Achilles and Patroclus

[Alexander III]

be it not?



( this is a poem, which just came to me after having seen Broke back mountain for the first time, in fact this poem was originally written upon the back cover of the dvd. Oh and I guess it could also be considered inspired after having read about Oscar Wilde on Wikipedia the same day)

[Dinkleberry2010]

I admire this poem. I like the form of it. I find the subject matter fascinating. The images you evoke are simply fine. It is very tricky to attempt what you have attempted in this poem, but you have accomplished it (one of the difficult things in poetry is to utilize certain words that are archaic and are considered, shall we say, old-fashioned, in a fresh original way).

Your poem is in the form of a sonnet, but I think the last word in your poem prevents it from actually being a sonnet (I may be mistaken about this). The final word in your poem is "not" which is the only sharp word or sound in the poem that ends a line. All the other end words are "flat" sounding. Also, the word "not" does not rhyme with any other end-line word in the poem, whereas you have every other end-line word in a rhyme-sounding scheme.

I am loath to say that you should change the last line, or more specifically the last word in the poem, but the word "not" is rather jarring, considering what has come before in the poem.

[Alexander III]

Initially I had planned to keep it in sonnet form but when I reached the end I decided to break it to create a further emphasis on the statement even at the risk of ruining an aesthetic value of the poem.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not sure how I feel about this poem.

On one level I applaud its message and commend you on your ability to utilize archaic language.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat troubled by the attempt to reclaim Achilles and Patroclus as affirmative symbols of homosexuality. Even if Homer's intent was to depict a paederastic relationship between them, this is hardly an ideal relationship. Moreover, I'm troubled by the reduction of homosexuality to the oft mentioned "sodomy". I forgive its use because it seems to be intended to reflect the criticism rather than the speaker's attitudes about homosexuality.

I'm intrigued by the exploration of contemporary debates and conceptions of homosexuality within a framework of archaic language and traditional form.

[Buh4Bee]

Responding to this poem as a poem and not getting into the debate about the subject matter, I though the poem well done as a sonnet in your writing style, Alexander III. I find that you use dated language quite effectively and I wish I could articulate poetry in this style as well as you.

I don't know a lot about the relationship about Achilles and Patroclus as lovers, but I believe there was a different ideal upheld in Greek society about heroes and homosexual relationships. I think it makes it complicated to compare ideas of Greek homosexuality when compared to modern conceptions of it. However, I think you do successfully bridge this question well at the end of your poem when you ask, isn't love enough? What does it matter if they are two men verses two Martians? Why should humanity discriminate? And thinking solely about love, why wouldn't these two men love one another?

I commend you for writing about this topic, well done in my opinion.!!

[MorpheusSandman]

A difficult subject approached with an even more difficult use of anachronistic language in a semi-sonnet form. I certainly admire the ambition but I'm not sure it all works. I'm not entirely sure what purpose the archaic language serves but there are some striking lines in there.

[Alexander III]

Honestly the archaic language is just an aesthetic preference of mine, it does not serve any other purpose except that of rendering the poem different.