A review by a_pocketful_of_literature
The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller
adventurous
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
I'd like to start with stating that i do adore this book a lot. Madeline Miller did a splendid job retelling one of the most known Greek myths, exploring the nature of Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship, grasping it in her own unique way while staying true to the original story. You can definitely tell that the book has been built upon thorough research. While taking her own spin on the centuries old myth and modernizing certain aspects, the core of the story still managed to stand true to the ancient version.
The described emotions could truly be felt, which, in my opinion, belongs between the signs of great writing.
Madeline Miller also made the book accessible to all, even to people who know nothing about the greek mythology at all, which is a commandable aspect of the book as well.
The writing is certainly more lyrical and the pace might seem slower to some people, although i felt like it was pleasantly compensated by composing the narrative into nicely melted snippets of memories and events, which was also quite fitting since we follow our duo through their entire life and it could get rather lenghty if done otherwise.
Now, even though i love the book overall and i absolutely devoured the story, there have been a few points which personally didn't quite suit me, which i believe could have been handled better or differently, and which are the reason i've decided not to give it whole 5 stars in the end.
I would have appreciated either some space for thoughts, feelings and discussion afterwards, just like the first situation received, or, instead of modernization of the usual ancient greek relationship, letting this aspect be more historically accurate and not making it a big deal at all. For men in ancient Greece, it was fairly common to have multiple sexual partners even after being married, as it was not viewed as cheating; also love, marriage and sexual closeness were considered completely seperated matters. Also, women were not considered equals in that era, and therefore it would be unlikely that sex with a woman would pose a threat to the relationship of two men.
I can imagine them being open about having multiple sexual partners for pleasure purposes, having healthy discussion about it and reaching mutual agreement on the matter, without it taking any toll on the nature, deepness, stability and strenght on their romantic relationship, given the historical setting and their good communication skills.
2. Patroclus and fighting competence: Even though i believe him to be an amazing character, i would't be opposed to him being more independent and competent when it came to defending himself, as it was in the Iliad, since i feel like it would make the finale of a book even more believable and Patroclus' decision of impersonating Achilles more reasonable.
3. Thetis and Achilles: Even considering all the Thetis' flaws that were given to her in this particular retelling, i think she wouldn't push Achilles into an unconsensual intercourse, being the rape victim herself and loving her son very much.
4. Briseis: Briseis herself was just great and i very much enjoyed her character. However, i don't think her being treated "better" than the rest of the women was very realistic, espesially since other women were treated to ancient standards. The position of women in ancient Greece was, very nicely put, not great. We can very clearly see it in this story for example via multiple mentioned rapes, arranged marriages, or the treatment of Patroclus' mother. I've found this historical accuracy she decided to keep fitting, but it made Briseis' "better" treatment stand out a little bit.
It is also important to mention that the tragedy that befell Patroclus happened only because Achilles decided to be stubborn and not fight, which was caused by his "sex-slave war price", Briseis, being stolen by Agamemnon, who therefore handicaped Achilles' pride in the eyes of his soldiers.
However, Briseis as a character is awesome and i kinda like the relationship she has with Patroclus and Achilles, so i'm glad she had it better in that regard, and i can see why Madeline Miller thought it would fit better into her retelling, as her position served other opportunities and purposes.
The described emotions could truly be felt, which, in my opinion, belongs between the signs of great writing.
Madeline Miller also made the book accessible to all, even to people who know nothing about the greek mythology at all, which is a commandable aspect of the book as well.
The writing is certainly more lyrical and the pace might seem slower to some people, although i felt like it was pleasantly compensated by composing the narrative into nicely melted snippets of memories and events, which was also quite fitting since we follow our duo through their entire life and it could get rather lenghty if done otherwise.
Now, even though i love the book overall and i absolutely devoured the story, there have been a few points which personally didn't quite suit me, which i believe could have been handled better or differently, and which are the reason i've decided not to give it whole 5 stars in the end.
Spoiler
1. The sexual scene both Achilles and Patroclus had with Deidameia: While i feel quite satisfied with the way Achilles' part has been handled, i did not feel comfortable with the part where similar experience befell Patroclus. Achilles was given room to express his feelings, give explanation and take his stand on the matter, so that the reader could grasp why it happened, what it had to do with the rest of the story and how it might affect the relationship between the duo, providing a certain type of closure i viewed as appropriate given the sensitive topic at hand and Patroclus' heartbroken first reaction when it came to Achilles' part. With Patroclus, while provided with a detailed portrayal of the disturbing scene itself, we get none of the afterthought. We do not get to know how Patroclus handled the matter mentally and whether or not he discussed what had happened to him with Achilles in return for Achilles' own prior openness. Achilles doesn't get the chance to express his opinion and emotions about the situation, he likely doesn't even get to be counscious of the matter itself happening. After the intercourse, where the reader is fully immersed in the confusion, uncertainty and nonstandard mental state of both Patroclus and Deidameia, with Deidameia manipulating Patroclus in the process, the scene is simply forgotten and never mentioned again. The scene is left just like that, and reader with it.I would have appreciated either some space for thoughts, feelings and discussion afterwards, just like the first situation received, or, instead of modernization of the usual ancient greek relationship, letting this aspect be more historically accurate and not making it a big deal at all. For men in ancient Greece, it was fairly common to have multiple sexual partners even after being married, as it was not viewed as cheating; also love, marriage and sexual closeness were considered completely seperated matters. Also, women were not considered equals in that era, and therefore it would be unlikely that sex with a woman would pose a threat to the relationship of two men.
I can imagine them being open about having multiple sexual partners for pleasure purposes, having healthy discussion about it and reaching mutual agreement on the matter, without it taking any toll on the nature, deepness, stability and strenght on their romantic relationship, given the historical setting and their good communication skills.
2. Patroclus and fighting competence: Even though i believe him to be an amazing character, i would't be opposed to him being more independent and competent when it came to defending himself, as it was in the Iliad, since i feel like it would make the finale of a book even more believable and Patroclus' decision of impersonating Achilles more reasonable.
3. Thetis and Achilles: Even considering all the Thetis' flaws that were given to her in this particular retelling, i think she wouldn't push Achilles into an unconsensual intercourse, being the rape victim herself and loving her son very much.
4. Briseis: Briseis herself was just great and i very much enjoyed her character. However, i don't think her being treated "better" than the rest of the women was very realistic, espesially since other women were treated to ancient standards. The position of women in ancient Greece was, very nicely put, not great. We can very clearly see it in this story for example via multiple mentioned rapes, arranged marriages, or the treatment of Patroclus' mother. I've found this historical accuracy she decided to keep fitting, but it made Briseis' "better" treatment stand out a little bit.
It is also important to mention that the tragedy that befell Patroclus happened only because Achilles decided to be stubborn and not fight, which was caused by his "sex-slave war price", Briseis, being stolen by Agamemnon, who therefore handicaped Achilles' pride in the eyes of his soldiers.
However, Briseis as a character is awesome and i kinda like the relationship she has with Patroclus and Achilles, so i'm glad she had it better in that regard, and i can see why Madeline Miller thought it would fit better into her retelling, as her position served other opportunities and purposes.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Misogyny, Pregnancy, Slavery, Violence, Rape, Sexual violence, Adult/minor relationship, Murder, Sexism, and War
Minor: Pregnancy, Confinement, Classism, and Adult/minor relationship