it comes about because of Dionysus' revenge on the city of Argos; I guess it is an interesting choice to initially appear to position Dionysus as Not Like Other Gods - like, maybe Ariadne's relationship with him will be the one time this doesn't go badly for the mortal involved?? - and then go actually, nope!...?

Does Saint talk at all about why she retold the stories in the fashion she did?

In the afterword of Ariadne she mentioned wanting to present the myths with a focus on women, but otherwise, not that I saw. (Admittedly, I may have missed some sort of afterword in Elektra in my eagerness to be done with reading it.)

[sovay]

I had never heard of it before so I was just *record scratch* about it's inclusion in the first place.

No worries! It does sound like it kind of comes out of nowhere in the narrative, too.

I guess it ties into the overall theme of Bad Things Happen To People Who Get Entangled With Gods, since it comes about because of Dionysus' revenge on the city of Argos; I guess it is an interesting choice to initially appear to position Dionysus as Not Like Other Gods - like, maybe Ariadne's relationship with him will be the one time this doesn't go badly for the mortal involved?? - and then go actually, nope!...?

I have to say that I would not necessarily have chosen Ariadne as the pivot of a story about Bad Things Happening to People Who Get Entangled with Gods, as opposed to Bad Things Happening to People Who Get Entangled with People Who Use Other People and Then Dump Them like Hot Rocks, but it is certainly a decision one can make.

wanting to present the myths with a focus on women

It's so interesting to me that there's a boom in this kind of classical retelling right now, but I wish more of them sounded like books I actually want to read.

[troisoiseaux]

It's so interesting to me that there's a boom in this kind of classical retelling right now, but I wish more of them sounded like books I actually want to read.

I will say, Claire North's Ithaca was VERY good, imo. Otherwise... I feel like I tend to fall a bit short of satisfied with them. :/

[sovay]

Otherwise... I feel like I tend to fall a bit short of satisfied with them.

Can I make encouraging noises about you writing some of your own?

[troisoiseaux]

Believe me, I WISH I COULD. Alas, creative writing really isn't in my skillset.

[sovay]

Alas, creative writing really isn't in my skillset.

I will make encouraging noises about your criticism!