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 . I cried also thinking that there's hardly any possibility of anyone being loved the way Patroclus and Achilles loved eachother.

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 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.

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 think reducing it to Miller making Patroclus a "housewife" or doing it specifically because it was a male/male relationship is a pretty bad faith way of looking at the novel, ykwim? I think it perpetuates stereotypes but it's definitely not intentional. To me there's very clearly a reason for it within the book. The whole humanity/divinity thing also connects to Achilles' legacy and Miller's critique of homophobia in the classical reception of Achilles/Patroclus, so idk, maybe that makes me more defensive of her interpretation, haha. Miller's Patroclus isn't my Patroclus, but I still do have a lot of affection for her version of the character, and I think he works great thematically for the version of the story she's trying to tell.

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 _and_ brutal warrior in The Iliad and I felt Madeline Miller softened him too much. And the whole sequence between Deidamia and him was _really_ really weird to me. Otherwise though I did enjoy the book. Achilles, yeah, was awesome in the book and their love story was both sweet and tragic. When I first read passages from the book I thought it was written eons ago and I was shocked that it was written like 10 years ago. And I make sure to skip that scene with Deidamia and Patroclus when I reread the story. P.S. - I’ve heard that members of the Sacred Band in Thebes got married to each other, but their lives literally revolved around fighting on the battlefield as paired couples so it made sense.

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.

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.

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 love both versions of patroclus. I love him being portrayed as warm, gentle, kind, and welcoming because it was fresh air from all the pride and bloodthirst that went on around him. I also love him being badass because it shows how achilles and patroclus influences each other, and him "being with the times" because that's how boys were grown. It also shows how achilles and patroclus are two sides of the same coin in a sense.

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)

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.

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 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 *little* into cliche territory and that definitely showed with Patroclus’ characterization (like how you said about the common romance trope with a manly man and then a more sensitive love interest where that sensitivity is translated into physical weakness). I don’t know if you’ve read Circe, but I think it truly exemplifies how Miller as a writer and storyteller grew EXPONENTIALLY between TSOA and Circe, and part of that growth was learning how to subvert cliches. I think if Miller wrote TSOA again now, she would know that you can write about a sensitive and kind character like Patroclus without making him physically weak, and she would know how to do it. I just think she may have fallen into that debut-writer trap of trying to make the couple relatable by sort of adhering to a romance-couple trope, which still makes for an incredible and beautiful story since she did it perfectly but doesn’t make for an 100% accurate retelling!

I think the reasons she made him "soft" was 2: 1. So we as women connect with him more and 2. She made him more sensitive and "pure" so we can see how his love changes achilles That's how I perceived it anyway... I loved it though it broke me so much 💔

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.

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.

As i didn't have a lot of knowledge about Greek mythology when i started this book the character development was amazing to vitness i think Miller was not just trying to remind people that how strong Achilles and patroclus love but also how patroclus had helped Achilles emotionally . The book did soften patroclus a lot , at first i thought maybe that's also what this book is about , how war, kings, and everything couldn't change patroclus completely. i think the book was trying to highlight that Achilles was the Achilles we love because of the love patroclus gave Achilles , how patroclus helped achilles's mental state and how he strengthen it with his unconditional love, Miller proved that with the merge of ancient texts , after patroclus died Achilles didn't just have a mental breakdown but also gave up the desire to live .

Completely agree. Tsoa was the first time I ever read about the Trojan war. I loved it and I loved Patroclus. I got the Iliad for my birthday and I read it and omg warrior Patroclus is HOT! Now I look back at Tsoa and I can’t believe I ever thought of Patroclus as gentle an helpless. Definitely agree with what you said about the idea that people think there needs to be a feminine and a masculine in a relationship. It’s so untrue and I would have loved to see them as 2 badass warriors getting all soft and lovey with each other. Also, I hate that you got bashed for sharing your opinions originally. Everything you said was completely valid and I think a lot of people (including me) agree with.

I've read The Song of Achilles last summer after I read Circe. They both got me into greek mythology again since it had felt like a decade or years since I've read The Iliad or anything related to greek mythology. I am planning to read Madeline Miller's short story Galatea next.

I feel the same!! I appreciate The Song of Achilles, but I just love Patroclus in The Iliad more

I think Miller wanted to showcase and venerate a different type of man with Patroclus. His kindness and nurturing passivity were exemplified as qualities superior to that of Achilles in all his pride and vigor. Briseis clearly favors and is enamored by him under the horrific circumstances she was in. She approaches Achilles with disdain and scorn because he is so unlike Patroclus. Then again, what bothered me about him was how ineffective he was, through and through. He was only resonant in Achilles’s life. He was the thankless wife role. Moreover, it is accepted now that Patroclus and Achilles looked very very similar to each other. The book? One is a golden blond; the other is a extremely dark swarthy small guy. How was he to fool anyone in the iconic armor by looking so different than the superstar warrior of the sect? There was no reason to change it appearance so radically. Did not serve the story, in fact, was a disservice to it.

Thank youuuu! I spent quite a bit of time studying the Ancient Greeks and I remember my professor, ages ago, fangirling about Patroclus. For him to be Achilles’ second hand man, he was a force to be reckoned with and according to how the Ancient Greeks viewed war and combat, him being hardcore is extremely important, culturally. I think this is why I haven’t read this yet. I know it’s going to bother me. Though I might end up reading it anyway … eventually … because good writing is good writing haha.

I absolutely agree with you about Patroclus! Miller didn't do him any favors by painting him 'soft'. Homer certainly didn't! Thank you for standing p to everyone AND for Patroclus !!!! This is what made me not like this book so much, I was surprised that it became such a sensation when it didn't follow the story! Are we saying that this one thing made it more 'modern' ????

Great review! I completely agree about Patroclus.

Also!!! I created a list for you guys of all the books I could find about the Ancient Greek & Roman world :) Overtime I'll be updating this (and adding sections for Egypt, the Near East, Mesoamerica etc), so check it out via this link www.moaninc.co.uk/books/the-ultimate-classics-book-list

Everywhere I look, people seem to absolutely love this portrayal of Patroclus despite how different he is from mythology. Honestly, im glad to find someone that also didnt really like him either. I feel like if the author wanted to soften Patroclus, I wouldn't have minded if she did so only halfway. Like just making him the type to get aggressive through emotional moments. Or the type to be aggressively protective. Something, anything to get him to be more active in the war. It bothered me how passive Patroclus was and how it always seemed things happened to him rather than being an active force in his own life. He definitely wasnt my Patroclus either. But its such a conflicting feeling, considering I absolutely love the writing of this book. Its beautifully written and easy to read but nothing makes me more mad than to read it and wish my favorite mythological romance was portrayed as less of a stereotype.

I love the book so much but I feel it almost falls into the trap that in order for a gay couple to be taken seriously, one has to follow the stereotypical role of a female. This can also lead to the fetishization of mlm couples I see woman unhealthily obsessing over. For instance a huge problem in fan bases are these toxic mlm ships were they take a perfectly good ship and make one man a super-buff-alpha-male-muscles whatever, and the other man into a boy-twink-fem-cat-maid whatever. Obviously the book doesn't go full force like this, but I think it's important to shed some light on. It more so teeters into that (decidedly more tame) realm of "only one person wears the pants in this relationship" (which is funny because they wore togas the whole time, but that's besides the point) and this is more of a modern day problem because the ancient greeks obviously had no quarrels with two men in a relationship both are big and strong and respected. I also absolutely adore the idea of Patroclus being a BAMF because I love reading my stories about power couples. ALSO I want to stress I in no way think this is what Miller was aiming for and think her change likely had far more meaning to it then some toxic hetero-ization the younglings of the internet are making mlm relationships into.

I wonder if Patroclus' "softness" was a requirement in the first place. If he had been fierce as Achilles, as in the Homeric source, would such a hardened, gritty soldier been able to compose such lyrical words to modernize-immortalize the already famed Achilles? The very title of it, as Patroclus' "Song" suggests a gentler nature, but no less passionate, no less stirring, no less compelling. One with a bellicose disposition would not have been able to see Achilles with such beauty and rapture. Regardless, Miller's interpretation is a JOY to read!

I had the same thought! I was waiting for Patroclus to become the tough warrior he is in the Iliad and it made me sad that it never happened but I did love this book and cried like a baby when Patroclus dies

I was kind of let down when Patroclous refuses to learn to fight from Qurion as I wondered how is he going to help Achilles and be by his side, knowing he will be a fighter, but not becoming one himself. To this point Patroclous actions had been defined by his relationship with Achilles. What I liked about this tough is how he stands for what's right, and fights even without being a fighter and develops his own identity in contrast to Achilles, he also is more decisive so he puts Achilles in his place when he is acting out of pride. In the end the story does goes on commentary against war and pride, for all the things we sacrifice for a fleeting fame that vanishes after death, and Patroclous is there to point all other aspect of their lives that were worth remembering.

Diomedes is the most glorious thing ever !

I read the book but had no idea Patroclus was originally scary man . I did really enjoy his whole menace arc near the end where he takes Achilles' armour. So knowing we missed out on a "war fanatic" Patroclus is a bit upsetting and even more so since it seems like it was done because the story highlighted his relationship with Achilles, like you said, which is such a big stereotype with relationship dynamics - one must be "feminme" and "level headed" while the other is more "masculine" and agressive! finding out they possibly changed Patroclus to fit this relationship dynamic is so sad really. however I do still love the book with all my heart, i love her versions of Patroclus and Achilles and the originals that we missed out on in the story. I wish we could've read about this version of Patroclus,,, I feel he is capable of being a fighter like Achilles while still being head over heels in love with him

Thank youuuu!!!

I'm a little late but anyway I finished reading SoA on December last year, after my finals. I made the mistake of starting it while stressed in univ because the plot just added to it 🤣It was still entertaining though, and one of the most beautifully written books I've read as it's so easy to read and poetic at the same time. Some scenes, especially the first parts, felt like they were dipped in gold (ofc metaphorically). Madeline Miller is such an effective writer and I can't believe this is one of her early works. I adore greek mythology, but I don't know the details of the Iliad so whatever personality Patroclus had in canon I didn't know. Even so it did feel kind of strange that Patroclus was soft and never really learned how to fight properly in SoA. He literally trained alongside Achilles, idk why even from that he wasn't able to pick up some skills over the years. It's just not logical. And I TOTALLY agree with you on the tough and tough part! Unbalanced, heteronormative power dynamics in relationships seem to be the "norm" in modern media, it just gets weird and tiring to see that one has to be the more grounded and caring one while the other is assertive and reckless. Two terrifying fighters CAN make a wonderful couple 🤧 Maybe that's just me being all for power couples As I read the comments tho, there was one who surmised that Miller wanted a more "anti-war" narrative so she chose to change Patroclus' personality? Though it does make sense to me I would've liked it better if Patroclus was *at least* both tough enough to showcase his ferocity in battle and warm enough to be relatable and humane to the readers at the same time 🥲 STILL, I ENJOYED THE BOOK A LOT AND IT DUG DEEP INTO THE CHASMS OF MY SOUL.

So here is my take on Patroclus in the book. Without Patroclus, Achilles is just a weapon and is born for killing. Patroclus is Achilles' "other half" so to speak, the softness and the love. When he dies, that softness and love fade away, leaving only a weapon. I think this is meant to emphasize the rage Achilles felt when Patroclus died. I think that Patroclus being gentler also made a path for other relationship dynamics to creep in, and to explore the setting more past the war we know. For example, we see that when he is a medic how the solders act and feel, providing a different perspective on the story. Overall, I loved the book, and I too sort of disliked Patroclus' role in the story at first, but everything ties together when the story ends.

I love your review, although you speak fast. You practically answered all the questions in my head. (btw, im planning to read this book). I like it when u honestly say your stand about the Patroclus in this version, politely. 😊

I did wonder if she made Patroclus less of a warrior to make his final sacrifice more meaningful. I'm sorry I am as thick as a planck so please excuse my poor explanation. By which I mean that he can see the terrible position the Greeks were in and knows that something has to be done, however he would also know that he isn't a warrior at heart. By wearing Achilles armour and making himself the largest target on the battlefield he knows that he is both going against his nature and will probably end up dead but does it anyway. I must admit that I prefered the Iliad version of him as well. You did make me check my copy of the paperback to see what the cover was like, red with a golden embossed pattern. Was this the cover you were talking about?

While I do understand your feelings about Patroclus, I will say this: I believe the reason Miller chose to tell the story from Pat's perspective is because she could make him more relatable to the reader. The main character, Achilles, is a half-god man-killing machine and although he's got a soft side his perfect beauty and impeccable strength don't exactly make for a relatable character. However, using Patroclus as the narrator and the eyes of the viewer allows us to appreciate Achilles and his story in a way thet we may not have been able to before, as it is much easier to get inside Pat's head and point of view than the chosen golden boy. Also, consider the neat way that Patroclus' and Achilles' personalities juxtapose and complement each other in the story, with Achilles being a strong and stubborn war hero with a soft side and Patroclus being a kind healer with a dangerous and determined side. From a storytelling perspective, it is an interesting and intriguing contrast in a relationship.

i totally agree with your review, i was a bit disapointed with Patroclus' characterization in this version, but I think that it was a deliberate choice in order to attract a broader range of audience, so that readers can either identify themselves as Achilles or Patroclus. I strongly relate to Patroclus, that's why I enjoyed the book way more than I enjoyed Homer's version, i took the book as a novel rather than as an historical piece.

I think the main reason Patroclus is written as much more gentle and not like Homer is that....well this is not Homers Illiad its a love story for modern audiences, which has some ups but also has some stereotypes (one manly gay one feminine gay as you mentioned) That don't fit with reality or the original mythology. In actuality in the Illiad it is unclear whether there is any romantic relationship, there is clear brotherly love and in the ancient world the deep love of xompanions between men who were peers is often mentioned (Alexandee and Hephaestion, Achilles and Patroclus, David and Jonathon if you want to go there) There may be some romantic element to these but it also is a type of friendship we in our current age don't actually have. So if Miller wants to write a gay love story go ahead, I read as such and quite enjoyed it though my preference is for the classical telling. I think we have a bit of a cultural issue now that we are so insistent that Achilles and Patroclus are gay lovers that to suggest otherwise is tantamount to some decades ago when declaring they WERE was really frowned upon. I think any and all tellings of the tale are on the table if you want to write it as such. Achilles' motives are never truly examined in any modern retelling either. I think there's more depth there that Homer was going for than any of us really imagine

I am reading the Iliad right now and was looking forward to read the song of Achilles, but now I'm kinda disappointed about Patroclus not being... Himself... Idk. Probably will still read it but after I've read the Odyssey. Thanks for this review.

Yes, Patrokles is a kind "softer" person, but he does fight! A lot. He fights on and off for the full period they are at Troy and his rampage in Achillies's armour is awesome. He kills Troy's nr. 2 hero!

I really love this version of Patroclus but...i also really love the Illiad Patroclus. In fact, I love their both versions

I also didn't like the fact that they completely erased Achille's invisibility.. Like, people said that he was soo good that no one could hit him, but Miller didn't mention how Thetis took Achilles as a baby and put him in Styx (river of the underworld) and made him invisible (except his ankle which is where he gets hit and dies in the original story).

I think the question I would have is. Do you think this is something that I could recommend to people that want to know want to know what happened in the Illiad without having to read the Illiad?

Not sure if you are gonna read this, but i really like your review. Tbh while I get your problems with Patroclus, I cant help how much I tend to prefer him to his Illiad self, how he sees the world aroukd him and specially his love for Achilles For what i know, you dont really like Achilles that much, but as someone who has grown up with and still admires and identifies with him, I also liked him a lot here. The way that sweet little boy transforms into a callous warrior and at the end he sacrifices all to avenge him after Hector kills him (unpopular opinion i guess, but i cant really stand Hector), its very beautiful, very tragic and it made me cry a lot.

I love to hear your views on Achilles and Patroclus in the Hades video game by supergiant.

Just finished it today. Wasn't familiar with all the characters in the Illyad but knew the plot points. Idk how I didn't know they were gay lol but it made complete sense when I read it. I didn't know how Patroclus was described as in the Illyad either. I also don't see a fault in his character as presented in the source material. However, I think otherwise Song of Achilles would have simply felt like a paraphrased Illyad

I had no contact with the illiad before TSOA but I could tell that Patroclus prob was a dighter too and I also didn't understand why that was changed. For a time I thought it might've been bc its his pov, and he saw himself as ordinary and bad bc he was comñaring himself to aquilles. Hiwever that stopped making sense when the war started

I also can’t recommend David Genmell’s “Lord of the Silver Bow”. In his historical fiction re-telling of the events leading up to and the Battle of Troy are incredible. Plus, Aeneas and frickin Moses (the time period of Trojan War is consistent with at least King David’s time. Many historians note the similarities in single combat between the Bible history of King David in single combat and the single combat of “The “Iliad”. Many historians believe Solomon’s kingdom came about due to a vacuum of power in the Levant. I theorize the Fall of Troy led to the fall of the Hittite Empire and the vacuum of power that allowed Israel to become a unified power in the region.

I think Patroclus was not made into a strong fighter in the song of Achilles because of the ongoing theme of "you are what society makes of you" Patroclus manages all that killing BECAUSE everyone thinks he is Achilles, and Achilles CAN kill (not necessarily because he is a achille but because he was trained way more and way better in the book) though I think it would have been suoer cool to have patroclus be a fighter, but thinking "i know i am good at fighting, but this is easier than usual,I can compare, why?!?(people are afraid of Achilles more than Patroclus)

I honestly can’t fathom a classical professor recommending someone reading that book 😂 I’d also say Heracles is THE Greek hero.

I’m guessing SOA was a product of its time. Back when it was written, the conversation around LGBTQIA wasn’t as nuanced as it is now, so maybe that’s why Miller fell into the trap of writing them into tropes of cold grumpy-warm sunshine.

I ask Patroklos, yeah talking to the dead, Millers version is closer to the truth.... that is the point ... he wanted a more real version what happen, so he influence Miller to write it that way. Even if it makes not as cool than the Illiad. Oh and the "Hero and happy" dialog really happend 3200 years ago

I'm not saying Achilles was or wasn't in love with Patrocles but saying it's obvious being he cried over his death doesn't mean anything. You know how many men would or have cried over losing their childhood best friend? That's not enough of a reason to assume they're in love with each other. Also since it was so common and natural back then I think Homer would've let it be known they were lovers in the story just like he did when Achilles said he loved Briseis. Just how I perceived the story when I read it but you obviously have more knowledge then I do about Greek history

Yeah, I have found a lot in queer love stories if written by women they often impose a heteronormative relationship on the male characters - ie, one has to be masculine and one has to be feminine. I have found that trope a lot and I wonder if it’s just an unconscious cishet understanding of what they think the gender dynamics are in most gay male romances. Like obviously that is a thing but it does always seem to be written in a one is masculine/one is feminine, one is big/one is small etc etc sort of way.

As anything, making Patroclus softer as a person is a personal choice from the author. While I love how Homer portrays Patroclus in the Iliad, I also loved how Miller does it here. Narrating the story from Patroclus point of view, allows the reader to see the untold flaws from himself and others. There are so many instances where Miller, through her writing, points out flaws about pride, war, parents, etc. One particular scene I enjoyed was when Patroclus disguised himself as Achilles and became the warrior he could have been if he had not been exiled. It seems that spending time with Achilles also changed him a bit. One thing I found interesting is the contrast between Achilles and Pyrrhus. Thetis, as a goddess, thought that Achilles had failed to become the great God/Hero she had hoped he would become. And in this disappointment, Pyrrhus is raised to become an emotionless warrior. However, we can see how Theyis visits Achilles’s tomb every day and we can infer how wrong she was. Sort of redeeming herself by freeing Patroclus, and let both her son and him be happy in the afterlife in a way she would have never accomplished on her own. I love your vids!!

Gentleness has been associated with that of a mother or women in society’s since ancient times. So I think that’s why a-lot of people perceive Patroclus’s character in a feminine light, and while I agree his character differs from the source material I think that insinuation that millers reasoning for this is to box Patroclus into a female dynamic in his relationship with Achilles becomes very closed minded in a symbolic sense. While our minds are quick to jump to enforce this stereotype. I interpreted millers version of Patroclus to represent humanity while we witness Achilles struggle with his divinity, loosing his morality to this side of himself. Patroclus was perfect juxtaposition for this, along with thetis and other gods who make an appearance. The gods are cold and cruel, and humanity in itself is the opposite, or at least that’s the point Miller try’s to make with Patroclus’s character. and while I think this could have been achieved in companionship with a battle strong Patroclus, I think it’s is important to identify the intent behind the shift in his character, which I believe completely unintentionally enforced a stereotype. I’m completely open to other’s opinions I just want to make sure miller gets credit where she deserves, it would be a shame to see crafty symbolism lost

I thought I was the only one! 😭 Patroclus in the original was so much better in my personal opinion. I really don't enjoy the "baby" like main characters in any stories. I read this book and then I read a summary of the original, And I was so shocked when I found out how different Patroclus was in the original.

❤❤❤

I wish patroclus was the way you told !!!! But tsoa patroclus is " achilles heel" somehow, so i am ok with it

Honestly, I think that the way she wrote Patroclus was biased because it was from Patroclus’ POV. Because, from what I know, in Greek mythology Patroclus was a pretty skilled warrior. However, I think the way Patroclus describes himself is in a way not true, and he’s also comparing himself to Achilles, literally the best warrior ever, so of course he is going to think he is not that skilled. I do agree though i think she took this a bit to the extreme. I also definitely don’t like the way the fandom thinks of this Patroclus this way because he is a very good fighter.

In a lot of mainstream media believe it or not, it’s usually two masc presenting men who are put into loving relationships. If there’s ever a feminine man involved in a story, he usually has a sad ending or is pigeonholed as a caricature. I love SOA cause both men have feminine qualities and fall in love and are “tough” when it actually matters.

I just reread the book for the 3rd time. Agree with some of your criticism and appreciate historical references, but also feel like the irony of the entire story is missed in the criticism. In regards to your points, yes, I wish Miller gave a few more explicit hints that Patroclus is a superior warrior to appease the Classics buffs or to help newbies who do not know the original myths. Maybe even more praise from the men postmortem or more explicit warnings from Apollo? Definitely should have had his original internal monologue doubt about flying Achilles’ spears followed by more extended realization that he’s competent at it emphasized. However, I did not read Patroclus as super fem or a soft housewife/husband heteronormative stereotype at all, especially when Patroclus frequently describes Achilles as pretty as a girl or performing women’s tasks when gathering the ashes while Achilles calls Patroclus his husband. I read the entire book as verbal and situational irony. Patroclus is not a reliable narrator by a mile. These are really songs of Patroclus, the best among the Myrmidons. It lets us see how good he is as a human being. He is also a lot like Achille’s father who is definitely respected among men. Every time Patroclus is praised, it’s not explicit, but the fact that Odysseus likes him, Chiron disobeys a goddess for him, and a demigod chooses him as a companion, not to mention the Troy prophecy, are all nuanced subtle nods to Patroclus’ greatness as a warrior too. So all of these chapters/memories are Achilles centered because Thetis is the intended audience, and, therefore, they are not about Patroclus. Patroclus’ love and dedication are so pure that the songs literally transform an unyielding Thetis who has every right to hate and resent and detest mere mortal men and be bitter about the 3D chess games the greater gods are playing at her expense. Achilles, a demigod, was not able to change his mother’s heart while Patroclus succeeded. Patroclus is not singing about his own awesomeness because that is not why he and Thetis gather near the memorial. But, also, the reluctance to fight is not his softness at all, it’s Patroclus’ maturity. Ask most seasoned veterans who’ve seen death. Patroclus knows what death looks like. He has known it and paid a huge price for killing another person at age ten. In comparison, Achilles’ understanding of war glory is all theoretical especially since he knows he won’t be hurt until after Hector’s death. By the time Achilles actually understands the personal cost to him, when it costs him everything he values most, Achilles doesn’t enjoy his own skills either. There aren’t many more descriptions of how amazing he is on the battle field other than listing names or body count of the dead. I guess Miller could have made Sarpedon’s death less accidental- but I read that as PTSD actually. After Patroclus’ death, Achilles is still the best fighter, but now he is just waiting to get killed. In that sense, Miller does a superb job showing what’s it like to be a weary seasoned warrior. Odysseus is not enjoying it either tbh. Anyways, that’s my one point of disagreement- I don’t think of Patroclus as not a soldier or as soft in any weak sense. I think this book is a focus on who they were outside of the war because Achilles’ super warrior status did not bring to Thetis the reward/healing she yearned. And Achilles asked Patroclus to swear that he planned to be both happy and famous even if the gods did not allow the heroes to experience both. Patroclus focused on that part- the happy part- because Thetis didn’t witness or didn’t appreciate in real time those aspects of her son’s life, and because when at Troy, the two young boys/men dared to circumvent the prophecy in order to keep that promise to each other. Achilles was destined to die a greatest warrior. He was not destined to be happy. Patroclus faced Thetis, a person he feared most, to figure out how to buy more time. Everything the boys say about the world outside of their love is ironic. For ex: Patroclus thinking he’s not smart/strategic enough to be a prince. Achilles joking his mother will kidnap him. Patroclus not intending to live after Achilles’ death or terrified that Thetis will murder him… every single chapter of this super story is beautifully heartachingly ironic.

🙂❤️

I prefer Homer's Patroclus! He is so much more of a badass!

In defense of soft Patroclus, I think she just did it so he would contrast Achiles more. He isn't a well developed character in the Illiad so I get why she changed him more than the others

If someone's going to bust your balls about not liking a character then to Hell with them going against your freedom of choice!😁😄😃

Achilles literally cried to his mother and asked the gods to help his enemies when Briseis was taken away from him. He also got Patroklus killed over it. Arguably worse than the reaction he had when his cousin died. It's cool how mainstream incest is becoming and how wet women get over it. Can't wait to see popular media about siblings hooking up.

Patroclus depiction was probably designed to attract the lucrative market of 'gay' men in the USA who are (arguably) under the cultural norm that in a 'gay' relationship there must be a sexually 'active and a sexually 'passive' partner. Cultural norms were as you suggested different in Bronze Age 'Greek' cultures.

Haven't read tsoa and I don't think I'm going to either, but as someone who loves this part of ancient greek history, I agree. Patroclus was literally second best in the Myrmidons. And just generally as well I really don't like the fem boy x tough boy stereotype like literally why? Two men can both be perfectly manly and tough and be gay and they can also be soft and gentle and then be straight, I just don't like that trope tbh :// No hate to anyone who does like it though!

I loved it but I found it a bit overrated. Crici is much much better as whole. what I hated about SOA is how paterculus is so submissive to achelous and to everything around him. what I hated too how they were looked so morale in the story so far away from the original and its environment. Silence of the girls have had it better in character aspects but Madeline Miller way of writing is so good.

I haven't read the book, yet, but everything I heard about Patroclus really rubs me the wrong way. Not only because it's not true to mythology, but it's also problematic as a depiction of a gay couple. This whole concept of one man basically having to take the "feminine" role and the other the "male" one is deeply problematic. The reason WHY Patroclus' and Achilles' relationship was so widely discussed and interpretations differ was/is bc they don't fit the stereotype of a hierarchy in gay relationship at their time (that in some ways still exists today when we look at other depictions in media that rely heavy on that bottom/top or seme/uke idea). I also genuinely don't get why bringing a "modern" perspective to the table always means to give at least one character more or less modern day values. You don't need that one character that always brags about how bad war is to let readers know that war is bad. Still not sure if I want to read this book

I was actually pretty disappointed when I read this book. Like, don't get me wrong, it was beautifully written, a great pace and such but I just couldn't bring myself to care for Patroclus or Briseis, I actually ended up sorta hating them

I believe I started to read this book decades ago but was repelled by the notion the love between Achilles and Patroclus was sexual in nature rather the emotional love of brothers. Notices men in military refer to fellow soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen as "brothers-in-arms" which is an ancient term.

Actually there are videos debunking the "new" myth that homosexual was a natural part of there world of ancient Greece. I wish I had one website in particular that goes through the various reasons why homosexuality is not depicted in the sculptures, painting nor poerty of ancient Greece. While it is true there hen-pecked husband like Socrates that did not mean he didn't love his wife. There were cases of debauchery were homosexual acts took place there were cases were sex with animals took place as well. It is strange how one is forced to assume certain words or phrases must assumed to mean homosexuality while sculptures or painting that claim homosexuality involve Pan or Satyrs, creatures that were part animal and part man.

In the Illiad he fights Agamemnon for a woman. Homosexuality is never mentioneed. It is in a comedy entitled "The Mirmidons" which was staged 800 years after the Trojan war that such nonsense is mentioned. So, use all the facts before you make conclutions.

As a heterosexual man, I was a little hesitant about reading this novel. I’m not homophobic, just a homosexual romance seemed like a little bit of a turn off. However, I’m glad I took the chance and the book is INCREDIBLE so far!!! Definitely becoming one of my favorite historical fiction novels. (Up there with “God of War” and “Killer of Men” by Christian Cameron!).

Before you pretend to be a historian and act like an expert portraying the Greeks as homosexuals, learn history. Homosexuality was forbidden in Greece and was not practiced at all maybe you should read the Spartan and Athenian Constitution.

Unfortunately you like the author of Song of Achilles mistakes love for sex and sex for love. I love my father, love my mother, love my sisters and brothers as well as my brothers-in-arms. I am repulsed at the thought of having sex with any of those. A man loves his wife but the sex part of that has to do with creating children with her. That changes desire of her to love for her. Exprssing love through sex should happen after marriage. Because some people don't understand this is why there are so many divorces and illegitimate children.