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

[Capnplank]

This reads like a 19th century novel. In fact it feels like I'm still reading David Copperfield from our read of a few months ago.

He's a big Dickens fan. Half of Trying to Save Piggy Sneed is Dickens appreciation, from what I remember. And the book of choice to be specifically honored in The Cider House Rules is none other than David Copperfield. It is read throughout that book and the narrator gives you many comparisons himself. Irving's books are not all in that extreme style, but I do remember Owen Meany being a particularly slow read for me (I can't read Dickens. Just can't.)



For those of you that can't get enough of the character, you can always also check out Günter Grass's The Tin Drum, as Owen Meany seems to be at least part homage to the very similar character Oskar Matzerath.

[Janine]

Oh I don't mind the fact that there is religious tension, but he should dramatize rather than explain. Here's another instance that I take to be a central theme (it's hard to really say without finishing the book) where he explains rather than shows through suggestion:

Virgil, Why does Irving have to dramatize? I think he explains it as he would have seen it as a boy/young man. I think this is Irving's style and it would have even been a much longer book, had he dramatized the differences in the churches, without added personal comment on it. Still some bit of observation would have gone on in that dramatization, making it even longer. He does dramatize a lot of the church stuff with the two pastors who are so different in style and manor, and in incidents that occur in both churches.

"It was Owen Meany who told me that only white men are vain enough to believe that human beings are unique because we have souls. According to Owen, Watahantowet knew better. Watahantowet believed that animals had souls, and that even the much-abused Squamscott River had a soul--Watahantowet knew that the land he sold to my ancestors was absolutely full of spirits...."

Frankly if that is important to the theme of the novel, a greater writer would not have put those words in a character's mouth but would have integrated it into the web of the story and made the reader feel it. Second, that's not a very original notion, so to make it sound like Owen Meany suddenly thought of it seems (I'm not sure what the right word is) trivial, if that is the right word.

Here again I think you are forgetting that all of this is actually looking back to a child's view of the things said and experienced. The book is a nostalgia and memory as the guy recalls it in his childhood. Most likely Johnny would have thought Owen the first person on earth to think of such a thing relating to Watahantowet. W would have been the only one they could relate to in this idea. Afterall, back then, neither boy would have had a broad knowledge of that idea of the spirit world as layed down by the Indians or others. I think that you are influenced by your own broad experience and sophistocated knowlege of reading of these beliefs, so that you can't effectively put yourself back into that 'innocent' time of childhood, when you would not have had an inkling of such things. This is the point that Irving is writing from, not from adulthood. So what to us may seem now trivial, is not to the children in the story - Owen and Johnny. It is a whole new idea to Johnny as Owen has merely observed and shared the thought with him.

[Idril]

For those of you that can't get enough of the character, you can always also check out Günter Grass's The Tin Drum, as Owen Meany seems to be at least part homage to the very similar character Oskar Matzerath.

Oh! Yes! I just read The Tin Drum and I was thinking the same thing, that Irving had to have gotten some inspiration for Owen from Oskar, they even have the same initials. Does anyone know if Irving has ever talked about that?

[Capnplank]

Oh! Yes! I just read The Tin Drum and I was thinking the same thing, that Irving had to have gotten some inspiration for Owen from Oskar, they even have the same initials. Does anyone know if Irving has ever talked about that?

I don't know if or where he's talked about it, but here's one clue I've found:

http://www.populistbooks.com/authors...ohn_irving.htm

In Vienna John Irving studied under Gunter Grass. This time and the influence of the acclaimed writer appears to have had a profound effect on Irving. Owen, the main character in Irving’s seventh novel, A Prayer for Owen Meany, seems to have been loosely based on Grass’s character Oskar Matzerath. As a hint, Irving has given his character initials identical to those of the protagonist in Grass’s The Tin Drum. Beyond that, the stories are often antithetical. Whereas Owen cannot help his prepubescent stature and characteristics, Oskar seems to have chosen his. Owen predicts a future that he cannot control; Oskar is in control of his own destiny. However, both characters are old beyond their years, despite their childish physical characteristics.

[Idril]

I don't know if or where he's talked about it, but here's one clue I've found:

In Vienna John Irving studied under Gunter Grass. This time and the influence of the acclaimed writer appears to have had a profound effect on Irving. Owen, the main character in Irving’s seventh novel, A Prayer for Owen Meany, seems to have been loosely based on Grass’s character Oskar Matzerath. As a hint, Irving has given his character initials identical to those of the protagonist in Grass’s The Tin Drum. Beyond that, the stories are often antithetical. Whereas Owen cannot help his prepubescent stature and characteristics, Oskar seems to have chosen his. Owen predicts a future that he cannot control; Oskar is in control of his own destiny. However, both characters are old beyond their years, despite their childish physical characteristics.

Thank you, that does shed some light on things. I know their stories and destinies are very different but as it said, their size, their preternatural minds are so alike, not to mention their distinctive voices, Oskar being more in control of his than Owen but still, both have a voice that demands attention. Even Irving's method of storytelling is similar to that of Grass so I'm not at all surprised to find that he studied under Grass.

[Scheherazade]

How does this work? Do we talk chapter by chapter? Who begins the chat? I'll take a look at some of the earlier discussions to get an idea. In the meantime i thought I 'd say hello. Look forward to hearing from you.

I’m still pretty new here. What do I need to do to get in on the book club? I’d love to be able to discuss a book I’m reading with others who know what I’m talking about!

The Book Club is open to all our Forum members and anyone who would like to take part; so, please feel free to jump in anytime they'd like.

There isn't a set structure for the Book Club discussions; the threads are here for anyone to post their comments or questions as and when they feel like. Considering that we all have busy lives, we wouldn't like this to turn into a 'homework', something we *have to* keep up with.

If you would like to discuss story developments, please add a warning to your posts (spoiler alert!).

Just finished the first part. Are we ever going to find out who his father is? The priest seemed very supportive of her, when his mother wanted to have singing lessons etc. Is it possible that he is the father?

[Idril]

Are we ever going to find out who his father is?

Yes, you do eventually find out but not until the end.

[Scheherazade]

Yes, you do eventually find out but not until the end.

Bummer... Can't skip that many pages...

[Idril]

Bummer... Can't skip that many pages...

No, you can't. You're just going to have to be patient.

[Schokokeks]

I can't believe this novel was published in 1989. This reads like a 19th century novel. In fact it feels like I'm still reading David Copperfield from our read of a few months ago. Even Irving's sentence structure seems outdated.

(Irving) doesn't regard those post-modern 200-page books as proper novels and wants to prove that "the novel" is not quite dead yet.

I must say I have to disagree with Mr Irving. I do regard Ian McEwan, for example, as a proper novelist. In my eyes, it is special about the 20th (and 21st) century that writers can and do meander in styles and genres in one book, producing both fast-paced 100-pagers and their versions of Dickens and Co.
In Owen Meany, I do not find any of the topics (especially not the political ones) to be 19th century issues; but they contrast interestingly with the Dickensian style, I find.
As for the central conflict, does it maybe not better fit modern times to not focus on one single problem (individual vs. society, north vs south, ...), but reflect the multiple dimensions of an individual's life in a more subtle way ?

[SleepyWitch]

As for the central conflict, does it maybe not better fit modern * times to not focus on one single problem (individual vs. society, north vs south, ...), but reflect the multiple dimensions of an individual's life in a more subtle way ?

i agree with you. it's much more realistic the way Irving does it. I mean, which average person could point out the single most important "conflict" in their life?

[Virgil]

In Owen Meany, I do not find any of the topics (especially not the political ones) to be 19th century issues; but they contrast interestingly with the Dickensian style, I find.

I was only referring to the style as being 19th century. I'm 100 pages into the novel and I don't know what the themes are. Just that this weird midget affected the narrator religously. Since you bring up politics, I'm rather surprised by it in the novel. To get into the weeds of politics as Irving appears to have done rather reduces the scope of the novel for me rather than increases. I see that at the point I'm at he takes a cheap political shot at several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan. Such political themes are ephemeral. There is a reason why no one reads newspapers from last week. For instance, this novel was published in 1989. Does anyone know or care about the politics of 1889? And if it was published in 1989, then Irving must have written it at least a year or two before that. Well, in the year of 1989, the Berlin wall is destroyed, in 1990 Germany is unified, and in 1991 the Soviet Union collapses and eastern Europe is free. This amounts to a complete vindication and victory in the cold war and Ronald Reagan while certainly not the only princepal player of that victory is generally acknowldeged as being incredibly important in that victory. Now unless Irving's political point is that we should all be communists it seems to me Irving has egg on his face.

One more thing on the style. Would one consider a contemporary composer of music to be great today if he composed in the style of Beethoven? Would a painter today be considered great if he painted in the style of Leonardo DaVinci? It seems to me that art tends to build and evolve from the past. Even movements that supposedly go back to a style actually reformulate that style, at least those that stand out and are considered great. Perhaps I will be surprised and when I finish Irving's novel, that despite the 19th century style will seem new somehow. But if it doesn't then in my opinion Irving has put a ceiling on his artist potential.

[Schokokeks]

I'm 100 pages into the novel and I don't know what the themes are.

I have read it several times, and I still don't . And I like exactly that, because I while reading feel as if I was Irving's collaborator in the process of producing a novel. He does not confront me with a finite number of clear-cut issues to think about, but I am free to choose them myself while being presented with Owen and Johnny and their lives. This sounds a little, well, esoteric , but I mean to say that I do like to read of loosly constructed and multi-layered ideas from time to time, because I feel it fits these very days.

To get into the weeds of politics as Irving appears to have done rather reduces the scope of the novel for me rather than increases. I see that at the point I'm at he takes a cheap political shot at several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan. [...] For instance, this novel was published in 1989. [...] Now unless Irving's political point is that we should all be communists it seems to me Irving has egg on his face.

I do not think Irving is trying to make any political point at all - Johnny is (or Owen, or both of them, according to which passage you are referring to). And surely criticising Ronald Reagan (especially when done by a fictional character) does not necessarily have to equate with an appeal to adhere to communism.
I remember that I at first found the book's shifts into political discussion disturbing as well. Have you already got to the point where it becomes clear why Johnny writes from/in Canada at all ? This solution (and also the very end of the book) at least for me shed some new light on the political talk before.

Perhaps I will be surprised and when I finish Irving's novel, that despite the 19th century style will seem new somehow. But if it doesn't then in my opinion Irving has put a ceiling on his artist potential.

Let me know what you think of it once you have read the whole of it, please .

[Janine]

I have read it several times, and I still don't . And I like exactly that, because I while reading feel as if I was Irving's collaborator in the process of producing a novel. He does not confront me with a finite number of clear-cut issues to think about, but I am free to choose them myself while being presented with Owen and Johnny and their lives. This sounds a little, well, esoteric , but I mean to say that I do like to read of loosly constructed and multi-layered ideas from time to time, because I feel it fits these very days.

Schokokeks, I like how you expressed this - the freedom to choose which issues are important to you in the novel. I agree with that idea. I, too, felt a little strange reading the political part, and actually I found that a bit boring, but then I quickly went on thinking there must have been a reason Irving wrote that chapter and it would be revealed later in the novel. It is a very "loosely constructed and multi-layered" novel, like how you termed that. I think I like that about this book to some degree, it is a relaxed way of writing and sort of natural like writing in a diary. It does feel realistic, but actually it set in the 50's (past). What is funny is I can relate to the nostalgia of the book, although I was a baby at this time that Owen and Johnny were about 11. It transports me to a different time - one I grew up in.

I do not think Irving is trying to make any political point at all - Johnny is (or Owen, or both of them, according to which passage you are referring to). And surely criticising Ronald Reagan (especially when done by a fictional character) does not necessarily have to equate with an appeal to adhere to communism.
I remember that I at first found the book's shifts into political discussion disturbing as well. Have you already got to the point where it becomes clear why Johnny writes from/in Canada at all ? This solution (and also the very end of the book) at least for me shed some new light on the political talk before.

I do think using 'communism' was a bit extreme, Virgil. I don't know yet if he is making a political statement. It is fine if he has his individual preferences and we should accept them as the authors own and not read too much into them.
Schokokeks, didn't Johnny, as a adult, state that he had avoided the draft and that is why he went to Canada? That is mentioned early on in the narrative, I believe. I think he mentioned the Vietnam War being his reason.

Let me know what you think of it once you have read the whole of it, please .

I am not yet to the midpoint of the book. I am such a slow reader. Hope I finish by the end of the month. I am enjoying reading this book, although it is much different than what I normally read.

[Virgil]

I have read it several times, and I still don't . And I like exactly that, because I while reading feel as if I was Irving's collaborator in the process of producing a novel. He does not confront me with a finite number of clear-cut issues to think about, but I am free to choose them myself while being presented with Owen and Johnny and their lives. This sounds a little, well, esoteric , but I mean to say that I do like to read of loosly constructed and multi-layered ideas from time to time, because I feel it fits these very days.

Well, I'm at the half way point now, and I do detect several themes which I'll talk about once I'm further along. I want to make sure. There definitely are themes. You can't have a work of art without themes.

I do not think Irving is trying to make any political point at all - Johnny is (or Owen, or both of them, according to which passage you are referring to). And surely criticising Ronald Reagan (especially when done by a fictional character) does not necessarily have to equate with an appeal to adhere to communism.

Now that I'm further along, I can see the distinction between johnny as narrator and Irving. However I still have no idea why the politics. Yes Johnny is a draft dodger. Other thing I find a little disturbing is the anti-Catholic references. While I'm beginning to understand the religiuos theme, I'm not sure why he chooses such a prejudiced attitude (and I assume it's the characters and not the author).

Let me know what you think of it once you have read the whole of it, please .

There are moments I enjoy it and there are moments i find boring. Why does Irving spend over 50 pages on the Christmas pagent and A Christmas Carol play? It got so tedious.