Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.77 AVERAGE
3.77 AVERAGE
I found this novel to be a poor copy of an old and familiar story. The length is epic, but nothing else is larger-than-life, extraordinary, or original.
adventurous
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
I liked this book. Not as much as some of George's other books (Cleopatra). The characterization of Helen was really good. However, towards the middle to end of the book the pace slowed down. I think if there had been about 100 less pages it might have been better. I was also more sympathetic to Menelaus than Paris and seemed to care more about him as a character, which seemed a little strange to me because I couldn't quite understand or identify with Helen's obsession of Paris.
Something about this book didn’t click for me. It had trademark Margaret George qualities - well-researched, nuanced characters, well-crafted cinematic scenes… but to be invested in this story you have to be invested in the relationship between Helen and Paris. And I just couldn’t get there. I would have perhaps liked a different take on the relationship - maybe a little bit of banter, a little bit of buildup, before getting into the big romance. But it was definitely a love at first sight situation.
It’s interesting that I was more interested in the relationship between Helen and Menelaus than in the relationship between Helen and Paris. To the point that the hardest hitting moment of the story for me was Menelaus’ death. That surprised me. But now that I think about it, was that on purpose? If so, that definitely adds a layer of subtlety that I didn’t initially give this book credit for.
Overall, this is a great, serviceable novel telling the story of Helen of Troy.
It’s interesting that I was more interested in the relationship between Helen and Menelaus than in the relationship between Helen and Paris. To the point that the hardest hitting moment of the story for me was Menelaus’ death. That surprised me. But now that I think about it, was that on purpose? If so, that definitely adds a layer of subtlety that I didn’t initially give this book credit for.
Overall, this is a great, serviceable novel telling the story of Helen of Troy.
George brings mythic history to life with characters both realistic and relatable. A few annoyances, like the spotty timeframe and piecemeal ending, are well explained in her afterward. Definitely worth the reading.
A beautiful book; any Helen haters should read this book - it'll change your minds!
Completely immersive, alive, entrancing, tragic, and beautiful.
While I wanted more from this book overall, it did engage me enough to finish within a few days. Helen was a person in this story, she was as down to earth as you can imagine the face who launched a thousand ships to be. George did a great job of telling of the gods but mostly of the people. I appreciate the picture she gave me of Paris, too, as I've never been able to understand other portrayals of him.
At the end, I felt as though I had read an entire book of this happened then that then this, very linear. Perhaps this is due to the sheer length of the book or what history knows of the story. Well researched and engaging overall.
At the end, I felt as though I had read an entire book of this happened then that then this, very linear. Perhaps this is due to the sheer length of the book or what history knows of the story. Well researched and engaging overall.
this book had its ups and down, but i can say i enjoyed the beginning of it much better than the latter half. i think part of it is that, as the book progressed, it became really a love story between paris and helen, which: if you enjoy the pairing, this is a great book for you and i'd recommend it. i, on the other hand, very strongly don't like paris, so it didn't work great for me.
spoilers ahead just in case. i have difficulty explaining my feelings on this book while remaining vague about it. most is based on the myths, but george does fill in some things which i will be discussing, so spoilers ahead.
let's start with the characters, specifically helen, as she's the biggest one and we see the story through her eyes. now, i was very excited about this book because of that fact (helen is up there as one of my favorite mythological figures, to be frank). but while i enjoyed helen during her first half, my enjoyment with her also was diminished during the second half. during the first part of her life in sparta george fills in the blanks, painting a complete and realistic version of what helen's life before troy would have been (with some stretching, but that's to be expected). really, the strongest part of this book for me was the filling in the blanks that george does. there are things that are left out of the story (the kidnaping by theseus, for example, as they were myths added at later dates), but for the most part it's a believable potrayal of life at the time. and i say belivable and not accurate because i am not a classic expert, beyond what i have read in my spare time and as a hobby, and so i cannot judge how accurate or close to the truth it is. but as someone reading it, it was believable. which is the same with helen's portrayal here. she's believable, and i can see her being like this. she's also pretty boring after meeting paris. during the time in sparta, we see helen wanting things, choosing her husband and moving things to chose the one she wanting while still setting the terms. we see her interests. once we get to the paris part, he's the only thing in her mind and it was frankly, kind of dull to read about. that's why i say that if you enjoy the pairing of paris and helen this is a great book, because they are always present after paris first appears. helen also becomes quite passive after leaving sparta. she recovers a bit of her personality as troy falls, but even then i have some issues.
here's the thing: there's several paths you can take with helen. either she's a complete victim, taken by force by paris and kept as a prisioner during the war, or she chose out of her all volation to leave sparta. or, the third choice, aphrodite made her, and so while she 'chose' it, there's little agency there. of course, this one also depends on how far aphrodite's influence goes. did she just make her fall in love and so everything after was her choice? or did she make her leave with him? those things matter because they change completely how you portray helen as a person.
george chooses the third, and so helen is absolved of all guilt. now, i am a firm believer of 'helen is not to blame for the war (or never completely, in any case)', and while i tend to also side with the third option when trying to lean into one interpretation, i never realized how incredibly dull it could be to read about. i never read the helen shown here and believed she could be considered as a near goddess. that is obviously how everyone else sees her, but in her own mind helen is really ordinary and it was boring to read about for almost 750 pages. she does not read as a larger than life figure, as someone people would die for, and while i do think it's a realistic and believable, i also thought it got dull really fast. helen is never really painted as in the wrong, because of her love towards paris, so she's washed away from any guilt from the deaths the war brought. as i said, i am a firm believer that she's not actually to blame, i think agammenon wanted his war and this was his excuse. but it's hard to keep that rational thought in mind when she was present when her brother-in-law spoke of war with troy and then she handed him a great excuse. it's also hard to keep it in mind when she does one (1) attempt at removing herself as an excuse. and this is being said by someone who adores helen as a mythological figure. so through-out all her time in troy, past her making the decision of arriving, helen really makes no big choices. even her getting spared by menelaus is mere chance, the story of her disrobing to show herself naked now shown as her robe simply getting undone. i get why someone would have issues with the original story, but if it was going to be included at all, i wish it had been something she did by choice rather than something that happened by chance.
moving on to the next character: paris. this felt like the formal apology to paris for anyone who disliked him, which is also likely why my enjoyment just decreased so much after he was introduced. i don't like paris. i find him whiny, and conceited, and only thinking of himself. i'm also pretty sure helen never learns what paris' 'prize' was (you know: her) which pissed me off, unless i'm forgetting some crucial scene. i got some of it - if he's good with a bow, he's good with a bow, you know? this whole 'coward's weapon' would also anger me. what i didn't get was why oenone was moved from being his wife who he set aside when he wanted helen, as she was in the old myths, to simply a lover he set aside. he's also portrayed ridiculously noble through the whole thing. i do think that the oenone thing is the biggest change and the one i hate the most, but there's also how the author changed paris not stealing treasure from sparta, and how he was continuously saying that he was super understanding if helen couldn't keep going with him. except that if he's so noble, so good, why is he taking with him the queen of a nation? to be clear, from as far as helen is concerned, i don't think she should have gone with him either. the whole doomed lovers is fun and all but y'all have kingdoms to think of and helen even has a daughter. but it really clashed for me because like with helen, paris is never shown to be in the wrong. another thing that kind of ruined it for me was his age, to be frank. there really was no need to make him 16 when helen was already in her twenties. i can understand it with helen and menelaus as that was the custom for a princess, to marry when she was around 15/16. there was nothing gained from making paris so young. i get that the experiences were different at the time this was set, but it still was very uncomfortable because all i kept thinking was that he was ridiculously young. later during the story achille's son is described as a 'child', but he's merely a year younger than paris here. so how am i meant to read the beginning and not feel like he's barely left being a child behind and he's getting in a relationship that is clearly portrayed as this huge epic romance with a woman who is in her early twenties? it was uncomfortable and i hated it. again, i feel like if you enjoy paris, great book for you, you'll find a very sympathetic portrayal of him here. i just don't like him.
we have the rest of the characters. clytemnestra is fun to read whenever she's present, she was a bright spot for me because i was always looking forward to reading about her. agammenon is the worst as per usual. and then menelaus is... also really boring. it was also quite jarring to see the change between menelaus wanting to win helen's hand vs him after they married, to the point that it was a bit confusing. it felt like george wanted to clearly show why helen would choose him but also make really easy helen choosing paris. i'm not saying it wasn't realistic: i can see someone acting this way once reality set. i just didn't enjoy such a harsh shift. hecuba and priam were fine, i had no problems with how they were potrayed. hector was also fine. i will admit, hector is one of those figures i always look for when reading a story of troy, but i feel like it's difficult to mess up hector. he's always portrayed as pretty noble and brave, so you would have to really work in order to make him unlikable, i feel. not necessarily because he's kind (although he's also shown as someone who always made helen feel welcomed), but because he's unrelenting and refuses to back down. because he never abandoned his city. it just feels like a character that as long as you stick near what homer wrote, you can't really go wrong with (surely someone did it, but i find it hard to imagine regardless)
and then there's achilles. i left him for last because he was... i didn't like his potrayal here. not because i don't mind portrayals of achilles as a bad person. i think those are really fun! i enjoy those! i don't think you can write a book from the trojan pov and not paint him as terrifying. but it was more how he was written. maybe it was the manner of speech. but if you tell me this man cared about patroclus, i wouldn't believe it. achilles was arrogant and proud. i'd even say that painting him as childish can fit. but here it was taken to such an extreme that it felt like a caricature. this is also the man who would defy agammenon and promise the seer that his words would bring him no harm? that he would fight a river god in his anger for patroclus' death? i just couldn't believe it.
the book is also really lengthy. while most of the pages are used to advance the plot, i do think some could have been cut. there are instances where we learn of something and then a few pages after we get told of the whole thing again, and it was confusing. while i don't think much could have been cut, i do think some of it could have gone. it does get wordy at times.
last, i can't say i enjoyed the ending. the pacing was fine through-out, and i think it's an easy read leaving aside the length. as per usual, i said i started it back in june but in reality i read the whole thing in two days, so it's not a book i think that is difficult to read. the positive parts, as i said, was how george filled in what we didn't know of helen's life. the downside, for me, was the second half as paris consumed every aspect of helen and i don't care for paris, nor for the paring of paris and helen. the truth is i've read another story with a more 'realistic' portrayal of helen (even if that one didn't involve the gods and this one did) and while it lacked depth, i actually understood the characters action there far better. this one is much longer and should feel like it goes in much more depth, but it refuses to allow its main protagonists be ever in the wrong, so it didn't work for me.
spoilers ahead just in case. i have difficulty explaining my feelings on this book while remaining vague about it. most is based on the myths, but george does fill in some things which i will be discussing, so spoilers ahead.
let's start with the characters, specifically helen, as she's the biggest one and we see the story through her eyes. now, i was very excited about this book because of that fact (helen is up there as one of my favorite mythological figures, to be frank). but while i enjoyed helen during her first half, my enjoyment with her also was diminished during the second half. during the first part of her life in sparta george fills in the blanks, painting a complete and realistic version of what helen's life before troy would have been (with some stretching, but that's to be expected). really, the strongest part of this book for me was the filling in the blanks that george does. there are things that are left out of the story (the kidnaping by theseus, for example, as they were myths added at later dates), but for the most part it's a believable potrayal of life at the time. and i say belivable and not accurate because i am not a classic expert, beyond what i have read in my spare time and as a hobby, and so i cannot judge how accurate or close to the truth it is. but as someone reading it, it was believable. which is the same with helen's portrayal here. she's believable, and i can see her being like this. she's also pretty boring after meeting paris. during the time in sparta, we see helen wanting things, choosing her husband and moving things to chose the one she wanting while still setting the terms. we see her interests. once we get to the paris part, he's the only thing in her mind and it was frankly, kind of dull to read about. that's why i say that if you enjoy the pairing of paris and helen this is a great book, because they are always present after paris first appears. helen also becomes quite passive after leaving sparta. she recovers a bit of her personality as troy falls, but even then i have some issues.
here's the thing: there's several paths you can take with helen. either she's a complete victim, taken by force by paris and kept as a prisioner during the war, or she chose out of her all volation to leave sparta. or, the third choice, aphrodite made her, and so while she 'chose' it, there's little agency there. of course, this one also depends on how far aphrodite's influence goes. did she just make her fall in love and so everything after was her choice? or did she make her leave with him? those things matter because they change completely how you portray helen as a person.
george chooses the third, and so helen is absolved of all guilt. now, i am a firm believer of 'helen is not to blame for the war (or never completely, in any case)', and while i tend to also side with the third option when trying to lean into one interpretation, i never realized how incredibly dull it could be to read about. i never read the helen shown here and believed she could be considered as a near goddess. that is obviously how everyone else sees her, but in her own mind helen is really ordinary and it was boring to read about for almost 750 pages. she does not read as a larger than life figure, as someone people would die for, and while i do think it's a realistic and believable, i also thought it got dull really fast. helen is never really painted as in the wrong, because of her love towards paris, so she's washed away from any guilt from the deaths the war brought. as i said, i am a firm believer that she's not actually to blame, i think agammenon wanted his war and this was his excuse. but it's hard to keep that rational thought in mind when she was present when her brother-in-law spoke of war with troy and then she handed him a great excuse. it's also hard to keep it in mind when she does one (1) attempt at removing herself as an excuse. and this is being said by someone who adores helen as a mythological figure. so through-out all her time in troy, past her making the decision of arriving, helen really makes no big choices. even her getting spared by menelaus is mere chance, the story of her disrobing to show herself naked now shown as her robe simply getting undone. i get why someone would have issues with the original story, but if it was going to be included at all, i wish it had been something she did by choice rather than something that happened by chance.
moving on to the next character: paris. this felt like the formal apology to paris for anyone who disliked him, which is also likely why my enjoyment just decreased so much after he was introduced. i don't like paris. i find him whiny, and conceited, and only thinking of himself. i'm also pretty sure helen never learns what paris' 'prize' was (you know: her) which pissed me off, unless i'm forgetting some crucial scene. i got some of it - if he's good with a bow, he's good with a bow, you know? this whole 'coward's weapon' would also anger me. what i didn't get was why oenone was moved from being his wife who he set aside when he wanted helen, as she was in the old myths, to simply a lover he set aside. he's also portrayed ridiculously noble through the whole thing. i do think that the oenone thing is the biggest change and the one i hate the most, but there's also how the author changed paris not stealing treasure from sparta, and how he was continuously saying that he was super understanding if helen couldn't keep going with him. except that if he's so noble, so good, why is he taking with him the queen of a nation? to be clear, from as far as helen is concerned, i don't think she should have gone with him either. the whole doomed lovers is fun and all but y'all have kingdoms to think of and helen even has a daughter. but it really clashed for me because like with helen, paris is never shown to be in the wrong. another thing that kind of ruined it for me was his age, to be frank. there really was no need to make him 16 when helen was already in her twenties. i can understand it with helen and menelaus as that was the custom for a princess, to marry when she was around 15/16. there was nothing gained from making paris so young. i get that the experiences were different at the time this was set, but it still was very uncomfortable because all i kept thinking was that he was ridiculously young. later during the story achille's son is described as a 'child', but he's merely a year younger than paris here. so how am i meant to read the beginning and not feel like he's barely left being a child behind and he's getting in a relationship that is clearly portrayed as this huge epic romance with a woman who is in her early twenties? it was uncomfortable and i hated it. again, i feel like if you enjoy paris, great book for you, you'll find a very sympathetic portrayal of him here. i just don't like him.
we have the rest of the characters. clytemnestra is fun to read whenever she's present, she was a bright spot for me because i was always looking forward to reading about her. agammenon is the worst as per usual. and then menelaus is... also really boring. it was also quite jarring to see the change between menelaus wanting to win helen's hand vs him after they married, to the point that it was a bit confusing. it felt like george wanted to clearly show why helen would choose him but also make really easy helen choosing paris. i'm not saying it wasn't realistic: i can see someone acting this way once reality set. i just didn't enjoy such a harsh shift. hecuba and priam were fine, i had no problems with how they were potrayed. hector was also fine. i will admit, hector is one of those figures i always look for when reading a story of troy, but i feel like it's difficult to mess up hector. he's always portrayed as pretty noble and brave, so you would have to really work in order to make him unlikable, i feel. not necessarily because he's kind (although he's also shown as someone who always made helen feel welcomed), but because he's unrelenting and refuses to back down. because he never abandoned his city. it just feels like a character that as long as you stick near what homer wrote, you can't really go wrong with (surely someone did it, but i find it hard to imagine regardless)
and then there's achilles. i left him for last because he was... i didn't like his potrayal here. not because i don't mind portrayals of achilles as a bad person. i think those are really fun! i enjoy those! i don't think you can write a book from the trojan pov and not paint him as terrifying. but it was more how he was written. maybe it was the manner of speech. but if you tell me this man cared about patroclus, i wouldn't believe it. achilles was arrogant and proud. i'd even say that painting him as childish can fit. but here it was taken to such an extreme that it felt like a caricature. this is also the man who would defy agammenon and promise the seer that his words would bring him no harm? that he would fight a river god in his anger for patroclus' death? i just couldn't believe it.
the book is also really lengthy. while most of the pages are used to advance the plot, i do think some could have been cut. there are instances where we learn of something and then a few pages after we get told of the whole thing again, and it was confusing. while i don't think much could have been cut, i do think some of it could have gone. it does get wordy at times.
last, i can't say i enjoyed the ending. the pacing was fine through-out, and i think it's an easy read leaving aside the length. as per usual, i said i started it back in june but in reality i read the whole thing in two days, so it's not a book i think that is difficult to read. the positive parts, as i said, was how george filled in what we didn't know of helen's life. the downside, for me, was the second half as paris consumed every aspect of helen and i don't care for paris, nor for the paring of paris and helen. the truth is i've read another story with a more 'realistic' portrayal of helen (even if that one didn't involve the gods and this one did) and while it lacked depth, i actually understood the characters action there far better. this one is much longer and should feel like it goes in much more depth, but it refuses to allow its main protagonists be ever in the wrong, so it didn't work for me.