You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
adventurous
emotional
funny
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Sorry this is gonna be a long one - I have many thoughts….
I’m not understanding the point of this book. While I am sure it is faithful to the original story, I often found myself wondering why Saint hadn’t updated elements of the story for today’s audiences (given that it is a RE-telling, after all). How is this somehow a “feminist” spin on the original story?
Atalanta, who is supposed to be this bastion of feminism (the one woman among the argonauts) just reads as a whiny heroine judging all the other women in the story for their life choices and constantly trying to prove she’s better than everyone (men AND women). God if I never have to listen to Atalanta shitting on other Greek women for wearing ankle-length dresses in contrast to her knee-length “tunic” again it’ll be too soon (I only add this for the shear number of times it is pointed out - as though dress length is an obvious determiner of feminism).
In part 1, Artemis explains that having sex with a man is so egregious that even being raped is an unfeminist act on the part of the women. Are we supposed to agree with her? Or is Atalanta defying Artemis by fucking a married man in part 2 supposed to be some feminist rebellion? Also, in part 2, we’re introduced to this island of women (only women, because they kill all their husbands). Except, after killing their husbands, these women decide they actually want new husbands after-all - for all of their wood chopping needs and such. Atalanta judges them continuously - not for the husband killing (no that’s fine!) but for wanting to remarry, calling marriage a “debasement”. Again, is Atalanta’s view intended to be one of feminist righteousness? She sure acts like it is, but perhaps she is intended to be an unreliable narrator? In part 3, Atalanta is scorned for her pregnancy by Artemis and hates her condition, complaining how pregnancy makes her week and vulnerable and useless. She contemplates leaving her child to die, as her father did for her. She wants nothing to do with the child, seemingly keeping him alive out of spite, and even commenting that she misses her dog more than her child on multiples occasion while she is out hunting. Again, shitting on an experience so integral, not just to women’s experiences, but to the human experience, seems a bit counterintuitive to the overall theme of the book. But what do I know - I’m not the author. Then in part 4, Atalanta decides she wants to marry someone after all. Is it out of love? Is it because of a trick played by Aphrodite? Atalanta loses a race to marry this man, swallowing her pride - that choice doesn’t seem very feminist to me either (given that the other 280 pages talk about how being a “strong woman” means being better than everyone else) but I’m struggling to follow the messaging at this point. But who fucking cares cause they all turn into lions anyways which is really what Atalanta wanted all along?!?
I might call this character development if there was any sense to it.
Also, how are there no lesbians in this entire book? Really, the forest full of beautiful nymphs bathing with each other, braiding each others hair, all swearing off me for their eternal lives, not one lesbian among them?
Sorry for the long-winded rants, but I think I’m just disappointed after reading the very opinionated Greek retellings of Madeline Miller and Natalie Haynes - whose positionality on these subjects are made abundantly clear… because they actually know how to write compelling characters and don’t just pretend their books are the best because they are the truest representations of centuries old stories that already had some pretty heavy subtext to begin with.
Also what is going on with Heracles and Hylas??? Getting major Achilles/Patroclus vibes but also, Saint writes their relationship creepier, and never comments on it beyond that…. Seems like a missed opportunity IMO. Like I get their original story is kinda fucked up (what with Heracles killing Hylas’ parents and kidnapping him and all) but this is really where some creative thinking should come into play - it is a REtelling… so maybe tell the story differently and/or offer more depth and complexity than what people can google online…….. Right now, it jsut feels like a bad attempt at queer-baiting. Without expanding on their relationship, what was the point in commenting on it so heavily for a few chapters, only to ignore it in the next part???
Writing was decent but that’s about all I had positive to say here. It kept my attention somewhat. The pacing was a bit off, randomly switching between unnecessarily lengthy descriptions of landscape to quick battles that were over by the next page. Atalanta’s decision-making was just as stilted and confusing. It was entertaining enough, but I am not seeing the actual character/plot arc that I’ve enjoyed reading in other Greek retellings. I understand that there’s a lot of source material, but at a certain point, you need to decide what to keep and what to cut in support of the message you’re trying to get across in your own retelling. Just a suggestion to the author lol.
I’m not understanding the point of this book. While I am sure it is faithful to the original story, I often found myself wondering why Saint hadn’t updated elements of the story for today’s audiences (given that it is a RE-telling, after all). How is this somehow a “feminist” spin on the original story?
Atalanta, who is supposed to be this bastion of feminism (the one woman among the argonauts) just reads as a whiny heroine judging all the other women in the story for their life choices and constantly trying to prove she’s better than everyone (men AND women). God if I never have to listen to Atalanta shitting on other Greek women for wearing ankle-length dresses in contrast to her knee-length “tunic” again it’ll be too soon (I only add this for the shear number of times it is pointed out - as though dress length is an obvious determiner of feminism).
In part 1, Artemis explains that having sex with a man is so egregious that even being raped is an unfeminist act on the part of the women. Are we supposed to agree with her? Or is Atalanta defying Artemis by fucking a married man in part 2 supposed to be some feminist rebellion? Also, in part 2, we’re introduced to this island of women (only women, because they kill all their husbands). Except, after killing their husbands, these women decide they actually want new husbands after-all - for all of their wood chopping needs and such. Atalanta judges them continuously - not for the husband killing (no that’s fine!) but for wanting to remarry, calling marriage a “debasement”. Again, is Atalanta’s view intended to be one of feminist righteousness? She sure acts like it is, but perhaps she is intended to be an unreliable narrator? In part 3, Atalanta is scorned for her pregnancy by Artemis and hates her condition, complaining how pregnancy makes her week and vulnerable and useless. She contemplates leaving her child to die, as her father did for her. She wants nothing to do with the child, seemingly keeping him alive out of spite, and even commenting that she misses her dog more than her child on multiples occasion while she is out hunting. Again, shitting on an experience so integral, not just to women’s experiences, but to the human experience, seems a bit counterintuitive to the overall theme of the book. But what do I know - I’m not the author. Then in part 4, Atalanta decides she wants to marry someone after all. Is it out of love? Is it because of a trick played by Aphrodite? Atalanta loses a race to marry this man, swallowing her pride - that choice doesn’t seem very feminist to me either (given that the other 280 pages talk about how being a “strong woman” means being better than everyone else) but I’m struggling to follow the messaging at this point. But who fucking cares cause they all turn into lions anyways which is really what Atalanta wanted all along?!?
I might call this character development if there was any sense to it.
Also, how are there no lesbians in this entire book? Really, the forest full of beautiful nymphs bathing with each other, braiding each others hair, all swearing off me for their eternal lives, not one lesbian among them?
Sorry for the long-winded rants, but I think I’m just disappointed after reading the very opinionated Greek retellings of Madeline Miller and Natalie Haynes - whose positionality on these subjects are made abundantly clear… because they actually know how to write compelling characters and don’t just pretend their books are the best because they are the truest representations of centuries old stories that already had some pretty heavy subtext to begin with.
Also what is going on with Heracles and Hylas??? Getting major Achilles/Patroclus vibes but also, Saint writes their relationship creepier, and never comments on it beyond that…. Seems like a missed opportunity IMO. Like I get their original story is kinda fucked up (what with Heracles killing Hylas’ parents and kidnapping him and all) but this is really where some creative thinking should come into play - it is a REtelling… so maybe tell the story differently and/or offer more depth and complexity than what people can google online…….. Right now, it jsut feels like a bad attempt at queer-baiting. Without expanding on their relationship, what was the point in commenting on it so heavily for a few chapters, only to ignore it in the next part???
Writing was decent but that’s about all I had positive to say here. It kept my attention somewhat. The pacing was a bit off, randomly switching between unnecessarily lengthy descriptions of landscape to quick battles that were over by the next page. Atalanta’s decision-making was just as stilted and confusing. It was entertaining enough, but I am not seeing the actual character/plot arc that I’ve enjoyed reading in other Greek retellings. I understand that there’s a lot of source material, but at a certain point, you need to decide what to keep and what to cut in support of the message you’re trying to get across in your own retelling. Just a suggestion to the author lol.
adventurous
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Loveable characters:
No
I keep being disappointed by Jennifer Saint. I feel like she focused more on name-dropping as many Greek myths and characters as possible without doing any solid development on the characters in her books. I just want to stick to one story and make it REALLY good, rather than trying to do too much and never creating good characters. I just never felt any sort of connection with any of them and I didn’t care about anything that happened.
adventurous
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I loved getting to know Atlanta, her strength stood out
adventurous
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The thing about these re-writes of old legends going far back and beyond is that one would think, hope, and slightly wish that something would be different, but what point is of a retelling if one changes it thoroughly to appease an audience?
It's my first experience reading Saints works although I was careful to come into the book without the whispers of other reviewers and reader in my ear. It was a slight delight, though the writing was thorough and fine, I didn't quite connect to it as I might have hoped.
It was nice to read it in a different light, but this wasn't for me.
It's my first experience reading Saints works although I was careful to come into the book without the whispers of other reviewers and reader in my ear. It was a slight delight, though the writing was thorough and fine, I didn't quite connect to it as I might have hoped.
It was nice to read it in a different light, but this wasn't for me.
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
relaxing
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Novela de verano perfecta. Sencilla, sin rodeos y mitológica. Si os metéis a leer las reseñas, la que más likes tiene es una que dice “she should’ve been a lesbian” y más razón no podía tener. 8,5/10
slow-paced
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No