|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: May book: 'Home' by Marilynne Robinson
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
The book club book for May is Home, by Marilynne Robinson.
It's one of a set of three novels (Gilead, Home and Lila) which involve the same characters and the same town in Iowa. They are not sequels as such - they are all stand-alone novels. Maybe they could be described as parallel novels, as they happen in the same time period, but from different perspectives.
Home is the story of Jack - the son of a preacher, who, unlike his brothers and sisters, finds he doesn't share his father's faith, and he can't force himself to believe. He is an alcoholic and is seen as a prodigal son - he has never fitted in with the rest of the family. But he and his sister Glory return to their childhood home to stay with and care for their dying father. The novel is from Glory's perspective.
This is a novel I started reading a couple of years ago and really liked, but never got round to finishing, so I'm looking forward to reading the whole thing. I've read Gilead and liked it, but I like this one better. Gilead won the Pulitzer Prize, and Home won the Orange Prize.
There is a review of Home here, and another review here.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I've read all three books in the not-exactly-series, and Home is very much my favourite of the three. Can't wait for discussion. I've read it two or three times.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Marilynne Robinson is a very acute observer. I enjoyed her detail in Gilead, may well enjoy finishing Lila (just have not found the time to read). However, Home is too close to "home" for me to read. There are too many overlaps between the story I read there and the life I experience although separated by time and continent. I say this having got a good portion through and realised that I had better not go further.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
That makes sense, Jengie Jon. In some ways it's very close to home for me too - not so much in the plot details of what happens, but very much in the emotions, and the inability to pretend to be what you're not, while knowing that what you are is considered wrong in some way, and in general not fitting in or being accepted. But I tend to like that in a novel - it can be painful, but I also find it cathartic to have my experiences somehow put into words, shared and externalised.
Not everyone is like me though, and I know a lot of people avoid reading books that are too close to home. In a similar way, perhaps, to how when people are suffering in some way, some prefer to read novels about people who are also suffering, so that they feel their pain acknowledged, and to know that they are not alone, but others prefer to read cheery books to distract from their suffering.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
By the way, there is an audiobook of this book, for those who like audiobooks. I just borrowed it from my local library.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
I've downloaded it to my Kindle, so will be joining in.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Landlubber
Shipmate
# 11055
|
Posted
I have ordered a copy of Home and will wait to see how I get on with it. I struggled with Gilead, feeling that there was an undercurrent of something that I was missing that must have been clear to everyone else.
--------------------
They that go down to the sea in ships … reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man
Posts: 383 | From: On dry land | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I've downloaded it to my Kindle, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have this month for serious reading. (I tend to work on my commute when I'm really busy)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
I read Gilead a couple of years and was completely overwhelmed by it. I read a lot but I confidently put it among the best novels I've ever read. Until recently I couldn't face reading Home though I wasn't sure why. A month or so back I re-read Gilead (and mentally promoted to No 1) then started on Home and am as gobsmacked as I was by the earlier book.
Thanks Fineline for the links to reviews, both of which were excellent. I'm looking forward to hearing other peoples comments.
One question. Ames is a Congregationalist (something which is hard to discover in Gilead), Boughton is a Presbyterian (mentioned more in Home); both Calvinists. Are there differences between the two denominations which impact on the books (either theologically or historically)? Clearly neither figure is intended to be any sort of stereotype but for a non-Christian these distinction are always a bit confusing and their possible relevance a mystery.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
One question. Ames is a Congregationalist (something which is hard to discover in Gilead), Boughton is a Presbyterian (mentioned more in Home); both Calvinists. Are there differences between the two denominations which impact on the books (either theologically or historically)? Clearly neither figure is intended to be any sort of stereotype but for a non-Christian these distinction are always a bit confusing and their possible relevance a mystery.
To be honest, when I read Gilead I wasn't sure about this either, and I am a Christian, who attended a Congregational church for some years as a teenager! Some of the theological debates were familiar to me, but I got the feeling they weren't the main essence of the story - that it was more about how Christians (and particularly Christian leaders) deal with the particular doctrines of their denomination, and differences with others. Often these characters are unsure, for instance, and they have doubts, and are bothered by these, but the friendship of the two pastors overrides their differences. The denominational differences did seem to be a big part of Gilead though, and I think from that angle I also felt, like Landlubber, that I might be missing something!
But, from what I've read of Home so far, I don't get the feeling that the denominations are much to do with it at all. Jack, the main character, is not a believer, so they are probably just as irrelevant to him. It seems to be more about how he relates to his family - to a father who loves him dearly but wants him to be something he is not, and he can't in all honestly pretend to believe. And his father is deeply sad and disappointed, and he is deeply sad to have made his father deeply sad, etc., so all those undercurrents in their interaction.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've downloaded it to my Kindle, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have this month for serious reading. (I tend to work on my commute when I'm really busy)
If it helps, it seems to me to be one of those books that you can read in very small amounts at a time and still keep track of, rather than the type of book that you need to read in big chunks so you don't lose the overall picture. I found the same with Housekeeping, Marilynne Robinson's first novel - I read it as a teenager in small bits over a long time and still was able to take it in and loved it. I think her novels are more character driven than plot driven.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
My reading suggests that the differences between Congregationalists and Presbyterians are very accurately portrayed in both books. I know exactly what she means by "a Presbyterian salad" mentioned in Gilead. This is not surprising Marilynne Robinson was a Presbyterian and is now a Congregationalist.
However, I doubt it is necessary to know the differences to understand the plot. Her Presbyterians are Presbyterian through and through and her Congregationalists are Congregationalists through and through. For instance, even the names are not coincidental, Ames can be seen as a reference to William Ames. This is to such an extent that the things that are Presbyterian or Congregational seem to arise naturally out of their character. Their religious heritage is not a piece of clothing they put on and take off at will but part of the milieux that formed them because you come to understand the milieux you do not need to worry about whether it comes from a particular tradition or not.
Indeed, I would say you would get a better understanding of what it means to be Presbyterian as opposed to Congregationalist by comparing the attitudes and situations of the two households than you would by reading any theological or ecclesiological document that purports to tell you.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
Thanks Jengle Jon & Fineline both. It didn't seem likely to be a major point (especially when there is so much else) but, blundering around in unknown territory, it pays to be cautious.
Fineline: The denominational differences did seem to be a big part of Gilead though, and I think from that angle I also felt, like Landlubber, that I might be missing something!. I was much more aware of the tension between the three generations of Ames. In some ways I'm tempted to see Jack as a sort of later counterpoint to Ames' grandfather.
But I'm talking about the wrong book. Sorry.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I too was overwhelmed by 'Gilead', but I found 'Home' much more difficult. Good, but difficult. I'll be following discussion here with interest. I think Ames really fitted a priestly role for me at the time I read the former - a plausible, compelling and compassionate example of someone who makes a life of faith seem possible - and that was something I really needed. My struggles with 'Home' may amount to finding the protagonist an equally plausible, compelling and compassionate example of someone who demonstrates that faith is not really possible at all - a position I don't need so much help imagining, and around which it is much harder to feel inspired.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
Got up at 5.30 this morning to finish Home.
I feel exhausted and puzzled. I've been crying along with Glory.
If I'm ever to read Lila I shall need some toughening up exercises.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
Hi all - I am sorry, I was supposed to post questions on the 20th and I'm behind. I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I hope to finish by tomorrow and post some questions then. I hope that is okay. In the meantime, please feel free to post any thought about the book you might have, or any questions you might have thought of.
A question I am thinking of at the moment is: does the fact that Glory is telling the story, based on her observations and interpretations of Jack, stop us really getting to know Jack? Would we know him better if he'd been the narrator, or does Glory's interpretation of him actually help us get to know him better in some way than if he'd told his own story? If he'd told his own story, would we sympathise with him more or less? I'm quite fascinated by the fact that the author chose to tell Jack's story through his sister's eyes, rather than his, and I'm wondering if people have thoughts on why she might have done this, and what effect it has. Whether in some ways it may actually help us get to know Jack better.
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, as I also think about it myself. I will try to finish reading the book and then post a variety of questions by tomorrow.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I've always thought this story was meant to be a retelling of the prodigal son from the older brother's point of view. Of course Glory is younger sister rather than older brother, but she is the dutiful, good child who is at home with her father, doing all the right things, when the prodigal returns and sucks up all the father's love and energy. For me, the story would lose a lot if anyone other than Glory were the narrator, because that perspective -- how the prodigal's return looks to the resentful "good child" is such an important aspect of what I like about this book.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I've always thought this story was meant to be a retelling of the prodigal son from the older brother's point of view. Of course Glory is younger sister rather than older brother, but she is the dutiful, good child who is at home with her father, doing all the right things, when the prodigal returns and sucks up all the father's love and energy.
I like this thought.
That said, I don't remember resentment being Glory's dominant emotion towards Jack. Some of Jack's charisma works on her too, or she feels sisterly affection for her brother, etc, in with whatever resentment and trouble there is? I'm sorry I didn't reread the novel in time, so I'm not sure if my impression is correct.
[ 22. May 2016, 15:28: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I was also thinking the tensions Glory feels around Jack don't seem to be focused around resentment that he is the favoured one, though she has a lot of mixed feelings. But I agree that although the details are quite different, it does seem to be a prodigal son type story, and Glory is the good child. Though I was thinking the story also brings into question what is good and bad, and Jack is incredibly complex as a character, and I find myself curious to know his perspective, and wondering how much Glory's interpretation of him distorts it. Or is he meant to be a little mysterious? Is her interpretation a way of emphasising the fact that he doesn't fit in, isn't really understood?
I am not as far along in reading this as I had hoped. I may not finish it tomorrow, but I will write some questions anyway, and answer them when I have finished reading.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
The reader, assuming they've read Gilead, is in the odd position of knowing a mystery, namely what Jack has been up to recently, that is only slowly revealed to Glory.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The reader, assuming they've read Gilead, is in the odd position of knowing a mystery, namely what Jack has been up to recently, that is only slowly revealed to Glory.
It is interesting to wonder how different it would feel to read Home before Gilead. In some ways it could work better that way.
FineLine:it does seem to be a prodigal son type story, and Glory is the good child. Yes but a parable isn't an allegory or a novel. Glory is also in a different sense 'a prodigal' - she (and Jack) are both back home because they have 'failed' to escape or have met with disaster outside the home. And, as far as they can, they do love their father.
There is another brother, Teddy, who makes flying visits (very much the slick, assured, modern doctor). The rest of the family, Glory makes clear, visit for special occasions but are glad to get away again. She also suggests the family gatherings depend on a rather false bonhomie about what home life was like in the old days.
Suppose the original prodigal son had made a success at pig-farming, would he have returned? Would we feel differently about him? In the light of Home we might also ask why did the prodigal son want to leave in the first place, why did Glory and the rest leave? What was missing in their world that they sought outside Gilead? The other siblings, perhaps stronger or luckier, stayed away*.
A link, which those who haven't read Gilead won't know (this isn't a spoiler), is that a disturbing presence in it is Ames' grandfather's old testament prophet like concern with the abolition of slavery. In Home this becomes the Civil Rights movement in Montgomery which Boughton largely dismisses.
* OK Teddy came back but I've taken an uncharitable dislike to him. He can fit in a couple of hours between urgent appointments and "went home to care for dying father" will look good on his medical CV.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
In the light of Home we might also ask why did the prodigal son want to leave in the first place, why did Glory and the rest leave?
I know Jack left owing to his disgrace in Gilead - unable to face the consequences of what he had done in a small-town environment - but Robinson gives the impression that this is a place from which everyone leaves, a place which no longer has a purpose. Ames loves it despite his apparently empty life alone, and his knowledge that much of the place's meaning, held in his memory, will be lost when he dies doesn't seem to drive him to despair. By contrast Jack seems to try to hunt peace down, but it doesn't come to him in a form he can accept.
Thinking about the aborted discussion of predestination between Glory, Jack, Ames and Boughton I wonder now if Ames and Jack are opposed in the books as archetypes of the chosen and un-chosen. Given her reluctance to expound the doctrine - Glory says something like 'I'm going inside, this is a discussion that never goes anywhere' - perhaps we're left with just a tragic picture. Kind of like 'this is what chosen and not chosen looks like, and no-one knows why'.
Thinking back some more (I have not just re-read this ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) I doubt that is such a deep, perceptive impression.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
Que sais-je said:
quote:
OK Teddy came back but I've taken an uncharitable dislike to him. He can fit in a couple of hours between urgent appointments and "went home to care for dying father" will look good on his medical CV.
I thought Teddy was the least well drawn character. The conversations between him and his siblings didn't quite ring true somehow, whereas I thought there was a lot of subtle tension between Glory and Jack, that was totally believable.. Glory the person who had to come home though she didn't want to, and Jack the person who wanted to be at home, but felt he coudln't be.
I too thought there were hints of the prodigal son, specially at the beiginning went the Rev Boughton was looking forward to Jack coming and taking all that Glory did for granted.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
... I wonder now if Ames and Jack are opposed in the books as archetypes of the chosen and un-chosen.
I wonder about Boughton as 'un-chosen'. There are a whole series of little clues about him which make me uneasy. He is proud of his Scots roots though his father was English (a light touch, a bit like Conrad pointing out that Lord Jim is a little below six foot).
The 'Edinburgh books' are an example. He has a Scottish friend select and send him the "most important books" which take pride of place in his library. The young Jack put stolen dollar bills in the books as a safe hiding place: i.e. they never get read.
I cannot imagine Ames getting someone to send him their selection of important books. He reads the Bible and Calvin's Institutes in Gilead but mostly he thinks, prays and learns.
Boughton is always quick to forgive (Glory recognises he sometimes forgives those who have done nothing more than disagree with him) or to explain things away ("it's probably my fault" is a passive-aggressive game most of us have played at some point). He never actually engages with people - or I think - sin. His response to the violence in Montgomery is to blame black people for not behaving better.
Jack may be unchosen but he is aware of sin and in anguish over whether he can change. His father is little help. At the end of the book Ames' view of Jack has changed (see Gilead), Boughton's which are largely a wish fulfillment fantasies haven't.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Yes but a parable isn't an allegory or a novel. Glory is also in a different sense 'a prodigal' - she (and Jack) are both back home because they have 'failed' to escape or have met with disaster outside the home. And, as far as they can, they do love their father.
Yes - as a novel it can play with the prodigal son story and turn things on their head. That is why I was asking about what is good and what is bad. Superficially, Glory is seen as a good child and Jack a bad child, but is Jack really bad? He is trying to be honest, to be true to himself - should he lie and pretend to have faith to make his dad happy? We are told that Glory and her 'good' siblings often don't tell the truth because 'experience had told them that truth had sharp edges, and could be seriously at odds with kindness.' Which makes a character 'good' - telling the truth even when it has sharp edges, or lying for the sake of kindness?
Another thing I am wondering - I'm thinking of biblical stories where a father is too kind to his children and it spoils them (such as Eli) and I am wondering if Boughton is supposed to be such a father. Is his constant forgiving of Jack a positive or a negative thing? Is he making things hard for Jack by never dealing directly with the issues? There seems so much evasion between the characters.
These are my questions for today, because I really want to wait till I've finished it before I write a list of numbered questions. And the issues seem complex to me, so it's hard to write them as short questions.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I wonder now if Ames and Jack are opposed in the books as archetypes of the chosen and un-chosen.
I think Robinson has said that Jack is supposed to be an archetype of the chosen. Robinson's a good enough Calvinist to believe that grace is not conditional upon anything that looks like worldly virtue or success or respectability.
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think Robinson has said that Jack is supposed to be an archetype of the chosen. Robinson's a good enough Calvinist to believe that grace is not conditional upon anything that looks like worldly virtue or success or respectability.
On that basis maybe Ames, Lila and Glory are among the unchosen. Do the Calvinists offer any guide to deciding who is/isn't?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I have now made a list of questions for discussion.
1. What impact does Glory telling the story have on how we see the characters? How might the story have been different if told by Jack or by Boughton?
2. Which character(s) did you warm to the most and why?
3. Were there any characters you disliked, and why?
4. What were your thoughts about Boughton as a father to his children and as a friend to Ames? How different was he in these two roles?
5. What is 'home' for the characters?
6. How is honesty depicted in the novel - to what extent is it seen as a positive and to what extent a negative thing?
7. For those of you who read Gilead first, how did this influence your reading of Home?
8. How is faith depicted? What is the impact of religion on the characters?
9. Have you come across pastors/Christians like Boughton or Ames? Do they seem familiar to you and in what ways?
10. What was your overall impression of the novel? Anything that struck you in particular?
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
Firstly, I apologise - most of you are busy people - and I'm not but though Home isn't Gilead, it is the same town and I found some interest in these.
Jeremiah 8; King James Version (for a reason)
[20] The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.
[21] For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.
[22] Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?
Two links I found interesting:
Interview (mostly about religion), Literary Calvinism
Oh yes, and the followers of John Brown (which included Ames' Grandfather) called themselves The League of Gileadites (after Judges 11?).
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
Thank you, que sais-je. Those links are very interesting, and make me want to read more about Calvinism.
It also reminds me I was going to share a link to an interview with Marilynne Robinson, not specifically about Home, but after she'd written Lila: here. I was especially interested in what she said about fear as a default position and having a kind of respectability in today's society. And also the idea of loneliness being a condition rather than a problem. I was going to write a couple of questions about fear and loneliness in Home, with reference to this interview, but I forgot and now I can't edit my questions. But if anyone has any thoughts about this or anything else, you can add extra numbers to your answers and talk about other things!
[ 27. May 2016, 09:41: Message edited by: Fineline ]
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
I feel a bit as Jack may have - an outsider among the believers. I've posted too many times on this thread with my only excuse that all three books (just started Lila) have affected me enormously. I've been hanging on hoping others would join in.
A last post then:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
.. what she said about fear as a default position and having a kind of respectability in today's society.
She has written in more depth elsewhere
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I was going to write a couple of questions about ... loneliness
It is certainly an important topic. All the characters are lonely - though perhaps in different ways. One of the pleasures of all the books is seeing the tentative and nervous way in which the characters try to reach out and respond lovingly to others: Ames to/from Lila , Glory to/from Jack being the obvious main ones. Endless misunderstandings, fears, doubts and mistakes. And yet sometimes some sort of loving connection is made, if only precariously.
Jack however is a special case. It's interesting that in the interview link you posted, Robinson says “I have always been — always from childhood’s hour, as Poe would say — in the habit of feeling quite a stark difference between myself and the world I navigated..
By coincidence I knew Poe's poem Alone. That I suspect describes the sort of loneliness Jack feels, as does Marilynne Robinson (and the rest of us sometimes - why do I remember a poem I read 50 years ago).
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Jack however is a special case. It's interesting that in the interview link you posted, Robinson says “I have always been — always from childhood’s hour, as Poe would say — in the habit of feeling quite a stark difference between myself and the world I navigated..
Perhaps this is why Marilynne Robinson doesn't seen loneliness as a bad thing or a problem. If you know you are fundamentally different and you are happy being yourself, it is just how it is. You'd have to sacrifice being yourself to get rid of that type of loneliness, but then you'd be lonely in a different way, a much worse way, because you'd be alienated from yourself. This is how it seems to be for Jack - his difficulty is that being himself is not accepted, but that is who he is and he can't be otherwise.
(By the way, in case people didn't see them, and are still waiting for questions, I did write questions and they are a few posts above this. I don't mind if people want to answer the questions or not, but I just want to let people know they are there, because I know I was late posting them, so people might have missed them.)
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
OK I'll have a go at some of the questions, and try to come back to the others later. I found this a challenging and emotional book, and I feel I need to red it again, but I can't really say I enjoyed it.
1. What impact does Glory telling the story have on how we see the characters? How might the story have been different if told by Jack or by Boughton?
Telling the story from Glory’s point of view gives a distancing, perhaps even objectivity about both Jack and Boughton. Glory is sympathetic to both, but has her tensions with Jack, and also with her father I think. Her resentment, no, that’s a bit too strong, perhaps her disappointment at being back in Gilead, caring for the males, having given up her teaching job, would likely not be acknowledged without her perspective. Yes, she’s had a marital disaster, but is that the only reason she’s back home? Do any of the males in her life recognise she has given up her career – or is caring for them just what is expected of the youngest daughter? Who would be doing the caring had her marriage gone ahead?
2. Which character(s) did you warm to the most and why?
3. Were there any characters you disliked, and why?
I’m sympathetic to both Jack and Glory, and feel rather conflicted about Broughton. He’s (I think) meant to be an admirable character, a good man, caring pastor, but I find his assumptions that his children will do as he wishes troubling. Is his concern about Jack for Jack’s sake or for his own? I also think the racial elements important; the book was written in the 21st centry, so I don’t think we can call our concern with race anacronistically modern, Robinson surely has it too. Boughton is dismissive of events in Montgomery, and I wonder what his reponse would be if he actually did meet Della. I was intrigued that most of the review/interviews of Home (particularly the American ones) ignore the racial theme.
5. What is 'home' for the characters?
The Gilead house is clearly home for Boughton (and I guess Ames and his family). All the rest of the Boughton family are ambivalent, or have established themselves elsewhere in their own marital homes – which is what one would expect – though they maintain some affection for the place where they spent their childhood. Why is it assumed people only have one place they might think of as home? That doesn’t seem to be the experience of most of the people I know – and certainly not for me.
7. For those of you who read Gilead first, how did this influence your reading of Home?
I haven’t read Gilead, though I will try to do so now. I have the feeling that there’s somehing I’m missing (someone else said that upthread) and Gilead might fill in the gaps – or it might not, I suppose.
10. What was your overall impression of the novel? Anything that struck you in particular?
I found the novel rather claustrophobic, although beautifully written, with a wonderful ear for dialogue and descriptions. But I shall read it again, I feel sure, because it s arguments are important.
I was interested by some of the comments made by shipmates about the Congregational and Presbyterian distinctions. I’m not the the person to appreciate the finer distinctions between them; having grown up in both churches (in different towns – we moved) I voted with enthusiasm for their amalgamation in the United Reformed church (UK) and am now a member of the Uniting Church of Australia. So I suppose I would say the distinctions weren’t important enough to save!. But thinking back on my childhood the Pressies were distinguished by a lot of Scottish accents, metrical psalms with their madly convoluted English, and church socials with Dashing White Sargeant and occasional bagpipes, while the Congs had collections of ship halfpennies for the John Williams ships, and trips to London to meet real missionaries. None of this features in Home – which shows of course the importance of culture and history (different across the pond) in religious practice.
[ 31. May 2016, 11:00: Message edited by: Marama ]
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
4. What were your thoughts about Boughton as a father to his children and as a friend to Ames? How different was he in these two roles?
That's an interesting question. Utterly different, I would guess, as I guess we mostly all are. Does anyone make the transition from parent to friend, of their adult kids? Mine are too young to even start to guess.
Half the time we can't even keep out of parent / child roles with our spouses. Our chances of transcending such with our adult kids must be slim.
It was my impression Boughton cares for, and feels responsible for Jack - and has learnt that whatever he does, it won't help much. From my perspective, the fact that Boughton is still talking to his kids at all weighs heavily in his favour!
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Landlubber
Shipmate
# 11055
|
Posted
Still reading. I'm not sure when I'll get to the end, but it's been interesting to have read through the comments here. I have felt many fewer hidden undercurrents in this book, compared to Gilead.
--------------------
They that go down to the sea in ships … reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man
Posts: 383 | From: On dry land | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
It was my impression Boughton cares for, and feels responsible for Jack - and has learnt that whatever he does, it won't help much. From my perspective, the fact that Boughton is still talking to his kids at all weighs heavily in his favour!
That is interesting. Why would he not be still talking to his kids? Parents normally do keep in contact with their kids, in my observations, so it wouldn't have occurred to me to see that as surprising or significant.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
My thoughts on a few of the questions
2. Which character(s) did you warm to the most and why?
I liked Glory, she had a subtle sense of humour and was doing her best to look after her father and brother, even though internally she was prety resentful. I wanted her to say she would sell the house when her father died, and go back to her teaching career.
4. What were your thoughts about Boughton as a father to his children and as a friend to Ames? How different was he in these two roles?
The main thing I thought about Boughton was that he was old, and terminally ill. That was colouring all his judgments. I liked the way he was longing to see his son, but when he arrived, there was little he could do to help, as they fell back in the patterns of father and small child. He didn't seem to have any curiosity about Glory, just took it for granted (as did her siblings?) that as an unmarried youngest daughter her place was at home caring for him. As for his relationship with Ames, it seemed to be that of a pupil with a master rather than two friends as equals, but maybe I read that wrong.
7. For those of you who read Gilead first, how did this influence your reading of Home?
I read Gilead a while back, but as someone said upthread I felt there was something I wasn't getting. I can't remember a great deal about it. I much prefered this.
8. How is faith depicted? What is the impact of religion on the characters?
I thought one of the main themes of the book was that Jack, despite all his failings and doubts was a good example of a Christian life and his father, if not a bad example, was an illustration of some of the pitfalls. Boughton didn't seem to have a lot of mercy, and Jack seemed to have a lot of faith.
10. What was your overall impression of the novel? Anything that struck you in particular?
I admired Robinson's ability to depict character so well, and to make me keep on reading, even though it was a story in not a lot happened. I though she got the period detail well without pushing it too hard and there was something about the hard to define 'atmosphere' of the story that pulled me in. I've downloaded Lila and will read that shortly.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Here is something you might like to think on. Presbyterianism is the faith Robinson was raised in, while Congregationalism is her choice in adult life. How much do you think the very different intimate relationships she has with these two traditions alter her portrayal of them?
It's a question I ask and I find her portrayal in Home darker than that in Gilead. Is it darker because it is that which she left or darker because Presbyterianism, on the whole, is slightly starker and clearer cut in its thinking?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
It's interesting to see everyone's thoughts - thank you all for contributing. I'm a bit late with my thoughts, but here they are:
1. What impact does Glory telling the story have on how we see the characters? How might the story have been different if told by Jack or by Boughton?
I was quite intrigued by the fact that it was Glory telling the story, because it didn't really seem so much about her, but far more about her interpretations of Jack. When she is upset, for instance, she doesn't always tell us - we have to rely on Jack always saying 'You're crying'. And we know even less about her situation than Jack's. I think somehow her sensitivity made Jack into almost a more romanticised figure. If he'd told his own story, I suspect he would be a lot harder on himself, and he wouldn't come across very likeable.
2. Which character(s) did you warm to the most and why?
I warmed to Jack. I could identify with his inability to pretend to be something he's not, to believe something he doesn't, and the fact of simply not fitting in, not being able to do small talk, and not being really able to do anything about it. I quite liked Glory but I felt she was very evasive when it came to herself, so I didn't warm to her so much.
3. Were there any characters you disliked, and why?
I don't think so. Teddy was hard to warm to, but then I felt for him because he was out of place, sort of in the same sort of way that Jack had always been out of place - he'd come into a very difficult situation, had no idea what was going on, or how he could help. Glory and Jack had formed a bond and he wasn't part of it.
4. What were your thoughts about Boughton as a father to his children and as a friend to Ames? How different was he in these two roles?
I was quite fascinated by this. He seemed quite a childlike man in some ways - with indications that he had always been like this, but it had increased with old age. Ames was the wiser, more mature man, while Boughton seemed to have acted more on impulse, and had disagreements with people which he needed Ames to help with. I found it quite telling that Ames would pretend to ask advice, to help Boughton feel needed, but didn't need it, because he had better people skills and didn't get into these disagreements. The King Lear reference (when Boughton says 'Reason not the need') seemed apt in many ways - the inflexibility, the difficulty with hearing the truth, wanting his kids to say what he thinks they should say, and consequently not really knowing them.
5. What is 'home' for the characters?
I am not really sure. I don't think it really is the Boughton house for any of them - I think it is more what they perceive that as representing. The memories - for Boughton, he seems to be clinging onto it exactly as it is because his mind somehow doesn't adapt to change.
6. How is honesty depicted in the novel - to what extent is it seen as a positive and to what extent a negative thing?
I found this interesting. That the Boughtons (except Jack) have always been dishonest with each other as a politeness thing, not deception, because they know they are doing it, but as a way to respect each other's privacy. So it's not really dishonesty - more a code for discretion. But also there is more of a negative dishonesty with themselves. Boughton is angry with Jack but he can't allow himself to think this, because he loves Jack, so his anger comes out in little indirect ways, like passive aggression, and then he gets upset he's done that. It was quite a relief at the end when he was finally honest with Jack - Jack seemed to find it a relief too.
7. For those of you who read Gilead first, how did this influence your reading of Home?
Well, it meant I knew the backstory to Jack returning home. And I knew so much about Ames that Boughton was a stark contrast. The novels seem to be contrasts to each other - Ames is dying and he's at peace with that, while Boughton is clearly not at peace.
8. How is faith depicted? What is the impact of religion on the characters?
There was much more about the specific doctrinal beliefs in Gilead. Home seemed more about lack of faith. I didn't really get a sense of Boughton's faith the way I had with Ames.
9. Have you come across pastors/Christians like Boughton or Ames? Do they seem familiar to you and in what ways?
I have never been to a Presbytarian church, but I spent several years of my childhood attending a congregational church, which I then returned to as a young adult, and oddly I found these Congregationalists were very like Boughton - quite rigid in beliefs, quite prejudiced against certain groups of people, and clinging to old ways and not wanting to change. I'm trying to think if I have known anyone like Ames - he seems almost too good to be true, and yet he has an external reserve about him sometimes, quicker to distance himself, and to judge. He was a less sympathetic character in Home, because we see him externally.
10. What was your overall impression of the novel? Anything that struck you in particular?
I found it incredibly sad and very real and very powerful, and I want to read it again. I found the timing very effective. I can see what Marama says about it being claustrophobic. I'm not sure if that is the word for how I found it, but it was very intense, building up a very intense atmosphere, and then towards the end there is a climax and the intenseness kind of unravels, and the a lot of the unsaid stuff gets said, and it's a kind of relief. And the ending totally surprised me. I'd given up on the idea of Lila making an appearance - though I guess that was the point, as all the characters had too!
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marama:
I found the novel rather claustrophobic
I agree about the claustrophobia, it is a very inward looking novel: Gilead is a small town. Landlubber felt s/he was 'missing something' and to a large extent that might be the outside world!
Much of the life in the three books comes from outside (or outsiders): Lila, Jack and Ruby especially. And a minister outside Gilead is briefly mentioned: Della's father, no doubt very different from Ames or Boughton.
Ames' grandfather (in Gilead) seems to have been appalled that after the abolition of slavery, the town settled back into itself. The one black church in Gilead is set on fire but Ames suggests that didn't mean anything much; later we hear there are no longer any black people in the town. Boughton dismisses grandfather Ames as crazy, though the first thing Della's father asks Jack, due to a misunderstanding, is whether he is a descendant of that John Ames.
And surely part at least of Jack's anguish is that he cannot - in the South at least - easily live with his wife or child because of the anti-miscegenation laws. Which isn't helped by Boughton's bland dismissal of the events in Montgomery and the lynching of Emmett Till.
For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me. Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
That is interesting. Why would he not be still talking to his kids? Parents normally do keep in contact with their kids, in my observations, so it wouldn't have occurred to me to see that as surprising or significant.
Ouch - TMI from me there, by accident - sorry!
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
