Zzzzzzz.... I'm here! I'm awake!

Ahem... Okay, this is the discussion thread for this weeks episode, A Hearth's Warming Tail. May seems kinda a weird time for Hearth's Warming, but all right. I think this one is Twilight Sparkle telling a story 'bout Hearth's Warming? One can only imagine what kinda Hearth Warming tales Twilight liked as a foal...

This week, the writer is Mike Vogel, who's never written an episode before. This doesn't mean he's new to My Little Pony, tho'! He used to be Hasbro Studio's Vice President in charge of Development, so he's been involved plenty in the show in the past. He just didn't used to be a writer for it. Well, he did write a book, too.

I'm curious how this one'll end up. (Though maybe I should watch last weeks episode first? I got busy and it really didn't sound like one I'd like, so I kinda put it off...)

As usual, all discussion for the episode should go here, anyway.

--Sweetie Belle

Just thought I'd share this, too!

--Sweetie Belle

5231634
No matter how good the new episode is, that sounds like over-hyping.

5231628 Wow Shining looks so cute in that picture

We need art of that tree-topper. Lots of it.

5231922
Waiting for the story of past Heath's Warming trauma.

Also, if this is a musical episode…

Edit: It is!
But Starlight's excuse is rather lacking as of now. What's wrong with a day where people can enjoy themselves? Is she unaware of this thing called morale? Even totalitarian regimes know that annual days of relaxation and frivolity are important for the stability of society.

5231922
Shun the nonbeliever!

So we can now add Grim Reaper to the list of things Princess Luna does

In the context of the stereotypical Scrooge parody, I'd say that was pretty good. Also, songs. I like songs.

So, Rainbow Dash's dad is in the background of the final pan-out shot. What does it mean? Conspiracy time.

Edit:
Authors, take note: The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend, not a historical production. Make of that what you will.

5231952

I can see why they used Luna... Kazumi Evans singing is always a joy.

Still, part of me kinda wishes they'd used Sombra or Tirek just to make it darker.

5231965
But the ghost isn't supposed to be evil, just ominous.

I really liked the episode. And one interesting little detail, the Vinyl in the book world was talking in the background but the actual Vinyl in the real world didn't open her mouth during the singing.

5231628
Ha.
Tail instead of tale.
Because a tale is a story, which this was, but horses also have tails.
And this show is about horses.
I get it.
See, this is why Mike Vogel writes for the show and I don't.

5231965

I can see why they used Luna... Kazumi Evans singing is always a joy.

Actually, the credited singer for Luna was someone named Aloma Steele, who I think is new. Maybe they wanted Luna's singing to be more distinct from Rarity.

5231628

May seems kinda a weird time for Hearth's Warming, but all right.

Guys, I think it's official: the show is reminding us to start planning and writing our Christm-- I mean, our Hearth's Warming Eve fics now. No time like the presents! Sorry.

5231628

I swear, Starlight has a monopoly on the 'Unintentionally Destroy Equestria' stuff.

Luna's song was amazing. So somber and haunting, not something you often hear on FIM.

Overall, though, I do have one issue with it. In A Christmas Carol it is expressed that the issue is entirely Scrooge's. Sure, there is Tiny Tim, but for the most part he's looking at his own future. Snowfrost is looking at the destruction of the world, so even without a true change of heart most sensible people would back off.

I dunno, it just irked me.

-Lumino

5232161
I can agree with that. It seemed like the past and present did more to change her personal opinion than the future one did. The future just made sure she didn't destroy the holiday itself.

(SPOILERS!)

Note: I was in a time crunch while first writing this review. I hope it cohesive.

Ohhhh, boy.

I really don't want to hate on this episode. It's MLP's take on A Christmas Carol, after all! That's one of my favorite stories of all time, and I have many favorite television and film interpretations, both serious and silly (The Real Ghostbusters, A Muppet Christmas Carol). Even the wacky ones can have heartfelt moments, too (Muppet's.)

But MLP's take on the Charles Dickens' classic was just...bad.

Of all of the holiday themed episodes, this is the closest to what traditional Christmas looks and sounds like. The music, especially the opening and closing numbers, have festive flare. Too festive.

I don't want to sound like a Grinch, but the fact that this episode is a musical hurts it, a lot.

Musicals on their own are not always bad. But when the song numbers consist mostly of exposition, explaining how characters feel instead of allowing the audience to see how they feel, it's not good. And the songs keep going, and going, without break. Removing some of the pointless lyrics and letting just the instruments play would have been a huge improvement.

I also have to speak about the opening number, which also gets a reprise at the end. It is not a song I will wish to play over in my head during the holidays. It's very oddly paced. The line "[It's Hearth Warming] once again" id repeated at the end of nearly every verse, but it seems the singers are almost having to say it as one word, because the instrumentation is so fast. And the rest of the song the singers sing normally. I don't know how to explain it, but it feels off, and does not sound good.

The rest of the songs are all listenable. Yet none of them are anything to write home about.

I should get into the episode's story, but it's not like there's much to begin with. Starlight admits she doesn't care for Hearth's Warming, so Twilight reads the story of A Hearth's Warming Tail to convince convince her otherwise. The characters in the story are played by the Mane cast, along with Starlight as the show's Scrooge, Snowfall Frost. The writers are really straining for names at this point.

Ever miserable, Snowfall decides to conjure a spell to erase Hearth's Warming from the world forever (the show takes this idea all too seriously.) Of course, Snowfall is visited by the three ghost of the holiday, Applejack the Ghost of HW past, Pinkie the Ghost of HW Present, and Luna the Ghost of HW Yet to Come.

Each has their own song number, too! Unlike, say, A Muppet Christmas Carol, where there is sufficient space between songs to give characters (and the audience) time to think, MLP fills most of its time by singing. Part of this must be due to the 22 minute time restraint, of course. Even then, these songs could be cut down significantly.

The writers could have taken on A Christmas Carol and given it its own unique spin with the vast and rich world of Friendship is Magic. But instead, it takes a more mundane route. And with most of the episode being lackluster songs, it does not work.

Extras:
Some added extras, as I've been crunched for time while writing the review:
-A Christmas episode debuting in May. It's not that big a deal, but still odd.
-Starlight's past is brought up again, this time by Spike. In all honesty, it would probably be better to forget about Starlight's past, and act is if never happened.
-Derpy causes trouble by dropping the tree topper! So she takes place as the tree topper.
-There are a few small touches I like. Rainbow, who still retains her attitude, even as Bob Cratchet; Applejack as the Ghost of HW past using a lasso, etc.
-The strangest part of the episode is the look into Snowfall's past, where her professor happens to be...Alan Rickman's Snape from the Harry Potter series. I'm not kidding, Flintheart looks just like a ponified Snape. Perhaps this was the writers paying respects to the recently deceased actor? Whatever the case, we still miss you, Mr. Rickman. Rest in peace.
-Flint's horrible advice that convinces young Snowfall to hate Heart's warming? "Work hard, learn, and use your skills to better Equestria." Umm, that sounds like really good advice, actually. But apparently it's terrible, and not in line with the holiday spirit at all.
-During Pinkie's song number, she helps a Featherweight expy on crutches by giving him tap shoes. Ta da! Now he's free from his ailment, and dancing with zeal! Reminds me of Granny's new hip joke in The Ticket Master (s01e03), but that was done a lot better.
-Even in the non-sung parts, there's needless exposition. Cratchet Dash refers to Snowfall without using her name. Rarity and Fluttershy respond by asking if the person's name wouldn't happen to start with snow, and end with fall. Just having Rarity ask if the person's name starts with snow would be sufficient.
-The writers don't even attempt a build up for Luna's appearance as the Ghost of HW Yet to Come. She has regular dialogue like everyone else, and is just another means of moving the plot forward as fast as possible.
-I truly don't want to hate this episode, but it might be the most disapointing in the series thus far. Not the worst, mind you, but most disappointing, bar none.

I see from most of the comments here that people really like this episode. I'm glad; I don't want to be the resident Scrooge.

5231634 I was expecting more then a retelling of an old story with all that hype. Over all it was just ok; Starlight and Luna's songs were good but the others were forgettable

5231931 Professor Snape---err I mean "Flintheart" was in it too.

5231956

So, Rainbow Dash's dad is in the background of the final pan-out shot. What does it mean? Conspiracy time.
Edit:
Authors, take note: The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend, not a historical production. Make of that what you will.

Wait, seriously? One of the few pieces of grounding for what happened in the past is now just a legend? So... Now the only certainty is that everything happened a thousand years ago? And I can now pick and choose which parts of one of my favorite episodes I use for historical stories? I really don't know how to feel about that. Guess it allows me more wiggle room for worldbuilding, and it allows feasy explanations for things like the C&L flag in the play.

If it was something obvious, forgive me. I missed the episode and they don't have YouTube in China.

5231628

I'm not usually the biggest fan of rehashing old legends, but at least they mixed things up by blending the stories of the Grinch and Scrooge together. Plus, the songs weren't half bad, either.

5232161

In A Christmas Carol it is expressed that the issue is entirely Scrooge's. Sure, there is Tiny Tim, but for the most part he's looking at his own future. Snowfrost is looking at the destruction of the world, so even without a true change of heart most sensible people would back off.

True, but the same can be said with Scrooge. Even if a wealthy individual doesn't experience a genuine personal change, it is rare to find one who is that unconcerned with the legacy they leave behind.

This is a bit off topic, but I think the fear of posthumous damnation - whether by God or by society - is a major driver in how rich people often become philanthropists in their old age. Even people as avaricious and amoral as Rockefeller and the Koch Brothers fear the judgement of posterity.

5231956
5232512
I think that nothing Twilight is reading from a tales' book can be taken as "canon". Nor the story of the founding of Equestria, or Luna being the ghost of future's hearth's warmings for that matter. Moreover, even into the tale's world, is not canon that the story of the founding of Equestria is a legend. There is only someone that considers it legend (but the vision of the last ghost seems to imply they are wrong).

On second thought, taking it for true, Luna's future seems to show how Equestria is walking on thin ice, literally depending by the ponies being in good terms. Otherwise, windigos will come.
No wonder Celestia being so concerned about friendhip.

5231628

Woof.

5232536
But I love musicals! The aforementioned Muppet Christmas Carol, Singin' In the Rain, Wizard of Oz, and don't forget FiM's Crusaders of the Lost Mark (s05e18), an episode I consider to be one of MLP's finest. Just because I dislike one musical doesn't mean I hate all musicals.

This is likely going to be an episode I'll appreciate more on the second viewing. Though the opening song, and its reprise at the end, still sound bad in my ears.

It's also a bit odd to judge musicals based on how you would judge a movie.

I didn't judge them the same way. From my post:

Each has their own song number, too! Unlike, say, A Muppet Christmas Carol, where there is sufficient space between songs to give characters (and the audience) time to think, MLP fills most of its time by singing. Part of this must be due to the 22 minute time restraint, of course. Even then, these songs could be cut down significantly.

(italics added)

Notice there how I specifically state that the short time frame of a 22 minute show excuses some aspects of music from a movie counterpart. The key word there is some. I still believe the songs in Hearth's Warming Tail could have been cut shorter, or had less lyrics, and it would have made them stronger.

5232638
The tale Twilight reads would reflect the attitude of the society they live in; hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the story about the Windigos is considered a legend in the ‘real’ Equestria, otherwise it would be utterly ridiculous for anyone to call it such, even inside a story.
And you seem to have the misapprehension that legends can't be true; legend is a status of historical knowledge (whether it clearly happened or has been lost to time), not of truth.

5231628 Singing Luna!!!

That's all I care about. It was a good episode overall, but I question the timing. Why air it now instead of later? Either closer to Christmas or maybe in July (as per the Christmas in July joke). Either way. Still a good episode.

Also...

Singing Luna!!!

5232691

The tale Twilight reads would reflect the attitude of the society they live in; hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the story about the Windigos is considered a legend in the ‘real’ Equestria

It's "reasonable" to conclude that someone in the real Equestria considered it a legend at the time the tale was written.
But almost never the canon can be based on "reasonable assumptions". The show is not so consistent, and has not any obligation to be reasonable. Or something is clearly and unequivocally stated (IE "unicorns are supposed to have just a little magic that matches their special talent". Spike says this as a matter of fact in front of a unicorn and a scholar of magic, so it can be taken as a true information on how Equestria works) or is just an headcanon, that can be more or less probable, but still an headcanon.
For what we know, the diary of Clover the Clever could have been found in the time passed from the writing of the tale and the time Twilight was reading it.

And you seem to have the misapprehension that legends can't be true;

"seem" is the key word here. When I write "legend" I intend "legend" not "tale that can't be true".
Is not really kind lecturing your interlocutor on the base of your assumptions on the meaning he gives to the words. Maybe it's better to ask first.

5232704 And a great song too.

5232737

I understand what you mean.

This is one of those episodes that I honestly can't wait to watch a second time. I believe my circumstances the first time made it a little harder for me to enjoy (I had very limited time to watch the episode and compose a review). Now that I'm free, I'll be able to watch and let the songs sink in. I don't know if I'll like the episode, but I have a feeling the music will grow on me.

5232735
If we use your definition of canon, then very little can be said to be canon to the show. That's just not useful from a writing perspective.

"seem" is the key word here. When I write "legend" I intend "legend" not "tale that can't be true".
Is not really kind lecturing your interlocutor on the base of your assumptions on the meaning he gives to the words. Maybe it's better to ask first.

You said:

There is only someone that considers it legend (but the vision of the last ghost seems to imply they are wrong).

There isn't really a way to interpret that as anything other than you using ‘legend’ to mean ‘tale that isn't true’. Perhaps you should make sure your position is consistent before you lecture your interlocutor on what they can and cannot assume.

5232979

If we use your definition of canon, then very little can be said to be canon to the show.

Really the show is full of canonical informations. So full that something it simply contraddicts itself for the sake of the plot, and then it's up to the fan, that cares about the canon, to try to explain the contraddictions in imaginative ways (IE, why on the earth to make a dress, for Rarity, can take variable times, from few seconds, like in Boast Busters, to three weeks, like in No Second Prances? Real explanation, for the jokes of the two episodes to work, different times were required. Fanwriters' explanation, the element of generosity is now a very busy businessmare with several boutiques to carry on, so she can't spend five seconds to help a friend).

That's just not useful from a writing perspective.

Why exactly? What difference it makes, from a writer's perspective, if, the hearth's warming tale being a legend, is canon or headcanon?
If you don't write something if it's not canon, then you can't write anything at all.
The only difference is that, following the "only if something is clearly and unequivocally stated" way, you risks way less to be blatantly contraddicted by the show.

There isn't really a way to interpret that as anything other than you using ‘legend’ to mean ‘tale that isn't true’.

1) Probably you didn't pay enough attention to the episode, did you?
"That's just a story we tell little ponies"
"windigos? They aren't real. It's just a little fillies story"
There is a difference from something that's "a legend" and something that's "just a legend". If something is "just a legend", then there is no known trace of historical truth in it. It's an old tale, and nothing more.

2) It's pretty funny your remark, when your exact words were: "The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend, not a historical production". There isn't really a way to interpret that. You have not only the misapprehension that legends can't be true, but even that the status of "legend" and that of "historical fact" is something separated and given once and for all. It's not. That status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar.

Perhaps you should make sure your position is consistent before you lecture your interlocutor about the meaning of words you don't know in first place.

The episode was good, although I think there were a few misses in setting the tone. I think Snowfall would have worked better if her dialogue would have been a bit different, to make it seem more egoistical. In the original story Ebenezer Scrooge was very cold hearted and selfish, not sure why Snowfall couldn't have been the same way, then the whole "erasing a holiday dedicated to kindness and happiness" wouldn't have felt so drastic. Working hard in order to make everyone's lives better is good advice, and it felt a bit strange how everyone at the party just laughed like the sentiment itself was plain ridiculous.

5233303

I think you're missing the context. That saying was used to try and dismiss Hearth's Warming as needless frivolity. It's dismissed because, well, a world where people entirely forsake joy to work hard isn't actually a better world.

5233241
I'm not going to be pulled into an argument about the meaning of ‘canon’.

There is a difference from something that's "a legend" and something that's "just a legend". If something is "just a legend", then there is no known trace of historical truth in it. It's an old tale, and nothing more.

This sounds to me very much like you're playing word games to justify making a mistake. ‘Just a legend’ literally just means ‘a legend’. That's how the word ‘just’ works.

2) It's pretty funny your remark, when your exact words were: "The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend, not a historical production". There isn't really a way to interpret that.

There isn't any way to interpret that? Really? So why did you try to dispute it, if you didn't know what it meant?

You have not only the misapprehension that legends can't be true,

Turning phrasing around doesn't work like that. I in no way implied that position.

but even that the status of "legend" and that of "historical fact" is something separated and given once and for all. It's not. That status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar.

Again, I never implied otherwise. It was you who connected ‘legend’ with ‘can't be true’. This entire exchange I have been using ‘legend’ to mean ‘isn't known to be true’.

Perhaps you should make sure your position is consistent before you lecture your interlocutor about the meaning of words you don't know in first place.

I think I'll just repeat this back to you verbatim, since it describes you much better than me.

5233428

I'm not going to be pulled into an argument about the meaning of ‘canon’.

So you prefer to pull someone into an argument about your lecturing the others about the meaning of the word "legend"?
It should be very interesting and in-topic in a thread about a "A Christmas Carol" referenced episode in a MLP forum.

This sounds to me very much like you're playing word games to justify making a mistake.

It sounds to me very much like you refusing to answer to the point by diverting the attention.
Probably you didn't pay enough attention to the episode, did you?
"That's just a story we tell little ponies"
"windigos? They aren't real. It's just a little fillies story"
There is a difference between something that's "a legend" and something that's "just a legend". If something is "just a legend", then there is no known trace of historical truth in it. It's an old tale, and nothing more.

And, face that, in your expression "The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend, not a historical production" you were using exactly the meaning of "just a legend", used in the show. Otherwise that expression has no sense. You know it. I know it. The rest is only fluff you piled up to hide it. But I have no doubt that you'll continue to pile it up much longer.

Turning phrasing around doesn't work like that. I in no way implied that position.

So why you wrote exactly that position? Your exact words were: "The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend, not a historical production". You have not only the misapprehension that legends can't be true, but even that the status of "legend" and that of "historical fact" is something separated and given once and for all. It's not. That status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar and can be amply mixed (see, for example, the debate about the historicity of the Iliad)

Again, I never implied otherwise. It was you who connected ‘legend’ with ‘can't be true’. This entire exchange I have been using ‘legend’ to mean ‘isn't known to be true’.

Then you used the wrong words, other than mistakenly implying that the status of "legend" and that of "historical fact" is something separated and given once and for all, when that status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar.

I think I'll just repeat this back to you verbatim

The lack of original arguments came first than I imagined then.

5233490

So you prefer to pull someone into an argument about your lecturing the others about the meaning of the word "legend"?

I'm not the one who started this argument. I made an observation, and you disputed it. Any replies from me are humoring you.

It sounds to me very much like you refusing to answer to the point by diverting the attention.

It looks very much to me like you just repeated what you said last time without even attempting to address my reply. Diverting attention at its best.

And, face that, in your expression "The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend, not a historical production" you were using exactly the meaning of "just a legend", used in the show. Otherwise that expression has no sense.

Uh, no.
“The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend <as in it is not sufficiently supported to be called history, but may or may not have actually happened>, not a historical production <which would imply they know for sure that it happened>.”

So why you wrote exactly that position?

As I have now explained multiple times, that is not the meaning of the word ‘legend’ as I have been using it.

You have not only the misapprehension that legends can't be true, but even that the status of "legend" and that of "historical fact" is something separated and given once and for all. It's not. That status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar.

Again you repeat what you said before as if repetition makes something more correct.

Then you used the wrong words, other than mistakenly implying that the status of "legend" and that of "historical fact" is something separated and given once and for all, when that status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar.

Is your ctrl+v stuck? Apparently you really want me to address this, so I guess I'll pick apart the one piece I haven't touched yet:
‘Legend’ and ‘historical fact’ are not labels set in stone, but they are mutually exclusive. A particular event can only ever be one at a time, depending on the knowledge of the people discussing it. It is clear that mainstream modern Equestria considers the WIndigos to be the former, not the latter, based on the attitudes displayed in the new episode.
You attempted to argue that, because the Windigos are shown at the end of the book, the tale of the Windigos cannot be a legend; this does not follow, because the factual existence of Windigos does not affect the general knowledge of their existence; if nobody knows they exist, then the story remains legend regardless of their existence. You implied otherwise.

The lack of original arguments came first than I imagined then.

The irony is strong with this one.

5233490
5233517
Guys, you're both correct about the stories in the horse cartoon.
Good job, y'all.

5233517

I'm not the one who started this argument.

"And you seem to have the misapprehension that legends can't be true"
You said it, you started it.

It looks very much to me like you just repeated what you said last time without even attempting to address my reply.

Your reply was: "This sounds to me very much like you're playing word games to justify making a mistake".
I adressed exactly it.
And I can do it again.
It sounds to me very much like you refusing to answer to the point by diverting the attention.
Probably you didn't pay enough attention to the episode, did you?
"That's just a story we tell little ponies"
"windigos? They aren't real. It's just a little fillies story"
There is a difference between something that's "a legend" and something that's "just a legend". If something is "just a legend", then there is no known trace of historical truth in it. It's an old tale, and nothing more.
And, face that, in your expression "The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend, not a historical production" you were using exactly the meaning of "just a legend", used in the show. Otherwise that expression has no sense. You know it. I know it. The rest is only fluff you piled up to hide it. But I have no doubt that you'll continue to pile it up much longer.

Infact you continued.

“The story of the founding of Equestria shown in the first Hearth's Warming episode is now canonically a legend <as in it is not sufficiently supported to be called history, but may or may not have actually happened>, not a historical production <which would imply they know for sure that it happened>.”

Again. You have not only the misapprehension that legends can't be true, but even that the status of "legend" and that of "historical fact" is something separated and given once and for all. It's not. That status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar and can be amply mixed (see, for example, the debate about the historicity of the Iliad)

As I have now explained multiple times, that is not the meaning of the word ‘legend’ as I have been using it.

So why you used it in exactly that way?

Again you repeat what you said before as if repetition makes something more correct.

It's not my fault if you continue to apply the misapprehension that the status of "legend" and "historical fact" is something separated and given once and for all, while that status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar and can be amply mixed (see, for example, the debate about the historicity of the Iliad)

Is your ctrl+v stuck?

No, it's that all the fluff you piled up can be adressed in a way that doesn't requires to me to find new ways to say the same things.

‘Legend’ and ‘historical fact’ are not labels set in stone, but they are mutually exclusive.

Really not. That status vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar and can be amply mixed (see, for example, the debate about the historicity of the Iliad)

It is clear that mainstream modern Equestria considers the WIndigos to be the former, not the latter, based on the attitudes displayed in the new episode.

In what reality?
It's "reasonable" to conclude that someone in the real Equestria considered it a legend at the time the tale was written.
And that's all.
Again (and you ask why I repeat my precedent statements?) You pretended to derive a general rule valid for all the "present time" Equestria from few opinions found in a story presumably written long time before Twilight reading it. But the statuses of "legend" and "historical fact" vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar (not to speak of fable writers) and can be amply mixed (see, for example, the debate about the historicity of the Iliad).
You are like an alien reading about cannonball riding in "Singular Travels, Campaigns, Voyages, and Sporting Adventures of Baron Munnikhouson, commonly pronounced Munchausen" and concluding that it had to be the common way of traveling on the Earth of 21th century.

You attempted to argue that, because the Windigos are shown at the end of the book, the tale of the Windigos cannot be a legend

In your dreams.
I stated that "the vision of the last ghost seems to imply they are wrong". Cause the factual existence of Windigos, and they showing a behaviour consistent with that of the known "hearth's warming" tale, add likelihood to the tale itself (in respect to a world in which is not known if the Windigos exist or not), like the geological consistency between the location of Troy as Hisarlik (and other locations such as the Greek camp) and the descriptions of the topography and accounts of the battle in the Iliad add likelihood to the Iliad itelf. The statuses of "legend" and "historical fact" are not labels set in stone. They vary from time to time and from scholar to scholar (not to speak of fable writers) and can be amply mixed.

5233517
5233582

5233582
I get the distinct impression that you only half-understand the things I write.

5233540
But I'm more correct, right?
…I'll stop.