Are you familiar with any of the myths that are presented in this novel? Were any told differently than you remember?

Are you familiar with any of the myths that are presented in this novel? Were any told differently than you remember?

I was very familiar with the Trojan War parts of the story and with Sparta's warrior culture, but that's pretty much where my knowledge ended. The one thing that was different was that in the version of the myth with which I'm familiar, Iphigenia went willingly to be sacrificed and didn't struggle.

I was a big fan of mythology when young, so I thought I had a decent knowledge of the Trojan War and the story of Odysseus. What fun to look at these stories from a completely different viewpoint!

I was familiar with the stories of the Iliad and Odyssey and the sacrifice of Iphigenia leading to Clytemestra’s revenge, also many smaller stories referred to here, like Leda being raped by Zeus in the form of a swan. As a septuagenarian, I can’t speak to every “tweak” the author may have made—but nothing struck me as a major departure from what has been handed down. Instead I noticed a thoughtful effort to make the mythical details more psychologically convincing. For example, Clytemnestra is not portrayed here as a lusty madwoman in taking her revenge, but as a deeply intelligent woman who has suffered enormously and longs in her grief for a more fulfilling life and deeper connections with the people close to her.

Other enhancements that do not contradict what I remember of the myths: here, Helen has a reason for running away with Paris, it isn’t just a whimsy or abduction; and the rituals of worshipping the gods are not all experienced and presented as acts of blind faith in this novel. The characters have different ways of understanding the gods’ relationship to humanity—just as people do today.

I think the author stayed close to the myths as I remembered them. She did an excellent job in bringing the stories to life.

In an early episode of Star Trek, the Greek god Apollo appears in space as a GIANT, and demands that the crew worship him, claiming that since mortals no longer believe in him, he will no longer exist as a god but be reduced to a memory. (The other gods had already lost hope and departed their corporeal existence.) Since I have always been fascinated in myths/stories that teach truths about how the world works, as well as human psychology, I felt sorry for poor Apollo brought DOWN by science.

I have read The Iliad and The Odyssey, so I'm familiar with "wily" Odysseus and his deceptive actions to bring about his goals; however, his role in Clytemnestra stunned me! And as for Theseus, the slayer of the Minotaur, and the hero of Athens, WHAT!

I have a solid general background of Greek mythology, but it was only after reading this book that I realized I really hadn't thought about the deep reasons why things might have been done. I enjoyed seeing things from Clytemnestra's perspective. I also appreciated the author would through in passages from texts about the myths.

I am familiar with much of Greek mythology including the Orestia upon which much of this novel is based. I am also familia with Iphigenia of Aulis and Tauris which are about the sacrifice of Iphigenia. By the way thereis a fabulous Greek movie called Iphigenia starring Irene Pappas as Clytemnestra

I’m familiar with many of the myths, and I was thrilled to read this interpretation. The characters make sense in their responses and actions. I agree with JLPen77 that this book stayed pretty close to the “originals,” and also expanded our view of Helen, Iphigenia, and of course Clytemnestra. Also, I concur with deed’s post—I particularly enjoyed references to other myths.

I was familiar with some of the myths discussed in Clytemnestra. As a child, I loved learning about and reading Greek and Roman myths, so I already knew the basics. I did really enjoy the elements used from the original myths and found it fun that new elements were added too!

From Edith Hamilton's classic Mythology to Madeline Miller's Song of Achilles and Circe to Margaret George's Helen of Troy, I have long been a fan of Greek mythology and history so the myths discussed in Clytemnestra were very familiar.

I think her myths kept to the established stories but she definitely made Clytemnestra a fully developed character and Odysseus was not a respected warrior in her story. I absolutely loved Casati's take on this legend and look forward to more from her. Perhaps she can write Electra's story next!

I have not read or studied mythology, but this story makes me want to read more. I feel that it gave me a tiny foundation for reading other stories.

While in high school and college I read about Helen of Troy, the Odyssey and Iliad, but have not read much mythology since. I remembered enough to be able to identify, but not enough to evaluate and compare.

As many of you did, I studied some of these Greek myths and plays while in high school and college, but much gets forgotten in the "mists of time". Much also seemed familiar, though I had forgotten many of the characters' names. (Heck, I have problems remembering the names of real people I see all the time!) Reintroducing these characters in a contemporary novel helped them come alive again. It has also helped to see contemporary versions of the plays, for example we saw a few years ago a play called Wedding in Aulis, based on Europides' play about Iphigenia. The surprise, horror, passion, grief, and rage were all made real in a memorable way. This book did the same for me.

Yes, very familiar with the Greek mythology. This was the first time the women were depicted as more than just powerless victims. Bravo to the author.

It’s my understanding that the ancient peoples who preserved these myths, orally and then in poetry and drama, did not see women as passive victims—-neither Clytemnestra or Electra for example are passive, in any version we have. Regardless of the patriarchy of their political system, the genius of the culture was its recognition of human complexity in the arts.

But in the retellings in later times, to explain their powerful acts, characters like Clytemnestra have been portrayed as hysterical madwomen, crazed with emotion… while men like Agamemnon are portrayed as examples of moral strength, great leaders. The misogyny is an interpretation—-and not true to human nature. The old myths were rewritten to make new myths.

That’s what makes this version by Costanza Casati, and many other retellings of myths by Madeleine Miller and others, so important. And timely! For better or worse, women faced with moral dilemmas and grief can be just as aggressive as men.

I was familiar with the major stories surrounding heroes and gods. I enjoyed the modern perspective that this novel took. Seeing through Clytemnestra's eyes is completely lacking in the classic texts, where there is no sense of human agency. They read preordained, as if a person has no free will. Everything is decided by fate and the gods. It was great to see a human perspective, especially a female protagonist. Ancient texts focus on who gets the glory. This modern perspective shows who pays the price for the glory of men.