![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I actually had known about The Song of Achilles for a long time but did not start reading it long ago because I thought it was going to be a cheesy gray romance. However, more than a week ago, I found out that the author was knowledegeable about Greek mythology and the portrayals of the gods and goddesses in The Song of Achilles were great so I started reading The Song of Achilles, hoping for the best.
The first few lines of The Song of Achilles drew me in. It was beautiful, it was personal and emotional and there was this degree of formality and epicness. I am a firm believer that retellings of Greek epics and mythologies need that degree of formality otherwise those retellings will become too modern, less wondrous and strange. And in the matter of tone and writing, I think Miller did well in both the Song of Achilles and Circe.
It is no doubt that Miller is a good writer. She can write amazing passages of such stunning beauty and visuals that it is hard not to get pulled into her world of gods and mortals. However, along with those passages of beauty, she also makes purple proses. It is quite apparent in The Song of Achilles, when sometimes, Patroclus's declarations of love for Achilles feel too cheesy and purpleish.
I do think that she has done a good job in portraying the world and building the plot, stringing together myths and stories from different sources to pursue a purpose, a vision and a certain characteristic. Miller knows a lot about Greek mythology and it is interesting to see her take on the gods and goddesses. I enjoy her portrayal of the god Apollo (who shew up in both books) and Hermes (who made some appearances in Circe).
Despite all of these amazing things, I do have some problems with the books. Patroclus in The Song of Achilles had no personality besides some childhood loneliness and his love for Achilles. Circe was better developed as a character than Patroclus was. Both of those character, however, both were developed in the same way (You would think that a goddess who turned men into pigs and a warrior were different!). I was struck by how similar their childhoods were. When they were young, they were both children who were neglected and disliked by their parents, mocked by people of their age. Both of them were told they were dumb and stupid; both of them got told that they had no power and both of their childhoods had this same feel of loneliness and isolation. Patroclus felt isolated among the boys and Circe felt isolated amomg her nymphs. They were also people who used to be innocent and meant well. It brings me to my issues with the books: Miller seems to like a particular kind of character and she twisted the myth in order to support those characteristics. When there were actions that could not be changed but did not fit the characters she had set out to paint, she made reasons but those actions still felt contrived.
Look at Patroclus. He was kind, a healer, did not want to hurt people and could not fight. Then the actions came and he was supposed to wear Achilles's armour and went out to fight. And then suddenlly, this character who could not fight turn into a raging warrior who easily threw his spear to kill his enemies. Patroclus in the Iliad was definitely not the kind person Miller's Patroclus was so it was not strange for him to suddely do so. The same could not be said for Miller's Patroclus.
Then look at Circe. The witch who felt sorrow because astrologers were killed according to her father's whims. The woman who was saddened that sailors died because what she had done to Scylla. Miller worked to turn Circe into a kind goddes who feels sympathy for the suffering of mortals. But one thing that could not be changed was that Circe had turned a bunch of men into pigs in Odyssey. So Circe did it and Miller had to attribute it to a rape that Circe had suffered at the hand of a callous man. (My dislike toward Miller's portrayl of Circe is also because Circe in the sources seemed to be one more intelligent than the one in this book. Circe in the myths always seemed to understand her power and her abilities more and more active than the one in this book.)
In these two books, Miller has done a lot of changes to make these character more likeable to modern sensibilties. Patroclus was older in the Iliad but she made him to be of Achilles's age (probably to avoid modern people's objections relationships between men and boys, which were widespread in ancient Greece). Achilles definitely bedded women whom he had captured and whose families he had slained but in this book, she turned him into a a person who was only interested in sex with Patroclus. She also mentioned nothing about the people who Achilles had killed in Patroclus's funeral. She did not hide much what Circe had done but she gave them excuses. She had made these characters to fit modern moral standards but she had done nothing to the world they occupied. The gods and goddesses were still as cruel as the ones from the myths; the mortals were still shown to be as awful, which is why it is frankly hard to imagine where Achilles, Patroclus and Circe get their ideas and mortal standards from. Achilles and Patroclus were born at a time when sex with slaves was normal and it was strange that Patroclus objected to it so much. Circe was born amidts cruelty with little to no good influence and she cared about mortals? Those three characters (and some others who Miller decided to cherish) stood strange and lost amidts those who stayed true to the characteristics of the myths and that is my main issue with the novels.
The first few lines of The Song of Achilles drew me in. It was beautiful, it was personal and emotional and there was this degree of formality and epicness. I am a firm believer that retellings of Greek epics and mythologies need that degree of formality otherwise those retellings will become too modern, less wondrous and strange. And in the matter of tone and writing, I think Miller did well in both the Song of Achilles and Circe.
It is no doubt that Miller is a good writer. She can write amazing passages of such stunning beauty and visuals that it is hard not to get pulled into her world of gods and mortals. However, along with those passages of beauty, she also makes purple proses. It is quite apparent in The Song of Achilles, when sometimes, Patroclus's declarations of love for Achilles feel too cheesy and purpleish.
I do think that she has done a good job in portraying the world and building the plot, stringing together myths and stories from different sources to pursue a purpose, a vision and a certain characteristic. Miller knows a lot about Greek mythology and it is interesting to see her take on the gods and goddesses. I enjoy her portrayal of the god Apollo (who shew up in both books) and Hermes (who made some appearances in Circe).
Despite all of these amazing things, I do have some problems with the books. Patroclus in The Song of Achilles had no personality besides some childhood loneliness and his love for Achilles. Circe was better developed as a character than Patroclus was. Both of those character, however, both were developed in the same way (You would think that a goddess who turned men into pigs and a warrior were different!). I was struck by how similar their childhoods were. When they were young, they were both children who were neglected and disliked by their parents, mocked by people of their age. Both of them were told they were dumb and stupid; both of them got told that they had no power and both of their childhoods had this same feel of loneliness and isolation. Patroclus felt isolated among the boys and Circe felt isolated amomg her nymphs. They were also people who used to be innocent and meant well. It brings me to my issues with the books: Miller seems to like a particular kind of character and she twisted the myth in order to support those characteristics. When there were actions that could not be changed but did not fit the characters she had set out to paint, she made reasons but those actions still felt contrived.
Look at Patroclus. He was kind, a healer, did not want to hurt people and could not fight. Then the actions came and he was supposed to wear Achilles's armour and went out to fight. And then suddenlly, this character who could not fight turn into a raging warrior who easily threw his spear to kill his enemies. Patroclus in the Iliad was definitely not the kind person Miller's Patroclus was so it was not strange for him to suddely do so. The same could not be said for Miller's Patroclus.
Then look at Circe. The witch who felt sorrow because astrologers were killed according to her father's whims. The woman who was saddened that sailors died because what she had done to Scylla. Miller worked to turn Circe into a kind goddes who feels sympathy for the suffering of mortals. But one thing that could not be changed was that Circe had turned a bunch of men into pigs in Odyssey. So Circe did it and Miller had to attribute it to a rape that Circe had suffered at the hand of a callous man. (My dislike toward Miller's portrayl of Circe is also because Circe in the sources seemed to be one more intelligent than the one in this book. Circe in the myths always seemed to understand her power and her abilities more and more active than the one in this book.)
In these two books, Miller has done a lot of changes to make these character more likeable to modern sensibilties. Patroclus was older in the Iliad but she made him to be of Achilles's age (probably to avoid modern people's objections relationships between men and boys, which were widespread in ancient Greece). Achilles definitely bedded women whom he had captured and whose families he had slained but in this book, she turned him into a a person who was only interested in sex with Patroclus. She also mentioned nothing about the people who Achilles had killed in Patroclus's funeral. She did not hide much what Circe had done but she gave them excuses. She had made these characters to fit modern moral standards but she had done nothing to the world they occupied. The gods and goddesses were still as cruel as the ones from the myths; the mortals were still shown to be as awful, which is why it is frankly hard to imagine where Achilles, Patroclus and Circe get their ideas and mortal standards from. Achilles and Patroclus were born at a time when sex with slaves was normal and it was strange that Patroclus objected to it so much. Circe was born amidts cruelty with little to no good influence and she cared about mortals? Those three characters (and some others who Miller decided to cherish) stood strange and lost amidts those who stayed true to the characteristics of the myths and that is my main issue with the novels.
