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

Printable View

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

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