My Post-Reading Thoughts on Margaret George's "Helen of Troy" (Semi-Spoiler Free!)

Check out the following two links for a bit more context:

• Pre-Reading Thoughts on Margaret George's "Helen of Troy" (HBR blog post)
• Helen of Troy by Margaret George Review (HBR bookstagram post)

Please note that I put "Semi-Spoiler Free" in the title of this blog post. There are some vague spoilers, but I don't bring up anything in this blog post that could be seen as huge plot points for Margaret George's Helen of Troy. The only other "spoiler" is Paris' role in the story, but that isn't necessarily a spoiler, especially if you're familiar with the myth.

I'm not going to go into too much detail about my pre-reading thoughts and feelings on Margaret George's Helen of Troy. That's why I linked the above post so you could reference that if you wanted. I also linked my bookstagram review so that you all can see the details of my review for the book. I ironically finished this book on February 28th, so it was an interesting twist.

To say the least: I was very excited about reading this book until I read the synopsis. When I started reading it, I was honestly surprised - and in a good way. I was enjoying the book way more than I thought I would. My enjoyment of the beginning of thebook really caught me off guard.

The main characters were well developed, and the setting and storyline were solid. There were quite a few parts of the book that had me saying "Seriously?" But I feel like there are so many books - enjoyable books - that have their moments when readers ask that question. (This isn't a sign of a bad book - it's sometimes the sign of a good book.)

One cover of Margaret George's
Helen of Troy

I obviously had a few issues with the book.

One issue was the fact that Paris was Helen's savior from a loveless marriage. It's essentially the male savior complex, which was not needed in my opinion. It also suggests that Helen was an unwitting victim in this whole story, which may not have been the full case. I totally get that Helen ultimately chooses to go and stay with Paris, but the idea that Paris had to come into the picture for Helen to realize she's in a loveless relationship is just . . . ugh in my opinion.) Yes, Helen didn't have much of a choice in choosing Menelaus (even though he was her choice for husband . . . ) and she didn't have much control over her own life, that doesn't mean that she couldn't see that she didn't have a loving marriage before Paris' arrival.

The gods also had very little role in this book, which also bothered me. You get mentions and allusions to Zeus and the myth of Leda and the swan (aka Zeus). But other than that, there were no other points where the gods came into play. And with the myth, the gods had a huge role to play in it, and completely disregarding them didn't sit well with me. Asclepius had a brief mention, but other than that and the allusions to Zeus, you don't really see the gods, which annoyed me a little. In my opinion, you can have a mythological story retelling with the gods playing a hand in the story and it not being obvious.

I know what I've said in past posts: when writing historical fiction and, in this case, a retelling of a mythological story, you don't have to be completely accurate to the source material. That's why it's fiction or a retelling and not the actual story. But with a myth like Helen and the Trojan War, I feel like there are some aspects that just shouldn't be left out.