21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
The Testament of Mary
2013 Book Discussions
>
The Testament of Mary - And Lazarus wept... (January 2013)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Sophia
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jan 16, 2013 12:26PM
In the gospel of John it was Jesus who wept at the death of Lazarus. Why has Tóibín inverted the original story so that Lazarus weeps when Jesus orders him to come up out the grave?
reply
|
flag
I think it enforces the idea that John told the story he wanted.
Why wouldn't he want Lazarus weeping when he came up out of grave? Was death preferable to life? I'm genuinely interested to know what you think, because I'm not sure what John gained by repressing the truth. NB I think I'm following your line of thinking... (!)
Is this the master or the mary book?
I'll start this one next. I'm curious, now. ;)
Good. That's what we like to hear :)
Please note, that wasn't a comment that was based on religious belief, but rather one based on the story Toibin presents. Thing Two Testament of Mary
Sophia I think it's a better story John's way. You have this picture of Jesus moved by the beauty of life restored. In this book's account this "miracle" was tragic. Lazarus was raised, but not restored.
I saw a term today for the fear of running out of reading material. I have the opposite problem, the fear of running out of hours in the day.
Deborah wrote: "Please note, that wasn't a comment that was based on religious belief, but rather one based on the story Toibin presents."I understood that. My beliefs mean that I'm finding it quite a challenge to focus on the text!
I think it's a better story John's way. You have this picture of Jesus moved by the beauty of life restored. In this book's account this "miracle" was tragic. Lazarus was raised, but not restored.
That's interesting and I think it sounds right. He wasn't restored to life – as we understand it. I had thought that maybe Lazarus preferred the next life, but that would have strengthened John's case...
This way is also more realistic; after being four days dead in that sort of climate you would be a mess.
I'm also unsure of how to interpret this inversion of the story. Tóibín's version of Mary's son is rather cold and heartless, and it wouldn't really work to have him raise Lazarus from motivations of sorrow and pity. In terms of this story, it's much easier to think of John gilding the story with humanizing touches (wouldn't we be tempted to do the same in his position?). It's not quite fabricating or repressing the truth, but more akin to a PR agent putting a spin on the facts—just enough truth to make it real, but twisted in such a fashion that Hitler could pass as Mother Teresa.I suppose it could also put forth the suggestion that the answer to one person's well-intentioned and heartfelt prayer (i.e. Mary and Martha) could have such a ruinous effect on another (i.e. Lazarus). In the same hand, I think you'd have to have a pretty nihilistic view of life to suggest that divine intervention (of one sort or another) could produce such trauma. It's one thing to discuss why a putatively good divine being would let bad things happen, but another entirely to suggest that that same deity would willfully inflict such devastation. Tóibín's retelling casts Mary's son as a rather capricious and short-sighted individual—but perhaps that was his intention all along, and it certainly supports her emotional distance in the story.
On a more historical note (RANT WARNING), I'm not aware of any first century Jewish burials that involved digging holes and depositing bodies in the soil. The custom was more along the lines of letting the body rot in a cave and depositing the remaining bones in an ossuary. This goes back to my point in the other thread that The Testament of Mary feels off-the-cuff and poorly researched—especially since The Master came across as completely the opposite. I'm sure the average reader wouldn't know or care about such petty details, but it disturbs me a little that an author who had won me over with impeccable research would so casually flout historical accuracy.
Daniel wrote: "In the same hand, I think you'd have to have a pretty nihilistic view of life to suggest that divine intervention (of one sort or another) could produce such trauma. It's one thing to discuss why a putatively good divine being would let bad things happen, but another entirely to suggest that that same deity would wilfully inflict such devastation. "Maybe that's his point: that Christianity is deeply flawed?
I'm not aware of any first century Jewish burials that involved digging holes and depositing bodies in the soil. The custom was more along the lines of letting the body rot in a cave and depositing the remaining bones in an ossuary.
Yes, I'd always understand that Lazarus came out of a cave; equally that Mary gave birth to Jesus in a cave - and not a stable (at least not what Westerners would understand by a stable).
Did Tóibín want people to engage with what is commonly understood as a grave? I think he takes a lot of liberties with factual details to ensure a less well informed readership can engage with the elements of his story that would strike them as 'foreign'. But, but, but surely the appeal of this book would necessarily be limited, in the first case?
Sophia wrote: "Maybe that's his point: that Christianity is deeply flawed?"Which makes it pretty hard to argue that this isn't some attack against the church... :)
Sophia wrote: "But, but, but surely the appeal of this book would necessarily be limited, in the first case?"
I certainly agree with you there. But do you think that writing about such a reflexively controversial subject limits the audience by definition? At that point, limiting the appeal would be moot since you're essentially writing to a target audience.
I doubt very much that this book has a wide appeal. Tóibín's fans will read it and those who have issues with Catholicism may consider it of interest. Anyone else will, I think, be disappointed. Just my opinion…
Mod
I loved this book. I think it hits on things that I brush up against in my own writing, but with a lot more focus and skill. Sadly, some of us have a relationship with God that is complicated, and a puzzlement about the schism between scripture and daily life. The yearning for the divine butts up hard against the ways that God, Religion and the clergy fail us day to day.
The writing was certainly good. I know just what you mean about the failings of religion.
Oh also I love the retelling of traditional stories.
Deborah wrote: "Oh also I love the retelling of traditional stories."*Chuckle* I can enjoy retellings. It's only when things swing towards reimagining or repurposing that I get a bit irked. I'm also thinking that Testament of Mary has no way of speaking to my Protestant upbringing. Perhaps that's my bigger issue in struggling to find some connection with the book.
Deborah wrote: "Sadly, some of us have a relationship with God that is complicated, and a puzzlement about the schism between scripture and daily life. The yearning for the divine butts up hard..."
Some of us? I'll join Sophia in saying that I know exactly what you mean.
Daniel wrote: "I'm also thinking that Testament of Mary has no way of speaking to my Protestant upbringing. Perhaps that's my bigger issue in struggling to find some connection with the book."It didn't do much for my Russian Orthodox upbringing - maybe because we revere the Mother of God...
Mod
Of course, my favorite part within this section is Mary's reluctance to attend the wedding at Cana. I can just picture her - grumbling about the wedding present she must buy for this distant relative she hardly knows. Great personification here. Sorry, but I find this part hilarious!I take Lazarus' weeping as a sign of his reluctance to return to life on earth. Why would he want to be here when he could be there?
And I didn't see so much importance in the "digging up" because Toibin does call it a tomb at one point. I just assume tombs are dirty places. In re-reading this section, I do see his frequent mention of the word up, but on the first pass, it didn't come across as false to me.
Thing Two: No need to apologize here! I'm glad you found it both hilarious and engaging.I think you're right about Lazarus weeping for himself. It certainly puts a new spin on the tale.
