Constant Reader discussion
Reading List
>
The Last Report on the Miracles at Little No Horse - the discussion
Unfortunately, I haven’t finished yet. My eyes would water when trying to read because of having a cold. I’ve loved the book so far though and will participate more when I’m done.I just have to say it hooked me early on. Most authors may hint at a big revel and string you along. This novel starts out with a giant revelation that keeps you reading wondering how this came to be and why. I loved getting to know the complexities of Agnes life before becoming the priest.
I really enjoyed this book, mostly because of the unique and pleasantly flawed character of Agnes/Father Damien. I also admired how Father Damien gradually adapted his own Catholic beliefs based on the Ojibwe traditions.To address your question, Lynn, I don't think Mary was the only one who knew. I thought that Kashpaw revealed his knowing Father Damien's secret during one of their chess matches. Damien realized that Kashpaw did it mainly to distract him from the game.
Janet, I also thought that Erdrich did a great job of presenting Agnes' life prior to becoming Father Damien. It really helps the reader understand her motivations and complex thinking.
Thanks, Lynn, for getting things rolling. Here’s some background information on the author from answers.com:Louise Erdrich was the first of seven children born to Ralph Louis Erdrich and Rita Joanne (Gourneau) Erdrich. Born on June 16, 1954, in Little Falls, Minnesota, she was raised in Wahpeton, North Dakota. Her mother, of Ojibwe descent, was born on the Turtle Mountain Ojibwe Reservation while her father was of German ancestry. Both parents taught at a Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding school.
From childhood, the rich oral tradition of Ojibwa storytelling was a part of Erdrich's life. Her mother and grandparents told her many stories about life on the reservation during the Great Depression of the 1930s, as well as other tales. Erdrich's father also told stories about his relatives and the towns where he grew up. Erdrich maintains that listening to her family's stories has in some ways been her most significant literary influence. . .
Erdrich attended a Catholic school in Wahpeton. Her grandfather, Petrice Gourneau, taught her about culture and religion; tribal chair of the Turtle Mountain Reservation, he worshiped the traditional Ojibwa religion while at the same time was a devout Catholic. Her grandfather's example inspired Erdrich's creation of the character Father Damien who appears in many of her novels.
Indeed, Erdrich has drawn on her roots, both the land and the experiences of her family, for inspiration. As Mark Anthony Rolo wrote in the Progressive, "Erdrich once mused that Native American literature is often about coming home, returning to the land, the language and love of ancient traditions - a theme opposite of Western literature, which is about embarking on a journey, finding adventures beyond one's beginnings."
For those of us who were at the Minneapolis convention, here’s a note about Birchbark Books, the store Erdrich started with her sister. I’m afraid I missed the focal point.
The store, located in a building that was once a meat market, is decorated with a stairway made of birch trees that fell on land owned by friends in Wisconsin; the shop's focal point is an intricately carved Roman Catholic confessional Erdrich found at an architectural salvage store. Dream-catchers hang in the corners of the confessional, along with books with "sin" in the title and a framed copy of the U.S. Government's 1837 treaty with the Chippewa.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/louise-e...
I'm glad I read this book, as it has been many years since I last read Erdrich. For the most part, I liked this one. There were a few things I didn't like, so let me get those out of the way.First, the book really lagged for me about 2/3 in, when I felt the need to do some serious skimming. Many novels move the reader along so that one gets the sense that things are building toward the finish. I did not feel that way at all with this book. Then, about 30 pages from the end, things picked up again, for a good finish.
Second, it has been noted that Erdrich has used the same themes and characters in previous works. She also used some of the same incidents, such as a nun giving a girl a stigmata with a meat fork. While this seemed fresh and quirky-funny the first time I read it (Love Medicine?), I was disappointed this time. I can't say why. Surely, if Erdrich wants to tell the same story and use her own stuff from another point of view, she should do that. It just seemed to be stale to this reader.
Otherwise, I did like this book. I loved that Agnes had so many lives, and each life seemed to be full, and full of nuance. I actually wished I could hear her play the piano! And she was loved by so many. It seems that several people knew that Father Damien was a woman, not just Marie. (Paul, I think you mean Nanapush - he knew.) Of course Sr. Leopolda knew, and used the information as a form of blackmail via the confessional. I had the feeling that the Ojibwa knew many things, but that they didn't let on that they knew, unless they had to.
Thanks for the background, Denise. I'm sorry I jumped in and started things before you got here, but I just couldn't wait! I missed the focal point confessional at Birchbark Books too. I was too busy looking at the wooden canoe hanging from the ceiling.
I am not finished yet and am finding it to be a slow go for me. I find that I can't seem to read a lot of it at once. I do enjoy the characters although I think the writing is dense.
I have a picture of the confessional. I'll post it when I get it set up. I loved this book. I thought it was wonderful. I know we're supposed to go more into depth than that. Discussion is about so much more than I liked/hated a book. But I haven't had enough caffeine yet today, and my back is hurting, all of which is affecting my head and what it can process. So later, I hope I can be a bit more discussion worthy.
Yes, I did mean to say Nanapush, MAP. Thanks for catching me! I agree that it seems the Ojibwe knew more than they let on. They just use only the information they need at the time.I, too, felt the story dragged somewhat about halfway through but I soon got back into it.
If there is anything I could identify as an issue for me it would be the lack of reference to time and dates during the telling of the main story. I found myself occasionally wondering the ages of some of the characters as time passed. Did anyone else have the same issue? Did I just miss some of these references?
Sigh. I think I must be turning into a grouchy hard-to-please old geeze. So many books seem to displease me lately. I just couldn't get into this book. I got about 100 pages in and realized I was only picking it up out of a sense of duty. I wish I could put my finger on why it didn't work for me. I think I just found it boring---even before I got to the bits of Indian stories. Those I couldn't get through at all, in large part, I'm sure, because I've never liked that stuff, but that can't be all of it.
I also disliked Erdich's efforts to be clever and arch and witty. Normally I like witty, but this time it was like nails on the blackboard.
Maybe I'm going through a phase.
I liked the premise behind the book-it was unique and interesting, but the book itself really didn't impress me. There was a real lack of character development and the story seemed to really drag in several areas. I found myself just trying to finish it and be done with it. I didn't find the characters to be very likeable, but probably b/c I didn't get to know them. Now, let me add that I was reading this at the same time I was reading our upcoming classic, which was so beautifully written-so maybe I just was comparing the two too much. However, I can say I am not intrigued enough in the author to read more of her books.
I feel the same way, Sylvia. I have read two of her books, and have not enjoyed her writing or her topics. I did like the characters though, but found their story dull and non interesting. It was certainly a drag for me and one I considered not finishing. (but then my OCD kicked in):) I, too, will probably not bother with any other of her other books.
Well, I'm only about halfway through, so I can't say whether it starts to drag for me or not. I'm really enjoying the story so far and finding it very rich. I listened to Four Souls on audiobook this past fall, which focused mainly on Fleur Delacourt, but includes some of these other characters. I feel like I'm getting to know a community through these different perspectives so the redundancy across books doesn't bother me. I need to think more about it, but I'm struck by the comic tone of some of the stories of deadly incidences. For example the background story of the Puyats and the attempted drowning of the 4 guys out joyriding. Both those involved the blood feud factions.
Sherry, I would love to see the picture of the confessional. Can't believe I missed it. Lynn, I meant it when I said thanks for starting the discussion. I was operating on a pretty leisurely Mountain Daylight Savings Time.
Ruth - once again you have read my mind. I am starting to feel like a grouchy, difficult to please, jaded reader. I have read other books much better than this - although I have definite respect for the author's background and life experiences. It seems to me that she should actually write a memoir based on fact. That would carry more weight and probably more heart.
I have read other books with these characters, but it's been so long ago, that any memory of them is subconscious. I think that if you read her books too literally, you might get tripped up. To me the experience of reading The Last Report on the Miracles at Little No Horse is like a trip to your dream landscape. It's based on reality, but with fantastical things happening. Agnes' journey from novice nun to farmer's wife and piano savant to becoming the victim of a killer and and a runaway river and landing feet-up as a priest in a reservation is such an outlandish story, that it could be the basis for a fairy tale. What I loved about it, was that she worked herself into the heart of the people. She used her love of people, of these very flawed people, to improve their lives, their loves and their hearts. She was a force for goodness and forgiveness--the true saint of the story. And that all this forgiveness was based on a lie, I thought, was ironic. I kept thinking of that Virginia Woolf book about the very long-lived person first being one sex then the other. Agnes was a force for good, even though she would have never been able to accomplish what she did if her secret was an open one. I think the people themselves would have accepted her (did accept her; I'm sure many of them knew) but the authority she had would have been stripped away. And that's another thing that I think is important about the book. Why does it matter, the sex of the priest? Why turn away help if it's offered? So Agnes offered, as a man, and was not turned away.
Sherry wrote: "I have read other books with these characters, but it's been so long ago, that any memory of them is subconscious. I think that if you read her books too literally, you might get tripped up. To me ..."Sherry,
I have a really good photo of Allen standing if front of the confessional. How do I copy it here?
Jane wrote: "Sherry wrote: "I have read other books with these characters, but it's been so long ago, that any memory of them is subconscious. I think that if you read her books too literally, you might get tri..."Make sure it's somewhere on the Internet. Copy its address, then insert it here using brackets with this htlm code:
img src=" (here put the address here without spaces) "
Put those brackets before and after.
Paul wrote: "Yes, I did mean to say Nanapush, MAP. Thanks for catching me! I agree that it seems the Ojibwe knew more than they let on. They just use only the information they need at the time.I, too, felt..."
Paul, I found the dates as chapter titles to be helpful in fixing time and ages.
MAP wrote: "Paul wrote: "Yes, I did mean to say Nanapush, MAP. Thanks for catching me! I agree that it seems the Ojibwe knew more than they let on. They just use only the information they need at the time...."
There's the problem. I actually listened to the audiobook. I remember the dates when he was interviewed but little of them from the main story. There's certainly an advantage to having the actual book in hand for reference.
Ruth wrote: "Sigh. I think I must be turning into a grouchy hard-to-please old geeze. So many books seem to displease me lately. I just couldn't get into this book. I got about 100 pages in and realized I wa..."
Maybe it's something in the air because I couldn't get into this book, either, and I couldn't get into another Erdrich book, The Plague of Doves. I've tried three times with that one.
I don't dislike the American Indian people, of course I don't, but I'm not really interested in their stories, either.
Sylvia, I also felt the same as you and Marialyce, and Marialyce, I only finished because my compulsion to finish every book I start kicked in as well.
Here is Allen in front of the confessional.
There were many things I liked about this book. Like Sherry, I loved it that Father Damien was a woman. She brought a woman's touch to the priesthood. I also believe that most of the Indians knew she was a woman and didn't really care. They saw that she cared about them. I think it is wonderful how Father Damien was able to combine the Indian stories with Christianity, and in this way, he reached more people. It reminded me of some of the missionaries in Gabon where we lived when I was a child. The missionaries who could tie the local religion in with Christianity had much more success. I do love the Indian stories about creation. That is one of the reasons that I loved reading Tony Hillerman's books.The earth plays a huge part in Erdrich's books. One scene I really liked was when "The Actor" shot Berndt and ended up being smothered by Berndt. Then the earth swallowed the Actor's body.
You "don't dislike American Indian people, but you're not interested in their stories, either"? What a peculiar thing to say.
John wrote: "You "don't dislike American Indian people, but you're not interested in their stories, either"? What a peculiar thing to say."Perhaps I'm a peculiar person, though I don't find it a peculiar thing to say at all. Just because I don't dislike an ethnic group doesn't mean I'm interested in their history. I don't dislike any ethnic group as I judge people on a person-to-person basis, but I'm not interested in reading the history of all of them.
And as a strict and practicing Catholic, I didn't like the fact that a woman was pretending to be a priest. That did not sit at all well with me. The priesthood is restricted to men. Now perhaps you might like to attack me for being against women's rights. I'm already the Plaintiff in one multimillion dollar libel lawsuit in Federal Court. I'm not averse to more should they become necessary. You really like to pick at people, John, and for what? Just to show you can? We know that already. It's not interesting at all to log on here and find picky comments. One would hope that people would be discussing the book. Jane liked the fact that a woman was pretending to be a priest, and she tells us why. That's a constructive comment and the kind readers like, whether they agree with it or not.
In the future, please just skip commenting on anything I might have to say. I'll do the same with you. Thank you.
My apologies to the other members, but John has been picking and picking and picking, and frankly, I've had enough picking.
All I did was make a comment, which you could have taken as constructive, but conveniently chose not to. That was your decision, not mine.And I apologize that the author suggested that a priest might be something other than a man. That was rather rude, don't you think?
Let's get back to discussing the book, please!
Roxanne, Please don't take your voice of sanity away. Please. :)
Roxanne, there was a short time when I posted too much, though no one can "monopolize" this forum. For one thing, I only post on a few of the many threads here. I don't deny I was inadvertently overposting on a few threads like a guest who stays too long, but those days have long gone by. You're more than a little late to the whipping post. Most days I don't even log on here any longer, and it's been that way since before Christmas. I think I only logged onto this site twice this week. I didn't even realize you were, for the most part, gone. Imagine that! From an elephant to boot! And my "motives" for filing a lawsuit are no secret and nothing I need to examine. When a crazy person, and I mean the Defendant in my lawsuit, has been stalking and libeling me, my husband, and our family members all over the Internet for more than a year, it's going to take a Federal Judge to tell her to cut it out and clean up her act, and at this point, I don't care if she is paying me for the rest of her life. At this point, I'll gladly take her house, her car, and part of her wages each month. All she had to do was shut her mouth, and she couldn't do that. If I were "so" litigious, I guarantee you I would not have waited a year to file a lawsuit. I would have done it after the first malicious and libelous remark. In the past, I tended to give people a LOT of leeway with me. That has not worked out for me. From here on, I'm giving them little leeway when it comes to libel and stalking.
My lawsuit bears the name "Gabrielle Renoir-Large."
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/ohio...
So maybe you should call the court and tell them I'm not who I say I am. That would interest them greatly, I'm sure. It might also interest the people who issued my birth certificate and my marriage certificate, certificates the Defendant "knows for a fact" don't exist.
I responded to John the way I did because his sarcasm, not just to me, but to others as well, is, in his case, misplaced. John is obviously very intelligent and has something of real value to offer if he'd only stay on topic more often rather than just remarking on what he perceives to be a poster's personal characteristics. I am genuinely interested in what John thinks of a book, but I'm not interested in whether or not he thinks my remark was "peculiar" just as I have no interest in what you think of me personally. Heck, John's comment wasn't even personal, as in it wasn't "about" me, it was "about" something I said. Fair game, and it at least made sense, but I'll repeat, no, I don't think it's "peculiar" to not dislike an ethnic group and still not be particularly interested in their stories. There's no ethnic group I dislike, but I'm not interested in every group's stories. So no, I didn't think it was peculiar. If John still does, that's fine with me.
John, no, I don't think the author was rude. I suppose you're just being sarcastically humorous again, or humorously sarcastic, but that just goes over my head. I was not born with the gift of sarcasm. Sorry, at times I wish I had been.
Erdrich offended me more with sentences like this: "He had the odd sensation that petals drifted in the air between them, petals of a fragrant and papery citrus velvet...." To me, that sounds like something out of a Harlequin romance, not a literary novel, and yes, I did read my share of Harlequin romances as a teenager.
I also felt that while Erdrich created many complex characters, she didn't fully explore them and let her reader get to know them. I also thought the writing was choppy. Some people like choppy narratives, but I'm not one.
I do give Erdrich kudos for making the Plains Ojibwe "her own" as far as literature goes. I don't plan to read her again myself since I didn't like this book and couldn't even get through The Plague of Doves after three tries and am not a particularly fast reader, but I know she has legions of fans, so she must be doing something right.
Sara wrote: "Roxanne, Please don't take your voice of sanity away. Please. :)"
Oh, let her say what she wants. It's never good to keep things hidden. I just question why on earth she sent me a friend request and why I accepted it. I've remedied that now and blocked her from my page, and I'm grateful to know what she really thinks so I could block her.
This is precisely why I no longer accept friend requests unless I already know the person well.
Sigh. I have to put my Moderator hat on again. Please, people. No more personal put downs. From anybody.
Ruth wrote: "Sigh. I have to put my Moderator hat on again. Please, people. No more personal put downs. From anybody."I'm sorry, Ruth, but when someone says "you aren't who you say you are," I do feel compelled to answer that I am. Of course I am who I say I am. It's just beyond ridiculous for anyone to say I'm not. I'd have a heck of a time filing a lawsuit in a fake name, when they require ID at the courthouse.
John's remark didn't really bother me, though I am interested in what he thought of the book and especially that overwritten (to me) sentence I referenced.
I’m so glad I read this and I finally finished! I was afraid I’d miss most of the talk about the book but it seems to have been sidetracked a bit.As MAP noted, parts of this novel “lagged” a bit for me as well. Where I got a bit bored was in background stories involving the ancestors of some of the more minor characters. The information may have been important to their mindset or motivation, yet I found they were too detailed and detracted from the main story.
I had expected to read more about Sister Leopolda since the investigation into whether she should be a candidate for sainthood was implied to be a focal point. Eventually we satisfactorily learn the full details of her unsavory nature, yet most of the book had nothing to do with her at all.
Mostly I enjoyed delving into the psyche of Father Damien/Agnes. Her/his rich life was filled with both the extraordinary and the common day to day existence of a person trying their best -just to do good for the people he/she came to love.
Sherry made note of the series of “fantastical” events happening in succession as almost fairytale like. Someone made a similar comment made regarding a character I wrote about. Perhaps some people see this as too implausible. Thankfully in real life a great many individuals have calmer lives with more typical dilemmas sprinkled throughout. There are others, like myself, whose lives seemed filled with one dramatic event after another. Please permit me to cite just one of many as an example to illustrate how a real person’s life can be more unbelievable than what is conjured up as fiction.
- I have an autistic son
- 1 ½ weeks after Christmas one year my husband had a conference in San Antonio I wanted to attend but thought I’d failed in securing care for my son.
- 48 hours before trip I learned people were going to split the time and care for him in my home. Frantically I booked tickets, packed, took down the tree I thought I’d leisurely take down while my husband was gone and prepare my home for relative strangers to live in for a week.
- In mid-flight my husband slumped over. He was revived. The second occurrence caused the flight to be diverted to Jackson, Mississippi. We later deduced instead of taking 2 pills with similar color and shape, he accidentally took 2 of the same blood pressure pills.
- Given a clean bill of health, in order to continue to San Antonio we had to 1st connect via Houston. Flights were full & we had to go stand by. One seat opened hours later, my husband was now fine so he left. Hours later a seat was available for me- the problem was a tight connection from Houston to the last flight of the night into San Antonio. Houston’s airport was undergoing renovation so passengers had to leave the secured area and get rescreened.
- A flight attendant and I missed the last flight out of Houston. Her husband had previously decided to meet her in Houston and either fly back with her if they could or drive the distance. This generous couple offered me, a complete stranger, a ride to my hotel and I drove 2 ½ hours with them.
Ok, come on and admit if you’d read that in a novel you’d have though it preposterous! And that is just one event of many in my life! Hmm, maybe the events in Agnes life weren’t so far fetched after all
Well, from reading the posts on the Erdrich book, I now will add an observation. I am one who commented I didn't like the book, but stuck it out. One reason I said I didn't enjoy the book is that I didn't feel the characters were well developed, aside from the Father Damian character. From the comments on here I now realize that this book would have been best read after reading the books that preceeded it by Erdrich, in which she developed other characters mentioned. You can't start a series in the middle-and this proves it. But, I am still not enthralled enough to actually go back and read her books. I wonder if those who did enjoy this book were persons who had read the others. Did it make a difference?
Great observation and question, Sylvia. I'll be interested to see if any others can agree. I expected to like the book much more than I did, and you may have hit upon a point that is important.
I loved the book and I may have read one or two with these same characters, but I don't remember very much about them.
I didn't read her other books and didn't know she'd fleshed out other characters in them. Perhaps that's why I got a bit confused with some of them as to who was who.I enjoyed this one as an examination of the main character. I primarily was interested in her/him and wanting to know what the controversy was over Sister Leopolda.
Yet despite liking this book quite a lot, I'm not sure I'm motivated to read more of this author's work If it is more of the same characters.
I really liked the book, and I have read some of her books. It has been a long time, however, since I read the ones that mention these characters. I do remember the so-called miracle when the little girl fell off the slide into an ice puddle. When she got up, the people thought the face of Jesus had been created in the puddle. That stuck with me because Erdrich seemed to be having a bit of fun with modern miracles, like the lady whose grilled cheese showed the face of Jesus.
The Last Report... was the first Erdrich book I ever read, although I've read others since then. It's been a few years since I read it the first time, but I don't recall being confused because I hadn't read the earlier books. In fact, I loved the book.
My first Erdrich book was "The Beet Queen" which I thought was really great and I looked for and read her earlier ones that I had missed & each of her new ones as they came out. I even read some of her children's books. (I worked in a library so that was easy to do) I also read the book she wrote with her husband Michael Dorris who later committed suicide & his autobiography where he tells about the Objewe children they had adopted and how things did not turn out well with them. I think that experience with the children of the reservation might have been a motive for Erdrich's series of books. She gives a history (Jumbled, the way life is) of the different characters who underwent the great change from living as free natives to almost prisoners in the white man's world. The married couple, Nanapush & his wife, I love them, especially their adventures at the senior citizens center. The character of Leopolda and what happened to her as a young girl when the tornado hit the town. The grandson who grew up to fight in Viet Nam. "The Bingo Palace" and the "luck" that happened to the characters presented. Maybe the books do all have to be taken as a whole - I don't know. But I did look forward to reading "The Miracle at..." because I wanted to know the further adventures of people I had come to know and enjoy. (Yes, I've read her books thst she's written since then, Someone mentioned tony Hillerman's books about the Navaho & I fell the same way about them, tho I usually don't care for the mystery genre.
I think Erdrich wanted us to like Father Damien/Agnes, but I thought he/she was a particularly odious character. To go after Sister Leopolda/Pauline when he/she is so guilty is just hypocritical and unethical. He/she should have begun his/her letters with, "Sister Leopolda is not who you think she is, but then I'm not really Father Damien, I'm not even a man."And I didn't think it was very nice of Agnes to buy a piano when there were other, more pressing needs for the money.
I just couldn't get past that hypocrisy and the choppy writing, but Agnes could be funny. I probably could have gotten past the hypocrisy if I hadn't been raised so strictly regarding religion. I'm sure that was a big factor. I can imagine how terrible I would have felt had some of the priests I knew turned out to be women in disguise.
Like Marian, I did like Nanapush and his wife and was very interested in them.
I also thought some of the things were amusing, such as the things Jane references - seeing Jesus in the puddle and in the grilled cheese. Every so often reports of "seeing the face of Jesus" in a chocolate bar or in the snow or even the mud are on the news. I remember one report of someone seeing the face of Jesus in the pattern of rings of a newly felled tree, so I found that funny.
I thought the letter from the Pope at the end, after Agnes was dead was nice for the people. It made them happy, and they were good souls. They deserved to be happy. I liked the way Erdrich ended the book.
Janet wrote: "I’m so glad I read this and I finally finished! I was afraid I’d miss most of the talk about the book but it seems to have been sidetracked a bit.As MAP noted, parts of this novel “lagged” a bi..."
I don't find all that so unbelievable "in real life," Janet, but I probably would in a novel. I think, to be believable, novels have to be more "conservative" (not the word I want, but it'll have to do) and logical than real life. Each event has to flow logically into the next. Now, if the flight attendant had an ulterior motive other than kindness for giving you the ride, it would be believed in fiction, too, but I agree with you, probably not without.
So what you are saying is these facts are believable in real life but not in fiction because there is no logical progression? Or would they be because of the ironic associations with surgeries and Christmases?- 4 days after a cardiac catheterization my home burned down the week before Christmas
- a little more than six years later, 3 days after another surgery (herniated disc) a neighbor’s tree crashed through our fence nearly missing the house
- another of our neighbor’s trees had crashed through the fence in almost the same location two years ago on Christmas morning.
I'm saying that in fiction, readers usually like a logical progression of events and they tend to call things that seem to spring from seemingly "nowhere," i.e., as having no motivation, "contrived." Of course all fiction is contrived, but the contrivance should not show, so most fiction writers give their characters a solid motivation for doing what they do so readers don't say, "Oh, he/she wouldn't do that! That would never happen!"
I can believe a kind flight attendant offered you a ride out of no motivation other than kindness; I don't find that difficult to believe at all, however if I were to read that in a fiction book, I would be suspicious of the flight attendant's motives, whereas, in real life, I'm not suspicious.
What did anyone think of the letter from the Pope at the end of the book? I thought it was nice for the people. It made them happy.
The book was a chore for me to read. It did not hold my interest. Maybe at a later date I would appreciate it more.
Gabrielle, I think that if things are too logical and progression oriented, that seems more contrived than if things are more haphazard. Life is haphazard. Motivations are not always obvious. The best fiction, for me, is when there is a balance between characters whose motivations seem lifelike, but hidden (I don't like things to be too obvious). Like Janet, I've had some pretty coincidental things happen to me in life that if it were in fiction people would say, "No way." A short example: When Tom was first in grad school at Berkeley, we drove cross-country. We ran out of money and had a personal check from Tom's father. We went to a crowded bank in San Francisco, got in one of the teller's lines (this was before group lines), and the teller turned out to be a classmate from our high school, who cashed the check for us, against policy. Three thousand miles from our high school, mind you. Back to the book.
I have just started to read and am really enjoying this book.
Sherry wrote: "Gabrielle, I think that if things are too logical and progression oriented, that seems more contrived than if things are more haphazard. Life is haphazard. Motivations are not always obvious. The b..."I agree with that, Sherry. The planning (contrivance) of a book should not "show" to the reader. I was having a bit of a problem explaining to Janet exactly what I meant. Life is filled with strange coincidences, or things we take as strange or coincidental, and life is not always logical. I think writers of novels can get away with maybe two coincidences in a book, but if there are more, a lot of readers will complain.
I was trying to say I think life is more haphazard and coincidental than fiction usually is. I, too, like surprises in books and twists and turns that I'm not expecting, especially in mysteries, but in non-mysteries as well. I don't like a book, or even a movie, to be predictable, but it has to be believable for me. If it contains too many coincidences, I'm likely to toss it aside. How many? I said "two," but that's what editors usually say. I, personally think the number varies with each reader. Some readers like more coincidence than others.
I can easily see that happening to you regarding the bank and the check.
Back to the book, which I am liking more and more as the discussion goes along: What did anyone think of the letter from the Pope at the end of the book? I thought it was nice for the people. It made them happy.
I read this book about a year ago, and unfortunately haven't had the time or opportunity to return to it for this discussion. But I remember enjoying the book very much indeed. Thanks to Lynn for nominating it and running this thread!Here's most of the review I wrote last March, which I'm quoting since it touches on a few of the topics people have been discussing here:
What an amazing read it is too, with a back-and-forthness that slowly builds in its intensity. The people and places became familiar to me despite my not having read earlier novels touching on many of the same subjects (starting with 1984's Love Medicine).
The main character, Father Damien Modeste, is secretly also the young ex-widow Agnes DeWitt. Father Damien spends decades as the lonely priest on a small Ojibwe reservation to which s/he's been swept by a deadly flood of the Red River along the Minnesota-North Dakota border. His life is punctuated occasionally by tragedy, unexpected love, madness, and a lost then returning gift of piano playing.
At regular intervals Father Damien writes increasingly exasperated letters to the Pope (missives to which he never receives a single reply) detailing the complex interpersonal histories of his community, and especially his growing awareness that traditional indigenous spirituality has more to offer than conventional Catholic practices and dogma. The elements of the story add up to a very satisfying whole.
I first read this book years ago, after I bought it at an online clearance sale based on the recommendation of another CR member. I'm afraid I haven't found time to reread it yet for this discussion, but one of the reasons I'm such a fan is because so much of it has stuck with me through the years since I last read it.
I don't think it's a secret or spoiler - after all, it's on the jacket flap - to say that the main character is a woman who spends most of her life pretending to be a Catholic priest on an Ojibwe reservation in northwest MN or the Dakotas (I wasn't ever sure exactly where). Did you think that worked as a vehicle for telling the story? Do you believe that only one person on the reservation, Mary Kashpaw, knew that Father Damien was a woman? And does it matter?