Hi! Let me chime in because I've started reading the book. I don't think anyone here denies the ties of the Black diaspora to Africa, even as part of a long heritage. To be clear, the author didn't necessarily have to be from this area to represent it correctly. With respect and understanding, proper representation is possible.
Where my disagreement lies is her distance from the cultures she aims to represent, and the claim that her skin tone alone makes her suitable for that.
For different reasons, Mediterraneans - like the Greeks - carry the culture of many other people in their heritage, either by proximity or by direct genealogical lines. Our culture and language have been shaped through millennia by many other languages and cultures (and sometimes by those who colonized us). However, this does not make a Greek automatically fit to represent an Egyptian story, even if they look exactly like the average Egyptian, even if their great-great-grandfather was an Egyptian (and many Greeks have those ties to Egypt). It does not make an Egyptian automatically fit to represent Greek culture either.
The author calls herself "a proud South Londoner". Which is fine, but it's undeniable that she is British and that she IS very immersed in the British society and education system. The British have been misrepresenting Greek stories for entertainment for centuries and still owns military bases on Greek ground, refusing to let go of old colonial conquests. The country instills in all its citizens certain education and social cues, no matter their "race". This author, even if disadvantaged in some ways in the UK, still holds a larger proximity to the Western big publishing houses compared to Greeks, Egyptians, and Sudanese people who live in their respective countries.
I am personally aware of Panafricanism. But even the Africans who see themselves related to other African neighbors will deny that the thousands of cultures and languages across this huge continent that is Africa can be claimed by one person. (Especially one who is a British citizen through and through) "Aspects of" is not the same as having an automatic right to be taken as the authority for representation of all possible cultures on the continent. We all have aspects of at least ten other cultures within our own culture, through exchange, or colonization.
One more note to conclude: Even on the cultural representation, this book lacks severely, to put it mildly. Onto examples from the book itself:
Athena, a Greek goddess, speaks to mortals about her desire to act violently toward another god, Poseidon. Not how the Greek gods work. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand Greek culture - same as the author.
Another odd thing in the same sentence: Poseidon is supposed to have a claim to Andromeda because he has a connection to the amniotic fluid...??? Because... water??? That's... not how the Greek religion/culture has ever worked??
That's a confusing ass-pull, already from chapter 1.
Right afterwards, same page: "Medusa did not suffer the consequences of dangerous looks". Oh, so we are disregarding the entirety of the Greek view of Medusa in favor of one later Roman author with a specific agenda, a story that absolutely breaks ancient Greek customs, breaks the character of Athena and the reason for Medusa's head on her shield. Got it.
I did not even mention how they accept Poseidon is not only the rapist of Medusa but also the future rapist of Andromeda. Even though none of these things ever happened.
There is even open, sexual disrespect and violence to (objectively) underage Andromeda by other influential men in front of her father! I'm not saying every girl everywhere is safe BUT: Are we supposed to suspend our disbelief that people in the court of the king speak about his underage daughter in such a way in front of him?? And no guards or other adults are present in that garden? Or does she seek to present even the local noblemen of ancient Egypt and Sudan as savages? (for lack of a better word) And why does she invent new violence that we have no record of happening? MUST Andromeda endure imaginary sexual abuse??
Again, what the hell is going on with the voyeurism of Western women on violence against the Eastern ones in Greek myth retellings? Why do you invent new rapes in your books just to feel righteous? Are you all getting on on toture porn or something?? Leave us alooone!
"Those of salt are freshwater's foe." - what...?? in what culture??? Neither Greek nor Egyptian mythology is governed by that rule! Some pages later, I read about the Oceanid, Dori,s who married Nereus, the Old Man of the Sea. Not ony the author conflates the realm of Oceanus, the Sea and the Rivers, but she also tries to make a point out of it, that of a female / Oceanid enstranged because of her marriage. I can't take none of this seriously because it's all based on an ass-pull and confusion!
Another ass-pull: Daughters/female descendants of gods get their periods later in life, and the reasoning of the author is"divinity does not bleed". Not in the Greek or Egyptian culture.
Author has not checked how the basic Greek plural works. It should be "amphineuron" not "amphineura". Amphineura is plural and represents a class. Instead of writing "he is a marine mollusk" she wrote "he is marine mollusks". You can google these things, you know.
Author does not know how basic gender worked/works in Greek or Latin grammar. "Cetus" is clearly a masculine noun in Latin. In Greek, it is clearly a neutral noun. And yet, the characters call Cetus a "she". And I'm not referring to the plot "oh, it's a she!" / I'm referring to the sentence "Cetus, waiting to swallow anyone that so much as glances at her master in the wrong way." That sentence is grammatical nonsense and if you don't know why, then congratulations, you understand that at least you don't know something.
Already from the initial chapters, we are met with a glaring absence of descriptions of the local environment, architecture and culture. There is one mention of "kalasiris" but no explanation of what it is. A mention of a blue lotus here, a mention of a honeyed drink there, a reference to chamomile tea. But it doesn't tell me anything. At one point, without descriptions of local dresses, Andromeda's mother just "wears red and gold".
We get a lacking and vague description of a palace in the third chapter, only after many scenes have taken place there. And still, I would not be able to understand how it looked, if not for the image at the first few pages of the book!
The Greek gods are referenced as "Western gods". Shouldn't they be "Northern gods"? Does the author know geography?? Yes, the Greek lands are sliiightly West of Egypt for the most part but the difference is negligible. That's like people from Cyprus island calling Crete island "the West"…..
I'm not reading any more of this book. I'm TIRED.
I beg your pardon but if that's the inaccuracies and deficiencies I can spot in just two and a half chapters (just a couple of pages, really), I will not trust that author to represent my culture and the culture of anyone ever Hellenized. Not even the culture of ancient Egypt, to be honest.
E.S. McLeod is no different than any other Anglophone author who butchered or misinterpreted my heritage to a wide audience. And the shit she'll get for it is exactly the same as the other authors before her, because she's doing the same harm as those before her.
