The Rage of Achilles

by Terence Hawkins

In his first book,  The Rage of Achilles ,  Terence Hawkins imagines an Iliad that really happened. Informed by the brutal realities of Bronze Age warfare and Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind--now a basis for HBO's Westworld--the novel depicts real men and women struggling in the end of a decade-long war, their gods dwindling into hallucinations and half-heard commands as the modern consciousness is suddenly and painfully born. Emily Hauser, author of   For the Most Beautiful,   "Terence Hawkins' 'The Rage of Achilles' . . . is Greek myth red in tooth and claw. Visceral and to-the-point, it grabs you and doesn't let go."  Tom Perrotta, author of Little Children and The Leftovers , called it "a rare thing--a genuinely fresh take on a classic text."

Genres: Historical Fiction, Mythology, Fiction, War, Historical, Classics, Greece

198 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Kirkus Reviews called Terence Hawkins' second novel, American Neolithic, "a towering work of speculative fiction" when naming it a Best Book of 2014. Julia Glass said, "You will be amazed at Terence Hawkins’s prodigious imagination, his Bowie-sharp wit, and the skill with which he tells a story."

Hawkins' first novel, The Rage of Achilles, is a prose account of the Iliad in modern and sometimes brutal prose. Based on the bicameral mind theories of Julian Jaynes--also the conceptual basis for HBO's Westworld--it describes not only an historical Trojan War, but a revolution in human consciousness.

His short stories have appeared in such publications as Calliope Crashes, Blue Mountain Review, Keyhole, Eclectica, and Pindeldyboz. His commentary has appeared in the New Haven Register and on Connecticut Public Radio. His most recent publication is an excerpt from a sequel-in-progress to American Neolithic provisionally entitled Rats' Alley.

Hawkins' was the founding director of the Yale Writers' Conference. In 2015, he capitalized on that experience to start the Company of Writers, offering editorial services, seminars, and workshops to authors at every stage in their careers.

He grew up in Uniontown, a coal town in southwestern Pennsylvania. Both grandfathers and several uncles were miners. He graduated from Yale, where he was Publisher of the Yale Daily News, and the University of Wisconsin Law School.

He lives in New Haven with the enigmatic yet pithy Mrs. H., his muse and keeper.

Reviews

[Marian · Rating 1 out of 5]

If I could give this zero stars, I honestly would. In an era chock full of gritty reboots of every story known to modern society, it's no surprise that Iliad is prime for similar attention. And that's the book's biggest problem, because that flaw underscores every other part. The epic this is based on is already keen to note and illustrate the horrors of war, but where the Iliad does not venerate it (see: the entire plot hinging on Achilles' disillusionment with the entire affair and his leaders' overt willingness to exploit sentiments of honor and loyalty to personal ends), this book tends to celebrate it. There is no NEED to make the Iliad #gritty, it's already a violent tragedy full of character flaws ripe for exploration. If this is trying to avoid romanticising the war itself, it's such a massive overcorrection that it vacillates over to the exact opposite direction: darkness is not automatically more profound.

The entire novel should have one giant warning on it for explicit, useless to the overall plot, constant depictions of rape and sexual violence; this novel makes the TV adaptation of Game of Thrones look downright demure. Achilles' treatment of everyone around him frankly undermines the entire point of his character, and the treatment of the Trojan Epic's already-too-few women is gratuitous AT BEST. I doubt it's meant to be a horror novel, but the removal of personal agency to inject ~sex~ into this does not have anything profound to say on the subject and frankly glorifies the ugliness of humanity without thought of consequence. It reads like a gratuitous rape fantasy.

If you're a fan of the original story *at all*, do yourself a favor and skip this. Because it is not that story or anything like it.

[Josho Brouwers · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is supposed to be a "grittier" retelling of the Iliad, as if the original poem wasn't gritty enough. It just isn't very well-written, with the dialogue in particular being downright atrocious in places. Coarse language and references to sex, as well as descriptions of various sexual acts -- especially fellatio -- feature so heavily that it becomes absurd. I managed to finish the book only by considering it a comedy. After all, how else can one take the discussion between Hector and Paris concerning the dimensions of Helen's breasts, or a chapter entitled "An arrow in the balls"? Read the original poem instead, or try something by David Gemmell, for example.

[Jackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

At my local bookstore the author was holding a book signing. Lovely man who detailed his thoughts regarding this book and how he approached writing this story. It’s an interesting retelling and I’ll be sure to check out the authors other works.

[Jason Pettus · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted illegally.)

Although Terence Hawkins' The Rage of Achilles is an excellent book, there's really not that much to say about it from a critical standpoint: it's essentially a faithful retelling of the ancient Homer poem The Iliad, only using the kind of graphic modern language you might hear on an HBO series, and also assuming that what Homer called "the gods talking" was likely half-delusional inner-voice wish fulfillment from these constantly drunken, injured, sick, superstitious people. As such, then, I found it great, a volume that really makes the story of the Trojan War come alive in this surprisingly contemporary way (although make no mistake, it's actually set in the ancient times of the original); but to critique the plot or characters is to critique The Iliad itself, and we already have thousands of years of opinions and analysis on that subject. An adaptation that purists are sure to find silly and troubling, but others just the thing they wished they'd had when having to take all those tests in high school on the subject, although I don't have a lot to say about the book itself, it still comes strongly recommended.

Out of 10: 8.9

[bookishcharli · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Iliad is one of my favourite books and this book was absolutely atrocious, what on earth happened in this book other than sex and violence? The Iliad is a poem about WAR, you don’t need to retell it and add in tons of sex and violence to “sell” it. This is ridiculous. If I could have marked it -10 stars I would have.

I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.

[Krzysiek Dąbrowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascynująca rzecz. Z początku odrzuciły mnie wręcz wulgarnie brutalne opis przemocy i seksu (często występujących w tandemie), ale dość szybko można zrozumieć, czemu ten zabieg służy. Autor opowiedział fragment Iliady językiem współczesnym, który odziera klasyczne postacie z wszelkich pretensji do chwały czy bohaterstwa. Dzięki temu możemy spojrzeć na nich z nieco innej, przefiltrowanej przez kilka tysięcy lat rozwoju cywilizacji, perspektywy i dojrzeć, jak prymitywnymi, skupionymi głównie na sile fizycznej, potworami musieliby być w naszych oczach, gdybyśmy mogli ich obserwować bezpośrednio. Autor przede wszystkim odczarowuje mit bohaterskiego Achillesa, portretując go jako rozjuszone zwierzę, nieumiejące w żaden sposób kontrolować swojej agresji. Jedynie postać Odyseusza (to akurat zwyczajowe) odróżnia się od swoich żądnych krwi współbraci tym, że nie słyszy "głosów bogów", którzy służą całej reszcie jako usprawiedliwienie najgorszych i najokrutniejszych czynów.

Książka korzysta z mocno naciąganej teorii "dwuizbowości", wg której ludzki mózg dopiero od niedawna posiada samoświadomość i jeszcze w czasach antyku ludzie nierozumiejący, że pewne doznania czy myśli mają źródło w ich własnych umysłach, przypisywali wiele swoich motywacji boskiemu natchnieniu. Teoria jest mocno wątpliwa, ale jako literacki środek do zilustrowania sporej różnicy między podejściami do kwestii życia, śmierci, honoru, walki i miłości u ludzi odległych od siebie o kilka tysięcy lat, sprawdza się naprawdę nieźle. Uwspółcześnione dialogi nieraz powodowały u mnie wybuch śmiechu, gdy patetyczna w oryginale scena stawała się swoją własną parodią, a nadęty bohater nawet w oczach obserwujących go postronnych nikim innym, jak zwykłym dupkiem.

Fajny eksperyment, choć nawet dla mnie niektóre opisy "gore" były dotkliwe, a z reguły nie mam z tym problemu. Niemniej, dla osiągnięcia takiego efektu, jak najbardziej usprawiedliwione. Bardzo polecam.

[David Erik Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even if I were previously unacquainted with Hawkins's work, I'd be hot to recommend his first novel,The Rage of Achilles--a quick, antic, and faithful retelling of the Iliad. While The Rage of Achilles retains many of the Iliad's strengths--especially its epic scope--it offers a great deal more visceral coherence than the original, translating the ancient--and somewhat sterile--motivations (a stolen bride, a poor distribution of spoils, complicated intra-Achaeans politics, etc.) into their real bleeding, sweating, cursing, stinking human motivations. Further, Hawkins has expanded on the Iliad's genius by widening the social breadth of the narrative, which here embrace nobles, commoners, and slaves, not just men and gods.

Enthusiastically recommended to readers who like sex and fighting (of which there is much; if there are functionally literate teens in your life who have fallen under the misapprehension that the Iliad sucks, consider placing this not-even-remotely-work-or-child-safe book in their grubby, hormonal hands).

[Morgan · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you like your Greek and Trojan heroes with a side of toxic masculinity and preoccupations with their genitals, then this is the book for you. Lots of gore, lots of sex, lots of rape, lots of male genitalia, and definitely lots of hero myths being punctured. Hector, usually depicted as a tragic hero, is a sniveling coward. Priam, usually so majestic and proud, is a weak and ineffectual ruler who humiliates himself before his citizens prior to Hector's death. Hecuba, in the one scene she's even referenced, humiliates herself. Achilles is just a one-dimensional figure wrestling with his own mortality and mourning Patroclus to the point of near-necrophilia.

If the point is to remind readers that heroes are just ideas, or that heroes are fallible, or to look at the men behind the myths, then that point is bludgeoned across readers' heads. From a writing standpoint, Hawkins' preoccupation with penises is juvenile; he adds nothing new to these ancient stories except to humiliate the Trojans en masse, which just seems masochistic considering the way their civilization (and lives) are destroyed. No one is especially likable, and the novel ends abruptly. If readers don't actually know what happens to conclude the Trojan War and/or the characters involved, it could definitely be confusing (and perhaps a little humorous, since it concludes with Odysseus looking forward to seeing Penelope soon. har har). The lack of women characters is troubling, given how many women are involved with the war, either directly (Aphrodite, Hera, Athena, Thetis) or indirectly (Briseis, Chryseis, Andromache, Hecuba, the Amazons fighting for Troy, various women of Troy). They're either absent altogether, referenced but don't speak, or, in the case of Thetis and Aphrodite, showing up to tell the characters what they already know. Helen is the only one who gets a point of view and she's a sex-crazed maniac; when I say "point of view" it's limited and only in relation to Paris. Oh--and her method of "summoning" Aphrodite is to masturbate and hope she shows up? This novel is DEFINITELY written by a man. And the language is anachronistic--one glaring example is his use of "blitzkreig." That term is so linked to WWII that seeing it in this context just took me out of the story. There are other examples, but this one just really stood out. Like, okay--it's gritty and gory (though it's not like the original source material is PG)--but it seems like a failure of imagination on Hawkins' part. And some of his writing is so fuzzy that it's not even clear what's happening.

Here's a hint that what is traditionally considered the gods/goddesses speaking to mortals is divine and proof of being special or chosen or whatever is actually just drunkenness and/or lies told to keep positions of power and manipulate others. Now THAT would have been a fascinating story and one that would be a more original take on this.

Patroclus is the only character I liked, but he barely gets to do anything or speak--he's really just there to tend to whatever Achilles needs. And of course he dies. So, it's not saying much.

Should this have had a spoiler warning? Sorry...spoilers from 6 thousand years ago, or whatever.

[Beth M · Rating 1 out of 5]

UPDATE 1/15/24 @ End of Original Review

All right. I can't be nice about this one, people. I simply CANNOT. The gloves are off.

What an atrocity. Terrence Hawkins should be barred from setting pen to paper (or sticky fingers to keyboard) ever again. This book is a monument to mediocrity in every conceivable way. Hawkins himself is disgusting. A moron who, between PornHub sprints, it seems one day got the idea to re-write The Iliad as one big gay joke; talking about dicks and farts, yet also pulling off the singular marvelous feat of making the source material look positively pro-feminist in comparison to this amniotic sac filled with fecal matter of a "book".

I suppose when No Fap November overlaps with National Novel Writing month, this is the drivel one gets as a result.

Hawkins must hate women. Or found all of them in Homer's epic to be nothing more than jokes. Every female character, from Helen to Briseis, is relegated to little more than a voiceless sex kitten/object, only opening their mouth to have a penis put in it. I think Helen says a word or two while masturbating as a means to invoke Aphrodite, which could have been interesting as a concept if someone with skill, a sense of subtlety, or possessed of artistic integrity were writing this.

After doing this, she proceeds to ask Aphrodite when she can kill herself, because if a woman isn't gratifying a man, she's only good dead. The same is the case for Andromache, who gets a few lines exchanged between herself and her husband Hector, and then a knife, with Hector telling her to kill herself if he fails in his task of fighting Achilles. (Spoiler alert, he does.) Helen is less often referred to by name and more often as “that big-titted whore”, and few other women are spoken of as anything other than something that a man is meant to put his dick in, is about to put his dick in, or has already put his dick in.

Even Athena is removed entirely from the narrative as a means to make sure that Odysseus is the most competent person here.

God forbid a woman add to the story at all!

The most abhorrent choice (after all of this) was Hawkins' bastardized characterization of Achilles and Patroclus. The former is a raging impotent manchild that punches and fucks his way to satisfaction, and the person most frequently in that path of violence is Patroclus. He, in turn, is nothing more than the love sick play thing of Achilles, permitting himself to be used up for his lover's pleasure. (I thought Madeline Miller’s portrayal of Patroclus in Song of Achilles was pretty bad, but her castration of the true character of the man pales in comparison to what Hawkins has done to him here.) We are given no context as to why this is, and honestly I prefer it that way. As indicated above, Hawkins doesn't do subtlety, and given how often the "relationship" between Achilles and Patroclus is nothing more than a joke to the people around them (including the Trojans) I much prefer that he never tried to give us any insight into the matter.

Granted, Hawkins' writing is too flaccid to offer anything meaningful no matter what he attempts.

Truth be told, I genuinely think he hates the characters, but mostly he hates Patroclus. He made the man an incompetent leader. Hawkins skipped over all of the good bits of Book 16 (i.e. the fighting and violence. You know, all the things this book is supposed to focus on and emphasize? Also the book where Patroclus dies) only to have Apollo flick the man off of a ladder like a booger (surprised that comparison wasn’t made, honestly) and then to be stuck like a pig several times by Euphorbus and Hector. The audience never gets the opportunity to see him fight, and worst of all, he steals from Patroclus the murder of Sarpedon, instead giving that kill to Odysseus. Which we don’t even get to see. It’s just put in as an aside from Agamemmnon to Odysseus after they literally scoop up Patroclus’ body and sneak away with it back to the Aechean camp, somehow in the middle of battle? Hawkins fails hardest at what he claims he set out to do: make the story of Troy gritty and more violent.

To make matters worse, what one might assume to be Hawkins’ own thinly veiled homophobia and racism bleeds like a cut artery through the whimpering attempts at a plot conveyed within these pages. Calling the Trojans “goat fuckers”, and having a soldier say “Peace be upon him” before bending a child over to have his way with him, makes one question a few things about the author. Turning the one gay relationship into a trope beckons further questions. Meanwhile, the only characters that act with any honor and humanity (when the plot serves, otherwise they too are making dick and rape jokes whenever possible) are the original characters created by Hawkins, all of whom possess names that sound more like prescription drugs than might be given to a Greek.

Art is subjective, I know. But this book is not art. This book is shit. I cannot believe that anyone who rated this more than two stars isn't a friend of the author, or doesn’t have an arrow lodged in their skull. This reads like a 16 year old boy who found a Troy themed porno and decided to write fanfiction about it, because that’s all this is: fanfiction. Hawkins does not expand on any themes of The Iliad. He doesn’t try to flesh out any of its characters. Nothing. He adds less than nothing to how one might interpret or enjoy the classics, and in this case, has pissed and shit all over one of the most important works in all of Western literature.

This is described as “a prose account of the Iliad in modern and sometimes brutal prose.” -- you used ‘prose’ twice there. Good job. -- “Based on the bicameral mind theories of Julian Jaynes—also the conceptual basis for HBO's Westworld—it describes not only an historical Trojan War, but a revolution in human consciousness.” on his website. This, if I may be frank with you, is bullshit. The Iliad does not need “brutal prose.” Anyone who has read it once knows already that it is incredibly brutal and violent. And it does not need to be modernized. As for the bicameral mind theories, a representation of that concept happens in this book, but it doesn’t add to the conversation. At times you think the gods might exist, but then at other times you might think that they don’t. Scenes they are in are written in italics, while gods SPEAK IN ALL CAPS, much like your nana when making posts on Facebook about how Elvis is still alive and performing concerts in Pottsville, Arkansas. It’s insane. It’s lazy. And how dare you invoke HBO’s Westworld as a means to try and carry this absolute dogshit book.

“Book.”

Normally I would say don’t burn books. But you can burn this one.

I’m glad I at least bought this second hand so that I didn’t give the author any money. I also think it is hilariously telling that this book has no introduction. No afterword. And no picture of the author for the beloved audience to associate him with it.

Hawkins could have had something here if he’d thrown out 90% of his own contribution, 95% of the dialogue, and 100% of his own characters. Or, he could have utilized ONLY his original characters with the events of The Iliad going on in the background, but that wouldn’t have sold as well, I’m sure. Granted, I don’t think this sold too well either.

I’ve read fanfiction with more depth than this. Well and truly. Absolute trash. Do not waste your time! Please read the original in some form or another. There are a multitude of translations from which you can choose.

Hell, watch Troy. Even that’s a better adaptation than this trash.

---

This book is going to haunt me in all the worst ways possible, I can already see it.

After thinking about it further, I've come to realize that the actual worst thing about Hawkins' work is how antithetical it is to the subject matter. I've read The Iliad twice now. I've taken courses on it, as well as other forms of Greek literature. I can tell you confidently that it does not celebrate war. Violence is not celebrated. The entirety of the original story is supposed to show how war is destructive. How it takes young lives and cuts them down. How families lose beloved fathers and sons and are eternally shattered because of it. The violence exists, but it is not the point. Hawkins did not get the point.

To re-write the Iliad to make it more violent, more gory, is 1) unnecessary, and 2) insulting. You were not interested in engaging in its message and diving deeper to explore it. You wanted a Michael Bay-ified/Zack Synder-ified version that would make you look cool with a hint of learnedness. I've heard more eloquent dialogue (and frankly, better insults) in video game chat lobbies. Was this written for the kids who play CoD and Fortnite religiously? Because those are the types I can see this book appealing to.

I do not understand what Hawkins set out to accomplish with this book, and frankly I don't care. I'm not open to any discussion defending his interpretation of The Iliad. His writing is juvenile. His dialogue even more so. Classicists would weep for reading this. I can see this becoming popular in the wave of anti-intellectualism currently sweeping the internet and literary circles. I pray it never gets noticed.

[Loren · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5⭐️

The Rage of Achilles by Terence Hawkins was a brutal and raw retelling of the well known Trojan war.

While there wasn’t much character development or deep understanding of chapters, each character was still brought to life. Readers are able to experience multiple POV, like Odysseus, Achilles, Hector, Helen, Paris and so on. The POV were all swift, to the point and changed rather quickly throughout the book.

As the setting of this book was during a war, the language and lifestyles depicted a rather accurate account of how men in Ancient Greece would act. There were rather crude conversations between soldiers. Detailed accounts of fights that was filled with guts and gore. As well as Sexual ongoings between lovers and slaves through spoils of war.

I’ve read numerous retellings of Achilles and found it interesting of the approach Hawkins took upon multiple hero’s deaths. Patroclus and Hector’s death scenes were embarrassing and shameful.
Patroclus big moment of fame was cringe worthy as he was written to look like a complete fool while taking Achilles places. Yet, as Patroclus had little to know experience with war this made sense.
However, Hector was a seasoned war hero who was no stranger to death and fear. I was a bit disappointed reading the big battle between Hector and Achilles. I was expecting an epic battle scene between the two hero’s. Instead Hector was written to be overcome with fear and simply ran away until he was swiftly killed.

I found the choice to change the relationship of Odysseus and Athena interesting. Athena is known to be the patron for our cunning and sly Odysseus, intervening on his behalf and also sharing her wisdom. Yet in Hawkins retelling, Odysseus is one of the very few in Ancient Greece who is unable to commune with the Gods and must rely on his own intelligence to get himself out of tricky situations. He instead is left to lie to his peers with every choice he makes that his wisdom is indeed from the goddess Athena.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this take on Homers Iliad and would recommend this book to any lovers of Greek Mythology.

[J.D. Rhodes · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hawkins has written an interesting, if flawed, interpretation of Homer's classic. My time with it left me fragments of an interesting work amid a sea of something that wasn't quite getting there. While it is basically billed "the Iliad that really happened", it falls into that modern trap of mostly involving swearing, bodily fluids, and sex acts. The dialogue veers between appropriate and oddly modern at times, almost to the point of parody. The version I read contained an afterword that indicated the dialogue had been improved, so, I do wonder what it was like beforehand.

That said, the most interesting part is Hawkins' attempt to ground the tale in the idea of the bicameral mind. These are the most memorable parts of the work, the mind-bending hallucinations many of the characters experience beneath the attention of the gods. Likewise, Odysseus as the first modern man who is capable of introspection, and perhaps Achilles' transformation from one to the other, are very interesting. It's just a shame that so much of the novel feels like it is wrapped up in the veneer of gritty, "realistic" drama -- sex, penises, whores!

A gritty historical drama intersecting with the theory of the bicameral mind is an incredible premise, and Hawkins' style and voice are adroit enough for me, but The Rage of Achilles doesn't quite rise to the occasion and, overall, it left me hungering for what this book could have been.

[Bobby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Raw?...Check. Violent?....Check. great retelling of The Iliad?....Completely checked!! This is NOT for everyone and the crudeness of it will repel many a reader, but the reality of how it was to be away from your farm and families for 9 years I'm sure led to many deprivations and immoralities. Mr. Hawkins has captured the essence of ancient warfare and soldiering in a most personal and up front manner.

[Joe Ahrens · Rating 3 out of 5]

At heart there is a fascinating idea here, exploring the mythology of truly ancient greece to imagine how the psychology of the time may have functioned. That idea is, unfortunately, not fully lived up to, as the prose is not great. There are some parts of this book that do reach interesting heights, bit all in all slightly disappointing considering the source material and the promise.

[Dajan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really good concept and well written in parts, but bogged down by unnecessarily pulpy delivery, overdone descriptions of violence and sex and oversimplified psychology. Would've made a much better short story.

[Dec]

?!?!

[Luke Juusola · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can’t imagine reading a book worse than this. It’s like a high school boy just learned he could swear when his parents aren’t around, with the added desire to put his dick in anything that moves.

[Tate Quinton · Rating 5 out of 5]

The rage of Achilles  by Terrance Hawkins.

Spoiler alert-. Agamemnon appropriates Achilles' top slave girl Briseis;  Achilles sulks. His lover Patroclus (or as he is introduced by Brad Pitt in the movie Troy ' my cousin' )tries to console him-he fails-other stuff, including a plague visited upon the Greek camp, happens-Achilles still sulks-Agamemnon swallows his pride and begs Achilles to rejoin the Greek forces-more sulking- Patroclus  borrows Achilles' armor and ends up getting killed by Hector- The sulking stops-this time it's personal as Achilles proceeds to kill Hector, desecrating his body for a while before finally releasing it to Priam for a proper burial.

So far just your standard contemporary retelling of the Iliad. What distinguishes this version is the quality of the prose and that in the poem's framework all the main characters at the beginning of the poem, with the exception of Odysseus, are operating under Julian Jayne's Bicameral mind. The Bicameral mind, which re-emerged recently in Westworld, is a theory put forth by Julian Jaynes in 1976 that prior to circa 1000-1200 BC most (if not all) people did not have what we would consider full consciousness; they were essentially unreflecting automatons who in potentially novel or stressful situations would hallucinate the gods to direct them. During the poem Achilles, often hilariously, goes from bi cameral to modernish consciousness. He also marries and divorces Angelina Jolie which was weird.

Odysseus, who suspects but doesn't know for sure that there are others who share his consciousness, is unwilling to risk exposing himself as apart in a gods' haunted world. At times he is like Bill Murray or Woody Allen commenting to himself on the unevolved reasons and actions of the others.. 

This is the best piece of fiction that I have read in a long time.

[Jason Jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Terence Hawkins's The Rage of Achilles is a modern adaptation of Homer's Iliad, centering on the latter portion of the lengthy Trojan War. True to its source material, the cast of characters remains the same, ultimately culminating in the meeting of Achaean elite Achilles and Troy's favorite son Hector. Hawkins's version gets a lot right--impeccable characterization, realistic and witty dialogue, strong descriptive passages, and just about everything else. Still, if there's a complaint that warrants mention, it's the absence of a character worth rooting for as most come across as self-centered assholes, though that does say something about the duality of man and how petty man can be. And while the novel ends without complete resolution, it doesn't necessarily have to, because the original tale has already been told. For a refresher on Homer's classic, look no further than Hawkins's The Rage of Achilles, but good luck not picturing Brad Pitt as Achilles and Eric Bana as Hector. You can thank Wolfgang Petersen's mediocre film Troy (2004) for that disservice.

[Matt Mandel · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Gritty Iliad written with Jaynes’ bicameral mind theory in mind” is a cool premise

[J Vishno · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rage of Achilles throws you into the maelstrom of the times, and evokes images that one would normally only find at an indie film festival. Truly a great way to avoid the hum drum of foruluaic novels

[Monstah Slayah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is not a gritty retelling of The Illiad. The Illiad was already an anti-war gritty telling of itself. This book is an examination of bicameral mentality theory and ultimately what humans do when suddenly they can no longer blame every fucked decision they've made on the gods.

[Charl (thinkingbookishthoughts) · Rating 2 out of 5]

"We all look at dead men wherever we turn," Patroclus says. The wind, now cooler than anything he has ever felt, tears the words from his lips and scatters them unheard. "Young or old, all are dead soon," he shrieks, but cannot hear himself.

A retelling of The Iliad, The Rage of Achilles sees both sides of the 10 year war between the Trojans and the Achaeans. It often focuses on the relationship between King Agamemnon who is often taking counsel from the famed Odysseus. There is also focus on the, as the title suggests, rage-filled son Achilles who is seen to act irrationally much of the time. On the other side, the strained relationship between Trojan brothers Paris and Hector is noted.

I didn't realise the Rage of Achilles was a 10 year old book as I received it as an ARC through Booksirens last week so I assume it has had a rewrite or rerelease or something. I really tried to enjoy it, I really did, but I just didn't. It took me a week to finish a 200 page book. The novel isn't bad and Terence Hawkins is by no means a bad writer, I just couldn't get into the story and found myself not being able to focus on what was happening at any given time.

My biggest gripe with the book is how unstructured it is. One minute it will be showing a conversation between two characters while the next paragraph is about something completely unrelated. While this is usually fine, there is no separation at all, it might as well be the next sentence. I found it distracting to the point that I had to put the book down several times as I just couldn't keep up. Secondly, the book is just so wordy. It seemed to take three paragraphs to say something that could be said in two sentences. If it were a long book that had a lot of different locations or plot points I likely wouldn't have had this issue.

I didn't hate the book. Hawkins is a great writer, I just feel as though his writing style isn't for me. I really did enjoy that he didn't shy away from brutality. He described what the fallen soldiers corpses smelt like, the sounds their bodies made etc, but at times I felt it was unnecessary. For example, one of the first things that happens in the book is Achilles is found sexually assaulting and murdering a female child. While I don't think things like that should have to be left out or anything but it really did seem unnecessary. If not for the structural issues The Rage of Achilles would easily have been 3 stars.

[Janice M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Visceral, raw and very compelling. I like this book for its rage. I would imagine that the camp of the Greeks surrounding Troy was not a nice place. Women and children were abused and killed for sport. Achilles is not a nice man. He’s a hella soldier, killing machine and dare I say on the psychopath spectrum. But really, why wouldn’t he be? He’s a Demi god, his men worship him, his name alone strikes fear into anyone with any sense, even Patroclus. He’s been raised to fight. Thats his sole purpose. Kill and kill more. He should be unhinged. Approach with caution and if the timing is right, don’t approach him at all, ever. Patroclus knows this. Agamemnon knows this. Enough of the fluffy stories about Achilles. He was an unhinged murder machine brought in by the Greeks, with trickery, to slaughter at Troy. And he did. This is the Bronze Age after all. Living was not easy.

[Yanyi Ku · Rating 2 out of 5]

thankfully, the book is short and the writing is relatively easy to read, one of the only good things about this book.

somehow, as many other myth retellings aiming to tell the "true story" of the trojan war, it's managed to oversimplify and glorify most of the complexity present on the iliad, essentially creating the hazbin hotel equivalent of the iliad in book form. almost every other sentence in dialogue has to have a shit, fuck, cock, dick, balls in it and it's genuinely so juvenile in how the author describes anything.

there were really good parts with achilles and his mother, but after achilles asks his mother whether or not he can see her in the underworld, he goes to the walls of troy to taunt hector to suck his mom's breast

sweet jesus i do not like this book . i have so much more but its all too indescribable and should not be repeated

[Bethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.

an interesting take on the myth ive read a few Iliad retellings and this has a bleaker tone than most and quite crude in places nobody really comes out well which i think is the intention to show a war without any sense of it being glorious It might be helpful to know the story of it beforehand as i did so you would know who everyone was as there wasnt really too much explaining characters and assumes you do know

although it is a story that I knew it didnt read as just the same thing over again which is refreshing

[Mia Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

Personally, I found Terence Hawkins’s retelling somewhat profound and engaging.

Hawkins successfully portrays Achilles as a tortured god-like monster. I found the story intriguing. It’s nice to see converse and gossip amongst the soldiers, this illuminates their camaraderie. Which, I feel there is a lack of in re-tellings.

I understand that this story may repel readers due its crudeness, the characters are brutal, toxic masculinity and profanity. It is a raw and idiomatic telling.
The dialogue between the Achaeans and Myrmidons is absurd and atrocious, this is a reflection of the respect they have for one other.

Ultimately, I’d recommend this book.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Earthy, often to the point of straight vulgarity, this 10x more sweary than Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe telling of The Iliad is in many ways the antithesis of Madeline Miller's The Song of Achilles; no obsession with Achilles pink feet here with all the violence of Zach Snyder's 300 and all the sex of Epix's Spartacus. Hawkins' The Rage of Achilles is saved by the conversation between Achilles and Priam at the end of the book and Odysseus' mulling over of lives of mortals and the immortals who watch over them.

[Jordan Beatty · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was supposed to be a "darker" and "grittier" version of the illiad, but it was honestly unnecessary. The original story is already dark, about 100% of the time. It already has violence, character flaws, and war, described in a harsh way. This rendition tried to be "grittier" but really all it did was describe unnecessary sexual violence for over 200 pages (which is something the illiad also touched on, but it dosent take the extra step of making it the main plot like this book does). It wasn't a terrible book, but I dont think it was a good retelling of this story.

[Matthew · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first rule of filmmaking is don't put a better movie in your movie. This book, as a shot for shot retelling of the Iliad, disregards that rule at it's own peril.

A classic of literature, this book can't hold up to the original to those who have read it, and those who haven't will find it incomplete (there's no wooden horse in this book).

As a novelist, Hawkins has incredible skill describing the events and occurrences, but it's unfortunately not enough to overcome the self-imposed handicaps inherent.

Also, Achilles is HORNY horny 10/10

[Jacinda Horne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok

Good read there are better ones but this is ok some of the language used by the Greek lords is unbelievable sounds out of place Achilles is the most unlikable character in fact most of the Greek king's are in this there is at least twice Achilles is rolling in dog crap intentionally which I found weird