![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
"Song of Achilles" Book Review
I just finished reading The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller, the 2012 winner of the Orange Prize for Fiction.
Broadly, it is a retelling of the story of Achilles from the eyes of his loyal companion Patroclus. If you know your Greek mythology, poems and plays, then every single moment in this book was known to you. Basically you were "spoiled", if one can be spoiled when the source material is several thousand years old.
If you don't know your "Greek", you may find yourself coming home from work one evening and have your mother ask you: Did you know Achilles was gay?
Yes, that is what happened a couple of days ago. I had briefly considered explaining that the way the Greeks conceptualised love, sexuality and all that jazz was not compatible with our modern notions of love, sexuality and jazz. I decided, however, to go a different route and ask, "Oh, you're reading that new book, are you?"
I was curious about it, considering that I had grown up with sanitised retelling of the Greek myths and then took the time to read the Iliad and the Odyssey (one of those rare occasions where the sequel is better than the first!) - not to mention the fact that thanks to my swanky Bachelor's degree in Literary Theory I also got to read part of Plato's Symposium in which the nature of love is articulated quite beautifully - so the story of Achilles, Patroclus and their burning love affair was known to me.
It's a big part of the plot on the Iliad and the characters in the philosophical debate in the Symposium call the love between Achilles and Patroclus the greatest example of romantic love, ever.
The book did a good job at showing the love and the relationship, but it lacked a depth I was expecting.
One of the things you don't have in the old Greek writings is inner thoughts and emotions, all you have are the actions (including speech) and the traits of the characters as they operate in the fictional world. In the Iliad we know that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers by the way they behaved with each other, the way Achilles favoured Patroclus, the way Patroclus was given Achilles' armour and the way Patroclus was mourned when he died.
In the book, which is written in the first person from Patroclus' point of view, would have been a great opportunity to explore the motivations, the update their personalities and given them a little more meat.
But it ended up being a thin read. There was very little nuance and it felt, most of all, that Patroclus existed merely to be Achilles' lover - which in a book with a name like Song of Achilles, is not all that out there - but I know that if Patroclus' character had been female I would have hated her for such passivity.
The passivity of both Patroclus and Achilles irritated me, because while it's in touch with ancient Greek mentality, it's a bit of a dull read, because there is no demand for agency. Yes, as mythical Greeks they are taught and trained to accept their destinies and follow their fates - when it comes to the internal conflict I expect as a modern reader, this book was very sparse.
The tale itself is very straight forward and if you know the myths, poems and plays you know what's coming and the foreshadowing falls a bit flat, such as it was.
I enjoyed it to the extend that after a while I stopped expecting it to have any depth or take any risks.
There's nothing in it that felt new literary wise, or emotionally compelling. Even Achilles' grief felt tacked on, it had to be there because the plot demanded it, there was nothing in the narrative that made me feel the devastation he would have felt.
I did delight in recognising all the characters and knowing how their stories related to Achilles and Patroclus' - Odysseus, as usual, is my favourite - I will always love that sly wise cracking asshole. Thetis, the sea nympth, was a magnificent and ambitious bitch of a goddess and I loved her and the way she tried to be a mover and shaker, but never quite managing. I liked Breseis, who in the Illiad is a princess, is demoted to farm girl, though her role in the feud between Agamemnon and Achilles is still central and her sisterly relationship with Patroclus was used to show that if it hadn't been for Achilles, Patroclus would have probably ended up married with children.
Which brings to the point of depiction. Lots has been written about the nature of Greek homosexual relationships (the word homosexual is inaccurate here as well, as the category didn't exist in Grecian times), from Zeus and Ganymede, to the Sacred Band of Thebes, to Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, there is vast terminology regarding the nature of love between men and I found that I had missed that in the book.
I felt there was a slight discomfort in the portrayal, because the only thing Achilles and Patroclus were being compared to was a married couple. One of the points made by the various philosophers of ancient Greece (specifically in Plato's Symposium) regarding the nature of love between men is that it is different than the love between a man and woman and the bond between a lover and his beloved is not at all equivalent to that between a husband and his wife.
I missed that distinction and would have liked to see it explored.
The writing is not nuanced and while I enjoyed the journey of reading the ending left me a bit cold, possibly because I felt it had been a missed opportunity.
I suspect it was the award due to the content being gay, but not in a way that made you think, "gay romance" because it is a retelling of classical myths and stories and manages to remain, as they say, decent.
I think if you're a fan of Greek mythology and the retelling of stories you should check it out; but don't go in thinking you'll find a profound telling regarding the nature of love, sacrifice and destiny.
For the TL:DR folks, it's a fun and fluffy book with some depictions of gore. I recommend it if you love mythology, fanfiction and romance.
Broadly, it is a retelling of the story of Achilles from the eyes of his loyal companion Patroclus. If you know your Greek mythology, poems and plays, then every single moment in this book was known to you. Basically you were "spoiled", if one can be spoiled when the source material is several thousand years old.
If you don't know your "Greek", you may find yourself coming home from work one evening and have your mother ask you: Did you know Achilles was gay?
Yes, that is what happened a couple of days ago. I had briefly considered explaining that the way the Greeks conceptualised love, sexuality and all that jazz was not compatible with our modern notions of love, sexuality and jazz. I decided, however, to go a different route and ask, "Oh, you're reading that new book, are you?"
I was curious about it, considering that I had grown up with sanitised retelling of the Greek myths and then took the time to read the Iliad and the Odyssey (one of those rare occasions where the sequel is better than the first!) - not to mention the fact that thanks to my swanky Bachelor's degree in Literary Theory I also got to read part of Plato's Symposium in which the nature of love is articulated quite beautifully - so the story of Achilles, Patroclus and their burning love affair was known to me.
It's a big part of the plot on the Iliad and the characters in the philosophical debate in the Symposium call the love between Achilles and Patroclus the greatest example of romantic love, ever.
The book did a good job at showing the love and the relationship, but it lacked a depth I was expecting.
One of the things you don't have in the old Greek writings is inner thoughts and emotions, all you have are the actions (including speech) and the traits of the characters as they operate in the fictional world. In the Iliad we know that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers by the way they behaved with each other, the way Achilles favoured Patroclus, the way Patroclus was given Achilles' armour and the way Patroclus was mourned when he died.
In the book, which is written in the first person from Patroclus' point of view, would have been a great opportunity to explore the motivations, the update their personalities and given them a little more meat.
But it ended up being a thin read. There was very little nuance and it felt, most of all, that Patroclus existed merely to be Achilles' lover - which in a book with a name like Song of Achilles, is not all that out there - but I know that if Patroclus' character had been female I would have hated her for such passivity.
The passivity of both Patroclus and Achilles irritated me, because while it's in touch with ancient Greek mentality, it's a bit of a dull read, because there is no demand for agency. Yes, as mythical Greeks they are taught and trained to accept their destinies and follow their fates - when it comes to the internal conflict I expect as a modern reader, this book was very sparse.
The tale itself is very straight forward and if you know the myths, poems and plays you know what's coming and the foreshadowing falls a bit flat, such as it was.
I enjoyed it to the extend that after a while I stopped expecting it to have any depth or take any risks.
There's nothing in it that felt new literary wise, or emotionally compelling. Even Achilles' grief felt tacked on, it had to be there because the plot demanded it, there was nothing in the narrative that made me feel the devastation he would have felt.
I did delight in recognising all the characters and knowing how their stories related to Achilles and Patroclus' - Odysseus, as usual, is my favourite - I will always love that sly wise cracking asshole. Thetis, the sea nympth, was a magnificent and ambitious bitch of a goddess and I loved her and the way she tried to be a mover and shaker, but never quite managing. I liked Breseis, who in the Illiad is a princess, is demoted to farm girl, though her role in the feud between Agamemnon and Achilles is still central and her sisterly relationship with Patroclus was used to show that if it hadn't been for Achilles, Patroclus would have probably ended up married with children.
Which brings to the point of depiction. Lots has been written about the nature of Greek homosexual relationships (the word homosexual is inaccurate here as well, as the category didn't exist in Grecian times), from Zeus and Ganymede, to the Sacred Band of Thebes, to Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, there is vast terminology regarding the nature of love between men and I found that I had missed that in the book.
I felt there was a slight discomfort in the portrayal, because the only thing Achilles and Patroclus were being compared to was a married couple. One of the points made by the various philosophers of ancient Greece (specifically in Plato's Symposium) regarding the nature of love between men is that it is different than the love between a man and woman and the bond between a lover and his beloved is not at all equivalent to that between a husband and his wife.
I missed that distinction and would have liked to see it explored.
The writing is not nuanced and while I enjoyed the journey of reading the ending left me a bit cold, possibly because I felt it had been a missed opportunity.
I suspect it was the award due to the content being gay, but not in a way that made you think, "gay romance" because it is a retelling of classical myths and stories and manages to remain, as they say, decent.
I think if you're a fan of Greek mythology and the retelling of stories you should check it out; but don't go in thinking you'll find a profound telling regarding the nature of love, sacrifice and destiny.
For the TL:DR folks, it's a fun and fluffy book with some depictions of gore. I recommend it if you love mythology, fanfiction and romance.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject