#dwtl

[mwagneto]

what if you were an unfucked immortal homosexual played by david tennant who killed himself under tragic circumstances after a lifetime of not experiencing joy but then a different homosexual also played by david tennant who people try to claim was just you again got a happy ending would that be fucked up or what

[jeannereames]

Dumb Reviews

How do you tell me you've never actually read the original sources on Alexander the Great without telling me?

Accuse me of essentially stealing Renault's Fire from Heaven plot because you don't understand that where we overlap is where we're both using the same ancient sources. (And where we don't overlap is our own inventions.) Even where we do overlap, I may well go in another direction in interpretation.

*eyeroll*

(Btw, this is quite different from just preferring Renault's take to mine. It's a difference of opinion that makes horse races. Where I get testy involves accusations of creative thievery.)

[denialandavoidance]

SCORPIO ANTICS

[jeannereames]

In the novels, who was the hardest character to write? Hephaistion or Alexandros? Or somebody else?

It took longer to get a handle on Alexandros. Hephaistion was fully formed from the beginning. Some of that may be that I actually had more historical evidence to work with for Alexandros, some of it contradictory. Another slippery character was Aristoteles (Aristotle). He’s complex, and doesn’t have a lot of screen time to present that complexity. In fact, one fun aspect of writing “For the Love of Geometry” was the chance to spend more time with the adults, Aristotle, Philip, and Amyntor. 😊

Btw, for those who've read the novels but are unaware, I have some cut-takes and extra scenes available:

Extra & Cut Scenes from Dancing with the Lion

[jeannereames]

Hello! I don’t know if you’ve been asked this before but I have a genuine question. I loved your Dancing with the Lion duology, but isn’t it considered a little disrespectful to write about the intimate interactions between a conquerer and his general? They were DEFINETELY lovers, that much I don’t have a problem with, but I found the details very explicit. Personally if i was a king who conquered half the known world i wouldn’t want my intimate moments with my companion to be public, but maybe that’s just me.

The Legitimacy of Historical Fiction

Whether or not the asker realized it, their question rubs up against a much larger issue regarding historical fiction generally on which I have Many Thinky-Thoughts and have published about in the intro section of my book chapter, “Alexander the Great and Hephaistion in Fiction after Stonewall.” I also wonder if, from the phrasing (“isn’t it considered a little disrespectful to write about the intimate interactions between a conquerer and his general?”), this question might derive at least partly from discussions regarding the ethics of what’s called real-person fic in fandom. Matters of privacy violation are important to that debate.

My TL;DR answer: these are fictional characters, not real people. The asker says, “Personally if i was a king who conquered half the known world i wouldn’t want my intimate moments with my companion to be public,” except I’m not publicizing anything Alexander and Hephaistion said or did in intimate moments because we have absolutely no idea.

The historical Alexander is already semi-fictional, thanks to the nature of our sources.

That might give a clue as to where all this will land. But follow me down the rabbit hole.

To include living or recently deceased people in published fiction, memoirs, autobiography, and biography can be problematic for both legal and moral reasons, requiring written permissions. One matter that comes up repeatedly is a question of “harm”—to a living person, their family, or their immediate descendants. Enter threats of libel for entertainment lawyers to sort out. Even if something won’t meet the bar for libel in a courtroom,* we can still ask whether something is right. So, I acknowledge this is A Thing. And it’s especially tricky for public individuals because “public knowledge” can be included without threat of lawsuit, even when unflattering. Yet it’s also why weasel language such as “alleged” may be required in places.

I’m equally aware a fair bit of real-person fic exists that depicts imagined relationships between actors, musicians, athletes, and other celebrities, which may include graphic sex scenes. Some readers find these deeply troubling, infringing on the privacy of these folks. Defenders say the stories are clearly marked as fiction not reality, actors play fictional characters all the time, and the person will (probably) never read it, so where’s the harm? [Back to issues of harm.] It’s a gray area that will likely remain gray because nobody has litigated it (that I’m aware of), and such a lawsuit would be bad press for the celebrity against fans. Not to mention they might lose based on fair-use and parody precedent already in place.

In short, that legal train already left the station. The question still remains as to whether real-person fic crosses a line and is inherently inappropriate, or at least in bad taste. Hence my conjecture that the asker’s question stems from this wider discourse, as it seems to arise from similar concerns.

But historical fiction is not real-person fic, even if it may include characters who represent historically attested individuals.

While there is no precise time for when a story moves from contemporary fiction (what real-person fic is) into historical fiction, the Historical Fiction Society says the story must be set at least 50 years in the past.

Alexander is 2300+ years dead. He has no living relatives.

More to the point: we have extremely problematic ancient sources about Alexander’s life. They cannot be trusted, sometimes even in big brushstroke events, never mind the niggling details of what he said or did on a particular occasion. Specialists argue about whether this or that episode occurred, and if so, in what fashion exactly?

That’s simply the nature of ancient historical writing. It came closer to creative non-fiction than the footnoted narratives of modern history where citing sources is a must.

Ergo, I’m not the least bit bothered by anything I invent in a novel, clearly tagged as a novel, because I often doubt things found in the original sources that constitute our history.

As I said earlier: Alexander is already semi-fictional (or semi-mythical).

But THAT brings us around to the deeper objection I really want to discuss that I saw buried under the ask, even if the asker probably didn’t realize as much: history is true while fiction is false—a lie, if a pretty one. Ergo, historical fiction is actively harmful because it twists an historically discernable truth. Mark McKenna slams historical fiction as lacking a “real confrontation with a real past.” But this assumes a “real past” can be excavated enough to have what he calls a “moral relationship” with it. The further back we go, the dicier that gets.

It also fundamentally misunderstands what history (especially ancient history) is and how we go about doing it.

Let me give an example from the asker’s own query. They state: Alexander and Hephaistion “were DEFINITELY lovers." But in fact, we don’t know that… for reasons I’ve addressed before in detail HERE and HERE. All mention of them as lovers is quite scarce and late. And by "late," I mean centuries after they lived. Nor is any clear mention found in our chief histories.

The currently popular perception that they were lovers "of course" and any argument against it is homophobia coming from cis, white male fuddy-duddy historians in tweed jackets ignores the fact the main scholar currently arguing this is a woman from Germany who's younger than I am, definitely doesn’t wear tweed, and definitely isn’t homophobic: Sabine Müller, the other chief Hephaistion specialist out there.

While Sabine and I agree on a number of things about Hephaistion’s underappreciated skills, we disagree on the lovers bit because of when we each think Hephaistion and Alexander met. Again, for details, see links above, but my point is we do not in fact know they were lovers…even if we may strongly suspect it. Obviously, I’m hardly biased against the idea. But I AM quite rigorous about what we can—and can’t—know from the historical record.

When doing history, we tend to rank things as 1) almost surely true, 2) fairly probable, 3) certainly possible, 4) maybe but speculative, & 5) purely speculative/fictional. For instance:

Almost certainly true: There was an eclipse of the moon 10 days before the Battle of Gaugamela, which Alexander won despite the odds against him. (Verifiable fact)

Fairly probable: Alexander used the belief that the moon represented Persia to give his men a pep talk in the face of poor odds for them. (Several sources relate this)

Certainly possible: This eclipse (seen as a bad omen for Persia by common astrological planetary assignments) played a role in the battle’s outcome. (Sources suggest this)

Maybe, but speculative: Alexander’s psych trick worked, and that’s among the reasons the Macedonians won. (historians’ speculation)

Purely speculative: Darius lost because he believed he was destined to lose and had a complete loss of confidence, as did his men. (Curtius suggests this but Curtius makes up shit and we have no idea where his info about the Persian court actually came from.)

YET wouldn’t that last point make an historical fiction story resonate for readers? It’s about what Darius feared; it gets in his head.

Guy Vanderhaeghe said, “History tells us what people do; historical fiction helps us imagine how they felt.”

So, for those who are squicked by the idea of someone speculating about the lives of real people, as historians we already do that. Most historical secondary discussion is about our speculation: arguing a position. It also misses the point of historical fiction, which isn’t about who any historical person actually was, but with who we are now, and what it’s possible for us to become.

These are characters. They may be based on historical people and use a lot of what we know about ancient Macedonia, but it’s fiction. Furthermore, like any scene in a story, a sex scene should serve a specific purpose, or it’s deadwood (and can be cut). The sex scenes in both novels develop my characterizations of the two boys/young men. They’re not mere titillation.

If I were bothered by writing a sex scene between Alexandros and Hephaistion, I wouldn’t be writing historical fiction at all. Because. It’s. The. Same. Principle. ...whether a sex scene or any other speculative event. Yet as I said above, those who object to historical fiction on that principle are kidding themselves about lines between “truth” and “fiction” in history in the first place.

Now all that said, some folks are just uncomfortable with any graphic sex in fiction, in which case, please skim or skip it.

---------------------------------------

*A quick terminology lesson (although remember, I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV): SLANDER is what is said about a person, while LIBEL is what is written about a person. In the US, both have a high bar for courtroom conviction. To win, one must prove the defendant said something bad knowing it was untrue, in order to defame the character of the accuser. If I believe my neighbor is fucking his dog and say so, that’s my opinion, and protected free speech. But if I know he’s not and spread it around anyway to make him sound perverted, that’s slander. Still, how will the accuser prove as much?

[mwagneto]

i have wandered i have rambled i have crossed this crowded sphere and i've seen a mess of problems that I long to disappear and all i have is this anguished heart for you have vanished too oh my girl my girl my precious girl just what is this man to do?

[jeannereames]

What are the things that will make Alexander later feel proud of his close friendship with Hephaestion?

What are the things that will make him feel most unable to lose Hephaestion?

(Somehow I get the feeling from your books (and to be honest, also historically, although this is an unfounded assumption) that Alexander was much more emotionally dependent on Hephaestion.

Alexander and Hephaistion

Let’s start with the history, and that should also answer a lot of your question for the novels.

I think Alexander was more dependent on Hephaistion for the simple reason that power isolates. And the more powerful, the more isolated. Some people are better able to be emotionally self-sufficient. I think Philip was. He had to be, just to have survived, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he found it virtually impossible to trust anybody once his mother died.

While being a prince was never “safe,” by contrast with his father, Alexander’s childhood was a cakewalk. That meant he would (probably) have learned Erikson’s all-important HOPE via trust. To be fair, Philip probably did too, as a royal (male) infant, even the third brother, his needs would all have been met, but especially after the death of his father when he was about twelve, he’d have experienced increasing insecurity that Alexander mostly didn’t suffer, or not to the same extent.

Why does that matter? It means Alexander was probably better able to make and maintain emotional connections. I doubt any Argead male was what we’d consider psychologically sound, but Alexander was likely more so than Philip because his childhood was less chaotic. He could form deep emotional ties to others, Hephaistion among them.

If Plutarch can be trusted—always a fair question—Alexander seems to have been inclined to emotional expressions, grand gestures, and generally liked people. He was an extrovert (as are most top-tier, successful leaders). He had friends, not just acquaintances, and he also seems to have taken it very personally when they betrayed him. Some might call that naiveté, but he was a prince, so I don’t think he was naïve. I think he knew how to trust—and wanted to trust. That is my impression for the sum of the various Plutarchian anecdotes, which is why I said it depends on how much we can trust Plutarch. I tend (by default) to question individual anecdotes (and so should you), but by the same token, it’s highly unlikely that they’re all false. For some, too, it may be more a matter of “selective exaggeration and intentional narrative framing.” E.g., Plutarch tells us how to understand the story, and “nips and tucks” it to meet his sermon-y needs. We’re still left with “flavors,” if you will. And Alexander’s flavor of human interaction involved a need for love and approval, as well as a willingness to give it (as long as you weren’t beating him in a competition).

But of course, as he grew in power, the temptation for others to betray that need, either for their own advancement, or out of envy, or fear, worked to increasingly alienate him from his once-many friends. I suspect he always assumed some of those around him were sycophants. Again, he grew up a prince; it was inevitable. But the more powerful and successful he became, the less he could trust…while still wanting to.

That meant increasing emotional weight was put on those who remained part of that most inner ring, and at the apex, other than his mother, stood Hephaistion. And the reverse was also probably true for Hephaistion: the higher he rose, the more isolated he became, too. But as I’ve argued elsewhere, given that he appears to have had no (known) relatives on the campaign, he already was isolated, and that may have figured into his attraction for Alexander. And if, especially after the murder of Kleitos, I expect nobody felt entirely safe, I imagine Hephaistion felt as safe as it was possible to be. He also probably worked hard to stay in Alexander’s good graces. He’d thrown in his lot with Alexander and there wasn’t any backing out of that (assuming he would even have wanted to).

That of course means, when Alexander lost Hephaistion, he lost the (emotional) ground he stood on. I think that’s at least part of why he followed Hephaistion to the grave 8-9 months later. While certainly the poor state of his health after so many wounds, especially the lung wound at Malia, would have made it difficult for him to survive that final fever, he may also just not have cared enough to fight the way he had in the past. It’s something too many people are inclined to dismiss, either because they find it “overly romantic” and/or they don’t think Alexander cared enough about anyone besides himself (and his glory, or kleos) to matter. That’s the “He was a narcissist” crowd. Not only do I not belong to that crowd, I think most either don’t know narcissism well, or don’t know Alexander well enough to properly judge. That said, some people are also just unaware how much bereavement wrecks our health. Had Alexander fallen ill a year later, or even six months later, he might have been in better emotional shape to kick it.

By contrast, it’s hard to say how Hephaistion would have reacted to losing Alexander. Much would have depended on when. For one thing, I suspect they both assumed Hephaistion would outlive him, and such assumptions actually go a fair way towards preparing us to weather bereavement. Unexpected loss is considered a serious complicating factor in healing from it. The when also matters. Although I’ve said elsewhere that if Hephaistion hadn’t died, I’m not sure Alexander would either, for the sake of argument, let’s assume he would have. At that point in time, with not one but two children on the way, Hephaistion would have had a powerful reason to live. By contrast, if Alexander had fallen at Granikos or Issos, Hephaistion might not have survived him for long either, if he didn’t fall on the battlefield with him.

Now, that’s the historian’s assessment. And I do endeavor to base my characters on the real historical people, but for the books, I can be less cagey. The characters as I’ve written them are deeply intertwined. Alexandros knows that Hephaistion is the one voice not afraid to tell him the truth. (Curtius says as much and I’ve taken him at face-value.) They will fight, at points, because of that. In Becoming, Alexandros observes that the fact Hephaistion was willing to hit him made Alexandros willing to let him hold him. Alexandros is aware that Hephaistion’s commitment to him is absolute: he’s risked his freedom and his life for Alexandros, and Alexandros is not the sort to forget it. (Nor, apparently, was the historical man; it’s why he was so slow to believe Harpalos had betrayed him…because Harpalos had once been sent into exile for his sake.)

Loyalty is both my (and imo, the historical) Alexandros’s most valued virtue in others—and himself. Thus, when he loses the one person he’s confident will give it, he loses his will to live.

So yes, Alexandros will fight the fever mostly on instinct but isn’t opposed to the idea of dying and joining Hephaistion. He’s at a point in the bereavement process where he’s not sure it’s worth it to survive; he can’t see that he’ll ever again have anyone he can trust like that, and without Hephaistion, the kleos has lost all its glitter. My Hephaistion does have other emotional support, so he would be able to survive the loss of Alexandros, even if it were to occur earlier in the campaign. Not because he doesn’t love Alexandros as much, but because he has other people to lean on, and other reasons so live.

[jeannereames]

Hi. I recently watched the Alexander documentary, and noticed how Alexander's bond with Hephaestion was minimized in favor of heterosexual storylines (e.g. Stateira I). I'm working on a factually based historical fiction project about Alexander, and I’d be very interested in your own view of Hephaestion’s role in his life, and how you felt about the documentary’s (and history's) approach to their relationship. I'm not asking as a source reference, but in genuine curiosity. Fangirling is a go. ;)

Alas, this is a rather complex question. A lot of my thoughts on Hephaistion’s role in ATG’s life are expressed in my published articles (see especially “The Cult of Hephaistion” for his career) and a WHOLE lot of prior entries on Tumblr. I’ve collected some of the more historically focused ones HERE, so you can sort through them by title. 😊

The Netflix series, with which I was somewhat involved, went out on a limb with the representation of ANY romantic relationship between ATG and Hephaistion. I basically warned I wouldn’t be involved if they didn’t call them lovers, although there was a GREAT deal of nervousness about showing it (and potential blowback). And yes, Alexander probably had some sort of fling with Statiera (a point I’ve talked about on Tumblr before). But there was a notable shift in the show from Alexander’s attachment to Hephaistion towards a new one with Statiera. That wasn’t something I liked—nor suggested. I am generally not a fan of love triangles, or at least not that go on a while. I hated the Alexander-Roxane-Hephaistion or Alexander-Bagoas-Hephaistion triangle in Stone, and I didn’t like this one either. They basically ignored that objection. I have no idea where the ATG-Hephaistion relationship will go now that she's dead, but in the last episode, it did not seem that Alexander was open to reviving it. There are also a couple big names missing from the first season that leaves me unclear how they plan to move forward later, especially Philotas, Kleitos, and Krateros. (And yes, I did discuss that with them. Budget.)

I will say that I did approve of their decision to humanize the Persians and show them as cultured in their own right. And they did take my insistence that Persian women had a great deal more agency than Greek (or even Macedonian) women: so Statiera had advising capacities. But the project shifted over time, especially after Netflix got involved and it moved from docudrama, to drama-with-some-docu. They’re interested in selling it. I was interested in the history being at least marginally accurate. But I wasn’t involved once it got to filming, and it was clear they had their own vision of what they were going to do (and not do). When one acts as a historical advisor, the first rule to accept: not my story, not my vision. (Kinda like, not my circus, not my monkeys.) So I simply worked with them in terms of helping correct the more egregious (especially factual) errors.

I'll also add they had a LOT of limitations due to cost; Netflix may have bought it, but that didn't really expand their budget much, so take that into account. I've heard people whine that "Well, but Netflix!" Um, Netflix throws a little money at a lot of things, but a lot of money at only a few things.

My own views on Hephaistion’s role in Alexander’s life (and court) is also embedded in my novels (Dancing with the Lion). So those ARE my monkeys. 😊

If you want my bitching about how Hephaistion is too-often portrayed on screen (and not just the Netflix show), I did this a little while ago: