Fiction on Alexander (your opinion )

[Lutka]

I'm pretty sure most of you are aware of the incredible amount of 'un-professional' fiction,so to say,that's on the web and has Alexander ( and mostly Alexander and Hephaistion to be precise ) as subjects. Have you ever read it? I'm not ashamed to admit that I have,sometimes with great difficoulty,some other times I was pleasantly surprised. It is obvious that these fics are a result of Oliver Stone's movie but what actually intrigued me is that in a way the movie compelled some people to (seriously) learn about Alexander. Whereas some fics are not even bad, (I'm just at loss of words for them ) I have to admit that some others have been good,with obvious debts to Renault's works. So I was wondering,since most of you seem to be historians and 'professionals' in the field, what your opinion on this? I was talking with a friend of mine about this who also shares my passion and interest for Alexander and the Hellenic world in general, and she used the term 'wicked' to label all this fiction,she said she considers all this 'romanticizing' (spelling?)of the character of Alexander completely wrong, since it doesn't help people to learn about Alexander himself but gives just distort ideas of him. I was curious to know what you guys think. Me myself I'm pretty ambivalent on the subject. On the one hand I am appalled at the stupid myths bad fiction can create...I mean the first time I read a scene about Hephaistion crying because he was 'jelous' of Roxane I laughed it away,the second time I just rolled my eyes,the third I was rather pissed off at the scene of a crying 'femine' Hephaistion holding Alexander's hand and having him swear that he was his one true love
Yet,on the other hand, I know some girls who have been eager to research and know more about the real Alexander,behind the false myths and the fiction that is on internet. So,what's your opinion? Would you prefer silence on Alexander if his story has to be badly told,or you could bear bad fiction since it can have also positive sides,as in letting new generation know about who he was and what he did?

EDITED TO ADD

Here's some sites when you can read some of the fic I am talking about

http://community.livejournal.com/atgstories/

http://community.livejournal.com/hephaistionfans/

[amyntoros]

Well, I view fan fiction as something of a cult unto itself and feel that it has its own place on the internet, as do the historical forums and the forums for discussion of the movie. I know that there is crossover - some writers of Alexander fan fiction research quite extensively and have participated on Pothos. It follows that new readers of these stories may well find themselves doing the same.

I think that in normal circumstances it is usually those already familiar with fan-fiction who will seek out the tales and/or become active within that particular online community. So if someone looking for historical information on the Web accidentally comes across a story and finds it frivolous, their most likely response will be to ignore it. OTH, if they find a story interesting (as you did) then they may look for more.

As for the nature of some of these stories which you so gently tried to describe; I certainly don't feel that they do any harm. But then again, I felt the same way about the movie (which I didn't hate) while others have strong feelings that it did a disservice to Alexander. My thoughts are that it is only a movie - one that has come and gone - and although there will still be a few who will discover it for the first time on DVD, it definitely hasn't changed the way historians study Alexander. And there is no reason that a fictional film ever would! I appreciate that those who liked the film are more likely to pursue an interest in the historical Alexander, and some here may argue that a better film, in their opinion, would have encouraged more study, but I am not sure if that is true or not. One thing is for certain: I have watched the fan-fiction community flourish since the movie. I don't participate and I have only read an occasional story, but a search of Yahoo, for example, will show disproportionately huge numbers of people (when compared with the historical Alexander forums) who have joined fan-fiction forums focusing on characters from the film. If only a few of them transfer their interest to the historical Alexander, it will still be a good thing.

Are you aware that Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman has written an article which discusses in part internet culture and fanfic, both before and in the wake of Oliver Stone's Alexander? The article will be published in a Lane Fox/Greenland anthology of responses to the movie. A little more information on this can be found here. No news yet on a publication date.

Best regards,

[Narcoleptic_ll]

Actually, my interest for Alexander began after the movie because the aproach of Stone's film was far away from the one I had at school, when we first talked about Alexander in class I thought something like "Damn, Other DIP!! (Deceased Important Person)" In fact I usually didn't even showed up for history class, my teacher was way too boring.

After the movie I went straight to the net and started to look for more stuff, I just HAD to learn about this guy.

I think the movie did more good than harm, because most people who criticzed it had too look up about it first ^____^

I agree with Amyntoros that if only a few of Alexander's fan-fic readers transfer their interest to historical Alexander it would still be a good thing.

(Don't know why but I feel like I made such a silly post >.<)

[ruthaki]

I am a historical fiction writer and happen to be finishing up a novel on the Alexander theme (in this case, the fall of his dynasty --- with a lot more detail than Mary Renault wrote in her Funeral Games.) You have to realize that historical fiction is just that, and the writers of it can use poetic license to depict the characters as they see them from the research they have done. Myself, I like to get the facts straight though and I'm quite meticulous with this (and that's one reason why my novel "Shadow of the Lion" has taken me a long time to write. I have taken the time to go to several of the sites (many times), lived in Greece for some time, talked to archaeologists and classical scholars and read all I could. I admire Mary Renault's work and currently I have enjoyed reading writers like Steven Pressfield (didn't enjoy Manfredi's books and tried twice to get thru the first one.)

I do think the writers of these types of historical fictions books need to try and keep their facts straight and not get too far off track into the myths otherwise people who want to learn the history from reading for pleasure will get the wrong ideas. But, as I said, you have your license to depict the characters and the way they may have reacted to the situations and one another. I've had a great time with the Macedonian generals and also most importantly with all the women involved in Alexander's life. (And my novel includes a lot about Alexander IV of whom there has been little written so I've been able to speculate a little, though always consulting my classical scholar friends or the historians to try and keep it true.)

Yes, and I was one who happened to enjoy Oliver Stone's "Alexander" although there were many of my favorite parts of his story left out and I wasn't always totally in agreement of the choice of actors in certain parts. But that's because I've grown to know these characters and in my imagination I have my own idea of what they might have been like.

[Narcoleptic_ll]

(didn't enjoy Manfredi's books and tried twice to get thru the first one.)

I just finished Manfredi's first Alexandros and yes, that was hard to come by.

I don't know if you remember any of it, but the part when he gets Bucephalus was a big deception (for me at least), I know Alexander was "great", but running side by side with a horse was a little bit too "great" for me.

[ruthaki]

Re Manfredi's "Child of a Dream" I honestly tried twice but couldn't get past page 35. Although I did hear some other people who were enthusastic about his books. I think one of the very best was Mary Renault's "Fire from Heaven" about Alexander's youth.
I have read and reread all her books, especially the Alexander trilogy, many times and have learned from her.

[Narcoleptic_ll]

I read that one too!! I'm trying to get "The persian boy" now, but I haven't got any luck yet.

Mary Renault's vision on Alexander is great, it makes me wander if Alexander visited on her dreams or something. I love the way she portrayed Alexander's character, specially when his teacher, Leonidas, gives him a very hard beating, but he doesn't even cry just to show he's better than that, if I remember correctly the teacher even felt threatened by his grey eyes. Manfredi's Alexander is not as good as hers, but it's OK, I would give him 2.5 stars (out of five), a friend lend me the books so I'm reading them, I just can't spend all my time reading on the computer XD

[jan]

Thanks for providing the links to live journal. I appreciate that very much.

As for fiction, it is all a matter of taste. I hated Empire of Ashes for many reasons. I strongly recommend it for book burning sessions.

Each reader is as individual as each writer. Each one of us has our own preferences...I liked Manfredi's book but that was at the beginning of my study of Alexander as I had not had this long rich history of being a student of his life until very recently. If I were to read it now, knowing so much more now than I did then, I probably would re-evaluate my own critique of it.

Stephen Pressfield has written two books on the subject of Alexander, and his first was so stilted that I did not enjoy reading it at all. His second book about Afghanistan was a bit better but again, not living up to his original Gates of Fire, I was not very favorably impressed with his writing skills.



I disliked Stone's and his corraborators script on the movie Alexander as it is so totally deceitful in its presentation, deliberately mixing truth with fiction. But Pressfield admits to his own deliberate changing and twisting facts which Stone should have at least acknowledged.

So one man's poison is another man's meat. I like novels which are rich in description, full of character study, and have a decent theme which one can realize right away. A theme is the most important aspect of any book.

If given the chance, I will pen a book of my own, after I have at least visited the soil upon which ATG trod.

[jan]

Can't stand the Hephaestion site...the colors are awful! The ATG site is o.k. Can't say I like it that it is a picture of Colin Farrell though...strange....

[jan]

Funny now that I read Ruthaki's comments about Child of Dreams, I felt the same way about Fire From Heaven. After reading an early chapter and paragraph, I could not stand it, and put it down to never read again either. One of those, no that is not Alexander the way I see him feelings...so it is all a matter of taste and personality...I don't like Renault, but Ruthaki does. So it goes...

[dean]

Hello,

This is an interesting topic. The distortion of a historical figure via fiction based upon an original distortion by the sources -so getting to the real Alexander is going through a Minoan maze- c'est impossible! Plutarch, Curtius and Arrian- the three musketeers!!!
Each one with his own agenda, Curtius, hot for gossip, Plutarch squeaky clean and Arrian well, I'll leave that one up to you.

Thanks to Renault who combined some pretty serious research with a pen much mightier than the sword- evoking for me how I had tried to imagine the whole thing- we get pretty near to a historical novel par excellence. I guess writing on Alexander is all about exploring or trying to explore Alexander's story and as Renault said, the nature of Alexander- so fiction has its place! Each era has had its own Alexander and this is a fascinating phenomena. What is the Alexander of our own era? That which Stone has created?

And as for Stone playing with the historical reality we know well, I think that no matter how he tries to twist it, he can't change the info in the sources- the people who are interested in the romantic image of Alexander will I think soon want to get through this and to what really happened.

Best regards,
Dean

[Efstathios]

As for the nature of some of these stories which you so gently tried to describe; I certainly don't feel that they do any harm.

Well that depends.Now many people consider ancient Greece as paradise for homosexuals while it was the contrary in many cases (remember the laws of Solon?), and to that maybe contributed a lot fictions like these of Renault,a homosexual herself.Because before that, in the early 20th century or before there was not such an impression.

Now many people will have the image of the homosexual Alexander due to the movie.His sexual tastes no matter what they were, shouldnt be one of the themes of the movie, or books, but especially of the movie which has a wider audience, but other events and aspects of his life.For aspects that we dont have a big knowledge we should leave them be, because otherwise through books and especially through movies in our times, impressions will be given that may not be correct.And then after millions of people will have formed an impression which may be wrong how can it change?

[ruthaki]

Again, we writers are writing historical FICTION. We only have the sources to go on and how many of them skewed the real facts? (After all, most of them were written over a hundred years after the events). So, we can only speculate. But I still think it's important to do as much research on the subject (even to details of food that was eaten and clothing that was worn) to create that ancient world as accurately as you can.
I think Renault did a superb job of this without getting into flights of fancy which it seemed Manfredi might have done (my impression from the brief read of Child of a Dream.) I like Pressfield because he writes a simple style, using some modernism, that is accessible to those who might not ordinarily read historical fiction. When I read The Afghan Campaign, I couldn't help but think that it might have been the voice of any soldier today who is fighting those same tribal people. Only the weapons have changed.
And Virtues of War was interesting to me because it was his version of Alexander's voice -- perhaps not the same voice I have in my head, but it was written simply enough that anyone could read it -- you don't need to be a student of history to relate.
And by the way, Steven Pressfield is a very nice man who takes the time to respond to emerging writers like me. When I saw the dedication in the Afghan Campaign I hardly dared to believe it might be true, but I think it is -- or at least I like to believe it is.

[marcus]

Stephen Pressfield has written two books on the subject of Alexander, and his first was so stilted that I did not enjoy reading it at all. His second book about Afghanistan was a bit better but again, not living up to his original Gates of Fire, I was not very favorably impressed with his writing skills.

That's not what you seemed to be saying a while back, Jan ...

I disliked Stone's and his corraborators script on the movie Alexander as it is so totally deceitful in its presentation, deliberately mixing truth with fiction. But Pressfield admits to his own deliberate changing and twisting facts which Stone should have at least acknowledged.

Where did they "deliberately mix truth with fiction", Jan? In what way was it deceitful? How far does Stone need to acknowledge his "changing and twisting" facts when the very fact that it's a movie should be proof/acknowledgement enough.

ATB

[ruthaki]

Regarding Stone's "Alexander" movie...again, he was handling the material the way he saw fit to make a good story. Sure, perhaps his 'poetic license' isn't the same as other writers/film makers/historians might be. And sure, he left out some of the really great parts of Alexander's life (did you think he could make a movie 10 hours long??) Like a historical fiction NOVEL, his film was historical FICTION. Those 'in the know' (do any of us, really???) may not have liked it, but I think it generated interest in Alexander enough that people might want to read more about him. To me it was certainly a lot better than that stupid movie they made years ago with Richard Burton where the sets were so phony and Burton far too old to play the part.