The right amount of research is?

[iwatchus]

After my fears of posting in LW, my story The Throne received a huge number of comments, the overwhelming majority of them truly wonderful.

The most common complaint was miscasting Aphrodite as caring about fidelity, which would be valid, except, the enchanted seat is Mycenean and predates Aphrodite's introduction into Greek culture by six centuries or so. None of the plausible deities from around 1400BCE would resonate with the average reader (I certainly was unaware of any of the names I ran across in my research). As several commenters suggested, Hera would have been more appropriate from the classical pantheon. Given that using any of the classical pantheon was technically incorrect, I went with Aphrodite, because I thought it would resonate better with the average reader.

Should I have used Hera, a deity no one would have heard of, or stuck with Aphrodite?

 

[TheRedChamber]

Hera is basically the Queen of the Olympian Gods and her whole schtick was getting pissed when Zeus played away from home. She's hardly that obscure. Just throw in a line about how 'being married to Zeus was no picnic' and even the least classically educated will soon catch up.

 

[NotWise]

Should I have used Hera, a deity no one would have heard of, or stuck with Aphrodite?

Hera is basically the Queen of the Olympian Gods and her whole schtick was getting pissed when Zeus played away from home. She's hardly that obscure. Just throw in a line about how 'being married to Zeus was no picnic' and even the least classically educated will soon catch up.

I think @iwatchus was providing three alternative: Hera (who readers would know), some authentic goddess from the Mycenaean pantheon who no-one would recognize, or Aphrodite, who readers recognize but isn't entirely correct.

Personally, I know nothing and can't help.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is a matter of taste, and one's willingness to put up with criticism. 90+% of readers won't care about mistakes at this level, but for a few it will stick in the craw.

I consider myself moderately knowledgeable about Greek mythology (I know who Hera is, but it's been decades since I read Bullfinch or Homer) but I would not have had sufficient knowledge about when Aphrodite was introduced into the canon to have noticed this detail. "It's all Greek to me" would probably have been my attitude, reading your story.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I think @iwatchus was providing three alternative: Hera (who readers would know), some authentic goddess from the Mycenaean pantheon who no-one would recognize, or Aphrodite, who readers recognize but isn't entirely correct.

Personally, I know nothing and can't help.

Ah, got it. Just so everyone is clear, I'm not so much stupid just inadequately caffinated at the moment.

 

[iwatchus]

@RedChamber I appreciated your feedback regardless.

It is also a fait accompli -- this was my entry for the Geek Pride event. I am more interested in the abstract question of trying to please the domain experts, vs those with more than usual knowledge or the broad readership who know minimal amount of the details -- where @SimonDoom seems to be. How much should we be slaves to the ultimate nerds in an area, be it mythology or cars or weapons or whatever, or should we pander to the comfort of the broad readership?

 

[SimonDoom]

@RedChamber I appreciated your feedback regardless.

It is also a fait accompli -- this was my entry for the Geek Pride event. I am more interested in the abstract question of trying to please the domain experts, vs those with more than usual knowledge or the broad readership who know minimal amount of the details -- where @SimonDoom seems to be. How much should we be slaves to the ultimate nerds in an area, be it mythology or cars or weapons or whatever, or should we pander to the comfort of the broad readership?

There's no rule. If you were publishing a book to a broad audience, and you had a good editor, the editor might tell you to be careful and do more research. But this is Literotica, and nobody is paying you anything. As I said, it's up to you to determine how much you care about this sort of criticism.

If you are entering it for an event called the "Geek Pride" event, you might give it a bit of extra attention, because you should expect people who are "geeks" about whatever is geeky about your story to be paying attention. As you correctly observed, I'm definitely not a Greek mythology geek, so I'd give you a pass. But the Geeks among your readers might bear other gifts . . .

 

[Kelliezgirl]

No matter what you do you're going to get the "Well, ackshually" comment.
Unless you are already an expert I'd say do enough research to make the casual reader happy and leave it at that.
Unless you just enjoy the research then go crazy.

In your specific example I'd say you're fine.
Hera is fairly widely known for anyone who hasn't forgotten all their mythology from school. Then again it's so common for people to mix up Greek and Roman stuff, who really cares.

 

[NotWise]

I did quite a bit of research for my two stories of the Red Witch (One Night in Gormaz and A Valentine's Day Mess Pt. 4). I glossed over a lot of the details when I wrote them, keeping mostly place names intact (I especially liked Calatañazor). A few historical names made it through, as well.

I guess one could say that a lot of the research time was wasted, but it gave me confidence in what I was writing that I wouldn't otherwise have. If someone wanted to disagree with me then I would have taken it as input, and checked my facts.

 

[filthytrancendence]

How much should we be slaves to the ultimate nerds in an area, be it mythology or cars or weapons or whatever, or should we pander to the comfort of the broad readership?

Zero would be my answer. And the only time I think it'd be a good idea to enslave yourself as such is if you enjoy doing so

Pedantic criticism is the genre of garbage criticism I can bring myself to care least about. Pedants are un-pleasable. Better to irritate them on purpose...

I mean, step back and consider what they're arguing with you about. You picked the subjectively incorrect mythological figure to fit the precise character profile?

There is a desperate need for the fondling of short, spindly ground cover.

 

[taytay4eva]

If getting something wrong bothers you, make sure you do enough research so that you know the story element works. If it doesn't, and its accuracy isn't a huge part of the story, don't worry about it. That's my 2 cents, at least.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

That's a more of a matter of artistic license, but I'm just into rabbit holes, and mythologies are my weakness, especially if it is Norse mythology.

However Hera is not unknown. Actually, she appeared in Disney's animated film Hercules, which of course depicts her and Zeus as a non-toxic couple. Speaking of Hercules, his Greek name is Heracles, which also means Glory of Hera. In the myth, Hera wanted him dead at the beginning. She does live up to the reputation that @TheRedChamber laid out, and that trait is always flanderized. For the people I've interacted with, Aphrodite is an afterthought because Zeus and Hera always steal the show because of one's raging boner, and the other one's volcanic jealousy.

 

[Actingup]

It was a good story. One alternative approach is to set it in a slightly parallel universe, and make up your own mythology. Guy Gavriel Kay does that really well, and it frees him to discuss real history without sticking to the facts. His 'Sailing to Sarantium' is a great example of that, as it lets him deal with iconoclasty and all sorts of other Byzantine things in a parallel universe, and keeps the reader guessing what will happen next. Of course, then you have all the work of setting up the parallel universe and explaining it to the reader...

 

[THBGato]

Yeah I would have said Hera is pretty well known.

Personally, I would have gone with the Mycenean option because readers don't need to know everything to enjoy the story, surely? Think about all of those Sci Fi and Fantasy novels with entirely invented mythologies, yet readers still love them.

But that's me. At the end of the day, the most important reader of a story is you - if you felt Aphrodite was right for the story, then she was right for the story.

 

[Bamagan]

You could consider (in a similar future circumstance) including a note saying that you took some liberties with the mythology and history, conflating Aphrodite with another deity from an earlier period who had a similar role in her culture, specifically because it would help readers grasp the general picture more quickly, without lengthy exposition. Borrowing and blending of deities have happened regularly throughout history anyway, which is part of the reason that determining a 'canon' for various pantheons is a matter for debate, sometimes quite rancorous debate.

 

[StillStunned]

True geeks would know that the roles of the gods changed over the centuries of Minoan/Mycenean/Archaic Greek. New peoples brought their own gods who were more or less similar to the existing pantheon, and current concerns and fads helped existing gods to rise to prominence. Poseidon as a god of the sea, horses and earthquakes? Sure you can make a connection, but his earliest forms probably didn't start out with that portfolio. Besides art and sickness, Apollo also took on the role of the sun god and came to eclipse Zeus in later centuries. Etc.

Who's to say that an early form of Aphrodite wasn't a big fan of fidelity?

 

[Voboy]

I love research. In stories that require a strong sense of place or time, I'll do it exhaustively; I've done several stories set around the Norman Conquest, and I spent hours in Domesday.

MUCH of the research I do for stories like that does not make it into the finished piece, explicitly; it lays groundwork for me to write about it, though, so it contributes.

More to the point of the OP's post? As a reader, I know as much about Hera as I do about Aphrodite, so either would have worked fine for me.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I'm pretty familiar with Greek myths and modern retellings/stories based on them, but I couldn't tell you which traits had been solidified by which century BC.

I suspect if you'd named Hera instead of Aphrodite, you'd have got the opposite complaints, about Hera not being interested in love and romance. And making up a name would have had its own issues, unless you mentioned it was an early goddess that seemed to be taken over by either Hera or Aphrodite in different places.

Research is great, but eventually you get the Tiffany Problem - you may be writing something perfectly accurate, yet it still jars with the preconceptions of your audience. Or just annoy them for another reason - it would be totally plausible to name all the female characters in a story of mine Sarah, or a few years earlier, all the guys in a hall of residence John, but it would be a pain to read about, unless you use nicknames or surnames all the time.

 

[StillStunned]

it would be totally plausible to name all the female characters in a story of mine Sarah, or a few years earlier, all the guys in a hall of residence John, but it would be a pain to read about, unless you use nicknames or surnames all the time

Not long ago, Wales could have fielded a men's rugby team where every player was "Jones" or "Williams". During this year's Six Nations, I read a comment that Wales's recent decline was due to the complete lack of any Joneses in the side.

(For England's rugby team, it sometimes seems like half the players are called Ollie.)

 

[TheLobster]

During this year's Six Nations, I read a comment that Wales's recent decline was due to the complete lack of any Joneses in the side.

Makes sense: the opposite team could finally keep up with them.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

There's always a balance between being completely realistic and accurate and our stories - I think in this case, sticking with Aphrodite is fine. Hera may have been a better choice if the focus was on fidelity and not simply sex/love, but in the end, you justified your decision pretty well with me.

The nitpickers are always going to nitpick, and there's never a lack of people on the internet ready to "well, actually" anybody.

 

[MiaBabe23]

Hm this is a tough call. I think you need to do enough research that you’re informed enough that you know why you’re including a particular figure etc, but as to whether you then must stay entirely accurate - you need to do what feels right to you for the story
I do enjoy coming across ideas, figures, eras that I know little or nothing about, and sometimes it will prompt me to do more exploration - if the story has been good enough to inspire that, I would no doubt forgive use of creative license
But readers - myself included lol - nonetheless like to feel clever, and some won’t be able to resist emphasizing they noticed - easily avoided with a brief footnote to acknowledge the anomaly!

 

[TheArsonist]

I do think that when you reference a well-known Greek goddess you should take into account what her reputation is, and setting up Aphrodite as a punisher of infidelity is sufficiently out of character that it might not have been a good choice.

The date of her introduction into the Greek pantheon, on the other hand, is sufficiently obscure that fudging the detail is perfectly fine. If you wanted to head off nitpickers you could have made a note about it at the end.

Hera would work—and she very likely was part of the Greek pantheon in the Mycenean period—but this could be a missed opportunity to reference the god of marriage: Hymen.

 

[ChuckWolf]

Greek gods are notorious for being contradictory and hypocritical, plus you have the artistic license to imply or outright say that earlier chronicles of them can be inaccurate or flat out wrong. And you wouldn't be the first to do so.

I mean, Hercules was/is a rapist right? And then engaged in human trafficking.

All of THAT stuff has not made the jump into movies, TV or comic books (except for Wonder woman, kinda)

 

[Voboy]

Not long ago, Wales could have fielded a men's rugby team where every player was "Jones" or "Williams". During this year's Six Nations, I read a comment that Wales's recent decline was due to the complete lack of any Joneses in the side.

(For England's rugby team, it sometimes seems like half the players are called Ollie.)

Davis. Hughes. Evans. Griffith.

My grandfather was Welsh, and I have a few distant relations there. I love that part of the world.