Writing Craft Guide

How to Write Mythology Retellings

A mythology retelling is not simply a myth in modern dress: it is a conversation between the original story and a new perspective that finds in the old material something that the original telling could not or would not say. The craft is in understanding what the myth is actually about beneath its surface and finding the angle that makes that meaning visible in a new way.

Conversation, not translation

Mythology retellings succeed as

The suppressed perspective reveals

New angles work when they

Know the tradition, not just the tale

Retelling depth requires

The Craft of Mythology Retellings

The retelling as conversation, not translation

A mythology retelling is a conversation between two texts across time: the original source and the new work, each illuminating the other. Writing a retelling as conversation rather than translation requires maintaining the productive tension between what the original says and what the retelling needs to say — not resolving that tension by simply modernizing the original, but by finding the places where the original resists contemporary reading and making those resistances into the retelling's subject. The retelling that is simply the myth made more accessible has done less interesting work than the retelling that finds in the myth's strangeness, its values, its assumptions, the materials for a new kind of story.

Finding the suppressed perspective

Many of the most successful mythology retellings are told from perspectives the original text suppressed or marginalized: the wife of the hero, the monster the hero kills, the nymph who becomes a tree, the mortal caught between divine factions who cares nothing about their war. Writing from the suppressed perspective requires understanding why that perspective was suppressed in the original — what the original story could not afford to give it — and making the suppression itself part of what the retelling is about. The retelling from Medea's perspective that simply presents her as sympathetically as possible is less interesting than the retelling that understands what the original myth needed Medea to be and why, and uses that understanding to complicate rather than simply reverse the original's judgment.

Knowing the mythological tradition, not just the story

Myths exist in traditions, not as single texts: the story of Persephone has multiple versions with different emphases, different explanations for the same events, different relationships between the characters. Writing mythology retellings with knowledge of the tradition rather than just a single version means understanding the range of what the myth has been and what it has been used to mean — the political contexts, the ritual contexts, the changes the story underwent over centuries. This knowledge serves the retelling in two ways: it prevents the writer from treating a contingent detail as essential, and it offers a richer set of materials to draw on, including variants the writer can choose to honor or set aside.

The contemporary frame and what it reveals

Setting a mythology retelling in a contemporary frame — whether explicitly modern or in a fantasy world that draws on modern experience — should reveal something about the myth that a purely ancient setting would obscure. Writing the contemporary frame as revelation rather than decoration requires understanding what specifically the modern context illuminates: the myth of a god who punishes human ambition reads differently when the human is a woman in a world where female ambition has specific constraints; the myth of the underworld reads differently when the underworld is rendered as depression or grief rather than a literal afterlife. The contemporary frame that is simply a modern coat for an ancient story has not yet discovered what the modern coat is for.

What the myth is actually about

Every myth has a surface story and something it is actually about: the Persephone myth is on the surface about a kidnapping, but it is actually about the origin of the seasons, the initiation into adult sexuality, the relationship between the world of the living and the world of the dead, the limits of maternal protection. Writing a mythology retelling requires identifying what the myth is actually about and deciding which of those meanings the retelling will serve — because a myth can support multiple readings, but a single retelling cannot serve all of them equally. The retelling that does not know what the myth is actually about will produce a story that reproduces the surface events without understanding why those events have the shape they do.

Tragedy, transformation, and the mythic ending

Myths frequently end in tragedy or transformation: the hero dies, the mortal becomes a star, the woman becomes a tree, the god is bound. Writing mythic endings in a retelling requires understanding what the original ending accomplished — what it explained, what it acknowledged, what it refused — and deciding how to honor that function without necessarily reproducing the literal ending. The retelling that gives Medea a happy ending has changed the ending's function, not just its content; it has refused what the original ending acknowledged about the costs of Jason's betrayal and Medea's response to it. A different ending can work if it understands what it is refusing and offers something in its place that is equally honest about the myth's central concern.

Retell your myth with iWrity

iWrity helps mythology retelling authors find the angle that justifies the new version, track the relationship between source and retelling, map the suppressed perspective and what its freedom reveals, and understand what the myth is actually about at the level below its surface events.

Start for free

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you find the angle that justifies writing a mythology retelling?

The angle that justifies a retelling is the perspective that the original telling could not take: the character who was marginal in the original, the event the original skipped over, the question the original answered too quickly, the reading that was impossible given the cultural assumptions of the original audience. A retelling is justified when it has something specific to say that requires this particular myth to say it — when the myth is the necessary vehicle for a meaning that the writer wants to deliver, not simply a famous story that has been borrowed for its recognition value. The retelling that simply modernizes the setting or gender-swaps a character without finding what that change reveals has done less work than a retelling that discovers something in the original that the original could not acknowledge.

How do you write divine characters as characters in mythology retellings?

Divine characters in retellings present the fundamental challenge of beings whose motivations are not human: gods who act from principles that are not reducible to human psychology, who operate on timescales that make individual human lives incidental. Writing divine characters as actual characters requires finding the way to make their non-human motivations comprehensible without domesticating them into merely powerful humans — the god who genuinely does not experience time as humans do, whose relationship to a mortal protagonist is genuinely alien even when it appears to be love or hatred. The divine character who is simply a powerful person with a grudge is less interesting than the divine character whose perspective is genuinely other, who wants something that is recognizable as wanting while the nature of that wanting is not entirely human.

How do you handle mythological source material without being constrained by it?

The retelling's relationship to its source should be productive rather than constraining: the writer should know the source material deeply enough to understand what is essential and what is contingent, what can be changed without betraying the myth and what must be honored for the retelling to remain in conversation with it. Changing the setting, the secondary characters, the specific sequence of events, the gender of a character — all of these are typically contingent rather than essential. What is essential is usually something at the level of the myth's structure or its central question: the pride that brings the hero down, the impossible choice that defines the tragedy, the transformation that is the myth's real subject. The retelling that changes the essential is no longer in conversation with the source; it has simply borrowed the name.

How do you make a mythology retelling feel contemporary without losing its mythic quality?

Mythic quality comes from the story's scale and its relationship to universal human concerns — the things that myths have always been about: death and what comes after, the relationship between human will and divine or natural force, the price of transgression, the nature of heroism. A mythology retelling feels contemporary without losing mythic quality when the contemporary specificity serves the mythic themes rather than replacing them: the modern setting that makes the myth's question more urgent, the contemporary character whose situation illuminates the original story's meaning in a new way. The retelling that becomes purely contemporary — that reduces the myth to a story about modern problems without the resonance of the mythic scale — has lost the retelling's reason for being mythological at all.

What are the most common mythology retelling craft failures?

The most common failure is the retelling as repackaging: the myth in modern dress with no new perspective, no new angle, nothing the retelling discovers that the original did not already say. The second failure is the villain redemption that betrays the myth: making sympathetic the figures the myth requires to be monstrous, which often tells the reader more about the writer's discomfort with the original's moral universe than about anything in the myth worth re-examining. The third failure is the divine-as-human: gods who are simply powerful people with the same psychology as the mortal characters, which loses the genuine otherness that makes mythology interesting. And the fourth failure is the incomplete research: the retelling of a myth the writer knows only from one secondary source, which typically produces a version that misses the mythological tradition's complexity and ambiguity.