What do you think?
Rate this book
The Singer Not the Song
Brand NEW. We ship worldwide
32 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1953
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 21, 2012
Not quite sure why I've never seen this among classics. A tremendous book, well crafted and profound.
March 7, 2010
I just finished this book last night. It was good and I enjoyed it, but I had a few problems with it.
The first was that I couldn't ever determine the time-frame it was taking place in. It was written in the early 50's, so I assume that was when it was supposed happen. I would have liked some confirmation of that, however.
The other was some of the descriptions. The actions scenes seemed to happen so quickly and stated matter-of-factly that it was hard to become emotional over them.
I did like the plot - the good vs. evil. I liked the character study of the priest. In the end, I just wasn't drawn in to it emotionally enough to care much about the climax. I watched the movie version of this book (impossible to by a region 1 DVD and I had to buy a foreign version) and was much more impressed by it.
The first was that I couldn't ever determine the time-frame it was taking place in. It was written in the early 50's, so I assume that was when it was supposed happen. I would have liked some confirmation of that, however.
The other was some of the descriptions. The actions scenes seemed to happen so quickly and stated matter-of-factly that it was hard to become emotional over them.
I did like the plot - the good vs. evil. I liked the character study of the priest. In the end, I just wasn't drawn in to it emotionally enough to care much about the climax. I watched the movie version of this book (impossible to by a region 1 DVD and I had to buy a foreign version) and was much more impressed by it.
April 10, 2016
This was an interesting, complex story that lacked just a little something in the emotion department.
Most of the descriptions I've seen of this book (not that there are many, it's a bit of a forgotten title) include the phrase "good vs evil," which I find baffling. If anything I thought the "point" of the book was that good and evil are rarely so clearcut.
Anacleto is the local bandit who rules the town of Quantana. Nearly everyone in town is in some way bribed, blackmailed, threatened or otherwise manipulated into doing his will. What he says goes. If he says no one should attend mass, no attends. As a result, the bishop sends Father Keogh to replace the current ineffectual priest, hoping Keogh can break the stranglehold Anacleto has on the town and allow the flock to return to God. The plot revolves around a battle of wits and wills between Anacleto and Father Keogh. There is a lot of psychology and reverse psychology and manipulation back and forth between the two men. For example, as Father Keogh gains popularity in the town, Anacleto makes roundabout attempts on the priest's life. If the priest dies, the church's influence will wane. But if the people know that Anacleto was behind it, Keogh will become something of a martyr, and the opposite will happen. And the more Father Keogh knows about these plots, the less he can do about them. He may know there are plans to attack him on his next visit to the sick in a neighboring village, but this makes it even more important that he actually go on the trip, lest he be seen allowing Anacleto to control him. Both men are particularly clever, so these rounds of manipulation escalate into ever more complicated and interesting plots.
The problem is that neither character is very well developed or likable. Or even hateable. It was interesting to follow their clever tricks back and forth but I never particularly cared who "won."
Anacleto seems to be a benevolent dictator. He doesn't really do much other than demand protection money from the villagers. In fact, multiple characters speculate as to what he even does with all the money he collects, because he doesn't use it to live a lavish lifestyle at the expense of the population. He occasionally murders people, mostly to keep the rest in line. But in line with what? There is no drug trade or extortion or other grand plots here. It seems like he just enjoys being in charge and having everyone obey and fear him.
He basically just a narcissist. Is that really evil?
Is that really worth the consequences of Father Keogh coming to town and stirring up trouble? (Because trouble is stirred up, and people are hurt, both physically and otherwise, by the battle between the two men.)
Yes, murder is wrong, but in the scope of personal and social ills...drug wars and genocide and slavery and child soldiers and all manner of other terrible things that happen in human history...this is the battle the church chooses? This is the man labeled evil?
Keogh seems to have a bit of a martyr complex at times. How much is Anacleto evil and how much is he labeled evil by Father Keogh to justify the battle against him?
How much is the battle about Father Keogh representing the good of the church versus the evil of this small time local bandit and how much is the battle about Father Keogh representing his own ego versus that of a similarly intelligent man?
Does it even really matter who wins?
This ambivalence is both the novel's strength and weakness. Without an emotional investment in the characters, the philosophical questions raised are fleeting. They are interesting, but they don't stick in your brain. You don't find yourself days later pondering the lives of two characters you never really cared about. It makes for an interesting intellectual novel, but one without a lasting effect.
Most of the descriptions I've seen of this book (not that there are many, it's a bit of a forgotten title) include the phrase "good vs evil," which I find baffling. If anything I thought the "point" of the book was that good and evil are rarely so clearcut.
Anacleto is the local bandit who rules the town of Quantana. Nearly everyone in town is in some way bribed, blackmailed, threatened or otherwise manipulated into doing his will. What he says goes. If he says no one should attend mass, no attends. As a result, the bishop sends Father Keogh to replace the current ineffectual priest, hoping Keogh can break the stranglehold Anacleto has on the town and allow the flock to return to God. The plot revolves around a battle of wits and wills between Anacleto and Father Keogh. There is a lot of psychology and reverse psychology and manipulation back and forth between the two men. For example, as Father Keogh gains popularity in the town, Anacleto makes roundabout attempts on the priest's life. If the priest dies, the church's influence will wane. But if the people know that Anacleto was behind it, Keogh will become something of a martyr, and the opposite will happen. And the more Father Keogh knows about these plots, the less he can do about them. He may know there are plans to attack him on his next visit to the sick in a neighboring village, but this makes it even more important that he actually go on the trip, lest he be seen allowing Anacleto to control him. Both men are particularly clever, so these rounds of manipulation escalate into ever more complicated and interesting plots.
The problem is that neither character is very well developed or likable. Or even hateable. It was interesting to follow their clever tricks back and forth but I never particularly cared who "won."
Anacleto seems to be a benevolent dictator. He doesn't really do much other than demand protection money from the villagers. In fact, multiple characters speculate as to what he even does with all the money he collects, because he doesn't use it to live a lavish lifestyle at the expense of the population. He occasionally murders people, mostly to keep the rest in line. But in line with what? There is no drug trade or extortion or other grand plots here. It seems like he just enjoys being in charge and having everyone obey and fear him.
He basically just a narcissist. Is that really evil?
Is that really worth the consequences of Father Keogh coming to town and stirring up trouble? (Because trouble is stirred up, and people are hurt, both physically and otherwise, by the battle between the two men.)
Yes, murder is wrong, but in the scope of personal and social ills...drug wars and genocide and slavery and child soldiers and all manner of other terrible things that happen in human history...this is the battle the church chooses? This is the man labeled evil?
Keogh seems to have a bit of a martyr complex at times. How much is Anacleto evil and how much is he labeled evil by Father Keogh to justify the battle against him?
How much is the battle about Father Keogh representing the good of the church versus the evil of this small time local bandit and how much is the battle about Father Keogh representing his own ego versus that of a similarly intelligent man?
Does it even really matter who wins?
This ambivalence is both the novel's strength and weakness. Without an emotional investment in the characters, the philosophical questions raised are fleeting. They are interesting, but they don't stick in your brain. You don't find yourself days later pondering the lives of two characters you never really cared about. It makes for an interesting intellectual novel, but one without a lasting effect.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews