Eddis, Attolia, Sounis

I think Attolia's actually acknowledged, (somewhere in QoA I think), that her beauty will fade. Gen is a better person than that I think, and despite his joke in QoA, and Heiro's elder sister in KoA, would never consider taking a mistress.

Thanks for the film recommendation!

From:

alpestars.livejournal.com

Gen, even at 19/20 and married to a reputedly frightening Queen, is hot.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

~~Gen/Heiro all the way!~~

From:

willow-41z.livejournal.com

... You need to talk to Jade, she's writing Gen/Heiro fanfic. Unrequited though.

From:

Unrequited, of course.

*cough*

*cough*

*cough*

From:

Stop that. BAD Jade.

From:

*shoves manuscripts behind her back*

*innocent* whaaaat?

From:

willow-41z.livejournal.com

Eleanor was also openly unfaithful when she was married to the king of France-- Leslie will probably correct me, but the one I can remember is the alleged affair with her uncle.

I don't see them ending up like that. Gen and Attolia love each other a lot more than Henry and Eleanor. Gen and Attolia married in spite of political considerations, to some extent (remember they could have made a treaty without a marriage) while Henry and Eleanor married for them. And yes, Eleanor did support their sons in their rebellions against Henry.

Unless it was absolutely necessary, I can't see them ever turning against each other like that. After all, their love for each other is one of the greatest things they have; they would only sacrifice it for something even more important, like unity against the Medes.

But I can see Ms. Turner doing something like that, where we think it will end horribly, and then showing how it was justified and necessary and will turn out all right. C.F. QoA.

From:

That's interesting about Eleanor, she sounds like an incredibly forceful woman for the time she was living in.

And I see what you mean about Gen and Irene - and I agree. I was looking at them for a minute as a real couple, as opposed to a fictional couple. I don't think Megan would write somehting like that happening to them (though, as you said, I can see her indicating something like that and showing us how it all turns out somehow all the more perfect for whatever went wrong.)

Gen and Attolia also have some fundamental differences to Eleanor and Henry (the least of which is that they're fictional, and adored by a set of fans who may become very upset if they were to turn on each other and involve the children in feuds against each other :D). Yes, they love each other a lot more, and that love takes up a lot of their lives, and accounts for a lot of what they do. And there's the fact that they didn't have to marry, in the end, and it was perhaps even unwise politically, in some ways, for them to marry.

From:

There were rumors about Eleanor's being unfaithful to King Louis, her first husband, but she wasn't "openly" so. And there are always rumors about a lot of things, not all of which are true.

From:

To what extent does it matter what the author thinks? Once the book's out there, does it belong more to the readers? Can you discount the author's possible intentions or feelings to some extent?

Can you explain what you mean, Rowana? I'm not sure I understand.

From:

Yes, sorry, I was unclear. Someone else mentioned this to me in connection with one of DWJ's books and it got me wondering. I think DWJ herself might've said something about a review of one of her books which got it utterly wrong, in her opinion, but was valid anyway. (Though, I could be wrong about this).

I was thinking about speculation and interpretation, and whether you ought to alter your view on certain themes or parts of the books to fit the authors. I mean, obviously, there are times when you have to, because the author lays down canon. I guess I was wondering what everyone thought of diregarding the author's ideas on certain parts of a book.

I still haven't put that very well, sorry. I agree with Jade and Avian on this, they've put it much better than I have.

From:

1. I remember reading a YA historical fiction piece on Eleanor and Henry when I was a kid. The story ended before the friction between them started. I was sad when I later read how badly their relationship progressed. I sincerely doubt Eugenedies and Attolia will have a similar fate.

2. I had never thought of comparing Costis to Pol, but now that she mentions the comparison I can't believe I didn't see it before! Very astute observation and very fitting.

3. I have a comment for this but will come by to post it later. I have to run off again.

From:

idiosyncreant.livejournal.com

Certainly their marriage will always be dramatic.
I'd say it's possible...but unlikely. There is too much good strength of character (despite his protests) in Gen. He is too intense a personality...I think Eleanor was like that, not either of her husbands.

I recommend Konigsburg's A Proud Taste for Scarlet and Miniver, for anyone interested in Eleanor of Aquitane and her life, with details as to the people in her life--fascinating. And fun. It's YA historical novel with wit! I believe many fans here would enjoy it.
Eleanor had a lot to do with the courtly love idea, which is drawn out in that telling. Just one of many projects the lively lady made splash with.

Teleus and Costis, I believe, both have hidden depths of humor and penetration much like Pol. Teleus is just a little more set in his ways, used to authority and responsibility. Costis will have to be a little more lively, from association with Eugenides so young!

From:

A Proud Taste for Scarlet and Miniver -- is that by Konigsburg?

From:

avian-xj.livejournal.com

1. I don't know anything about Elenor and Henry or the time period, but i think Gen has more sense than to try to cheat on Attolia (unless, of course, it's just a front and they both planned it). Also, i can't see Attolia at any point completely without power or enslaved by Gen

2. Costis is like Pol, just more unsure and less experienced and more intimidated by Gen :P

3. I'm not sure if i know exactly what you mean here. I think that, yes, readers can disregard whatever they want about an author's intent, but the author, by no means, has to see things the same way as his or her readers. An author can write a sequel completely different from how anyone expected it to be. It's the author's story after all :)

From:

This is terribly off topic. Sorry.

But has this been posted (http://www.overduemedia.com/archive.aspx?strip=20060924) on Sounis yet? I know it's been up for a while, I just thought I'd ask.

From:

philia-fan.livejournal.com

Whoa.

From:

emerald-happy.livejournal.com

It has, but I can't remember where! Thanks for re-posting it!

From:

it was way back, on someone's birthday--it might even have been Megan's birthday.

From:

philia-fan.livejournal.com

Not only are Gen and Attolia a fictional couple, but they are also in a marriage (probably uniquely) sanctioned by the gods. There's no way they're going to turn on each other -- Hephestia would not stand for it.

I think Gen is kidding when he calls Costis a younger version of Teleus. The two probably have a very similar public persona (strong, silent, loyal) but by now Gen knows Costis well enough to see the differences.

As for the author's intent, I think it's always fascinating to hear what an author has to say, but ultimately the book speaks for itself.

Those are my late-night pronouncements. Obedient to my god, I will now go to bed.

From:

1. SECONDING THE LION IN WINTER.

Both Anthony Hopkins's and Timothy Dalton's first major films, Peter O'Toole as Henry, Katherine Hepburn as Eleanor...*silently curses her parents for forcing her to go to dinner three years ago, thus making her miss the last five minutes of the movie*

it's wonderful. So wonderful.

Eleanor is pretty fantastic as well. She and Henry...it's fantastic. ♥

I think it is possible; I think Willow's right that something horrible but necessary could happen.

2. I don't think Teleus is that stupid. I mean, he might seem to be lacking intelligence, but consider the people he's surrounded by: Gen (genius), Attolia (pretty durn smart), Relius (genius), etc. But he's very much a soldier, and so that's why he doesn't have imagination and is pretty rigid--he has a job to do, and he's very focused on that.
Costis, on the other hand, isn't quite as set in his soldierly ways yet--I mean, he's still pretty rigid in the beginning, I think, but not completely disciplined (hence the Gen-punch), and I think hanging around with Gen forces him to explore his flexible side in order to survive, whereas a normal soldier would slowly whittle that away.

So I think the parallel stands...but the one with Pol is interesting, too.

3. I think it depends on what the author says. For example, Virginia Woolf was crazy, and so I totally disagree with her when she says Mrs Dalloway is all about madness...but that's how she saw it, and I can kind of see why. Me, I think it's a celebration of life. So I think to some extent you can discount what the author's intentions were...but regardless of how you feel, you should know what the intentions were in the first place.

There's more to say, but I'm swamped. ^_^

From: (Anonymous)

3. The book definetely belongs more to the readers once it's out. Drawing from my own experiences in another fandom, fans have been called "delusional" for shipping a particular pairing, and the author, upon hearing it, hasn't rejected. Secondary and main characters alike have been fleshed out and made to undergo revelations/trauma/experience in those ridiculously addicting stories we call "fanfic." Alternate-dimension stories have been written where canon events are nonexistent, or where characters have made completely different choices from what's happened in the book. Obviously, everyone is likely to have different interpretations, and this fact is well demonstrated in fandom -- where you get all types of people with who draw different variations of fan art, fan fiction, and have their individual beloved ships and favorite characters, etc.

I could write a fic about what would have happened if Gen had not had his hand cut off (and how he possibly still could've managed a romance with Attolia in a roundabout way), eschewing all canon, for example. Shocked by his mutilation in the second book and stupified that he could even stand to be in the same room as that woman, never mind "love" her, I could have written this personal fic to satisfy my fantastical perception of what *I* wanted to happen in Gen's world. (Of course, I'm too lazy to write a fic, and I don't really disagree with how the Gen-with-one-hand plot mechanism has worked out; the above was just an example.)

From:

alpestars.livejournal.com

forgot to log on.

From:

alpestars.livejournal.com

2. Ah, poor Costis. I somehow can't see him as either Teleus or Pol, except superficially (they're all soldiers and kind of taciturn [because they're guards, and their duty signifies that they have to be, huh-lo!]). Anyway, Costis to me seems so YOUNG in comparison to the Teleus or Pol. I think what MWT wanted to stress was how NORMAL he was. Especially in the beginning of the third book, we can see how through his eyes every behavior of Gen can be perceived as foolish or ~~evil~~ purposely ill-intended against Teleus/Relius/Attolia. Costis represents "normal" to the extreme -- a young guard from a middle-class family, responsible, loyal to the Queen, etc. Gen could have easily baited Aris instead of him, imo, and events probably would've been the same (or I don't know... did Gen somehow figure out that Costis was the type who was almost too honest and honorable?). Anyway, again, from what I can remember of Pol's character, Pol just seemed too... seasoned already, and well aware of his duties as well as his skills. I can't see Costis in Pol's position yet because he's still too young. Now I'm hoping more than ever for the next book!

From:

As someone who's in the middle of a Lionheart binge right now:

1. Henry II did not become King of England and of a chunk of France only because of marrying Eleanor. His mother was Matilda, daughter of Henry I, and fought a civil war with her cousin Stephen for eleven years over the throne. Finally, it was agreed that Henry II would be Stephen's heir, bypassing his own son. The English crown brought with it Normandy, thanks to William the Conqueror. Henry's father was Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou and thus through him Henry inherited another chunk of France. Even without Aquitaine he had plenty. I'm sure it didn't hurt to have the richest heiress in France as his wife, but I'm fairly sure even without her things would have turned out much the same. (That period has been called the Age of Heiresses, by the way, because so many of them were inheriting kingdoms and duchies and such).

So - Henry was King of England. As Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou he owed fealty to the King of France; also as Duke of Aquitaine in Eleanor's right. A nice, confusing situation, given that he ruled more of France than the King of France did.

2. Henry was openly unfaithful, true, but at least one author of several books in the field, John Gillingham, believes that the reason Eleanor supported her sons' rebellions against Henry was that he was trying to subordinate Aquitaine to England and Normandy. As Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right, this made her cranky.

3. Why Henry held Eleanor prisoner: They had several children, among them four surviving sons. Henry was the eldest, and in his father's lifetime his father had him crowned King of England, so he was known as the Young King; he also did homage to the King of France for Normandy and Anjou at the same time. Richard was the second son, and when he was fourteen was made Duke of Aquitaine, though his parents were both alive. Geoffrey was the third son, and married Constance of Brittany, another heiress. John was five, and as yet had nothing.

Henry gave them the titles, but to the Young King (who, by the way, was married to one of King Louis' daughters by his second wife) he gave no power. Richard in Aquitaine was a different matter; he and Eleanor had more power, but still subject to Henry.

Toulouse was a place with its own Count, but Aquitaine (unsuccessfully) claimed it. At length, the Count of Toulouse did homage first to Henry II, then to the Young King, and finally to Richard. (This is what Gillingham thinks upset Eleanor, since it made England/Normandy superior to Aquitaine).

Henry arranged John's betrothal to an heiress, and her father naturally wanted to know what provision Henry was making for his son. So Henry gave him some castles in Normandy. Bear in mind, however, that the Young King had already in theory been given England and Normandy and Anjou, his father's inheritance.

And all hell broke loose.

It wasn't just that one of his sons rebelled. The Young King demanded some rights for himself, and when his father refused to turn any power over to him went to his father-in-law, the King of France. Eleanor sent Richard and Geoffrey there, too, and what Henry ended up with was a full-fledged rebellion of three sons, supported by the King of France.

Long, complicated story boils down to - Henry captured Eleanor, and kept her prisoner in part to keep her sons in line. Not that it did, because they fought him and each other for years. The Young King died before his father did, which is why Richard ended up as King Richard I. Eleanor was kept prisoner for 16 years, and freed by Richard when he became king. (Not that she was chained in a dungeon or anything like that).

(continued in next part because I've exceeded the space limits and can't for the life of me remember how to cut things in)

From:

4. I don't see any similarities between Henry and Eleanor on the one hand, and Gen and Attolia on the other, except an age difference. Gen doesn't want power, though he ends up taking it reluctantly; the Angevins were not noted for being averse to grabbing any power they could get their hands on, and wistfully eyeing any that they couldn't. Gen is not ruler of a kingdom or anything else in his own right, so there is no conflict between countries in their marriage. Attolia is an independent country with no oaths of fealty to anyone else to complicate things. And while we don't know huge amounts about Henry and Eleanor's private relationship, we know plenty about Gen and Irene's, and I don't see it collapsing into ruins.

5. A warning about "Lion in Winter" - the theory that Richard was a homosexual popped up in 1947 or so. That's 750 years after he died. Gillingham points out that much of it is based on an inability by present writers to grasp the simple fact that actions that mean one thing now (e.g. sharing a bed, holding hands) did not mean the same thing in the late 1100's. Henry II and William Marshal shared a bed, too; it was a symbol that Henry trusted him, not that they were lovers. Contemporary writers, even those wanting to make Richard look bad (and there was a thriving propoganda business urged on by his enemies) accused him of all kinds of things, but not homosexuality. In fact, the rebellious barons of Aquitaine complained that he was in the habit of kidnapping their wives and daughters and using them for his pleasure before handing them over to his men. Gillingham in one book points out that the accusation itself may or may not be true (propoganda again), but that in either case, nobody was claiming that it was their sons that he was making off with.

From:

5. Huh, I didn't know all that. Though I don't think I ever really thought he was, based on the movie, or maybe it was a folly of his youth or something, but overall, I don't think I ever really thought that.

That's still one of my favorite parts of the movie. Mainly because it's Anthony Hopkins--Anthony freaking "fava beans and a nice chianti" scariest cannibal EVER Hopkins--playing this desperate and clingy young man who just wants love.

Besides, it's a play; and plays often adapt theories and change details in order to make points about the characters. And dang it, I love this play. ^_^ *would never be ambitious enough to try to play Eleanor, but would absolutely love to play Alice...poor Alice*

From:

emerald-happy.livejournal.com

1. From what I remember Leslie saying in chatzy and a while back, I don't think they are very alike. Attolia could have had a treaty but she chose marriage. They love each other, and then there are the political factors. I see your point though. In real life, it would be a big possibility. But for the books, what with the gods trying so hard to get Gen and Attolia together, I don't think it will happen. Or maybe I just don't want it to happen so I refuse to see it...

2. I think Gen was being funny. Maybe he was also trying to get a reaction out of Costis. Like when he said "you could be Captain of the Guard someday". It makes you think just what plans Gen has for Costis.

I don't think Teleus lacks intelligence or imagination. It's partly because Attolia, Gen, Relius, Eddis etc are more openly intelligent in the books. Teleus is more set in his seriousness because he's responsible for the queen's safety. With civil unrest and Mede, he would feel that responsibility.

Pol appeared quite laid back in The Thief because they were posing as ordinary people or were isolated from people in general. Plus, he knows Sophos and would talk to him like a good friend. In KoA, we see Teleus mainly through Costis's POV. Teleus would want to set a good example to crazy young guards who go punch the king. Heehee. Anyway, I think Costis and Teleus's senses of humour will come out. What I want to see is them in love. Awww! How cute!

From:

willow-41z.livejournal.com

Pol says: Costis... I am your father!

From:

Snicker snicker snicker!

...and if little green funny-talking guys show up trying to teach you things, trust them!

From: (Anonymous)

*grins*

"You have any mistresses and I'll cut your other hand off." also the part where Relius says something like "He didn't marry you because he wanted to be king, he became king because he wanted to marry you."

~Feir Dearig

From:

I wouldn't be surprised at all. :D

From:

*dies laughing*

From: (Anonymous)

(1) I think that because Gen and she really loves him really love Irene I don't really think that they would end up like that. Besides didn't Eugenides offer the chance for Irene to kill him multiple times. One of the most important is when he abducts her and he hands her the knive and tells her where the most effcient way of killing him would be. Also Irene cried for Eugenides, tears, she says "that she could never have cried for herself or her father" It just doesn't seem likely to me that they would end up in a tragedy like that.
(2)I sort of thought that teleus was smart, just a little ignorant and willing to believe what ever his eyes showed him. But yes costis is like Poll just Poll isn't as short tempered, Poll was very observant just didn't talk much.
(3)I write alot and in my oppinion the book is still MWT consiering she did make up an entire world with charachtors of her own invention. Yes in a way it does belong to the reader of course but she probably knows more about every single charachtor then anyone who reads the book no matter how many time people reread them. Because, you could as any author about this, there are a few things the author doesn't put in the story.
That was shy personal take :D

From:

Also Irene cried for Eugenides, tears, she says "that she could never have cried for herself or her father."

I do love that part. I was so surprised when I read it for the first time. Suddenly I had to change my opinion of Attolia.

From:

It just doesn't seem likely to me that they would end up in a tragedy like that.

I think that most of us agree with you. :) For one thing, I can't see Megan writing Gen and Irene's marriage ending badly. I think how they both behave towards their children, (if we ever get to see that in the books), might tell us more.

Because, you could as any author about this, there are a few things the author doesn't put in the story.
That was shy personal take :D

It was a very interesting take - thank you for commenting! :) I guess I was thinking about how the readers of a book often invent or assume things about the characters too, such as details about the way that the characters look. Although the author made it all up first, maybe we can choose to see events or characters in the books in a way that the author doesn't. I think I'm rambling a bit now.

I ought to add, to avoid confusion, it's nice if people writing an anonymous comment here add a name of some sort at the bottom. It just makes it easier to keep track if the same person comments again. It'd be helpful if you wouldn't mind just sticking a name on the bottom the next time you comment. :)

From: