#i think i was very diplomatic given my personal opinion on the genre lol

[babyrdie]

So you don't think tsoa mischaracterized Patroclus? (same anon who sent the ask about kindness)

Since I don't want to attract negative attention, I'm going to shorten the post to get less attention lol read the answer below the continue reading bar.

Oh no, don't get the wrong impression. I'm of the opinion that TSOA did mischaracterize Patroclus lol he looks like a modern character, not an Ancient Greek character. Yes, Patroclus is kind, as I made a whole post arguing for it, but he's not a modern kind like in TSOA.

He is also not an integral healer, in The Iliad he is only healing people because the usual healers are unable to do so and this is obvious in Nestor's speech (Book 11). Even if he were a healer, it has nothing to do with being a warrior, since Machaon and Polydarius are the doctors of the Achaeans and both fight. Achilles taught Patroclus to heal in mythology and well…Achilles very obviously fights. Patroclus was kind to Briseis according to what she says (Book 19), but that doesn't make him anti-slavery. He had a slave girl, Iphis (Book 9).

Other sources also point to this, just look at how Pindar (Olympic Ode) and Philostrathus (Heroica) make Patroclus' martial aspect quite clear. Incidentally, do you know the lost plays of Aeschylus that are famous for containing Patrochilles? Aristophanes in Frogs refers to Aeschylus having written Patroclus and Teucer as men with great deeds. In the Suda, a Byzantine encyclopedia, Patroclus is also considered a warrior. Plutarch also writes Patroclus in a dual way. In many other sources, such as Hesiod and Quintus, Patroclus' deeds are emphasized. Even The Iliad scholia, which highlights Patroclus' kindness several times, also highlights his martial achievements.

Patroclus being kind is a given, but that doesn't mean he was kind in the "I hate violence, I don't like fighting, I'm a feminist, I'm anti-slavery, my greatest pleasure is healing people" kind of way. That's a very modern kind of "masculine" kindness. He's kind in the sense that he's patient, empathetic, and diplomatic. That was more like the ancient kind of "masculine" kindness. (Also: "masculine" because the genre affects. In the case of Ancient Greece, the kindness of a man specifically socialized to be a warrior is not the same as that expected of a maiden, for example.)

Furthermore, it's kind of pointless to try to argue that TSOA's Patroclus is faithful to The Iliad's Patroclus when the author herself admitted that while the idea of ​​him being kind was from The Iliad, the idea of ​​him hating violence was Shakespeare's. According to her:

Q: How much of the characters’ personalities came directly from Homer’s text and how much from your imagination? A: It depends on the character. Homer was always a guide, but I also freely drew on other influences and my own imagination. Thetis, Achilles’ sea-nymph mother, is not so angry and uncompromising in the Iliad as she is in my version, but I was led there by her troubled relationship to mortals, based on her forced marriage to Peleus. Patroclus’s gentleness and kindness were drawn from hints given by Homer, but his horror of violence came from my reading of his psychological backstory, and was also partially inspired by Shakespeare’s portrait of him in Troilus and Cressida as more lover than fighter. I knew my Odysseus would be wily, of course, but I enjoyed finding new ways to set that wiliness in motion, particularly in opposition to the idealistic, earnest Patroclus.

In fact, she has even explained that directing Troilus and Cressida (the play) was what inspired her to start writing the book.

Q: When did you first have the idea to write The Song of Achilles? A: I began writing the novel the summer after I graduated from University, before starting my Master’s in Classics. I had just finished directing a production of Troilus and Cressida, which was a complete revelation for me. Up until then, I had only interacted with these stories from an academic perspective, but working with Shakespeare’s characters inspired me to approach them creatively as well. I opened my laptop and Patroclus’ voice was there. Of course, none of those initial sentences survived the editing process. From idea to final execution was ten years.

She has also made clear the two reasons for writing Patroclus this way. One reason is that she wanted to explain why Achilles loved him so much and the other is that she wanted to make him relatable.

Q: Patroclus is very elusive in The Iliad – what made you decide to make him the narrator of your book? A: It was that elusiveness which intrigued me. Achilles’ all-consuming, obliterating grief for Patroclus’ death is the linchpin of the entire Iliad, yet Patroclus spends most of the poem in the background. It seemed to me a great mystery. Who was this man who could undo Achilles? Why was he so essential and beloved? Writing the book was my way of finding an answer to that question.

The central inspiration behind the book is the terrible moment in the Iliad when Achilles hears about Patroclus’ death. His reaction is shocking in its intensity. The great half-god warrior—who carelessly defies rules, and condemns a whole army to death—comes completely unglued, desperate with grief and rage. I wanted to understand what it was about Patroclus and their relationship that could create that kind of crisis. Although Homer tells us what his characters do, he doesn’t tell us much of why they do it. Who was Achilles? And why did he love Patroclus so much? Writing the novel was my way of answering that question.

In writing this novel, I thought a lot about personal responsibility. Patroclus is not an epic person, the way Achilles is. He’s an “ordinary” man. But he has more power than he thinks, and the moments where he reaches out to others and offers what he sees as his very modest assistance have huge positive ramifications. Most of us aren’t Achilles—but we can still be Patroclus. What does it mean to try to be an ethical person in a violent world?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with liking TSOA, but trying to argue that TSOA's Patroclus is true to the mythological character is just… what's the point? Why not appreciate TSOA as something different instead of pretending that the ancient Greeks saw Patroclus the way Madeline does? They didn't, just read the texts. Miller has openly said that the idea of ​​him not being a warrior came from Troilus and Cressida, she KNOWS he's not like that in The Iliad. So things like "well, he didn't like violence in The Iliad"… man, not even the author claimed that. It's all in your head. In trying to defend her, you're twisting her words. She also made it clear that she wanted to make Patroclus relatable, which would be difficult using the usual characterization when the book's audience is very young. She also stated more than once that she wanted to explain Achilles' love for him and probably, in her mind, a lovable person is someone with modern characteristics because she is a modern person.

There is no point in saying "well, Miller was faithfully following The Iliad and she was trying to be entirely consistent with the Homeric Patroclus" when the author has already made it clear that NO, she wasn't. She did say that The Iliad was an important source, but she made it clear that it wasn't the only one. She made it clear that the characterization of Patroclus is also influenced by Shakespeare and also, in her words, "my own imagination".

Honestly, just admit that you like Patroclus in TSOA and that's fine. You don't have to pretend he's the same way the ancient Greeks imagined him to be, you have the option to like both the mythological version and the TSOA version instead of pretending they follow the same idea.

I don't even know why people get defensive about the possibility of TSOA Patroclus not being like Myth Patroclus, that wouldn't be the first change. For example:

Menoetius was never said to be abusive. In fact, he cared about Patroclus. In the Iliad, he counsels Patroclus before he goes to war. Other sources say that Achilles promised Menoetius that he would bring Patroclus back from war.

Thetis wasn't an abusive mother, something that the author herself makes clear that she knows she wasn't (it's in one of the interview excerpts I posted here, by the way)

In Greek mythology Patroclus wasn't taught by Chiron, but by Achilles (in the Roman mythology, though, he was taught by Chiron)

Deidamia wasn't an annoying and insistent girl. She also never forced herself on Achilles. The relationship was either consensual or Achilles was the one who forced himself on her.

Iphigenia didn't die passively, she found out about the plan beforehand and was verbal about it.

Achilles didn't avoid Briseis. She was his sex slave and he used her. He had Diomede too.

Agamemnon wasn't considered superstitious, his belief in the gods was an ideal belief for a leader at the time. This, however, did not prevent him from displeasing gods, as is the case with Apollo.

Patroclus never had to convince Agamemnon not to rape Briseis. Agamemnon decided not to do so, probably because he knew that doing so would decrease his chances of making peace with Achilles.

Patroclus didn't kill Sarpedon as some sort of accident while desperately trying to defend himself, he decided to attack Sarpedon and then still wanted to dishonor his body.

Achilles didn't just kill Penthesilea and that was it. He fell in love with her in this process too.

Neoptolemus never prevented the union of Achilles and Patroclus. The burial was also never just Achilles and Patroclus, it also had Antilochus.

Neoptolemus didn't randomly decide to kill Polyxena because he thought it would be honorable, Achilles asked him to do it and then he did.

Neoptolemus didn't try to rape Hermione and was killed by Orestes for it. He was literally her husband and she was even jealous of him. Orestes killed him because Hermione was already promised to him before, but Menelaus gave her to Neoptolemus anyway.

There are so many, so many changes. Why is the idea of ​​her changing Patroclus so absurd? She has already changed other things. And you can like the changes, you just can't claim that they aren't changes, that they're part of the original material. I love Hades, but you won't find me claiming that Achilles regretted everything he did after death or that Theseus and the Minotaur became best friends in the original sources. I like that Briseis has a strong personality in TSOA, but I'm not going to pretend and act like the ancient Greeks wrote her that way.

But anyway, that's my opinion and I don't think it's going to change. I've read several arguments, but none of them seem to really make sense.

[laufire]

🔥 "romance is undervalued in media nowadays"

Ngl, I feel like exactly the worst person to evaluate this, as I'm... pretty certain I've never read a romance novel lmao (fantasy heavily featuring romance, yes. Romantic with capital R, sure. Romance-romance, nope).

To that, you have to add that I'm not predisposed to like the genre. It's a matter of personal preference, paired with my knee-jerk reaction to its more staunch defences on the name of their so-called "feminism" or "pro-woman" narratives.

Like @malandanti said, it’s worth discusing why men don’t engage with it, and the way they look down on it certainly affects how it’s valued in media. But I reject the idea that they’re feminist in nature, given my admittedly second-hand knowledge of the genre. They’re eminently heteronormative, brimming with consent issues that never seem properly addressed let alone receive serious consequences, and have a transparently uneven treatement between heroes and heroines. Therefore when this argument is used to explain why the genre should be more valuable, I tend to get on the defensive.

There’s the question of which circles one means when we say “valued in media” because thanks to that godawful show Bridgerton they seem to be getting a revival. I find almost nothing but romance books in plenty of small bookstores, certainly more than I ever saw before. And there’s that Persuasion adaptation coming; I haven’t read a lot of Austen (yet), but what I have is enough to make me side-eye the idea of putting one of her books through a Bridgerton-filter, ngl. So commercially, on the whole, the genre seems to be doing better than it used to (and IMO maybe better than it deserves, at least the way it’s getting done now lol).

Intellectually it’s clearly not highly valued, but although I agree part of it might be do to you typical “ugh icky girly stuff” nonsense, given the associations people make with the genre, I can’t say I disagree with the sentiment. No genre or subgenre is a monolith and I’m sure they’re good works out there, but I’m under the impression the goal of most romance novels is to create something entertaining, uncomplicated, relatively unchallenging, and with a prose easy to read quickly as to have people devour countless of them in as little time as possible (especially as authors make sagas of different couples etc). That’s perfectly respectable, IMO, but certainly not the high of literature.

Tl;dr although it’s obvious some undervalue them do to plain old misogyny because they associate them with women, I don’t particularly think they should be highly valued as literary pieces. Some works within it might deserve to and be written with true passion, just like all genres have masterpieces and trashy books lol, but as a whole the genre seems built on being quick and uncomplicated to read and that obviously conditions the works getting published.