Reading the Chunksters discussion

The first part of the book spans a long time and keeping track of what has occurred will prove complicated, but I'll try to summarize it briefly now:
The prologue titled "Out of Europe, 1555" constitutes a notebook of "the final, fevered days". The book has never been opened. The narrator wants to recall everything from the beginning and cites several dates: in 1514 Albert Hohenzollern became Archbishop of Magdeburg and 3 years later he bought from the Pope also the archbishopric of Mainz, getting his hands on a third of the whole German territory, in return for promoting the sale of indulgences for Pope Leo X in these lands. This 'obscene market' infuriated a young Augustinian friar by the name of Martin Luther who on 31st October 1517 nailed his 95 theses against the traffic in indulgences to the door of Wittenberg church. This moment is the novel's "starting point.Memories reassembling the fragments of an era. Mine. And that of my enemy:Q"

What follows in the first 80 pages of part I is a collection of reminiscences and of letters written by many people: the mysterious Q who is the 'eye' of Gianpietro Carafa, member of the theological meeting held by the Pope, as well as others, and covers the period between 1518-1525 although the events are not cited chronologically. The first section of the story titled "The Coiner" begins in Frankenhausen in Thuringia, in May 1525, where we learn about a defeat of the Reformationists' cause in that city, rape and murder of its citizens and peasants by the soldiery. Our narrator who doesn't introduce his name is trying to escape. He, together with a man called Elias are trying to save the Magister Thomas Müntzer ("the Coiner"), who is obviously their spiritual leader, but in spite of his efforts does not succeed; Elias is slain, Müntzer captured and recognized and the protagonist barely escapes with life carrying one bag of Müntzer's correspondence. In subsequent days, wounded hungry and dirty, he roams the countryside, and is forced to kill some drunk soldiers taking the money they robbed in Frankenhausen and their clothes (he mentions that this is the first time he's ever killed a person). After a long journey through the German countryside, he ends up in Eltersdorf where he presents himself with a new name of Gustav Metzger. He stays there for a year or more, reminiscing about the past and reading the old letters addressed to Müntzer.

Then the narrative goes back to the years 1519-1522, in a sub- part titled "The doctrine and the marshland" . The action takes place in Wittenberg, "a shit-hole, wretched, poor, muddy". It introduces the main figures of the protestant reform: Martin Luther himself, Philip Melanchthon, Andreas Karlstadt. The narrator also meets Thomas Müntzer there for the first time and is impressed by how easily he defeated Melanchton at a debate. The narrative briefly mentions such events as the Diet of Worms (January–May, 1521), and the subsequent period when Luther was hiding at Wartburg Castle (I'll post soon information and links about some historical events and Reformation leaders on the Q General Banter thread). The reformationists in Wittenberg, abandoned by Luther, soon grow disillusioned by their leaders and the story's narrator leaves the city in order to join the cause of the above mentioned Thomas Müntzer who is much more radical in his preachings than Luther (he wants to give power to the people whereas Luther emphasizes that "it's the duty of the Christian to give blind obedience to authority").

The third section of part I titled "The bag and its memories" follows, and is not finished by the page 80. In it, we finally learn more details of what transpired in the years 1523-1525 when Thomas Müntzer was a prominent figure in Allstedt where he stayed for a year and, apart from preaching, had access to a printing press, and later in Mühlhausen where he had to move after he was forced to leave.

To sum up, this first part of the novel focuses on the political machinations that try to take advantage of the religious fervor of the time (the "peasant wars") and are described by the narrator (and also in the letters) in detail.

To me, reading this part was interesting, but also confusing, as the chapters and/ or letters included were very short and not presented in a chronological order. So far, we don't know anything about who the mysterious Q might be, and not much about the identity of the narrator. For all we know, they could be even the same person (if the narrator was insincere and a traitor to the Reformation's cause) although I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

Also, the nature of the narrative is very heterogeneous: there are some fragments of a diary, letters, parts of the text are told in the present tense, and parts in the past tense, there was even a section of pure dialog between Frederick the Elector of Saxony and Zeiss, his tax-collector in Allstedt. As you know, 'Luther Blisset' is a pseudonym of 4 people. Is the fact that there are multiple authors visible in this story? Would you like it to be told in a more straightforward way?

Also, there is much to discuss in terms of the contents of the first chapters.

Please, post at your convenience.

Hi Teanka! I am finally here and haven't forgotten the discussion!

I read this section in basically one sitting. Like you, I found it horribly confusing, but (at least through the first few chapters) I was really excited about where this was going. By the end of the week's section, all of the theology and politics were dragging a bit (when the narration shifted to pre-opening times), but at least I was already into the story by then.

As per the identity of Q, there were a few letters written and signed by a Qoelet, who I was thinking might be Q. Its a weird name to have in there, otherwise, and there aren't tons of "q" names. The first letter was to Muntzer and addressed him as "most eminent teacher." The second is also to Muntzer, addressed "to the most illustrious ... pastor and preacher". The second letter is warning Muntzer of a potential upcoming attack on him. Q, then, if he is Qoelet, is on Team Muntzer, it seems. If he's not Qoelet, we have no idea yet. :-) The only confusing thing to me that says that Qoelet might not be Q - from the prologue, Q is supposed to be the enemy, but it seems like Qoelet is also a Muntzer-follower, like the narrator... But I also think its a bit early to be speculating this deeply, and I'll see what next week brings!

Hmm...I wonder about the narration and the connection with the 4 authors. It is a very amalgamated story, and its very possible that is due, at least in part, to the amalgamation of writers. I would like a bit of a more straightforward story (I like order!), but at least I am interested now since it started right in the thick of things! I think if it started off with the politics that we are seeing "back in time", it would not be holding my interest as strongly.

Otherwise, I have lots of questions and swirling ideas, but I don't think I know enough yet to even really merge them into cohesive thoughts. I'm hoping future sessions clear things up a bit!

Thanks for leading this discussion, Teanka! I am excited that we are finally reading this!

Hi Kaycie, I thought you had problems with not getting a digital copy of the book and wouldn't join, so I'm happy that you're here!

I also read the section in one sitting. Agree about Qoelet - I too noticed that he had a 'Q' in his name. I don't think that the puzzle should be that easy though. But him being on Müntzer team actually fits because Q is supposed to be a spy. And I think at this point our narrator and Q probably don't know about one another's existence yet. Maybe it will be easier to figure out in part II set in other place.

You're right that there are lots of ideas in this book, however it's a bit difficult to formulate them yet. Personally, I wish the chapters were a bit longer, at least 5-8 pages each instead of the 1-3 average we have. Basically, in longer chapters we would get more characterization and description, and as it is, we get mostly fleeting impressions. But as the narration jumps back and forth in time, some kind of a bigger picture starts to emerge from the chaos.

In the next section, we will have finished the entire first part of the book, and I hope we reach some conclusions then.

Teanka wrote: "To me, reading this part was interesting, but also confusing, as the chapters and/ or letters included were very short and not presented in a chronological order. So far, we don't know anything ab..."

Teanka :) These first 80 pages are absolutely riveting and the makings for an interesting read, I'm sure. While the subject matter is confusing at first, what's more confusing is making the connection between the multiple monikers the narrator uses for one character...It took me a while to figure out the Elect...Elector...Prince...etc is Frederick, or the Coiner...the Preacher...the Prophet is Müntzer. As somebody who does not have the best grasp on the Protestant Reformation, Peasant Wars, Luther/Karlstadt plight; the broken narrative was the least of my worries; in fact, I welcome it, as it breaks up the weight of the heavy narrative. Having read "Infinite Jest," broken narratives are nothing after you get through that beast! :P Anyway, I did research the areas I felt a deficit in; however, I do have some remaining questions and thoughts...

Questions
If it doesn't matter, according to Luther, of an unjust excommunication, because that concerns only external communion with the Church, and not an internal communion then why does he want to strip the Holy See of its greatest bullwark, the weapon of excommunication (2,3...Letter to Carafa on 17 May 1518)?

According to the entry in the prologue dated 21 October 1517, Luther has posted ninety-five theses against the traffic in indulgences. In a letter written on 17 May 1518, Q says Luther will never dare put this theses of his in writing, since he is aware of the enormity that it represents... (2,3). Q is referring to two different theses, correct...Luther wrote many?

The narrator says on page 27, the Coiner shouted omnia sunt communia when the soldiers took him away, but he didn't say this...It was Elias? Did misread, or does this slip mean something?

On page 48, the Q says in a letter dated 27 October 1521, Frederick is alarmed by Karlstadt's following and that he will have to bring back Luther (who has been supposedly abducted, but is currently just hiding) to remove him...Something he thought he would turn to his own advantage risks rebounding upon him... What is the "something" Karlstadt thought would be advantageous?

Thoughts
Are you surprised to read the statement where is the omnipresent Lord Multiple times in this first section, a section primarlily focused on religious emancipation, religious wars, religious freedom...It makes me wonder if there are subtleties regarding atheism, or at least the difficulty in remaining faithful?

I think there are two narrators so far, there's Q/Qoèlet, and somebody else. Q works close within the royal camp because he seems to know Prince Frederick all too well...Playing out conversations between Zeiss and the Prince...knowing how Zeiss, Spalatin and the Prince will double cross Müntzer (62,63,69)? Also, on page 70, the narrator also says Q was very close to the prince's rooms...So Q does work for the prince's court?

The narrator also tells us he doesn't know how Ottilie met her end and wishes her death so that she doesn't have to witness the void, the cold loneliness of Christmas in the same year of death (70)-She could still possibly be alive! We'll read and find out :)

Edit Something else I wanted to mention...The vernacular is completely throwing me off. We're in the sixteenth Germany, where people speak with the present day tongue and colloquialisms-It's very anachronistic in nature. Anybody else notice this? I don't expect for the characters to be speaking German, or what have you, but where is the medieval common parlance?

Ami wrote: "The narrator says on page 27, the Coiner shouted omnia sunt communia when the soldiers took him away, but he didn't say this...It was Elias? Did misread, or does this slip mean something?"

Why not? I think he said this, only later, "while they were carrying him away on the cart".

Ami wrote: "According to the entry in the prologue dated 21 October 1517, Luther has posted ninety-five theses against the traffic in indulgences. In a letter written on 17 May 1518, Q says Luther will never dare put this theses of his in writing, since he is aware of the enormity that it represents... (2,3). Q is referring to two different theses, correct...Luther wrote many?"

The text says: "Luther will never dare put this thesis of his in writing" and is referring to a thesis of "stripping the Holy See of its greatest bullwark, the weapon of excommunication". The famous theses of Luther were the 95 from 31 October 1517.

Ami wrote: "If it doesn't matter, according to Luther, of an unjust excommunication, because that concerns only external communion with the Church, and not an internal communion then why does he want to strip the Holy See of its greatest bullwark, the weapon of excommunication (2,3...Letter to Carafa on 17 May 1518)?

Because of course it matters, Luther only pretends that it doesn't and is very afraid what his excommunication would mean to the cause.

Ami wrote: "On page 48, the Q says in a letter dated 27 October 1521, Frederick is alarmed by Karlstadt's following and that he will have to bring back Luther (who has been supposedly abducted, but is currently just hiding) to remove him...Something he thought he would turn to his own advantage risks rebounding upon him... What is the "something" Karlstadt thought would be advantageous?"

It's about what Frederick thought would be advantageous, not Karlstadt: "reform of the Church and independence from Rome could turn into reform of authority and independence from the princes."


Ami wrote: "I think there are two narrators so far, there's Q/Qoèlet, and somebody else. "

I only just now understood that Qoèlet is simply Ecclesiastes, and not Q's real name at all! Silly me, but that's because in Polish Qoèlet is written with a 'K' (Kohelet) so I never associated him with a 'Q'.

Ami wrote: "Are you surprised to read the statement where is the omnipresent Lord Multiple times in this first section, a section primarlily focused on religious emancipation, religious wars, religious freedom...It makes me wonder if there are subtleties regarding atheism, or at least the difficulty in remaining faithful?"

I don't think there were any atheists back then or at least they had to pretend to be believers or else face the consequences.

Ami wrote: "We're in the sixteenth Germany, where people speak with the present day tongue and colloquialisms-It's very anachronistic in nature. Anybody else notice this? I don't expect for the characters to be speaking German, or what have you, but where is the medieval common parlance? "

I completely agree. We've speculated with Kaycie in the next week's thread that it might be done on purpose to show similarities and parallels between XVI- th century Europe and present situation. However I admit that I don't like it much for the most part.

Teanka wrote: "Ami wrote: "The narrator says on page 27, the Coiner shouted omnia sunt communia when the soldiers took him away, but he didn't say this...It was Elias? Did misread, or does this slip mean somethin..."

Why not? I think he said this, only later, "while they were carrying him away on the cart".
huh-uh, he doesn't.

and is referring to a thesis of "stripping the Holy See of its greatest bullwark, the weapon of excommunication".
Thank you, this is what I wanted to make sure of.

Because of course it matters, Luther only pretends that it doesn't and is very afraid what his excommunication would mean to the cause.
I read it very literally and failed to read into the effect of what it would have on Luther's stance...Is he being child-like here, or is it just me?

I only just now understood that Qoèlet is simply Ecclesiastes, and not Q's real name at all! Silly me, but that's because in Polish Qoèlet is written with a 'K' (Kohelet) so I never associated him with a 'Q'.
Well, I didn't even get that (Ecclesiastes), so thank you for the insight! :)

I don't think there were any atheists back then or at least they had to pretend to be believers or else face the consequences.
Then why do you think this statement is so repetitive? Atheism, is definitely too extreme a word; so, if I can, I'd like to retract that statement. What I mean is that this mystery narrator seems to be a believer filled with doubt on his belief taking into consideration what is happening around him.

it might be done on purpose to show similarities and parallels between XVI- th century Europe and present situation. However I admit that I don't like it much for the most part.
I like this, and I too find it quite irksome. Welcome back, Teanka...I'll post more tomorrow! Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. I feel better, now standing on firmer ground with this confusing novel. LOL!

Ami wrote: "I read it very literally and failed to read into the effect of what it would have on Luther's stance...Is he being child-like here, or is it just me?"

I didn't see it that way. However, I think it may be what the authors intended, since they dislike him quite a bit. He is just as bad as the Pope, which I find an amusing viewpoint.

Ami wrote: "Why not? I think he said this, only later, "while they were carrying him away on the cart".
huh-uh, he doesn't"
Not in the scene, but I thought maybe the narrator witnessed it 'behind the scenes'. But otherwise, I think he might have made it up when he told the story to the others. He wanted to add a more glorious ending to the story of Thomas Muntzer.

Ami wrote: "
Then why do you think this statement is so repetitive? Atheism, is definitely too extreme a word; so, if I can, I'd like to retract that statement. What I mean is that this mystery narrator seems to be a believer filled with doubt on his belief taking into consideration what is happening around him."

Now I definitely agree with you. I'm all the time wondering about what does our narrator truly believe in. As for "Omnia sunt communia" I think that's what the authors want us to remember from this part, their main thesis if you will. And I suppose they are probably atheists at that."

Teanka wrote: "Ami wrote: "I read it very literally and failed to read into the effect of what it would have on Luther's stance...Is he being child-like here, or is it just me?"

I didn't see it that way. Howeve..."

Not in the scene, but I thought maybe the narrator witnessed it 'behind the scenes'. But otherwise, I think he might have made it up when he told the story to the others. He wanted to add a more glorious ending to the story of Thomas Muntzer.
Alright, this works. Good lord, it probably isn't even important in the big scheme of things, but the detail bothered me.

I didn't see it that way. However, I think it may be what the authors intended, since they dislike him quite a bit
It's very passive aggressive behavior for an adult, a man of God, who people are to revere... It makes him human, I guess, which he is... He does lose zeal, however.

I think that's what the authors want us to remember from this part, their main thesis if you will. And I suppose they are probably atheists at that."
Interesting, I'm going to keep this in mind as I continue reading.