06-29-2012, 07:41 PM
Madeline Miller’s The Song of Achilles deals with a very old theme: the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. It tells the story of the pair from Patroclus’ point of view, from their earliest memories up to (and beyond) the death of Achilles before the walls of Troy.
The book has received some good reviews, and even won the Orange Prize. Yet other critics have been more reserved. Both The New York Times and The Telegraph have been less-than-glowing.
Miller has a strong background to be the teller of such a tale: you can tell she knows her stuff. She teaches Latin and Greek, and has apparently worked on bringing other ancient tales to a modern audience. And the book is very modern, aimed squarely at 21st Century sensibilities. Patroclus seems exactly like a modern pacifist, and his homosexual relationship with Achilles is opposed by characters that seem drawn from modern opponents to same sex relationships.
Some of the events needed to be changed for modern readers, too. Modern heroes don’t take women as property in war, nor do they demand human sacrifice, so these events had to be explained away to save the reader’s sympathy for Achilles.
Of course, the book is for a modern reader, and people have tried to interpret Homer for thousands of years, so I gave her some leeway in her portrayal.
She works hard on the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles, but gets embarrassingly corny at times. The sex scenes read like bodice-ripping romance novels, and the background for such relationships in ancient Greece is lacking.
She gets by the thorny question of which one was the erastês and which one was the erômenos by making them virtually the same age, and making it a relationship between equals. There are strong hints that Achilles was the “senior partner,” but Patroclus leads the action and develops the relationship. I think she handled this very difficult problem quite well. Even Plato struggled with it in his Symposium.
I was unimpressed with her portrayal of Agamemnon as a one-dimensional cartoon villain. Reading the book, one wonders why in the world the Greeks would have agreed to follow him. The instant he appears the reader will know he is the Bad Guy.
Some secondary characters were fascinating, especially Chiron, Briseis and Thetis. Odysseus, of course, was quite compelling.
I’m glad I read it, because it is a fun little story, but I don’t think it is an excellent novel. In my opinion the rage of Achilles – the driving force for, well, everything – is never adequately given a background. I think she describes his rage well, but never explains where it comes from. Overall, I don’t think I can recommend it. There are too many other good books out there to read.
The book has received some good reviews, and even won the Orange Prize. Yet other critics have been more reserved. Both The New York Times and The Telegraph have been less-than-glowing.
Miller has a strong background to be the teller of such a tale: you can tell she knows her stuff. She teaches Latin and Greek, and has apparently worked on bringing other ancient tales to a modern audience. And the book is very modern, aimed squarely at 21st Century sensibilities. Patroclus seems exactly like a modern pacifist, and his homosexual relationship with Achilles is opposed by characters that seem drawn from modern opponents to same sex relationships.
Some of the events needed to be changed for modern readers, too. Modern heroes don’t take women as property in war, nor do they demand human sacrifice, so these events had to be explained away to save the reader’s sympathy for Achilles.
Of course, the book is for a modern reader, and people have tried to interpret Homer for thousands of years, so I gave her some leeway in her portrayal.
She works hard on the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles, but gets embarrassingly corny at times. The sex scenes read like bodice-ripping romance novels, and the background for such relationships in ancient Greece is lacking.
She gets by the thorny question of which one was the erastês and which one was the erômenos by making them virtually the same age, and making it a relationship between equals. There are strong hints that Achilles was the “senior partner,” but Patroclus leads the action and develops the relationship. I think she handled this very difficult problem quite well. Even Plato struggled with it in his Symposium.
I was unimpressed with her portrayal of Agamemnon as a one-dimensional cartoon villain. Reading the book, one wonders why in the world the Greeks would have agreed to follow him. The instant he appears the reader will know he is the Bad Guy.
Some secondary characters were fascinating, especially Chiron, Briseis and Thetis. Odysseus, of course, was quite compelling.
I’m glad I read it, because it is a fun little story, but I don’t think it is an excellent novel. In my opinion the rage of Achilles – the driving force for, well, everything – is never adequately given a background. I think she describes his rage well, but never explains where it comes from. Overall, I don’t think I can recommend it. There are too many other good books out there to read.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
