Okay, I'm jumping on the bandwagon. I loved this book, and I don't care if people out there would like to argue with me about Madeline Miller's prose or historical accuracy. It's called historical fiction for a reason.
I would also consider this an elevated "fan-fic," so I don't think we should be using this book to analyze The Iliad; however, that caveat should not be a dig against Madeline Miller either. Miller's prose is enchanting, stark, and honest. She breathes new life into traditional tales, weaving in complexity and nuance. I also agree that the hype of this book is well deserved.
Regardless of people's critiques of this novel, it fully impacted me and many others. Criticisms are necessary for all art, but criticism should be handled appropriately. After all, it is when we exaggerate faults that harm occurs.
Spoiler-Free Synopsis:
Achilles is the son of King Peleus and the sea goddess Thetis, making him the legendary demi-god featured in Homer's The Iliad (the epic poem that tells of the historically debated Trojan War).
Patroclus is a princeling, the son of Mennonites, overlooked and discredited by mostly everyone. Like Achilles, he is also featured in Homer's The Iliad.
Achilles and Patroclus are brought together, as boys, by misfortune. The two form an inseparable bond and navigate everything a traditional Greek tragedy offers: love, betrayal, violence, and glory. The Song of Achilles (TSOA) is set in front of the backdrop to the Trojan War, a ten-year battle sparked by the kidnapping of Helen of Troy. Achilles and Patroclus are faced with insurmountable odds: Achilles is pressured to fulfill the prophecy which will earn him eternal glory and a place among the Gods; Patroclus is destined only to live in obscurity and exile.
The Writing
I enjoyed how Miller's prose bounced back and forth between simplistic and complex. I believe Instagram and Twitter misrepresent authors' prose by only posting the "beautiful lines," when in reality, it's unrealistic to expect a book to have complex lines from beginning to end. Even Leo Tolstoy contrasts complexity with the mundane.
I've read a few reviews that expressed dislike for Madeline Miller's prose. I will preface this argument by saying that everyone has a right to their preferred styles of writing, but I think it is unfair to label writers as "bad" simply because you don't resonate with their style. Moreover, it is equally unfair to categorize so-called "talented writers" into one school and "hacks" into another without providing proper proof.
From a writer's perspective, Miller's prose has a strategy. I would not consider it boring. For example, in chapter one, Miller writes:
"He did not find out until the wedding that she was simple. Her father had been scrupulous about keeping her veiled until the ceremony, and my father had humored him. If she was ugly, there were always slave girls and serving boys. When at last they pulled off the veil, they say my mother smiled. That is how they knew she was quite stupid. Brides did not smile."
This is then contrasted with a more complex excerpt later in that same chapter:
"In this last memory, I am skipping stones for her, plink, plink, plink, across the skin of the sea. She seems to like the way the ripples look, dispersing back to glass. Or perhaps it is the sea itself she likes. At her temple a starburst of white gleams like bone, the scar from the time her father hit her with the hilt of a sword."
The first excerpt conveys a "matter-of-fact" tone, which is a strategy in itself. Simplistic prose can lend itself to characterization because our narrator is detached from this specific event. And the words themself imply something uncomfortable and vile: "If she was ugly, there were always slave girls and serving boys." Admittedly, there is not much to categorize that first excerpt as "lyrical." But its not supposed to be.
The second excerpt contrasts this simplistic tone. The line, ". . . I am skipping stones for her, plink, plink, plink, across the skin of the sea," utilizes sensory details, metaphor, and imagery that the first excerpt lacks. But again, I would argue that this is a strategy rather than "boring" writing. The simplistic nature of Miller's prose elevates the more lyrical moments of her writing. In other words, her simplistic moments create space for her complexity.
The Characters/Plot:
I want to offer another disclaimer in place of another personal opinion of mine concerning the characters of TSOA. I have not read The Iliad. I have, instead, familiarized myself over the years with video essays and short excerpts from Homer's epic. I understand that this dampens my credibility when it comes to the analysis of the characters and the plot, so I will keep this brief.
In general, I don't mind that this is not historically accurate, nor do I care that it does not follow the original plot of The Iliad. As an author, you have every right to take liberties with your art as long as those liberties don't harm anyone or anything. From my knowledge, I don't believe that Miller did so. Rather, I think Miller adapted the classic story and characters to fit within a simpler retelling.
Alternative Views:
Considering that TSOA is a retelling, I think there is a pressing question we must ask ourselves: "What does this retelling do that the original doesn't?" That I cannot necessarily answer with one-hundred percent certainty. Maybe Miller's retelling gives Patroclus a voice that was missing in The Iliad? According to another review by Aaron Lafferty, Miller does precisely this. Lafferty claims that Miller's retelling deepens the assumption that Patroclus and Achilles (A&P) were lovers; and that Miller heightens their interpersonal qualities. Lafferty suggests that Miller's reinterpretation of Brisies also deepens A&P's interpersonal qualities by using Brisies as a foil to which the three characters can play off each other. Judging from the lens of strict literary standards, this was a smart move.
Comparatively, in a (subjectively) negative review by Goodreads user saïd, there seems to be some discussion condemning Miller's "fan-fic" approach and the liberties that she took regarding the characters. Though I agree with many of saïd's points, I think that saïd is approaching TSOA as a historical analysis of The Iliad. I don't personally believe that this was Miller's intent at all. Instead, I would argue that Miller wanted to re-examine Homer's classic characters and give them a new breath of life. Regarding homophobia, misogyny, and toxic masculinity—they weren't details that deterred me from being impacted by this novel. Anyone with an elementary understanding of Ancient Greece knows there were contradictory views on non-heteronormative relationships (as in modernity). But I think it is dangerous to generalize an ancient population and say that everyone was misogynistic and homophobic. Obviously, it was rampant then—but it doesn't mean that individuals had different, nuanced perspectives of such things.
As for saïd's condemnation of Miller's female characters being flat, I did not see it as a problem. This story wasn't about Briseis, Helen, Deidamia, or Thetis. It was about Achilles and Patroclus. Naturally, those female characters aren't going to get the same introspection that Achilles and Patroclus had. It is also important to remember that this is a first point-of-view (POV) from Patrocolus, meaning we will have all of Patroclus' biases. And as a man raised primarily by/around other males, he will have a detachment from women. He will also likely embody the homophobia/misogyny which was commonplace in the ancient world.
_-_Napoli_MAN_9105_-_03_(cropped).jpg)
The homophobia angle that saïd also tried to push was primarily rooted in what they explained as the "erastes (active partner) and eromenos (passive partner)," dynamic. This is important to point out because this goes back to my "Why is this retelling important?" question. Though on the surface, it appears to be a hetero-normative view of homosexual relationships (and one that is unhealthy and stigmatized, to say the least), I would argue against such a claim. Saïd claims this is apparent since Patroclus is written as Achilles' "weaker" partner. Though this position is substantiated through the characters around Patroclus that discredit him, I believe Patroclus discredits himself. WE ARE IN A CLOSE FIRST-PERSON POV! This means we must approach assumptions from the assumption that Patroclus is biased (i.e. insecure, self conscious, unconfident). No character is one-hundred percent reliable. Therefore, we cannot say for sure whether or not Patroclus is the passive partner.
The Impact:
TSOA undoubtably has had a tremendous impact on pop culture. I mean, just go and search "Achilles and Patroclus" on Youtube. You'll def find an inescapable rabbit hole to go down. Likewise, I can't seem to go to any creative writing class nowadays without someone bringing up TSOA at least bi-weekly. I would say that is a legacy in itself.
However, I wouldn't say that TSOA should be taught as a companion to Homer. Instead, I do think it is a good example of successful fan-fiction--it is a lighter sampling of Homer. It offers differing perspectives of a classic in a digestible setting. Additionally, there are many discussions to be had regarding plot, character, historical importance, etc. TSOA is important because it is an example of how a re-telling can actually be successful. And as far as fan-fics go, this is definitely a quality fan-fic.
Kayla's Rating: ⅘
Would I recommend this book?: Yes! (With a disclaimer about historical accuracy.)
Commentaires