Reading the Chunksters discussion
Archive 2015: Literary Readathon
>
Q: discussion week 2 9/20: Pages 81 - 161 Part One, Chapter 19 - Part Two, Chapter 4
date
newest »
newest »
Did you like the way the story unfolded, for instance being told first of the fiasco of Muntzer's rebellion and only later about how it all began?I do, actually, because I think I would have been intimidated by the theology/politics/history that is really thrown at us in some of these parts. Much more of that would have been concentrated to the very beginning if this were told in order.
the language is surprisingly modern
I love the modern language! I feel like there is so much I am trying to pick up from the pages of this story that I don't also need to be translating ancient English in my head!
Otherwise, though, one of the blurbs I read about this book before picking it up was that the author's may have intended it to be a critique of some European events in more recent history that the 1500s (though my memory and knowledge of history are terrible, so I can't remember what they might have been referring to), so maybe the modern language is their way of trying to hint to the readers that maybe they aren't quite talking about a peasant rebellion 500 years ago.
Have we ever known some of his previous names? I think not
He is referred to as Gerrit Boekbinder and Gert-from-the-wall when he is recognized in the "safe-haven" place when he is recovering. It is mentioned, though, that he has 100s of names, so the chances of any one we learn of being "real" is very slim.
I do think, at least so far, that we have only one narrator...though boy this guy can find trouble. I think this mostly from the prologue where the narrator says something about his great enemy, Q. I think that means it isn't more than one narrator. Well, unless its one narrator like its one author...maybe like each voice has no real name and we never learn if its the same person because it doesn't matter - they all have the same ideals and are striving for the same things? Could be a long shot, though, and I prefer to have one narrator. Makes it tidier! :-)
I am enjoying the story, but finding it a "hard" read. I am learning just enough to be curious about the histories we are skimming, but not enough to really think I am learning anything, so I spend a good deal of time googling stuff that come up. Of course, I have now googled so many names/dates/events that I think they are all one garbled mess in my head. Whoops!
Kaycie wrote: " He is referred to as Gerrit Boekbinder and Gert-from-the-wall when he is recognized in the "safe-haven" place when he is recovering. It is mentioned, though, that he has 100s of names, so the chances of any one we learn of being "real" is very slim." These are his later names, though, not the one he used at the time. I would like to learn his 'real' name. I suppose that's the one he used when he was Muntzer's disciple.
Kaycie wrote: " so maybe the modern language is their way of trying to hint to the readers that maybe they aren't quite talking about a peasant rebellion 500 years ago. "
That's exactly what I thought. Otherwise, some phrases seemed just a bit too modern for a historical novel.
Kaycie wrote: "I am enjoying the story, but finding it a "hard" read. I am learning just enough to be curious about the histories we are skimming, but not enough to really think I am learning anything, so I spend a good deal of time googling stuff that come up. Of course, I have now googled so many names/dates/events that I think they are all one garbled mess in my head. Whoops! "
I was thinking that if the reader has to google so many names, dates and events in order to understand what's going on throughout the story, it may be counted as a failing of the novel. I usually read historical fiction in order to learn painlessly and in an entertaining way some additional facts and names and, if the book is one of the better ones, to think about the author's interpretation of events. Don't you think that the author(s) introduce way too many names over a very short amount of pages? I wouldn't mind, but they seldom serve any cause!
I would like to learn his 'real' name. I suppose that's the one he used when he was Muntzer's disciple.I assumed that his name there might also have been made up and that we might never learn his real name. I suspect that that is the point, because in that way, he could be anyone...including you or me in another time/place/situation.
I usually read historical fiction in order to learn painlessly and in an entertaining way some additional facts and names and, if the book is one of the better ones, to think about the author's interpretation of events.
AGREED! I am finding this one to be highly historical fiction (the plot takes a back seat to historical facts), but I don't feel like I am absorbing them like I should be.
Don't you think that the author(s) introduce way too many names over a very short amount of pages? I wouldn't mind, but they seldom serve any cause!
Yes, I do think that. And frequently German names that I am not super familiar with so they get a bit muddled in my head. I also agree that I do not see the point of it! An even slightly more succinct recounting would be much better for me!
In the first part, more pieces of the puzzle fell together as we learned about the final months of peasants' rebellion and of the life of Thomas Muntzer. It also became quite clear that 'Qoelet' was indeed Q, a supposed ally to the reformists' cause, put in a position to gain trust and to send the rebels off to be massacred when the right time came. In his third letter to Thomas Muntzer in chapter 25, he persuaded him to leave Muhlhausen with his army of peasants and go to aid of Frankenhausen, effectively waging war against the princes, which resulted, as we already know, in a massacre some 15 days later. Notice that the previous Q's letters to Muntzer were truly helpful to his cause (like the first one where he warned Muntzer not to go to Weimar) but were delivered conveniently too late.
The closing chapters of this part consist of 4 letters sent by Q to his patron, Gian Pietro Carafa in Rome between the years 1525-1529, stating very briefly the political situation, mentioning, among others, the Sack of Rome in 1527. These letters proved very informative. Carafa's objective was to weaken the position of the catholic German Emperor Charles V who was also the King of Spain, and because of that he was willing to help for a time the cause of Lutheran Princes who were natural opponents of the Emperor's. He also supported at first Muntzer's cause as long as it divided the reformists' forces.
Some questions to this part:
Did you like the way the story unfolded, for instance being told first of the fiasco of Muntzer's rebellion and only later about how it all began?
As you mentioned in part 1, also in this part the language is surprisingly modern (i.e. "we can put the representatives of the corporations in a minority " or "once we've got rid of the big crooks, the princes will be next to pay", or " a policeman". Do you think there is a reason for this and what can it be?
What did you think of rebel peasants' demands (of the 12 articles)? Were they feasible in the XVIth century Europe?
The last 15 pages or so with the title 'Eloi (1538)' take part 13 years in the future, and seem to follow a similar pattern as the first scene is the execution of Jan van Batenburg of whom the story's narrator had obviously been a follower. According to wikipedia, "During the early 1530s, Van Batenburg converted to Anabaptism and found himself the leader of a large number of his co-religionists in Friesland and Groningen. His sympathies originally lay with the revolutionary Anabaptists who held Münster during the Münster Rebellion, but between Easter and Pentecost 1535, the Batenburgers from Groningen urged him to declare himself as 'a new David'. Before long Van Batenburg had established a new and completely independent sect, which quickly became the most extreme of all the early Anabaptist movements". In April 1538, Batenburg was tortured and executed in Brabant. The book's protagonist barely fled with life to Antwerp and was saved there by 'Eloi' and given a new name of Lot. (Have we ever known some of his previous names? I think not).
Who is the true narrator of the story? Is it only the nameless follower of Muntzer and later of the Anabaptists or are there multiple narrators? And, while we are at it, why doesn't the protagonist have a name? In some ways, he is just as mysterious as Q, I think.
Feel free to post your thoughts on this week's section!