Initially, when I started my research on Dionysus, I thought that he didn't do war either. However, I soon found out that he has a surprisingly prominent war aspect. Not only does he have epithets that pertain to war and violence — such as Areios (the martial one), Anthroporraistos (destroyer of men), and Gigantophonos (giant-slayer) — he's also displayed on several Giantomachy reliefs battling a giant. There's even text that portrays him as a warrior, with the most extensive written account being — ugh — The Dionysiaca.
Perhaps the even more surprising find, though, was the implication that while Dionysus was no stranger to combat, there's a strong possibility that he could have been more militarized as time marched on.
In a passage, Diodorus Siculus says this about him:
Moreover, he established festivals everywhere and created artistic contests and in general resolved the conflicts of nations and states, and in place of the domestic strife and war he laid the grounds for concord and great peace. The coming of the god was proclaimed everywhere, and because he dealt fairly with everyone and contributed much to making civil life more humane, people thronged to meet him and greeted him with great joy.
Now, I don't know about you—but I personally find the idea of Dionysus as someone who uses violence as a last resort more intriguing than characterizing him as a nationalistic warmonger who parrots Margaret's views (as you later imply). This could explain why he stays out of the conflict presented in The Iliad as well as why Margaret's characterization of him in the scene you shared feels so odd.
Interesting. I can perhaps see how he might be war adjacent given that there is often celebration with victory and how leaders will often seal treaties with a drink. Then there is the practice in many ancient cultures of warriors ingesting substances, particularly hallucinogenics, to invoke trance-like battle frenzy. That sounds very much like the chaos-ritual-madness aesthetic of Dionysus. And of course we cannot forget the soldiers, both now and then, turning to drugs and alcohol to cope.
👉 But I think you point about militarization, anon, is what is important. It is the meat of the issue here. Who wrote the tales? When were they written? What was the context they were writing in? What were their motivations?
It's so very crucial to be critical of sources. My favorite example of the issue of author bias is this: Ancient Greek soldiers had the practice of taking slaves as part of war spoils, and these slaves performed many duties including sex. Not that I'm saying any of this is okay, but it was the accepted practice at the time. That of course didn't stop the Italian Roman Catholic poet Dante Alighieri living in the Middle Ages from subjecting Achilles to Catholic Hell and putting him int he Circle of Lust.
I'll preface this next bit by saying I consider myself a lay person when it comes to Greek myth, I lack both specialized training and an interest in the subject, and that I engage with the subject from the mindset of a lay person.
If you ask an average person what Dionysus is the god of, they're going to respond with wine. Some might add merriment or partying, but they will always say wine.
If you ask the average person to name a god symbolizing war, they'll pick Ares. Possibly they'll give a shout out to Athena.
If you ask about farming, they'll probably look at you blankly for a moment before vaguely recalling something about a goddess and agriculture and harvest. They mean Demeter, of course. And as with the war aspect, there is certainly an overlap for Dionysus here as well given his fertility aspect. But a lay person is not going to think that. Dionysus = wine-partying-fucking.
When you write, you write for an audience. And if you do not address your audience properly, you will fail to get your point across.
This is one of the main reasons The Sea Vineyard is such a mess. Margaret's biased niche knowledge of Dionysus is extremely alienating for the reader. They must be entirely familiar with Dionysus otherwise these easter egg facts are just meaningless, irrelevant info dumps. And beside needing the knowledge to get the niche references, the reader needs it just to get the basic plot since Margaret is also denying them all backstory. (this is why publishing fanfiction is such a bad idea. you have to world build and fanfic writers are unskilled at world building coughSenLinYucoughAliHazelwoodcoughCassandraClarecough)
Okay, so let's play Devils Advocate for a minute and say that the book is not for lay people like myself who would like to read something Greek myth. It's for Greek myth fans, particularly DionysusxAriadne fans. Except that instead of a little ancient Greek myth treat, Greek myth fans are slammed with a lecture on 19th century geopolitics and the unification of the modern Greek state!
And so here we are back at your main point anon, the meat of the issue, author bias.
Margaret's entire personality is source accuracy and hating on "girl boss" retellings. And yet here she is cherry picking her sources, sticking it to feminists everywhere by framing Ariadne as a tradfem (how progressive), and using Dionysus as a mouthpiece for nationalism.
And her obsession with her need to shove her agenda down our throats eclipses the narrative causing the book to become completely incoherent. Even more incoherent than it already was due to the niche references and lack of backstory.
She is not honoring the myths. She's not being "accurate." Like everyone else she rants again, she's partaking in the common practice of reinterpreting a story for the current times complete with all bias of said time and place. Which is the fucking purpose of storytelling, Maggie.
The hypocrisy is just so unbelievable.
