Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Jean-Paul wrote: "Going by what you have already posted about religion, dogma and blind faith, I was very surprised that you read this, Lisa. I look forward to a sparring round with you after I have read it. :-)"

It is, as you will see in other reviews, a very well-written novel, and curious that I am, I wanted to try to read a "good" Christian book in the hope to find nuance and reflection within faith. However, Marilynne Robinson is a preacher (which I did not know until I did some research afterwards), and even though she gives her characters some flaws, they are all measured according to absolute Christian morality and definition of sin. Her main character makes mistakes, but only in respect to the "truth and morality"of the Bible, never in respect to people of other convictions. They are judged according to their ability to adopt Christianity.

Suffer and feel superior. Know you are right and condescendingly forgive. Sin (in the definition of Calvinist faith) and be excluded. Those options did not appeal to me.

I experimented with a thought when I read it. I imagined everything in the book would stay the same, the American rural setting, the old man with a very young wife and son, his judgments according to his theological beliefs etc. All the same, but I would give him a different religion: Islam, Hinduism, whatever else instead of Christianity. Would it be praised in the US? Would it have won the Pulitzer? I doubt it, to be honest.
That was my problem with the novel. Not that the topic was faith, but that it was exclusively and arrogantly the only right way to perceive the world.

What you say is true, Lisa, but I found the book just won me over. It was her, I don't know, thoroughness, I think, with the character and the context that I found so convincing. He's so clearly drawn, for better or worse, and so complete. I'm an atheist, and I still found it moving. I don't know if Robinson's view of him is so completely uncritical...

Emma wrote: "What you say is true, Lisa, but I found the book just won me over. It was her, I don't know, thoroughness, I think, with the character and the context that I found so convincing. He's so clearly dr..."

I agree with you, Emma! Robinson saw flaws in Ames, and she believed he could have been an "even better Christian" than he actually was. Part of the doctrine is for humans to feel like scumbags and sinners, so he needed flaws to be complete, like you say.

And I too was drawn in, irresistibly, and then into the second book as well.

I still think a lot of the credit she gets is based on the Christian dominance in society, and had we had a novel on an old rambling man (with a completely dependent young woman, and a young child) representing the moral teachings of Islam, there would have been no sympathy for his thoughts, even if they had been articulated in the same beautiful language.

Within society, we are taught to express deep respect for Christianity and to apologise for being atheists, as a kind of failure on our part to find belief within our flawed minds. Can you imagine the opposite scenario? "I have deep respect for your atheism, and regret that I am not able to let go of my supernatural belief in the trinity of god?"

If Ames had been able to believe what he did, while accepting other ideas as good in principle and not for him to change, I would have loved the novel. As it is, it left me with that uneasy feeling that intolerance and dogma still rule the world.

Great review, Lisa. I know I often run up against the ever-present belief in American stories of the preeminence and utter rightness of Christianity. As a non-Christian, and atheist, I often feel condescended to in media of all sorts in N. America.

Oh my... I have this one on my shelves and all of a sudden, I am not that keen on reading it...

Dolors wrote: "Oh my... I have this one on my shelves and all of a sudden, I am not that keen on reading it..."

Give it a try, Dolors! Chances are you will like it better than I did. Incompatible with her worldview as I am, I know she is a good writer.

Lata wrote: "Great review, Lisa. I know I often run up against the ever-present belief in American stories of the preeminence and utter rightness of Christianity. As a non-Christian, and atheist, I often feel c..."

That is probably where my resentment to this author is rooted as well. Tired of bowing to a majority claiming they know what is scientifically proven to be wrong, and tired of apologising for not having received "the gift of faith" (Robinson's words in her nonfiction collection) I just got angry. After twenty years of trying to be accepting, and loving and caring with only preaching in return. I have heard so many times that I must embrace religion, otherwise all people would murder and steal.
As if my entire environment consisted of murderers and thieves?

When I first read Gilead, I was impressed but I didn't know why. I get your review though: too sweet to be wholesome.

BlackOxford wrote: "When I first read Gilead, I was impressed but I didn't know why. I get your review though: too sweet to be wholesome."

Yes, that is a good way of putting it. Most people love Gilead. There are books that strike a chord topicwise, but are poorly written, and others that are well-written but incompatible with my mindset (for me: Gilead), others are poorly written AND incompatible (for me: The Alchemist), and some books that are just perfect (most books I review here fall into that category, actually, cherry-picker that I am).

I haven't read the book, Lisa, so I'm not in a position to pass comment, but I do like an honest review!

Kevin wrote: "I haven't read the book, Lisa, so I'm not in a position to pass comment, but I do like an honest review!"

Thanks, Kevin! I tried to leave out the angry faces I was making while reading, though... ;-)

Great review. I am thinking along the same thoughts regarding this one . I only picked it up since it’s a Pulitzer Prize novel . I had no idea on the subject matter before starting it .

Jane wrote: "Great review. I am thinking along the same thoughts regarding this one . I only picked it up since it’s a Pulitzer Prize novel . I had no idea on the subject matter before starting it ."

I have many trusted friends who love her storytelling skills, but she just grates and grates and grates on my nerves to the point that I can't appreciate those skills - even though they are undeniably there. The sequel on the "lost son" was even worse as it was an eternal apology for not living up to the absolute perfection of Christianity. The main character of that one walked through the book messing up and being sorry over and over. And the messing up was always according to biblical standards. Sigh! Still annoyed...

Your point about an Islam writer and the Pulitzer are right on. Though I also wonder, if the author was Hindu and similarly entrenched in their own religion, as American non-Christians would we find the book as distasteful as we do?

Makes me think a bit about Knausgaard. His narrator is quite unpleasant, his flaws recounted with little to know apology or examination. I was able to tolerate 4 1/2 volumes and I ran outta gas

Michael wrote: "Your point about an Islam writer and the Pulitzer are right on. Though I also wonder, if the author was Hindu and similarly entrenched in their own religion, as American non-Christians would we fin..."

I can't stomach Knausgaard either, even though I am a Scandinavian. I just have no patience for religious absolutism or narcissistic self-obsession (same thing in many cases too!)

Well that definitely cleared some things up. This author has some kind of following here in the U.S., but I did not know what she was about.

Michael wrote: "Well that definitely cleared some things up. This author has some kind of following here in the U.S., but I did not know what she was about."

She is a very talented writer, Michael, there is no doubt about it. I just happen to be incompatible with her (Calvinist) worldview in general, and find her preachy to the point of having an allergic reaction :-)

Mind if I share on my review