I do agree that the use of Hermes as a go-between seems natural enough, but it could stand to be a little less infodumpy and a little more naturally conversational.
Agreed. For me it came across as a bit.. Willy Wonka-ish.
Also, I'm not sure if I'm following this right, but the gods aren't "myths" in the sense of being somehow false. They do feature in human mythology; human perception of them is affected by that, and they themselves seem to have adopted some of it (for example, Hermes self-identifying as Hermes,) but they predate the sun-change by a very, very long time. (You'll recall, for example, that Selene remembers back to the birth of the actual Moon.)
I think it's fair to say that the gods are part of the fabric of existence rather then keepers of it. Humans didn't make the gods, in any way then they made the universe... (or did they? ;) )
(Though the incarnated gods - Selene and Artemis, for example - did get their current forms through that, but even then it's questionable whether that's cause-and-effect in the standard mortal understanding, or simply that this is the intersection of two particular lines of existence that were always set to intersect from the beginning.)
Wow... hold on... are we saying then that Artemis is indeed a full goddess? (quickly updates notes) I'm not sure I completely follow here... but I think we can be quantum about it. Maybe certain things are defined and then its as if they were always perceived as that way. It doesn't need to be cause and effect. I'm still not really happy with the way the gods are so... ordinary. I don't really like incarnated gods, (as in literally, given flesh). I really don't like hermes just popping in to fix everything. It's going to happen every time there's a problem- so why bother even writing it?
Did I explain that coherently?
Kinda yes. But I had to read that a few times ;)
