SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 2014
I’ll start my review on a positive note. Although a little disconcerting, it was a nice idea to try to break our stereotypes of how we picture God and Jesus. As for the Holy Ghost, really, does anyone have an idea of what that’s supposed to look like? Papa actually takes the time to explain to Mack that personifying himself as a female would prevent Mack’s negative feelings about his father from clouding their interactions. The funniest thing about this portrayal was when Papa broke into Ebonics, just like a regular homey from the hood!
Another thing that stuck me as interesting is that the doctrine presented by Papa is not really in line with the most dogmatic religions, specifically Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity. Papa represents Christianity as being open to debate and even encouraging it, saying there shouldn’t be any laws (P. 205) and we should live free and give up our rights (P. 139). Hierarchies are bad since you need rules and law enforcement, which in turn destroy one’s relationship with the Trinity. The Holy Trinity is a circle of relationship, not a chain of command (P. 124-125), so all we need is God’s love and everyone should live as one (isn’t that a John Lennon song?). No wonder religious readers called this book sacrilegious! The biggest issue with all of Papa’s ramblings is that they seem kind of contrary to the Ten Commandments, which are pretty clear that the rules must be followed or else! But there is one thing (and only one thing) that Papa said that I do agree with whole-heartedly – that religion, politics, and economics are the man-made trinity of terrors that ravage the earth (P. 181). Sad but true these days.
Now for the critical analysis.There are three things that really drove me crazy: the endless discussions about suffering, the annoying argument that our screwed up world is man’s fault, and the incessant doublespeak.
First, suffering. Papa repeatedly tells Mack that even though God is all-powerful and that he loves all humans, he could have saved Missy but didn’t because it’s beyond our understanding (P. 224) but we should love him anyway. Poor Missy was just SOL. Mack is expected to take solace in the fact that the Holy Trinity comforted Missy on the way to her own murder – how thoughtful! To make us feel better about all of this, we’re supposed to take solice in the fact that Jesus on the cross is God’s answer to man’s shortcomings because the way of the cross is love. And that makes Mack feel much better.Boy, is Mack easily satisfied!
Next, the fault of man. The circular reasoning is that humans are evil and there is nothing God can do about it. Papa tells Mack that since He doesn’t orchestrate tragedies (P. 187) it’s not his fault that Missy died. So, let me get this straight:
God is not responsible for any of the tragedies that happen even though he allows them to happen. According to Papa, the reason for this lack of responsibility on His part is that even though God is completely unlimited and lives in a state of perpetual satisfaction, a condition that man was supposed to share in, Adam screwed it all up with the apple debacle (P. 101). Everything God created was good but it was ravaged by the path of independence that has led humans to drag everything down and turn it bad (P. 134). My question is this: If God wanted to share the perfection, then why did His Almighty Self let Adam mess it up in the first place? If, as God claims, man was created in God’s image, why is humanity so flawed and un-god-like? I remember – it’s all because of the Eden scandal! Seems like someone is shirking their responsibility in all of this death and destruction.
Finally, doublespeak, similar to George Orwell’s concept of doublethink, in which someone deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning words. Sound like a familiar occurrence in this book? The discussions between Mack and the Trinity, which wavered back and forth between the sublime and the ridiculous, were so convoluted or incomprehensible you couldn’t figure out what the point was. Let me give you a few examples:
Despite the kitschy bantering between Papa and Mack, and the warm fuzzy feeling we’re meant to have, there were a couple of things that really clashed (P. 127, P. 208) with my worldview. Papa repeatedly points out to Mack that He “knows everything about us.” Mack suggests this implies predestiny and asks where the freedom is to make choices. Papa skirts the issue by saying that we (humans) need to see how it all ends to understand (P. 127). Mack then asks if this implies that the end justifies the means. According to Papa, the answer is not because God’s goodness redeems us. I’m sorry, but this is dodging the question with more doublespeak!So, the moral of the story is that hierarchies and laws are bad for us as humans but God loves us no matter how screwed up we get, but we aren’t really in control of our own destiny but it’s ok that God let’s all the bad stuff happen to us because we’ll be happy in the end. Suffice it to say that I’m not really on board with this type of evangelical witnessing.
As far as I’m concerned, this story about a shack is an allegory, like the Wizard of Oz or Alice in Wonderland, or like the creation myths of Native Americans or Hindus. Having studied the anthropology of religion, it’s clear that all cultures have creation myths. Some of them are more inclusive; some are more divisive or war-like. The Bible, on which The Shack is based, is simply another creation story, with lots of pain, suffering, and hell and damnation. The attempt at breaking stereotypes with the different faces of God becomes pointless since so many other aspects of the story, such as the surrounding mountainside and especially the garden where Mack encounters Missy, are straight out of Disneyworld and Fantasia, which is how we’re supposed to picture the afterlife.
The one thing I don’t understand after reading the book is the author’s own apparent lack of conviction in his beliefs. His ending is a huge cop-out – having Mack awaken from a coma during which he dreamed the whole Holy Trinity encounter. It seems that if Young truly believed, he wouldn’t have taken the usual route; he would have written it as if the meeting with the Trinity had actually happened. Wouldn’t that have been a stronger testimonial to his own belief that God is truly almighty? I also find it peculiar that the author says on his website that he wrote this book to deal with his own personal “life losses and obliterated dreams.” However, he never says what those losses were or what his own “terrible shame” and grief is about? A bit cagey and evasive, no?
When looking for reviews of this book, I discovered that the few that were critical did not question the dogma and the end of days rhetoric but instead focused on how it was poorly written. Sure, the author took liberties with the English language, using nouns as verbs (i.e., careered, purposed). Yes, it’s extremely redundant after a point and the endless doublespeak is just annoying. No, it doesn’t fall into the same category of literature as Shakespeare or Zola. But there seems to be a much larger shortcoming – nothing is answered but we’re expected to believe, blindly and unquestioningly. A recurring them you’ve noticed by now, I’m sure.
In the end (not as in Armageddon or Revelations), it turns out I should have gone with my first instinct not to agree to the selection of the book for our group. It was hell reading it – pun very much intended! Contrary to what you might think, it has nothing to do being an atheist. It’s because it’s a cross between the Wonderful Word of Disney (where flowers bloom bigger and stars shine brighter), a graduate level class in German Philosophy (which tends to be incomprehensible), and George Orwell’s vision of the future (where doublethink rules). The only disparaging review I found at Amazon.com echoed my sentiments quite well. The reviewer found the scenarios so ridiculous that “suspending one’s belief is not worth effort” and “the book so childish that no educated person would take it seriously.” His take on the “suffering” issue is concise and right on target – God saying that He is there for victims of the most horrible suffering does not answer the original question of why he permits suffering in first place. I agree with him when he says this issue is not to be taken lightly since it’s at the root of people’s non-belief. The Shack only succeeded in reinforcing my belief that religion, particularly the monotheistic ones, is not good for humankind. It did not make me believe, which I’m sure is what the author intended with his proselytizing, but confirmed that Christianity does not have the answers. No religion does. And so I will remain an atheist.
Disclaimer - The ranting and raving in this review are not intended to represent the views of the Zodiac Book Group. In fact, the comments contained herein are actually much more radical, left wing, Marxist, feminist, socialist that anyone in the group would probably put forth.
Q & A
Every month before we meet, I go online to find a reading group guide. When I did that for The Shack, I discovered something interesting – there were none available from my usual sources, which include publishing houses and websites designed especially for reading groups. I had expected there to be many because this book is so contentious. However, the only ones I could find were from religious sites, with all of the questions based on the premise that everyone believes in God, that everyone has faith. Why weren’t there any that had a more secular and critical perspective questioning the religious dogma presented in the book or that challenging the insistence on blind faith? In the interests of providing a more neutral point of view, here is my reading group guide for The Shack. Some of the questions are secularized versions of the religious guides, some are from our group discussion, and some of them are from the mind of an atheist. Discuss and enjoy!
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2006
BOOKS THAT WIN AWARDS AND SHOULDN'T
BY DONNA
“THE SENSE OF AN ENDING” BY
JULIAN BARNES
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND
RUMINATIONS BY DONNA
Questions arising from my reading
of the book and on Andrew Blackman’s
blog, with its hundreds of fascinating comments and lengthy discussion
about the ending of “The Sense of an
Ending”
Way back in time about a year ago, when we read "The Sense of an
Ending" by Julian Barnes, I became intrigued by the whole question of who
is Adrian Junior's father. Is it Adrian or Tony? At first, I was satisfied with
Tony’s version of things. But then, the doubts began. Some of the book group
members thought the ending was too obvious, simplistic, that there had to be
more to it. I stumbled across Andrew Blackman’s blog and found a goldmine of
discussion. That’s when I got really confused, scrolling through tons of posts
about who did what and with whom! So, I complied my own list of questions and
possible answers. Ultimately, nothing is really resolved but I feel much better
having made a list! See if it helps you.
Did Tony
have a one-night stand with Sarah, Veronica’s mother?
If
so, could he have suppressed the memory of having sex with Veronica’s mother?
Even after lengthy reflections, he
isn’t able to remember he had sex with his girl friend’s mother.
He repressed the memory out of
embarrassment.
He only remembers years later in the
symbolism of the broken egg incident.
If
he does remember, why wouldn’t he admit it?
Did
Sarah have sex with all of Veronica’s boyfriends?
Did
Veronica procure other young men for her mother?
Was
the family complicit in or aware of Sarah’s affairs with younger men?
Did
Sarah keep Adrian’s diary to hide that fact of their affair?
Is Sarah the
mother of Adrian Junior, the mentally handicapped man?
If
Tony is the father:
Did
Tony know that Sarah got pregnant?
Since
Adrian had a later affair with Sarah, did Tony just assume that Adrian was
baby’s father?
Does Sarah
frying eggs for Tony in the morning symbolize that Adrian Junior is their son?
Does Adrian Junior’s strange reaction on seeing Tony’s
face suggest that Tony is the father?
Is Tony’s insistence that Adrian Junior resembles Adrian a
denial of his own role as father?
If
Adrian is the father:
Does naming him Adrian Junior mean that Adrian is his
father?
How
long did he and Sarah have an affair?
Did
he ever know Adrian Junior?
A remark in Sarah’s letter that “Adrian and she
were happy in the last months” could refer to the time Adrian spent with his
son.
Tony says that the mentally impaired man looks like Adrian.
Why
would he commit suicide?
Because
of the boy’s intellectual limitations?
Because
of his own remorse at Adrian Junior being placed in an institution?
Because
of the pain it caused Sarah?
Because he
felt it was the best thing for the baby?
Was his
suicide a principled act because he “renounced the gift (life) no one asks
for?
Was it just
as banal as that of their old schoolmate whose girlfriend got pregnant?
Timeline for the
likelihood of fatherhood for Tony or Adrian:
Tony
was with the Fords just before summer vacation in the second year of university.
During
the third year, Adrian had his relation with Veronica.
After Tony
graduated, he travelled for half a year in the States then came back and heard
about Adrian’s suicide.
Adrian
Junior would be nine months old by then -- no real problem for the Tony-as-father
theory.
Why does Sarah
leave Tony £500 that she refers to as blood money, which usually means money
paid out to victims?
Because Tony is the victim of Sarah’s
seduction?
Because sleeping with Tony beforehand
led to her pregnancy and Adrian Junior?
Because she had an affair with
Adrian?
Because she feels guilty about
Adrian’s suicide?
Because she has Alzheimer’s and
doesn’t really know what she’s doing?
To compensate Tony for having been
mistreated by her daughter?
The literal meaning of ‘blood’ is kin
so Sarah is could be indicating that baby is Tony’s.
What is the
meaning of Sarah’s hand-waving gesture to Tony when he leaves the farm?
Is
she teasing him about “wanking off” in the bathroom?
Was Veronica sexually abused?
If
so, by whom – father, brother?
Did
her mother sleep with Tony and Adrian out of revenge for the incest that was
taking place?
Is
it possible that either her father and/or mother are not her biological parents?
Why does Veronica go by the name of “Mary” in
the presence of the mentally handicapped people?
Because
Adrian Junior is really her brother?
Does she
want to distance herself from him?
Because
she’s Adrian Junior’s mother?
The practice at the time was that if a teenage daughter
got pregnant, then her mother raised the child and the girl became the elder
“sister.”
Mary has Biblical connotations of
motherhood, so it suggests that she is Adrian’s mother.
Are Mary and Veronica two different people?
Could Mary be Veronica and Tony’s daughter who was conceived
when Veronica told Tony he had to hold onto the condom while pulling out?
If Mary is actually Tony’s daughter and he doesn’t realize
it, this would justify her saying over and over “you just don’t get it.”
Is this a
story about repressed homosexuality?
Is
Tony a closeted gay man?
Why is Veronica
wearing a red glass ring on her left hand?
Is
it a symbol of her doomed marriage to Adrian?
Is
it a symbol of her love for Adrian, even though he committed suicide?
What is the
significance of wrists and watches?
The boys turned their watches in toward the wrist
concealing time or making it “personal time.”
There is the wrist made shiny by Veronica’s dry humping of
Tony’s passive arm, prepared by his rolling up his sleeve and removing his
watch.
Why would Veronica need to hump his wrist?
Adrian killed himself by slitting his wrists.
The pulse at our wrists is the tick tock of our own life’s
clock.
Why does Veronica
behave so badly toward Tony and keep insisting that Tony “doesn’t get it”?
Because
his letter led Adrian to have an affair with her mother?
Because
he had a fling with her mother?
Did
she burn the diary because Tony chose her mother over her?
Because
she’s still in love with him and he was her hope for getting out
of her family?
Because of the inestimable damage
that results from Tony’s letter?
Because
he’s the father of Adrian Junior?
Did she get pregnant when she and Tony had post-breakup
sex?
Because she was only told about Tony
and Sarah’s fling just before Sarah passed away?
Because she was abused by her father
and/or brother?
Why does
Tony feel somewhat responsible for Adrian Junior’s death?
Because
it makes him feel that his life is less mundane and there was meaning in it?
Because
it allows him to feel remorse?
It’s
far better to feel a powerful negative emotion than to feel
nothing at all.
Did Tony make up the whole ending to make his life
more interesting?
Is he deluded?
Did Adrian’s formula really
exist?
Is Adrian just a figment of
Tony’s imagination?
Repressing the memory of his affair
with Sarah would be the height of false memory, thereby emphasizing the theme
of the book.
Is it simply because he’s
self-centered, egotistical, ruthless, self-delusional, egocentric, insensitive,
inexperienced, insecure, timid, a bore, a stalker, someone who plays it safe?
Was Tony’s ego so
overpowering that he couldn’t get over himself?
Even his apology letters to
Veronica were all about himself.
Barnes’s thesis on memory:
Memory = Events + Time
Lies of victors = History = Imperfections of Memory
Imperfections of Memory + Inadequacy of
documentation = History
Reality versus self-perception = memory suppression = unreliability = rewriting history = muddled facts
The concept of memories and a sense of an ending to your
life make you look back to recreate your history. Ultimately, the real history
is unknowable, whether personal or national and we are all unreliable
narrators. As Andrew Blackman suggests, “for the child to be Tony’s, the whole
of the book would be rendered meaningless; memory, past, remorse… There is a
limit to how unreliable a narrator can be until the concept of a plot
collapses. If we accept such vast lies and/or suppressions, then anything at
all could have happened.” Many people seem to want more complexity to the
ending. But in psychotherapy there’s a saying, “sometimes a cigar is just a
cigar.” Is it possible that the obvious ending is the ending? Or is the point
that there is no “real’ ending, obvious or otherwise – only “the sense of an
ending.” Did Barnes want the reader NOT to have the “sense of an ending” so
that we question the sense of the book in its entirety.
The mystery of Adrian’s formulae (P. 94) and some mathematical determinations (from various posts on Blackman’s blog):
The mystery of Adrian’s formulae (P. 94) and some mathematical determinations (from various posts on Blackman’s blog):
b = s – v x/+ a1
a2 + v + a1 X s =b
Assume that: a1 = Adrian, v = Veronica, a2
= Anthony (Tony), b = baby, s = Sarah)
First
equation:
Tony and Veronica had a good relationship (+), but Adrian
and Sarah had a passionate relationship (x) and a baby resulted.
Adrian1 says relationships that don’t work
should have minus or division signs, which means that Sarah plus Adrian1
had a baby. Veronica does not count since she has minus sign.
Adrian’s letter says an entirely successful relationship
can be represented by both addition and multiplication, therefore implying that
the baby is a result of Sarah getting in the way of an entirely successful
relationship between Veronica and Adrian (A1).
It’s about the chain of responsibility, with obvious
multiplication (reproduction) occurring between A1 & s.
The baby is Adrian and Sarah’s.
a1 and a2 in the equations are
Anthony and Adrian. But assuming “x” represents a passionate relationship, and
“+” a platonic relationship, and “–“ a troubled relationship, then it is clear
a1 had a physical relationship with Sarah, but who exactly is a1
-- Tony or Adrian?
Second
Equation
Sarah and Veronica had a bad relationship (-) and Adrian
and Veronica had a semi-passionate relationship (x/+). A baby resulted from the
bad relationship between Sarah and Veronica because Sarah got in the middle of
the budding relationship between Adrian and Veronica.
Adrian is trying to express his relationships without
including Tony. Maybe he is conveying that his relationship with Veronica would
have driven him to Sarah because he felt better with her.
Veronica lost the mystery (the “x”). Adrian2 is
the baby, which is also “b.” So b with Adrian2 disappears from the
second equation and what is left translates to “Veronica plus Adrian1
combined with Sarah equals 0,” a relationship that was doomed, did not work,
and lead to death.
The baby is Adrian’s. At the end of the book, Anthony
actually says that the second “a” (presumably this means a2) is
himself, and a1 is Adrian (multiplied with s, which is presumably
representing his consummation with Sarah).
TuesDAY, July 05, 2011
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HEAVEN OR HELL? READING THE SHACK AND MUSINGS ON RELIGION
AND CHRISTIAN FICTION
by Donna
The Shack, by William P. Young, was our book group selection a few months ago. Because I am an atheist, I protested its addition to our list of books – reading a novel about God didn’t seem like my idea of fun. But when a friend (not a member of the book group) said this book would lead to an interesting discussion, I voted to include it on the reading list.I’ll start my review on a positive note. Although a little disconcerting, it was a nice idea to try to break our stereotypes of how we picture God and Jesus. As for the Holy Ghost, really, does anyone have an idea of what that’s supposed to look like? Papa actually takes the time to explain to Mack that personifying himself as a female would prevent Mack’s negative feelings about his father from clouding their interactions. The funniest thing about this portrayal was when Papa broke into Ebonics, just like a regular homey from the hood!
Another thing that stuck me as interesting is that the doctrine presented by Papa is not really in line with the most dogmatic religions, specifically Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity. Papa represents Christianity as being open to debate and even encouraging it, saying there shouldn’t be any laws (P. 205) and we should live free and give up our rights (P. 139). Hierarchies are bad since you need rules and law enforcement, which in turn destroy one’s relationship with the Trinity. The Holy Trinity is a circle of relationship, not a chain of command (P. 124-125), so all we need is God’s love and everyone should live as one (isn’t that a John Lennon song?). No wonder religious readers called this book sacrilegious! The biggest issue with all of Papa’s ramblings is that they seem kind of contrary to the Ten Commandments, which are pretty clear that the rules must be followed or else! But there is one thing (and only one thing) that Papa said that I do agree with whole-heartedly – that religion, politics, and economics are the man-made trinity of terrors that ravage the earth (P. 181). Sad but true these days.
Now for the critical analysis.There are three things that really drove me crazy: the endless discussions about suffering, the annoying argument that our screwed up world is man’s fault, and the incessant doublespeak.
First, suffering. Papa repeatedly tells Mack that even though God is all-powerful and that he loves all humans, he could have saved Missy but didn’t because it’s beyond our understanding (P. 224) but we should love him anyway. Poor Missy was just SOL. Mack is expected to take solace in the fact that the Holy Trinity comforted Missy on the way to her own murder – how thoughtful! To make us feel better about all of this, we’re supposed to take solice in the fact that Jesus on the cross is God’s answer to man’s shortcomings because the way of the cross is love. And that makes Mack feel much better.Boy, is Mack easily satisfied!
Next, the fault of man. The circular reasoning is that humans are evil and there is nothing God can do about it. Papa tells Mack that since He doesn’t orchestrate tragedies (P. 187) it’s not his fault that Missy died. So, let me get this straight:
God is not responsible for any of the tragedies that happen even though he allows them to happen. According to Papa, the reason for this lack of responsibility on His part is that even though God is completely unlimited and lives in a state of perpetual satisfaction, a condition that man was supposed to share in, Adam screwed it all up with the apple debacle (P. 101). Everything God created was good but it was ravaged by the path of independence that has led humans to drag everything down and turn it bad (P. 134). My question is this: If God wanted to share the perfection, then why did His Almighty Self let Adam mess it up in the first place? If, as God claims, man was created in God’s image, why is humanity so flawed and un-god-like? I remember – it’s all because of the Eden scandal! Seems like someone is shirking their responsibility in all of this death and destruction.
Finally, doublespeak, similar to George Orwell’s concept of doublethink, in which someone deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning words. Sound like a familiar occurrence in this book? The discussions between Mack and the Trinity, which wavered back and forth between the sublime and the ridiculous, were so convoluted or incomprehensible you couldn’t figure out what the point was. Let me give you a few examples:
- P. 103 – I am one God and I am three persons and each of the three is fully and entirely one.
- P. 127 – God’s purpose versus man’s purpose suggests there are a million reasons to allow pain and suffering which can only be understood within each person’s story.
- P. 192 – The consequences of people’s choices (evil, bad things) must exist for love to exist.
- P. 200 – Smart people with the right answers are wrong if don’t have the Holy Ghost. The bottom line is that nothing is answered but, once again, we’re supposed to believe anyway. Then there were the times that the writing was just absurd, with countless examples of what I like to call “trite-isms”:
- P. 97 – The truth will set you free, the truth is Jesus, and freedom happens in relationship with Jesus.
- P. 122 – God doesn’t need to dole out punishment – sin is its own punishment.
- P. 145 – Man has fear because we don’t believe.
- P. 179 – The pearly gates are a picture of Jesus and the woman he loves. His bride is the church.
Despite the kitschy bantering between Papa and Mack, and the warm fuzzy feeling we’re meant to have, there were a couple of things that really clashed (P. 127, P. 208) with my worldview. Papa repeatedly points out to Mack that He “knows everything about us.” Mack suggests this implies predestiny and asks where the freedom is to make choices. Papa skirts the issue by saying that we (humans) need to see how it all ends to understand (P. 127). Mack then asks if this implies that the end justifies the means. According to Papa, the answer is not because God’s goodness redeems us. I’m sorry, but this is dodging the question with more doublespeak!So, the moral of the story is that hierarchies and laws are bad for us as humans but God loves us no matter how screwed up we get, but we aren’t really in control of our own destiny but it’s ok that God let’s all the bad stuff happen to us because we’ll be happy in the end. Suffice it to say that I’m not really on board with this type of evangelical witnessing.
As far as I’m concerned, this story about a shack is an allegory, like the Wizard of Oz or Alice in Wonderland, or like the creation myths of Native Americans or Hindus. Having studied the anthropology of religion, it’s clear that all cultures have creation myths. Some of them are more inclusive; some are more divisive or war-like. The Bible, on which The Shack is based, is simply another creation story, with lots of pain, suffering, and hell and damnation. The attempt at breaking stereotypes with the different faces of God becomes pointless since so many other aspects of the story, such as the surrounding mountainside and especially the garden where Mack encounters Missy, are straight out of Disneyworld and Fantasia, which is how we’re supposed to picture the afterlife.
The one thing I don’t understand after reading the book is the author’s own apparent lack of conviction in his beliefs. His ending is a huge cop-out – having Mack awaken from a coma during which he dreamed the whole Holy Trinity encounter. It seems that if Young truly believed, he wouldn’t have taken the usual route; he would have written it as if the meeting with the Trinity had actually happened. Wouldn’t that have been a stronger testimonial to his own belief that God is truly almighty? I also find it peculiar that the author says on his website that he wrote this book to deal with his own personal “life losses and obliterated dreams.” However, he never says what those losses were or what his own “terrible shame” and grief is about? A bit cagey and evasive, no?
When looking for reviews of this book, I discovered that the few that were critical did not question the dogma and the end of days rhetoric but instead focused on how it was poorly written. Sure, the author took liberties with the English language, using nouns as verbs (i.e., careered, purposed). Yes, it’s extremely redundant after a point and the endless doublespeak is just annoying. No, it doesn’t fall into the same category of literature as Shakespeare or Zola. But there seems to be a much larger shortcoming – nothing is answered but we’re expected to believe, blindly and unquestioningly. A recurring them you’ve noticed by now, I’m sure.
In the end (not as in Armageddon or Revelations), it turns out I should have gone with my first instinct not to agree to the selection of the book for our group. It was hell reading it – pun very much intended! Contrary to what you might think, it has nothing to do being an atheist. It’s because it’s a cross between the Wonderful Word of Disney (where flowers bloom bigger and stars shine brighter), a graduate level class in German Philosophy (which tends to be incomprehensible), and George Orwell’s vision of the future (where doublethink rules). The only disparaging review I found at Amazon.com echoed my sentiments quite well. The reviewer found the scenarios so ridiculous that “suspending one’s belief is not worth effort” and “the book so childish that no educated person would take it seriously.” His take on the “suffering” issue is concise and right on target – God saying that He is there for victims of the most horrible suffering does not answer the original question of why he permits suffering in first place. I agree with him when he says this issue is not to be taken lightly since it’s at the root of people’s non-belief. The Shack only succeeded in reinforcing my belief that religion, particularly the monotheistic ones, is not good for humankind. It did not make me believe, which I’m sure is what the author intended with his proselytizing, but confirmed that Christianity does not have the answers. No religion does. And so I will remain an atheist.
Disclaimer - The ranting and raving in this review are not intended to represent the views of the Zodiac Book Group. In fact, the comments contained herein are actually much more radical, left wing, Marxist, feminist, socialist that anyone in the group would probably put forth.
Q & A
Every month before we meet, I go online to find a reading group guide. When I did that for The Shack, I discovered something interesting – there were none available from my usual sources, which include publishing houses and websites designed especially for reading groups. I had expected there to be many because this book is so contentious. However, the only ones I could find were from religious sites, with all of the questions based on the premise that everyone believes in God, that everyone has faith. Why weren’t there any that had a more secular and critical perspective questioning the religious dogma presented in the book or that challenging the insistence on blind faith? In the interests of providing a more neutral point of view, here is my reading group guide for The Shack. Some of the questions are secularized versions of the religious guides, some are from our group discussion, and some of them are from the mind of an atheist. Discuss and enjoy!
- How does the use of Willie’s voice aid or hinder the telling of Mack’s story? Is he necessary?
- What reasons are given for personifying Papa as a robust African American woman and the Holy Ghost as a waifish Asian woman? Why did the author portray Jesus as a Middle Eastern, middle-aged man, which is what he was? Did you find this representation of the Trinity helpful?
- Papa seems to be advocating for lawlessness and universalism and against institutions. How do these views fit in with traditional Christian beliefs and dogma?
- Numerous critics consider the book to be deeply subversive, scripturally incorrect, and a misrepresentation of the nature of God. Why have so many religious critics condemned the book as heresy? What do you think of the way in which religion is portrayed in the book?
- Why did God let Missy die? If, as Papa tells Mack, he only wants us to be happy, why is there so much evil in the world? Do you think The Shack answers the central question of why God lets humankind suffer if he’s such a benevolent deity? Were you satisfied with God’s answers to Mack about suffering?
- Why did Mack decide to return the shack when it was the source of his Great Sadness?What is the meaning of the shack?
- What were some of the things the book says about God, faith, and life that you agree ordisagree with?
- How would this story be different if Mack was of another faith? Would the central themes be altered? Who would he have met in the shack? How would Mack have resolved his pain if he had been an atheist?
- Do you think Mack killed his father? What do you think about Mack’s reconciliation with his father? Why is Mack’s forgiveness of the killer important in the story?
- Do you feel your beliefs changed in any way after reading this book? Did reading it help you to better understand another person’s religious beliefs?
- What do you think about the ending of the book? Is it too unimaginative and stale? Did Mack’s encounter with Papa really happen or was it a dream? What about the fact that he knew where to find Missy’s body? Who wrote the note, signed by “Papa,” telling Mack to go to the shack?
- The author’s religious convictions are obviously very strong. Why then does he use such a clichéd ending, with Mack awakening from a coma-induced dream sustained in an accident before his encounter with God? Isn’t this dodging the question of whether God really exists? If the author is a true believer, why not write the encounter as if it really happened.
Publishers take notice. If someone loves to read, they don’t need a banner on the cover announcing the author’s brilliance. So, stop with the misguided awards and just publish good reading material. Bibliophiles will prove my point by making you richer!
Here’s what I really think of all of the books that are being classified as “Literary Masterpieces” and that win awards based on an unknown grading system that deems a work of fiction “literary” as opposed to just plain, old good writing.
Over the 10 years we’ve been meeting, we read some fantastic books and of course, some not so great books. I don’t think we’ve ever had unanimous agreement on the merits of a particular book: there’s always someone who thinks a story was poorly told or someone thinks something was the best book ever written. But we’ve certainly been enthusiastic, perhaps me more than others! I’ve never hesitated to say how much I hated a book. But I generally base my opinion on how a book made me feel, if I liked the characters, and if I was sorry to see the story end. I have cared about whether the book I’m about to read has won some hoity toity award.
Now, our group has never chosen books based on how many copies have been sold, whether they’ve made the best seller list, how much Oprah liked it (or didn’t), or what awards they won. This last bit is the important part – there are just some books out there that have done so but should not be winning any awards, for anything, no matter what! You know the type I mean. They’re about “sensitive” subjects like terrorism, war, slavery, plague and pestilence, immigrants who’ve endured much hardship, troubled children, troubled adults, etc, etc, etc. And then there are the prestigious awards themselves, some of which we’ve heard about and some of which we haven’t: the Nobel Prize for Literature, the Pulitzer Prize, the Mann Booker Award, the Pen/Faulkner Award, the National Book Award, the Mountain and Plains Booksellers Association Regional Book Award. Got you with that last one, didn’t I, but I didn’t make that it up. And I’m sure there are plenty more that absolutely no one has heard of, probably not even the winners.
Unfortunately, after 10 years, it was inevitable that some of our picks were award winners. And sadly, those tend to be my least favorite, and often, some of my most hated. It’s not that I disliked the subject matter or most of them. As an anthropologist (well, sort of), I’m all for reading and learning about different things, times, peoples, and cultures. But come on! A dirty old man who has a torrid “love affair” with 14-year old girl (Love n the Time of Cholera); a morbidly obese, flatulent egomaniac who masturbates excessively (A Confederacy of Dunces); a 15-year old shipwreck survivor who graphically details his experiences with predation (The Life of Pi). You get the idea.
My point is this: Shakespeare (much as I am loathe to read him because of my Catholic schooling), Dickens, Balzac – those were literary giants whose work should be read and remembered for all time. However, something does not automatically qualify as a literary masterpiece just because the topic is controversial or the author has an unusual personal background. On the other hand, there are plenty of authors out there who produce gripping and engaging works of fiction but are never held in the same high regard as the “geniuses” who manage to nab the fancy prizes. For example, Sydney Sheldon (admit it), Patricia Cornwell (even if they are gross), Robert Ludlum (love a spy thriller). Although I’m not sure if these particular writers have actually won awards (I was too lazy to check), I know they are really great writers and usually they are consistent over time. The geniuses tend to blaze brightly for a book or two then fade into obscurity, or worse, produce something so bad that everyone has to admit it’s a flop.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of the Zodiac Book Group (although I know some of you agree) nor are they meant to disparage the sensitive subject matter, people, or tragedies that have been the subject of so many award-winning books. They are strictly the rant of a middle-aged, fairly well-read, ex-pat Canadian who finally found a forum for her outlandish, and sometimes, politically incorrect views on life and literature.
