Mike (the Paladin)'s Reviews > 300

300 by Frank Miller
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
2187043
's review
Nov 30, 2009

liked it

Ok. A "Graphic novel...in this case I say it's a hard back comic book addaption of a movie. The artist gets to cut loose here on lots of action sequences and that's I suppose what will sell this book.

Don't go here for history. the Spartans were a militaristic austere culture. But....there are big differsnces. The most glaring I suppose would be that the actual 300 (there were other Greeks there by the way the 300 were more like the special forces or Delya Force. They were the last along with a small force of Thespians to stand and fight when the rest had retreated),fought in armor. they wore groin and thigh protection, bronze brestplates and grieves. They didn't fight naked. it was a big reason that they could stand against the lighter armed and armored Persians for so long.

So action and a thriller, but look elsewhere for the history. The Battle of Thermopylae is a major turning point in history, so I'd depend on more than a comic book to learn about it. This is entertainment. Enjoy it for what it is.
flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read 300.
Sign In »

Comments (showing 1-9 of 9) (9 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (new) - rated it 5 stars

Nik Minor point, but the movie was based on this graphic novel, not the other way around (and captured the original watercolour artwork by Lynn Varley impeccably I thought).


Mike (the Paladin) My apologies. I'm not really an aficionado of graphic novels and I'm getting more careless of movies. My point however holds in that "they" (whichever is chicken and whichever is egg) are for enjoyment and action, not history. So I'd say enjoy them for what they are.

Again, apologies for my gaffe.


message 3: by Mohammed (last edited Dec 04, 2009 05:00PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Mohammed Frank Miller you dont read for historical accuracy but more fore his great art style, his hardboiled stories.

This one isnt not his best but artwise,good HF wise its pretty good.

The movie is even worse historically accuracy wise, it has monsters,stuff even Miller didnt have in his GN....

Also about the hype for the 300 spartans its not Miller who started but the ancient greeks,poets that wrote for centuries like the Spartans was the only Greeks in this battle. Thats why modern Greeks has added Homage statues for the other Greeks that fought,died there.


message 4: by Nik (new) - rated it 5 stars

Nik Mike wrote: "My apologies. I'm not really an aficionado of graphic novels and I'm getting more careless of movies. My point however holds in that "they" (whichever is chicken and whichever is egg) are for enjoy..."

Hey no worries. I agree with your main point entirely. I believe fiction and historical accuracy are necessarily distinct though. I enjoy a historical premise very much, but I think too much adherence to the facts in a work of fiction creates unnecessary boundaries. Happy to take a recommendation if you have one where the two co-exist well though.


Mike (the Paladin) Hard. I remember when I was in a college class back a few years ago (we won't go into just how long...) a girl in the back actually kept confusing history and movies. She even ask the prof once "if it didn't happen why did they put it in the movie". (The rest of the class got a good laugh of course, but the professor who was a PHD World History, didn't find it that humorous)

Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield comes to mind but you still have to sift through the conversations and personal relationships that add drama. I don't have a problem with "rewriting history, I just think readers should (and I'm sure you do) realize the difference. I had read comments from people who seemed to be taking this for history and others who seemed to be insulted at the historical inaccuracies. I was only saying enjoy the GN and the movie for what they are...adventure stories loosely based on an event from history.

I enjoyed it, and I think the subject gave Miller the subject matter he needed to express his skills.


Mohammed I loved reading Gates of Fire because it brought those people alive. The culture,how they might have been. The military side,war,battle wasnt as important to me.

I read Historical fiction because you want the feel the air people of those days did. See things from other perspective. You can read a historical fact book to learn facts but not the personal side to history.


Mike (the Paladin) I really enjoy Robert Leckie he writes what are usually called something like "popular books on military history". So I'm sure there is wiggle room at least on his opinions, but when I read his books I come away with a sense of the conflict he's writing about and the people who were involved. There is a whole range or scale between strict history and then historical fiction. This book (300) if enjoyment, then there are books that fall elsewhere on the line.


Mohammed Mike wrote: "I really enjoy Robert Leckie he writes what are usually called something like "popular books on military history". So I'm sure there is wiggle room at least on his opinions, but when I read his boo..."


Leckie Sounds good. I have read real historical books like about 1600s, war century in Europe.



Mike (the Paladin) Leckie is (admittedly) mostly "USA-centric" (is that a word?) and "Roman Catholic-centric" (or that?). I'm not a Catholic, but I got interested in what is often called "the cult of the Saints" (I have no negative intent in using the word "cult" there it's simply what the group within the Roman Church who concentrate on praying through Saints is called) anyway, Leckie wrote a well know work on Saints. He wrote my favorite WWII history (Delivered From Evil) a sort of outline history combined with mini-bios. of many of the main players. He wrote a book on the American Revolution Titled George Washington's War. I find his writings interesting reading. He holds the interest so to speak.


back to top