\'Gates of Fire\' By Steven Pressfield

[john m roberts]

McCauliffe was an extremely strait-laced man. Apparently, "nuts" was about the strongest expletive he ever used. Incidentally, he attended my parents' wedding reception at Ft. Bragg.

[Narukami]

McCauliffe was an extremely strait-laced man. Incidentally, he attended my parents' wedding reception at Ft. Bragg.

Now that's an honor to be sure.

Narukami

[Zenodoros]

At least in the 300 comic the Spartans speak laconically, rather than how they do in Gates of Fire.

True!!
I read comics, and though I'm not into Frank Miller (at all), I did appreciate his dialogue in the 300 comic.

Frank Miller isn't too bad, I don't really like his writing style, but he's one of my favourite comic artists. I wish he had chosen a better appearance for the Spartans because if he'd drawn armoured hoplites with chitons rather than jocks, they would have looked very cool.

[Narukami]

Here is an old but none the less interesting interview with Steven Pressfield about Gates of Fire. His views on writers, research, and re-enactors are... well read and decide for yourself.


[size=150:1c5a2113]Gates of Fire[/size]

Richard Lee talks to Steven Pressfield about his new novel

Gates of Fire first came to my attention when it knocked Stephen King’s The Green Mile from the top of the Guardian UK bestsellers list in February last year. An unknown author, writing historical fiction, going straight in at the number one slot? It had to be good.

Gates of Fire tells the story of Thermopylae, one of the most famous of ancient battles. Notoriously, 300 Spartans along with no more than 7,000 allied Greeks, held off an attacking army of (Herodotus tells us) 2 million Persians for several days. The behaviour of all the Greeks was heroic, but that of the Spartans was absurdly so. In the end they died to the last man, refusing to surrender. But their self-sacrifice bought time for the Greek City States. What followed were the Persian defeats at Salamis and Plataea. Ancient and modern historians unite in seeing the battle as one of the great turning points.
Pressfield tells the story of Xeones, one of the survivors of the battle. He is taken, wounded, before Xerxes, and asked to explain “who were these foemen, who had taken with them to the house of the dead ten or, as some reports said, as many as twenty for every one of their own fallen?â€

[Polinik]

I suppose there is a Greek version of this book..I was wandering what is the exact name of it?

[Theo]

No one has any real idea HOW the ancients actually spoke to one another - we do not even know how Greek was pronounced. There is some intimation in various dramas that have come down to us but we've no real idea how ordinary people, Spartans or otherwise, conversed in the street or in the act of fighting.

Theo

[Polinik]

No one has any real idea HOW the ancients actually spoke to one another - we do not even know how Greek was pronounced. There is some intimation in various dramas that have come down to us but we've no real idea how ordinary people, Spartans or otherwise, conversed in the street or in the act of fighting.

Theo

Exactly.I will stress this for a hundredth time: We,today (not to say "historians") tend to oversimplify ancients,exaggerate those few known facts, and worst of all make anecdotes into rules...We absolutely love the last one.
Some woman said "? ??? ? ??? ???" , it was written and now millions,especially ones who learn history from Hollywood think every single Spartan mother said the exact same sentence to her departing son. Some Spartan woman was not killed because she cheated husband,and today the "fact" is Spartan women went around sleeping with everyone and husband even encouraged it????COME ON!!!?? Homosexuality and extent of historian idiocy in for example poorly understood terms like "lover",ant then making up the whole soap opera scenario story to agree with that bad translation is not even worth mentioning...

The Spartans were seen and described by outsiders as men of few words, not keen of oratorship...That does not mean one simple sentence was the most any Spartan was allowed,or wanted to say..especially to one another. Xenophobia or simply dislike of others or whatever you like to call it, probably made them use less words when addressing strangers. And it made an image of laconic Spartans. I do the same thing today, and someone who does not know me might get a wrong picture...But saying excellent book is bad because Spartans say more than 4 words in a sentence,or just saying in any way 300 idiocy is good...leaves me speechless???

Worst is millions and millions of young Americans and others all around the world, think the same way, having completely wrong picture of Sparta, without even knowing in what part of world Greece is. That comic author,as well as director of that "movie" 300,made probably irreparable damage to both Spartan and Greek history..I wish so much they have never heard of Thermopylae.

[Narukami]

I take your points Aleksandar. The power of film to shape and influence ideas and beliefs never ceases to amaze me.

That said, I hope we do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Indeed, the recent film has some real issues as history, as political polemic, as commentary on race and culture, but as a piece of cinematic art is does have some merits. The director and his production design team took the lead in Digital Cinema pioneered by George Lucas and pushed it even further.

300 is more a Kabuki Play than a Historic film. The Greeks and Persians are dancing, not fighting in any "realistic" manner.

The problem is really with the viewer and by that I mean to say the audiences are, generally speaking, not well educated in either history or in the art of the cinema.

When I watch a Kabuki play I know I'm not watching history, but rather a highly theatrical interpretation or comment on an event. The Japanese actually luxuriate in the frank theatricality of the kabuki -- there is no pretense at naturalism in either the acting or the staging let alone in the story itself. There is almost a childlike innocence to it all. And yet they manage to touch deeply and comment sharply on the human condition.

In 1968 the Grand Kabuki toured the United States performing several classic plays including Kumagai's Battlecamp which was written in 1751 and is set during the Gempie Wars of 1180-85. Even so reviewers here in the US saw the play as a commentary on our then current involvement in the Vietnam War, something the play's authors could not have intended. Other plays have had the same power, to reach across the ages and be relevant to the contemporary times. Shakespeare comes to mind, and of course the great plays of the ancient Geeks still speak to us.

With film however we have this problem of naturalism in both acting and staging -- there is this pretense that what we are watching is real, honest, authentic, and accurate when of course the very fact that it is projected larger than life undercuts that "realism" from the very start. Cinema is anything but real, and here we enter into the realm of Quantum Physics -- does they very act of observation change what is observed? Does the presence of the camera change the very nature of what it is filming?

Now, I am not advocating that we give all film a "free Pass," quite the opposite -- we should hold these artists to a high standard particularly when the film makers themselves pontificate about how their film will be the first honest portrayal of an event (as Steven Spielberg did with his film Saving Private Ryan).

To the best of my knowledge the director of 300 did not make any claims that his film was anything more than a full motion rendition of the Frank Miller comic book (itself based upon the 1962 film The 300 Spartans). Of course that did not stop others, like professor Victor Davis Hanson, from attaching all sorts of contemporary issues and interpretations onto the film, and it seems the film's director added some interpretations of his own.

As a piece of cinema I appreciate the technical skill with which it was made (Production Design, Art Direction, etc) even though I do not agree with all of the choices the production team made. (I think the Immortals look great and they would have been perfect in The Lord Of The Rings films.) On the other hand, the message of the film, the film as political polemic, I find not only childishly simplistic but actually reprehensible.

Many who saw this film will leave the theatre "jazzed" about the blood and action, pumped up by this extended music video and then promptly forget about it. However, far too many impressionable and undiscriminating consumers will think "This is how it was."

The story of Thermopylae is an amazing story and one that should be told, but on this point Aleksandar I quite agree with you -- the film 300 does a disservice to that story.

My apologies for waxing over long on this -- my passions run high when you bring together the volatile mix of history and cinema. :oops:

:wink:

Narukami

[PMBardunias]

I will stress this for a hundredth time: We,today (not to say "historians") tend to oversimplify ancients,exaggerate those few known facts, and worst of all make anecdotes into rules...

This was exactly my problem with Gates of Fire, a book I generally liked. Pressfield took the notion of sparta as a "barracks state" and made the characters interact like US marines in a barracks. In my opinion this was a mistake. Spartiates were not like american conscript soldiers, they were far more like the Victorian officer class if we must have a modern model.

As to 300, you mean that the Spartans did not shout every sentence at the top of their lungs? :roll:

[Narukami]

Pressfield took the notion of sparta as a "barracks state" and made the characters interact like US marines in a barracks. In my opinion this was a mistake. Spartiates were not like american conscript soldiers, they were far more like the Victorian officer class if we must have a modern model.

As to 300, you mean that the Spartans did not shout every sentence at the top of their lungs? :roll:

Indeed so -- the line I liked was "His face turned red like a tomato." Oh...?

As for the line delivery in 300 -- Hollywood Spartans like Hollywood Romans are a species of creature all of their own. :?

:wink:

Narukami

[olymartin]

On the title page it states 'an epic NOVEL', not 'an epic historical reference book'. I thought it was a great read, but, even though I am no expert on Greek/ Spartan history, I never thought for one minute that I was reading a 'that's how it was' account of the events of the time. I took it for what it is - entertainment. On the notion that too many of the public think that this sort of thing, along with Hollywood 'historical' movies, are telling history how it was, I would take some issue with. After the release of the film 'Gladiator', one of the most asked questions I had as a Roman reenactor (and still often get) is 'how accurate is Gladiator?' (I would imagine it is the same for other Roman reenactors - isn't it?). Obviously none of these people took it at face value, and I am sure it would be the same for most people and most 'historical' films. I know there must be many, probably too many, people out there that think this sort of thing is real - so fellow reenactors, historians and the like, let's get out there and help educate them. It's what we do.

[Polinik]

Narukami, thank you for your answer.
I do agree but I have to admit that I personally have zero tolerance to naming that kind of entertainment by historical people and events. Because in no advertise,trailer or poster did it said "this is pure fiction with having nothing to do with history except names and events"...I did not see the need to make this kind of movie about this kind of event.It was wrong.

Paul, my thoughts exactly..The only thing is with book we have our imagination working,and we can shape Pressfield's words with our own knowledge about this subject..And/or skip the lines like "I could see his crimson cloak in the first line of battle" :roll: ..And ten men will make ten different pictures in their heads...Just see artwork we post,almost none is the same,and we all used more or less same historical accounts and read.With movie there is no shaping.

Spartiates were not like american conscript soldiers, they were far more like the Victorian officer class if we must have a modern model.

I am sorry but could you please clarify this to me,what you mean...As I don't have any knowledge who Victorian officers are.How did they behave? :oops:
Thank you

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would definately not compare them to Victorian officers....no matter how fond they may have been of the classical world. :roll:

[PMBardunias]

I am sorry but could you please clarify this to me,what you mean...As I don't have any knowledge who Victorian officers are.How did they behave?

One thing that seems to have been true of Spartiate society is that , as in many warrior cultures like the Samurai, they had what we would call "good manners". In a culture where all the adult men and to some extent the women are trained to kill, manners and outward displays of respect serve to stave off conflict. Young men are said to have passed by their elders with downcast eyes, and I'm sure you know the story about Spartans giving up their seat to those older- "All men know what to do, but only Spartans do it."

This is what I did not get from the book. His Spartans interacted like American GI's. Watch one of the iconic WWII movies like Guadalcanal Diary to see what I mean. Then watch the movie 'Zulu' and see how the officers, and particularly the Sergeant interact- as opposed to the inlisted men. It is very different. Comparisons such as this should not be taken too far, because Sparta was unique in history, but you can also watch a Samurai film to see the extremity of such a mannered society.

[Polinik]

I am sorry but could you please clarify this to me,what you mean...As I don't have any knowledge who Victorian officers are.How did they behave?

One thing that seems to have been true of Spartiate society is that , as in many warrior cultures like the Samurai, they had what we would call "good manners". In a culture where all the adult men and to some extent the women are trained to kill, manners and outward displays of respect serve to stave off conflict. Young men are said to have passed by their elders with downcast eyes, and I'm sure you know the story about Spartans giving up their seat to those older- "All men know what to do, but only Spartans do it."

This is what I did not get from the book. His Spartans interacted like American GI's. Watch one of the iconic WWII movies like Guadalcanal Diary to see what I mean. Then watch the movie 'Zulu' and see how the officers, and particularly the Sergeant interact- as opposed to the inlisted men. It is very different. Comparisons such as this should not be taken too far, because Sparta was unique in history, but you can also watch a Samurai film to see the extremity of such a mannered society.

Oh,I understand now.Thank you..I agree also.Now I think about it,you have a point...