pothos.org

Hello to everyone from me, a new member.

Can I start by asking a question? That is: to whom, in your opinion, does Alexander appeal these days? More specifically, what sector of the public would be drawn to him either as an historical figure, a complex personality, an icon of doomed youth, or simply the protagonist in a tale that proves the adage 'truth is often stranger than fiction'?

I am interested in your views because my book, A Wind From The West, part one of a trilogy, has just appeared on Amazon Kindle. I know that the 'young adult' market is more interested in Homeric, Classical, and Mythological Greek stories than ever before. Scholars will read Curtius and Arrian, etc, but that is research --- if there's anything left to find out, that is --- and I am referring to fiction in the manner of Mary Renault and the like, but not that dreadful Valerio Manfredi and the equally awful Tom Holt.

You may ask why I did not research the market before the job of writing, but that would be to misunderstand the motivation; one writes for oneself, no other, so one's work has to stand on its own merits or not at all. I ask the question now only because when the writing is done, the marketing must begin.

I truly look forward to any views you may offer, and wish you all well.

BRENT.

Hi Brent,

Just a quick reply, but not to your actual question.

This should really go in the off-topic forum, but I'm going to leave it here for a bit, because others might wish to respond to your question.

I've downloaded the sample of your book, although I've only just done it so haven't read any of it yet.

Having some experience of Kindle self-publishing myself, can I advise you that your price is way too high for an unknown author. It's true that you might get a few sales at that price, but if I'm honest it's unlikely.

I'm happy to have more of a discussion about this, if you wish, but we shouldn't do it here, because this isn't the forum for it. Drop me a private message, if you wish.

All the best

I agree with Marcus, this thread should go into the off-topic forum. There are already several other threads on writing Alexander fiction which are well worth reading.

Brent Smith wrote:Hello to everyone from me, a new member. Can I start by asking a question? That is: to whom, in your opinion, does Alexander appeal these days?

That's the wrong question to ask.

To whom does a rat appeal?
If you write "Ratatouille", the answer is millions.

Which audience would like to go and see Alexander?
If you write Oliver Stone's screenplay, barely enough to pay the bills.

Oliver Stone's Alexander was a collection of anecdotes strung up in chronological order. By contrast, a story is a causally linked sequence of events, the progression and form of which encode a moral belief system. So write a good story around Alexander, and he will have universal appeal.

Chris.

From Brent Smith.

Thanks Marcus, thanks Chris, for your replies. At least I know now what the 'Off-Forum' section is for now; I did wonder. And Marcus, I will contact you direct on this question if that's O.K.
Cheers,
Brent.

One slight point, Oliver Stone's film was made into a turgid chronological string of anecdotes by following the prejudices of the American test audiences who can't cope with flashbacks! The Director's cut is better, but still flawed.

Robin Lane Fox was the expert consultant.

Other than that, the only observation I'd make is that Hollywood - as per normal - compressed history into a simple timeline and a "moral". I'm still to decide whether it was Fox's or Stone's (will ask Lane Fox when he turns up for ACSC 34 - in fact, that will not be the only thing I ask over several decent Antipodean reds: Mr Collins might also be taken aside for a chiliarch of drinks...). The stupid soliloquy whilst Heph spluttered in the background had to be down to Lane Fox as a decent filmmaker would never ......

Paralus wrote:The stupid soliloquy whilst Heph spluttered in the background had to be down to Lane Fox as a decent filmmaker would never ......

Oh, I'd have to disagree with you there. Oliver Stone is not a decent filmmaker, let alone a decent story-teller. A couple of examples -

He knows very little about staging a shot so that relevant information is portrayed in the background eg in the Philip wedding scene there is a head shot of Alexander arguing with his father. Sharing the shot with Colin Farrell is a very good-looking young man. Who is he? No one knows (I think he reappears fleetingly in the final banquet scene). That position should have been taken by one of Alexander's principle supporters, Hephaestion or Ptolemy or one of the other named charaters. It is a wasted shot, and because he's better-looking than Colin Farrell distracts the eye from him.

It took me three viewings of the original film to realise that the character standing by the bed of the dying Alexander was a younger Ptolemy from the preceeding prologue. Maybe I'm thick but I think it was because Oliver Stone didn't observe the rule of thirds (ie keeping the focal point of the scene in the same third of the screen from one scene to the next), he didn't have someone address the younger character so we knew for definite who it was, and didn't keep the voice-over going to the view of the younger Ptolemy saying something like 'Forty years ago at his deathbed...' so that thickos like me got the message.

Take as well when Alexander utters his great cry at Hephaestion's death. The film cuts to a view of the tiled walls of Babylon. Presumably that is meant to mean that his cry echoes around the palace. Why then when he storms along the corridor does the woman he pass barely get out of his way? She shows no fear or deference for the Great King, nor do the women in Roxanne's room. They only leisurely move out of his way. And Roxanne knows nothing about what has happened either. A good filmmaker should notice details like this as they contribute to the believability of the film.

Alexias wrote:

Paralus wrote:The stupid soliloquy whilst Heph spluttered in the background had to be down to Lane Fox as a decent filmmaker would never ......

Oh, I'd have to disagree with you there. Oliver Stone is not a decent filmmaker, let alone a decent story-teller.

Hence the "ironic trailing off":

Paralus wrote: ..a decent filmmaker would never ......

It was, from the compression to do Diodorus proud to the silly brotherhood of man theme (well instanced by the soliloquy), a poor film. If I were Ptolemy, I'd have killed him too. Anthony Hopkins didn't have that option with respect to Stone.

I feel obliged to point out that Stone has made other films than 'Alexander', all of which were better, 'Platoon', 'JFK', 'Nixon', for example; to judge him on 'Alexander' would be like judging Hitch on 'Under Capricorn' or Jean-Luc Goddard on any of his films!

Para', I will be coming back at you in 'The Road to Sardis' thread, just amassing my damp powder.

Brent Smith wrote:From Brent Smith.

Thanks Marcus, thanks Chris, for your replies. At least I know now what the 'Off-Forum' section is for now; I did wonder. And Marcus, I will contact you direct on this question if that's O.K.
Cheers,
Brent.

No probs, Brent - whenever you wish to.

ATB