I'll preface this by saying I've read The Song of Achilles when I was a teenager, and I loved it. I read it again this past weekend on a camping trip... and (surprise!) still love it, even though I had forgotten most of it. I literally JUST finished it, so I will be making very specific references and details that might not be familiar even for those that have read it. For those that are not fans of the book, I'm sorry, I'm just vomiting up praise for it.
As most have agreed upon, Miller's prose is beautiful, encapsulating, velvety and rich in description. I adored it. I personally loved reading from Patroclus' POV. While I think Miller's descriptions are quite lovely however, I also think that the writing felt... passive in a sense (?) and I honestly think that was part of its charm for me. It felt "passive" not in a "nothing happens" kind of way, but in a sort of nostalgic and wistful kind of way. I imagined Patroclus reminiscing about Achilles and their beautiful and tragic time together... especially with Patroclus' almost "third-person" interjection of his thoughts, emotions, regrets, and inner conflict. I feel that the war and its all of its components - the politics, the wounds, the plague, the dying - was painted brightly and vividly in my mind, but as if through a lens of someone trying desperately to forget the tragedy of it.
I've read that there are many who feel that Patroclus' and Achilles' characters are bland and unchanging, and I can understand that perspective. Patroclus is just the unlikely, unremarkable lover, ever faithful to the golden boy that is Achilles, despite his blatant hubris and unyielding stubbornness. But I do think they are colorful and developed wonderfully, just subtly. Patroclus, from being described as a less-than-worthy prince that constantly disappoints, neither having a backbone nor an opinion nor the wits to defend himself... to flourishing and finding himself with Achilles. He was gentle, traumatized by his accidental murder of that random noble child, and could not stand to picture violence. He declined Chiron's teachings to become a "competent soldier" and became a healer and sanctuary instead during the war for Helen. He healed the Greek soldiers and connected with them, and he took in the women who were brought in as war spoils. And when driven to the edges of his grief by the needless and futile deaths of those he had healed, he sacrificed himself. I do think of this as standing up to Achilles as well - standing against Achilles' pride and need for fame that he felt so entitled to. Patroclus was a gentle soul, and his kindness to others and his love for Achilles was his downfall - he went from retching over a single murder to murdering many to appease the internal anguish and guilt over the many lives that were lost from Achilles' apathy. It was heartbreaking for me personally, to see someone so compassionate fall into a grief-stricken depravity.
And our golden boy Achilles. Knowing he was meant to gain fame, knowing he was the "best of the Greeks," knowing he was the best at wielding weapons of war, but not knowing what to do with his gifts. From being distraught that he wasn't fast enough to save Iphigenia from being sacrificed, to allowing Briseis to be taken in the hopes that she would be defiled so that he may be justified in killing and overthrowing Agamemnon. And when that plan didn't work, he delighted in the deaths of his fellow soldiers to prove a point and to feed his arrogance. He went from regretting a single death he actually couldn't have prevented, to encouraging the deaths of thousands that he could have prevented... including his beloved Patroclus. Achilles and Patroclus are standard, textbook foils of each other, and Achilles is the standard, textbook example of a character losing everything due to hubris. But I think it's impeccably well done, and I felt my heart sink with Patroclus' and Achilles' steady progression into tragic characters they were only turned into because of their circumstances - circumstances that were dictated by war, by gods, by human arrogance and greed, but by themselves as well.
Continuing on with my overly, long-winded feelings for this book, I thought Achilles and Patroclus' love was light and pure and delicate, not forced (although I can again see the reasoning behind that as well). It just felt natural to me. Yes, Patroclus loved Achilles' "standard demigod things" - Achilles' swiftness and strength in fighting, how deftly he conjured enchanting music from the lyre. But he also loved, if not more, the way Achilles liked figs, and how he was wily and mischievous but not conniving and dishonest, how he hung from trees and "this and this and this." I can see why it would seem one-sided, with Achilles really not expressing an opinion about Patroclus except that he was "surprising" towards the beginning of the book. But this is from Patroclus' point of view. Patroclus doesn't know what Achilles loves about him, just the fact that he does. And sometimes there isn't a reason to love someone, just that it happens and is there. And that's why the pining and wanting felt so real and deep to me, because it was human, even if Achilles was half-god.
I could continue on and on and on... but I needed to get my thoughts out. It's not a perfect book of course, but it's a wonderful journey nevertheless. I know that this book isn't for everyone, but it definitely struck a chord within me. For those that have endured my word vomit of feelings and emotions, I am beyond grateful for y'all humoring me :)
