|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: November Book group - The Secret Chord
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
November’s book is The Secret Chord by Geraldine Brooks, published last year. It bears some resemblances to October’s book My Name is Shylock in that both retell established stories, and both have Jewish themes. For what it’s worth I found The Secret Chord by far the more readable and engrossing of the two.
This is the third of Geraldine Brooks’ books that I have read, and as in March and The Year of Wonders she takes us into a rich, detailed and convincing imagined past, this time Judah of c1000BCE, the Kingdom of David. We are guided by the prophet and counsellor Natan (names are translitterated differently from our Bibles, but there is a helpful guide at the beginning).
Brooks converted to Judaism as an adult (after an Australian Catholic childhood) and cites her rabbi as a source of advice on the book. For those who are interested, the Biblical story of David can be found in 1 Samuel chapters 16 -31, the whole of 2 Samuel and the first chapters of 1 Kings. Brooks also uses other Rabbinical stories in her retelling.
I will post some discussion questions on 20 November; in the meantime, enjoy the read!
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Further discussion of The Secret Chord can be found here
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
I'm in. I've got this downloaded and will be starting it once I've got over my comfort reading of the Anne of Green Gables series.
--------------------
'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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Oh, I loved this! I hope I still remember it well enough to discuss, otherwise I will have to some skimming back through it to participate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
OK, the time of the month for questions.
First, this novel has been fairly widely reviewed, but I found this review and interview, from a Jewish perspective, particularly interesting.
Now to the questions:
1. 'Whatever it takes. What was necessary' - The catch-cry throughout the book to explain the level of violence and brutality. Is it convincing?
2. Since Natan is the narrator of the book, we gain an insight into the role of the prophet. How does his role change after the killing of Uriah?
3. Did you find the voices of the women in the story (Nizevet, Mikhal, Batsheva, Avigail) convincing? How does this extra testimony complicate the portrait of David from the Biblical version? Does it make David a more or less attractive figure?
4. David is asked how he would judge a man who acted (in hypothetical situation) as he had in regards Uriah, and says he would punish him fourfold (page 253 in my version). This happens, the fourfold punishment being the death of Batsheva’s baby, Tamar’s rape, and the deaths of Amnon and Avshalom. But who is being punished – David or Tamar – in her rape? How do we regard such ideas of justice?
5. Where is God (The Name) in this novel?
6. Geraldine Brooks is writing as a convert to Judaism, but how does this novel deal with questions about the Old Testament and its meaning for Christians today, if there are any? Or should we just relegate the story of David to being a collection of Iron age tales, but little else?
7. What did you think of the language used? Did the Hebrew spellings annoy you, or make you look at a familiar story afresh?
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cattyish
Wuss in Boots
# 7829
|
Posted
3. I have not found the Biblical description of David's character attractive, and I feel that it would take a major bit of exposition to change how I feel about him. Maybe it is because I'm a modern woman with the option to live independently and refuse a man's attentions. Maybe it's because I feel he's a murderer and adulterer who only seems to be sorry when he's faced with the consequences of his actions. He never really shows remorse.
Cattyish, no more perfect than any other person historical, fictional or current.
--------------------
...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived, this is to have succeeded.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posts: 1794 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
1. 'Whatever it takes. What was necessary' - The catch-cry throughout the book to explain the level of violence and brutality. Is it convincing?
I thought the violence and the reasoning behind it (kill everyone or they'll come and kill us) was convincing and depressing.
2. Since Natan is the narrator of the book, we gain an insight into the role of the prophet. How does his role change after the killing of Uriah?
I was a bit confused by the literary device of Nathan going off to record David's past. The story jumped fowards and back at times, then the whole thing was more or less abandoned half-way through. Nathan never said (or did he and I missed it?) what he thought would have happened if David hadn't been on the roof.
3. Did you find the voices of the women in the story (Nizevet, Mikhal, Batsheva, Avigail) convincing? How does this extra testimony complicate the portrait of David from the Biblical version? Does it make David a more or less attractive figure?
I wasn't really sure. I think they were all very strong women, who probably got a lot of support for each other in the women's quarters, but as as Nathan couldn't go there, we only catch glimpses of their lives. I didn't really think it impacted on my view of David's character one way or another
4. David is asked how he would judge a man who acted (in hypothetical situation) as he had in regards Uriah, and says he would punish him fourfold (page 253 in my version). This happens, the fourfold punishment being the death of Batsheva’s baby, Tamar’s rape, and the deaths of Amnon and Avshalom. But who is being punished – David or Tamar – in her rape? How do we regard such ideas of justice?
Well none of it accorded with modern ideas of justice, which hopefully, would be mch finer tuned to the actual crimes committed
5. Where is God (The Name) in this novel?
I thought The Name was portraied well in that Nathan and David trusted what it said, where others were more suspicious, though happy enough to go along with the ritual sacrifices etc.
6. Geraldine Brooks is writing as a convert to Judaism, but how does this novel deal with questions about the Old Testament and its meaning for Christians today, if there are any? Or should we just relegate the story of David to being a collection of Iron age tales, but little else?
I don't know the stories well enough in their original, it's made me want to go and read them to see how Geraldine Brooks developed her material.
7. What did you think of the language used? Did the Hebrew spellings annoy you, or make you look at a familiar story afresh?
As I said above I don't know the stories well, so having slightly different names made it slightly annoying. It seemed to me she was showing off her knowledge at times rather than actually writing as the character of Nathan.
I enjoyed this story up to a point. I think I would have enjoyed it more if she had perhaps told it from a different point of view or if David had been a much more peripheral character in Nathan's own story. I could see she was aiming to capture David's charisma and almost succeeded, but not quite. The bits I enjoyed best were the bits where Nathan becomes Schlmo's tutor and mentor.
--------------------
'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
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I think Brooks stuck too closely to the biblical account and therefore failed to add sufficient material to justify the novel.
I was constantly reminded of Mary Stewart's Merlin in the depiction of Nathan qua prophet. Merlin is a much better developed character.
I listened to the book rather than reading it, which may mean that I was less up against the transliteration issue... I quite enjoyed the slight unfamiliarity.
David struck me as a really unsympathetic character thoroughly justifying the resistance to kings! I don't feel Brooks went far enough in either understanding David's perspective or how someone like Nathan could object to him while admiring him.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
Did anyone else feel slightly irritated by the 'Hallelujah' by Leonard Cohen references? She says in the afterward that the song gave her the title and towards the end she also refers to the king as being 'baffled'? I'm not sure why this annoyed me, but ti did.
--------------------
'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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I really thought I was going to be able to participate in this thread because I read the book about a year ago and thoroughly enjoyed it.
However, over the past several years I have also read some other novelizations of King David's life. Some years ago I read The King David Report, by Stefan Heym; Queenmaker, by India Edghill, about David's wife Michal; and I've been picking away bit by bit at the massive five-book Dahveed series by Terri Fivash (I've read the first three so far).
The end result of all this is that I have so many different fictional interpretations of the David story in my head that, even though The Secret Chord is the one I've read most recently, at the distance of a year after reading I find it's all tangled in my head with the others, and I can't recall what was in which book. An unfortunate result of reading too much about the one character! I'm not sure if it's a shortcoming of this book specifically that I can't remember more details about it. If I had a hard copy on hand I could flip through it and it would probably refresh my memory; I might do that at the bookstore. I read it, as most of the novels I read, as an e-book, and while I love the format I find they are not very conducive to skimming back through to remind myself what the book was like.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Trudy, I know what you mean about the difficulties of skimming - or finding particular passages - in an ebook, even with supposed search functions. That's why I rarely use my tablet for work books, though read fiction on it.
I did not comment on the Leonard Cohen 'Hallelujah' connection, but I found it rather poignant, esp with Cohen's recent death.
I guess the main issue that arose for me from the book was the position of David in our Christian heritage. Like everyone else I found him a pretty negative figure. Perhaps Brooks is wrong in her portrayal but I doubt it, but there he is, central on our Old Testament, not just a fictional character. I get that God uses flawed vessels - but that flawed?? For such a central figure? It would be an even bigger problem if one were Jewish, I guess. But I'll never listen to the readings from the Old Testament about David in quite the same light again - and I'm not sure if that is a good thing.
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Surely one has to allow for the historical period. David was no better and no worse than many a Roman or Greek. Only in our modern eyes does he seem like a thug.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Yes, the level of violence, etc., was obviously right in keeping with the culture. I think what's most troubling to modern readers -- Christians, at least, I'm not sure how Jews read these Scriptures differently -- is the idea that God approves of all this bloodshed. Although in the David story, there is at least that reference to God not wanting David to be the one who built the Temple because he is a man who has shed so much blood. (I'm trying to remember now if that comes up in The Secret Chord -- here's where that skimming function would come in handy!) I know in the Scripture it seems a bit unfair of God -- like, You wanted him to win this kingdom and do all the required shedding of blood to keep it, and now You're saying that disqualifies him from building Your temple? Really???
One thing I will say about The Secret Chord is that it does fit well with all the other King David novels I've read (and with the Scripture itself) in painting him as a truly larger-than-life figure -- mercurial, deeply flawed, yet also hugely charismatic, drawing people to him and earning their loyalty.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Surely one has to allow for the historical period. David was no better and no worse than many a Roman or Greek. Only in our modern eyes does he seem like a thug.
Well yes, but our Bible doesn't hold Greek or Roman leaders up for our admiration, but does with David.
I get the impression that the end of the year is catching up with us and energy is low, but please feel free to go on discussing.
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
I'm only half-way through this book, partly because I had to wait for my wife to finish our copy before I could get at it, and partly because most of my reading time is spent with professional stuff. Nevertheless I can give a preliminary response to a couple of Marama's questions.
I found the women's viewpoint (and Natan's narration) cast new light on the story, in part because it humanised the events, and partly because the author took the opportunity to make explicit homely detail assumed in the bible narrative, such as what exactly a shepherd does and what kind of housing people lived in.
The transcibed names didn't bother me much, since most were those of "minor" characters which I would barely have known in their "English" forms anyway , and others did not feature very largely in the novel such as Samuel (Shmuel).
Despite Sarasa's warning that teh novel rather loses direction after half-way, I shall plough on.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
