Alexander the midget. see what you guy think

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
davej
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 12:43 am

Alexander the midget. see what you guy think

Post by davej »

Hi all the old timers, MArcus, Carl, Sikander etc,
Its been a while since I have post. Familiar old story , I am just too busy. My father read this article and gave it to me for comment. See what you guys think. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 02,00.html
susan
Somatophylax
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:41 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Alexander the midget. see what you guy think

Post by susan »

Hi DaveIt's good to see you on the forum again . I enjoyed the article very much - written with Australian directness, I thought. Thanks for posting it !RegardsSusan
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Alexander the midget. see what you guy think

Post by marcus »

Hi Dave,Excellen to hear from you again - will you be sticking around for a while, now?Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it immensely. Of course, I grimaced somewhat over some of the comments, but the guy doesn't pull his punches, does he? :-)All the bestMarcus
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
S

Re: Alexander the midget. see what you guy think

Post by S »

Greetings Dave,I read the article and while this might put me in a minority, I found it wanting. I dislike sarcasm and cynicism passing as wit and I dislike when people bend facts or interpret them loosely to support a particular bias or point of view. More importantly, I find it of concern when authors write in this style because of the influence the written word has on how the readers will "see" the person written about- the same objection I have to historically inaccurate movies. Taking this author's approach, I could successfully write a negative article about any single figure in history- and I do mean *any* historical figure, so I have to wonder what the point is. It would not be so bothersome if the author indicated this view was his/her own *opinion* but
this is not done. Instead, the author writes as though his/her interpretations are *fact* and accepted by all *as* fact, and it is that I find irresponsible.Regards,
Sikander
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Alexander the midget. see what you guy think

Post by amyntoros »

Though I also found this article amusing, I agree with you about authors bending facts and interpreting them loosely. It's part of a trend of being very selective in what they take from the sources, i.e., writing only about that which supports their opinions and excluding anything that might make an uninformed reader question the "facts" as they present them. Paul Cartlege's book is a good example of this, though again I thought it amusing. And I'm quite bemused at how often I've seen negative epithets written as if they were literary "sound bites" seeming only to be present because they make good quotes, such as "Alexander the midget."Other examples - Victor Davis Hanson in The Wars of the Ancient Greeks calls Alexander, Philip's "brooding and mostly unbalanced son," and Paul Doherty in his abysmal (in my opinion) The Death of Alexander the Great says, "Alexander emerges on to the political scene as a ruthless, ambitious, self-centered prig."Of course, it isn't only the hostile writers who are guilty of selective interpretation. There is a web page from the Hellenic News of America which has an open letter to Oliver Stone, written by Nikos Martis, a former government minister. http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.ht ... &lang=USIt includes only the most carefully selected positive excerpts from Alexander's life and quite literally makes him a god among men. I amuse myself by imagining Hanson and Martis locked up in a room together and being told to debate on Alexander. Now that would be something worth seeing. :-)Linda Ann
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Alexander the midget. see what you guy think

Post by marcus »

Well, I suspect that Paul Doherty cribbed that line from another book he'd read. As far as I can tell he's never read the sources properly, least of all for his new book, so he can't have come to that conclusion by himself.I suspect he read Ian Worthington and decided that was all he needed to do. :-)All the bestMarcus
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
S

Re: Alexander

Post by S »

Greetings Amyntoros,>Of course, it isn't only the hostile writers who are >guilty of selective interpretation.Of course, it isn't only the hostile writers who are >guilty of selective interpretation.Of course, it isn't only the hostile writers who are >guilty of selective interpretation.guilty of selective interpretation.guilty of selective interpretation.I quite agree. I am as put off by those who would see Alexander as an infallible god.Heroic, yes. Tragically human, definitely. Triumph and tragedy tied into one person, absolutely. And then that one small "something" that was different.. Despite her detractors, Renault said it best when she said no one has more right to be judged by the standards of his own time than Alexander. And though many think she admired him while excusing his faults, she *did* recognize his flaws- she just saw them in a different light than many; her perspective (which was *not* based on her own orientation as much as many think) was relatively unique. Perhaps that is why she has yet to be "bested" in the novels department when it comes to bringing the times alive. This is interesting because so many writers are at the moment attempting to write the "newer, better" Alexander novel to try to discover/explain his nature but they do not realize that, until they learn to see outside their own time, place, mores, values and culture, Alexander's nature/character/personality will remain elusive.
Just writing about a time does not take you outside your own!Or as a wise friend once said "When I think about writing an historical character, I remind myself that first I must step outside myself and my world, then I must step into the other persons world completely. Only then can I begin to write that person." The same holds true for those who would understand Alexander.Regards,
Sikander
Linda
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 3:57 pm

Re: Alexander

Post by Linda »

It is hard to see what the author is accusing Alexander of...being short? No-one said he was Jesus (who also lost his temper a bit, every now and then...). "Warrior kills people...."Actually, if I killed my best friend, razed a city and thought myself a god, I would be pleased if the worst anyone called me was "git". :) Gits take your parking space, or push in in front of you at the bar..Thanks for the article, though, Dave.
S

Re: Alexander

Post by S »

Greetings Linda, >It is hard to see what the author is accusing Alexander of...being short? No-one said he was Jesus >(who also lost his temper a bit, every now and >then...). "Warrior kills people...."It is hard to see what the author is accusing Alexander of...being short? No-one said he was Jesus >(who also lost his temper a bit, every now and >then...). "Warrior kills people...."It is hard to see what the author is accusing Alexander of...being short? No-one said he was Jesus >(who also lost his temper a bit, every now and >then...). "Warrior kills people...."(who also lost his temper a bit, every now and >then...). "Warrior kills people...."(who also lost his temper a bit, every now and >then...). "Warrior kills people...."then...). "Warrior kills people...."then...). "Warrior kills people...."I cannot help remembering "The defects of great men are the consolation of dunces". >Actually, if I killed my best friend, razed a city and thought myself a god, I would be pleased if the worst anyone called me was "git". :)Actually, if I killed my best friend, razed a city and thought myself a god, I would be pleased if the worst anyone called me was "git". :)Actually, if I killed my best friend, razed a city and thought myself a god, I would be pleased if the worst anyone called me was "git". :)True. However, I would debate the statement "best friend", debate the "thought {himself} a god" and would go along with "raze a city" but with the understanding that razing and conquest tends to be what warrior cultures,societies that depend on conquest for survival (or the dollars, pounds, rupees or what have you), do.. Regards,
Sikander
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Alexander the midget. see what you guy think

Post by marcus »

Hi Sikander,As a rule I do agree with you about misrepresentation etc. On the other hand, as I know full well that this sort of thing is *always* going to happen, I try not to let it affect me and just enjoy something (if it's humorous enough).I know sarcasm is supposed to be the lowest form of wit ... I confess to enjoying it, though, which perhaps makes me the lowest form of wit myself :-)All the bestMarcus
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Halil

Re: Alexander ...

Post by Halil »

Sarcasm is an unkind form of humour, designed to hurt. As such, I tend to agree with Sikander, Aristotle and others in their dislike of it. It would be fun to do a rebuttal of this article after the manner of Cyrano but I'm deep into some seriously, heavy IT lit.
Post Reply