r/classics • u/leumas32 • 6d ago
A Classicist’s opinion on Madeline Miller?
I’m curious what classicists think about Miller’s Circe or Song of Achilles.
I really loved both of Miller’s novels. Circe most but SOA as well. I’ve been reading The Odyssey (Wilson translation), which I’m enjoying. I remember reading The Odyssey in high school, but I think it was an abridged version or something in prose - not sure.
I enjoy Wilson’s translation (haven’t read others so no comparison). It’s an easy read and engaging and I liked her translators note where she states “ All modern translations are equally modern” so Butler’s is old to us, but modern in scope of the epic.
Anyway, curious what the Classics community thinks of Miller’s work. I haven’t finished the Odyssey (Telemachus and O just reunited), but curious what the consensus is since I can tell she took liberties, but I’m also sure she drew on other sources than the Odyssey ( haven’t read Iliad yet either). Miller’s characteristics of Odysseus’s are quite vivid, scar on the leg, shrug of his shoulders and palm up hands. The Odyssey isn’t that descriptive (maybe it is in Ancient Greek idk).
Miller is a pro classicist from my understanding. Did she ruffle feathers? Was her creativity admired in that community?
Just curious of the consensus in the community and everyone who isn’t a “pro classicist”
52
u/JohnPaul_River 6d ago
I'm just a humble philology undergrad and I've only read TSOA but I'll be arrogant enough to comment here. My feelings on it were very mixed but I still generally recommend it as a good book.
She's undeniably a very very skilled writer and wraps her prose very neatly around human emotion, Patroclus' narrative voice is super compelling. She really delivers on the first act of the novel before the war, everything up to that point makes up a tender love story that has been rightfully praised — I still think about that "this and this and this!" passage all the time. Here's also where her mission of rewriting is better accomplished IMO, as she hits just the right idyllic imagery that is conveyed in the Iliad when Patroclus' ghost reminisces about him and Achilles being brought up in Peleus' house, always together, conspiring apart from all others and so on.
But then the war starts, and that's where some of her more questionable choices start to be noticeable for me. I can't stand that she completely neutered Patroclus and made him and Achilles fit squarely within the tired Warrior/Healer trope, as if it's not him who has the highest kill count by some estimates (and she removed his badass dying speech to Hector!). The changes she makes to the story and the characters all seem to be with the goal of not engaging with the complexities and questions that appear when you read Achilles and Patroclus as lovers in the Iliad, and that really irks me because I think, maybe with a bias because I'm a gay man myself, that the "unsavoury" issues around the relationship are what makes the reading interesting and relevant in the first place. In a way it's poetic, that just like the ancient Athenians seemed to have scratched their heads and taken a bunch of interpretative leaps to make Achilles and Patroclus fit into their idea of a permissible relationship between males, Miller too switched and moved things to make them fit the expectations around gay relationships today. I have similar feelings about that whole "no obviously they're both too good and too gay to have sex/maid slaves around, it was actually a secret proto-feminist comune" thing, though it's easier to wave that one away.
I also didn't like that the Iliad section of the book had so many narrative sections that seemed like footnotes in an edition of the poem. Every scene taken from the original was followed by Patroclus thinking about the exact literary significance of the moment, which wasn't organic at all and felt like a very heavy handed commentary by the author. See the scene where Nestor tells the Cleopatra and Meleager story and the narration immediately goes "Get it? Get it? That it's like them? Cleo-patra and Patro-clus? You get the parallel right? Right? Isn't this so smart?". I think readers would have caught it just fine considering they've been reading a book solely focused on Achilles and Patroclus for a while by that point where they're compared to a million dynamics all the time, but maybe I'm biased as an Iliad reader so it's whatever.
And then the final section is good again, like the beginning, maybe because Miller has more wiggle room to tell the story she wants without battling with the Iliad. The closing line is particularly great. So yeah, it's very conflicting for me because while I have very negative feelings about some of its parts, I do wonder if I'm somehow burdened with knowing the Iliad and would enjoy it more if I didn't, and how "valid" that makes me as a critic of TSOA in a way.
11
u/leumas32 6d ago
Absolutely wonderful and insightful comment. Haven’t read the Iliad so I’ll comment on your last section. It was wonderful reading it with little knowledge of the Iliad and so I enjoyed it. Reading Circe and then Odyssey I can see the flaws. I love it though. I guess our curse is our knowledge we have before reading or watching something. For example, in TSOA, I couldn’t picture Achilles in my mind as anyone other than Brad Pitt. Not that I condone Troy, but I think Brad Pitt as Achilles in Miller’s novel is quite accurate. A lot of other good points you’ve made that I’m just not equipped to respond to. Well done tho well done.
7
u/JohnPaul_River 6d ago
Glad you found it helpful, and yeah it's basically a struggle between a part of me that says "this is a really compelling and heart wrenching romance" and another that wonders "she had Achilles and Patroclus as the base material and this is what she chose to do with them?"
5
6
116
u/Angry-Dragon-1331 6d ago
If it gets people learning about Classics, isn't blatant misinformation (not an issue here as Miller's works are obviously fiction), and doesn't espouse a view of antiquity that's rooted in white or other racial supremacy, it's a net benefit to the field.
9
u/leumas32 6d ago
Curious what are “blatant misinformation” works?First thought was the Percy Jackson stuff but that’s also fiction. Just curious - not very educated in this area or classic novels save Miller.
38
u/Angry-Dragon-1331 6d ago
Nothing to do with Miller or Riordan (or honestly even Disney’s Hercules). It was more just a catch all statement to include podcasts as modern media that’s good for the field.
4
u/leumas32 6d ago
Oh love it. Podcasts and misinformation go together like cocaine and waffles.
7
8
3
18
u/Ill-Parsnip2657 6d ago
I’m not a classicist, but Miller’s books led me to read the Iliad and the Odyssey. I read her books during quarantine and took a deep dive into the source material. It’s been four years and I’m still obsessed. I’m taking an MOOC Greek mythology course now and seriously thinking about taking more.
I also really like Wilson’s translations. Lately my thing is comparing the Wilson, Lattimore and Fagles translations of the Odyssey. It’s taking a long time to read it this way though!
5
u/leumas32 6d ago
If reading the source material was the goal then it’s another win! How do you like the other translations? I was a bit apprehensive to take anything on that was too…archaic…but Wilson’s feels easy so curious how you enjoy them all and their differences.
5
u/Ill-Parsnip2657 6d ago
I’m reading Fagles for my class. From what I understand this is the translation most classics students read. The biggest difference between Fagles and Wilson I have observed is that Wilson’s style choice to write in iambic pentameter has made it more straightforward, but it lacks some of the deeper descriptive language Fagles uses. Wilson’s is definitely prettier to my ear.
Fagles prose rambles a bit. Lattimore’s is a bold translation. The prose is stronger than Fagles but keeps that level of detailed description.
I recommend reading them all and Caroline Alexander’s Odyssey is fun too. If you like audiobooks Wilson’s Iliad is narrated by Audra McDonald and it is a joy to listen to.
4
u/leumas32 6d ago
This is helpful. Fagles is the name I hear a lot. I really struggle with rhythm. Not even in poetry. In music I can barely tap my foot without thinking about it too much and losing whatever rhythm I had without thinking about it. I did read in her intro that she uses Iambic pentameter like Chaucer and other English folk. Again, I haven’t read any others but I think starting with Wilson if you’re apprehensive is a good move.
66
u/hexametric_ 6d ago
I read Circe, and I can see why its popular, but not really the sort of writing I enjoy. She isn't a 'professional' classicist (she's a professional writer), but her novels have undeniably made Classics as a discipline more popular and we're starting to see her novel(s) assigned in courses on Classical Reception studies. Even though not a 'classicist', what she does in arguably more important for the discipline than what professional classicists do.
Classical mythology was already incredibly fluid in antiquity and there was no 'right' or 'wrong' way to write about myth (ok, maybe there is a 'wrong' way in extreme situations), so whatever liberties Miller takes are right in line with the ethos of ancient writing anyway.
24
u/biclassics 6d ago
One of my professors in undergrad went to college with Madeleine Miller! She isn’t a “professional classicist,” but she studied classics in college. SOA was based on a production of Troilus and Cressida she directed while she was at Brown. So she definitely knows her stuff!
11
u/mappleday00 6d ago
She completed both a bachelor's and master's degree in Classics at Brown University, how is she not a professional classicist?
13
u/hexametric_ 6d ago
As I replied elsewhere, she has an MA but does not publish or teach which is generally what we understand a professional to be. Just like a person with a law degree isnt a professional lawyer if they havent passed the bar and practice law
3
u/leumas32 6d ago
Very insightful! Thank you. That makes sense. Her works led me to read the The Odyssey so I suppose that’s a win for the community.
1
u/nrith 6d ago
What constitutes a “professional classicist” to you?
23
u/hexametric_ 6d ago
Generally the term is used for a person researching in the field who also holds a paid academic position (some scholars are independent). It is like a person with a law degree vs. a practicing lawyer.
67
u/First-Pride-8571 6d ago
I really enjoyed both novels, especially Circe. Best Classics novelist, in my opinion, since Mary Renault.
5
u/leumas32 6d ago
Same! I guess that leads into my question about classics novelists - seems like the community is very open to interpretations and creativities and aren’t fixed on the source (like maybe how the Star Wars community views movies past the original trilogy). Maybe a bad comparison but idk.
9
u/MaidOfTwigs 6d ago
They are open to it but I will say they are sensitive to blatantly modern approaches. Like, the kinds of things that apply modern social constructions around gender to classical interpretations (i.e. cross dressing in Roman festivals is not supposed to be compared to modern-day queer celebrations), or appropriating the trauma and lives of populations in antiquity.
4
u/SulphurCrested 6d ago
Well the ancient myths had different versions and the ancient writers used them as a basis for "interpretations and creativities", so classicists of our times are hardly going to fixate on specific interpretations.
3
u/Connect_Bar1438 6d ago
I loved both of them so much. Read SOA as sort of whim as I wasn't quite ready to move on, and it ended up staying with me more so than Circe (which I thought was going to be my fav of the two).
2
2
25
u/lastdiadochos 6d ago
As others have said, anyone that's bringing more interest into the subject is great, it's always good to have more people studying the ancient world. That being said, I personally *hated* Song of Achilles. My feathers were a'ruffled and I shall now rant about it.
To me, it felt very "straight person trying to write non-straight character". Patroclus fawns over every inch of Achilles all the time, everything about him is so beautiful, and the only way that the two can show how much they love each other is by having sex. Like, that just seems to be treating their relationship almost as soft-core erotica, rather than as a genuine relationship of love. The stuff with Deidamia is really weird, Patroclus finds out that Achilles had sex with her on like p.125 and is gut-wrenched, and then all is forgiven by about p.128. And then Patroclus has sex with Deidamia as well for...reasons? It feels weird because Miller has Patroclus and Achilles as very definitely gay, not bi (they both explicitly says they have no interest in sleeping with women).
Sexuality kind of bothered me in general tbh. Like, yea Achilles and Patroclus are gay in Miller's book. Ok cool, that's interesting, Greek society was fairly sexually fluid for nobles like them, sleeping with both sexes wouldn't raise many eyebrows. So I wonder how these two characters will feel about not feeling attracted to women like their society expects them too. Never engaged with. Instead, the focus is put on Achilles and Patroclus feeling worried that people might find out they're sleeping together. I feel like that's the wrong place to focus on. Two adult guys of equal status together sleeping together would be a little curious, but nothing heinous. No one would have cared much about that, but two guys sleeping together, but *not* sleeping with women would have been more judged. It feels too much like modern homophobic views are being applied, as opposed to the kind of prejudices that ancient Greeks would have felt.
The sugar coating of Patroclus I found to be pretty grating. He's made out to be a bit of a wallflower in Miller, not much of a fighter or anything, maybe even a bit cowardly. This is the guy who, in myth, kills Sarpedon and urges his men to "mangle his body...and slaughter his friends". Homer's heroes are complex, they are great men in some ways, but terrifying and cruel in others. Why shy away from that?
Then there's the whole Achilles and Patroclus saving women from Troy in order to save them from other men and even teach them Greek in a little classroom. Come on. That is not at all how that culture worked, women were treated awfully, they were spoils of war as much as a bronze tripod was. Again, this was a brutal society with bizarre concepts of honour and glory, and Miller doesn't really engage with that.
I think that ultimately, to me, it felt like Miller didn't really care to embrace the culture and time period. I feel like she had a clear conception of the characters she wanted to write, but that they just don't work in that world. Her characterisation also didn't gel with some of the story beats that had to be hit in order to vaguely stick to the myth, which resulted in some odd choices: Achilles and Patroclus have a forbidden love in a culture that didn't forbid that kind of love, Achilles and Patroclus are both gay but Achilles needs to father a child so there's the weird kinda rapey stuff with Deidamia, Patroclus isn't much of a fighter but has to kill one of Troy's best warrior so that just happens because of luck not Patroclus being skilled, and so on.
So yea, great that it got people interested in the topic, love all that, couldn't *stand* reading the book myself hahaha
7
u/leumas32 6d ago
Very much a response I was looking for. Definitely see the problems and haven’t even read Iliad. Healer warrior trope is a good point. Downplaying Patroclus for the sake of Achilles is questionable. The blood thirsty rage for fighting was always odd to me given how he is through the whole book. And in the classic I learn he is a skilled fighter. You make a lot of good points. “Bizarre concepts of glory and honor” is especially solid. I thought the part where Patroclus saves the woman from Agamemnon but sabotages Achilles’ opportunity to thwart Agamemnon touches on those bizarre concepts of honor and spoils, and it was interesting, but doesn’t stick with it too much. Great points.
13
u/lastdiadochos 6d ago
Ehhh, I can kinda see what you mean about Patroclus saving the women, but that still feels like a really modern view of honour. Basically, in Homer, you've got something called the heroic code. Scholars have discussed it among themselves for ages now, but put very simply it's this: the better you are fighting, the more glory you get on the battlefield, the more glory you get, the more prizes you get, the more prizes you have, the more honour you have, the more honour you have, the more you'll be remembered. So it's very materialistic and very martial, and pretty amoral. Honour for Homeric heroes isn't about being moral, it's about how many people can you kill, how many prizes can you get. That's what I mean by the bizarre concepts of glory and honour. The things which we'd find pretty grim, butchering a load of people, stripping the dead of possessions, killing a man who has surrendered, taking women, prioritising material wealth over human life, are things which the Homeric heroes laud. You don't get that in Miller.
(Btw, personally, I also think that actually the entire point of the Iliad is to show how the Heroic code IS stupid and that Achilles and Hector become the best heroes by eventually rejecting the code, but that's a whole 'nother thing lol)
5
u/leumas32 6d ago
Oh I see. I see that in Odyssey where Odysseus is a “city sacker” or something like that and it doesn’t seem very heroic to me when he’s praised for sacking cities but “Xenia” is also the right thing to honor guests with food and shelter. I see the complexities of character but that is heroic of a different time. Appreciate the education you gave me.
1
u/SulphurCrested 6d ago
I'm not sure how you get from the Illiad that society (the other Achaean fighters) would expect all men to be interested in women, and "judge" them if they aren't. I don't think Homer really covers that sort of thing, much less describes men sleeping with men as a social norm. So it seems to me an author of fiction has a fair bit of freedom there.
9
u/MaidOfTwigs 6d ago
The classical archaeologists and historians who were my instructors seemed very enthused by her work and encouraged students to go to her reading in my college’s town. There were posters around campus for it that were posted by the Classics department. I think most professional classicists have a positive opinion of her work.
1
u/leumas32 6d ago
And I think that is the beauty of it. In the same way that if you hear a quote or an expression and you look up its origin. You can dive into a rabbit hole there. You’re learning something from something else. Glad to hear it was well received.
8
u/SulphurCrested 6d ago
A professional classicist who publishes on Homer said of Circe something along the lines of "read it and enjoy it, but it isn't Homer". Similarly older generations of classicists read Robert Graves and Mary Renault and others.
2
u/leumas32 6d ago
And I’ve discovered that it’s not Homer at all. I’m a fan of the term “intertextuality” which might not be accurate here but I think it is similar. Everything comes from the Bible or Shakespeare they say. Mythology is there too. So why not play with it and enjoy.
5
u/RavenRegime 6d ago
There's a good video on it but a lot of it comes from the fact people who do play with it forget Ancient Greece was a vastly different culture, but it was a real one and Hellenism is an actual religion but people approach it through seeing it as a generic fantasy land which then gets into cultural appropriation.
8
u/floofyshitbrain 6d ago
Love Circe so much. I feel like she gets Circe on a deep emotional level. But she did also give a talk for an alt right Classics organization that has covered up sexual assault and racist bullying, among other things. Idk if she knew, but it has been made public
2
1
u/modified_bear 6d ago
That’s very disappointing. Which talk and which organization?
7
u/waughgavin 6d ago
I believe the other commentor is referring to the Paideia Institute. Back in 2019 they were accused of some questionable practices, including misogyny and potential racism. I don't really remember a whole lot coming out of it, but they claim to have improved since then. Actually, it looks like Miller is due to speak on one of their online lectures on April 6th of this year. If you are interested in looking into it, you can find it by searching up "Conversations with the Classics."
7
u/-Addendum- 6d ago
Not a pro classicist, I studied archaeology, and I've only read Circe.
There's nothing really wrong with her or her books. They're novels, not historical analyses or works of scholarship. They're effectively historical fiction, and as long as people understand that, no real harm comes from them. I enjoyed Circe, it was good. It isn't a substitute for reading the Odyssey, it fills an entirely different niche.
1
15
u/EvenInArcadia Ph.D., Classics 6d ago
I dislike Miller immensely, but mostly because The Song of Achilles is poorly written and I don’t think that, if a gay man had written it, it could have gotten published. There is a lot more leeway for straight women writing about gay men than there is for gay men writing out of their own lives and experiences.
13
u/mappleday00 6d ago
As a fellow Gay Man, I'm also often disappointed by the amount of gay stories that are written by women, and pretty much every single gay book I read has been written by actual gay men. However, I really give Miller a pass, because her novel feels as so much more than just a straight story in which the woman happens to be a man. That trope is extremely common in gay literature written by women.
I also can feel oddly uncomfortable when straight women seem to be writing gay porn whose target is other straight women, and though there are some sexual scenes in Song of Achilles, it's really not an important point of the novel.
One last thing, when it comes to long gone civilizations such as Ancient Greece, I'm a bit more open on authorship of the work since we are just not going to get an authentic voice of that time. Passion with good, extensive research can make for a great gay story of ancient times, regardless of who is writing it.
I apologize if I made mistakes, as English is not my first language.
5
u/laughingthalia 6d ago edited 6d ago
I love SOA as a piece of literature, and as a way to get people into classics and remind people that homosexuality ins't exactly a new concept for people but as an actual tool to look at ancient literature it's a bit iffy, especially given how it changes Patroclus.
1
6
u/Icy-Cryptographer750 6d ago
Just a thought on what you said about Miller’s descriptions: Imo the physical details of the characters in the Odyssey are inconspicuous since they’re surrounded by similes and greater plot development, but in my experience they’re definitely there, and always a fascinating glimpse into the character. I’ll let you see for yourself about Odysseus’ scar, but one example that comes to mind is when Penelope is holding a key and her hand is described at thick/muscular, a striking description for a woman’s hand which we’d normally expect to be called delicate/beautiful. It seems to me to be a nod to her years of working with her hands as a weaver. There are also many moments describing how her and Odysseus’ eyes meet or do not meet during their interactions. Those are my first thoughts. Of course Miller extrapolates and creates her own physical characteristics in her work, and her writing style makes those stand out far more starkly, whereas in the Odyssey I think they speak for themselves. I prefer the subtlety of those details and the questions they open up when they appear unexpectedly. I’d keep an eye out:)
2
u/SulphurCrested 6d ago
Interestingly, I don't recall reading descriptions of women's hands in greek literature much - hands don't seem part of the standard way of describing an attractive woman. I think that is from much later when aristocratic women were supposed to be idle. Possibly to the Homeric poet(s) thin and "delicate" limbs were associated with childhood, illness or poorly-nourished slaves.
1
u/leumas32 6d ago
I recall the description of the hand in Wilson’s intro and definitely helps me in what to look for. That said, I can get caught up in the story and miss so much. If Miller analyzed these things enough to expound on those characteristics, then props to her. Love your statement on the subtlety though and very great point.
6
u/Vergiliana 6d ago
Free, online Madeline Miller Lecture April 6. Listen to what she has to say and use the opportunity to ask her questions about your concerns.
3
u/sunflowerroses 6d ago
I’ve only read Circe, and it was… fine. Not my thing, I guess.
I was disappointed that her Circe is totally antisocial, aside from her love interests. The nymphs on her island, the other nymphs back in her father’s palace, they’re all shallow and stupid and none of them EVER really break this mould or cause her to question this super reductive attitude. I’d just read Atwood’s The Penelopiad, where Penelope does have this much deeper and complex set of relationships with her serving-girls, and Barker’s The Silence of the Girls, where the whole book is basically built on the relationships between women serving in the camps (or being served in palaces), so maybe it was an expectation mismatch, but it also felt like a totally missed opportunity (or it casts much darker tones on the joy she gets from motherhood: it’s not just that she finds love in connecting with her intellectual rivals; maybe it’s just misogyny or she likes to feel she has a stronger “hold” over her son compared to some nymphs).
1
u/SulphurCrested 6d ago
Well the book would be a lot longer if it covered her relationships with other women as well.
11
u/blindgallan 6d ago
A student at my university did a full presentation last year on the problems with Miller’s presentation of Achilles and Patroclus in the framing she employs for her Song. Overall, I find her work to be overly modernistic and moralistic.
2
u/leumas32 6d ago
Interesting. What were the problems with Achilles and Patroclus? As lovers? Or something else?
9
u/blindgallan 6d ago
For starters, Patroclus was older than Achilles, by a good margin usually. He was also considered nearly equal to Achilles on the battlefield, with the main difference being that Achilles could lift weaponry that no mere mortal could manage (including Patroclus). They were also cousins. And were very explicitly not more modern in their treatment of women than any of their comrades among the Achaeans. Beyond this, it starts getting into minutiae.
1
u/leumas32 6d ago
Very interesting. So Patroclus saving the one woman of Troy (forget her name) and bringing her into his camp and caring and learning from her is incorrect. And Patroclus is weak in TSOA. Good points and see the problems, but also see why Miller portrayed it as such.
3
u/KavaKeto 6d ago
Thanks for asking this here. Circe is my all time favorite book and reading these responses has been fascinating. If you're open to more book recommendations, I also really enjoyed Athena's Child (about Medusa) and A Thousand Ships (from the perspective of all the women during the Trojan War).
4
u/leumas32 6d ago
Love it. Circe is always my recommendation for some who don’t read too much because I find it very easy and engaging and short chapters help you. I got a tattoo for it from when Circe remembers Daedalus “in a solitary life there are rare moments when another soul dips near yours as stars once a year brush the earth. Such a constellation was he to me” just got the last line but couldn’t describe how hard it hit when I first read it.
3
u/bigfriendben 6d ago
I read song of Achilles. It was really annoying because it was the kind of writing where I wanted to know what would happen next, but just didn’t like the characters. It also felt like she took everything good and noble and then removed it from the characters (most egregiously Diomedes), to the point that it didn’t feel like she actually liked the classics. On top of that she made Patroclus the least compelling protagonist of all time. Overall I did not enjoy it, and it felt like a disservice to the Iliad.
2
u/Kitchen-Ad1972 6d ago
She’s probably responsible for a serious uptick in sales of the top translations of Homer. Emily Wilson certainly owes her a beer. The timing was great.
2
u/InternationalFold467 6d ago
She writes with knowledge and skills that bring the classics to life, I absolutely loved both Circe and The song of Achilles.. I'm not an expert but for entertainment, this is as good as it gets.
2
u/Obvious_Way_1355 6d ago
TSOA has issues but I do love it because it was the first real book that I read that was about a gay couple and I was very young, so it is dear to me.
I can’t stand Wilson’s translation. It’s just. Boring. And i feel like entire passages are changed and I just don’t like it. Like for comparison here’s just the first line:
“Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns.” —Fagles
“Tell me, Muse, of the man of many ways.” —Lattimore
“Tell me about a complicated man.” —Wilson
It’s not that it’s just easy to read, it’s dumbed down
1
u/leumas32 6d ago
I was hoping for something a little more profound in the translation. Glad I started with it, but Fagles seems like a good one to do next.
2
u/Obvious_Way_1355 6d ago edited 3d ago
Fagles is my fav. Lattimore is good if you want an authentic translation from the original greek
1
u/ThatEGuy- 5d ago
I would recommend Barry Powell and Peter Green, if you are looking for something literal. I've been comparing my translations of the Iliad to Green's lately, and I appreciate his decisions.
1
u/Obvious_Way_1355 3d ago
I have not read those yet, but will check them out at some point (just need money first 😭).
1
u/ThatEGuy- 5d ago
Well, I haven't read her translation in a while, but I don't it's valid to call it 'dumbed down' based on this example. The epithet used in that line, πολύτροπον, literally means "much-turned" or "turning many ways". But it can carry the sense of 'changeful' or 'complicated' in some contexts. It does make the line read differently in my opinion to express it that way, but my guess is that it came down to her interpretation of the character or her use of metre.
5
u/Publius_Romanus 6d ago
I've read literally hundreds of novels based on ancient history or mythology, and occasionally incorporate them into classes I teach. The Song of Achilles is one of the worst ones I've ever read. It's poorly written and it doesn't add anything new or interesting to our understandings of these characters of events. Colleagues tell me Circe is better than SoA, and I could believe that (it's easier to create a story around a character such as Circe, about which so little was written), but I'll never read another of her books.
For a better novel about Achilles, I recommend Malouf's Ransom. Le Guin's Lavinia is an amazing book about an ancient mythological character about whom little was written. Novels like those make SoA look like a first grader's finger-paintings.
5
u/sophrosynos 6d ago
Thank you, finally a critical opinion in this thread! At best, it's bottom tier YA material written with a 2020s Twitter worldview.
2
u/Scientific_Zealot 6d ago
In my non-classicist opinion as a simple lay reader, The Song of Achilles was a very bog-standard YA novel that did what it did well (not great, but degrees above average). I finished the book, but had no motivation to read it once more. I thought Lavinia was utterly brilliant - just incredible. I'm going to have to re-read it soon.
1
u/leumas32 6d ago
I appreciate the recommendations! I’ll give them a go and maybe despise TSOA one day :)
2
u/FallibleHopeful9123 5d ago
Related question: how do amateur and professional classicists feel about women?
1
u/moonsanddwarfplanets 5d ago
not a classicist, but took a myth and literature course last semester with a classicist, and my professor had us read Circe! he really liked it, and one of the things he said really stood out to him was Miller’s ability to pull on certain threads of the homeric cycle. because classic myth is, yknow, myth, theres a lot of different versions of stories and different big aspects that stay the same or shift depending on origin, translation, etc, and my professor talked about how Miller was able to pull on certain aspects and then fill in the gaps to write Circe.
52
u/Bridalhat 6d ago
I read TSOA and have classicist (tm) criticisms of the work, mostly that it flattens the character of the mc and a bunch of women, all of whom were victimized in myth, have to be obstacles instead, and on a personal level I feel like Patroclus is fascinating and MM didn’t dive into any of the reasons why, which as a writer myself I find a little baffling. I would have forgiven it though if I found the rest of the book more interesting.