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

[Idril]

Wow, I just finished the book. I really liked the last 200 pages or so. Had a hard time putting it down in the last 50 especially. I have to let it all sink in and I am a bit tired now, but will comment on it sometime tomorrow, hopefully. It was a good book - very thought-provoking indeed!

The ending really does hit you a little hard. There is no end of foreshadowing but it still seems to take you by surprise when it finally comes.

As far as Johnny's labeling his contact with Hester as dangerous, I think any 10 year old is going to recognize sexual contact of any kind as dangerous or forbidden whether or not it's borderline incestuous and Hester wasn't called Hester the Molester for nothing, she was incredibly provocative and she wasn't above using Johnny's obvious attraction to cause trouble. I think it's another case of Owen saving Johnny, this time from his sexually aggressive cousin.

[Virgil]

By "emotion of the moment" do you mean to say that it was Johnny as a young boy who recognized that kissing Hester was a perilous act, that he and she were both dangerous?
I find it hard to imagine that a 10-year-old boy, after kissing his cousin (and getting an erection), could make a moral judgment that that was a dangerous thing to do because what if it goes further than that the next time, that's borderline incest, etc. I could picture him feeling disgust, anger, embarrassment, confusion - but being capable, at such a young age, of thinking that it was a dangerous act because of the risk of incest... I'm rather skeptical about that.

Well, I don't quite remember exactly my lust of when I was ten years old, but I'm pretty sure my cousin (and I grew up with several of my female cousins near by) was not within them. Yes, I do think a ten year old knows what are legitamate and off limits lusts are.

The ending really does hit you a little hard. There is no end of foreshadowing but it still seems to take you by surprise when it finally comes.

Hard???? The ending made me laugh. You mean the practice basket ball shot is what this was all about? It was so forced and rediculous. I'm sorry. I did not think this was that good a novel.

[bouquin]

Who is/are your favorite character/s in Owen Meany?

[Janine]

Well, I don't quite remember exactly my lust of when I was ten years old, but I'm pretty sure my cousin (and I grew up with several of my female cousins near by) was not within them. Yes, I do think a ten year old knows what are legitamate and off limits lusts are.

I could so easily relate to this cousin thing. I played with my cousins - 2 boys and one girl and my two sisters, included. My boy cousins were more my age and one exactly my age. I am sure I had a crush on him for years but nothing ever came of it. I think once I asked my mother if cousins could marry. I do recall how very jealous I got when his other girl cousin (same age) visited from the south. His attention was quickly drawn towards her. I hated her right off. Funny, the book brought all this back to me, and I had to laugh now but then it was serious stuff and real emotions on my part. I felt so wounded and left out. I could relate to how Johnny felt this way when Owen and Hester were off together and he was the 3rd wheel and left at home alone.

Hard???? The ending made me laugh. You mean the practice basket ball shot is what this was all about? It was so forced and rediculous. I'm sorry. I did not think this was that good a novel.

Virgil, You know as emotional as I felt at times reading this book's ending (say the last 50 pages), most of the emotion I felt was not at the very end. I thought, in someway, that the 'practice basket ball shot' was a little contrived for the ending, as well. It did bring in a little bit of the ridiculous, but then it seemed that Irving's work survives in it's wit and this was maybe a further us of wit on his part. In the face of tragedy to interject this moment of wit may have been his full intention. I think the fact that Owen intentionally took the grenade and wedged it between himself and the wall and sacrificed his life was the big thing. I don't think he ever had the intention of throwing it through that window, did he?
What I found most interesting about the closing pages in the book is the doubts that suddenly Owen began feeling about his destiny, and the possibility that maybe everyone else was right, and his dream was just that - merely a 'dream'. He had flickers of 'hope'. to the extend, that he even tried to plan how he would get out of going to Nam. So when the moment of 'reckoning' did finally come it hit me as much more poignant.
Mostly, my own personal hight of emotion came on the discover of who Johnny's father was. Also, I felt deeply, when it was revealed to Johnny about Owen's birth, according to his limited-minded parents' view. Also, emotional for me was when Owen and Johnny spend the night together playing the remembering game. The funneral tore me up. The actual death scene was more of a relief in a way.
The arms I found to be the most interesting part of the death scene. I need to go back and re-read those final scenes. So what is everyone's take on the recurrent 'arms' or missing 'limb' theme throughout the book, even to the extend to Johnny's missing finger? First the Armadillo, the Indian legend, then the statue, then the dressform, then Owen's arms, etc.

Virgil, I have to disagree that this was not a good book. I felt it too lengthy at time, but that might be my own impatience. I have some criticisms of the book, but I felt it was a good book, afterall. I was glad I had read it. I am still thinking about it, so that is something to say about the ideas and theme presented in this novel. I felt it was quite thought-provoking.

[Virgil]

Virgil, You know as emotional as I felt at times reading this book's ending (say the last 50 pages), most of the emotion I felt was not at the very end. I thought, in someway, that the 'practice basket ball shot' was a little contrived for the ending, as well. It did bring in a little bit of the ridiculous, but then it seemed that Irving's work survives in it's wit and this was maybe a further us of wit on his part. In the face of tragedy to interject this moment of wit may have been his full intention. I think the fact that Owen intentionally took the grenade and wedged it between himself and the wall and sacrificed his life was the big thing. I don't think he ever had the intention of throwing it through that window, did he?
What I found most interesting about the closing pages in the book is the doubts that suddenly Owen began feeling about his destiny, and the possibility that maybe everyone else was right, and his dream was just that - merely a 'dream'. He had flickers of 'hope'. to the extend, that he even tried to plan how he would get out of going to Nam. So when the moment of 'reckoning' did finally come it hit me as much more poignant.
Mostly, my own personal hight of emotion came on the discover of who Johnny's father was. Also, I felt deeply, when it was revealed to Johnny about Owen's birth, according to his limited-minded parents' view. Also, emotional for me was when Owen and Johnny spend the night together playing the remembering game. The funneral tore me up. The actual death scene was more of a relief in a way.
The arms I found to be the most interesting part of the death scene. I need to go back and re-read those final scenes. So what is everyone's take on the recurrent 'arms' or missing 'limb' theme throughout the book, even to the extend to Johnny's missing finger? First the Armadillo, the Indian legend, then the statue, then the dressform, then Owen's arms, etc.

Virgil, I have to disagree that this was not a good book. I felt it too lengthy at time, but that might be my own impatience. I have some criticisms of the book, but I felt it was a good book, afterall. I was glad I had read it. I am still thinking about it, so that is something to say about the ideas and theme presented in this novel. I felt it was quite thought-provoking.

Well, what exactly made this a good book? The sparkling prose? 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. Owen Meany? Oh, we all know such Christ figures. Actually he seems more of an alien from outer space. Johnny? So if it didn't have Sparkling prose or insightful characters then it must have great themes. What themes? Religious cliches (I don't think Dostoevsky or Tolstoy have to worry a challenger here for religious depth) and erections as symbols for adolescence. 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. And what about the insults to Catholcism? What was that all about? 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.

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.

[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:

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

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.

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 ...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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[SleepyWitch]

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.

[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?

[SleepyWitch]

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

[Janine]

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.

[SleepyWitch]

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?

[Virgil]

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

[SleepyWitch]

Sex leads to pregnancy?? You mean this is what I've been doing wrong all these years. I didn't know Catholics don't know how babies are made. 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

[Virgil]

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

I find it hard to believe that any adult doesn't know how babies are made. 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.

[SleepyWitch]

I find it hard to believe that any adult doesn't know how babies are made. 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...