My pulse jumps, for no reason I can name. He has looked at me a thousand times, but there is something different in this gaze, an intensity I do not know. My mouth is dry, and I can hear the sound of my throat as I swallow. The Greek Islands are lousy with half Gods. You will meet many of them in the course of this story. Achilles is the greatest of them all. Greater than Hercules. His chosen companion is Patroclus, the disgraced and banished son of a king, an odd choice in many eyes as the closest friend of the greatest warrior. Patroclus is, after all, rather unremarkable at...well...everything. It doesn’t matter, though, because Achilles is good enough at everything for the both of them. I was overwhelmed by the intensity of feeling this story was able to elicit from my cold, dark heart.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I did not like this book. And I must confess that the fault partly lies with me, because I did not read the blurb before I dived in. After having loved Miller's Circe, it was a no-brainer that I'd want to read her take on the Trojan War - so I left it at that and just began reading. Lesson learned, because I wanted this to be more historical fiction, yet it was basically just romance fantasy - hence my disappointment. The Song of Achilles is a retelling of classic Greek mythology involving Patroclus and Achilles, specifically covering the battle of Troy.MISOGYNY, PART IV: DEIDAMIAOne of the seven daughters of King Lycomedes amidst whom Achilles was concealed when Thetis dressed him up in drag to hide him from the war recruiters, Deidamia is a minor character in Achilles’s story. She and Achilles had a sexual relationship (despite the fact that they couldn’t have been older than 14–15), and Deidamia later gave birth to Neoptolemus—known as Pyrrhus after the name Achilles adopted while disguised as a woman: Pyrrha. I’m so glad the author didn’t deviate from the suggestions of homosexuality that were present in Homer’s writing. This would have failed dramatically had she done so. There would have been no power, and, again, like the film Troy it would have been abysmal. The romance plot in here is one of the truest and believable I’ve read to date: it was strong and real. However, this is not to downplay the other aspects of the story. It is driven by romance, but it is not defined by it. There is also a story of growth, and the story of warrior who is out to prove his strength and honour in a world driven by war. He just happens to like guys.

But, it means that this book is not for everyone. There is a lot of sexism, misogyny, violence, bloodshed, and rape, mentioned almost offhand, because, to these characters, this behavior is commonplace. Expected. I didn't like a single one of them. And not just because of their worldviews. There was Achilles and his hubris. Patroclus and his uselessness. Thetis and her coldness. I didn't even like Odysseus and his famous wit, for there was an edge to it in this book that made him seem less charming and more manipulative than I remember. BISEXUALITY?This is a minor detail, but it bothered me: Miller’s Achilles is revolted by the concept of even touching a woman, but Achilles did like women, and in fact slept with at least two within the context of the Iliad. Patroclus, whom Miller writes as disgusted by Deidamia’s vagina, also slept with at least one woman in the Iliad. This is a minor change—none of those women except Deidamia and Briseis are important to the story—and I wouldn’t have minded Miller’s changing it had she written more and better female characters. They grinned, loving every inch of their miraculous prince: his gleaming hair, his deadly hands, his nimble feet. They leaned towards him, like flowers to the sun, drinking in his lustre. It was as Odysseus had said: he had light enough to make heroes of them all.” Thetis is rather annoyed at his choice. She doesn’t feel that Patroclus is good enough to spend so much time with her son. Her favorite greeting for Patroclus is: ”You will be dead soon enough.” With Patroclus being the narrator of this story, it is rather poor judgement on her part. Any quest I’ve been on I have always plied the narrator with honeyed wine and the most succulent figs in the hope that I would be rewarded in the prose and poetry of his/her telling of the tale. Madeline Miller studied Latin and Ancient Greek from Brown University and even more interestingly studied at the Yale School of Drama, specializing in adapting classical tales for a modern audience. I ignored this book when it first came out because I had read The Iliad twice and plan to read it many more times if the Gods grant me enough time to do so. A reimagining of Homer’s words? There is enough debate over translations of the original source documentation without adding in additional controversy over Miller’s interpretation of events.What I liked less was the slow burn nature of a book in the first half when the period and story already offered so much for the author to embellish.

If there’s one thing that we can agree and admire about Achilles, it would be his strength. Almost every story about the legend of Achilles portrayed him on a similar nature; he’s a mortal who possesses godlike abilities for battles. Bow down before his prowess. And it’s not like Miller didn’t include Achilles’ skills for devastation in her retelling; she did magnificently. However, Miller goes above and beyond by humanizing him through Patroclus’ eyes. Miller starts the story from Patroclus’ and Achilles’ childhood, and she successfully showed the genuine development in their characterizations and relationship that the passage of time can’t prevent. As I was finishing the first half of the book, it didn't feel that eventful or impressive in itself. Sure, it was interesting and had a nice flow to it, with some intricate details about both Achilles and Patroclus, but it didn't feel like anything new: a regular romance novel. But as you finish through the last chapters, those seemingly uneventful - though quite emotional - first half will deepen the reader's emotions profoundly. I think a re-read of this might prove very difficult, especially with the first half, with being familiar with the ending. Still, you'll definitely re-read this. A 10th ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL EDITION, FEATURING A NEW FOREWORD BY THE AUTHOR WINNER OF THE ORANGE WOMEN'S PRIZE FOR FICTION I knew nothing about this going in, besides the fact that it is based off the events in Homer's epic, The Illiad. The never-ending ache of love and sorrow. Perhaps in some other life I could have refused, could have torn my hair and screamed, and made him face his choice alone. But not in this one. He would sail to Troy and I would follow, even into death.Briseis is a complicated figure. In the Iliad she’s barely a character at all, more of a narrative catalyst and a thing over which to be fought. Briseis was captured, and then raped, by Achilles. Not only does Miller remove this detail (because how dare Achilles be anything less than perfect), she also makes Briseis fall in love with Patroclus. Again, a woman is an obstacle between Achilles and Patroclus. Was Miller worried we wouldn’t be invested in their relationship if it weren’t constantly challenged by heterosexuality? What I loved the most was how she managed to convey Achilles’ and Patroclus relationship though. Even though she never went into detail, never actually let them say that they loved each other; it was still palpable in every single moment they shared together. Those moments were so precious I couldn’t get enough of them and all I wanted was for them to be happy. THE RELATIONSHIP, PART III: HOMOPHOBIAAnyone who says that ancient Greece was 100% accepting of homosexual relationships is factually incorrect. Our modern idea of sexuality cannot be applied to ancient societies (the term for this is presentism). Although same-sex relationships between men were indeed commonplace, they were not typically considered on the same level as heterosexual relationships (often associated with marriage—love and marriage were discrete topics throughout much of history). What was common amongst men was pederasty, a relationship dynamic in which the older man, typically more knowledgeable and experienced, was the erastes (active partner) and the younger man, typically less-experienced and more effeminate, was the eromenos (passive partner). Obviously the notion of top/bottom dynamics has persisted into modern queer relationships, although in reality it’s rare that one person will prefer being exclusively one or the other. I stopped watching for ridicule, the scorpion’s tail hidden in his words. He said what he meant; he was puzzled if you did not. Some people might have mistaken this for simplicity. But is it not a sort of genius to cut always to the heart?” Like all relationships, there were issues. The two weren’t without their differences. They clashed and quarrelled but only because they truly cared for each other. Patroclus wanted to end the war, and Achilles didn’t think the fight was worthy of his name: he wanted a bigger war to fight in. So, Patroclus, in his most bravest and stupid move goes against his lover’s wish and tries to end the war with a stroke of his sword. But he is no Achilles: he is not a god of war. He was out of his depth, outmatched and doomed.

Miller writes him like a modern stereotype of a “bottom” (according to a straight person’s idea of how gay sex works), which would be homophobic in its own right even if she weren’t making it so that he and Achilles (as she writes them) would fit neatly into a seme/uke dynamic. Achilles and Patroclus notably did not fit into the roles expected of a same-sex relationship at the time, despite how Miller writes it. The never-ending ache of love and sorrow. Perhaps in some other life I could have refused, could have torn my hair and screamed, and made him face his choice alone. But not in this one. He would sail to Troy and I would follow, even into death. Yes, I whispered. Yes” So it shouldn't be surprising to anyone who is familiar with me that this book didn't make me feel much of anything.The Song of Achilles’ is a beautifully orchestrated retelling of one of Greek Mythology’s best known and best loved stories of the Siege at Troy and life of the legendary demi-god Achilles. A lyrical masterpiece that portrays the human side of the man, the lover, and the warrior who is destined to fulfil a prophecy that sees him fall after the death of Hector, sustaining the iconic Achilles heel injury. Greece in the age of heroes. Patroclus, an awkward young prince, has been exiled to the court of King Peleus and his perfect son Achilles. Despite their differences, Achilles befriends the shamed prince, and as they grow into young men skilled in the arts of war and medicine, their bond blossoms into something deeper - despite the displeasure of Achilles's mother Thetis, a cruel sea goddess. But when word comes that Helen of Sparta has been kidnapped, Achilles must go to war in distant Troy and fulfill his destiny. Torn between love and fear for his friend, Patroclus goes with him, little knowing that the years that follow will test everything they hold dear. I was completely floored by the absolute beauty of this story, which centers around the love between Achilles and Patroclus. True. But fame is a strange thing. Some men gain glory after they die, while others fade. What is admired in one generation is abhorred in another." He spread his broad hands. "We cannot say who will survive the holocaust of memory. Who knows?" He smiles. "Perhaps one day even I will be famous. Perhaps more famous than you.” I just knew from my level of attachment that this one wasn't going to end well for me. I was fully anticipating to end up as a puddle on the floor.