Ithaca

by Patrick Dillon

In the tumultuous aftermath of the Trojan War, a young man battles to save his home and his inheritance. Setting out to find his father, he ends up discovering himself. 

Telemachus’s father, Odysseus, went off to war before he was born … and never came back. Aged sixteen, Telemachus finds himself abandoned, his father’s house overrun with men pursuing his beautiful mother, Penelope, and devouring the family’s wealth. He determines to leave Ithaca, his island home, and find the truth. What really happened to his father? Was Odysseus killed on his journey home from the war? Or might he, one day, return to take his revenge?

Telemachus's journey takes him across the landscape of bronze-age Greece in the aftermath of the great Trojan war. Veterans hide out in the hills. Chieftains, scarred by war, hoard their treasure in luxurious palaces. Ithaca re-tells Homer’s famous poem,  The Odyssey , from the point of view of Odysseus’ resourceful and troubled son, describing Odysseus’s extraordinary voyage from Troy to the gates of hell, and Telemachus’s own journey from boyhood to the desperate struggle that wins back his home … and his father.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Mythology, Greek Mythology, Fiction, Retellings, Fantasy, Historical

304 pages, Hardcover

First published July 5, 2016

About the author

There is more than one author with this name

Reviews

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed it! This is to The Odyssey, what The Song of Achilles is to The Iliad, just not as gay.

[Tamara Agha-Jaffar · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ithaca: A Novel of Homer's Odyssey by Patrick Dillon retells Homer’s Odyssey primarily through the eyes of Telemachus, the son of Odysseus.

The three-part novel opens with sixteen-year-old Telemachus struggling to assert himself in the face of suitors who bully, taunt, and ridicule him. He watches helplessly in despair as the suitors turn his home into a ramshackle free-for-all while gobbling up his inheritance. He decides to set out in search for news of his father. Part 1 concludes with Telemachus heading first to Pylos and then to Sparta with Nestor’s daughter, Polycaste.

Part 2 begins with Odysseus’ encounter with Nausicaa at Phaeacia, includes a narrative of his adventures after his departure from Troy, and ends with Odysseus’ arrival at Ithaca.

Part 3 re-focuses on Telemachus; his meeting with Odysseus; the killing of the suitors and their accomplices; the reunification of Penelope and Odysseus; and Telemachus’ rejection of the warrior lifestyle. It concludes with him leaving Ithaca intent on leading a quiet life with Polycaste on a remote island.

On the positive side, the novel is a quick and easy read, moving at a brisk pace with detailed descriptions. Some of the most moving lines describe the devastating physical and psychological impact of the war on its survivors—men with missing limbs and shattered psyches; women and children still grieving over the loss of loved ones. War is a decidedly unheroic enterprise, stripped of glory, turning men into monsters, and shattering lives in its wake.

Some character portrayals are interesting. Telemachus is plagued with self-doubt and frustration. Menelaus seethes with resentment at Helen. Helen is duplicitous and manipulative. Penelope is non-communicative and ineffectual. Odysseus is a broken old man, eaten up with guilt at his treatment of wife and child.

But . . .

Although an author can take some liberties in retelling a myth by fleshing out details and embellishing scenes, the novel has to at least be consistent with itself. Since this is a novel about Telemachus, the whole of part 2 was incongruous and a distraction. Odysseus recounting his adventures to the Phaeacians had nothing to do with Telemachus. He wasn’t even present at the time in either the epic or the novel. So why include it?

Furthermore, Dillon so seriously deviated from Homer’s epic that it brings to question the extent of his research and knowledge of the times. In the Homeric epic, when Nestor suggests to Telemachus he should seek news of his father from Menelaus in Sparta, he sends his son, Peisistratus, to accompany him. He does not send his daughter, which is what happens in this novel. No father at that time would send his unmarried daughter on a journey unless she were accompanied by an entourage of men for protection. He certainly wouldn’t send her off in the sole company of young man, especially since she is a princess whose virginity is perceived as a prized commodity.

Another serious deviation concerns Odysseus’ journey to the underworld. In Homer, he seeks direction from the blind prophet Tiresias. In the novel, he speaks with Laocoon, a Trojan priest. It makes no sense for Odysseus, a Greek, to seek advice from a Trojan priest, especially since this is the same priest who cautions the Trojans against bringing the infamous horse into their city. Why should Odysseus seek him let alone trust him?

Although showing strength in some areas, the novel as a whole suffers from glaring inaccuracies and fails to deliver on its potential.

[✨ Helena ✨]

I received this complimentary copy from the publisher, Pegasus Books, in exchange for an honest review.

[Brenda · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a sucker for Greek mythology. Seriously, for someone who has no desire to study it extensively and make a career out of it, I know more than the average person. I have all the classical writings of Greek philosophers (though I've yet to read them because the set I own is so old I'm terrified I'll ruin the books). Whenever I see anything representing the mythology I eagerly wait to see if I can be that annoying person who points out the inaccuracies of the portrayal.

So when I saw this beauty pop up, complete with the homage to Greek culture with that classically designed cover, I was hooked. I wanted it, badly. I was very very lucky to get a copy and I am so happy I did. Because this is the perfect kind of book to get someone disinterested in history and mythology interested in it. It's language is simple and the plot is easy to follow. The author didn't throw too many names out too soon, so there was no confusion (the ancient Greeks had way too many "Eu" starting names. Glad that's not popular anymore.)

More importantly, it tells Odysseus's story in such a way that seems much more believable. Not a man who encountered all sorts of monsters and goddesses. Merely a young man who wasn't ready to come home and then found out just how much he missed it. It's the story of the man who ran out on his wife and then realized what a terrible mistake it was.

It's less dazzling, sure. But what I loved is that the author took an epic and made it more human and closer to home. Telemachus's story is a fairly uneventful one, at least at first. Yet it's still fascinating and tainted with all the bloodsport you expect from a Grecian story. I loved every minute of it.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oh muse, sing me the story of Anna's rage...
I am going to call the Land of Mixed Feelings my home after this one. I bought this book because i love Odysseus. Who doesn't? I loved Odysseus just because it was him and I liked Menelaus and Nestor well enough. I aknowledge this. But I am not here to talk about that.

Tell me, Mister, this one thing. Was the Odyssey only about Odysseus and Telemachus? Let me rephrase that. Was it not also about Penelope? You know, the Queen of Ithaca. The woman with enough cunning to stand besides Odysseus, dressed in rags and recognised him, put dozens of men to shame with a single command? Oh, yeah. The woman who weaved and weaved and tore her savan down every night? That's right. I found her character in the book intriguing. Moreover. I liked it. But why didn't we delve deeper into it? Penelope was beautiful, clever and brave. But here, i couldn't help but think she was a beautiful, brave and clever prop. A prop who speaks, who walks, who weaves, but a prop nonetheless. It was beautiful as beautiful as Penelope, in her wedding dress, soaked in the blood of the consorts, but it was short and dry as her speech.

But. There is always the but. This was far from my biggest issue. I am here to call the author out on misogyny, compulsory heterosexuality (TM) and half-assed mythological research. It is always the details. oooh the details. I am going to use two examples from the book that bothered me the most.

First things first. I understand the need to fill in facts where the source does not provide them. But when it does? Do you have any licence to say you don't like them and erase them? You do not, my friend. You do not. Did Nestor not have a very nice, single, unattached as of yet (not my words, Homer's) son to accompany Telemachus to Sparta? Don't sweat it. He did. And his name was Peisistratus. Once more for the people in the back. Peisistratus. Now, don't get me wrong, Polycaste was alright, more than alright, she was great and badass. But. What happened to Peisistratus? Did he drop into the void? Did he say, sorry, man, but no homo. Or was that just the writer? Gods forbid he lie next to another man in his travels. Gods forbid he gets drunk /and/ roofied with another man! (See also: Homer, Odyssey) (What version did the author have? Was it the Straight TM ver. and it's not actually his fault? Can I see it?)

Then, another point that kept nagging at me. Any classics child who know their facts knows the story of Clytaemnestra and Agamemnon, how he returned from Troy dragging poor Cassandra with him, in his wife's home. Clytaemnestra and her lover then killed him. Why? Because he was such an asshole she could no longer stand him? Well, that too. But not just that. He brought another woman in her home. Where did Cassandra go, dear author? Did she evaporate? Did he forget her in the ship? Did she fall in the aegean and drown? Finding Cassandra. This fall in cinemas. Don't miss out.

Now my question is. Is this a book for classics pros or newbies? Because from where I'm standing, a pro is more likely to pick it up. And they would be appropriately disappointed. Then again, sweet summer children might be fooled. Think it's perfectly normal and all. Evil woman kills hero husband then is killed by righteous son in turn. Teenage boy sets on journey with young adoult girl, they fall inlove, they build a colony together and live a happily ever after and maybe she never knows about Telemachus affairs with other women. The end.

[Carli · Rating 5 out of 5]

If greek retellings have zero fans, then I am dead

[J.S. Dunn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dillon's re-telling of the Odyssey through Telemachus' eyes should have more readers here than are showing. It is readable, engaging, and avoids flouting or belaboring the original classic, and has its own perspective on the events. Great detail and realism depicting rural Greece in that era.

[Katerina T. · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5/5
Homer is rolling in his grave

[Dafne Izaguirre · Rating 3 out of 5]

"I'm always putting myself in other people's shoes, seeing both sides of
an argument, understanding people then making excuses for them. My instinct is to overthink, to put things into words, to rationalize."

[Emma Hejlik · Rating 2 out of 5]

When it comes to impressing me, the bar is on the floor, but man I did not think there was a basement.

[Jordan (Forever Lost in Literature) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Find this review at Forever Lost in Literature!

I love learning about Ancient Greek and Roman societies (I am a classics major, after all - it would be weird if I didn't enjoy that), which thus makes me extremely excited whenever I happen across a book that uses an Ancient Greek or Roman setting, storyline, myth, or culture. So when I saw Ithaca, an Odyssey-based story focusing on Odysseus' son, Telemachus, I knew that I had to immediately pick this one up. After reading it, I would say this is a great introductory novel to The Odyssey and the world of Ancient Greece, albeit not necessarily an overly in-depth or reinvented interpretation.

Ithaca is an Odyssey retelling in which Telemachus and his mother, Penelope, have been living in Ithaca for the sixteen years since his father first went away to fight at Troy. Telemachus has grown up those sixteen years never having met his father, and the court where he resides is now overflowing with suitors attempting to take Odysseus' place as Penelope's husband, despite her stubborn refusal to accept Odyesseus' death. As a result, Telemachus decides to embark upon on his own journey to find out whether his father is dead or if he is actually still alive.

I really liked the concept of this story; the idea of following Telemachus' perspective of the time in which his father is missing is incredibly intriguing, and I was eager to see how Dillon would handle this story line. To be honest, though, Telemachus didn't see much action, and I was almost disappointed by how uneventful his 'journey' ended up being. However, I think is partly because I found this book to me much more of a character and theme-driven story than one fueled by plot, which would account for the lack of adventuring. On the character-driven side, this novel certainly excelled. I liked that Telemachus was portrayed not as the tough, brutal boy you would expect as a result of the environment of his upbringing, but as a somewhat softer boy that is fiercely protective of his mother, but yet still does not know how to fight - likely a direct result of Odysseus' absence. He did not have the opportunity gain the same experiences or skills that a similar young boy at that time would have because he did not have any singular male influence to learn from or even look up to (all of the suitors are rather deplorable human beings). As a reader, we get to see Telemachus undergo a wide array of emotions and opinions, from yearning for his father's presence and firmly believing he is alive, to doubting his being alive and great reputation, along with everything in between.

Along with Telemachus, there is also a sizable portion - about one-third of the story - in which Odysseus recounts his experiences since leaving Troy and attempting to head home, a total of about ten years. This portion was a bit odd to me; I understood why it was placed in the story, but it didn't quite feel necessary. If you are unfamiliar with the actual story of The Odyssey, then this portion is quite frankly a perfectly succinct and understandable summary of the story, and also provided a nice refresher.

The rest of the cast of characters - Penelope, Nestor, Menelaus, Helen, etc. - were all quite wonderfully reimagined, and I felt a sense of excitement whenever a familiar face from the myth was introduced and I was able to see Dillon's interpretation of them. One tiny issue I had was with the character Polycaste, daughter of Nestor, whom Telemachus meets when he travels to find his father. While I enjoyed her character's strength, her dialogue seemed entirely out of place for this story and time period, and I actually found it a bit jarring. It seemed much too modern for a story that I don't think was meant to be overly modern in its retelling.

While this was an overall enjoyable read, I found myself wondering what exactly the point of this retelling was. Was it merely to add in some insight into the character of Telemachus, or was there meant to be something more? For the most part, I otherwise felt that this was quite literally a basic retelling of the Odyssey with some extra information about what Telemachus may have been experiencing at the same time. I think I was both expecting and hoping for a fresher perspective on this story, so I ended up being left with slight disappointment. Despite this, I cannot fault the writing or strength of the story, which was still certainly entertaining and a lovely story. I would easily recommend this for anyone unfamiliar with the original story, or who is a fan and wishes to read another version. (I must insist, though, that the original be read at some point as well, because it is truly a masterpiece. :) )

Overall, I am giving Ithaca three-and-a-half stars for its readable and flowing prose that retells a classic in a delightful and entertaining manner.

*I received a print copy of Ithaca by Patrick Dillon courtesy of Pegasus Books in exchange for an honest review.*

[Elsa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked it, i liked how they portrayed Telemachus anger at his father for being absent, I like this broken version of Odysseus. But there were some historical inaccuracies that were.. weird choices?

[Benni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful retelling of The Odyssey, with more of a focus on Telemachus's point of view. I wish, however, that there was more world-building, more story.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

*I received a free copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.*

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5

I have very mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, the idea of telling a classic Greek tale through the perspective of another character in the story really intrigued me. I love The Odyssey and was super excited to sink my teeth into a story from Telemachus’s perspective. And I have to say, on that count I think this book was super interesting and successful. Part one of this novel sucked me in, and I could not wait to keep pushing my way through the story. I thought Telemachus was a completely fleshed out character and a lot of thought had gone into the effect not knowing his father would have on him. I also thought that his exploration with Polycaste was one of the strongest parts of the novel. Partly because she was another super interesting character and partly because this is a part of the story that has not been told to death and was rather innovative.

The rest of the book began to fall flat for me, though. Odysseus being discovered and recounting his tale is when I started to drift out of my engagement. I do not know how else the author could handle this (if someone has not read The Odyssey then they need to know what happened), but having Homer’s epic condensed to a chapter in plain English felt more like I was reading sparknotes than anything else which kind of bummed me out. It also has the problem that the reader knows how the story is going to end and the final few scenes playing out are kind of a let down for that reason.

So again, I am torn. I think that this book is really amazing at its best parts. The characters are well developed and the take on various characters’ psyches is super interesting. The idea that many of the heroes in these epics are brutes that are romanticized was a super interesting thread throughout, however, in the end it just feels like a lesser telling of a story we already know. I do not know how this could be worked around, since changing the source material would obviously also be a problem, however, if this book were completely from Telemachus’s perspective and followed the format of the first part throughout, I think I would have enjoyed it much more.

That said, I have several students who either really love The Odyssey or think it is interesting but can’t get past the language. I think this is the perfect book for either of those kinds of students since it is more accessible but also adds new ideas and viewpoints to the story. I would happily have a copy of this book in my classroom to recommend to those students and think it could lead to some interesting discussions about the values of various societies.

Also posted on Purple People Readers.

[Mel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Shortened version of the review I wrote for class (includes spoilers).
In Patrick Dillon’s 2016 novel Ithaca, what begins as a poorly constructed retelling of The Odyssey transforms into an astute, modern exploration of masculinity, expectations, and identity—a thematic focus which deglamorizes the ancient past, humanizing the trauma of Odysseus, Telemachus, and all of the ancient Trojan warriors.
Dillon positions his novel as a retelling of The Odyssey through the perspective of Telemachus, Odysseus’ son who in this novel has been aged down to 16 years old. For readers of The Odyssey, the decision to narrate Telemachus’ journey into adulthood using the YA genre both makes sense and, also, doesn’t. Even in the ancient epic, Telemachus’ narrative closely follows the popular conventions of the YA genre today. Telemachus begins the epic at home in Ithaca, a lost twenty-year-old living in a dangerous house filled with suitors out to kill him. When he leaves Ithaca for Pylos and Sparta at the behest of Athena, beginning the journey to find his father, Telemachus simultaneously begins the journey into adulthood, a journey that the disappearance of his father prevented him from starting while at home. The Odyssey’s first four books track Telemachus’ journey as he grapples with his identity as the child of a lost hero and struggles to make sense of the past.
This structure—a child with an uncertain identity leaves home in order to discover who he is—almost perfectly follows the conventions recognizable from contemporary YA coming-of-age novels, such as Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. Dillon uses these conventions to both good and bad effect throughout his novel, with his choice of perspective being one of the novel’s main drawbacks. Whereas The Odyssey uses a third-person storyteller and would have been told through a rhapsode, Dillon’s Ithaca mostly relates Telemachus’ journey through his own first-person perspective. And through this decision to mostly use first person arises the novel’s two main struggles.
First, the novel’s format and pacing suffer from attempting to tell The Odyssey—by name, Odysseus’ story—through Telamachus’ perspective. Intending to rewrite Odysseus’ story through another character’s perspective generates an inevitable contradiction that, through his novel, Dillon is unable to resolve. The story cannot be both a faithful retelling of The Odyssey and the epic through Telemachus’ perspective; both goals are inconsistent with each other and cannot be seamlessly intertwined (I want to specify here that not all retellings intend to be faithful adaptations of the original. However, Dillon’s work does appear to have that intention, as evidenced by his inclusion of Part 2, which I discuss further below). Telemachus was not present in every scene of The Odyssey. Most of the epic follows Odysseus’ return home—his nostos—which Telemachus could not have witnessed, as he was either traveling himself or already in Ithaca. In attempting to both write the story from Telemachus’ point of view and also adequately recount the epic for new readers, Dillon decides to include an entire segment of the novel from Odysseus’ perspective.
As a principal means of resolving the contradiction, the choice is effective. Part 2 of the novel uses a third-person narrator to describe Odysseus’ meeting with the Phaeacians, including Alcinous’, Arete’s, and Nausicaa’s introspective views of Odysseus as he tells his story. For young adult readers unfamiliar with The Odyssey, this decision gives them an insight into the background of Odysseus as a character and the chronology that the epic itself follows.
For readers already familiar with The Odyssey, however, the decision to spend one third of the story outside of Telemachus’ mind, instead rewriting the original epic with no variation but rather as a straightforward, faithful summary in simple prose, is both boring and counterintuitive to this novel’s apparent goals. If this story were to be told from Telemachus’ perspective, as was intended, then there should be no inclusion of Odysseus’ adventures until Odysseus physically has a conversation with Telemachus in which he can recount these events. While the inclusion of Part 2 makes sense when considering the necessity of informing younger readers, it makes no narrative sense in a story told from the first-person perspective of a different character. Instead, it feels like a last-minute interjection or suggestion by the editor; someone must have told Dillon that Telemachus’ story by itself wasn’t long enough, so exactly rewriting the events of The Odyssey would be a good way to add seventy pages.
While writing an epic from the perspective of a side character absent from most of the books is already hard enough, Dillon focuses on Telemachus as the central character, and this choice of character is the second struggle of this novel’s perspective. Writing a novel through Telemachus’ perspective requires humanizing Telemachus, transforming him into a character who is both likable and arouses pity—characteristics inconsistent with the Telemachus Homer presents.
In The Odyssey, Telemachus is simply unlikable. While his position is certainly pitiful—he’s a young man living as a child, unable to fight in a world which prizes heroism and valor above all else—his actions, especially towards the epic’s female characters, quickly negate any growing sentiment towards him. As Emily Wilson writes in the introduction to her translation of The Odyssey, “Unable to stand up to the suitors by himself, Telemachus instead practices masculine self-assertion by putting down his mother” (Wilson 50). Wielding the only power in his arsenal, that over the people who in his time are seen as naturally inferior to him, Telemachus constantly scolds and belittles one of the only family members he has.
For space, the segment of my review speaking about Teleamachus’ interactions with the female characters has been cut. The main idea: The only flaws in Dillon’s Telemachus are his insecurities, his uncertain identity, and his fear; he doesn’t share his epic counterpart’s arrogance, sexism, or thirst for power. While the character is thus more likable, he is also unrecognizable as Telemachus from The Odyssey, and is prevented from learning and growing from his flaws.
Sympathetically portrayed, Telemachus now is both faultless and a victim. Dillon transforms his weaknesses into strengths and represents any failings as the fault of Odysseus’ disappearance, not Telemachus’ own arrogance. Telemachus’ strengths don’t reflect that of a masculine, heroic fighter; rather, Dillon’s Telemachus has been impacted by his fraught home life, a change Dillon makes that foreshadows his focus on psychological trauma that he emphasizes throughout his novel, but which differs vastly from the epic’s tradition’s glorification of war through storytelling and legacy. Despite allowing Telemachus to act as a YA protagonist and serving his thematic ends, these changes to the character make Telemachus an uninteresting blueprint for a coming-of-age story—a blank, uninspired avatar on which any name can be placed—not the nuanced, incredibly flawed mythical character known by the name of Telemachus.
By humanizing Telemachus and considering how the suitors’ behaviors would have impacted his personality, Dillon changes most of the character’s most notable qualities. However, both versions of Telemachus claim to be uncertain that Odysseus is their father, proving the impact of Odysseus’ disappearance on the motivations and personality of each iteration. Telemachus is unable to reconcile his view of himself with the image of his father illustrated through the stories: a brave fighter, the man responsible for the fall of Troy.
In Dillon’s novel, this form of uncertainty serves two purposes, both with thematic implications. First, Telamachus’ doubt shows the psychological consequences of forcing young boys to live up to an idealized masculine ideal. Secondly, the image of Odysseus as a fighter—in contrast with the trauma Dillon suggests Odysseus really feels—proves the harm in idealizing, romanticizing, and glamorizing warriors. Spotlighting these consequences, Dillon critiques the idealization of masculinity that permeates through ancient Greek culture, a norm that promotes violence and brutality while ignoring the true psychological trauma that glorifying war encourages men to hide.
In order to amplify this thematic distinction and justify the changes made to Telemachus’ character, Dillon drastically rewrites two major events from the end of The Odyssey. First, Dillon reframes the infamous battle with the suitors as the culminating point in Telemachus’ quest for revenge, not Odysseus’; and in granting Telemachus both physical and narrative agency, Dillon weakens Odysseus during the battle scene. Second, Dillon completes Telemachus’ coming-of-age narrative by having him leave both his father and Ithaca behind, allowing Telemachus to become a man not through the cyclic violence his father enforces, but rather on his own terms. The changes in both scenes narratively center Telemachus rather than Odysseus, fitting the ancient epic into the genre conventions of YA while simultaneously critiquing the ancient social structure that prizes a brutal, violent form of masculine glory.
In The Odyssey, Homer presents Odysseus’ slaughter of the suitors as the justifiable and necessary climax to Odysseus’ heroic saga; in Ithaca, Dillon weakens Odysseus in order for the scene to center his main character: Telemachus. Unlike The Odyssey, where Odysseus heroically takes charge, acting as “brilliant, resourceful leader” who “one by one picked the suitors off” (Wilson 22.115,117), Odysseus in Ithaca cowers in fear, “whimpering on the ground” (Dillon 249). Telemachus narrates his father’s moment of weakness: “Heart stopped, I watch Odysseus slide down the wall, hands pathetically trying to cover his face. From behind them he shoots me a desperate, pleading look” (248). The epic’s Odysseus rarely notices his fellow fighters for his single-minded ferocity, but in Dillon’s version, Odysseus relies on Telemachus to save him, physically and narratively hiding behind him, positioning Telemachus as the central character in the conflict, not Odysseus.
In order for the battle with the suitors to carry thematic weight with Telemachus as the main character, he needs to have motivations for fighting besides those of supporting his father, as is the case in The Odyssey. Dillon provides these motivations by representing the battle with the suitors not as justice for Odysseus, the lost man reclaiming his home, but rather as justice for Telemachus, the son humiliated and scorned by the men who took over his house, power, and childhood. Dillon establishes Telemachus’ anger towards the suitors early in the novel, including moments where Telemachus suggests he faced both abuse and humiliation at their hands. Instead of fighting the suitors on his father’s behalf, therefore, Telemachus fights them on his own, reclaiming the strength he’d lost since the suitors arrived three years ago.
However, Dillon’s reframing of the battle scene is incongruous with his goals of retelling The Odyssey, as including Part 2 suggests he intends. Odysseus certainly was not weak when battling the suitors, and Telemachus played no central role besides providing his father, Eumeas, and Laertes weapons during the fight. If attempting to faithfully translate The Odyssey to the YA genre, then Dillon succeeded at only one of those goals: transferring the epic story to the conventions of a YA novel, not remaining faithful to the original. Telemachus is the main character, Telemachus culminates his redemptive arc in the story’s climax, and Telemachus begins his journey to become a man. However, in The Odyssey, Homer never allows Telemachus to begin his journey to adulthood. In order for this story to truly be adapted to the new genre, Telemachus does need to begin taking the path to adulthood. Recognizing this vast difference between both versions of Telemachus, Dillon rewrites the ending of the epic to allow for Telemachus’ independence, growth, and journey to manhood—a journey the epic genre conventions and cyclic pattern of male violence prevent from happening in the original.
As Emily Wilson notes, “Readers [of The Odyssey] may disagree about the extent to which Telemachus ever fully grows up in The Odyssey—as well as about whether growing up to manhood, as this boy imagines it, would really be a good thing” (53). It is Dillon’s response to this central disagreement that makes his YA novel so successful, despite its structural inconsistencies. Noting how Odysseus’ return to Ithaca in The Odyssey prevents Telemachus from ever becoming a man, Dillon resolves to change that ending completely, fulfilling both the genre requirements of a YA coming-of-age novel and highlighting the societal issues the epic’s ending reinforces.
Rather than stay in Ithaca, a home steeped in blood, violence, and the emergence of a new man in power, Telemachus decides to leave, rejecting the path his father—and society—wants him to follow.
After witnessing the violence of his father’s return, Telemachus sees the path that men repeatedly follow—a path filled with brutality, battle, violence, and death, all which inexorably repeat when son follows son follows son. Telemachus’ decision to leave Ithaca rather than continue the cycle enforced by manhood shows that both Telemachus’ and Dillon’s answer to Wilson’s question is no—growing up to manhood, maintaining a cycle of perpetual violence in the pursuit of glory and legacy, is not worth it. As Telemachus himself says, “I don’t need a Troy of my own” (248).
Pointedly and powerfully, Dillon emphasizes Odysseus’ reaction to Telemachus’ decision to leave Ithaca. As the man renowned for the glory he earned at Troy, Odysseus is unable to imagine pursuing a life without glory and honor constantly on the horizon. Trying to pull back Telemachus’ boat as he sails away, Odysseus tells him, “We’re men…We fight. No one can change that. There’s no easy home for you to find. Why do you think it took me so long to come home? Because storms blow you off course and journeys never end. Men are born wanderers. There’s always another island for you to find” (263). Whereas Teleamachus sees a life on the seas, discovering new islands and founding a colony, as a life with purpose, Odysseus compares Telemachus’ ideal life to that of the Phaeacians. “The man who brought me home tried to live the way you want,” Odysseus said. “A dull man with a dried-up wife and a foolish daughter. Is that what you want? (262-3). Through Odysseus’ scorn for the Phaeacians and their comparison with Telemachus, Dillon highlights the perceived dichotomy of ancient Greek masculinity.
Are the choices for men, as Odysseus suggests, either to perpetuate the cycle of glory, trauma, and violence as one option, or to live a life of dull, meaningless frivolity, alone and unknown on a faraway island, as the other? Dillon critiques this dichotomous structure, conveying its dangers by presenting the consequences of suggesting that war or glory is the only acceptable future for young men. Telemachus spends much of the novel with Polycaste, journeying from Pylos to Sparta. On these journeys, both characters see men with amputated limbs, desolate towns with men psychologically damaged from war, and women mourning their lost family members. In rewriting The Odyssey, Dillon emphasizes both the psychological and physical trauma war creates, showing how the requirement for glory damages both the individuals and communities who seek it. By emphasizing the cost of war for the men who fight and the families who remain behind, Dillon shows how Odysseus’ definition of manhood, rather than creating a legacy for his family and glory for his name, in reality perpetuates a cycle of trauma, violence, and unrealistic expectations.
In making Telemachus this modern exemplar, Dillon shows how The Odyssey is still relevant to modern readers—and he justifies the changes to Telemachus’ character. Dillon’s Telemachus is vastly different from the epic version, and while I find these differences hard to ignore, Dillon’s thematic emphasis validates his choice to nullify Telemachus’ more irredeemable qualities. Dillon’s Telemachus aptly serves his change in genre and time-period.
As the YA genre expects, Telemachus grows up to manhood by taking a journey, meeting a girl, falling in love, and discovering that he is not his parents or their expectations for him. The Odyssey acts as the background which supplies the characters for this modern tale, each of which fit into the roles designated for them by the change in genre conventions. Telemachus becomes the insecure protagonist struggling to find his identity, Pisistratus is replaced in favor of a woman that Telemachus can fall in love with (standardizing heteronormativity), the suitors represent Telemachus' bullies, Odysseus becomes the overbearing parental figure, and Penelope (sadly and poorly-done) is reduced to a pile of nothing, an accessory that Telemachus needs to protect and save. Exchanging each archetype with a recognizable name from the epic tale, Dillon both modernizes the ancient epic for modern audiences and critiques—or speaks back—to the norm of masculinity promoted through the original work.
Despite its shortcomings as a faithful retelling, Ithaca shows how relevant the Greek epics can be, even for readers today. I’ll admit that I approached this review intending to strongly critique the novel’s—what I saw, and still do see, as many—shortcomings. I was prepared to denounce the novel for its archetypal or nonexistent female characters, an unrecognizable Telemachus, its inconsistencies with the original epic, how boring it was, its lack of relevance or purpose—but, when actually investigating the effects of each narrative choice, especially when combined with the changes necessary due to the shift in genre, I found that this novel is relevant, it is necessary, and it does more than solely retell the ancient epic. Dillon’s novel humanizes The Odyssey by translating it to a modern genre, critiquing the flaws of ancient Greek society still visible even today. It shows that if characters written into existence for millennia can one day sail away on their own, leaving their father and his unrealistic expectations behind, then so too can Dillon’s young adult readers.

[Candace · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ithaca is good enough to whet your appetite for novels about ancient Greece and send you on a voyage to either re-read stuff you enjoyed in the past and/or seek out new novels based on the oldest stories. This is high praise indeed.

Patrick Dillon focuses on Odysseus' son Telemachus and the mess Odysseus has created by not returning home after the Trojan War. Telemachus is sixteen, the age of adulthood in his time and place. He has never learned to be a warrior because there was no one to teach him--his father and most of the other men of Ithaca were in Troy. He is also small. The story begins at the critical point when there are so many suitors for his mother's hand camped out at his home that they have almost nothing left, and the laws of hospitality demand that the visitors stay and be fed as long as they want. The suitors have also become restive and unruly to the point that Penelope has locked herself in her room and rarely emerges.

Telemachus leaves home to look for traces of his father. Is Odysseus dead? If so, his mother can choose a new husband and they can all move ahead. If he's coming back, then where's he been?

The journey will take him to the lands of his father's comrades from the war, following the early books of the Odyssey. Nestor and Menelaus don't have much information to share with him, and he returns home with a plan of action.

Of course, it doesn't quite work out that way.

This is a gripping tale with a wonderful feel for the ancient world. What cost this novel one star was that I didn't feel the ache of the people living with the grief of a war that changed their world, the ramifications of which would live for millennia. It's described, but it did not move me as I wanted it too. The return of Odysseus (not giving anything away here, I hope) is both moving and curious. He's spinning his usual tales of being held captive by Circe and blah blah blah and people are nodding, but where's he actually been? What happened to him?

How amazing is it that these stories, some of the oldest we have, still resonate and move us. Patrick Dillon, I'd love to know what happened to Telemachus next.

4.5 stars.

[BookzBookzBookz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book review will be short and sweet. Not because I didn't like the story or because it's been done before. It's because when it comes to mythology and the stories of Odysseus and his son Telemachus, I can't be angry or cruel. I've always been a lover of Greek tellings, but this one is more than adventure. It was all about how a young boy became a man, without his father there to show him.

Telemachus wanted to defend his mother, Penelope from those seeking to marry her, he he but also wanted to know if his father was still alive, after the whole Troy incident. He wasn't a brute just curious. He was a boy needing his father. He needed to believe his father was still alive and so he headed out to find him. The story was more of an emotional trial than an actual adventure. It's great if you want to go to your next college course on mythology, but it was no Jason and the Argonauts or The Battle of Thermopylae. It's just character building, honestly. Not bad but not good for me, the reader.

I gave the book a decent rating, but not one I'd say, "Oh man- you have to read this!"
Cheers!

[Benita · Rating 3 out of 5]

Retelling of the Odyssey from the first person perspective of Telemachus. Why certain established “facts” have been changed (Trojan War is only 8 years, Odysseus is only gone for 8 years whereas in reality it was 10 and 10) I don’t understand— it serves no point except to be an annoyance. 3.5 stars rounded up just because I’m a sucker for the epics.

[Kirsten Muller · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Odyssey from Telemachus's POV? Sign me up!

As I just implied above, this book definitely intrigues me from the start based on its premise. Perhaps it's a bit inaccurate to call it "The Odyssey from Telemachus's POV", but I think you get the idea. To be a bit more precise, this book follows 16-year-old Telemachus (we'll get to his age in a second), who has grown up on Ithaca without his father, seeing his mother, Penelope, trying her best to put off all her suitors. He decides to put together a crew and go on his own journey to find out information about his father - or, at least, whether his father is alive or dead. He returns from his journey to (quite by accident) reunite with his father, where they plot to fight off Penelope's suitors in much the way they do at the end of The Odyssey. After that is done, the book ends with Telemachus making a decision about what to with his life that I won't mention here.

At least, the beginning (the first seven chapters) and the end (the last/final seven chapters) of this book are as I describe above. These parts of the book are obviously from Telemachus's 1st.-person POV. But the middle six chapter cut away from Telemachus and his journey. These chapters are more a rough retelling of The Odyssey itself from when Odysseus washes up on shore after Calypso's island until he gets back to Ithaca. These chapters are told from the 3rd.-person limited POV of various people, including Naussicia, the daughter of the Phaeacian chief who finds Odysseus washed-up on shore. But we also briefly go back to Ithaca to see the suitors plotting. These chapters also includes Odysseus recounting his journey to the Phaecians (similar to how he did so in The Odyssey), with all the stories we recognize - Polyphemus and his island, Scylla and Charybdis, Circe, Calypso, going to the Underworld, etc.

Except those parts are not quite as we remember them - which brings me to how this book differs from its source material. The versions of these stories are a lot less supernatural than they are in The Odyssey. Polyphemus IS a said to be a giant with one eye, but that's about it. Circe drugs Odysseus's men, but she does not turn them into literal pigs. Scylla and Charybdis were not literal. Aeolus is not the actual god of the winds. The Sirens were actual women. Stuff like that. While the gods are frequently mentioned and believed in by at least most of the characters, they do not make an actual appearance. Nothing magical actually happens in this book. And yet, all the characters from both Homeric epics are real in this book - even Achilles, though he might not be a demigod. All the events from the Trojan War that we know actually happened in this book. It's an interesting contrast, to say the least. Finally, one other random change is that Odysseus took "only" sixteen years to get home, instead of the twenty we all know/remember from Homer. That means the Trojan War took eight years instead of a full ten, and Odysseus took "only" another eight years to get home (spending five years with Calypso instead of seven). It's why Telemachus is sixteen at the beginning of his book and when he reunites with his father, instead of twenty like he was in the source material. Why this part was done was not entirely made clear. Maybe he just wanted to make Telemachus a teenager during these events instead of a young man, so that he could write more of a coming-of-age story. Other than that, I'm not sure why.

This was an audiobook listen, despite owning a paperback copy of the book. The book had two male narrators - one for the chapters narrated by Telemachus at the beginning and end of the book, and another for the middle chapters (though I swear the first one may have done a part in the middle chapters as well, but I can't say for sure). I honestly was not familiar with either of them, so I couldn't tell you who did which part. Both of them had performances that were perfectly fine, if not mind-blowing. I feel like voices were confused in certain parts.

As I said above, this book is really more of a coming-of-age story, analyzing the relationship between fathers and sons (especially one where the father is absent). It does a fairly decent job of talking about Odysseus's good side and bad (because he actually makes a lot of decisions that weren't that heroic). In that sense, this book is less a retelling of Homer and more a story of a boy trying to decide if he should follow in his father's footsteps, and deciding not to repeat the cycle. That part, again, is done fairly well.

All in all, not a bad start to reading literally any Greek Myth retellings (or myth retellings in general) that aren't by Rick Riordan - because I'm over 99% certain this is my first one that isn't by Rick (except for maybe The Lovely War, but that's a bit different, and I haven't finished that one). It makes me want to try more of them in the future. The author's writing style felt at times like he was telling rather than showing, but it was otherwise alright. As a retelling of The Odyssey, part of me is disappointed by the lack of gods and monsters, but it still remains true to the original story (a story which is long overdue for a reread by me, as I've only read it once, and that was in high school). As a story of a son grappling with the expectations of his father, it's pretty good.

Until next time, heroes!

[Ron S · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant re-telling of The Odyssey, through the perspective of Telemachus, son of Odysseus.

[Pat · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Odyssey from the point of view of Odysseus's son.
Well written and a pleasure to read.

[Reading Through the Lists · Rating 3 out of 5]

Comparisons between this novel and Madeline Miller’s Circe are probably inevitable; throughout my read of Ithaca, I could hardly keep from drawing parallels between Dillon’s interpretation of the Odyssey and Miller’s. While both authors reach similar conclusions about Odysseus and the effect of his travels on those he loves, Miller does so with poignancy and skill. Ithaca, on the other hand, feels more like a first draft than a finished novel.

As an adaptation, it simultaneously changes too much about the Odyssey and not enough. The plot is essentially the same: Telemachus flees the suitors by going to Pylos and Sparta to learn news of Odysseus. Meanwhile Odysseus washes up on the shores of Phaeacia, tells his tales, and returns home to kill the suitors. Nothing is fundamentally different in Ithaca, but there are a myriad of small, irritating changes throughout which are neither explored nor explained.

Why is Laertes already dead? Why is Melanthius an old cook rather than the goatherd? Why is Polycaste Telemachus’s companion on the way to Sparta rather than Pisistratus? (I suppose the last one I can understand, but Polycaste receives so little development that it hardly seems to matter).

I am not opposed to making changes to the original source material, but I am opposed to change merely for the sake of change. If the change doesn’t add anything, then why does it need to be here?

As for characters, the Telemachus of Ithaca is mature and thoughtful--much more so than his hotheaded Homeric counterpart. This is not a bad thing per se (Miller does something similar in Circe), but his character feels underdeveloped, especially since an entire third of the book is devoted, not to Telemachus, but to hearing the tales of Odysseus recounted to the Phaeacians.

The way the book is constructed is in fact so odd that it made me wonder if the original pitch was for a novella about Telemachus, later fleshed out to novel-length through the (wholly unnecessary) addition of Odysseus’s travels. It’s a shame--there are good elements here, but the finished product feels rushed and underdeveloped. A few more drafts would probably have helped.

2.5 stars.

[S. · Rating 3 out of 5]

i really wanted to love this book. the first third of it was set up nicely, and i thoroughly enjoyed the last third of the book (or maybe i just enjoyed the bloody demise of the ill-made suitors...:D). but the middle section dragged and dragged, despite the fact that (SPOILER)

odysseus returns to the novel at that point. but shouldn't odysseus' return be engaging, at the very least? this is a man who descends from autolycus (and by association, hermes) himself! he's crafty and cunning and could talk his way out of a sealed paper bag. and yet instead, we are given a bland retelling of the odyssey highlights most people can recognize in pop culture, even if they have never read the actual story.

all things considered, i honestly don't know if the middle section should have necessarily been included? not only was it extraneous in the context of this supposedly being a story that focuses on telemachus, but it is definitely a bland spot, sandwiched between a good start and a great ending.

furthermore, circe is reduced to a witchy, seductive woman who only learned about potions /from her dead husband./ and that's where the magic stops.

hold up, there. hold up.

removing elements of the gods being an actual force in the odyssey, as well as the more fantastical elements, can be done well if handled with care--and some of the changes made to the story in odysseus' retelling i rather liked. but i honestly could not get on board with a circe who only discovered magic through a man, and gave little reason as to why she would turn men into animals other than a flat, generic, 'all men are pigs' line.

man, i just want to read a nice retelling or alternate take that doesn't crap all over the lady characters (any suggestions?).

ANYWAY.

i wanted to give this book four stars because i loved how the scene with the suitors being slaughtered was handled...it was exciting and brutal, and finally as a reader i was able to see why exactly odysseus is as cunning as he's said to be.

but ngl, i have to dock a star for argos being completely written out of the story. in fact, he's not even mentioned. :'(

[Syed Ali Hussain Bukhari · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ithaca (A Novel)
By: Patrick Dillon


The novel is based on Homer's famous poem, 'The Odyssey'. But this is the story of Odysseus's son Telemechus, who was not born when his father left Ithaca for Trojan War.

The story begins when Telemachus is sixteen years old. While his father is still missing, his house is overrun by many young fighters or the so-called guests that are staying there in Ithaca and devouring the wealth of the house. They also have ambitions to get Penelope, Odysseus's wife, as trophy and become the chief of Ithaca by marrying her. Telemachus has to bear all this until he sets out to get the news of his missing father.

Meanwhile, we have the short summary of Odysseus' misadventures told by himself, when he is found by the daughter of a local chief of Phaecians and treated as a guest. He pleads them to help him reach his home and they happily comply.

Telemachus goes to Pylos, to see Nestor, the chief there; who sends his daughter Polycaste to accompany him to Sparta, to King Menelaus and his queen Helen.
There he founds that his father is still alive but couldn't find where to find him. So, he travels back to Ithace, where he dramatically meets his long lost father, Odysseus. They finally succeed in beating and killing the young fighters who had overtaken their house, and so the story ends in a happy ending.


In overall sense, it was very well written. The author did great in giving us another perspective of 'The Odyssey', the son's point of view.

[Ximena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seguimos con las historias de la Odisea. Esta vez, el libro se divide en 3 partes 2 de ellas desde el punto de vista de Telemaco.

Me encanta poder leer algo narrado especificamente hacia él. Despues de todo, es un punto importante en la Odisea y quien pasa a ser un secundario y con pocas entradas.

Aqui podemos ver sus sentimientos hacia su padre, los pretendientes y su vida en general. Sus pensamientos, añoros, temores y rencores. Ame ver esa parte de él. Lo hizo muchísimo más humano y real.

En la parte de Telemaco nos muestra a Policasta, hija menor de Nestor y quien se volvió un ejemplo de fuerza y voluntad para él. Demostrando que no es una simple princesa.

En la parte de Odiseo el narra toda su historia y "aventuras" rapidamente mientras se encuentra en las tierras de Nausícaa.

Posteriormente, en el regreso de Odiseoba Ithaca, si bien el sigue siendo un guerrero, es el libro donde lo he visto siendo más humano (no un heroe). Se ven sus errores, sus temores y sus dudas sumados a los estragos causados por la guerra, la edad y sus propios fantasmas.

Como mencioné, este libro enfocado principalmente en Telemaco, me ha gustado mucho ya que, al fin, le han dado voz a alguien imporante en la historia de la Odisea y de quien era necesario conocer más que unas simples líneas donde se le menciona.

[Jan Mc · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was excited to begin this novel, but disappointed in it, overall. I didn't expect it to follow the mythology exactly, of course, but the plot was too unsteady for me.

The story was supposed to be about Telemachus searching for his father, Odysseus, after years of dealing with his mother's power-hungry suitors. The story began well enough, although it was discouraging to find Telemachus such a wimp.

The first of three sections of the book involved the kid agonizing over his role and the fact that he can't protect his mom, and finally leaving to search for dad. Anachronisms abound, the story is unbelievable, and the kid goes home with his tail between his legs, so to speak. Nothing solved.

It's a bit of a mystery to me why Dillon included the second section of the book at all. It changes perspective and narrator, and has nothing to do with Telemachus. There are plenty of stories available of Odysseus, the Trojan War, and his troubled journeys afterward.

The third section puts some of the focus back on Telemachus, but just wasn't satisfactory to me. The characters' actions were very inconsistent.

Elijah Alexander narrates the first and third sections of the audiobook well enough, and Armando Durán the second, although his lower-class English accent was a bit jarring.

[Krista · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5

I really love the Odyssey and I enjoy it when authors tell a story from another character's point of view.

Telemachus' story wouldn't be as grand as Odysseus' but I think that was what the author was going for. In a way, this story was almost like proof that Odysseus' tale was more embellished boasting (story-telling) in "their" world as well as ours. If that makes sense... Ithaca is like the author's way of detailing the world of the Odyssey through a realistic lens. What these "heroes" would become after the war. What they are seen like through their stories and what they are like in real life, which was powerful.

Since I'm well aware of the story of Odysseus, there were sections of this story that flew by because it was all similar, or at the very least familiar. Other than the fact that Telemachus is our narrator, the events for Odysseus don't change, they just appear to be embellished stories.

I would have liked to see more of just Telemachus as a character. Most of the novel was focused on Telemachus, and that is what I really liked about it, but the second and third part was very much just the ending to the Odyssey to me, with minor differences since it came from Telemachus' point of view. I still liked this book and I'm thinking of adding it to my collection!

[Rachel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Patrick Dillon's attempts to shoehorn the epic story of the Odyssey into the conventional plot of a coming-of-age YA novel show a curious misunderstanding on the part of the author of both of the ancient concept of heroism and the character of Odysseus. Neither Telemachus nor Odysseus mature as a result of their experiences - instead, the choices Dillon makes to manipulate the story leave both men less admirable and heroic in both each other's and the reader's eyes at the end of the book than they began it, though Dillion seems to want us to believe that both men have grown and changed positively as a result of their experiences. Dillion also seems to tire of writing his own story - an extraordinary amount of time is spent repeating the same stories of Troy but the grand climax and its wrap-up is curiously shoved into a measly twenty pages or so. While I respect the author for trying to bring Homer to a new generation, the last thing we really needed was yet another YA novel full of bow-wielding feisty (but stupid) princesses, and dull, world-weary teenagers disillusioned and bitter to discover that people and life are more nuanced than black and white.

[Elliott Tavera · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ithaca by Patrick Dylan retails the story of the Odyssey by Homer
To read this book, you do not have to read the Odyssey or the Iliad, because in the story, it goes more into depth about what happened to Odysseus.
In the story, it’s very eye-opening to see Telemachus (Odysseus’s son) character development throughout the story. I give this a three star rating just because the book did get a little bit repetitive and was slow. I did love it because it was an easier read then the odyssey 100%. If you love Greek mythology and listen to epic the musical I’m 100% sure that you will also love this book. Once you have an understanding of what happened in the odyssey, you can look at this book in a different way. I will definitely be recommending this book to people who enjoy listening and reading Greek mythology

[Anjali Krishnakumar · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. It definitely moved slowly at times but the language was so beautiful, genuinely Homerian at times. I really liked the reflection in the futility of war. This is definitely a topic that has been explored in other retellings of Odysseus but I feel like this one really thought about the aftermath of war and how dangerous it is to raise little boys to become war hungry men. A lot of the lines stuck out to me but the one I remember the most was “My father; the first stranger I hated” as Telemachus finally came to terms with how he really felt about his father, how abandoned he was by this man who preferred war to his family. I want Telemachus and Polycaste to find this world without war they went in search for, they deserve it.