May / Irving Reading: 'A Prayer For Owen Meany'

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-29-2007, 11:05 PM
Janine

Virgil, This is not going to be easy to answer. We are not critiquing a Lawrence book here or an Dostoevsky or a Tolstoy. I am one to hardly ever read contemporary literature. I felt this book was hard to stick with, but usually when I start a book I don't abandon it - I persist until it is over with. So let's look at exactly what you wrote below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, what exactly made this a good book? The sparkling prose? :sick:

Ok, who says we have to have sparkling prose in this book? I think the book had it's own type charm, wit and humor, and yes, intelligence.

Quote:

The insightful characters? Except for the mother they were all borderline cartoons. You mention the father: All I kept thinking was Arthur Dimmesdale from The Scarlet Letter except without the depth.

Last one is really funny :lol:...Arthur Dimmesdale? - never thought of him. I don't know if you can go as far as saying the characters were 'cartoons' - that sounds a bit harsh. Real people do have their quirks and their ecentricities. Maybe you could call them cartoons. I really did not think I liked the depiction of the family in Arizona, that did seem a bit extreme, and biased as well; and I kept thinking the kid who pulled the pin on the grenade was just too extreme and also who would have let him wander around an airport? I felt the ending was a bit shaky.

Quote:

Owen Meany? Oh, we all know such Christ figures. Actually he seems more of an alien from outer space. :alien: Johnny? :yawnb:

Who knows maybe Owen Meany was an alien. Yes, Christ figures are not that uncommon but maybe he was not that at all but believed he was from what his parents told him. That whole story could have been untrue - I tended to believe it was and not a miracle - afterall the mother was semi-retarded or slow. I think Owen took that knowledge and believed he was there for a reason. I don't even think he did feel he was the real Christ child. He did not act all that Christlike at times - maybe that was the idea Irving was trying to get across - that really he was only human even if he was insightful, perceptive, smart and had faith. I think Johnny was opposite Owen for a reason. Owen was a leader and Johnny a follower.

Quote:

So if it didn't have Sparkling prose or insightful characters then it must have great themes. What themes?

I see the main themes as 'accepting ones fate and living accordingly, also 'faith' and 'believing that all things happen for a reason'. I also, I see 'friendship' as a big part of the theme of the book and being faithful to your friend.

Quote:

Religious cliches (I don't think Dostoevsky or Tolstoy have to worry a challenger here for religious depth) and erections as symbols for adolescence.

Maybe there were some religious cliches but it really did not bother me. As far as the erections were concerned, I did not know they were meant to tie in with the religious themes. I just thought them written as a natural part of boyhood and growing up and life. I did not look on that part of the book as too significant. Maybe you are putting too much emphasis into their having to have deep meaning. At times I did find them irksome and out of place, being a bit overdone.

Quote:

The sixties as loss of American innocence - how any times have you heard that? So what was so original about Irving's treatment of it? What exactly did he have to say about the Vietnam war that wasn't a cliche? Soldiers as baby killers? How original.

I would like others to answer this. I really don't know what to say. Again do we have to put huge significance on this loss of innocence that is mixed in with the country's loss of innocense.

Quote:

And what about the insults to Catholcism? What was that all about?

I did not particularly like this aspect of the book either. I don't know what that was all about and I was shocked the priest would so readily forgive Owen for defacing the Mary statue. Also, I thought there was a big story about Owen's parents and the Catholic Chruch really being horrible to them. I did not connect this but maybe I should go back and read the part when Johnny is told about Owen's birth and how the parents went to their church or priest about it. I can't recall now what was said exactly concerning the Catholics. If they did tell them Owen was born from a virgin birth no church would probably have believed them seeing how lame-minded the mother was, the father not much better.

Quote:

And treatment of poor people in Arizona as some crazy rednecks? I happen to know people in Yuma Arizona and while they may not all be well off they are not single and pregnant and throw around grenades. In fact Irving seems to strive for the lowest characterization of any group he doesn't seem to like. Where was any hint of complexity of life? I frankly don't think he has the skill to portray complexity.

This I agree on to some extend. I think he would have done better to have less characters and less extreme ones - then they would have appeared more real and human. The book was too long and too many character sketches to have full complexity of each.

Quote:

So what Owen died a hero? It was just tugging at heartstrings. I've seen many a cowboy or war movie where the hero dies valiantly in the end. And we all cry. But that's not how you judge the work.

This might be true, but this guy Owen Meany killed Johnny's mother and that is how the whole story got started. In a way Owen's death was justified in his going where the mother had gone...supposidly Heaven. His fate met up with her's eventually. How else could the book end, if Owen were not to die a hero, more importantly in a sacrifice of his life to save others. He knew it was to be from the time he saw the image of his gravestone with the dates, then the recurring dream. So, the story was a bit fantastical, if you care to view it that way, some may say it was a miracle and some pure fantasy. It really does not matter as long as the basic ideas come across.

Hope all of this makes sense - but if not everyone is entitled to his/her opinion on whether the book was good or bad and whether it touched something personal for you or left you cold. I liked the book but would not call it the best book I have read. I am not even sure I will venture to read another Irving book in the future, but I don't regret reading this one.
05-30-2007, 02:53 AM
SleepyWitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Who knows maybe Owen Meany was an alien. Yes, Christ figures are not that uncommon but maybe he was not that at all but believed he was from what his parents told him. That whole story could have been untrue - I tended to believe it was and not a miracle - afterall the mother was semi-retarded or slow. I think Owen took that knowledge and believed he was there for a reason. I don't even think he did feel he was the real Christ child. He did not act all that Christlike at times - maybe that was the idea Irving was trying to get across - that really he was only human even if he was insightful, perceptive, smart and had faith. I think Johnny was opposite Owen for a reason. Owen was a leader and Johnny a follower.

spot on, Janine. Irving once said in an interview that Johnny is so fascinated with Owen, he believes every word Owen says. But maybe he's just taken in by his friend's religious babble.
Irving seems to argue that Johnny is not a reliable narrator.
well, to be honest, the first time I read the book, I was taken in by Owen, too and I don't like the idea of forcing myself to disbelief Johnny.
05-30-2007, 08:02 AM
Virgil

If Johnny is an unreliable narrator, what would the point be? That would really baffle me altogether. That means I couldn't trust anything about Owen, so what would be his significance?
05-30-2007, 08:13 AM
SleepyWitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

If Johnny is an unreliable narrator, what would the point be? That would really baffle me altogether. That means I couldn't trust anything about Owen, so what would be his significance?

yep, that's exactly why i don't like this idea altogether... why read 500 pages just to learn that Johnny is unreliable and none of what he's told us is "true"?
what's more, there's no way an unsuspecting reader like innocent little Sleepy could figure out that Johnny is supposed to be unreliable
05-30-2007, 06:27 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

yep, that's exactly why i don't like this idea altogether... why read 500 pages just to learn that Johnny is unreliable and none of what he's told us is "true"?
what's more, there's no way an unsuspecting reader like innocent little Sleepy could figure out that Johnny is supposed to be unreliable

Sleepywitch, that is good. Yes, why would Irving think we would be dupped into reading that many pages, if Johnny was unreliable? Perhaps Irving merely meant that Johnny was human and all humans color their stories with their own opinions and therefore the 'truth' we are hearing might not be 100% the 'truth', in actuality. Even Johnny is 'wishy-washy' at times (often in fact) about what is happening to Owen or what Owen confesses to be true. He seems to listen, but not always believe totally what Owen is saying, as they are growing up. He never has a great deal of faith about finding his own father, as Owen does. So when Johnny hears the 'virgin birth' story why would he believe it a miracle. In fact Johnny reasons it out thinking it is not a miracle but an outrage to tell a young child this story at a formative age.

Johnny is always more practical minded and Owen is more idealistic. Johnny therefore is looking throught Johnny's "practical-minded' eyes. I truly think this is Irving's full intention in using Johnny to tell the story. In this way he would be somewhat like we would be - sceptical of miracles and of what Owen tells him. Isn't Johnny convinced, till the very death of Owen, that Owen's dream was only that, a "dream", and that Owen's vision of the tombstone also could be explained in earthly terms. I think this makes it more feasible by pitting Johnny's own non-faith next to Owen's supreme faith.

An interesting thought came to me - if Owen's birth were a figment of the imagination of his parents, and not a true miracle; say his mother got pregnant without realising it - it has happened before - then Owen would be so much like Johnny - not knowing who his real father was. It never dawned on me, but both of them would be living with stepfathers. It is an odd thought.
05-31-2007, 05:06 AM
SleepyWitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Sleepywitch, that is good. Yes, why would Irving think we would be dupped into reading that many pages, if Johnny was unreliable? Perhaps Irving merely meant that Johnny was human and all humans color their stories with their own opinions and therefore the 'truth' we are hearing might not be 100% the 'truth', in actuality. Even Johnny is 'wishy-washy' at times (often in fact) about what is happening to Owen or what Owen confesses to be true. He seems to listen, but not always believe totally what Owen is saying, as they are growing up. He never has a great deal of faith about finding his own father, as Owen does. So when Johnny hears the 'virgin birth' story why would he believe it a miracle. In fact Johnny reasons it out thinking it is not a miracle but an outrage to tell a young child this story at a formative age.

Johnny is always more practical minded and Owen is more idealistic. Johnny therefore is looking throught Johnny's "practical-minded' eyes. I truly think this is Irving's full intention in using Johnny to tell the story. In this way he would be somewhat like we would be - sceptical of miracles and of what Owen tells him. Isn't Johnny convinced, till the very death of Owen, that Owen's dream was only that, a "dream", and that Owen's vision of the tombstone also could be explained in earthly terms. I think this makes it more feasible by pitting Johnny's own non-faith next to Owen's supreme faith.

An interesting thought came to me - if Owen's birth were a figment of the imagination of his parents, and not a true miracle; say his mother got pregnant without realising it - it has happened before - then Owen would be so much like Johnny - not knowing who his real father was. It never dawned on me, but both of them would be living with stepfathers. It is an odd thought.

or maybe Owen's "father" is his real, biological father after all, but the parents didn't have sex ed seeing as they come from a Catholic background and they just didn't realize that what they were doing was having sex and that sex can lead to pregnancy??? it doesn't even take a stepfather....

maybe the underlying question is meant to be something like: even if Owen's birth was NOT a miracle (Virgin birth), couldn't he still do miracles (like seeing visions and saving those children)???
--> by analogy: was Jesus' birth really a miraculous virgin birth or was he a normal human like any Tom, Dick and Harry, but he could do miracles anyway??? this would be really provocative and somehow I don't think that's what Irving intended, but who knows?
05-31-2007, 06:56 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

or maybe Owen's "father" is his real, biological father after all, but the parents didn't have sex ed seeing as they come from a Catholic background and they just didn't realize that what they were doing was having sex and that sex can lead to pregnancy??? it doesn't even take a stepfather....

Sex leads to pregnancy?? :confused:You mean this is what I've been doing wrong all these years. :confused: :lol: I didn't know Catholics don't know how babies are made. :lol: Judging by how large traditional Catholic families are I would venture to guess this isn't true.
05-31-2007, 07:03 AM
SleepyWitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Sex leads to pregnancy?? :confused:You mean this is what I've been doing wrong all these years. :confused: :lol: I didn't know Catholics don't know how babies are made. :lol: Judging by how large traditional Catholic families are I would venture to guess this isn't true.

oh come on, Uncle Virg, you know what I mean :)
i wasn't talking about you... my own relatives include the worst kind of back-in-the-woods Catholics and they seriously didn't know how it works, because their families where so uptight they never explained the story about the birds and the bees to their children
05-31-2007, 08:03 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

oh come on, Uncle Virg, you know what I mean :)
i wasn't talking about you... my own relatives include the worst kind of back-in-the-woods Catholics and they seriously didn't know how it works, because their families where so uptight they never explained the story about the birds and the bees to their children

:lol: I find it hard to believe that any adult doesn't know how babies are made. :p They may not know the biology of it all, but they certainly know the mechanics of how. Even animals don't need to be taught how to do it. It tends to come naturally. And even "back-of-the-woods" people have animals that they see mate, don't they? This is an old wive's tale. And why only Catholics? I've known lots of Protestants who very religious and uptight about sex.
05-31-2007, 08:24 AM
SleepyWitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

:lol: I find it hard to believe that any adult doesn't know how babies are made. :p They may not know the biology of it all, but they certainly know the mechanics of how. Even animals don't need to be taught how to do it. It tends to come naturally. And even "back-of-the-woods" people have animals that they see mate, don't they? This is an old wive's tale. And why only Catholics? I've known lots of Protestants who very religious and uptight about sex.

heheh :) yep me too.. but we have different kinds of Protestants over here.. I think in the U.S. you get some Puritan-style Protestants who are just as conservative and uptight as Catholics are often said to be... over here, we don't really have the Puritan kind of Protestants except in some pockets in the south west. So our Catholics are the German equivalent to your "Puritans" as far as sex is concerned (dancing, idleness and taking sick leave to go on holidays is a different matter)....
hehe, what I'm driving at is that it's a common cliché about Catholics that they don't know about contraception (in reality most of them know about it of course, but are against it).
so Owen's mother might be one of those Catholics who don't even know about contraception and the biology of reproduction whereas her body didn't catch on to the fact that it's supposed to either abstain or reproduce on purpose... :D
05-31-2007, 08:26 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

heheh :) yep me too.. but we have different kinds of Protestants over here.. I think in the U.S. you get some Puritan-style Protestants who are just as conservative and uptight as Catholics are often said to be... over here, we don't really have the Puritan kind of Protestants except in some pockets in the south west. So our Catholics are the German equivalent to your "Puritans" as far as sex is concerned (dancing, idleness and taking sick leave to go on holidays is a different matter)....
hehe, what I'm driving at is that it's a common cliché about Catholics that they don't know about contraception (in reality most of them know about it of course, but are against it).
so Owen's mother might be one of those Catholics who don't even know about contraception and the biology of reproduction whereas her body didn't catch on to the fact that it's supposed to either abstain or reproduce on purpose... :D

Hahahaha. This was a hilarious bit of dialogue between us. I guess i have nothing more to add. :lol:
05-31-2007, 01:11 PM
SleepyWitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Hahahaha. This was a hilarious bit of dialogue between us. I guess i have nothing more to add. :lol:

hehe, have you never heard of the standard rural-Catholic mating procedure? it goes like this:
1. two people date; one of them is engaged to another person, but never mind
2. they have sex; the woman pretends she's on the pill, but she's not
3. the woman gets pregnant
4. the man has to break up his engagement with the other girl and marry her
5. the child is born prematurely 6 months after the wedding, but it's plump and healthy
6. "A miracle, hallelujah" aren't we all glad the little bugger is so big and fat after only 6 months?

at least that's how my aunt did it...

well, this was slightly off-topic...
back on topic: do you think Irving intended to critize Catholicism as harshly as my original post would imply?
05-31-2007, 03:02 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

hehe, have you never heard of the standard rural-Catholic mating procedure? it goes like this:
1. two people date; one of them is engaged to another person, but never mind
2. they have sex; the woman pretends she's on the pill, but she's not
3. the woman gets pregnant
4. the man has to break up his engagement with the other girl and marry her
5. the child is born prematurely 6 months after the wedding, but it's plump and healthy
6. "A miracle, hallelujah" aren't we all glad the little bugger is so big and fat after only 6 months?

at least that's how my aunt did it...

:lol: :lol: She got the guy she wanted, I guess. Did the marriage at least work out?

Quote:

well, this was slightly off-topic...
back on topic: do you think Irving intended to critize Catholicism as harshly as my original post would imply?

I don't know what to make of Irving's harshness to Catholicism. Owen's rantings just don't seem to add up to a point. At least not one that I got. Why did he have to do that? I don't understand.
05-31-2007, 03:19 PM
Janine

Owen didn't have any siblings, right? Maybe the parents didn't know how to do it? Maybe they both are a little short in the 'brain' category?
At anyrate - that does seem doubtful, as Virgil has pointed out citing animal behavior. I really have enjoyed your (Virgil and Sleepwitch) conversation on reproduction. Very entertaining! Thanks -:lol: :lol: :lol:
05-31-2007, 03:31 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Owen didn't have any siblings, right? Maybe the parents didn't know how to do it? Maybe they both are a little short in the 'brain' category?
At anyrate - that does seem doubtful, as Virgil has pointed out citing animal behavior. I really have enjoyed your (Virgil and Sleepwitch) conversation on reproduction. Very entertaining! Thanks -:lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: Glad to add to any fun. :D I guess if any parents are now feel shy about talking about the birds and the bees to their children, they can send the little rascals to us and we'll teach them. :p Of course i don't actually have any children to prove I know what I'm talking about. ;)
05-31-2007, 03:42 PM
Janine

Virgil, Well, those last five posts or so I could not stop laughing. :lol: Thanks again for the entertainment! Well, I don't think we better venture into the field of teaching the 'birds and bees'. Do as I did with my kid; brought home some animal books from the library (I was using them for an art project); then found my young son seated in the middle of the living room floor intend on one; I wondered why he was so interested and later I discovered it was heavy on reproduction. I don't think after that, I had to do much explaining.

Yeah, maybe your the one who needs the education. :lol:
05-31-2007, 04:07 PM
SleepyWitch

my mum used to be a hippie and she had those little wooden dolls (about 2 inches tall). one of them had a hole and the other had a piece of string with a little bit of wood attached to it..... :D
my bro was around 4 and a half y/o when she showed them to us... I don't think he got it at that stage... :)
....
arrrgh, this is about 5 miles off topic...

I'll definitely have to re-read the book when I've got more time. there are so many aspects I didn't catch or have forgotten....
05-31-2007, 05:39 PM
Janine

Sleepywitch, yeah, we better stop - next thing you know we will get bumped to Live Chat or censored altogether. But for the record, I found your story quite humorous. I think I recall those dolls, I went to a hippie art college, but I always tell my friends, I was on the outskirts of being a real hippie. Guess I was a little bit square. Those were the days! In a way I related to things in OM, because of the time I grew up.
06-01-2007, 01:30 AM
Asa Adams

yay reading. Who doesnt love it! Pray for my students! Their exam starts on the 10th of june!!! Love you all!

Asa
06-01-2007, 03:23 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

yay reading. Who doesnt love it! Pray for my students! Their exam starts on the 10th of june!!! Love you all!

Asa

Hi Asa, We will pray they all get A's.....as in Asa..... we have missed you greatly! Glad you are back.
06-02-2007, 08:24 AM
Schokokeks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

The sparkling prose? :sick:

Would you mind clarifying this ? :) Maybe with an example of a contemporary of Irving writing 'sparkling prose', in your opinion ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Owen Meany? Oh, we all know such Christ figures.

Well, I don't know about you, but I did not. For me, rather than scrutinising the book for themes of depth already addressed by writers of centuries before (wasn't it Plato who said that everything has been said before ? :)), Owen for me was, amongst other things, more of an allegory of how we tend to underestimate children in their capacity of constructing a world for themselves and their ideas on the grown-ups'. In fact, the part I liked most was the description of the two boys' childhood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

The sixties as loss of American innocence - how any times have you heard that?

Again, not that often :). But maybe this is more interesting to me because I have not grown up and don't live in the United States, and my idea of these times results from reading history books about a foreign country only. For me, this literary treatment is a relatively new one.
Now that I think about it, I recall having read an interview with Irving where he holds the political issues in Owen Meany and World According to Garp (about feminism -> appealing, eh, Virgil ? ;)) as one of the reasons why these books of his were more successful outside the USA, where his readers were/are not that close in mind to these experiences.
06-02-2007, 08:43 AM
SleepyWitch

very good points, Schoko...
i find it interesting to read about growing up in the 50s and 60s (in the U.S.), too...
what I also like about Irving is how he makes every-day small town life seem so interesting and often gives it a weird twist. his characters tend to be regular people like you and me only they are a bit more bizarre.
so his characters are neither unusual, as in people you don't normally get to know (kings, queens, dukes, aliens, seductresses, vampires...) nor are they members of the work-go home-eat-sleep-work-die variety.
i like the idea of finding interesting aspects in everyday life
06-02-2007, 04:24 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

very good points, Schoko...
i find it interesting to read about growing up in the 50s and 60s (in the U.S.), too...
what I also like about Irving is how he makes every-day small town life seem so interesting and often gives it a weird twist. his characters tend to be regular people like you and me only they are a bit more bizarre.
so his characters are neither unusual, as in people you don't normally get to know (kings, queens, dukes, aliens, seductresses, vampires...) nor are they members of the work-go home-eat-sleep-work-die variety.
i like the idea of finding interesting aspects in everyday life

SleepyWitch, Curious to know, since you and Schokokeks are not from the US, what impression you got from this book about Americans? Also about the political atmostphere, and other aspects of American life here in the US, where I do live. By the way, I was a teenager/college student during this era of the Vietnam war and experienced all the political strife, assinations, war protests, etc.
I liked your last paragraph and I feel the same way. I agree with both your posts basically in answer to Virgil's comments. Sorry....Virg...:(
06-03-2007, 12:34 AM
Virgil

First Schoky I'm sorry I denigrated a novel I know you think a lot of. I knew my comments might upset you, but I felt I had to give my honest opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schokokeks

Would you mind clarifying this ? :) Maybe with an example of a contemporary of Irving writing 'sparkling prose', in your opinion ?

American contemporaries? I'm not up on all the contemporaries but Toni Morrison is not bad. John Updike and Philip Roth and Annie Proulx and Joyce Carol Oates are pretty good. I have a special love for the work of Cormac MacCarthy. A great read is All The Pretty Horses. There are others with good reputations but I have not read them so I can't vouch for it.

Quote:

Well, I don't know about you, but I did not. For me, rather than scrutinising the book for themes of depth already addressed by writers of centuries before (wasn't it Plato who said that everything has been said before ? :)), Owen for me was, amongst other things, more of an allegory of how we tend to underestimate children in their capacity of constructing a world for themselves and their ideas on the grown-ups'. In fact, the part I liked most was the description of the two boys' childhood.

There was a certain charm in the first three chapters. I felt the mother was very well drawn out as a full character. The very young Owen was also well characterized.

Quote:

Again, not that often :). But maybe this is more interesting to me because I have not grown up and don't live in the United States, and my idea of these times results from reading history books about a foreign country only. For me, this literary treatment is a relatively new one.

That may be, but frankly a lot of the novel felt like a TV movie. Be aware that a work of art is an approximation of one view of experience. I have met people who would argue against the 1950's as ideal and golden and others that the sixties were a period of radical upheaval. Real life is complex. At this point, without adding complexity to these common notions is to dwell on cliches. If I have to hear one more time that America lost its innocence with the Kennedy assination I'm going to vomit like Hester. A novel can withstand a cliche or so, but when I look through this and one sees the simplified view of the 50's, the 60s, religion, soldiers, and "rednecks." I'm sure Germans feel how simple to portray all WWWII era germans as nazis. It's become a cliche and we all know the reality is complex. Irving has simplified so many things here in a similar fashion that frankly it doesn't have depth.

On top of that, he stretches credulity over and over that one gives up on it. I think Hemingway once said a writer can always get a reader to believe in one extraordinary thing in a novel but beyond that the reader begins to question the realism. Well lets look at this. A series of wierd events leads to owen, who has hardly ever hit a baseball before, hitting a ball that strikes the mother of his best friend at just the right spot to kill her. OK that's one. Then there is the weirdness of Owen's body and character. Ok, then there is the fact that he's a precocious genius. Then there is the fact that he's more skilled at cutting stone at the age of 18 than his father. Then he's able to carry a statue to his school and bolt it down all by himself. Then he can stuff a basketball while being tossed in the air in three seconds. Then he sees his death. Then we learn he's of a virgin birth. Then it all coordinates into the reality of his dream. I wonder what Hemingway would say.

On top of that there is the two dimensionality of just about all the characters. His cousins as children reminded me of the simpsons cartoons. Does anyone really throw up as often as Hester? Louis Merril is an allegory, doubt. And so on.

So, hard to believe events, cliches for themes, and two dimensional characters. I'm sorry, average is the best I could give it.

Quote:

Now that I think about it, I recall having read an interview with Irving where he holds the political issues in Owen Meany and World According to Garp (about feminism -> appealing, eh, Virgil ? ;)) as one of the reasons why these books of his were more successful outside the USA, where his readers were/are not that close in mind to these experiences.

My complaints had nothing to do with the politics, even though Johhny's politics are I'm pretty sure Irving's politics. Perhaps that was part of Irving's mistake. All politics, whichever side, is a simplification to cliche. Perhaps Irving sees life as political cliche. Who knows.
06-03-2007, 12:12 PM
Schokokeks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

First Schoky I'm sorry I denigrated a novel I know you think a lot of. I knew my comments might upset you, but I felt I had to give my honest opinion.

Oh no, Virgil, you didn't. It's very gentlemanly of you to be so concerned, but I assure you there was no damage done :). It would not earn a writer much credit if his/her books didn't elicit different views on them, and not much credit to their readers if they didn't offer theirs :).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I'm sure Germans feel how simple to portray all WWWII era germans as nazis. It's become a cliche and we all know the reality is complex. Irving has simplified so many things here in a similar fashion that frankly it doesn't have depth.

Yes, I understand your argument. However, somehow these simplifications didn't bother me that much. While reading, I felt that the character of Owen is so extraordinary and so far beyond credibility that a sophisticated description of the complex and changing world around him would have been 'too much' in one book. It feels more balanced this way. For me, the politics, and to some extent also the other characters, were the portrait's background, and I didn't mind the colours to be less bright.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

American contemporaries?

I was thinking maybe you might have read Paul Auster. I mention him here as my exemplary postmodernist (I'm not very fond of literary theory and the classification into "periods" and "currents", but I will use the label "postmodernism" here in order to clarify my understanding of Owen and Irving).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

On top of that, he stretches credulity over and over that one gives up on it. I think Hemingway once said a writer can always get a reader to believe in one extraordinary thing in a novel but beyond that the reader begins to question the realism.

As far as I understand it (I've only been reading English for 6 years now, and I'm only 20, so I may err :)), that is exactly what the postmodernist wants the reader to do, to question the realism - or rather, the irrealism. I brought up Paul Auster because he's a vehement advocate of the idea that there is no such thing as coincidence. I think Owen uses the same words somewhere in the book. Everything has a purpose, Owen's strange bodily appearance, his voice, his ability to handle the stone cutting machines, ... According to the postmodernists, we, by having discarded the idea of connectedness, are lulled to an extent that once we find ourselves confronted with an extraordinary story (reality's complexity also does include these), it hits us with full force, and we tend to dismiss it as unreal.
The way I presented it now may shed a somewhat mystical or esoterical light on postmodernism, and of course the theory is more complex and elaborated than my abstract here. If I got anything wrong, somebody benevolent please correct me.

Maybe you would have like The Cider House Rules better, as it is far-fetched only at -some- points, but I guess there's not much chance of you ever reading an Irving book again ;). But diversity of opinion makes for good discussions, and one cannot like unexceptionally everything :nod:.
06-04-2007, 07:29 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schokokeks

I was thinking maybe you might have read Paul Auster. I mention him here as my exemplary postmodernist (I'm not very fond of literary theory and the classification into "periods" and "currents", but I will use the label "postmodernism" here in order to clarify my understanding of Owen and Irving).

I've never even heard of him. I looked him up and he's right here in New York writing about New York. I'll have to check him out.

Quote:

As far as I understand it (I've only been reading English for 6 years now, and I'm only 20, so I may err :)), that is exactly what the postmodernist wants the reader to do, to question the realism - or rather, the irrealism. I brought up Paul Auster because he's a vehement advocate of the idea that there is no such thing as coincidence. I think Owen uses the same words somewhere in the book. Everything has a purpose, Owen's strange bodily appearance, his voice, his ability to handle the stone cutting machines, ... According to the postmodernists, we, by having discarded the idea of connectedness, are lulled to an extent that once we find ourselves confronted with an extraordinary story (reality's complexity also does include these), it hits us with full force, and we tend to dismiss it as unreal.

Hmm, did you think A Prayer For Owen Meany was in a postmodern style? I didn't get that impression at all. That's why I said it felt like a Dickens novel. If the central theme of the novel was that everything has a purpose (and i think it might be) then wouldn't you expect Irving to be subtle with that. Everything seemed so grossly exaggerated, and in the context of realism it rings a false note. Somehow Irving's style and theme seem to contradict each other.

Quote:

Maybe you would have like The Cider House Rules better, as it is far-fetched only at -some- points, but I guess there's not much chance of you ever reading an Irving book again ;).

Oh who knows, maybe someday. :)
06-04-2007, 07:35 AM
SleepyWitch

bah, Virgil, you old spoil sport :) I used to love Irving (still do) and only noticed all those things after you pointed them out :bawling:
hehe, I gave up re-reading Owen Meany this time round... will do it later... heeheee, I'll revive this thread in 2010, OK?
06-04-2007, 12:42 PM
Schokokeks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Hmm, did you think A Prayer For Owen Meany was in a postmodern style? I didn't get that impression at all. That's why I said it felt like a Dickens novel ... wouldn't you expect Irving to be subtle with that. Everything seemed so grossly exaggerated, and in the context of realism it rings a false note. Somehow Irving's style and theme seem to contradict each other.

I agree with you that the style was not postmodern, but rather Dickensian. As Sleepy pointed out earlier in this discussion, Irving believed that today's writers don't write in the style of "proper novelists", which might be an explanation for his taking up the 19th century style. However, I think the purpose-coincidence topic might hint at his being still in line of thought with them. I find this makes it more interesting and "new", not like the "typical" postmodern novel, if such a thing there be.
No, I wouldn't expect Irving to be subtle with that, especially since his style then might cover the issue altogether. In fact, taking Paul Auster and Ian McIwan, two of the postmodernists I like best, the former is not a lot more subtle than Irving, while I feel Ian McEwan definetely is. But then again, I'm not all that sure about labelling McEwan a postmodernist ... Best you just find out for yourself ;).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I looked him up and he's right here in New York writing about New York. I'll have to check him out.

Oh, yes, do :). Just don't read The City of Glass - it's totally gaga :). Moon Palace is equally beyond credibility as Owen Meany is. I heard that The New York Triology is supposed to be very good, though I haven't tried it myself yet. Let me know what you think of his writing if ever to come across one of his books. It's very interesting to read your opinions :nod:.
06-04-2007, 12:52 PM
Scheherazade

I am still suffering... I mean, reading this book but agree with most of the points Virgil has raised. It is a strange mixture of 'fantasy' and cold reality and I don't think the balance has been struck right. Very tempted to give it up but it is one of my BBC 200 books as well so I guess I will endure it. :sick:

Still hoping that somehow, somewhere it will all come together and make sense and we will see why Irving wrote the book.

Yours Sincerely

Scheherazade, the ever-hopeful-one
06-04-2007, 12:54 PM
Domer121

Have any of you seen the movie that was based on it?? Simon Birch... check it out if you have not already..
06-04-2007, 01:24 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schokokeks

taking Paul Auster and Ian McIwan, two of the postmodernists I like best

Oh I have been wanting to read McIwan for the longest time. I have Atonement on my bookshelf waiting to be read. Ever since Lit Net I always seem to push aside my reading list for the forum read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I am still suffering... I mean, reading this book but agree with most of the points Virgil has raised. It is a strange mixture of 'fantasy' and cold reality and I don't think the balance has been struck right. Very tempted to give it up but it is one of my BBC 200 books as well so I guess I will endure it. :sick:

:lol: Hey I made it through. It does remarkably all pull together, that's why I gave it an average.
06-04-2007, 04:26 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I am still suffering... I mean, reading this book but agree with most of the points Virgil has raised. It is a strange mixture of 'fantasy' and cold reality and I don't think the balance has been struck right. Very tempted to give it up but it is one of my BBC 200 books as well so I guess I will endure it. :sick:

Still hoping that somehow, somewhere it will all come together and make sense and we will see why Irving wrote the book.

Yours Sincerely

Scheherazade, the ever-hopeful-one

Scheherazade, I suffered, too, but made it to the end. I know what you mean though. I figured I had made it that far, I had better finish it. I was curious to see how it was all going to 'come together' at the end.
I am now contemplating whether I would venture to read another Irving book. I had hoped to read "A Widow for One Year" and "The Ciderhouse Rules" of which the second I loved the film based on it. The first one the film was good, too. I will have to see. Maybe the style is a bit different in those books, as I think Schok pointed out...not so much fanatasy but more reality.

Domer, yes I saw "Simon Birch" and actually was not sure at first I liked it but by the end I did. I heard however that Irving made them change the title since he said it was nothing like his book OM. If you watch it as a film in itself, I think it is fairly good. Oddly enough, I have taken it back out of my library to re-watch, now that I read the book - I am curious to see how very different it is from the book and why Irving made them change the title. Been awhile since I viewed it.
06-24-2007, 07:34 PM
Scheherazade

Well, I did it! Finally finished it last week so yay me! :D

Read the thread with my new-found-wisdom so just throwing in my two cents too:

- Yay! I was right about the Father! I rule! (see post #21 in this thread) :banana: :D :p

- I am afraid I still cannot see how Irving's style is Dickensian... apart from the fact that he is writing about the life of a boy, following him from his early days (a la David Copperfield of Pip of Great Expectations).

- I am not sure about Owen's thoughts about his own so-called 'Virgin birth'. If he really believed that, he wouldn't be cross with his parents, in my opinion. I thought he was upset to see them at the Nativity play because he thought their claim was blasphemous (hence, so was their presence there).

- Going along with the Christ metaphor, is it possible that Hester = Mary Magdalane?

- If it is true that Owen's existence had a reason along with everything else in his life, how does killing John's mother fit in? Why did she have to die (killed by Owen, more importantly)? What was the significance of her death in the grand scheme of things?

- I think the book has conflicts, which are resolved at the very end: the identity of John's father, Owen's dream and whether it will come true or not...

- By bringing the statue to the Academy, Owen possibly tried to show that he doesn't have any respect for the school either.

- Lost limbs (especially arms) as an imagery might be a premonition of sorts as Owen died in this manner.
06-24-2007, 08:54 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

- I am afraid I still cannot see how Irving's style is Dickensian... apart from the fact that he is writing about the life of a boy, following him from his early days (a la David Copperfield of Pip of Great Expectations).

I was the one who made that initial comment, and it struck me that way at the beginning of the novel. But I think it was a superficial reaction without much thought. I'm not sure I would still stick to that. I would have to re-read. Not sure if I'll ever do that.

Quote:

- I am not sure about Owen's thoughts about his own so-called 'Virgin birth'. If he really believed that, he wouldn't be cross with his parents, in my opinion. I thought he was upset to see them at the Nativity play because he thought their claim was blasphemous (hence, so was their presence there).

You know, that is a very good point. Why exactly is he against his parents?

Quote:

- Going along with the Christ metaphor, is it possible that Hester = Mary Magdalane?

Oh yes. I should have picked up on that.

Quote:

- If it is true that Owen's existence had a reason along with everything else in his life, how does killing John's mother fit in? Why did she have to die (killed by Owen, more importantly)? What was the significance of her death in the grand scheme of things?

That went through my mind as well at the end. The only thing I can think of is that it is linked to the theme of fate. Must be more than that, though. I would love to hear more thoughts on this. That early part of the book was the part I found most interesting.
06-25-2007, 03:31 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Well, I did it! Finally finished it last week so yay me! :D

Read the thread with my new-found-wisdom so just throwing in my two cents too:

- Yay! I was right about the Father! I rule! (see post #21 in this thread) :banana: :D :p

- I am afraid I still cannot see how Irving's style is Dickensian... apart from the fact that he is writing about the life of a boy, following him from his early days (a la David Copperfield of Pip of Great Expectations).

- I am not sure about Owen's thoughts about his own so-called 'Virgin birth'. If he really believed that, he wouldn't be cross with his parents, in my opinion. I thought he was upset to see them at the Nativity play because he thought their claim was blasphemous (hence, so was their presence there).

- Going along with the Christ metaphor, is it possible that Hester = Mary Magdalane?

- If it is true that Owen's existence had a reason along with everything else in his life, how does killing John's mother fit in? Why did she have to die (killed by Owen, more importantly)? What was the significance of her death in the grand scheme of things?

- I think the book has conflicts, which are resolved at the very end: the identity of John's father, Owen's dream and whether it will come true or not...

- By bringing the statue to the Academy, Owen possibly tried to show that he doesn't have any respect for the school either.

- Lost lims (especially arms) as an imagery might be a premonition of sorts as Owen died in this manner.

Hi Scheherazade, glad you finished the book. It took me a long time, too; was a real struggle to make it to the end of the month; such a long book. Glad to see this discussion is far from dead. You bring up some very valid points. I like the way you have listed them.

Statement #1 - Yes, you were right about that. Great! I saw the film 'Simon Birch', which is loosely based on the book, and I still could not recall who it was - I had forgotten.

Statement #2 - I probably could see the correlation in the beginning, but then I thought characters were much different and themes also were of a different nature. Characters were quirkier, too.

Statement #3 - I agree, I was wondering all the time if indeed Owen just thought he was born from a 'virgin birth' since they told him that. He would have had this strong faith, but it might not be that he was really divine. I did not think he was, but rather that the parents were not too bright and told him this. The mother seemed to be 'out there', almost bordering on insanity, so I could easily envision those parents as saying this and not knowing what great effect they would have on Owen. Well, I agree about the question as to why he would be cross with his parents at the nativity scene. Oh, maybe because they would view him there as the 'virgin birth'. Still, if he did believe or was truly 'divine', why would he lash out like that at them and point a finger at them in public. I still can't come to terms with that scene.

Statement #4 - I thought that, too - Hester representing Mary Magdalane.

Statement #5 - Yes, good point - why did she have to die. Maybe it just was her time to go and Owen was the instrument of her death - but why did it have to be him? Was it to show the strange way fate works? Owen was really close to the mother and the mother adored Owen so it was fate's way of being ironical that he should be the instrument of her death, or was their a deeper meaning to it, do you think?
Ok, another thought just came to me - just throwing this out there for now. If she had not gotten hit by the baseball, Johnny's real father would not have picked up the ball and then that led to a quest to find his father bonding both Owen and Johnny even closer in that quest. Also it showed the true nature of his father when Johnny finally discovers who he is. It lead his father to a change of salvation and belief, also, eventually. Many of the events of the story would not have taken on the same significance or would not have happened as they did. Characters would not have reacted as they did or been changed in their religious beliefs, as they were in the end. Irving's/Johnny's first statement in the book indicates this one event (his mother's death by the hand of fate and Owen, his best friend) changed his life forever and caused him to believe in God.

Statement #6 - Yes, the book themes and conflicts do seem to be resolved at the end, pretty much so. I agree. All except perhaps John's conflicts about politics and religion and going back to the states.

Statement #7 - I am still not sure about the motives concerning the statue. Also I found that scene so outlandish or maybe it was the one at the Catholic school I really found hard to believe - that Owen could have accomplished that. Since it was so amazing does that indicate Owen was indeed divine? I don't know personally.

Statement #8 - That is a really good observation about the limbs. I quite agree. All along the mention of them is so prophetic of the ending.

Scher, Interesting to go back the way you did and review the thread. I think by reading the full book and doing so ones perspective changes and as you so aptly put it, you now have "new-found-wisdom" - that is so valuable in reading the posts.
06-27-2007, 07:04 PM
Scheherazade

I am sorry that I keep reviving this thread but this book won't leave me alone... The unanswered questions keep bugging me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

You know, that is a very good point. Why exactly is he against his parents?

Because he does not believe he was born as a result of some kind of Immaculate Conception? If he didn't believe that, it would be only natural for him to be outraged by his parents' claims since he is a strong believer.

Thinking about it, even though he called his parents blasphemous, it is ironic that he himself ended up with an erection as a baby Jesus!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

That went through my mind as well at the end. The only thing I can think of is that it is linked to the theme of fate. Must be more than that, though.

Exactly how I feel; there must be something more to this...

Just after I typed the part about Owen's 'blasphemy' as the Baby Jesus, it occured to me... Is it possible that Owen is being portrait as a not-so-pure-one despite his parents' claims? His erection in the Nativity play, committing a murder and all as a child yet? If he is a Christ figure, maybe Irving is saying that Jesus was another humanbeing too (even though he was destined for great things)? Maybe we don't have to be 'perfect', to achieve great things? John's mother's death is a meaningless one. Even though Owen did not kill out of malice, he did not kill in self-defence etc either.
(I am sorry if I am not making much sense at this stage - as I said, it just occured to me. Maybe I should sleep over it!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I did not think he was, but rather that the parents were not too bright and told him this.

I don't think his parents' claims were true (even though I do believe that they honestly thought so). Like you said, the Nativity scene is a confusing one.

Quote:

Ok, another thought just came to me - just throwing this out there for now. If she had not gotten hit by the baseball, Johnny's real father would not have picked up the ball and then that led to a quest to find his father bonding both Owen and Johnny even closer in that quest.

This is a plausible theory, Janine. My only hesitation stems from the fact that her mother does not influence the final act of Owen... Confusing!
06-30-2007, 01:52 PM
Janine

I edited this out - posted twice - due to it saying it did not go through - now it suddenly appeared - strange, sorry.
06-30-2007, 01:53 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I am sorry that I keep reviving this thread but this book won't leave me alone... The unanswered questions keep bugging me.Because he does not believe he was born as a result of some kind of Immaculate Conception? If he didn't believe that, it would be only natural for him to be outraged by his parents' claims since he is a strong believer.

Hi Scher - no problem coming back to this thread. Don't appologise - no need. I thought threads could stay open forever, well at least as long as we all are around here. I think this book had a lot of unanswered questions for me at the end and final analysis. I don't know if I personally can ever answer them all. I think they did bug me at first but now I have been off the subject for awhile and not thought about them. I don't know I read last night in a late book by my favorite author (I know you can't tell, haha) that when a book becomes solved totally one can never reread it again - it is done for. Maybe OM is like that. I never came to any conclusion myself on the conception deal and I agree with your question. Did Owen indeed really believe he was born out of Immaculate Conception or was he just following what he believed in out of an unshakable faith? Would you say this is partly your question here? I don't know if it can be conclusively answered without asking the author what he intended; would be nice if there were a 'special features' like in films; then the author would expound on his intentions. The answer sure seems crytic to me, as well.

Quote:

Thinking about it, even though he called his parents blasphemous, it is ironic that he himself ended up with an erection as a baby Jesus!Exactly how I feel; there must be something more to this...

This is what tripped me up too. It seemed inconsistent in my eyes if he were truly holy/divine and the choosen one.

Quote:

Just after I typed the part about Owen's 'blasphemy' as the Baby Jesus, it occured to me... Is it possible that Owen is being portrait as a not-so-pure-one despite his parents' claims? His erection in the Nativity play, committing a murder and all as a child yet? If he is a Christ figure, maybe Irving is saying that Jesus was another humanbeing too (even though he was destined for great things)? Maybe we don't have to be 'perfect', to achieve great things? John's mother's death is a meaningless one. Even though Owen did not kill out of malice, he did not kill in self-defence etc either.
(I am sorry if I am not making much sense at this stage - as I said, it just occured to me. Maybe I should sleep over it!)I don't think his parents' claims were true (even though I do believe that they honestly thought so). Like you said, the Nativity scene is a confusing one.This is a plausible theory, Janine. My only hesitation stems from the fact that her mother does not influence the final act of Owen... Confusing!

Some of this I can fathom. I don't know if I could call the killing of Johnny's mother murder. That seemed strickly coincidental or fateful, as Owen believed. Things like that can just happen, not often, but they do happen. I don't think his parents claims were true at all, but then when he installed the statue in the school yard, I found that to be so unbelievable. Did Irving do that so that we just might consider Owen as 'divine' or possessing 'divine/supernatural powers, or to show that he had that much 'faith' - like the kind that is enough to move a mountain? I think the parents did believe it was true, but Owen knew where babies came from and he seemed much more advanced and intelligent than his parents. Odd though that there is a direct parallel to Owen being a laborer, using his skill with his hands, since Christ was a carpenter's son and carpenter himself. Still, as you point out perhaps the concept of Jesus is of a human man and not God's actual son and therefore Owen is holy and choosen, but not truly divine or a Christ figure in the sense of the divine. You made perfect sense to me in presenting these ideas, even if you were tired, when you wrote it.
08-14-2008, 12:21 PM
blond3391

A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving

So I just read "A Prayer for Owen Meany" by John Irving and I was looking for some symbols. One symbol I was looking at was the armadillo. I began to wonder why Irving chose an armadillo. I know armadillos symbolize barriers and protect but I need to know how that connects to the book.

Thanks!

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page