A pessimistic review of Daphnis and Chloe

As someone who’s read only a dozen or two romance novels, I don’t have a perfect
formula for making them work. But I can confidently say despite my limited experience that
the stories that’ve left behind the biggest impression on me did so because I empathized
with their characters, & Daphnis and Chloe did not cut it. Writing the first-ever love story is
not a simple feat, but I don’t think the room for mistakes that comes with being a pioneer is
why Longus made them. Actually, Daphnis and Chloe probably would've been a bestseller
in Ancient Greece. I believe it’s because I'm a citizen of the 21st century that I cannot relate
to Longus' idea of love and understand why Daphnis and Chloe love each other.
The book has too many minute details that don’t contribute to its plot or the
development of its characters. Every other paragraph has a detailed description that adds
aesthetic value & helps the reader visualize a scene. Immediately, this doesn’t seem like a
bad thing, but it hurts the emotional impact of the story in a subtle way. Longus is too
generous with aesthetic details, for example when Astylus offered to take the blame for the
trampled flowers, Daphnis gifted his delicious food to express their utmost gratitude.
However, Longus insists that Daphnis gifted him “some kids, cheeses, birds with their
young, grapes still on the vine-branches, and apples on the boughs: to these he added
some fragrant Lesbian wine, most delightful to drink.”. It would’ve been fine If Daphnis
explained how much Astylus’ help means to him and went on his merry way. My
understanding is better in this case because I don’t know how much gratitude these gifts
hold. In Ancient Greek, these details may hit close to home, and prove more relatable and
enjoyable to soak in, but they serve no other purpose to the story than this, besides
convoluting it.
Containing almost no dialogue, I have no idea what the characters are thinking,
what they think of each other, their temperaments, personality traits, etc. To empathize with
characters, I need to understand their thought processes, for example why Lampis and
various others are so head over heels for Chloe. If the lust was so intense that Lampis
thought a beautiful garden was worth less than it, I want to have an explanation beyond just
Chloe being desirable. Longus most likely didn’t write Lampis to be a likable character for
readers to empathize with in the first place, but without a face, voice, or logical motives, his
character didn’t even add value. The trampled garden could’ve been a standalone
occurrence & Astylus still would’ve taken the blame. Even Daphnis & Chloe’s characters
suffer from this two-dimensionality, as it’s never really clear why they love each other, only
that they do because they kiss & embrace the other.
The incoherency in Chloe & Daphnis’ love is perhaps this book’s fatal flaw as a
romance novel. Chloe realized her feelings for Daphnis during his bath when she realized
how handsome he was, & exclusively that, not because he was funny, intelligent, loyal, or
kind to Chloe. Similarly, Daphnis felt the heat of passion when Chloe kissed him. If they
truly love each other, their love should surpass just physical appearances & lust, but never
is this fleshed out. Objectively, love is present, as their hearts ache whenever the other is
away, so much so that they’d go as far as killing themselves if the other were to cheat or
die. But why? Being in close proximity all the time? Passion? Commitment? Physical
Attraction? I’d be more satisfied if it was explicitly stated that they loved each other just
based on physical attraction, because as little sense as it makes to me, at least I can rest
easy knowing why. The story doesn't do its due diligence on developing their relationship
slowly, as love is slow, instead declaring Daphnis & Chloe's love out of nowhere. To love
someone is to accept their flaws too, but our main characters only capitalize on eachothers
beauty & perfection, never really developing their relationships as aforementioned, as if the
relationship was already perfect from the start. Perfection is boring, redundant & impossible
to achieve in a romantic relationship, which is what Daphnis & Chloe’s relationship was, &
why the book does not portray true love.
Daphnis & Chloe is a terrible romance novel by today’s standards because its story
doesn’t contain actual romance. Whenever Daphnis & Chloe reunite, they kiss & embrace
each other & when they are together, they entertain themselves with music, lying down
naked, and again, kiss & embrace each other. Their affections start to feel redundant early
on, & the reader looks for development in their relationship every chapter until they realize
the book is finished. The classical definition of romance is "a feeling of excitement and
mystery associated with love," but after Chloe & Daphnis realize they have mutual feelings
at 1/5th of the book, leaving no room for a chase, a misunderstanding, etc. Reading them
trying to figure out how to have sex is exciting, but it's amusing, rather than mysterious. But
I digress, Daphnis & Chloe may not do justice to its impressive title of “first pastoral prose
romance”, but as historical parameters go, love was probably felt and given differently back
then, life was less complicated & love probably followed suit.
Having been the first piece of Ancient Greek Literature I’ve read, Daphnis & Chloe
offered an interesting peek into what life would've been like in the second century that I
never knew, which I believe is the only reason I enjoyed it. I would not read it again, as it
did not leave a big enough emotional impression. I expected more drama, despair, &
negative emotions in general since it’s what I’ve grown accustomed to from the romance
novels I've read before. I believe it’s a mix of life being different back, & the growth of
literature after this book was written that today’s romance novels are more appealing to me,
but being aware of these parameters allowed me to be open-minded, & enjoy Daphnis &
Chloe nevertheless.