Hmmm.
I really enjoyed Will Weaver's writing, and I found Paul to be a very fully realized character whose journey is compelling. Yet this book sits uneasily with me, and I know it's because a thread of faith runs through it that I don't share. Is it possible that I cannot read a book suffused with religious belief without becoming uncomfortable? Is it because it's a contemporary book that I otherwise identify with in many ways? I am saddened by my difficulty with this book, and I think it comes from external sources. I feel uncomfortable with the direction religious conservatism is taking this country at the moment, and that's filtering through to my experience with "Full Service," which I don't think would have made me so uneasy if I'd read it several years ago. It's the same feeling I get when I see the American flag on bumperstickers -- it's a symbol that's become corrupted and that I can't perceive on its own terms anymore, at least not without some difficulty.
More soon. Would love to hear from religious book club members.
Edited to add: Honestly, I liked this book so much, especially because at first it seemed like it wasn't going anywhere, and I adored how specific and detailed Paul's observations of people and cars and things were, even when (in the case of mechanics and car parts) I couldn't visualize what he was saying. I was very impressed with how restrained and yet rich the writing was. And yet, at the end, I found myself just -- I don't know, hoping he would come to a different conclusion. I don't know why. I think it says much more about me than about the book, which is very intelligent and interesting. Stupid Reader Response experience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Yeah, what she said. I loved the writing, the structure, and the tone of this book. I loved how Paul would simply present the situation without judging the other characters. I'm surprised the Faith didn't bother me so much, but I think that's because it was presented more as a culture than as a doctrine.
People of the Faith wear simple clothes and farm. They attend services on Sunday in Paul's house. They read the bible and they say grace. There's nothing about spreading the faith or whether they're allowed to use birth control or what they think of gays. It's more like, "We're Canadian. We like ice hockey and snowmobiles," and Paul is simply choosing snowmobiles over drag racing. He chose the culture in which he grew up over the culture of the town.
But WHY did he choose it? Simple, he didn't feel good about himself when he was the cigar-smokin', girl-kissin', gas-pumpin' rebel, and it appeared to be a binary decision. He wasn't going to leave town and create a new option, so he was stuck choosing between the Faith and the rebel, and he liked the Faith better.
I, too, would like to hear opinions from religious hedgehogs.
From what I read, Paul did NOT choose to get confirmed in the Faith -- he sat down after seeing Mary's forced march up to the front.
This book didn't make me uncomfortable at all -- except the really far-out hippies. Makes us environmentalists look nuts, man.
Interesting that you both think a so-called religious person would have a decidedly different reaction to this story (at the same time indicating you are not religious). What sort of religious person are you talking about? Buddhist? Pagan? Jewish? Taoist? Catholic? Mennonite? Atheist?
This book spoke to me more on the conflicts of the 60s (did you notice all the saluting?) and how the world is a'changing. Paul's mother has the foresight to send him into town, to see the different people and ways of life, all so he can make his own decisions. He decides not to be confirmed, (for now at least) but I don't see him blandly going back to work on the farm. He's got three years of high school left and he'll still be listening to rock music, smoking the occasional cigarette and kissing the ladies. College? Vietnam?
On the negative side, I found some parts predictable -- the Mr. Shell bit, you just knew that was coming. Also obvious that the hippies would stay at their farm and the arranged sex adventure would not happen. I also thought the barber's tantrum got over the top with him writing in shaving cream. Yes, he's upset, but that was too melodramatic.
Paul's descriptions of the people who came to the station were among my favorite parts of the book. That and the gansters.
(I think religious is the wrong word, sorry. I just mean someone who believes in God. Or a higher power.) And I know Paul chose not to be confirmed, I'm talking about his renewed faith at the end of the book that God, or a higher power, really exists.
M, what conclusion did you want Paul to come to?
I think I wanted him to wonder whether there is anything out there watching, loving, hoping for us. But I also think that is partly a projection.
(Cross-post kiss! Mwah!)
P.S. I felt like Mr. Shell was supposed to be a symbol of that higher power watching and rewarding us if we are good, and I really didn't like that.
P.P.S. Again, it was hard for me to admit to my discomfort and I honestly think it's my problem, not necessarily the book's.
I didn't get that he decided not to be confirmed. I thought that was written ambiguously or I missed something while I was reading.
I think I'm interested in the opinion of anyone who has consciously chosen to have faith (defined as a belief in the absence evidence). I want to know if their interpretation of the book is any different than mine (the culture thing). I might be editing out the religion.
M - funny; I saw Mr. Shell as a crappy and predictable gimmick. Of course he's going to come and of course Paul is going to mess up.
Your take is interesting, though, because he failed Mr. Shell...that puts another aspect into the whole not joining the Faith thing. Hm.
Wow, interesting dialogue. Like Erica, I also didn't think he didn't get confirmed. I had to read it a couple times (and I don't have my book at work right now), but I thought it said he stood up to get confirmed, blah blah blah, all the way to the baptism in the lake, and then he's going back to talk about Mary Contrary's forced and bitter confirmation. I read it that he actually did it, but he saw how forced Mary was. I know you can read it like he was about to do it, all the way to the baptism, but he sat down after seeing Mary, but I didn't read it that way. Maybe I didn't want to.
I guess I liked this book. I really liked Paul, and I thought his journey was real. I thought it was a little amusing that his mother is so open and wants him to meet the public, and then it goes way further than she wanted. And it almost turns out that it maybe wasn't worth it. I mean, of course he should make his own decisions and be exposed to everything, especially in a small town like that, but I don't think I'd want my kid drinking and smoking and skimming off the till and fooling around with girls before he was ready. And he didn't seem ready to me. He was doing most of it because it was offered, because it was there, but I felt like he was following more than finding his own lead. But it is worth it, his job at the station, because he learns to make his own decisions and tests himself and his boundaries.
I suppose I'm what you're calling a "religious hedgehog" in that I believe in God, but I thought what Erica said about it being more of a culture than a doctrine was spot on. It didn't make me too uncomfortable, but maybe that's because I really liked the mother and what she was trying to do for Paul. I thought it was nice that Paul came "home" in the end. It was like all along he had been forced to believe in God and all the other stuff, but in the end he believed in it for himself. He found it on his own, not because he was supposed to. And I think he'll still be a little rebellious -- he smoked a cigar (probably stolen) at the gas station on his last night, and I don't think it was his last.
Okay, I admit it. I wanted him to succeed with Mr. Shell. He had been so good up to that point -- even in all his rebel behavior, he still was smart and friendly and polite -- and I wanted him to be rewarded, I guess. I don't think of Mr. Shell as representing a higher being. I guess he's more of a gimmick, and I was surprised when he actually showed up.
Hmmm. Now as I'm thinking about everything, I think I might be insulted that there is this new category of "religious hedgehog." I definitely can see that a "religious" person may feel differently about certain books that deal with religion (a different level of comfort, etc.), but I didn't find this book as focused on religion per se. I think I take offense that someone might think that just because I believe in God means that I believe in their Faith and that all God-based religions are basically the same. I think believing in God is more of a spirituality, anyway.
I can't really say anything about the Faith at all, because we really didn't find out much about the religious aspects of their beliefs. They had a sense of community. Okay, fine. They read the Bible. Check. They didn't believe in drinking and smoking. Yup. Pretty standard stuff, although perhaps a little more strict than other religions. I guess maybe I'm surprised that some people (just Meera?) were uncomfortable with the religion when we really didn't find out anything about it except some usual Christian-like things. As Erica said, it was more a culture than a doctrine.
I think now I'm rambling in circles.
Page 225:
"Once standing, I felt the same tide, like an undertow, draw me toward the aisle, the straight and narrow pathway to the front, to the smiling preachers, and, afterward, baptism in the river. Then I saw Mary Contrary. Head down, plodding resolutely toward the front, she passed me obliviously, her face streaming bitter, defeated tears. And I sat down."
This entire scene takes place in the building; they do not leave. Paul refers to the tide pulling him, and where that tide would take him if he follows it: to the preachers and then the river. Mary's "plodding resolutely toward the front" -- the front of the hall. Then Paul sits down. In the hall. He has not moved.
I also don't think a "religious person" would have a much different response to Full Service. Personal experience is not a prerequisite for understanding someone else's situation, especially when a skilled writer holds the pen.
The only "religious person" I could imagine having a problem with parts of this book is a close-minded individual who finds forms of worship other than their own offensive or, in Paul's refusal of confirmation, tags him a bad seed and an inappropriate example for YAs.
I wasn't brave enough to say anything before, but my initial comment to Meera's and Erica's posts was very angry -- the version posted took me half an hour to compose and tone down, and this was after walking away at first because I didn't want to flame anyone. The expected response: Hi, I'm Sarah and I'm a lapsed Catholic and this is what I think about this book. I'm Other, isn't that quaint and different?
Odd, because I didn't think religion was a crucial part of the book; it was more about decisions and growing up -- at least for me, but then again, I'm religious.
Yes, I know no one is trying to be offensive and I'm overreacting.
Of course we weren't intending to offend. To clarify, I was interested as your opinion as someone with spirituality or experience in the rite that Paul went through (accepting his faith). I wanted to know if I was missing part of the book by not having experienced anything like that. Also, I wanted to find out if someone whose life includes spirituality would find the book to be more about faith than I found it.
You've both answered those questions clearly, and it's confirming my thoughts that the book wasn't about religion at all.
I think the author's choice of faith-- the rare(?) and strictly orthodox Faith-- was intended to be foreign to the readers. I think he didn't want the religion to be familiar because he didn't want it to be about religion, but rather he wanted the religious rite to more tangibly represent Paul growing up, becoming a "man" and actively choosing the direction of his life.
I have a lot to digest now, and I'm eager to see what I think about everything in the morning.
But I actually logged on tonight (I'm supposed to be in bed) because I got home and reread the confirmation part of the book and now see that it probably can only be read one way: that he chose not to be confirmed. I was at first reading it that he sat down at the very end, when he had gone through the whole rite, but now I see that he was visualizing where the draw would take him, and then he chose against it. And then I got on here and Sarah clarified it again. Thank you.
It doesn't change my opinion, though. It almost makes me more glad -- that he didn't accept his faith when he was supposed to, but he did it on his own time (even though I think the camp was part of what helped "turn him around," make him realize that he did believe in his Faith). The camp was kind of the starting point for him, but he needed to do it on his own. And it's not like he's going to shun everything from his "past life," from the things he did and learned over the summer. I think you can be religious and spiritual and still be "rebellious." That is, still be creative and have a mind of your own and make your own decisions and make and follow your own path.
I knew that I might be liable to offend when I made my initial post, and I think I should have waited to write about my own emotional response because I wasn't clear about my questions or my invitation, and I apologize for that. I shouldn't have used the phrase "religious Hedgehog" as if it were a catchall term and implied a particular mindset. That's not what I meant at all.
I did want to hear from people who shared Paul's belief in a higher power (regardless of what shape that power takes), because it's something I don't myself feel or necessarily understand very well. I wasn't expecting a specific response from anyone who believes in God, but I was curious about where my personal reaction came from and I wanted to compare it to someone else's mostly because I already suspected that I was exploring my own prejudices.
If I expected anything from the "religious Hedgehogs" I invited to speak, it was precisely what I got -- a more measured, contemplative response that widened the scope of the book and didn't focus on the theme of religious belief.
I never meant to be insulting. I just knew that my own reading of the book was narrowed by my experience and ideas and I wanted help in expanding it. You've given that help, so thank you.
Post a Comment