This book INFURAITED me. I don’t think I’ve ever seen as many continuity errors in a single book, let alone such a well-lauded one. Then add to that weird ‘translation’ stuff and creeping on adolescent boys, and you get this piece of overrated nonsense. 

Starting with the most blatant of the continuity errors: 

1. On page 3 Patroclus describes a memory of being on a beach with his mother, and says 

And then goes on to describe SO MANY more memories of his mother???? For example, on page 31 -

?? From the sketchy narrative context (more on this later) he is telling us about all these memories from a single fixed point in the future, so obviously that first memory is not his "only” one? 

2. How the fuck did Patroclus not know what a centaur was – not even the concept?? I could have been fine with it if he’d heard about them and thought they were myths/ancient creatures etc., not around in present day, but to have no idea AT ALL? Achilles clearly knew they existed, so how had it never come up between them, especially when he know he was due to go and study with one? 

3. When they’re up in the mountains with Chiron, Patroclus says 

They used to live A DAY’S TRAVEL from these same fucking mountains, where it clearly snows every winter, so how had they never ONCE seen snow??? 

4. Before the pair got to Chiron’s cave, Patroclus was absolutely fawning over/crushing on Achilles, and couldn’t stop talking about it. Yet when they get to the cave all of those feelings magically vanish, right at peak puberty time?? He mentions it once before the ‘training montage’ begins, then not again for the next two years? As. Fucking. If. 

 

Another issue with the book is the nonexistent sense of the passage of time. This made it especially difficult for me to grasp the boys' ages at times, which I’d say is a pretty important fact to get straight in this kind of story. I read the first seven chapters of the book in one sitting, yet was constantly forgetting their ages. The way Miller wrote about the boys in the first 25% of the book made them sound 16/17 at the youngest, so whenever their age was stated as being 11/12/13 I was shocked every time. 

This age ambiguity was caused in some cases by, in my opinion, the over-sexualisation of the boys in question, namely Achilles. There are a myriad of ways to show two kids being in 'love', but a 11/12-year-old constantly going on about a 13/14-year-olds glistening muscles or the “soles of his feet” is not one of them. Let alone the following quote, which, let me remind you again, is a 11/12-year-old talking about a 13/14-year-old: 

I felt like an absolute creep just reading that. I know we’re seeing it from Patroclus’ perspective, but was such specific detail necessary? Wait until they’re a bit older before describing their pubes in a sexual way, surely?? And the vagueness of their ages at the time of this scene just compounded the issue even further. 

There was also WAY too much casual mention of women being raped as if it was a totally accepted fact of life. I assume it was a common theme in the original works, but 1. This is a retelling, by a female author no less, so Miller didn’t have to include it at all. 2. It would have been nice to see at least one male character who was against it?? 

Then come my issues with the mechanics of how the story was being told. This became really obvious to me when Patroclus started translating some of the words used in the story, e.g. 

Patroclus obviously lived his life speaking ancient Greek, but these specific word translations suggest that he’s translating the story into modern English to tell it. The only thing this can suggest is that he has lived all this time, which is clearly not how the story goes. And if he’s not telling the story to us in the modern day specifically, and its just a story being told in his native language, why is there a need for these translations?? All very odd and completely broke my immersion in the story.
 
Finally, to discuss the ‘romance’ itself. A ‘romance’ which in fact, from both my own reading and many reviews, is actually just Patroclus being pathetically obsessed with Achilles, and not an actual relationship as I was led to believe. It’s pure hero worship, nothing more, nothing less. And apart from not being a complete and utter arsehole when they were kids, what the fuck else does Patroclus actually see in Achilles apart from ‘ooo, so pretty’ and the perfumed soles of his feet?? Achilles is just an arsehole. A fact that was made very clear when he left to study with Chiron and just expected Patroclus to follow him without being invited, breaking all the rules set out to him – 

- how about actually discussing it with him, rather than make Patroclus follow Achilles around like a love-sick puppy, giving him nothing in return? And Patroclus, in his hero-worship daze, was supposed to just accept that Achilles didn’t invite him to study with him and was ridiculously selfish to assume he’d just follow? Such a great basis for a ’relationship’.
 
And lawdy, reading some other reviews about later developments I’m glad I stopped when I did... Every single issue I have so far with the book only seems to get worse as it progresses. I was really hoping to like this one, but once again, straight (as far as I can tell) women writing a gay male love story ends up being a load of gay trauma shoved into a pile of shite. 

Farewell.