Re: 300. History? Heck No. But Glorantha? Sure!

From: David Cake <dave_at_2_5xyrbbRjgua_-cpfba3XV0cZjNJX37EtoyfQ9BTXC0Zoi1155B5YUhkq3zlnNRJytn9fi>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:34:45 +0900

At 7:21 PM -0700 14/3/07, Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:
>Just got back from the theatre, where I watched "300" with much enjoyment.
>
>Lots of people are up in arms about "travesty of history" and other
>nonsense - but it never was intended to be a Historical depiction of the
>Spartan stand at Thermopylae; rather it is a movie based on a comic book
>(sorry, Graphic Novel) based on another movie, based somewhat tenuously on
>history. (And yet it still gets more right than "King Arthur"...)

        This comes across a bit as 'of course its rubbish, its based on a comic', which isn't an argument I have a lot of sympathy for.

        A different argument that I have seen made in defence of its dodgy history is to note that its told by an unreliable narrator, who is retelling it to spartan troops. Its supposed to be a dramatisation of Spartan propaganda, rather than a dramatisation of history. its Fox News for Sparta.

        A lot of Gloranthan work is written in this mode, of course, though for Gloranthans sometimes reality can be just like that too.

	Haven't seen it myself yet - looking forward to it hugely.
	Cheers
		David