In the handout that I gave you John Updike is called "one of America's greatest living writers". Well, unfortunately he passed away this last January.In the Beauty of Lilies follows four generations of a family as they wrestle with faith and fame and trying to find their respective places in American Society. It's the longest of our summer reading selections, but don't worry. I'll be reading it with you (for, I believe, the third time).
The writing is not that difficult, and the plot moves right along -- but the characters and the dilemmas they face make this worth the time.
I just started reading the last section of the book, the one about Clark. So far, I have felt a rather strong disconnect from the first section (due to my lack of knowledge about the Bible and of the feeling of having and losing faith), but I really connected with the second and third sections, mainly because of the time periods in which the characters lived. John Updike uses a lot of description, which I think really helps hook the reader, as well as keeps the reader informed of the goings-on in the characters' lives as well as their time in history.
ReplyDelete-Adison Fontaine
I just finished the third section of this book. I agree with Adison about the first section. It was difficult to for me to keep focus during this section because it involved religion and faith, which I also lack knowledge about and have little interest in. I found the second and third sections much more interesting and easy to relate to. Both characters featured in these sections went through the stage of adolescence, therefore I found them easy to relate to. Although I feel the book was difficult to get into at first, I now find it more interesting.
ReplyDelete-Devin Feeney
I've only just started this book but one thing I've noticed is that Updike's detailed descriptive style paints very vivid portraits of the characters and the time period in which they live. The novel seems to be more focused on doing this than developing a storyline.
ReplyDelete-Mary Duffy
I just finished the second section and agree with the other posts that it was definitely less difficult to get through than the first section. I like all of the little historical references that Updike uses- he really puts you in that time period. I recognize so many of them from history class last year. I think it would be a really difficult read if I didn't have background knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThis book is definitely not one of my favorites because I find it really hard to focus on. Like many of my peers have said in previous comments on this page, I found the first section with Clarence very, very frustrating to read because there was almost so much detail to a point where I couldn't find the plot anymore. Having a book open like that definitely discourages the reader to continue on in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI didn't give up, and am now just about to start the 3rd section with Essie and Alma. It has gotten better, but still has many parts that tend to lag. I do agree with Mary's previous comment on how the little historical references are interesting- it is like a flashback from junior year U.S. history class. Its nice because I understand a lot of the references, but Mary is also right in saying that if we didn't have the background knowledge, this would make the book even more confusing.
I'll make a comment again once I finish the book.
-Ali Hoyt
While I agree that the first section of the novel is the most boring of the four chapters, personally I found this section to be the most meaningful. Although I am not an atheist, I share some of Clarence's disillusionment with religion. I can relate to the sense of futility that seeps in once you start to question your faith.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest problem with religion is what I like to call the "selfishness paradox". The driving force of Christianity is that if you do good deeds, you will go to heaven. If a boy helps an old lady cross the street as a "good deed", he is only doing so for the self satisfaction of helping others and to hopefully go to heaven someday. The idea that the boy genuinely cares about the old lady is an illusion. Thus, good deeds are essentially selfish deeds in disguise. Similarly, for Clarence religion seemed too hypocritical, a manifestation of the rich and power-hungry like Mr. Dearholt. Although these aren't necessarily positive insights, I feel that they are necessary. Religion cannot have a foundation of ignorance. If we can find the answers to these paradoxes, we can establish a stronger faith.
-Will H
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone that this book had its interesting parts and boring parts. I also see how this book would be very difficult for someone who doesn’t have a great knowledge of American history or religion. Since I have studied American history, I appreciated the historical references Updike made throughout the novel. Although this book was definitely very different from the other novels I have read in the past, I feel that it had many strong themes.
ReplyDeleteClarence questions what many people question at some point in their life: faith. He wonders if there are truly powers stronger than the human race. He also questions what he truly believes in and everything he has been taught. The information Clarence seeks will plague the human mind for generations to come.
Clark also questions faith but at a different level. He becomes deeply involved with Jesse and his followers at the Temple. He follows Jesse and the beliefs that are held by the members of the Temple, but he can’t help questioning some of their actions based on their beliefs. He seems to be upset about the polygamy that plagues the Temple. Jesse is father to at least 12 of the 17 children at the Temple. Clark also questions the Temple’s use of firearms and how they are used. He doesn’t think it is right for the men to shoot the school bus or the officers who arrive at the courtyard of the Temple. Over time, the anger Clark has about some of the beliefs the Temple holds finally reaches a boiling point. He shoots Jesse and tells the women and children to escape. For a long time Clark questioned what was right, and in the end he finally decided on what he thought was right. He saved many women and children by his brave action.
Although the book seemed to take a long time to read and some parts were difficult to get through, I believe the book conveyed many powerful messages on difficult topics.
-Lauren McNickle
Being pretty much one of the only people who have written here with a strong faith and had a good sense of American history, i did get a lot of references throughout the novel. Nonetheless i disliked this novel immensly. I felt that this plot had such potential of being an excellent story but the very extreme detail in this novel just got annoying. I would read a paragraph and need to take a break at some points. I like the way that it has four different POVs but i just couldnt take the detail amount. This was without a doubt, in my opinion, the worst of the three novels.
ReplyDeleteI am having a really hard time getting through the first section of this book. I have never enjoyed reading about people in this time period. I don't know why. On the bright side, I love how descriptive Updike is when it comes to the characters' surroundings. I might end up skipping the whole first section or skimming it, to be honest, because it just feels like a chore reading it. From what everyone else here is saying, I think I'll enjoy the next sections more.
ReplyDeleteOops, the above is by Leah Vitello. :)
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was interesting that the novel began with Clarence losing his religion and ended with his great-grandson Clark finding his. Of course, the circumstances and consequences were totally different.
ReplyDelete- Mary Duffy
I am struggling through the first section as well. I am finding it hard to relate to, not because of the religious content, but because of the characters and the writing style. It is difficult to find the plot hidden beneath the exorbitant amount of detail. I do like how this book goes deeper into a more mature and difficult subject. Religion is complex and some are turned off merely by the sound of the word, but I think faith is a part of each of our lives, and exposure to it is crucial. Clarence is at a much more advanced stage in his faith than most of us, and that makes this first section difficult to follow and hard to relate to. I am not sure what to look for yet in terms of important motifs/themes/patterns/plots/turning points...
ReplyDelete- Olivia Gray
I am in the first section of the book and agree with almost everyone above, it is difficult to read because in the first pages of the book Clarence goes through a number of books I've never heard of to try to regain his faith and I feel very disconected with him at this point. But when I take away all the information Updike had already explained everything with needing to go into all those books.
ReplyDeleteI feel extremely sympathetic towards Clarence because he is forced, for a year, by Mr. Dearholt, his wife, and Dreaver to do something his strong moral fibers tell him he shouldn't do, preaching what he believes to be a lie.
I can't wait to get to the easier to read sections.
-Genevieve Senechal
Alright, I'm going to go ahead and agree with JP on this one. I feel like this book is so incredibly difficult to read.. and i've never really had problems reading long books before. I can only really sit down and read 3 or 4 pages at a time. As far as the plot goes... I'm having difficulty puting it together at times. For example, I'll be merrily reading when Updike will say something about Clarence giving a sermon, when I'm still in the mindset that he's sleeping. The transitions are not very obvious. I'm hoping that the second part will pick up, but right now I just can't get into it.
ReplyDelete-Kayla Dutton
I wish I could start a new trail and say I'm enjoying the story, but sadly, I'm also in the first section of the book and it's become very hard to focus on. Religion has never been something very interesting to me, so it's making Updike's book a tad difficult. However, after reading the above comments, there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. I'm interested in all the future historical references, since I am a history-lover myself.
ReplyDelete-Mindy Sharon
The ending of this novel didn't really enlighten my spirits anymore. I liked the second and third sections with Teddy and Essie the best, probably. The first and last sections with Clarence and Clark I really didn't like. To tell everyone the truth, the last section with Clark actually really disturbed me. I was on vacation in Block Island while reading it, and it kind of put a damper on the last day of my vacation because it was so disturbing. The very end just depressed me. I guess there was a tiny light at the end of the tunnel with some of the women and children getting out alive, but just the overall idea of the cult made me not like this book overall.
ReplyDeleteI do want to acknowledge the great descriptions of the time periods. The random facts sprinkled throughout the different sections is one aspect of the novel that I liked.
-Ali Hoyt
The length of this book really intimidated me, and now after reading into it I'm starting to notice how much detail the author uses. It's good in both aspects, bad and good. He really paints a vivid picture, which makes the book more enjoyable..however, he's also using so much description that I'm getting lost in the plot, and I find myself putting more effort into sifting through the material than actually enjoying the book. Hopefully I can break past his unique writing style and completely emerge myself in his work, instead of just simply reading.
ReplyDelete-Monica Loller
I pretty much agree with what most people have said so far: that in the beginnging, the length and content of this book made it seem very boring indeed. However, I thought it seemed reasonable that Updike made the story progressively more interesting each generation. Though something I noticed about all four of the main characters was that at the end of their lives none of them seemed happy. And considering how the first section of the book was centered around religion and Clarence's loss of faith, maybe this lack of faith was tied to the unhappiness of the characters. Because of Clarence, Teddy refused to practice religion and Essie was too involved with herself to try. And Clark did try, more like going with the flow of the Temple actually, but in the end he died because he was trying to change it. I think he was the only one of the four characters that seemed to think he had done something worthwhile at the end of his life.
ReplyDeleteAnd though I can't say that I enjoyed reading the first section of the book, I did find it fascinating to read the various beliefs and disbeliefs of Clarence regarding religion. It is interesting to me to hear various ideas.
-Erin Sullivan
I saved this book to read last and that has proved to be a bad decision. Im barely one hundred pages in so far and I agree with everyone that until now it has been boring. The description that Updike uses is extremely thick at points and causes me to lose focus. However, as I continue to read and understand the plot more and more I am begninning to see how Updike uses description to accentuate the story he is weaving.
ReplyDelete-Sal
I am only in the beginning so far, but the author really makes me want to learn more about the characters. I am curious as to the specifics of why Clarence's world view would so completely change so quickly. Although some reasons have been given, it appears as though there may be another deeper reason beneath the surface.
ReplyDelete-Benjamin Law
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found the first section painfully boring and tedious to read. All the same, I'm glad I read it. I agree with a few of the other posts that there was so much detail that I lost the plot at some points. I believe that this section set up the rest of the book well. It left me wondering if Clarence really ever believed, or if he pushed himself to believe because of his father. Also, why was a door-to-door salesman the job he chose afterwards? Did the job choose him as his only oportunity?
ReplyDeleteOnce I was past Clarence, the book became much more interesting to me. I liked the descriptions of where Teddy lived, though they were still lengthy. I also liked that I had seen a bit of him from his father's point of view, and could see his father from his point of view. I liked Teddy's character the most out of those in the book.
I liked how I could follow Essie through her life and career. I did not like some of the actions she took, and do not think some of them would be necessary in the business as she seems to think. For example, sleeping with that many people should not, and I believe is not, as accepted or important as Essie/Alma seems to think.
I foun Clark to be a bit more confusing than the previous two, mainly during the more religious parts. I do not think he should have joined up with Jesse, but I can see how the simplistic life would apeal to him after growing up seeing firsthand how much the modern world occupied his mother. I didn't like that he died at the end. (Sorry for the spoiler if anyone hasn't gotten there yet.) I felt his death was a good closing to this book, even though it continues for a while afterwards. This book began with one who had lost his faith, ended with one who found faith, of a sort, and had Teddy there to witness it all.
-Sydney Twarz
Like Lauren and Mary, I find all the historical references to be extremely interesting. While reading I was tring to put everything into a timeline. It was enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed like most of the characters in the novel were divided into two groups. There were the “strong” people like Essie, and there were the “weak” people like Teddy. The strong ones accomplished their goals despite the opinions of others. Essie accomplished her goals to become a movie star, but was ultimately unhappy and continually struggling to relive those dreams of her youth. The weak ones seemed shy and afraid to oppose the world in any way. Teddy didn’t accomplish anything incredible and faced many hardships in his early life but found himself a simple job that he seemed to enjoy. It’s difficult to say which group of people ended up as being better off by the end of the novel.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting characters was Clark. It was difficult to tell whether or not he was actually putting up a façade while he was a member of the Temple. I think he didn’t really agree with what was happening, but at the same time he didn’t disagree either. He didn’t really seem to have much of an opinion. At one point he says that he doesn’t want to shoot the policemen who aren’t shooting back but puts up little resistance and doesn’t seem to put much force into his thoughts. He seems to be a follower, doing what others are doing but never really thinking for himself. I do not believe that he was putting up an image for Jesse. I believe he simply didn’t think about the situation one way or another and yet proceeded by merely following the rash, thoughtless actions of others, without considering how they would affect him.
Julia Jacques
I agree that while this book was difficult to get into, it was well worth it in the end. For me, this was the most challenging book to finish, but the story it had to tell, in my opinion, was the best. It was extremely interesting to watch the element of faith transfer from one generation to the next. It is amazing how circumstances when one is young can dictate beliefs that person will hold much later in life. It is also interesting the effect others have on one individuals faith. In Teddy's case, his father quiting the church and ending up as a salesman was a deciding factor in Teddy's lack of faith. The book as a whole was fascinating.
ReplyDeleteThis was my least favorite book by far. I really struggled through the book and often found myself skimming rather than reading it. I couldn't stay focused for long. All of the details really made me lose interest, and the length of the book didn't help much. I also do not have much knowledge at all about the Bible and religion so I felt a strong disconnect there. I also am not a history fan at all so I really did not catch a lot of the history references and if I did I really did not know much or when the events were occuring so that didn't really help me either. I have to say that the book did get progressively better as it went on, but in the end it was not a book I really enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteAshley Engelbert
I'm still struggling through this book. After alot of careful consideration I've concluded that I'm not enjoying this book at all, because I am not focused in Updike's target audience. I think alot of my peers feel the same way. As a young student of limited spiritual and historical guidance and knowledge, I have a very difficult time following this book. However, after reading what my friends have written I think it's best to continue on and focus more on the characters and their development instead of the writing style and plot.
ReplyDelete-Monica Loller
I, along with Monica, am still struggling to finish this one. In my view, this book is very difficult to follow because of all the knowlege that I am lacking in the area of sprirtuality it discusses. Also the amount of detail that is put into everything makes it hard to follow. I look forward to reaching the second part of the book and see the progression as every one else has stated!
ReplyDeleteKate Werbner
I am just finishing the third section and like many others, I have to agree that this book was extremely difficult to get through due to the large amount of description. By far, I thought the character I could relate to the most was Essie in some aspects. I enjoyed seeing her grow through her young age and continue to set goals and dreams for herself, such as becoming a model, a singer, etc. It was so relatable to my younger years when I too set many goals for myself and ended up making the wrong decisions. She was able to grow from her mistakes making her a "strong person" like Julia said.
ReplyDeleteI did find that this book picked up through the end of the second and third sections. I couldn't help but thinking how much this book reminded me of Joy Luck Club and Girl in Hyacinth Blue where each section connects to each other in some way. I am hoping that the last section continues to pick up.
-Josh Hubert
This book was my least favorite out of the three. When reading this book I had to be alone in a completely silent room, or else I often found myself distracted. The first section was the hardest to get through because I have very little religious knowledge. I found myself skipping over many of the biblical references and quotations because I quite simply did not understand. Also, the extended vocabulary and description distracted me from what the story was actually saying.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Cady
I finished this book today. The first section was incredibly hard to get through, as I said before. I really enjoyed the second and third sections (Teddy and Essie). They were much more relatable and easier to understand. Clark's section though, really made me confused. All the biblical references confused me, even though I have a religion. It's just that I think so differently about my religion compared to Jesse Smith. Jesse believed that he was Jesus, and I kept thinking of how crazy and delusional this guy is while reading. I thought it was crazy how all these people believed him and allowed themselves to be brainwashed like this, only to either die or escape without a true religion to cling to. I also didn't like the ending, it was almost like it had no closure. It would have been better, more satisfying, to see it end in a different way. Overall, I did not enjoy this book, firstly, because of how much work it took to even get into it, and secondly, because it ended so abruptly. It was distracting and confusing.
ReplyDeleteI found Essie's section the best out of the four because I am a girl, therefore, I can relate to any girl character. I was intrigued by how she became very conceited and selfish over time, yet still incredibly driven to follow her dreams. I was sad when she became so into herself that she didn't really care about anything or anyone else except for herself and fame.
While it was very interesting to read about how different people are in different generations and how much the world has changed from 1910 to 1990, the book itself was a great struggle to read.
~Leah Vitello~
As with most people before the first section was most difficult to get through because of all the religion in it. Although I am religious it was still difficult for me to follow it and as with J.P. earlier I highly disliked this novel as I thought there were too many details making it too hard to get through. I often found myself distracted by little things and I had to take multiple naps on my way through this book.
ReplyDeleteThe character that I felt most connected to in this book was Essie as she never stopped setting goals for herself which is how I feel life needs to be. You can always do better and achieve your dreams.
-Jordan Bridge
This book was the biggest struggle for me. It was very difficult to stay focused while reading, and I constantly found myself lost in detail that seemed irrelevant. But like Monica said,I found it important to try and stay focused on the plot and characters rather than getting caught up on the details and references that I couldn't quite grasp.
ReplyDeleteOf the characters, I did find Essie to be the easiest to connect with. I enjoyed watching her grow as a person as the book progressed.
Although it wasn't my favorite of the assignments, I did find it easier to follow as I got further through the book.
I definitely had some difficulties reading this book. In the beginning, like many others, I couldn't connect with the character. At some points I became a bit confused and felt there were too many words being used to describe the story and I ended up getting lost in what was going on. As I read on the other sections became a little less challenging and relatable, but it was still not too exciting for me to read. There were many biblical references which caused some confusion for me. As most people have said the second and third sections were easier and I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteI think if I were to reread this book I would enjoy it a bit more. I liked the main idea of the book showing the lives through four generations and how there were many differences, but also some similarities, from generation to generation. Getting past some of the large vocabulary, references, and my own confusion could ultimately increase my fondness of the story a great deal.
Caitlin Commins
This book was tough to get through for me, but it was a good read. I enjoyed the conflict of a clergyman losing his faith in God. I've heard that Updike's Rabbit Run novels are fantastic, and i am looking forward to reading them when I am done with assigned reading. I believe that Updike is a tremendous writer, but I'm not sure I agree that he should be mentioned with the likes of Steinbeck and Fitzgerald.
ReplyDeleteI kind of have mixed feelings about this book.
ReplyDeleteI liked the book because it had a very "epic" feel. It felt like the book was taking you through American history through the eyes of everyday (or not so everyday is Essie's case) citizens. As I read through the book I found it easier to read, since most people our age can relate to closer time periods. I specifically liked Teddy and Clark's sections the most. I found myself wanting to see Teddy have success in life (like everyone else around him), and for Clark to be able to become his own person despite his mother and the Temple.
On the other hand, there were a few parts of the book I did not enjoy. I found the first section of the book to be quite grueling. It felt to me like the whole section was just the same thing happening over and over ("I'm losing my faith...I'm losing my faith..." etc etc). Although I found the conflict of Clarence losing his faith interesting, I think I could have appreciated it much more if I understood more of the biblical references. The other thing I did not like, as stated above multiple times, was the fact that the author seemed more focused on describing the setting of the book, rather than what was actually happening there.
Although this book was somewhat hard for me to get through, now that I am done with it I can say that in the end I enjoyed it.
Mitchell Cook
When I first started reading this book I did not enjoy it at all. I think this was because I am not a very religious person so all the biblical references did not mean that much to me. As I continued to read and the time and setting of the book changed, I started to enjoy it more. I liked that I could follow what period in time it was by events that happened and by the way the characters talked. I found this book to be sort of a challenging read. I say this because it had to be very quiet in order for me to concentrate. I also found it to be more time consuming than the other two books. What interested me most about the book though is that it shows two ways to live your life. You can sit back and just wait for the day you die or you can live every day to the fullest. The two sections that really show this were Teddy's and Essie/Alma's. So although it took awhile to get through I have to admit that the book was not as bad as I had first thought.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa May
This book was really hard for me to get into at first due to the fact that it relates to religion which is not something I am interested in. However, once I past the first section, I found that the rest of the book was much easier for me to read and enjoy. Also, it was difficult for me to read it at first because I was with a lot of other people most of the summer and didn't get a lot of quiet time. Updike's style of writing is hard to follow unless you can really focus, which was hard for me to do while reading this.
ReplyDeleteSarahBrittx3 = Sarah Day, sorry!
ReplyDeleteSince this book was the longest of the three I started reading it first. However, I got very discouraged and confused. The first hundred pages or so are very dry and uneventful. Updike uses so much description and elaboration, which takes away from the story itself. I often found myself rereading sentences and paragraphs, in the hopes of understanding the main idea.
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy the span of the generations and the families. This book is set up much like another book I have read, one that I really enjoyed. :)
I agree with what everyone has said so far, this book starts out boring and hard to read. But once you get over that and the first hundred pages it becomes enjoyable.
-Nicole Rubino
Once I finished the part of the book about Clarence, I felt as though the book got increasingly interesting throughout the book. I liked the way that similar to Enchanted Night it had many characters. But what I think made it even better was the way that all of these characters were related, and the story of one character had major direct influences on the story of another.
ReplyDelete-Benjamin Law
I was thinking again about Clarence and how he pretty much decided the fate of his family. He was actually quite selfish and I think that was a trait that was passed on down from generation to generation. He may have been faithless but he could've faked it. He still had all the knowledge and he still could've been a preacher but he didn't. he chose, for his own sake, to quit the life he had. And then his family suffered for it. they became poor and when he died he no longer had to deal with it, but they all did. He could've at least lived in stability if he had stayed a minister. And it's not like he was any happier either. Maybe it would've been wrong to be a minister with no faith, but everyone else believed in him, so why not survive. He had nothing else left. If he didn't believe in God or heaven or hell, why did he consider it morally wrong to preach as a faithless minister? He stil had something to offer. And this effected his son, and granddaughter, and great-grandson. Essie, as a movie star, was born with a spotlight on her and she soaked it up. She stepped on her friends and family to get where she wanted to be. She even says, "It was all so exciting to wake to every day she couldn't blame the other children for being jealous of her and calling her "stuck up." She wasn't stuck-up, she was just perfect and glad of it," (232). Though she was full of life and joy, she clearly was not a modest person, and as a mother to Clark, she was too focused on her career rather than her son. Not all of it was her fault: the business made her partly that way, but she grew up sheltered and spoiled too. I think it was a good beginning of the book to show Clarence's reaction in the face of adversity with his faith and how it effected his future relatives.
ReplyDelete-Erin Sullivan
I disagree with Erin, and I don't think it was selfish of Clarence to leave his ministry after he no longer had faith in God. He says that he thinks the people of the church are beginning to notice something was wrong even before he left the church. If he had stayed, then later had to leave after it was common knowledge he was faking his ministry, the people of the city may have mistrusted him so much that he would not even be able to make the meager living selling boooks that he did.
ReplyDelete-Benjamin Law
I agree with everyone else by saying that the first section was definetly hard, however as the book moved on I started to like it a little more. I also agree with Benjamin about Clarence by saying he wasn't selfish. I think that was his decision to make if he wanted to stay a preacher or not. Yes the family did sufer after that, but that was Clarence's decision to make. He lost his faith in God and I don't think it would have been right to make Clarence stay in the position he is in.
ReplyDeleteThis book was the most complex book we were asked to read this summer. In the end I really enjoyed seeing how the Wilmot family evolved and how each person had their own story, kind of like real life. My least favorite character was Essie/Alma because she was so selfish, I think that if she had given Clark a little more attention he would have known what to do with his life. It made me really dislike her when she was more concerned about Clark's effect on her than what was happening to him.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this book has many different relationships and events to focus on, and that each have enough information to investigate in depth.
-Genevieve Senechal
ReplyDeleteThe onset of this novel, although monotonous in nature, was highly intriguing. I found it to offer the premise in which personal thought can flourish. The topic of religion further promoted such inner thought, challenging the basis of ones own beliefs and ideals. Thus, I found myself questioning the faith of Christianity and the morals which enable it to survive. I will admit such disillusionment only varnishes the ability to maintain faith. It is the unquestionable following of an ideal which allows religion to survive. Once you dismiss its premise and highlight its inconsistencies a failure in faith is inevitable.
ReplyDelete-Derek deBoer
I also agree with what Ben just said, in fact, I think he may have saved some people from falling into the same trap that he did by leaving the ministry. Before he actually left people knew something was wrong, and if he kept his position his misery may have spread to other people.
ReplyDeleteMitchell Cook
I find that, like many of my other classmates, this book was of disappointment. I had higher expectations of Updike then what have been presented in the book. From the beginning I have found myself disconnected and slowly moving from the book, I do not believe this book shares the same sense of connection to which the others posses. I found myself rather off put by the amount of religious struggle Clarence encountered , for I myself have yet to have such a dilemma. I do wish Updike had not spent so much time detailing every single thing in which he could. However I do believe the book becomes a bit less dry as it progresses. I found myself far more inclined to feel for Teddy or Essie than I ever was for Clarence. I did, however, enjoy the historical references made throughout the book as I am a big history fan. I do believe these references made the book a bit more enjoyable to me.
ReplyDelete-Alex Kops
I agree that Clarence's choice to leave his position at the church was not entirely selfish. Yes, it was a source of income for his family. But his family could not expect him to preach a "truth" that he does not even believe to be true. If the congregation found out that Clarence had lost his faith but kept preaching, maybe they would be disheartened and begin to question their own faith as well. It would break down the very core of the church. In that way, Clarence's decision to leave was better for the church.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I am repeating what everyone else has said but I felt this was a hard book to get through. I read it last which was a mistake. The first two were quick reads and easy to follow but the beginning of this book was way too much description and nothing really happened. I enjoyed learning about his family and it ended much better than it started.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell I have to agree with almost everyone in that this book was difficult to read. I had to reread many parts of it because I felt the plot didn't develop quickly enough in the beginning. The copious amount of detail proved to be distracting and just made it harder to focus on what exactly was going on in the book. The progression of the different characters was interesting, but thats about the only positive point I have regarding this book.
ReplyDeleteI feel like a broken record player at this point, because I'm just going to repeat what everybody else has already said: This book was a struggle and saving it for last was not the best decision. It's clear that I spoiled myself by reading the other books two first. Focusing became difficult with the intense amount of detail. Now that I am done, I can get back to my other reads!
ReplyDelete-Mindy Sharon
Like most others,the incredible detail used to describe events in this book can easily become confusing for me, but I still like the style and techniques Updike uses. The overall idea of one novel spanning four generations of one family is really cool and it was very interesting to aread through the few similarities and vast differences the various members of the family experienced. I found the entire book really overwhelming though and had a very hard time comprehending most of the novel. I will probably have to sit through it again to really understand the massive book, but that really isn't a bad thing.
ReplyDelete-George Day
Like many others this book was the most difficult to read for me. It was a struggle to get into and a struggle to finish and of the three pieces, this was my least favorite. While the detail was extrodinary, especially from Clarence's point of view and his revelation of there being no God, I found it overwhelming. It came to the point that the words blurred and I'd have to put the book down for a day and take it up again.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the only chapters made were the ones in difference in character added to my frustration. I am not ashamed to admit that it took me over two weeks to finish this book.
-Danielle Trice
I agree with many that this book was extremely difficult to read. The language, speech, and sheer length of the book made it impossible to finish. Not being able to personally relate to this book, and the slow pace at which this book went at made me quickly hate it. It is however, interesting to see a family's ups and downs through the twentieth century. I have wondered about the earlier life of my parents, grandparents, etc. and to get a look inside a family's head through eighty years of time is very unique to this book. Out of the three, I definitely disliked this the most.
ReplyDeletetobitrue is Taroob Cheema
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of you that this novel was definitely the most difficult to read. There was an immense amount of description and I found it to be too wordy to be clear and easy to focus on. The first section was difficult to get through, but I did understand Clarence's disconnection with his religion.
ReplyDeleteThe book progressed faster as I continued to read, and it was easier to connect with characters living in a more current time period. I cannot say I particularly enjoyed this book, but the author's high level of figurative language and description was interesting to me at times.
-Taylor Staiger.
I think it weird that my last post is the book I understood the least, even though they say save the best for last. Trying to start this book was tough, when every page seemed to hold some obscure religious reference, that seemed important, but without any knowledge about them, it became harder.
ReplyDeleteI must admit though the other sections were not as bad as the first. But it was sort of sad, to see the eager bright-eyed Essie, become that stuffy movie star. To see her go after her goals was good, but to see all she had changed was pretty sad.
Clark at the end though, was probably the highlight. His being able to overcome the teachings of the Temple, which is difficult if anyone has ever heard stories of those types of cults and sects, is true strength. He did fall, pretty far and pretty completely, but when the lives of the women and children mattered, he made the decision that counted. It is also odd how the author has Essie go back to her faith when she hears of Clarks situation. Her prayer to god to save him, might not have saved his life but it saved his morality and integrity in the end.
Alex Lavernoich
At first glance of this book, I was very intimidated by the length. As most people have already said, this book was hard to follow. It contained so many details that I found myself lost and unable to find the point that Updike was trying to make. Although I was somewhat able to follow the religious references that were made, I have to admit that those along with the historical references confused me at times. I found myself losing focus while reading and not comprehending what I was reading. I enjoyed both A Moon for the Misbegotten and Enchanted Night but did not enjoy this book at all.
ReplyDeleteKrissy Karlson
I've been sitting here trying to think of something original or intelligent to say about this book, but I have come to the conclusion that I feel the same way about it as the majority of everyone else does. I found that it was hard to keep myself interested in this book and also could not really relate to it. I had to reread much of it multiple times because I found myself spacing out more than paying attention to it. I hope others had an easier time staying focused that I did!
ReplyDelete-Miranda Bassage
Professor: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
ReplyDeleteStudent : Yes, sir.
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student : Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student : Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student :Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student : No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student : From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student :Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student : No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student : No , sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
ReplyDeleteProf: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student : No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.
Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
okay so I'm not religious, but I really liked this little argument. I think the student is wicked smart, by the way :)
ReplyDeleteIt's a scrap from a web blog. obviously, I'm not trying to take credit for writing it. I just can't find the web link, but I'll gladly explain how you get there if you really want to know.
The book was obviously about American life and how it has changed over the past century- or at least the way the author sees it. I think it's really hard to connect because the author tries to provide the introspective views of the characters, and honestly, I think he over did it a tiny bit. Nevertheless, I suppose it's better than not giving enough and ruining the book. It gives the book a character as a whole, and depending on personal preference, he or she may like it.
The central theme that runs through the book seems to be religious, thus my little scrap above. The book starts with losing religion and ends with gaining religion. Perhaps the author sees the power of church coming back as America enters the 21st century- or maybe he might even argue that I never went away. For me, I think it's really a touchy subject and with too much evidence on both sides, it's too touchy of a subject.
Overall, not my favorite, but definitely a thinker.
I also liked how this book really shows people make decisions for themselves. With Clarence changing jobs even though it put him out of one, Ted marrying Emily when his aunt and mother where against it, that Essie choose to be a model/actor and made it in New York City, and Jared went against what Jesse told him to do and it cost him his life. Even though I don't agree with what everyone did I still liked that they fought for what they believed in, or had a goal on went for it.
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing the book I began to realize though it was not my favorite it definatly made me think alot. Whether it was because I had to re-read alot to actually know what I was reading or because something that I was reading actually interested me i'm not really sure but when the book ended I found myself pleased with the book. The way the characters fought to have the life they wanted to live and fought for their dreams was great, and it was the part of the book that I enjoyed the most.
ReplyDeleteThe connections over the generations in the family was very cool to see. It was neat to see how one family can have so many different stories and such different lives but ultimatly connected.
This book made my question what I believe and what I have been taught on the subject of religion and it therefore is a book that while very difficult to read ended up being one I am glad I did read.
Kate Werbner
I have noticed many people have different opinions on Clarence's choice to leave his congregation. I admit that such an action is selfish, yet it warrants itself commendable. It takes a highly poised and self confident being to not falter under disdain. It can be argued that in leaving he would hurt those around him, but you are only able to give when your position in life is stable. Without self preservation one cannot give. If Clarence stayed at his post he would inhibit the progression of his followers. The absence of happiness within ones employment is only hurtful. Essentially, I believe that individualism and the accession of ones own being is a necessity and should come before the act of giving. For if you do not have anything to give, how can you give. This concept can be applied both metaphysically and to the physical reality that is life. I speak more towards the physical (money) and ones objective in a career path.
ReplyDeleteThe real world portrays such an idea daily. The wealthy and stable give to charity and volunteer their time. Yet, the poor cannot give their time for they are the ones who need the help of the wealthy and upper class (trickle down theory). I suppose one can still give in the sense of emotions, but that in not completely relevant to Clarence’s circumstances.
-Derek deBoer
I also think that Clark demonstrated the same type of courage as Derek mentioned with Clarence, but in a completely opposite direction. Clarence had to have courage and the self confidence to live with himself after withdrawing from the church, while Clark had to have the strength in order to commit to the lifestyle of the temple. Both of the characters came under intense scrutiny, but were undoubtedly honest in their personal pursuit for happiness. Their honesty with themselves and with others regardless of their circumstances adds a great deal to the reader's perception of character. In the beginning of both sections one could make the claim that Clarence and Clark are indeed being selfish, but as the section progresses, it is apparent that there is a deeper meaning driving the characters actions. Clarence wants to live a life as truthfully and honestly as he can, and Clark wants to live in a society where he has true worth. Tthe two characters both face a grim ending, but both died for something greater than themselves. Clarence's grim and rather miserable ending served to give his family the best life he could while still maintaining his honesty. Clark's ending was to save the innocent lives of the closest thing he ever had to a family. In the end Clarence and Clark both died for a noble cause.
ReplyDelete--Kelsey Arnet
I agree with everyone that this book was not the easiest to read or a book we would have chosen to read. I do feel however, that the characters in the book represent all of us at some point in our lives.
ReplyDeleteClarence represents all human beings. Everyone questions how we came to be and what lies waiting for us when we die.
Teddy represents the pressure we all receive as human beings. We all put pressure upon ourselves to be successful, and the people who care about us put pressure on us as well. Sometimes this pressure can be good, and other times it can drive us crazy.
Essie represents us who strive for our goals. At some point in everyone's life they hope to achieve a goal. Many people go to extreme means to achieve these goals, just like Essie devoted her life to her goals and her career.
Clark represents all of us who question who we are and what we believe in. He is confused due to the pressure around him. Many times in our lives we don't know what to do because we are pressured by others.
All of us can relate to the characters in this book. At some point in our lives, we have all questioned our faith, been pressured by others, strove for goals, and questioned who we are. I feel this book can be read universally due to the characters, and the personalities they all represent.
This was an insight full book , showing well the stages of life, however the slow and painful begining is more then enough encouragement for many to just put the book down and never come back to it. The ministers depression and lose of faith is a horrible opening for what became a rather good book, i think he would have been better off rought in at the end and not the begining to show the final stage of life death when you grow old and begin to think more about what lays after. Its hard for the book to open that sadly, then recover into happier tones without out seeming to "flip floppy" it loses alot of its meaning in the transition
ReplyDeleteI found this novel was without a doubt the most difficult to read as many have said before me. I found myself losing focus quite often especially in the beginning chapter. However, the novel did improve as it progressed. I began to impreciate John Updike's use of very descriptive detail. He was able to paint a very clear picture of many scenes to me. I also found that I was able to relate and understand the characters more as the novel went on.
ReplyDelete-Kyle Sprague
I found this book to be slightly difficult in the beginning. I am not very familiar with alot of the religious terms and passages that were used in the the first chapter, Clarence. I liked how each character had their own inner conflicts, yet they were all connected with their personal view on God. I found Teddy's chapter to be the most interesting, not because of how exciting or intense his story was, but because his problems were so relateable. In general, I thought this book was insightful and one of the better books I've had to read over past summers.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Putira
ReplyDeleteI was reading everyone's posts and I came across Derek's post which brings up the idea of the difference between weathy and poor. Poor cannot give much while wealthy can because they... after all... have something to give. That's why they're rich.
ReplyDeleteOf course, one may not agree with this statement and go on and on about how poor people can have something that's not based only on money and all the materialistic things that rich people often are portrayed to be lacking. But that's not really the point here. Poor people really don't have the freedom of accessing differnt parts and resources in their lives because they are too busy trying to survive. Mmm, but what about the rich people? I'll talk about this later...
Also, the idea that people need to know who they are before giving is interesting as well. How can you give something if you don't know what you have to give. I certainly agree with this, since otherwise it's almost impossible to give something.
But I'm not sure if I agree with Derek's statement combined- people should understand themselves before giving and after understanding, it's usually the rich that have anything to give. In financial context as Derek mentions, many business around the world are now focusing on the idea of Empowerment. It basically flips the heiarchical pyramid upside down and put the employee at top and the employers at the bottom. How can employers who lack in numbers in comparison to their employees truly ever have complete control over their business? It's simply impossible. When these employee are stressed to their limit, they will uprise. This can be proven through the beginning of French Revolution and Chaos Theory in applied economics and fractal mathematical theory. Both certainly stress the fact that these lower-chain people have more power than the upper people.
ReplyDeleteConsequently, how can people of higher standings have less to give than the people of lower standings? Yes, I'm referring to lower and upper class as a whole and it might seem unfair to compare the two that are not compared by individuals. BUT, these individuals' social status in created relatively. Financially speaking, rich does not exist without poor and visa verse. Of course you may say that most of the middle class people feel as if they are part of the upper class and they act as if they are one. However, deep down, many of them feel as if they are one with lower class and partly belong in that class. Therefore, these numbers ultimately exist in a significant amount so that it divides the class partly biased towards lower class and the other toward upper class. Then, you theoretically have two classes in the society split evenly. These lower class people and lower class biased people therefore must have the same resources their upper class counter parts.
As I previously mentioned, lower class people do have less opportunities because they are too busy feeding themselves. However, what about the rich people? Within the society, they belong to a status group often referred to as upper class. In reference to studies done related to sociology, these upper class people must spend more money than lower class people in order to "do things that are worthy" of their class. Thus in proportion to their financial wealth, the amount of money they spend in daily lives are equal to what lower class people spend. Therefore, the truth wealth must be measured in terms of the resources availble to both classes in order to make sure that the effect that upper class individual or lower class individual has on the society by their "giving" is only relavent in terms of what changes it bring as a whole as opposed to in relationship to what the other class may provide. As stated previously, the resources provided to both upper class and lower class is the same.
ReplyDeleteThis leaves me to say that both upper class and lower class people can contribute equally. They are too inter-related to say that one is superior over the other financially. The reason why trickle down theory hasn't really worked is because rich people aren't really rich anymore compared to how they used to live. They want to be rich again, but now they are spending less than what they used to. However, the amount they are spending is still a lot more than what the poor people need. Basically, trickle down theory only supports the fact that the two classes contribute equally for the society and each other.
I'd have to say that out of all the books, this one was my favorite. One of my favorite elements about this book was that it started with Clarence in at the beginning of the 1900's and went through generation after generation all the way to the end of the 20th century. The difference in generations was really interesting and a very neat idea on the writers part. Most people said that their least favorite character was Clarence. If I was to rate whom I enjoyed the least I would have to agree. However, I did enjoy Clarence's chapter. Although the biblical references honestly went right over my head, I found it almost fascinating the idea of losing religion. It was such a mix of character vs. society and character vs. self that led very interesting debate inside of Clarence's mind. I have always been torn between sides when it comes to religious debates. I personally have no idea what to believe. This section was very insightful. Science vs. Belief...it has been a topic debated since the beginning of science but I dont think I have ever seen the debate go on inside a persons mind through a book. It was definitly the most thought provoking part of the story for me. Clark was also a very interesting character. I thought it interesting how the book started with religion and ended with religion. Through one man, a family loses their faith, but through another man of that same family, they gain it back. It becomes a full circle effect. One of the most enjoyable parts of the book for me was to see each character develop and change even after their section is over. In Teddy's chapter, you see a little bit of Clarence, in Esie's chapter, a little bit of Teddy, and in Clarks chapter, Esie and Teddy. It was neat to see each one in a different light as background characters while another is the main character.
ReplyDeleteCori Huschle