This is the love story of Achilles, the fighting demigod, and Patroclus, the exiled, his confidant, lover, and closest companion. Patroclus is our narrator, and through his eyes, we see Achilles grow from a smirking boy to the greatest warrior the Greeks have ever seen. It’s equal parts classic mythology with a Romeo and Juliet twist as we watch these star-crossed lovers march to the beat of destiny. Taking on the Iliad is a bold move, and Miller really gives it her all. This one gets a four from me rather than five because it’s missing just a little something to push it in my eyes from really good to great. I’ll bump it up to a four and a half for the creative way she tackles the narration after Patroclus’ death by having him remain on as a spirit, trapped on this plane of existence as a tortured observer of Achilles’ downfall.
My library paperback contained an interview between Miller and Gregory Maguire (of Wicked), and it is as informative as it is charming. Maguire is smitten with Miller and gets juicy tidbits about her journey to write this book, fear about writing a gay love story, etc. One exciting choice that Maguire inquires about is the surprising lack of Helen of Troy. She’s there, she’s hot, but that’s about it. Miller explains that she finds Troy one of the “least vivid aspects of the story,” as not much time is spent in the source material describing her aside from her looks, so she similarly kept coverage light.
Another thing they talk about is the moment that surprised me most in the book: when Achilles is killed, and his heel had absolutely nothing to do with it. I flipped back to when the arrow met its target, and nope, he was struck in the chest. But then, the Achilles heel! What about that? I don’t remember nuances of mythology, but Achilles getting dunked in the Styx and being immortal (save for his wee heel that he was held by) was something I remembered, so what was Miller thinking? She mentions that the heel situation wasn’t included in the original Homer story but tacked on in later evolutions of the tale, so she decided to leave it out. That left me musing on the infallibility of our understanding of history as it’s watered down and rewritten in its retellings. The good news is that Miller’s version of the events breathes new life into this story, and it’s worth a read.