I knew I'd have issues with this book the moment I saw the Prologue being pre-emptively defensive about there being only 3 words for love in Greek without presenting an argument other than plot necessity. When you feel the need to start off your novel with a prologue in which you lay out your choice of plot that goes against most academia but without a convincing argument for it, that spells trouble. And the author's notes by the end didn't help matters since she merely waved it away with "there's some debate" about the number of Greek words for love but doesn't say what this supposed debate is built on and omits one word from the count. This is coming from an author that puts in her bio that she's studied Greek and Roman history and language.
And since we're on the subject of authors with supposed expertise in Greek & Roman culture, I have to ask the hard question: what is their problem with feminine women in ancient Greece and Rome? Why do they feel the need to take a feminine woman and make her into some warrior princess she never was? There are already some women like that in their myths, like Atalanta, Penthesilea, Artemis, Hippolyta, etc., that you could use if all you want is "active" women who can wield a bow and fight like men. So why do you take women who aren't warriors or tomboys and rewrite them as some sort of tomboys who can be as manly as any Greek hero with the excuse that it's "feminist"? How is it feminist to negate a woman's personality and distort it into another kind of personality that you, a modern woman from the 21st century who probably thinks Wonder Woman is the epitome of feminism, think is the correct way to be a "hero"?
Psyche is the only story with a Heroine's Journey arc in Greco-Roman mythology, and it turns out she is a feminine and "girlie" character. She is no warrior, she doesn't go around shooting at stuff and challenging the males to athletic & horsemanship competitions. But in this retelling, Luna McNamara twisted her into some unrecognisable warrior princess with an abrasive personality that expresses misandrist opinions at times (except when she has to fall in love with Eros, of course) and learns to fight with none other than Atalanta. Our sweet, kind, hard-working, persistent, and courageous but also naïve and flawed Psyche is turned into some wannabe Amazon for the sake of appealing to modern sensibilities that can't stand a woman who can't fight and save herself, apparently.
And that's only the start of the issues, because there's more. McNamara doesn't like Apuleius' tale much, which she dismissively labels as "so termed Roman myth" and decides it needs almost complete reworking, so she cooks a soup of all myths regardless of consistency and narrative cohesion. She makes Eros not the son of Aphrodite and Mars as Apuleius wrote it but threw in Hesiod's version of the myth that has Eros as one of the primordial gods that existed before the Olympians. Bear in mind that Eros & Psyche is Apuleius' creation, there are myths about Eros and Psyche earlier than his book but they are different and don't make them a couple. Aside Apuleius, we don't have any early version about Eros & Psyche as a couple, so yes, the "so termed Roman myth" isn't even a myth but a Roman novel, not a Greek myth, whether you like it or not. By that time, Greece had been part of the Roman empire for centuries and its culture had been absorbed into Rome's quite intrinsically. You'd think someone who's studied the classics would know how to distinguish between the actual myths relayed as they were told, like Hesiod's, and retellings and reinventions of those myths, like Apuleius or Euripides. But McNamara doesn't, she pretends it's all the same, that this is some strange myth that defies categorisation, blah, blah, and let's forget there's depths of philosophical allegory in the tale that come from Apuleius' particular worldview. I'm always surprised by supposed classicists that can't tell one from the other.
So, here we have a mediocre pastiche of the actual myths surrounding Eros with the novel by Apuleius plus Greek drama bits and plenty of personal tastes forced into foreign ancient mythology. Eros is forced to be Aphrodite's "son," why? Because she says so and he can't avoid becoming her slave. Psyche is made a Mycenaean princess and granddaughter of Perseus, why? Because the author wanted it, screw cohesion. Psyche's sisters aren't the envious saboteurs as in the novel, why? Because the author despises having precious sisterly bonds depicted negatively, screw that as a social worker she'd know well how dysfunctional families can be, but of course let's keep Aphrodite as the arch-villain and make her even eviller than in the novel, because that's not sexist, no, sir, only showing women as bad sisters is sexist.
The story becomes a name-dropping marathon of Who's Who in Greek mythology. Everyone worth a mention in the heroic cycle appears here. The author decided this story would take place during the Trojan War timeline, because why not, a time where human sacrifice was still practised, but somehow making a feminine girl a tomboy so she's properly feminist is more important than the horrific customs of the time. You get a catwalk throng of heroes and gods sashaying around here, and all changed from how they are in the myths. Why? Because "myths are always evolving and adapting." Yeah? Is Greece your culture and are those myths part of your modern culture? No. The author is American, and as many Anglophone authors recently, seems to think they can take another culture's mythology and do as they please with it in the name of "reclaiming it" or making it feminist.
Whilst I particularly hated the changes to Psyche's character, I also didn't think the other changes made sense. Why make Penelope the sister of Helen and not Clytemnestra? Why make Aphrodite's motives for punishing Psyche not a matter of divine prerogatives accidentally infringed on but jealousy over Eros being freed from his slavery to her? Why change the three tasks of Psyche to your taste and involve Eros in them when they're Psyche's to solve? And the biggest question of them all: why on Hades make the gods deny Psyche her boon of becoming a goddess and make her become a goddess illegally through an unauthorised potion by Hekate et al.? That wouldn't be possible, Zeus could kill Psyche for becoming an immortal without his authorisation. And in any case, it was him who made her an immortal on Eros' pleading in the first place, so what's so bad about this that it needed changing? Nobody can become a god without Zeus allowing it, so this outcome is nonsensical to the Nth degree. And it also warps the only happy ending in a Greek myth-based story that was actually earned.
So, no, this isn't a good retelling for so many reasons but mainly for the incongruous pastiche of Everything Goes plots. And it isn't even a good romance because there's such a throng of characters and mishmashed plotlines that there's hardly any time for Eros and Psyche to build a relationship. It's a collage of half-chewed ideas that were plucked out at will and fancy and put together regardless of cohesion, in a world that doesn't read like Greece in any time period, and much less like Troy-era Greece because the gods and the heroes talk and think rather modernly.
I received an ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.