"'Who are you to decide who is worthy of love?' said Hermes.
'And who are you to decide who is a monster?'"
The strongest thing that stuck out to me while reading Stone Blind was Haynes' incredible characterization skills. Something she does incredibly well in this novel, as well as her others, is craft the characters in such a way that we think of them exactly in the way she has intended, regardless of any preestablished conception we may have already had. This is even more impressive considering the fact that these characters have been written and rewritten so many times already, them being from some of the most well-known stories of Greek mythology. It is obvious to the reader that we're supposed to see Perseus as being ignorant, unheroic, and dependent, unlike other retellings that depict him as a brave hero. Athena is a lot more three-dimensional in this book, which depicts her as arrogant and petty, as opposed to simply wise. By assuming what the majority of readers already have been taught about these myths, Haynes is able to flip the narrative on their heads and make them reconsider what they may have previously thought as the whole story.
A common critique I've seen several people have about this book is that for a story seemingly to be centered around Medusa, very little of the actual text is from her perspective. While I understand the criticism, I think it's more so a critique on the marketing and what their expectations were as opposed to the work itself. By following every character related to Medusa's story and not so much herself, it helps establish Medusa as the true victim- everything that happens to her is at the hands of other characters, as opposed to her being the one in control. This storytelling choice really solidifies the ideas that Haynes is trying to get across, and for that reason they make sense. However, getting even a little bit more from Medusa herself could've helped to humanize her more, and therefore help more people connect with her story.