brian 's Reviews > Gilead
Gilead (Gilead, #1)
by
by

paul schrader called his book on the films of bresson, ozu, and dreyer transcendental style in film. sorry, mr. schrader, for reducing your book and theory to a one-liner, but the transcendental style goes something like this: the intentional evenness and flatness (both visually and dramatically) of these films work to create a ‘lifting� or revelation at the end, such as one may receive after hours of intense prayer, study, or meditation.
as much as a book can fit within this category, i think Gilead does. traditional narrative is replaced by the writings of one John Ames, a dying 77 yr old congregationalist minister � future readings intended for his young son in the form of warnings, anecdotes, memories, lessons, and personal thoughts mostly on god, existence, belief, morality, and family. (not nearly as heavy as it sounds. the tone's actually mellow and melancholy and conversational)
i have the same problems that other atheists/agnostics/skeptics have with religion and its adherents, but, unlike many of them, i see no inherent problem in belief without proof. in fact, i see something beautiful, almost, in deeply held religious belief. a confession: remember when that tom cruise scientology video was leaked a while back? the one in which he was universally ridiculed and parodied by all non-scientologists? well, a part of me was envious of him. envious of the focus and intensity and aggression and passion he felt for this thing that seems so wildly ridiculous to me. belief is something we all crave. we crave it so bad it hurts. and it makes us crazy. it turns us into self-righteous assholes or hateful fundamentalist evangelicals or bitter fundamental atheists or suicide bombers or pacifists etc�
but i can’t believe. not in that sense anyway. i’m just not built that way. i’m scared shitless of an indifferent universe and a lack of absolute morality and the certainty that i will die and that every single person i know and love will die and that all of us, me and you and martin luther king and hitler, every one of us are just slabs of meat in a casket after we’re gone. but even that can’t make me believe without proof. and i waver between priding myself on adhering to the sad noble truth rather than the feel-good lie and between desperately wishing i could lighten the horrible burden of existence with the belief that we're all part of something larger than any of us can even fathom.
and Gilead offers the best understanding i’ve ever read concerning all of this stuff from the POV of one who holds a deep, unwavering belief in god and prescribed morality. totally unexpected from a contemporary author in the days of falwell, robertson, warren vs. hitchens, dennet, dawkins. Gilead is a gift for the lover of literature and for the religious person and perhaps, more than anyone, for the open minded skeptic.
John Ames writes:
I have always wondered what relationship this present reality bears to an ultimate reality� Our dream of life will end as dreams do end, abruptly and completely, when the sun rises, when the light comes. And we will think, All that fear and all that grief were about nothing. But that cannot be true. I can’t believe we will forget our sorrows altogether. That would mean forgetting that we had lived, humanly speaking. Sorrow seems to me to be a great part of the substance of human life.
if that last line doesn't do something to you, you ain't human.
as much as a book can fit within this category, i think Gilead does. traditional narrative is replaced by the writings of one John Ames, a dying 77 yr old congregationalist minister � future readings intended for his young son in the form of warnings, anecdotes, memories, lessons, and personal thoughts mostly on god, existence, belief, morality, and family. (not nearly as heavy as it sounds. the tone's actually mellow and melancholy and conversational)
i have the same problems that other atheists/agnostics/skeptics have with religion and its adherents, but, unlike many of them, i see no inherent problem in belief without proof. in fact, i see something beautiful, almost, in deeply held religious belief. a confession: remember when that tom cruise scientology video was leaked a while back? the one in which he was universally ridiculed and parodied by all non-scientologists? well, a part of me was envious of him. envious of the focus and intensity and aggression and passion he felt for this thing that seems so wildly ridiculous to me. belief is something we all crave. we crave it so bad it hurts. and it makes us crazy. it turns us into self-righteous assholes or hateful fundamentalist evangelicals or bitter fundamental atheists or suicide bombers or pacifists etc�
but i can’t believe. not in that sense anyway. i’m just not built that way. i’m scared shitless of an indifferent universe and a lack of absolute morality and the certainty that i will die and that every single person i know and love will die and that all of us, me and you and martin luther king and hitler, every one of us are just slabs of meat in a casket after we’re gone. but even that can’t make me believe without proof. and i waver between priding myself on adhering to the sad noble truth rather than the feel-good lie and between desperately wishing i could lighten the horrible burden of existence with the belief that we're all part of something larger than any of us can even fathom.
and Gilead offers the best understanding i’ve ever read concerning all of this stuff from the POV of one who holds a deep, unwavering belief in god and prescribed morality. totally unexpected from a contemporary author in the days of falwell, robertson, warren vs. hitchens, dennet, dawkins. Gilead is a gift for the lover of literature and for the religious person and perhaps, more than anyone, for the open minded skeptic.
John Ames writes:
I have always wondered what relationship this present reality bears to an ultimate reality� Our dream of life will end as dreams do end, abruptly and completely, when the sun rises, when the light comes. And we will think, All that fear and all that grief were about nothing. But that cannot be true. I can’t believe we will forget our sorrows altogether. That would mean forgetting that we had lived, humanly speaking. Sorrow seems to me to be a great part of the substance of human life.
if that last line doesn't do something to you, you ain't human.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Gilead.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
January 5, 2009
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-49 of 49 (49 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Jessica
(new)
Jan 05, 2009 12:24PM

reply
|
flag

but, unlike many of them, i see no inherent problem in belief without proof. in fact, i see something beautiful, almost, in deeply held religious belief.
Yes, beautiful in the lyrical, entirely theoretical sense, I suppose, but willy-nilly beliefs are destructive, idiotic, and frightening, too. When beliefs only pertain to the individual who holds them... then sure, yes, very well... they're quaint in an dusty, museum-like way (he said, condescendingly), but often (or more often than not?) deeply held religious beliefs are just deeply held psychological hang-ups and cultural prejudices masquerading as the transcendent and/or spiritual. It is the alarmingly blind trust in these beliefs' transcendence that seems to authorize the believers to supersede all bounds of rationality in promulgating their beliefs.
Of course, your comment that the lust for belief turns us into self-righteous assholes or hateful fundamentalist evangelicals or bitter fundamental atheists or suicide bombers or pacifists, etc� acknowledges the furthest extremity of this position. I'm only commenting because, while in art/theory I may find "pure" faith beautiful, in reality, it scares the absolute shit out of me.
Yes, beautiful in the lyrical, entirely theoretical sense, I suppose, but willy-nilly beliefs are destructive, idiotic, and frightening, too. When beliefs only pertain to the individual who holds them... then sure, yes, very well... they're quaint in an dusty, museum-like way (he said, condescendingly), but often (or more often than not?) deeply held religious beliefs are just deeply held psychological hang-ups and cultural prejudices masquerading as the transcendent and/or spiritual. It is the alarmingly blind trust in these beliefs' transcendence that seems to authorize the believers to supersede all bounds of rationality in promulgating their beliefs.
Of course, your comment that the lust for belief turns us into self-righteous assholes or hateful fundamentalist evangelicals or bitter fundamental atheists or suicide bombers or pacifists, etc� acknowledges the furthest extremity of this position. I'm only commenting because, while in art/theory I may find "pure" faith beautiful, in reality, it scares the absolute shit out of me.

thanks chris. i'm quite dashing, aren't i?

Yeah, my rational mind knows this book must be a total snooze, but I feel with overwhelming clarity that it's a transcendent snooze....

Have you see Au hasard Balthazar?

Those are my two favorite Bressons, too, Brian. You (very) occasionally have exceptional taste. I think the ending of Au Hasard Balthazar is one of the most delicately moving moments (read: not mawkish or manipulative) in film history. I wanna put a cap in the ass of anyone who fucks with Balthazar.
Jamie Lynn, sorry, no, I still believe (without proof) that all religious people are wackos trying to keep Brian from being my lawful bride. (And trying to keep me away from that goddamn crème brûlée set!)
Wow, I just noticed that I misspelled "transcendent" twice in post #3. Is this what it feels like to be fallible, world?
Jamie Lynn, sorry, no, I still believe (without proof) that all religious people are wackos trying to keep Brian from being my lawful bride. (And trying to keep me away from that goddamn crème brûlée set!)
Wow, I just noticed that I misspelled "transcendent" twice in post #3. Is this what it feels like to be fallible, world?
Honestly... it's not one of my favorite Bresson films, but I've only seen it once. It was better than Diary of a Country Priest, that's for sure.

that is a seriously boring movie.
bride? you're the bride, bitch.
You nailed it, Brian--the quietness until the revelation at the end. For what it's worth, Robinson said one of her main interests in writing this book was to resurrect Calvin and Calvinism. Thus, theologically she is no lightweight. My father was a minister of the hyper-educated, merciful God, liberal do-gooderism variety, and he always hated when novelists and essayists tried to tackle God; he thought their takes, for the most part, were appallingly shallow if not downright ignorant, though there were exceptions. Before he died he loved Owen Meany. He fully encouraged atheism, and he thought doubt was the essence of faith, and he's imbued that POV in me; I'm a believer of sorts, though I pay no mind to the afterlife or any thoughts of it, and absolute certitude plus faith is as dangerous a combination as football and Jesus, which has produced not a few God crazy gladiators who give me the same sort of willies I get from pedophiles and people on crystal meth. All that said, I found Robinson's book not only beautifully written, but I also found the story behind it very compelling and the theology underpinning it quite intelligent. And I've tried to read DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST but can't get past page twenty.
P.S. I just wanted to add that the theological "insights" of Annie Dillard were the quickest to make my father, and myself, inclined to vomit.


I sure like the take on God that a lot of the Jewish writers wrestle with, especially Isaac Singer. What I like about Singer is that his characters are full of doubt, but it's such an educated doubt, and it's rarely over the existence of God. That God exists for them is a given. The doubt is other stuff. I think Updike is quite sophisticated when it comes to God. My father and I were both very fond of a late 19th century novel titled, "The Damnation of Thereon Ware." It was about a clergyman and was quite good. In general, I think 19th century writers had a more adult perspective on God, people like Melville, Twain, Dickens, etc. John Gardner of GRENDEL fame was serious about God when he wrote about him. Andre Dubus, the father, wrote quite seriously about God and theology in his stories, especially the unbelievably fine story "A Father's Story," which I recommend everyone in the world read, and Graham Greene's Catholic stuff, especially THE HEART OF THE MATTER, is intelligent questioning. So those are some of the writers. The thing is, I'm all of a sudden feeling judgmental on this stuff. Maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. I certainly don't judge atheists, and I don't think of myself as a judgmental man, although I do struggle with people who like either Sarah Palin, Notre Dame football, or Keanu Reeves. I was a virulent atheist for many years myself. It's just that uninformed atheism is as uninteresting as uninformed believing, and a lot of writers find their own atheism quite fascinating when in fact it's really pretty dull. It's easy to look at the horrors of the world and say, "Ach, there's no God." And there may in fact be no God, but for the purposes of fiction, that's a pretty boring route to go. Far more interesting is the route of, say, Isaac Singer: "Oy vey the world is awful and horrible, and life is nasty, brutish and short, but even in all of that I still think there's a God." And then the fun is watching Singer's or Updike's or Greene's characters reconcile that friction from a stance that is very informed.
Vindication or corroboration from you, Jessica, is praise from Ceasar.

preach on, brother brian! this is what i was going for here.

I'm confused now. I liked Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. But I also love Singer and Dubus and Greene. Is my problem fixable?
Perhaps it can be fixed at Bellevue, Jen; I believe you were planning a trip there anyway. No, PILGRIM was nice; it was the later stuff when she confronted spirituality and religion head on that her "insights" became rather insufferable.
I do struggle with people who like either Sarah Palin, Notre Dame football, or Keanu Reeves
Try living in a city comprised almost exclusively of people who like Notre Dame football. It's a real fuckin' treat, let me tell ya.
Try living in a city comprised almost exclusively of people who like Notre Dame football. It's a real fuckin' treat, let me tell ya.
I'm so pissed of, DK. In the last two weeks, as I'm sure you know, ND won with fourth quarter drives, so there's all that luck of the Irish shit bein' spouted. I really hate their coach.
Unless, of course, that sport is pogroms.
Yee -- as you are wont to say -- haw!
Yee -- as you are wont to say -- haw!

yeah, i can get behind 'fuck the dodgers'. not that i care about any other team but the fans really fucking clog up the 101 and cesar chavez blvd.
although i do love hearing mexicans scream 'GO DOYERS!!!'


Who am I kidding? I still try every time.

Now I'm going to give it another try. Thanks.

Wisp, if you double-click really quickly on the vote link on your own reviews, sometimes the vote actually 'takes.'

