Scan barcode
A review by sherrios
Helen of Troy by Margaret George
3.0
Ah, Helen of Troy. The face that launched a thousand ships. Daughter of Zeus and a mortal, queen of Sparta, adultress. There are so many ways to describe her, and Margaret George definitely does not shy away from any of them. This book is so gorgeously written, and George has a particular skill of making the characters come to life.
But my <i>god</i>, is this book long-winded and dense.
In the afterword, George explains that she wanted to keep some of the epic poetry feel about it, which I believe is a good call. The denseness of the text isn't, on its own, problematic. The issue I have is that this is a 600+ page book that could have <i>easily</i> been cut in half. The first... 2/3 of the novel is tedious and boring, although the prose is lovely.
Being that I've been on a mythology kick, I picked this up because I wanted to see a different take on Helen. Very few things have been written about her outside of her involvement with the Trojan War, and most of it superficial. I wanted to feel something other than indifference towards her. And George definitely delivered there!
In terms of this portrayal, Helen is whiny, self-indulgent, and utterly witless. She has moments of cleverness, yes, but for someone who speaks with three (THREE!) gods <i>and</i> is capable of seeing the future in spurts, the shock she faces each fulfilled prophecy is a little much. Not to mention how shocked she is when Agamemnon, who has LITERALLY BEEN LOOKING FOR A REASON TO ATTACK TROY SINCE SHE MET HIM, actually starts the war.
Seriously. Come on. I get that hope springs eternal, but that was kind of ridiculous.
I did appreciate her and Menelaus' relationship. She truly did love him, she just wasn't in love with him. And I think that, without Agamemnon's influence (and, y'know, a host of prophecies foretelling otherwise), he'd have let her just go. And I did like that, after everything, they were friends and cared for one another.
So, I have mixed feelings. This definitely isn't a Madeline Miller portrayal of a Greek heroine or hero, and I still feel like she's captured it best. But, if this had been a bit shorter, I'd have probably enjoyed it a lot more than I did.
But my <i>god</i>, is this book long-winded and dense.
In the afterword, George explains that she wanted to keep some of the epic poetry feel about it, which I believe is a good call. The denseness of the text isn't, on its own, problematic. The issue I have is that this is a 600+ page book that could have <i>easily</i> been cut in half. The first... 2/3 of the novel is tedious and boring, although the prose is lovely.
Being that I've been on a mythology kick, I picked this up because I wanted to see a different take on Helen. Very few things have been written about her outside of her involvement with the Trojan War, and most of it superficial. I wanted to feel something other than indifference towards her. And George definitely delivered there!
In terms of this portrayal, Helen is whiny, self-indulgent, and utterly witless. She has moments of cleverness, yes, but for someone who speaks with three (THREE!) gods <i>and</i> is capable of seeing the future in spurts, the shock she faces each fulfilled prophecy is a little much. Not to mention how shocked she is when Agamemnon, who has LITERALLY BEEN LOOKING FOR A REASON TO ATTACK TROY SINCE SHE MET HIM, actually starts the war.
Seriously. Come on. I get that hope springs eternal, but that was kind of ridiculous.
I did appreciate her and Menelaus' relationship. She truly did love him, she just wasn't in love with him. And I think that, without Agamemnon's influence (and, y'know, a host of prophecies foretelling otherwise), he'd have let her just go. And I did like that, after everything, they were friends and cared for one another.
So, I have mixed feelings. This definitely isn't a Madeline Miller portrayal of a Greek heroine or hero, and I still feel like she's captured it best. But, if this had been a bit shorter, I'd have probably enjoyed it a lot more than I did.