Authors versus Readers

While there are many similarities in the empires of Babylon and Assyria, the one that is most prevalent is that of the way they are written about by scribes. Van de Mieroop wore King Hammurabi in Babylon, in an effort to eulogize and glorify the actions and reign of Hammurabi. He was remembered as the “shepherd” who protected and took care of his citizens and his land, and as the militaristic genius who overtook a large portion of Northern Mesopotamia. What is interesting is that Van de Mieroop did not once mention the sources of his writings, or anything at all negative about Hammurabi’s reign. Although Hammurabi did do cruel things in order to acquire more land, none of this was depicted in the writings, and most of the evidence of his writings came from sources that Hammurabi himself inscribed. Authors tend to leave out these little pieces of information, thereby skewing the story in the readers mind. Similarly, when a stand in king was instituted in Assyria, there is no context as to how the king reacts or what he does, except for disappearing to his home. The reader has to pretty much assume how the next king in line took care of the empire. There is also little mention thus far about the nature of the king, whether he was a peasant or an advisor or someone in high ranks, and there is no analysis on how the effect of this king affected citizens or neighboring countries. This leads the reader to believe that the stand in king either did just as good of a job as the regular king, or was not significant in the empire, which is untrue because he was clearly brought up in the novel as a result of something important, and his character remains to be of interest to the citizens of Assyria.