szz's Full Review: Steven Pressfield - Gates Of Fire
The historical novel Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield has received almost universally good reviews. It received outstanding reviews in both the New York Times and the New York Times Book Review, and good reviews in The New Yorker and USA Today. As of the 28th of January 1999, Gates of Fire was listed on Amazon.com as the 41st best selling new novel in their fiction section, and as the 8th best selling novel in their historical fiction section. On barnesandnoble.com I found excerpts from reviews in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and The Publisher, all positive. Some of them are lyrical in their praise.
Gates of Fire is about the much-celebrated attempt by 300 Spartans including their king Leonidas and a few thousand allied Greeks, to defend the seaside pass of Thermopylae against an invading Persian army under the Persian king, Xerxes, in 480BC. The original source for this three-day battle is the Greek historian Herodotus. The principal character and narrator in the novel is a Greek named Xeones, who, though badly wounded and dying, is the only Greek survivor of the battle.
Gates of Fire addresses multiple themes including leadership, loyalty, duty, freedom, courage, and the place of the military and military discipline in the life of a country and its citizens. Themes that are important today, and were important 2500 years ago, in a seemingly simpler time. A time when the defense of the pass at Thermopylae did, in fact, make the difference between freedom and slavery for Classical Greece.
The author of Gates of Fire provides answers to some of the questions it raises. Some of those answers may be correct. But, the wooden writing, the cardboard characters, and the poor to non-existent editing trivialize all the answers presented.
I actually read this book – which is something many reviewers apparently did not bother to do. It is a lousy book. It is the worst example of historical fiction I have ever read. It is so bad, that at first I wondered whether it might be a literary joke. Now I am sure it is. But not in the way I first thought.
Why do I think Gates of Fire is so bad? I have many "literary" reasons, and one important philosophical reason. Let me get those literary reasons out the way first.
Inconsistency
The part of the book review from The New York Times says that Gates of Fire "has a feeling of authenticity about it from beginning to end." Authenticity implies – among other things - consistency "from beginning to end." But, the first problem I noticed while reading Gates of Fire was the author’s refusal to keep a concept, thought or motivation consistent from chapter to chapter, let alone from paragraph to paragraph.
For an example of inconsistency on a grand scale, consider the arrival of the Greek army at Thermopylae before the battle. This event is described by Xeones twice in the book. On page 11 we are told that the "[The advanced troops] discovered, incredibly, two parties of spa-goers." (Greeks who are wealthy enough to visit a spa, but apparently do not believe that a little war should interfere with their annual cure.) On page 216 we are given a completely different description. The Greek army advances through "country utterly denuded and abandoned." Almost abandoned; this time when they arrived at Thermopylae they encounter not spa-goers, but "denizens" from two local villages who "had erected makeshift commercial ventures." In this second description the spa-goers and the spa are not even mentioned.
The inconsistency described in the previous paragraph takes place in passages separated by 200 pages. I guess I could assume that the narrator, who is wounded and telling the story over a period of days, got confused? Well, consider another example that happens over the space of two pages. On page 14 a character named Bruxieus is introduced. We are told that, "At 10 feet he is as blind as a stump" – whatever that means. I take it to mean he is more nearsighted than I am, which is pretty bad. But, at the bottom of page 15, Bruxieus is presented watching the training maneuvers of a Greek army from the top of a city wall and commenting on the excellent alignment of the soldiers. A single character can not be nearly blind and, simultaneously, able to see hundreds of feet! Certainly, no miracle cure is suggested between these two passages.
How about inconsistency in a single paragraph? The following passage appears on page 87:
"When Alexandros spoke to the helots on the road, he had queried them for intelligence on the specific makeup of the Syrakusan forces; which units, under which commanders, reinforced by which auxiliaries. The helots didn’t know. In any army other than the Spartan, such ignorance would have provoked a fierce tongue-lashing or worse. Yet Alexandros let it go without a thought. Among the Lakedaemonians, it is considered a matter of indifference of whom and what the enemy consists."
Did he care or did he not care? All I can conclude is that the author himself decided not to decide.
One more inconsistency and I will move on. What metal were the Spartan swords and spear tips made of? Sometimes it’s "steel" (pages 51, 108, 226, 258, 268, 272, 281, 305, 309, and 378) and sometimes it’s "iron" (pages 55, 56, 101, 105, 215, 247, 257, 274, and 309). I found the changes unsettling, especially the change from a steel sword to an iron sword in two successive sentences on page 309.
(Did Classical Greeks in fact mix weapons made using different types of metal? For swords, the answer is no. Greek swords were always made of iron. For spear tips, they did use two types of metal around the time of Thermopylae; some were made of iron, and some of bronze! However, maybe I should be more forgiving here, since the author is, at least, unbiased in his belief in the magical ability of metals to change under stress. Persian arrows are launched skyward on page 251 tipped with bronze, and land on page 266 tipped with iron.)
Historical Inaccuracy
Of course, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Let's consider historical accuracy. I mean, this a "historical novel" isn’t it? Part of The New Yorker review describes the novel as "historically accurate," while The Publisher’s review states that the book "weaves history, mystery, and heartbreaking romance into a literary page-turner that brings the Homeric tradition into the twenty-first century." I did some simple research into the history of the Greco-Persian wars and the battle of Thermopylae, and that research did not give me confidence in the accuracy of the novel.
Consider "Tommie." Tommie is an important character on the other side, the Persian side. He is an Egyptian "marine;" an officer normally stationed on a Phoenician warship in the service of the Persians. Now, I have to give the author credit here; Egyptian marines are actually mentioned in Herodotus - on Egyptian ships, not on Phoenician ships – but that is a small point. It is just about everything else about this character that is suspect.
Tommie is first introduced meeting by accident a Spartan embassy to the island of Rhodes, four years before the battle of Thermopylae. (This dating is given on page 236. That dating clashes g clashes with the dating given on page 47, which sets the meeting during the same year as the battle.) This Egyptian marine – his real name is Ptammitechus, which sounds like "Tommie" to Spartans - urges the Spartans to submit to Persian rule by telling them how benign and economically rewarding that rule is.
Furthermore, according to Tommie, Persian rule is peaceful. In fact, he tells the Spartans on page 50 that "subjects of Xerxes do not contend one against the other as you Hellenes love so to do." This is a significant historical lapse. It isn’t even true. Four years before Thermopylae, the Persians were just finishing putting down a major revolt in Egypt. After which, "[Xerxes] reduced the country to a condition of worse servitude than it had ever been in the previous reign…." And then sent his own brother-in-law off to "smash" another revolt rebellion in Babylon. After that second revolt rebellion was put down, "the whole country was looted and ravaged."
The historical fact of the Egyptian revolt makes a positive attitude towards Persia expressed by any Egyptian four years before Thermopylae difficult to believe. Yes, Tommie could have represented a pro-Persian faction in Egypt. Except that there were enough trade connections around the Aegean at that time – including Greeks serving as mercenaries in the Persian army - that historically accurate Spartans would certainly have questioned Tommie about one revolt or the other, or both. (Depending, of course, on whether the meeting takes place four years before Thermopylae or during the he same year!)
The serious nature of the Egyptian revolt also makes it impossible to believe that, during the invasion of Greece, Egyptians would form part of the Persian royal bodyguard. Or that Tommie would be advising Xerxes on foreign policy issues. But both happen in this novel.
Still, what are a few mistakes in historical accuracy? Especially mistakes in geo-politics? They do not take anything away from this very personal story do they? They do in this book. In Gates of Fire the 300 Spartans fight and die for freedom; apparently for the pure essence of freedom. A freedom that makes no compromises and will not accept even the light hand of Persian rule described by Tommie. This theme is at the core of the novel, so the presentation of it must be done well for the novel to be believable.
The Egyptian character is introduced to convey to the Greeks and to the readers of the novel (on page 51 and again starting on page 236) that there is a fallback position for the Spartans, and possibly for all Greeks. A fallback position that will leave them richer, with local freedom, and with fewer small wars to fight. A fallback position that will allow the Spartans to fight some really big wars for the Persians, if they still want to fight.
I understand "Tommie’s purpose in the novel. Some way to make real the options open to the Greeks is needed besides long-winded speeches by the Spartan King. But why an Egyptian? Why not a Persian marine? Why not a Phoenician marine? Or a Lydian marine? Better yet, why not an Ionian Greek marine?
An appeal from a Greek happily serving the Persians would be more likely to tempt the Spartans, thereby reinforcing their own stronger dedication to freedom. And, this choice would allow the author to present the various meetings between Spartans and Tommie without the use of interpreters. (Especially that second meeting at which the interpreter is Tommie’s son, who happens to speak "excellent Attic Greek.")
Why pick the one nationality that any graduate student of classical studies would know was the one nationality not to use? Why pick the one nationality which most argues against the words put in the character’s mouth by the author?
Anyway, the use of an Ionian Greek would be easier to believe, because by the time of the first meeting at Rhodes, the great Ionian revolt against benign Persian rule, which started the whole cycle of Greco-Persian wars, was then 9 years in the past.
Physically Impossible
According to Publishers Weekly, in Gates of Fire, "The terrifying spectacle of classical infantry battle becomes vividly clear…." Not really; according to the narrator, Greeks in the early 5th century BC could handle any amount of physical damage and pain which did not kill them, and keep on fighting. If anything, this makes classical infantry battles relatively pleasant compared to 20th century battles.
Although there are many examples, I will fully describe only the battle wounds suffered by a Corinthian soldier, encountered on page 56. First, he has a sword thrown (sic) at him that impales itself in the bones of his face and reaches into his throat. Then, after he is knocked to the ground, a Spartan drives a spearhead into his stomach. Next, that same Spartan "grabbed the butt-spike end of someone’s [spear, and drove it] right through his groin all the way into the ground, nailing him there." Finally, another Spartan hacks "half the top of his head off." After which the Corinthian gets up, still dangerous and definitely not nailed to the ground. (This guy should have been a Spartan!)
In the book, the Corinthian does not actually die until finally pierced with 3 javelins. Three, thrown by the same person, "one after the other." The first two javelins go "through the Corinthian monster’s liver and out his back," without killing him. And no, there is no suggestion that this just a soldier's "tall-tale." (By the way, it is not made clear that the Corinthian is ever actually dead. He just goes down again. Maybe he is a version of one of those characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who gets killed off horribly in one episode, and shows up unexpectedly in the next episode?)
There are at least two examples in Gates of Fire where Greek soldiers hold their intestines in with one hand while continuing to fight with the other. And in one case picks up and carries someone off the battlefield with his free hand (page 363). There is even a case where a soldier first hobbles and then crawls back into battle after one of his legs has been chopped off (page 308). The presentation of these events does not dramatize classical infantry battles; they trivialize them. If classical Greeks – unlike 20th century soldiers – do not fear being wounded in battle as well as being killed and do not experience pain when they are wounded, then this novel has little to tell us about our times. Certainly nothing to tell us about war.
Let’s look at one more physically impossible event. On page 344 the destruction of Athens by the Persians is described. Because the Persians have a large army, it is an easy task. "An incendiary brigade of 120,000 men there dressed at double-arms interval and advanced across the capital, putting [everything] to the torch." By my calculations a line of 120,000 men at "double-arms interval" would stretch over 110 miles, long enough to reach clear across Los Angeles or Houston. (Also, Los Angeles and Houston have lots of buildings, which would make them hard to advance across in a linear formation. Classical Athens would have presented a similar, if much smaller, problem.)
Anachronisms
Now, how about a few anachronisms? I am going to do anachronisms even though no reviewer said that they did not occur in the novel, and ignoring the identification of Thermopylae as a "spa" on page 11, which I regard as too easy. Anachronisms in this novel are simply too much fun to ignore. Try this one on; after the Greek army arrives at Thermopylae and is arguing where in the pass to rebuild an old defensive wall, one Greek commander "produced an actual drawn-to-scale blueprint." Look on page 219 if you do not believe me.
Ready for another? On page 78 a Spartan training method is described which sounds like a mixture of advanced yoga and T'ai Chi. Each exercise in this training "[focuses] upon a separate nexus of the nervous system." Are the readers supposed to deduce from this passage that Greek medicine understood the human nervous system in 480BC? Well, it didn’t. One hundred and eighty years later, in Alexandria in Egypt, the city founded by Alexander the Great, Herophilus, "was the first to grasp the nature of the nerves, …though he did not separate them clearly from tendons."
The author also expects both Classical Greeks and Persians and modern readers to know which bones in the hand the narrator is referring to when he describes them as the "central metacarpals" on page 39. For those of you who have not studied anatomy recently, the metacarpals are the bones extending through the hand from the wrist to the knuckles.
The location of these bones is of some importance, because the narrator, Xeones, goes on to tell us on page 79 that, because of a wound which shattered "both central metacarpals" in his right hand, he "would never hold a spear nor grip a sword." He then goes off to live with the Spartans, and to fight in the Greek army on the last day at Thermopylae, holding "in my right hand the heavy haft of the [spear] which had last been Dorien’s" (page 362). Except, wait! I am getting confused here. This is the section on anachronisms, not inconsistency.
Some Answers
I can go on and on complaining. Virtually any page you happen to look at in Gates of Fire has something to complain about. Which made me wonder originally about the writer, the editor and the publisher. Did someone go out of their way to insult the readers of this book? "Drawn-to-scale blueprints" in 480BC? Who is going to write something like that unless they intend to write badly? Still, I think I have an answer to this question, which does not include a deliberately bad writer.
The answer is a writer who has already sold the movie rights to the book to Universal Studios. A writer who is using the book as the first or second draft of a film script to star George Clooney. This also explains that Egyptian marine. We can not expect people in Hollywood to know where Persia is or where Ionia is, but we can expect them to know where Egypt is. Probably.
Does it Really Matter?
Yes, it does. And not just because of the inconsistencies, or the historical mistakes, or the anachronisms. It is okay that I am the only person who cares enough to write about them. Mostly, it matters because reviewers and regular readers alike are claiming that Gates of Fire has something to tell us, today, about the nature of war and violence. And, something to tells us about the nobility of the Greeks who were willing and, in this book, even eager to experience it.
How can a book, in which hacking half the top of someone’s head off does not kill him, tell us anything about the horror of war? Or a book in which no wounded person fears the gangrene or lockjaw likely to follow even superficial wounds? (And is never even shown to suffer from one of those horrible and painful diseases?) Or, in which no one mentions the sickening smell of thousands of dead Persians lying on top of one another in the narrow pass of Thermopylae for 3 summer days?
How can an author, who has the narrator stop at the end of the first day of the fighting at Thermopylae to compare the exhausted, wounded and blood stained Greeks to "a frieze on a temple wall" (page 270), be serious about telling us how horrible war is?
How can any book with claims to revealing something about how nasty war is, fail to mention "fear induced defecation?" Something, which was a well-known phenomenon of classical warfare - so well known that it, gets mentioned in Classical Greek plays. And something that remains a well-known phenomena of modern war. It probably is possible to make a character in a novel appear noble with s… running down his legs, but that would take more literary art than the author of Gates of Fire shows in this particular book.
Consider the following quote from a recent book about the experiences of American soldiers in Vietnam,
"Without an accurate conception of danger we cannot comprehend war and cannot properly value the moral structure of an army. We must grasp what is at stake: lethal danger and the fear of it."
Despite lectures about war and country by various characters in the book, Gates of Fire does not leave the reader feeling that the author, or the narrator, or any other characters understood "lethal danger and the fear of it." (Of course, in my case, that might have been because I was too busy laughing! Unfortunately, most of the people reading this book do not appear to be getting the jokes.)
In fact, this book could not have been published in the 1970s or 1980s. Not only because of the anti-war attitude of that time; but because so many potential reviewers and readers would have had experienced the real thing – in World War II or Korea, if not in Vietnam - and recognized that this book does not reflect it.
Those Reviews
Since Gates of Fire is selling well, the author, the author’s agent, and the book’s editor and publisher can ignore my complaints, laughing all the way to the bank. Given the current interest in movies with military themes, they will also be counting royalties for years to come. They threw out something for the reading public without wasting much effort on it, and got away with it.
But, what about those professional reviews in journals and magazines I mentioned earlier? Are not those reviewers paid to read the book before they write about it? What does it mean when they either do not read something they are supposed to review, or read it, and then ignore all of its problems?
I do not have a complete answer for this question. Part of the answer must be work pressure; there are only so many people judged qualified to review an historical novel set in Classical Greece with a military theme. The reviewer for The New York Times, for example, does several book reviews a week, while I have had days to go over Gates of Fire and savor every inconsistency and every mistake.
Part of the problem for some reviewers must be space constraints. One reviewer of Gates of Fire, who is regularly asked to review books, told me that she was constrained to describe both what Gates of Fire was about and its good and/or bad points in no more than 750 words. I am using about 5 times as many words in this review.
But I do not have a complete answer. The lousy writing and inconsistencies in the book jump out of the pages. And these failings were not noticed, or, at least not reported, in any of the reviews I read. Maybe the answer says something deep and important about the western civilization at the end of the 20th century, but I do not know what that something is.
Should You Buy the Book?
I will now admit that the book has one tremendous redeeming feature; it is wonderful fun to read passages from it out loud to anyone who knows that blueprints were not invented in Classical Greece! This can provide hours of entertainment. The way we did it at my house was to pass the book around the table after dinner. Each person holding the book was required to find something new to read out loud, while everyone else chuckled over the previous person’s recitation. If you have friends or family who would enjoy this type of social activity, you might seriously consider buying the novel. But, wait for it to come out in paperback. Then buy just one copy for everyone.
Conclusion
I planned to finish this article by giving the single quote from the book that I found most entertaining. But, I had trouble picking one winner, so I finally selected two, one from page 31 and one from page 255.
Around page 31 Xeones and two companions are wandering around the Greek countryside at night, stealing sheep. The shepherds on guard have bows and excellent night vision, night vision almost as good as the narrator’s. While fleeing after being discovered, Xeones reports that, "arrows would whiz past us in the dark. We stopped to grab them and soon had quite a cache." (I think that "stopped" means that they ran over to where the arrows landed and picked them up. My wife insists that they just stopped and grabbed the arrows out of the air, since they would not be able to see where they landed in the dark.)
On page 255, a Spartan officer is encouraging men who are not yet engaging the Persians by delivering a commentary on the ongoing battle. "… It’s a grouse shoot. Fish in a net. Listen to me! When our turn comes, the enemy will be ready to cave. I can hear him cracking now. Remember: we’re going in for a boxer’s round. In and out. Nobody dies. No heroes. Get in, kill all you can, then get out when the trumpets sound." Who could have put it better?
Historical - General Fiction - Tells the story of tthe Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., when 300 warriors of Sparta held back an overwhelming number...More at Barnes and Noble
Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie. Nearly 2,500 years ago, in 480BC, at a bleak pass in a far-flung...More at Alibris
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.