In terms of writing style, The Song of Troy was stiff.

Just to be positive: some of the things I did find interesting, and not offensive or just ???????? were:

A) an Achilles with no lips. None. Is there a reference I’m missing? Either way, strange but I’m down.
B) Achilles’ death fits that are almost epileptic, and lend a strong foundation behind his desire for honour as he’s constantly reminded of his doom. Coolio!
C) this book covers the years leading up to The Iliad, and in doing so pulls in lesser known myths, which is always fun.

Honestly, when I realized McCullough planned on completely throwing away the last 7 books of the Iliad in favour of grossly oversimplifying Achilles’ rage and grief over Patroclus and his relationship with both him and Briseis, I started skimming pretty hard. Also, can we give Briseis a broader personality outside of virginal, naive maiden?

And I mean, come on, this Achilles is respectful to Hector’s corpse? Apologizes to him? Where’s the pizazz.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll probably end up saying it a billion times more, but why, why, why do so many contemporary authors continuously try to fabricate a star-crossed lovers plot between Achilles and Briseis? He wishes her dead multiple times in the original poem! That is not cute! Achilles’ violent disregard for Briseis can so easily be juxtaposed against the likes of Hector’s love for Andromache, or Menelaus’ attempts to get Helen back, as a means to show just how far Achilles has fallen in his grief. A husband is not supposed to crassly throw his bride away, while stating how he hopes her captor will rape her, honour or no honour! A husband IS supposed to chase after her and protect her, whether he loves her or not! How about we give Briseis a man who treats her right!

I know people have been giving their own take on The Iliad, since the poem was first orally produced, so technically there are no wrong answers. That doesn’t mean there can’t be completely ridiculous answers that make me want to drive my head into a wall because again, why.

3 stars because The Song of Troy is not awful, but the flat characterization and incongruous plot was disappointing.

I...I don't know what to think of this book. I started reading it thinking that I would either love, or hate it, but it turns out that I was wrong.
This was one of the most frustrating books I've ever read. On one hand, there are stuff here that I really like, for example, the story is very well written and it flows nicely, I can tell that Collen McCullough has a deep respect for the Trojan War legendarium, and there are part that are really engaging and interesting.
On the other hand, there is stuff in this book that I really don't like, I dare say, hate. One of the thing that I don't like is the fact that the story focuses on the Greek side, while the Trojan side is pretty much neglected. In fact, the stuff we know about Priam's familly and Troy in general isn't even half of what we know about the Greeks. I mean, we don't even know anything about the relationships between Priam's sons and daughters. We don't know whether or not Heitor and Paris liked each other, or if they hated each other. I mean, at first it seems like they get along just fine, and by the end they hate each other's guts. Why? What happened? Also, where is Cassandra, and for that matter, where the hell is Paris?! I'm serious, where is he throughout the whole book, throughout the war? We only get one chapter told by his POV in this book, and he's the freakin' main character! Seriously, what happened to him? Was the author affraid that if she gave him more page time that we would actually like him, something that we aren't supposed to do since he's a lazy, hedonistic little bitch? Was that it?! Was that why the person that caused a war that destroyed a city and killed one of the world's most famous heroes wasn't present thoughout 90% of his own story?!! Eh?!!
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Yes, Paris, or the lack of him, is a thorn on my side, but he's a small fish to the rest of the characters, the real reasons for my frustration and annoyance.
First of all, I'm guessing that we readers are suppose to dislike Helen. If that's so, then Kudos to you, book, because I hate that stupid slut and I would've been very happy if she had suffered a very, very, very painful death. So yeah, Kudos for that.
Now, the characters of this book, and there are quite a few, are extremely frustrating. Here's why: all the characters can pretty much be filed under two categories: either they're hateful, or they're boring. In this entire book, there are only three exceptions to this: Patrocles, who is very sweet and very likeble, and who didn't deserve to be treated the way he was by that bastard Aquiles; Ulisses, who I really liked because he was the only inteligent and interesting character in the whole book; and Paris, who I actually like (even though I don't think I'm supposed to), but who doesn't fit into neither of these categories because he was neglected by the author, and because, dispite everything, he is still sympathetic, in a underdog-ish yet bitchy-ish way. All the other characters are either boring as hell or despicable, and not in a good, fun way, and by God, aren't they all STUPID! And I don't mean mildly stupid, oh no, I mean retarded stupid. I'm serious, you think that Paris is a dumb fuck? Believe me, he has nothing on Agamemnon!
But I think that my most hated characters, besides Helen, are Heitor and Aquiles, specially the last one. Heitor is boring as hell, I mean plain as ditchwater boring, not to mention a douche, but while I do hate him, he's barely in the book, for some reason, so that kind of saves him from a lot of my hate.
Ñow, Aquiles, on the other hand, oh no, he's everywhere, to my endless dismay, and how I hate his guts! I hated him since Quiron's chapter, where he was established to be the book's resident Gary Stu! I hated him in his first POV chapter,when we get introduced to his oh-so-painful-pain! I hated him thoughout the whole book, thoughout which there was so much build up to that character that it was honestly stomach-turning and sickening! And I hated him for many reasons, but mostly because his character is built up so much, in such an annoying, sickening way, but when it comes to it, he freakin' FAILS! EPICALLY! He is overrated and overused and most of all, he's drop dead dull. No, not dull, oh no, Aquiles dullness should not be described as simple dullness, oh no, his dullness deserves all capital letters. He, Aquiles, is not only the book's Gary Stu, he is D.U.L.L. And to be honest, I actually went "YUPPY!" when Paris killed him, because, by God, wasn't I glad to get rid of that dull moron.
So, yeah, as you could've noticed, my main problem with this book is the characters. It's just that they are all so boring and stupid and despicable, but mostly boring and stupid. There isn't one character there that I actually really care about, that has left a mark on me, that actually touched me, mostly because they're all so boring, and those that aren't boring don't get nearly as much credit as they should (except Ulisses, he's okay). I mean, the characters aren't bad, but they aren't that good either, and for a story like the Trojan war, that has everything to do with the people involved, good, solid characters is something that is needed.
So, in light of all of this, is The Song of Troy a bad book? No, no it's not. Like I said, dispite the frustrating characters, there is stuff in this book that I like, and characters that I kind of enjoyed. Patrocles, for one, is absolutely adorable, and Ulisses is very smart. Hell, even Paris is okay, when compared with the dullness of his brother and the stupidity of his father. And like I said, the story is very well written, I like the writing style. So, how does it hold up? It's okay. It's fine.
And you know what, that's the biggest problem of them all! It's fine, it's okay, it's a B, or maybe a B+, if I'm feeling nice. It's a book about the Trojan War! The freakin Trojan War! And it's simply okay. Do you see the problem? A story about something so epic as the Trojan War should also be epic, or at least epically bad, but no, it's simply okay, fine, a B, maybe a B+. It's a satisfactory book. It's a book about a subject that deserves to be handled and shaped into something epic, but it turned out to be merely pleasant, and that, I think, is the worst of it all.

I loved this book, it was very well written and it was obvious she did an amazing research. I loved that every chapter was from different perspectives, it was a very unique approach to the retelling of the Trojan War and Iliad. I loved that it was left to us to decide whether to see certain events in a realistic way or in a more mythical way, and that she showed how it became such myths.
However it was very obvious that she loved Achilles character and she decided to turn him into a perfect character, which was a character murder in my eyes.
Overall it’s an amazing book

There is no group of characters I am more enamoured with in mythology, legend, and history than those of the Trojan and Greek forces whose legend centers around the action on the plains of Troy. I appreciated that Colleen McCullough tried to show me each of their unique perspective as the years crawled on. And while this book is not perfect (but what is?) and there are many things I question, I liked reading it. I looked forward to ,reading another chapter, even though I know everything that happens. This is the power of a true word-smith.

Like many other reviewers, I felt a little knocked over the head with the whole idea of "a man for men" and the idea of Achilles' face being "lipless". Much of this was not required to the story itself,and created little extra. I also feel the treatment of the gods in this narrative was suspect. Troy is the stuff of legend, and the gods are apart of that tale. This is the opportunity to indulge fantasy, to create mythical reality, but instead everything was explained away with wily Odysseus and epilepsy. Achilles was a man-killer in nic-name who fought for glory and his immortal song, it's maybe too much to ask that he was involved in some plot that would spoil that name forever.

But read this. Read it if you too are interested in the Trojan War. It's appropriate for senior classroom. it's treatment of war, sex, honour, choices, and valour are all easily connected to curriculum.

-Otra aproximación al evento... otra más.-

Género. Novela histórica.

Lo que nos cuenta. Troya y varios líderes de la Antigua Grecia tienen cuentas pendientes desde hace tiempo, tanto por supuestos impagos como por cuestiones geopolíticas y comerciales. Cuando París, príncipe de Troya, se lleva a Helena, esposa de Menelao, de buena gana y con la complicidad de ella, las hostilidades estallarán de inmediato.

¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:

https://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com...

2,5 - Mit dem „Lied von Troja" hat McCullough eines der berühmtesten Motive in der Geschichte der Literatur aufgegriffen und in diesem mehr als 500 Seiten langen Roman die Geschichte des Trojanischen Krieges neu erzählt. Für mich als Fan der antiken Mythen und Geschichten war das allerdings ein eher mittelmäßiger Versuch, den Stoff für die Gegenwart aufzubereiten. Während der erste Teil spannend die Motive der Akteure erforscht, bleibt die eigentliche Erzählung um Troja weit hinter meinen Erwartungen zurück.

Die erste Hälfte des Romans behandelt die Vorgeschichte des Krieges, die eigentlich nicht in der Ilias vorkommt, sondern von der Autorin über andere Quellen erschlossen worden ist. Vor allem diesen Teil fand ich unglaublich fesselnd! So erfahren wir, wie Priamos König wird, wie Thetis und Peleus zusammenkommen und Helena mit dem etwas tumben Menelaos verheiratet wird, während sie lieber mit dem feschen Diomedes im Garten herummacht…
Ja, der Stil ist etwas eigen, weil er einerseits versucht die archaische Stimmung aufzufangen, andererseits ein wenig salopp, umgangssprachlich die Handlungen der jugendlichen Helden kommentiert. Also nicht unbedingt ein Anwärter auf literarische Preise, aber in Ordnung für gute Unterhaltungsliteratur.

Wie ist es zu diesem Krieg gekommen? Wer hat dazu beigetragen? McCullough ist offensichtlich bewusst, dass heute niemand mehr daran glaubt, dass wegen der noch so schönsten Frau ein Krieg ausbrechen könnte. Helena bleibt in ihrer Erzählung zwar der Auslöser dieses Desasters, aber McCullough findet bei vielen Charakteren unterschiedliche Motive und webt sie zu einem dichten Teppich zusammen, indem sie jedes Kapitel aus einer anderen Perspektive erzählt.
So erfahren wir, warum Priamos eine persönliche Abneigung gegen Griechen hegt und erfahren von der kulturellen Gegnerschaft zwischen den Völkern Kleinasiens und den griechischen Völkern, die noch durch einen erbitterten Handelskrieg verschärft wird. Nicht Helena, sondern der Wunsch nach kostbaren Rohstoffen, v.a. Metallen, und nach Kontrolle über den Hellespont und das Marmarameer, treiben die Parteien an. Großmachtphantasien auf beiden Seiten werden offengelegt.

Durch die Verwendung verschiedener Erzählperspektiven werden die Motive der einzelnen Beteiligten deutlicher, die Geschichte spannender, weil im Kontrast bereits die unterschiedlichen Erwartungen und Ziele zum Vorschein kommen. Es wird klar, was die Griechen trennt und zusammenhält. Die Entstehung des Krieges finde ich nicht nur überzeugend, sondern auch spannend beschrieben. Die Verquickung all dieser Erzählstränge aus der Sicht unterschiedlicher Charaktere zeigt auch, dass McCullough hervorragende Kenntnis der Vorlagen und der antiken Welt hat.

Vor allem der geographische Ausschnitt der Welt des Trojanischen Krieges wurde für mich zum ersten Mal plastisch (die abgedruckte Karte hat natürlich auch dazu beigetragen!). Mein Eindruck ist, dass McCullough bei den zeitlichen Bezügen etwas schummelt, doch das war mir angesichts des überzeugenden Gesamteindrucks eines Krieges um geostrategische, wirtschaftliche Vorteile nicht wirklich wichtig.

Der beste Teil war für mich der, der nicht in der Ilias erzählt wird! Die Autorin füllt hier eine Lücke, indem sie die Vorgeschichte des Trojanischen Krieges erzählt, die in der Ilias ja gar nicht Thema ist. Dagegen fand ich den zweiten Teil, in dem vom tatsächlichen Krieg erzählt wird, weder überzeugend noch originell.

Ein großer Nachteil für diese Nacherzählung eines Krieges ist sicher, dass die Beschreibung von Kämpfen nicht zu McCulloughs Stärken zählt. Zweikämpfe, die in der Ilias noch eine archaische Wucht besitzen, sind hier ziemlich brav wiedergegeben. Dass sie im Nachhinein aus der Perspektive der Beobachter geschildert werden, macht sie auch nicht spannend. Allerdings muss ich zugeben, dass Schlachtenbeschreibungen auch sonst nicht zu meiner bevorzugten Lektüre gehören.

Was für mich im zweiten Teil definitiv nicht funktioniert hat, war die Neuinterpretation des Hauptkonflikts, nämlich des Streits zwischen Agamemnon und Achilles um die Kriegsbeute. Was sich McCullough ausgedacht hat, würdigt den trojanischen Krieg zu einem Possenspiel herab und weist unzählige logische Lücken auf, die auch die langatmigen Erklärungen eines der Akteure nicht schließen können.

Schließlich konnte sich die Autorin nicht entscheiden, ob ihre Helden modern oder archaisch motiviert sein sollen. Viele werden zu einem unglaubwürdigen Mischmasch, deren Handlungen von ihren Motiven wie abgekoppelt sind. Oder schlimmer, sie wirken wie Karikaturen, weil sie sich in den 10-30 Jahren ihres fiktionalen Lebens nicht entwickeln. Besonders enttäuscht hat mich die Umdeutung der Beziehungen zwischen Hektor und Andromache, sowie Achilles und Patroklos. Beide Beziehungen haben der Ilias etwas Menschliches verliehen, die in dieser Erzählung durch nichts Gleichwertiges ersetzt werden.

Das Fazit fällt mir schwer. Die Lektüre des ersten Teils war für mich wirklich kurzweilig, interessant und hat an vielen Stellen mein Wissen um den trojanischen Krieg und die Ilias bereichert. Trotzdem würde ich den Roman nicht weiterempfehlen. Leser, die sich schon mit Agamemnon, Helena und Achilles beschäftigt haben, werden angesichts des nicht unerheblichen Umfangs nur wenig Neues erfahren. Und für diejenigen, die einen moderneren Zugang zum alten Stoff suchen, weicht der Roman zu sehr und wenig überzeugend von der Vorlage ab.

Started off pretty strong, and I was excited to get Priam as a POV character. But I didn't understand his motivations and stubbornness moving forward.

No one had any character arcs. Everything plodded forward without much momentum or excitement.

Odysseus was the mastermind behind everything. EVERYTHING. Including the Agamemnon-Achilles argument, which was staged by Odysseus. It was a little ridiculous.

Helen was the only female POV character, and though she made me laugh a few times, ultimately she was just a shallow woman. Not a very exciting take.

Very readable account of the Trojan Wars. Somehow manages to retain a level of historical gravitas and tell a rip-roaring war story at the same time.

To write a story where the end is already known and the characters are those of legend would seem to leave little for a writer to work with but McCullough has no problem making this story come alive.
Told by multiple points of view, the story could at times feel as if it was a little choppy but the different voices were distinct and interesting. Having parts of the story told by the Trojans and parts by the Greeks, gave a wonderful overview of the war from both sides.
Every writer has their own interpretation of the characters in this story, legend can only tell us so much and so the actual personalities of the people are left wide open for an author to create. In this version, Helen and Paris aren't viewed in the rosy light of romance but under the bright lights showing vanity, stupidity and boredom. Priam is foolish, Agamemnon ambitious and greedy, Odysseus deceitful.....which all ended up making a very realistic and compelling tale.

A nice retelling, but it unfortunately falls far short of Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Firebrand, which is one of my favorite books of all time. McCullough presents an interesting take on some characters - Achilles is a little less crazy than I expect him to be - but falls far short of the relatability and depth of MZB's characterizations. I liked this version, but it's not a book I think I will reread.

McCullough has always been one of my favorite writers of fiction based on ancient Greece and Rome, and after reading her Masters of Rome, I was excited to see her take on the Trojan War. And while I did enjoy it in general, it falls a little bit short of her other classical novels.
The writing itself has McCullough's usual quality- it is engaging, generally fast-paced, and sometimes makes it hard to put her books down. However, perhaps even more than Masters of Rome with Caesar, The Song of Troy suffers from her tendency to pick a favorite character and have them do no wrong. While I like Achilles and Odysseus as much as anyone else, they are clearly the favorites of the novel, and the portrayal of other characters (such as Patroclus) suffer for it. Though McCullough is usually fantastic at portraying the people of the ancient world and she has clearly done her research regarding culture, many of the characters are nothing like they are in the ancient sources, and it is frustrating to see so many of them turned into any combination of cruel, cowardly, uncaring, and petty just so that the favorites can shine.
Besides that, every chapter is done from the point of view of a different character- a style that can be done well, but since there are so many characters, it can be confusing and frustrating at times to never really get the full story from any one character.
Overall, it's a pretty decent read, and I enjoyed McCullough's writing style as I always do. However, if you enjoyed the Iliad and are looking for a story about the characters you came to love, this is not the book for you.

I have two favourite stories set in Troy, and this one seems a nice choice for my First Book. The war comes to life, the characters step out of Homer and breathe - the good, the bad, and the slightly derranged - and Odyseus is my kind of hero, just a guy who wants to get the job done properly and go home.