| Title | : | The Children of Jocasta |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1509836152 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781509836154 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 336 |
| Publication | : | First published May 4, 2017 |
Jocasta is just fifteen when she is told that she must marry the King of Thebes, an old man she has never met. Her life has never been her own, and nor will it be, unless she outlives her strange, absent husband.
Ismene is the same age when she is attacked in the palace she calls home. Since the day of her parents' tragic deaths a decade earlier, she has always longed to feel safe with the family she still has. But with a single act of violence, all that is about to change.
With the turn of these two events, a tragedy is set in motion. But not as you know it.
In The Children of Jocasta, Natalie Haynes takes a fresh perspective on an ancient story, reimagining in gripping prose how the Oedipus and Antigone stories would look if the oft-overlooked female characters took centre stage. Retelling the myth to reveal a new side of an ancient story.
The Children of Jocasta Reviews
-
im a massive fan of greek mythology retellings, but this book made me realise my enjoyment is directly related to if i have read the original story first. i wasnt familiar with the stories of oedipus and antigone prior to reading this, and so i had nothing to compare it to. which means this mediocre rating is completely my fault.
i think if i had had some background knowledge or a general idea of the story, i wouldnt have found this so boring. the writing is actually quite lovely (its actually the thing i enjoyed most about this), but the storytelling/narrative is just kinda meh. this is supposedly supposed to shed more light on the women characters of the myths, but i still felt like they were outshone by the men in this retelling.
i might revisit this after i read sophocles’ theban plays. that might give me a different perspective on this.
↠ 3 stars -
No, a retelling of the Oedipus myth without the incest doesn't work.
And it's unfair to say that it's merely a matter of turning off that part of your brain that disagrees with authorial changes to the myth as it came from Sophocles and Aeschylus and Euripides, as I've read in another review. It sounds condescending, and entirely ignores the fact that, whilst a retold version sure has the right to change all and any elements an author sees fit (and the Greek playwrights used to do it, too), it doesn't mean all and every change is valid. There's one exception to the validity argument: the core of a story, the reason why the story is as it is. Do tell me, did Euripides, the most "rogue" of the classics who retold this legend, omit the incest? No, he made changes but kept the core, so don't come tell me it's merely that I'm not in agreement with Natalie Haynes' decision to rescind this core plot point. The unwitting incest is the very reason why Oedipus' life turned out like it did, the unwitting incest is why Jocasta's life turned out like it did, the unwitting incest is why Antigone and Ismene's lives turned out like they did, the unwitting incest is why all the "children of Jocasta" lived and died like they did. The unfair fate that decreed the downfall of the entire Theban royal family is precisely why the tragic cycle exists in the first place. A retelling without the original story's core is NOT a retelling.
I'm seeing that it's readers who are fans of the Sophoclean version the ones unimpressed by Haynes' rendition, and I honestly can relate. It's not just the above change that's bothered me, because there's more: the butchering of sweet and brave Antigone's character to favour her sister Ismene. Why is it that you need to take the original heroine down a peg or two to elevate her irrelevant story-wise sister? I can understand, and do applaud, giving a voice to minor and ignored characters, but not in this fashion. And furthermore, I can't see where those who praise the "beautiful writing" are coming from, because the writing is messy, overly descriptive in parts, and showing the author is too prone to 'splanining where she shouldn't, too much tell and little show. And the structure of the POVs is also messy: instead of choosing one style of point of view that would give the whole novel an unified and smooth feel, Haynes inserts TWO different styles: third person for Jocasta and first person for Ismene. Trying to give each woman an unique and distinguishable voice, perhaps? Well, it failed. It read more like you strung two different novelettes together and attempted to sell them both as a single novel.
It's a real, real pity. The author did have some good ideas, like the Sphinx, and it's obvious she wanted to write a realistic and believable novel, one that would read more historical than mythical, which is something I personally like (realistic retellings of myths, that is), but I simply can't get on board with any retake that doesn't respect a story's raison d'être. -
I just didn’t enjoy this one, but like another reviewer has said, it wasn’t due to poor writing on Haynes’ part, more poor storytelling. From a linguistic point of view, Haynes writes well. The vocabulary she draws upon is clearly broad, and the writing style is mature. By that I mean it has sophisticated construction, as opposed to the narrower vocabulary and simpler sentence construction of books aimed at younger readers. Haynes’ writing does lack a certain imagination and creative flair when it comes to imagery, but all in all it is complex, competent, and carefully considered.
It was the aspects of authorial choice in the storytelling that turned me off this one. For example, though it may initially seem like a small point, I found it irritating that Haynes chose to call Jocasta’s children – Eteokles, Polyneikes, Antigone, and Ismene – Eteo, Polyn, Ani, and Isy. I recoiled every time I came across it – and that was a lot. I can maybe understand an author doing this when writing a historical novel where characters share the same first name, but none do in this story. I didn’t like the nicknames because they were so incredibly modern, I was jarred right out of the story every time they came up. That wasn’t helped when, in the early chapters of the book, we find a teenaged Jocasta arguing with her parents about her arranged marriage to an old man. It felt out of place and deeply anachronistic. Marrying for love is the dominant model in the modern world, but in the ancient world that was far from the case. Young girls in the bronze age Near East could expect to be married off at a young age, and for the match to be arranged by her father (or other leading male relative), with advancing her family and making a match for security being the primary concerns in the deal. And no, I’m not saying that no bronze age girl in this position ever once raised a protest, just that it wouldn’t have come as a huge surprise, and combined with other elements in the story I began to get a sense of anachronism that permeated my reading experience.
Probably the biggest disappointment for me was how Haynes changes the Oedipus myth. I’ve read and enjoyed plenty of reimaginings which aimed to remove all the fantastical elements and try to construct a plausible ‘historical’ telling of the tale. Haynes’ book also aims for a more historical version. But she also cuts certain non-fantastical elements from the myth that would seem to me to be crucial to the story of Oedipus and Jocasta. For example, That story element is absolutely integral to the tale, such that I’m not sure it can even be called Oedipus without it. Haynes cut out the essence of the story, and what she replaced it with was a much less interesting, insular family drama, on a much smaller scale. And, despite all her efforts to put the women of the story front and centre, Jocasta and Ismene still felt like side characters – especially Ismene, who didn’t feel any more enthralling for the author having taken some of Antigone’s key traits and having them awarded to her instead.
Finally, I simply didn’t relish the voice of the audiobook, Kristin Atherton. Her female characters were all high-pitched and girlish, though at least they conveyed emotion, and her men a low monotone that sucked any and all personality out of them. Every male character in this book came across to me as blandly forgettable, indistinguishable from one another.
4 out of 10 -
Q:
Sophocles was born in Colonus, not far from Athens, which gives him the setting for the least-performed of the Theban plays, Oedipus at Colonus. Because it is performed so infrequently, compared to Oedipus Tyrannos, people often forget that Oedipus’ story ends much less miserably than it began. A blind exile, he wanders Greece with his daughter for a guide, and eventually settles on Colonus as the place where he will die, and be interred. The gods – so often his enemies – have told him that his bones will bring good fortune to the land which holds them. That is to be Colonus, ruled (at this point in its mythic history) by the Athenian king Theseus, of minotaur fame. After thwarting a last-ditch attempt by Creon – trying to claim the good fortune for himself – to take him back to Thebes, Oedipus dies as he wished: giving a last, enduring gift to the people of Athens. Even tragedies can have a happy ending. (c)
It's darn unfair how this story went about everything. I'm harping about the myth, not the book. Poor Jocasta!
Q:
He understood when you have grown up as I have, there is no security in not knowing things, in avoiding the ugliest truths because they can’t be faced. There is only an oppressive, creeping dread that the thing no one has told you is too terrible to imagine, and that it will haunt the rest of your life when you find out. (c)
Q:
It was oddly painful to be rejected by someone she didn’t know. (c)
Q:
‘I would guess that the day after he ceases to be the king is the longest day of your brother’s year.’ (c)
Q:
‘We’ve heard the most ridiculous story,’ ...
‘I’m sure you’ve heard lots of ridiculous stories,’... ‘It’s probably the company you keep.’ (c) -
In The Children of Jocasta, Natalie Haynes expertly brings to life the overlooked females in two well known Ancient Greek tragedies: Oedipus and Antigone.
We follow Jocasta (Oedipus) and Ismene (Antigone) in alternating chapters as Haynes weaves a wonderfully immersive and emotive story stripped of magic and focusses on rationalising these myths. Now while I admit that I knew the vague outline of the Oedipus tragedy (very, very vaguely - I certainly didn't know who Jocasta was) before reading, I knew nothing at all of Antigone, the only recognisable aspect to me being the name, and I don't think I was at a disadvantage. It took me a few chapters to link the two women and I enjoyed discovering that for myself. However, that's not to say those familiar with the plots will find nothing new here. By giving these two women their voices we view the more well known characters and scenes in a different light and offers alternative explanations.
Earlier I said that Haynes rationalises these stories, and in many ways she does. For example the riddling Sphinx becomes a group of bandits patrolling the mountains outside Thebes' high walls. By doing this the focus is on the events and how they impact Jocasta and Ismene. It lends a sense of authenticity to the story that is very effective in whisking the reader away to another time and place. I find it easier to relate to characters in situations that I can place myself in rather than in a fantastical world where you lose the sense of reality and thus feel a distance from the characters. Although I can never go back in time, the pleasure is in the details as Haynes' wonderful descriptions meant that I could picture the scenes perfectly. I could feel the blistering heat of the Theban summers as well as the cool relief from dipping feet into fountains. Pure escapism, especially in late winter!
The writing is truly immersive, not only did the wonderful settings jump from the page but also the emotions and relationships between the characters. It's not a long book and does follow two separate storylines told decades apart yet the way she paces and weaves the character interactions means the reader really gets to know them and feel their pain. Some parts, notably towards the end, are desperately, desperately sad, although I do admit that perhaps I felt the twists more from not knowing the story beforehand.
I really didn't want to put this down and I am keeping my fingers crossed the Natalie Haynes brings out another retelling soon. -
It’s no secret that Greek myth retellings are super popular these days, and having enjoyed Haynes’ “A Thousand Ships”, I thought I’d look up her other work I was quite curious about this one: I am not very familiar with the Theban plays, but I was curious to see who the myth of Oedipus could be retold in a different light, albeit from the point of view of Jocasta, who is usually accepted to have been his mother.
Haynes took serious liberties with interpretation with this one, more so than she did with her treatment of the Trojan War, and I can see from some reviews that it pissed off some classicists – and I can see why. She made a pretty big leap (that can’t be revealed without major spoilers), and I think it’s safe to say that if you are a Greek myth purist, you should stay away from this book. My perspective on this is that myth is made up to begin with, and I don’t really have a problem with changing elements when retelling it in general, even when the change is very significant. In this specific case, however, it changes some of the characters’ motivations for their actions, and frankly, I would have to re-read the Theban plays and probably this book, along with my Robert Graves before I can say how I feel about if definitely. Sorry to be wishy-washy about it: I guess the bottom line is that I didn’t mind Haynes’ editorializing, but that I am not entirely sold on it either.
What I do appreciate about this book is the dual narrative lines, and how the two perspectives, Jocasta’s and Ismene’s, reflect and diverge from each other. Jocasta is often rather undeveloped, and I was happy to see her character explored more in depth. I was, however, frustrated with how little of Antigone we get to see, as I always found her character fascinating; she is usually such a major player, and the idea to push her gently in the background felt a little awkward.
I’m not giving up on Haynes, but I wouldn’t recommend starting with this one unless you already enjoy her work. 3 indecisive stars. -
I came across this author when Waterstones told me they had
this special signed edition of her latest book. Since I still have to wait for this book to arrive here, I checked for others and stumbled upon her previous publications. So now I'm reading the three that appealed to me the most - this one as well as
her other novel and
her recent non-fiction.
The story of Jocasta is that of Oedipus, the guy who killed his father and married his own mother - but without knowing it. It‘s a classical story about a prophesy coming true because people are trying to prevent it - not doing anything probably would have broken the prophecy and nothing bad would have happened. The gods are cruel.
Unlike in the classics though, Haynes is telling of Jocasta herself: how she was made to marry a man older than her own father, how that man was actually gay, how nobody was ever kind to her, right up until they took her first-born and told her he was dead, how she fell in love with Oedipus many years later, how her later children fought for dominance eventually, how she found out about having married and slept with her own son, which caused her to kill herself.
Interestingly, we also got to see the later events (after Jocasta and Oedipus are out of the picture) from Jocasta‘s children‘s point of view. That, I believe, has never been done before.
As a lover of history and mythology, the story was nothing new to me, but the points of view we got here were marvelous. It was never even only in my top 5 of the Greek stories, but this author managed to make me care A LOT. It‘s still not one of my favorite stories after finishing this book, but I very much enjoyed the progression, how we witnessed one event giving birth to the next, the tragedy just growing bigger and bigger and bigger.
Moreover, I positively reveled in the writing style that was sweeping me along from start to finish. The richness of the worldbuilding, brought together by combining all available sources and then spicing it up with the author‘s own bits, was delicious.
Despite not having planned on it, I shall track down at least one more book by the author (another non-fiction I found out about in the meantime) and will read that as well. Haynes is like crack (but in the best of ways)! -
The third Haynes book in as many days has been quite as enjoyable as the first two. This one is the fictional retelling of Jocasta, the wife/mother of Oedipus, with an obvious focus on her life, choices, children, and her tragedy.
This is actually rather interesting. Maybe even more interesting than anything Oedipus had gone through, when you consider that Sophicles' original tragedy is a one-two-fourteen punch of truly shocking reveal after reveal.
Reading Hayens' treatment is fascinating and rather deeper than I would have imagined, even with knowing her fate through Homer. In fact, I might go so far as to say I can't tell which I like better between these two Greek retellings.
A Thousand Ships is fascinating for its breadth and the concise nature of so many of these women's tales, but
The Children of Jocasta necessarily dives deep and I have no problem admiring many of the characters. The nature of the tragedy lends itself to so many twists and the intelligence of the characters is not lessened by the cruel fates.
Suffice it to say, this one is a more straightforward and singular tale with a recognizable progression. I like it a lot. The other is edgier and made me think quite a bit more.
I like these kinds of problems.
I will be reading a lot more by her. -
This retelling of Oedipus Rex and Antigone centers Jocasta and Ismene as the protagonists, attempting to give both of them more of a voice in the story. Because I'm a professional dilettante and do everything backwards, it is likely I will be rereading Sophocles soon. Did you know that Polyneices and Eteocles kill each other???? It surprised me!!!
The beginning of the book was really promising, particularly the opening scene where Ismene is attacked by an unknown assailant (). I liked the dual narrative that alternated between Jocasta and Ismene, and the pacing was pretty good - both stories were compelling and had similar beats, so I rarely raced through one woman's section to get to the next. I also liked that the author tried to center the story in true historical fiction--for example, "the Sphinx" is a roving band of marauders that Oedipus eradicates.
The issue is that Jocasta still ends up sidelined in her own narrative, and there are several questions that aren't truly resolved. Honestly, I think it's really weird to spend an entire book attempting to explain the story from Jocasta's perspective, and then remove it at this crucial moment. I also thought the central tension between prophecy and reality was never fully explored or resolved. It's like the book thinks about tangling with these ideas in a meaningful and nuanced way, but then shrugs at the end and just gives an ending that could have "conceivably" happened (if you accept that it's conceivable that Jocasta and Oedipus find each other and get married at all, of course).
The Ismene storyline is interesting because Ismene seems to get some of Antigone's traits in order to give her a personality; she's the one that buries Eteocles and isn't quite as obedient as Creon would like. The problems with the Jocasta storyline overshadow any successes in the Ismene storyline, though, and it is odd that the author chooses to call Jocasta's children by nicknames (Antigone is Ani, Eteocles is Eteo, and so on - all throughout the book!).
Anyway, it's hard to recommend this to anyone except for the most diehard Sophocles fan. If you want good historical fiction set in this period, stick to Mary Renault. -
Die fünfzehnjährige Jocasta wird gegen ihren Willen mit dem König von Theben, Laius, verheiratet. Sie gebärt einen Sohn, der jedoch sofort weggebracht wird, da es sich angeblich um eine Totgeburt handelt. Jahrzehnte später leben im Palast von Theben Jocastas vier Kinder, die jedoch nicht der Ehe mit Laius entstammen, sondern aus einer zweiten Ehe mit einem viel jüngeren Händlerssohn aus Korinth. Auf die jüngste Tochter, Ismene, wird ein Mordanschlag verübt. Wer trachtet den Kindern Jocastas nach dem Leben? Und hat es etwas mit dem jährlichen Wechsel der Königswürde zwischen den zwei älteren Brüdern zu tun?
Die meisten von uns werden den Namen kennen: Ödipus (Oedipus). War das nicht der, der seinen Vater tötete und seine Mutter heiratete? In Unkenntnis selbstverständlich. Es ist die griechische Tragödie schlechthin, in der eine Prophezeiung sich ausgerechnet dadurch erfüllt, dass die Protagonisten versuchen, sie zu verhindern. Fortgesetzt wird die Geschichte aus „König Ödipus“ in „Ödipus auf Kolonos“ (das ich nicht gelesen habe und das auch in dem vorliegenden Buch kaum eine Rolle spielt) und in „Antigone“, wo es um das Schicksal von Ödipus‘ und Iokastes (Jocastas) Kindern geht.
So weiß die Leserin bei der Lektüre des Buches von Natalie Haynes, die damit als eine der ersten den momentanen Trend zur Neuerzählung griechischer Sagen aufgriff, schon grob, was sie erwartet. Sie wechselt in ihrer Nacherzählung zwischen zwei Zeitebenen und zwei weiblichen Protagonisten (Jocasta und Ismene), was zunächst etwas verwirrend ist, jedoch eine clevere erzählerische Strategie darstellt, denn die beiden Parallelhandlungen laufen beide auf einen Höhepunkt zu, sodass das Buch auch dann spannend ist, wenn man die Grundzüge der Geschichte bereits kennt. Haynes scheut sich auch nicht, in ihrer Version des Geschehens kleinere und größere Abweichungen von der bekannten Tragödienhandlung einzubauen, dies liest sich, als ob es sich um die „wahre“ Geschichte handelte, die sich hinter dem daraus entstandenen Mythos verbärge.
Allgemein wird die Geschichte durch die Romanform wesentlich zugänglicher als in der alten Drama-Version, wer mit Sophokles nicht viel anfangen kann, wird hier eher fündig, sogar eine kleine Krimihandlung ist enthalten. Doch auch für Fans der Tragödie bietet Haynes‘ Buch eine interessante und unterhaltsame Alternative. -
An exemplary work of art. Classics geeks, rejoice! For others: Oedipus is a character much known by the public conscious (with dubious thanks to Freud?) so do give it a try. The novel steadfastly adheres to existing plot points in the associating tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides (with a clever nod to the Homeric Odyssey), yet the tale we assume we are familiar with morphs into something entirely spectacular. As female characters are blessed with life and agency, and in turn stand out from their roles in the extant mythos, we readers are given a new tale that may completely subvert your original thoughts of the old. Altogether it's a novel and worthwhile read - and for me, certainly a wonderful way to start off Christmas Day!
-
I've been wanting to read more ancient Greek/myths retailings for a while. It seemed to be a popular thing to write about for a short while and I want more. At first while listening to this I didn't think it would be a four stars. While the writing is good it didn't cause any strong feelings but by the end I wad hooked on the story
-
I have never read the tragedy of Oedipus, but I have watched it as a play.
Reading this retelling in the perspective of Jocasta and Ismene was poignant.
The storytelling was well delivered and I was enticed by the characters. -
4.5****
Really enjoyed this! Felt so sorry for Jocasta and loved Ismene as a character. RTC! -
The author said she was playing "fast and loose" with the myths.Understatement of the year.Not only she omits the core of the myth (the incest)-which renders all the rest meaningless-but she uses ridiculous nicknames noone with a basic knowledge of Greek would use and she blurs Antigone´s role and personality by pastiching them unto Ismene. There are anacronisms too,and the writing´s not that good.
I liked
A Thousand Ships,but this one is offensive and disrespectful. -
I love classical retellings and read a fair few of them. Quite possibly this has made me unduly picky, as I wasn’t particularly enthralled by this one. ‘The Children of Jocasta’ retells the story of Oedipus and his unfortunate children via the points of view of Jocasta and Ismene. This is a fascinating concept, and parts of it worked really well. In general, Jocasta’s narrative was compelling and her voice distinctive. Ismeme’s first person account did not have the same power. Perhaps because the focus on Ismene left Antigone as a peculiar figure whose actions did not make a lot of sense.
While such interpretations are perfectly valid, even if I largely prefer those of Sophocles, I also found the writing style slightly awkward. When describing a setting so distant in time, it’s obviously a challenge to evoke very different past with conviction while remaining comprehensible to the lay reader. Haynes has a tendency to interject explanations of rituals, objects, and words, which interrupts the narrative flow rather. On the other hand, there are also moments when the characters sounded jarringly modern, such as the scene in which the term ‘gentlemen’ was bandied around. I’m no classicist and haven’t formally studied Greek tragedy since I was 18, but the fact is that other novels have handled these same issues more elegantly and unobtrusively. I very much liked Jocasta’s point of view and found the pacing really good. However, 'The Children of Jocasta' is not a patch on two of the best novels I read in 2018:
Country, a retelling of the Iliad, and
Circe, the story of the demigoddess who features in the Odyssey. I also preferred Haynes’ excellent contemporary novel,
The Amber Fury. -
5 Stars - Remarkable book
I think it’s fair to say that retellings of Greek myths and literature where women are now at the main characters is now my favorite genre of books – is that a genre? Well, I’m making it one.
Natalie Haynes took Jocasta from Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus and Ismene from Antigone and made them the main characters in stories in which they have a part but has been overlooked. The story flows well despite switching back and forth between Isy and Jocasta’s stories. A large part of why that works is because Haynes did an incredible job weaving the stories together. Isy is Jocasta’s youngest child and therefore they are tied to one another.
Haynes also took a different route re the stereotypical Oedipus story, which I LOVE! I read Oedipus Tyrannus in high school and didn’t really enjoy it then. However, THIS story is worth reading! It’s the same but different in important ways.
Quite frankly it’s hard for me to fully describe how much I love this book. All I can say is read it! It’s beautiful and heartwarming and heart wrenching. -
Loved this almost to the end. I think it helps to know the Oedipus story, although you can definitely go into this blind and experience the twists and turns, as all is revealed. For me, I fell a little out of love about 50 pages from the end. The plot took some turns I wasn't entirely on board with and some of the dialogue started to get a bit clunky, or at least I started to notice it. After reading Natalie Haynes' notes at the back of the book, on why she made particular decisions, I quickly fell back in love with it and forgot my previous gripes. A definite must read for people who like myth retellings.
-
"We never asked about it because we thought we knew everything already."
This book introduces a masterful twist on a story you think you know so well, giving a voice to the two people who are most often overlooked - Jocasta and her daughter Ismene. It is through their eyes that we look at one of the best-known family dramas, and it offers a stunning new perspective that will take you completely by surprise. -
Everyone who knows me even a little bit will probably know that I am the biggest imaginable fan of the Oedipus and Antigone myths - and Ismene, Antigone's overlooked sister, has long been one of my favourite figures in Greek Mythology. So imagine how excited I was to spot this book on a display: it felt like the book I'd always needed in my life.
Perhaps that's why this book didn't actually make a massive impression on me; I'm so attached to the myths and my own interpretations of them, that the changes Natalie Haynes made often struck me as 'wrong' and unnecessary. Of course, Haynes acknowledges in an afterword that her interpretation of the myths often plays fast and loose with the source material, as myth itself so often does. I can't fault a book about Greek mythology for transforming the plot and characters for its own purposes. But I didn't like a lot of them, mostly for personal reasons that don't really have that much bearing on whether the book was 'good' or 'bad' (for example, I've always imagined Ismene to be the older sister of Antigone).
Some things I really enjoyed about the book: the character of Jocasta. Haynes does a great job of adding complexity to an already intriguing figure. Jocasta's experiences and her reactions feel very realistic, and her relationship with Oedipus is by turns intoxicating and worrying in its intensity. Oedipus is depicted as a disarming, hot-headed youngster who sweeps into Jocasta's life at a crucial turning point. He is sometimes lovable, sometimes frustrating. I liked the additional of Sophon, the children's tutor, though I thought it was a little bit bizarre to split the seer Tiresias into two characters (Teresa, the antagonistic housekeeper telling a 'truth' that might just be lies, and Sophon, the benevolent, wise old man). Just having Tiresias appear as himself in all his eccentric wisdom might have been more interesting, especially since the truths and falsehoods behind polytheistic Greek religion come under a lot of scrutiny in the book - wouldn't having a central religious figure there, who is making correct points even as his religion is called into question, be an interesting addition?
The book was very readable and I did enjoy it, though I didn't love it.
However, I will comment on some decisions Haynes made that I do think had a bearing on the overall quality of the story.
Another thing I found perplexing and a bit infuriating was the characterisation of Antigone, particularly at the very beginning of the book. From the very first moment Ismene's POV describes her as ridiculing Ismene for running around 'like [a] barbarian', I had to pause and flip back a few pages, sure that I'd missed something and it was actually Antigone's POV, talking about Ismene. It made me think of Euripides' Phoenician Women, where Antigone drags her tutor up onto the roof of the palace just to see what's going on, while he worries about propriety. And the very first scene of Sophocles' Antigone has her racing out in public to tell Ismene of the edict Creon has issued. Though I definitely felt that her characterisation made a lot more sense towards the end, I felt like several of her qualities - and her actions - were unfairly transposed to Ismene.
Ismene is a fascinating figure from the Sophoclean Antigone precisely because she is initially practical, erring on the side of human caution, wanting to preserve what remains of her family and not risk her life to help the dead. She doesn't need to become Antigone to be a character equally as engaging and (almost as) iconic.
This is a good book if you're easily able to switch off the part of your brain that alerts you whenever a change to the myth is made that you don't personally agree with. I'd recommend it to anyone who has an interest in the Oedipus and Antigone myths, if only because you'll probably feel as excited as I did by the concept of new material about these stories! If you don't know the myth very well, it'll probably also be a pretty good read, although I'd highly recommend reading at least the Antigone, if not all of Sophocles' surviving Theban plays (Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, and Antigone). They're short, blisteringly good, and intensely moving and shocking even if you already know the most famous twists. -
The Children of Jocasta by
Natalie Haynes is very loosely based on the Theban plays of Sophocles. As Haynes acknowledges in her Afterward, she plays “fast and loose with the myth,” deviating in significant ways from the Oedipus/Antigone myth.
The novel shifts back and forth between two timelines, two perspectives, and two story lines. It opens with the first-person point of view of Ismene as the youngest child of Oedipus and Jocasta. Her mother is dead; her father is exiled; and her two brothers, with the assistance of their uncle Creon, rotate annually for the kingship of Thebes. Ismene’s story is replete with palace intrigue, including attempted assassinations; treason; the deaths of her two brothers; and the clandestine burial of Eteocles, the brother accused of treason. Ismene’s story ends with her heading to Corinth to seek her father.
The second timeline takes place years earlier. It unfolds in the third person-point of view with a focus on Jocasta. She is a fifteen-year-old betrothed to King Laius. Hers is an unhappy marriage that includes the presumed still-birth of her first child. After Laius’ death, Jocasta becomes queen, marries Oedipus, and has four children. Her thread ends with her death. The plague, known as “the reckoning,” plays a prominent role at the end of Jocasta’s reign.
Poetic license grants an author the right to modify a myth as he/she sees fit. But Haynes’ deviations are so significant that the novel bears little resemblance to the original. The Sphinx is transformed to a gang of armed robbers who attack travelers. Ismene, not Antigone as in the original, defies Creon and buries her brother. And Haynes’ decision to assign nicknames to the children is a jarring deviation. Ismene is Isy; Antigone is Ani; Eteocles is Eteo; Polyneices is Polyn; and Haemon is Haem. The incongruity of these nicknames leaps off the page, posing an unnecessary and baffling disruption.
The most problematic issue is with deviation from the very essence of the myth. The crux of the Oedipus myth hinges on incest and the discovery of the incest. Haynes chooses to reduce the incest to a mere rumor with no definitive proof. Oedipus summarily dismisses the rumor, attributing it to a wicked, old woman’s desire for revenge. Jocasta doesn’t dismiss it quite so readily, but she hangs herself without ever confirming its truth one way or the other. By casting doubt on the incest, Haynes has effectively stripped the myth of its reason for being. The unwitting incest forms the essential core of the story. Without it, the story of Oedipus, Jocasta, and their troubled progeny loses its dramatic intensity.
Haynes is to be commended for giving voice to Jocasta and Ismene and centralizing their experience. She succeeds in capturing palace life and the hustle and bustle of the city market in vivid, sensory detail. But the work suffers from lengthy expositions—too much telling and too little showing. The characters are underdeveloped, uninteresting mouthpieces. The dialog is strained and doesn’t flow naturally. The shouting match between Eteocles and Polyneices borders on the farcical. And by diminishing the incestuous relationship between Jocasta and Oedipus to nothing more than rumor-mongering, Haynes has obfuscated the very core of the myth and deprived it of its very essence and considerable power.
My book reviews are also available at
www.tamaraaghajaffar.com -
I wish authors of myth retellings would stop writing dialogue as if characters have been transplanted from a contemporary British soap opera set right into the drama of the Ancient world. Other than that, for someone familiar with the story, this was quite thrilling.
⇝ 3.5 stars -
"bize benzeyen tanrılar yaratıyoruz çünkü başka bir şey bilmiyoruz. Bu nedenle tanrılar bizim gibi değiller de daha ziyade bizim yarattığımız şeyler. Sophon eğer atlar birbiriyle konuşabilseydi atlara benzeyen tanrılar yaratırlardı diye düşünüyordu."
-
This is excellent.
You have to know the plays Antigone and Oedipus Rex before reading this, as it is a retelling of those stories from other perspectives, but it is a wonderful book.
Heatbreaking and incredibly researched, it paints the events of the two ancient plays and the people surrounding Oedipus in a different light and brings to the fore characters in those plays whose stories were not the focus in the original.
As a bit of a classics geek, I really enjoyed this. -
3.5⭐️
-
i swear everything by this woman is great please read her books!
-
Özellikle son yıllarda mitlerin, antik dönem anlatılarının, masalların kadın bakış açısıyla yazılması popüler hale geldi. Benim bu tarzda okuduğum en güzel örnekler de Akhilleus’un Şarkısı ve Ben Kirke. İokaste’nin Çocukları, Sophokles’in, Homeros’un ve başka isimlerin aktardığı bir tragedyanın anlatısı; Oidipus ve Antigone’un öyküsü. Bir yanda kaderden kaçınılamayacağının simgesi olan Oidipus ve bir tarafta yazılı kanunların üzerinde yerleşmiş kuralların olduğunu sonuna dek savunmuş Antigone. İokaste ise herkesi birleştiren ana parça olarak yerini alıyor. Yazar anlatmak için güzel hikayeler seçmiş ve klasik anlatıdan uzak durmaya da çalışmış. Ama yer yer okuması oldukça ağırlaşan bir kitaptı. Sanki sürekli bir şeyler eksikmiş gibi bir his uyandırdı. Etkileyicilikten uzak olduğunu ve yazım tarzının akıcı olmayı başaramadığı düşüncesine vardım. Kısa bir roman olmasına rağmen okumam gereğinden uzun sürdü. Sonu güzel bağlanmış ve hikayenin devamında neler olduğu merakı da uyandırdı. Ama açıkçası tiyatro metinlerini okumayı tercih edeceğim. Tiyatronun verdiği çarpıcılığı vermekten uzak olduğunu düşünüyorum. Oidipus’u okumamış olsam da hikayesini biliyorum ve başından sonuna dek çarpıcı bir öyküye sahip. Antigone’un hikayesine daha az hakimdim ama onun öyküsünün bir yas içerdiğini biliyordum. Bence kitap farklı yazılsaymış unutulmaz bir esere dönüşebilirmiş. Benim için ortalama bir okuma oldu ama hazır antik döneme yönelmişken Sophokles’in oyunlarını sırasıyla okumayı planladım.
-
I was pretty disappointed by this book. Natalie Haynes writes beautifully, and she obviously knows her topic very well, but I was bored for most of the book.
I appreciate the attention to details that makes the story feel real, but there was too many descriptions of what the characters were wearing (mostly tunics and sandals, because guess what, most people apparently wore tunics and sandals in ancient Greece!).
Jocasta was an interesting character but Ismene was extremely boring. We're told that she is smart and bookish but she never actually says or does anything smart. She spends most of the book locked up in the palace without having a clue about what's happening outside the gates.
This version of the myth of Oedipus rationalizes the story and sucks all the magic and drama out of it (so pretty much the best things about it). -
I gave it over half a read - 54% in my kindle. Honestly, if the Greeks had been this boring there'd be no myths at all.
