21st Century Literature discussion

I think that to discuss a book, you have to you know talk about the book. The whole thing.

I'll ask that we try not to give too many spoilers too early in the month. Spoiler tags. Waiting a bit. I imagine we'll get there.

Just under 50 bags in and I am totally absorbed. It's like nothing else I have read before. Can't wait to discuss it further once I am finished.

Trudie wrote: "Just under 50 bags in and I am totally absorbed. It's like nothing else I have read before. Can't wait to discuss it further once I am finished."

So happy to hear this, Trudie! You're definitely in good company, because I also can't wait to discuss!

[EDIT: **shameface** I don't know how I missed the religion question in the "influences" thread. So embarrassing. Sorry about that. I'll try following up on the thoughts below in the proper thread...]

Deborah, one thing I'm keen to touch on in our discussion is the treatment of what could be termed cultish behaviour. Of course, whether the preachers in the novel represent organized religion or a cult is probably a whole discussion in and of itself, but I found the moral inversion fascinating. As in, (view spoiler)[the church is normally the sanctuary in horror stories, or refuge of all that is good and righteous. Take that away, and what is left for us to cling to? I found that aspect thematically delicious, and the horror of the story takes on a new dimension with that...I almost want to call it atheistic nihilism, but perhaps it's better to term it the absence of a benevolent supreme being (hide spoiler)]. But yeah, I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on religion and rituals in the book, and what effect those things have on the story as a whole.

I also have to mention the (view spoiler)[spiders (hide spoiler)]. Good Lord, what a gloriously revolting effect that produced! Creepy crawly shivers all over my skin, bile rising in my throat, yet the visual was so horrifically riveting that I couldn't pull myself away.

Not sure if those things totally fall under the "story" thread, Deborah, but they are the two things that most struck me in reading the novel.

Daniel, I don't see any religious cultism in this book, although certain of the actions might be associated with cults.

As requested, I'm going to try to explain in a general fashion, without giving any specifics. I see Willard's actions related to sacrifice as those of a mentally disturbed veteran. Roy is harder to understand, but he was certainly not a cult leader, as he had no followers. Even Helen began to question his santity.

Preston Teagardin's preying on young girls, something I would associate with a religous cult, had nothing to do with a religious cult. He was not even religious. He just found being preacher a way to prey on young women who trusted him because he was the preacher. How often have we seen that in established religion, e.g., young boys and priests?

I think those points get to some of the reason why that theme interests me so much in relation to the book. You're absolutely right: there are no cults here, but there are cultish actions.

(view spoiler)[I actually enjoyed Willard as a character, and found his descent into grief-stricken madness (if we can call it that) rather heartbreaking. Roy and Theodore, however, are a different story. I couldn't help but be reminded of those Appalachian Pentecostal sects which make a practice of sticking their hands in containers of poisonous snakes as a profession of faith, based on their interpretation of a relatively obscure passage of scripture (this Wikipedia article will give a quick overview). That's exactly what I thought of when reading about Theodore's test of faith which left him a cripple, Roy's spider eating, or trying to raise Helen from the dead.

I also agree with you about Teagardin. The reason why I don't see his behaviour as cultish is because a cult leader would make those demands in the open, as a condition of membership. Teagardin is just a slimy weasel too lazy to invest the energy in forming a cult. And yes, we've seen this all too often. I'm still chewing on why Pollock would link that all-too-familiar behaviour with the more offbeat religious views in the book. It feels like there's some comment there, but I haven't put my finger on it yet (hide spoiler)]

The question for me is whether the religion here is incidental, there for the purpose of a jumping off place or color, or if Pollack is saying something! What is he saying? And where is God in all this religion?

Deborah wrote: "And where is God in all this religion?"

Yes! That totally expresses one part of my reaction.

While the interview of Pollock about the book at this link http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/ja... is fairly general, there is a question and answer concerning the use of religion. It doesn't exactly answer the question, but provides some insight.

Awesome find! Thank you!

That is a very insightful interview - I am almost as intrigued by the story of Donald Ray Pollock as I am with his book. Its such a big change to quit your job in a paper mill and go to Grad school at 45 and then write this very accomplished novel.

As with my questions about how religion truly fits in with the novel at large, I have the same response to issues of sexuality in the book. Many times this is taken to extremes that cross the line into depravity, whether that's (view spoiler)[Carl and Sandy's sexually twisted killing spree, Teagardin's compulsion for sexual domination, Henry Dunlap's extreme cuckolding or Theodore's temptation to pedophilia (hide spoiler)].

The story is suffused with religious and sexual elements and, as Deborah mentioned above, it's not entirely clear what Pollock is saying with all of it. In the same hand, I absolutely love that lack of clarity and moral abstraction. It's what makes the book work as literature for me. But I'm still interested in soliciting other people's insights and reactions so I can get a better handle on this crazy (and wonderful) mural Pollock has created.

Daniel, you make a good point. Pollock does paint pictures of seamy side of sex in the same fashion as he does seamy side of religion. And he does it in a way that makes it very possible and real. It is a portrait of a seamy, gritty side of life that is designed, perhaps, to bring the reality of it to mind. What I don't know, however, is what to do with this increased awareness.

I found this book (by way of the story only ) lacked anything in the way of redemption. This makes meaning harder to parse and assign.

Deborah wrote: "I found this book (by way of the story only ) lacked anything in the way of redemption. This makes meaning harder to parse and assign."

While it is not pronounced and tucked away, I do think there is some redemption ("the action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil") in the book. At least two actions strike me as having the quality of redemption. (view spoiler)[ First is Arvin protecting Lenora from the bullies. Second is Earskell making Arvin put the gun away. (hide spoiler)]

Its a tricky one this question re religion and this book. For me it seemed to re-enforce that almost inextricable link between religion and violence or more specifically violence perpetrated with faith as a cover or rationale...specifically (view spoiler)[ The human and animal "sacrifices" made as a kind of trade to save Arvins mother from cancer, the murder of Roy's wife as a failed demonstration of his presumed powers of healing (hide spoiler)] It was interesting to me that Arvin who seemed the character the most removed from this kind of fanatical religion appeared the most moral ....??

Linda I think there are a lot of examples of humanity in the book. But not in the story. I think your examples are examples of the former not the latter.

Deborah, Please explain what you mean by the story. From my perspective, those examples are part of the story.

I think it speaks more to character than plot. The places the story takes the reader are bitter and bereft. But the character are nuanced and at times rich.

Ahh ... so story for you with respect to your comment about redemption goes to plot?

Based on some very quick look at definitions and explanations of plot, one of its synonyms is story, so now I think I understand why you do not see redemption in the story and can agree. When I think of story, I think of the entire bundle, i.e., character, setting, theme, style, and plot.

Deborah wrote: "I found this book (by way of the story only ) lacked anything in the way of redemption. This makes meaning harder to parse and assign."

Agreed. And the difficulty in assigning meaning is simultaneously an aggravation and an intoxicating enchantment for me.

For me the religion is almost a part of the landscape. It's something the characters interact with according to their mores, their fears, their upbringings and their agendas.

It would be impossible for those people to live in that place and time without having a reaction to the religion around them, and it shapes them in greater and lesser ways, but they also are themselves, and interact with religion, use it or fear it or shun it or harness it, according to how they want to live.

These are simplifications, but for example: Teagardin is a predator; the church is his hunting ground. Willard needs to believe that there is something more, something that punishes the wicked and protects the innocent; his God is his guardian. Theodore is selfish and hedonistic; religion is a pawn to him, something to manipulate Roy with.

I don't think there's any overarching message about religion in the book (or the story) because there isn't in life. Religion (generally or any specific one you care to name) is one's excuse to conquer and hoard, another's inspiration to martyrdom; one's overbearing guilt-inducer, another's calling to help the weak and needful.

Of course, most of what happens in this book with regard to more than just religion is dark, and twisted, and so most of the ways that the characters interact with religion are, too. But as Daniel points out using sexuality as an example, religion is far from alone in that, here.

Had a good discussion with my friends at Longfellow Books in Portland Maine about this book today. One of them grew up in rural Kentucky and can relate to the setting and the influence of religion. So nice to have an such a great independent bookstore to call home. Everyone who works there loves books and loves to talk about them!

Terry wrote: "For me the religion is almost a part of the landscape. It's something the characters interact with according to their mores, their fears, their upbringings and their agendas.

It would be impossib..."

I love this idea of religion as part of the landscape. Looking at it from that angle takes away the need for religious commentary here to actually mean anything. It's simply part of the environment, and the more interesting social commentaries can then revolve around how the various characters weave religion into a more complex personal paradigm. Nice.

I disagree. I think the part sex plays in moving the story along is really transparent. The role of religion is more opaque.

Could you explain a little more what you mean, Deborah? Sorry if I'm being dense.

If you take out the sex it would change the story (not the book mind you just the story) far more than if you took out a lot of the religion.

Deborah wrote: "If you take out the sex it would change the story (not the book mind you just the story) far more than if you took out a lot of the religion."

I do not see that. There is sex used badly by Prescott Teagarden and in the Sandy and Carl situation and taking it out would certainly change the story in connection with them. But taking out the religion would change the story even more. Yes, its use is more opaque, but for me it was crucial to the story as it related to Willard, Roy, and Lenora and her mother. The story with respect to those characters would have been completely different.

I think the book would be very different. I don't think the plot changes crucially.

Deborah wrote: "I think the book would be very different. I don't think the plot changes crucially."

Now I'm confused Deborah about what you mean. In 26, you say "if you take our the sex it would change the story (not the book mind you the story) far more than if you took out a lot of the religion." This seems the exact opposite the above comment. What am I missing? Help!

Sex has a greater impact on the plot than religion.

Religion has a greater impact on tone but it's harder to understand the intent.

I think I still disagree. I think sex takes a second to religion in plot and tone. Maybe I just have no problem accepting the sexual depravity as existing, while the religion ties - especially the murders committed by Willard and Roy in the name of religion raise troubling questions. I think the author wants us to think about the good and the bad that exists with religion. It is not that I do not know it exists but there is something about the way the author portrayed it that was far more troubling to me than hoe he presented the sexual depravity.

That's my point. I understand his intention far better with the sex than the religion. I understand what he is doing with sex. I'm not sure what he's doing with religion.

yes i have to agree with linda here - the sex certainly had a kind of shock value but it was the religious aspects to this novel that stayed with me. i don't think you can separate the religion out of the novel..also i don't think that we have to take anything to deep out of it - since its essentially a gothic horror with the religious extremism providing some of the horror at least for me. But i guess its a book you can interpret differently depending on your religious standpoint....but certainly i struggled to find any redemptive religious aspect to it.

This is where Terry's comments about the religion as landscape worked for me. In a way, that concept also makes Deborah's comments work as well. Religion is what the novel is . Take out the religion and you've taken out Appalachia, at which point the rest of the story doesn't make much sense. But to a large degree, taking out the sexual aspect would be to steal away everything that moves the story along. Both are integral to the plot in my opinion, yet each functions in a very different respect. I'm not sure if that's close to what you're expressing Deborah, but that's how I'm reading the discrepancy.

I also agree with Trudy about how the religious elements provide much of the real shock value in the story. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was much more disturbed by the preachers than I ever was by Carl and Sandy.

Something like that was muddling around in my head, Daniel, in response to this latter part of the discussion, but you have put it into words very nicely where it refused to coalesce for me. I agree completely.

I'm not saying that religion isn't integral, at all. I guess what I am saying is that sex and religion are not paralleled. Which may be beside the point and not what anyone else is saying either.

I just am wrestling with how it is so very important in this novel, but still I can't pin down down where he is pointing. What he means is still a mystery. And to say it's just there because it's Appalachia doesn't seem like it's the whole deal.

Deborah wrote: "What he means is still a mystery. And to say it's just there because it's Appalachia doesn't seem like it's the whole deal."

Agreed.

Thanks, Daniel, you captured what I was hoping to convey. I think I now get what you mean, Deborah, about what is the point of the religion. It is, unlike the sex aspect, very much ingrained in the setting, i.e., the sexual depravity could have happened anywhere and would not have felt the same. I'm not sure, however, that religious theme would have felt the same if based in suburbia. I think they only ring true in rural, poor America, such as Appalacia. What we are to make of that appears to be left to us.

This is my take: At the end of chapter 9, Part I, when young Arvin shows Bodecker the prayer log and the various crucified animals and sacrifices. Bodecker asks what the log is and Arvin answers: It's a prayer log, but it don't work." This sums up the entire book. Carl and Sandy have a sick religious thing going too. Especially the one picture, that's reminds me of the Pieta. Religion and sex, both in its twisted forms, play an equally important role in this book. The redemption is when Arvin places the role of film in Bodecker's pocket after he kills him.

I think you're right Mark on the twisted religion and sex and especially on that moment of but it doesn't work.

I probably agree about the film too, but I wish you'd elaborate.

The film is connected to Carl and Sandy, obviously, and to the Sergeant who attempts to cover it up, to Arvin who refuses to be a sacrifice, and to Roy who unfortunately met Carl and Sandy. The pictures seem to be one of the evils that binds everyone together. When Arvin places the film in the Sergeant's pocket at the end, he is exposing all that evil. I see it as redemption in the sense of Arvin coming to terms with the evil of his father and the full circle when he returns to the prayer log. He walks away, possibly for a new start, but leaves the film behind so it will be found. Arvin himself eradicates the evil of Carl and Sandy. Arvin is no angel, he's a product of his environment, possibly an antihero of sorts.

Mark wrote: "to Arvin who refuses to be a sacrifice, "
Oh! Beautifully phrased. Yes!

Interesting connection you make, Mark, of religion, sex, and redemption. I had not thought of it in that way but it certainly is a way to bring the strands together. I am going to reread the end with that in mind. Could you explain more about Arvin as an antihero?

Linda wrote: "Interesting connection you make, Mark, of religion, sex, and redemption. I had not thought of it in that way but it certainly is a way to bring the strands together. I am going to reread the end ..."

Thanks Linda! Sure, Arvin is no traditional hero by any means. He's a murderer. Yet, in a way he has a purpose to his killings, a sort of justice formed by his circumstances shaped by his environment. He might be the only character we sympathize with and when he knocks off Carl and Sandy, the Preacher, and even the Sheriff, we certainly could relate to why he's doing these horrific things. Every person he "takes care off" is corrupt, evil, malicious in various degrees. Arvin is the closest character we have to a hero--we are on his journey with him. He's central to the story. Are we applauding what he does, understanding, or repulsed? That's up to the reader.

Mark, thanks for the further explanation as to Arvin as anti-hero. I guess an analogy of sorts would be to the subway vigilante. I think the murder of Teagarden, the evilist of them all, was intentional and understandable. I would have wanted to kill him too if I had been Arvin. I'm not applauding that Arvin did it, but Prescott Teagarden needed to put in a place where he could not continue to do evil. The other murders seem to be more self-defense than intentional.

I'm not even sure we need the anti. Non traditional, sure. Flawed, absolutely. But I was pretty much behind him and don't really judge him too harshly on anything he did, given all the circumstances. Was it wrong to kill Teagardin? Debatable. Was it understandable? Certainly. As a society, we can't condone vigilantism, but on an individual level in a circumstance like this it's hard not to sympathise with someone like Alvin. And yeah, the rest were pretty much self defence. He does continue the theme though, of us thinking it could easily have been different for him.