Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Very odd book, some nice flashes of Waughvian comedy particularly in the contemporary, colloquial dialogue, but they're set pieces within a plodding exposition that is ultimately not only humourless but sanctimonious. Not quite a novel, not quite a hagiography; its inconsistencies suggest less postmodernism avant la lettre than they betray a native satirist (and quintessential Briton of his class and moment) struggling awkwardly to justify and also to subordinate his own sensibilities and talents to a Greater Purpose. Which is, I suppose, the point of his Helena.

I must say that the editorial context is just as astonishing and to be fair may contribute to my perception. The introduction by George Weigl (who??) asserts that the book is a critique of gnosticism, calling it 'every bit as much a temptation in the twenty-first century as it was in Helena's day....Audiences still find it amazing, even unbelievable, when I tell them that, in the overwhelming majority of American universities today, very, very few members of the philosophy department will defend the claim that the reality we perceive discloses the truth of things'. Scandalous! Nor have I ever read a book that concludes with 'Questions for Reflection and Discussion', such as:

'1. What is your general impression of the character of Helena? What did you like about her?' and
'15. "Her work was finished. She had done what only the saints succeed in doing; what indeed constitutes their patent of sanctity. She had completely conformed to the will of God". How did Helena's unique personality and her questions open her to fulfilling God's will?'