Historian Reviews THE SONG OF ACHILLES by Madeline Miller
The Daddy of all mythological retellings, The Song Of Achilles follows the lives of Greek heroes Achilles and Patroclus. Achilles is known for his role in the Trojan War, but his companion-turned-lover Patroclus, is often forgotten in modern times. TSOA starts when the two boys are young, and tells the story of their lives up until their mythological deaths. Miller uses so many ancient sources in order to weave this story - including Homer's Iliad, my fave - and craft these incredible men for a new audience.
As a story, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Miller's writing is poetic and lyrical, keeping the reader enchanted by her tale like an ancient bard once would have. The vast majority of this book is accurate to the original mythology as well, meaning readers are actually learning while reading! Patroclus accidentally killing a boy when he was younger? Real. Achilles being sent to study under Chiron? Happened. The boys (and later, men) doing everything together? Also, true. For that reason alone I have to give this book a high rating.
However.
My one issue with this book is the portrayal of Patroclus. In the Iliad, our beautiful Patroclus is one of the scariest men the Myrmidon army has to offer. He is noted as second to Achilles in his fighting skill, and proves himself as a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield. In book 16 of the Iliad, Patroclus kills around 52 people when Achilles allows him out of the tent (I say "around" as when I recount the deaths in the original Greek text, it ends up being between 50 and 54). Not only this, but his killing of Sarpedon in the original text is not an accidental stroke of luck, but instead a calculated and terrifying attack - he is a worthy opponent to the son of Zeus. Miller does write in TSOA how Patroclus attempted to scale the walls of Troy, but failed to mention how Apollo had to get involved to prevent the Greek from doing so as Patroclus would have, 100% and with out a shadow of a doubt, taken the city of Troy single handedly. Why? Because he was capable of it. Patroclus was a born and bred fighter just like Achilles - the only difference was that Patroclus was not son of a god. Although I loved the dynamic between Miller's Achilles and Patroclus, her Patroclus was not the ancient Patroclus. The ancient character would have never sat in the tent waiting for Achilles to come home - he would have been out there right next to him.
Because of the switch in character, Miller had to change one of the most crucial moments in her story: when Patroclus convinces Achilles to let him put on his armour and go fight. In the Iliad, Nestor is the one who gives Patroclus this idea as a way to scare the Trojans and buy the Greek army some time to defend their camps. Achilles therefore agrees only because he knows that Patroclus is perfectly capable of handling such a role. Where Miller has Patroclus promise Achilles he will not fight at all, Homer has Patroclus promise Achilles that he will not take Troy without him present. Very different characters, just in that detail alone. Both Miller and Homer's Patroclus do promise not to fight Hector though, and both break this oath.
All in all, I did love the book. It was just a shame that Patroclus' absolute beast of a character had to suffer in order for TSOA to succeed.
Check out our online article here: www.moaninc.co.uk/books/song-...
My GoodReads: / moaninc
TSOA Good Reads: / the-song-of-achilles
Grab The Book Here Using My Affiliate Link - amzn.to/3w9EiPJ
Donate Here: www.ko-fi.com/moaninc
Follow us on -
Facebook: / moaninc
Instagram: / moaninc
Twitter: / moaninc
#GreekMythology #BookReview #MadelineMiller
In the beggining I was kinda let down as well about Patroclus, but after I've read the book I understood what was Miller's vision and tought it was rather beautiful. I think she wanted to emphasise that a person didn't have to be a skilled warrior to be the best among the men, that gentleness and compassion was the greater weapon of all. It all comes down to the message she wanted to deliver, I don't really believe she made it that way for gender role purposes.
I finished reading this book half an hour ago and i sobbed like a baby . I loved Patroclus more than i loved Achilles. Even though he was softened a bit , still i believe he was stronger than Achilles he was so sensitive yet so brave and he kept him grounded .
There are a couple moments in particular where Miller’s writing really stands out imo: Achilles fight with the Scamander, pretty much everything with Briseis, Patroclus’ shade commenting on the war and fall of Troy and it’s reunion with Achilles, and the writing of A/P love especially always felt really genuine. She captures that careful and tentative and then heedless and boundless feeling of first love really well. She’s such a talented author.
I kind of agree with this take on Patroclus' characterization, but I think it's a little flawed? To me a core theme of TSOA is the conflict between Achilles' divinity and his mortality, and he is always at his most divine when he's at his most cruel and violent. He ascends to his most godlike and most vicious after the death of Patroclus, who Miller insinuates here is like his human half. Many of the other gods are portrayed as cold and cruel too, like Thetis and Apollo, and it gets expanded on even more in Circe. So if divinity is cruelty and violence, then humanity is nonviolence and healing. That's why Patroclus isn't a fighter, to further emphasize his position as the humanity to Achilles' divinity.
I felt like making Patroclus not a fighter type wasn't so much to do with his and Achilles' relationship dynamic but more of a way to make the retelling more anti-war. Because Patroclus talks a lot about how he dislikes the idea of killing and disapproves of Achilles role in the war (but still loves him and wants him to succeed). As boys, when informed about the Trojan war and before joining the troops, even Achilles says something about how meaningless and stupid it sounds.
With regards to Patroclus, my understanding of TSOA is that Madeline Miller plays a lot with reality vs. memory. There’s many discussions about how the way people tell stories does not necessarily reflect the reality of what happened, and that they have no idea who will end up being famous, or what they will say. My interpretation of that is something like the Iliad would be categorized as a narrated historical “re-telling”, while TSOA is meant to be a first-person subjective account of events. Obviously all of it is fiction, and this is Madeline Miller’s version of “reality”, but I like that she took the pieces of the Iliad and painted a very different picture. Storytelling is always a game of telephone and the stories become highly distorted over time, and I loved that she created a feeling of being able to peak inside a version of the “true” story. Patroclus characterized as being softer served a narrative purpose, a foil for Achilles, a tether to humanity, etc. but also had a major role in creating that feeling for me.
I think it was most likely that the author just wanted an extreme contrast between the two leads, but I agree he still could have been a fighter AND still be gentle and sensitive off the battlefield. He didn't necessarily need to be housewifey / physically gentle to get the soft personality across.
Yeah, Patroclus’s characterization in Song of Achilles irked me a bit. He was both a sensitive guy
Praise the Lord! I'm so happy that she shares the same views about Patroclus
TSOA is what got me interested in Greek Mythology again. I do agree with you about Patroclus. This was the first retelling of the Illiad I read. I did not know how good a fighter he was until I read other versions.
In this widely questionable flood of "great Patroclus" and "bad Achilles" (the Iliad is not a Western film) I would like to say that, in my opinion, no one in the Iliad makes such a high, truly heroic, noble choice as Achilles: when he decides to go back to the battlefield, he consciously decides to look for death yet no longer for his own glory but out of love for Patroclus. Achilles donates his own life for love, which is arguably the highest love act - worth of Alcestis, for instance - and makes him the cosmic hero and man of the poem.
I honestly did not know that patroclus was so tough in the illiad. Throughout reading the book, I honestly craved the scenes where he was a badass (when he wore achilles' armor for example) because I knew that even though he is portrayed as this kind and gentle person, he still has this tough, no bullshit side to him.
I finished the book a week ago and i agree with you. Even though i loved the Patroclus of the book, it was weird for me that he never learned how to fight, i didn't make sense since he was suposed to be the companion of Achilles in fights. I mean, for Miller´s version he might not like the idea of killing people, but come on, at least he could have learned some movements. I also think it was because od the stereotypes around homosexual relationships, where people try to make their character or physical appearance look similar to the idea of an heterosexual relationship where the woman is supposed to be soft and the man strong. Anyway, i really enjoyed the book and suffered with Patroclus. (Sorry if there are some problems with grammar, english is my second language)
Hey, super glad that you pointed out this flaw. It is a problem that happens a lot when women write gay male relationships. I absolutely ADORE the book, but it would’ve been so much more fulfilling to read if we did get to see Patroclus as War-loving as Achilles
I think the reasons she made him "soft" was 2:
I LOVE Madeline Miller’s writing. I love Song Of Achilles, Circe is a perfect book imo, and I cannot wait to see what she does with Persephone. My awesome boss actually loves MM’s books too and I got her a hardcover copy of Madeline Miller’s short story Galatea as a good luck/going away present.
I loved this book. I think she softened Patroclus for romance purposes? Like you said, a fem one, a tough one. Maybe doing it that way smooths out the story? I think most readers are focused on Achilles, so we can't have Patroclus outshining him. I'm just babbling lol I love Iliad and I loved this story, too.
TSOA was the book that got me from knowing absolutely nothing about Greek mythology other than what I vaguely remembered from high school (and honestly having no desire to know anything about it) to becoming completely obsessed with learning everything I can about it! Madeline Miller is truly a genius and is such a brilliant writer. Afterward I read a ton of mythology retellings and now I’m trying to read the original texts starting with the Iliad! But I do agree with your points, especially that about Patroclus now that I know how he was really like in the Iliad. I think TSOA, as gorgeous as it was, was very representative of a debut novel even if it was the best debut I’ve ever read. I think some parts of it did fall a
OMG!!! THIS!! You summarize my feelings exactly!! I loved the book, because as you said, it was pretty enjoyable, but she also changed Patroclus'es personality so much. I know she wanted to bring out how he was a kind man, and a good man, but they're also at war, and it was a normal thing in that time period the way they acted, even if it was not good. Being brutal and a savage in the battlefield doesn't erase that he is a kind man outside of it. I also didn't appreciate too much how sanatized the story felt in regards to Briseis. But I also think that she didn't want to concentrate on that side of the greeks.
I actually really like Patroclus in TSOA, but I didn't know that he was such a badass warrior. In fact, I don't like Achilles at all in the book. I think he's an arrogant brat that acts out as soon as he doesn't get what he wants. Patroclus is absolutely the main character for me in the book.