# Reading > Forum Book Club >  May / Irving Reading: 'A Prayer For Owen Meany'

## Scheherazade

In May, we are reading _A Prayer for Owen Meany_ by John Irving.

Please post your comments and questions here.

Synopsis: 


> Owen Meany is a dwarfish boy with a strange voice who accidentally kills his best friend's mom with a baseball and believes--accurately--that he is an instrument of God, to be redeemed by martyrdom. John Irving's novel, which inspired the 1998 Jim Carrey movie 'Simon Birch', is his most popular book in Britain, and perhaps the oddest Christian mystic novel since Flannery O'Connor's work. Irving fans will find much that is familiar: the New England prep-school-town setting, symbolic amputations of man and beast, the Garp-like unknown father of the narrator (Owen's orphaned best friend), the rough comedy. The scene of doltish the doltish headmaster driving a trashed VW down the school's marble staircase is a marvelous set piece. So are the Christmas pageants Owen stars in. But it's all, as Highlights magazine used to put it, "fun with a purpose." When Owen plays baby Jesus in the pageants, and glimpses a tombstone with his death date while enacting _A Christmas Carol_, the slapstick doesn't cancel the fact that he was born to be martyred.


http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Owen-Me...8035298&sr=8-1
Book Club Procedures

----------


## Prometheus'Wake

Hey, so i still can't vote in these polls but I guess public opinion was with me on that one. I have not begun the book yet as I've been deep "Under The Volcano" with Malcolm Lowery. I am, however, really looking forward to it. Not only because my wife tells me it is quite good, but because it will also be the first book I have discussed through an online forum. How does this work? Do we talk chapter by chapter? Who begins the chat? I'll take a look at some of the earlier discussions to get an idea. In the meantime i thought I 'd say hello. Look forward to hearing from you.

----------


## motherhubbard

Im still pretty new here. What do I need to do to get in on the book club? Id love to be able to discuss a book Im reading with others who know what Im talking about!

----------


## Idril

Just buy the book and join in.  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

I am only up to page 120 - when will the discussions on this book begin, does anyone know?

----------


## Idril

Whenever anyone wants to start, I think. I'm around page 200 but I'm waiting for someone else to begin because I want to make sure I don't say something people haven't read about yet.  :Rolleyes:  I will say that I was kind of worried about reading this again because it was a book I read for the first time many years ago and loved it but I've recently reread some other books I had read and loved from that time and I was horribly disillusioned to discover they were really very mediocre books. I'm thrilled to find that _Owen Meany_ is as good as I remember, it's quite a relief.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

Maybe as a suggestion we could talk about parts of the book such as only up to page 50, or even 100. I say this because no doubt most people are still reading it and we should not mention the ending. As we have been discussing Lawrence's short stories we have used this system and it seems better than just jumping all over the place in a story, especially a novel as long as this one. 
Perhaps we could start with the fact that the narrator tells us right off about his mother's death, which is a little different than most books I have read before. He tells a key event in the book at the start. 
Also, maybe we could concentrate on the first characters presented in the book: Owen for one, the narrator's mother and grandmother, and the woman who lives with them, secondly, Owen's parents....key characters to the plot. 
I think that in Irvings books the characters really stand out and are the prominent element in the book. 'Fate' also seems to become a character. After this we could go on to discuss the cousins and the mother's finance/husband. 
I am only up to about page 120 so maybe not go over what we find out up till 100 pages, so we allow others to have time to finish the book. To me, to 'structure' the discussion a bit 'anchors' it and helps us direct our thoughts to specific aspects of the book, rather than randomly floundering around wondering what to talk about next. 
So what does everyone else think of this idea?

----------


## Virgil

That's fine wh me. I don't care even if people talk about the whole book, but then again I've never cared about reading for suspense.  :Wink:  To me knowing as much as possible is always more important. That's why it's really hard to appreciate a novel only on one reading. 

I've got to say I've got mixed reactions so far. I'm up to page 67 or so. First on the negative side. I can't believe this novel was published in 1989. This reads like a 19th century novel. In fact it feels like I'm still reading _David Copperfield_ from our read of a few months ago. Even Irving's sentence structure seems outdated. Sometimes Irving is elaborating on things that seem trivial, like a fishery or the big business Gravesend or Congregationist versues Episcopalians or whatever. And the style meanders from one subject to another without a direction, or at least it feels that way. And here I am 15% of the way into the novel and I have no idea what the central conflict is about. It's certainly not a novel that throws the reader into the center of things. 

On the positive side, the vignettes of Owen and of the mother (boy I would like to see those perfect breasts  :FRlol:  ) are excellent. Very well done. I can really see them and feel them as characters. They do come alive.

----------


## Schokokeks

> I've got to say I've got mixed reactions so far. I'm up to page 67 or so. First on the negative side. I can't believe this novel was published in 1989. This reads like a 19th century novel. In fact it feels like I'm still reading _David Copperfield_ from our read of a few months ago.


Yes, I agree, his style is somewhat Dickensian, which would also account for the length of the novel. However, that's one of the things I love the book for. I'm trying to remember if the style was that Dickensian in his other novels... Idril ?  :Smile: 




> (boy I would like to see those perfect breasts  )


Boys will be boys  :Biggrin: .

----------


## Virgil

> Boys will be boys .


I'm bad, I know.  :FRlol:  But Irving made such a point of it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Idril

There really isn't one basic conflict in the book, it's just a story about Owen and how he effects people's lives. There is a moment it's building up to, one of the last scenes in the book that will make some of his...particularities...make sense but as far as central conflicts, you're not going to find it in this book.

I think this book is pretty typical of Irving, he always skips around like that, picking bits and pieces here and there to expound on. There is an underlying order but sometimes it's hard to find.

And I love the Congregationalists vs. the Episcopalian stuff. I grew up in a home where religion and sunday school and christmas pageants and church choir were a way of life and even that, for the most part, comparing of religions to reassure yourself that your's was better is almost like going home for me.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> And I love the Congregationalists vs. the Episcopalian stuff. I grew up in a home where religion and sunday school and christmas pageants and church choir were a way of life and even that, for the most part, comparing of religions to reassure yourself that your's was better is almost like going home for me.


Oh I don't mind the fact that there is religious tension, but he should dramatize rather than explain. Here's another instance that I take to be a central theme (it's hard to really say without finishing the book) where he explains rather than shows through suggestion:



> It was Owen Meany who told me that only white men are vain enough to believe that human beings are unique because we have souls. According to Owen, Watahantowet knew better. Watahantowet believed that animals had souls, and that even the much-abused Squamscott River had a soul--Watahantowet knew that the land he sold to my ancestors was absolutely _full_ of spirits....


Frankly if that is important to the theme of the novel, a greater writer would not have put those words in a character's mouth but would have integrated it into the web of the story and made the reader feel it. Second, that's not a very original notion, so to make it sound like Owen Meany suddenly thought of it seems (I'm not sure what the right word is) trivial, if that is the right word.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I've got to say I've got mixed reactions so far. I'm up to page 67 or so. First on the negative side. I can't believe this novel was published in 1989. This reads like a 19th century novel. In fact it feels like I'm still reading _David Copperfield_ from our read of a few months ago. Even Irving's sentence structure seems outdated. Sometimes Irving is elaborating on things that seem trivial, like a fishery or the big business Gravesend or Congregationist versues Episcopalians or whatever. And the style meanders from one subject to another without a direction, or at least it feels that way. And here I am 15% of the way into the novel and I have no idea what the central conflict is about. It's certainly not a novel that throws the reader into the center of things.


yep, you're right.. Irving is a great fan of full-length novels and is very outspoken about fast-paced 100-pagers. He doesn't regard those post-modern 200-page books as proper novels and wants to prove that "the novel" is not quite dead yet.
he said so in an interview once.. I can look for it if you want. i think it's somewhere on his official fan club's homepage

----------


## Idril

> Oh I don't mind the fact that there is religious tension, but he should dramatize rather than explain. Here's another instance that I take to be a central theme (it's hard to really say without finishing the book) where he explains rather than shows through suggestion:
> 
> Frankly if that is important to the theme of the novel, a greater writer would not have put those words in a character's mouth but would have integrated it into the web of the story and made the reader feel it. Second, that's not a very original notion, so to make it sound like Owen Meany suddenly thought of it seems (I'm not sure what the right word is) trivial, if that is the right word.


I don't know that I would say the quote you added _is_ vitally important to the novel, it's all part of establishing who Owen is and how he thinks. This book is all about Owen, everything that happens in the book is seen, if sometimes only peripherally, through his eyes even though it may be Johnny who's relating the information. It's about how Owen affected the people around him and how he chose to live his life and who he thought he was. He is the central theme to the book so putting those words in Owen's mouth makes sense in that context.

----------


## Janine

> There really isn't one basic conflict in the book, it's just a story about Owen and how he effects people's lives. There is a moment it's building up to, one of the last scenes in the book that will make some of his...particularities...make sense but as far as central conflicts, you're not going to find it in this book.
> 
> I think this book is pretty typical of Irving, he always skips around like that, picking bits and pieces here and there to expound on. There is an underlying order but sometimes it's hard to find.
> 
> And I love the Congregationalists vs. the Episcopalian stuff. I grew up in a home where religion and sunday school and christmas pageants and church choir were a way of life and even that, for the most part, comparing of religions to reassure yourself that your's was better is almost like going home for me.


*Idril*, I agree with you on all three points. 

First off there really does not seem to be any conflict. It seems (and I am only to about pg 130) that the book is a peaceful recollection of fateful events. It feels like no character is really antagonistic. In this way I feel like I am reading a true story about real life people. I think that Irving has a way of doing this and I feel it is very commendable. If tomorrow someone told me this was all true (and it is not, right? or based on truth?) I would believe it. The characters are all so acceptable to me, even their quirks and funny things that happen. Isn't real life like that? Aren't the serious moments sometimes lighted by a bit of humor or wit? I feel real life is like this - the way Irving writes. I don't feel like it is contrived at all. 

On the second point, the skipping around, I feel, is just Irving's intentional style; I sense that a central theme will emerge from exploring different aspects of Johnny's and Owen's lives. I feel as though a sort of circular narrative is pivoting on a centerpoint, and that I am not yet fully aware of the meaning of that centerpoint, but eventually this central theme and meaning will make perfect sense - the core of the story will be revealed. 

On the third point, I agree about the two religions being pitted against each other. I also was brought up similar to you, *Idril*, and live in a small town still, where this still goes on today. Divisions probably were more pronounced back when I was a kid. Anyway, this part of the book is greatly amusing me.

----------


## Capnplank

> This reads like a 19th century novel. In fact it feels like I'm still reading _David Copperfield_ from our read of a few months ago.


He's a big Dickens fan. Half of _Trying to Save Piggy Sneed_ is Dickens appreciation, from what I remember. And the book of choice to be specifically honored in _The Cider House Rules_ is none other than _David Copperfield_. It is read throughout that book and the narrator gives you many comparisons himself. Irving's books are not all in that extreme style, but I do remember _Owen Meany_ being a particularly slow read for me (I can't read Dickens. Just can't.)



For those of you that can't get enough of the character, you can always also check out Günter Grass's _The Tin Drum_, as Owen Meany seems to be at least part homage to the very similar character Oskar Matzerath.

----------


## Janine

> Oh I don't mind the fact that there is religious tension, but he should dramatize rather than explain. Here's another instance that I take to be a central theme (it's hard to really say without finishing the book) where he explains rather than shows through suggestion:


*Virgil*, Why does Irving have to dramatize? I think he explains it as he would have seen it as a boy/young man. I think this is Irving's style and it would have even been a much longer book, had he dramatized the differences in the churches, without added personal comment on it. Still some bit of observation would have gone on in that dramatization, making it even longer. He does dramatize a lot of the church stuff with the two pastors who are so different in style and manor, and in incidents that occur in both churches. 





> "It was Owen Meany who told me that only white men are vain enough to believe that human beings are unique because we have souls. According to Owen, Watahantowet knew better. Watahantowet believed that animals had souls, and that even the much-abused Squamscott River had a soul--Watahantowet knew that the land he sold to my ancestors was absolutely full of spirits...." 
> 
> Frankly if that is important to the theme of the novel, a greater writer would not have put those words in a character's mouth but would have integrated it into the web of the story and made the reader feel it. Second, that's not a very original notion, so to make it sound like Owen Meany suddenly thought of it seems (I'm not sure what the right word is) trivial, if that is the right word.


Here again I think you are forgetting that all of this is actually looking back to a child's view of the things said and experienced. The book is a nostalgia and memory as the guy recalls it in his childhood. Most likely Johnny would have thought Owen the first person on earth to think of such a thing relating to Watahantowet. W would have been the only one they could relate to in this idea. Afterall, back then, neither boy would have had a broad knowledge of that idea of the spirit world as layed down by the Indians or others. I think that you are influenced by your own broad experience and sophistocated knowlege of reading of these beliefs, so that you can't effectively put yourself back into that 'innocent' time of childhood, when you would not have had an inkling of such things. This is the point that Irving is writing from, not from adulthood. So what to us may seem now trivial, is not to the children in the story - Owen and Johnny. It is a whole new idea to Johnny as Owen has merely observed and shared the thought with him.

----------


## Idril

> For those of you that can't get enough of the character, you can always also check out Günter Grass's _The Tin Drum_, as Owen Meany seems to be at least part homage to the very similar character Oskar Matzerath.



Oh! Yes! I just read _The Tin Drum_ and I was thinking the same thing, that Irving had to have gotten some inspiration for Owen from Oskar, they even have the same initials.  :Tongue:  Does anyone know if Irving has ever talked about that?

----------


## Capnplank

> Oh! Yes! I just read _The Tin Drum_ and I was thinking the same thing, that Irving had to have gotten some inspiration for Owen from Oskar, they even have the same initials.  Does anyone know if Irving has ever talked about that?


I don't know if or where he's talked about it, but here's one clue I've found:

http://www.populistbooks.com/authors...ohn_irving.htm



> In Vienna John Irving studied under Gunter Grass. This time and the influence of the acclaimed writer appears to have had a profound effect on Irving. Owen, the main character in Irvings seventh novel, A Prayer for Owen Meany, seems to have been loosely based on Grasss character Oskar Matzerath. As a hint, Irving has given his character initials identical to those of the protagonist in Grasss The Tin Drum. Beyond that, the stories are often antithetical. Whereas Owen cannot help his prepubescent stature and characteristics, Oskar seems to have chosen his. Owen predicts a future that he cannot control; Oskar is in control of his own destiny. However, both characters are old beyond their years, despite their childish physical characteristics.

----------


## Idril

> I don't know if or where he's talked about it, but here's one clue I've found:
> 
> _In Vienna John Irving studied under Gunter Grass. This time and the influence of the acclaimed writer appears to have had a profound effect on Irving. Owen, the main character in Irvings seventh novel, A Prayer for Owen Meany, seems to have been loosely based on Grasss character Oskar Matzerath. As a hint, Irving has given his character initials identical to those of the protagonist in Grasss The Tin Drum. Beyond that, the stories are often antithetical. Whereas Owen cannot help his prepubescent stature and characteristics, Oskar seems to have chosen his. Owen predicts a future that he cannot control; Oskar is in control of his own destiny. However, both characters are old beyond their years, despite their childish physical characteristics._


Thank you, that does shed some light on things. I know their stories and destinies are very different but as it said, their size, their preternatural minds are so alike, not to mention their distinctive voices, Oskar being more in control of his than Owen but still, both have a voice that demands attention. Even Irving's method of storytelling is similar to that of Grass so I'm not at all surprised to find that he studied under Grass.

----------


## Scheherazade

> How does this work? Do we talk chapter by chapter? Who begins the chat? I'll take a look at some of the earlier discussions to get an idea. In the meantime i thought I 'd say hello. Look forward to hearing from you.





> I’m still pretty new here. What do I need to do to get in on the book club? I’d love to be able to discuss a book I’m reading with others who know what I’m talking about!


The Book Club is open to all our Forum members and anyone who would like to take part; so, please feel free to jump in anytime they'd like.  :Smile: 

There isn't a set structure for the Book Club discussions; the threads are here for anyone to post their comments or questions as and when they feel like. Considering that we all have busy lives, we wouldn't like this to turn into a 'homework', something we *have to* keep up with.

If you would like to discuss story developments, please add a warning to your posts (spoiler alert!).

Just finished the first part. Are we ever going to find out who his father is? The priest seemed very supportive of her, when his mother wanted to have singing lessons etc. Is it possible that he is the father?

----------


## Idril

> Are we ever going to find out who his father is?


Yes, you do eventually find out but not until the end.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Yes, you do eventually find out but not until the end.


Bummer... Can't skip _that_ many pages...

----------


## Idril

> Bummer... Can't skip _that_ many pages...


No, you can't. You're just going to have to be patient.  :Tongue:   :Wink:

----------


## Schokokeks

> I can't believe this novel was published in 1989. This reads like a 19th century novel. In fact it feels like I'm still reading David Copperfield from our read of a few months ago. Even Irving's sentence structure seems outdated.





> (Irving) doesn't regard those post-modern 200-page books as proper novels and wants to prove that "the novel" is not quite dead yet.


I must say I have to disagree with Mr Irving. I do regard Ian McEwan, for example, as a proper novelist. In my eyes, it is special about the 20th (and 21st) century that writers _can_ and _do_ meander in styles and genres in one book, producing both fast-paced 100-pagers and their versions of Dickens and Co.
In _Owen Meany_, I do not find any of the topics (especially not the political ones) to be 19th century issues; but they contrast interestingly with the Dickensian style, I find.
As for _the_ central conflict, does it maybe not better fit modern times to not focus on one single problem (individual vs. society, north vs south, ...), but reflect the multiple dimensions of an individual's life in a more subtle way ?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> As for _the_ central conflict, does it maybe not better fit modern * times to not focus on one single problem (individual vs. society, north vs south, ...), but reflect the multiple dimensions of an individual's life in a more subtle way ?


i agree with you. it's much more realistic the way Irving does it. I mean, which average person could point out the single most important "conflict" in their life?

----------


## Virgil

> In _Owen Meany_, I do not find any of the topics (especially not the political ones) to be 19th century issues; but they contrast interestingly with the Dickensian style, I find.


I was only referring to the style as being 19th century. I'm 100 pages into the novel and I don't know what the themes are. Just that this weird midget affected the narrator religously. Since you bring up politics, I'm rather surprised by it in the novel. To get into the weeds of politics as Irving appears to have done rather reduces the scope of the novel for me rather than increases. I see that at the point I'm at he takes a cheap political shot at several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan. Such political themes are ephemeral. There is a reason why no one reads newspapers from last week. For instance, this novel was published in 1989. Does anyone know or care about the politics of 1889? And if it was published in 1989, then Irving must have written it at least a year or two before that. Well, in the year of 1989, the Berlin wall is destroyed, in 1990 Germany is unified, and in 1991 the Soviet Union collapses and eastern Europe is free. This amounts to a complete vindication and victory in the cold war and Ronald Reagan while certainly not the only princepal player of that victory is generally acknowldeged as being incredibly important in that victory. Now unless Irving's political point is that we should all be communists it seems to me Irving has egg on his face. 

One more thing on the style. Would one consider a contemporary composer of music to be great today if he composed in the style of Beethoven? Would a painter today be considered great if he painted in the style of Leonardo DaVinci? It seems to me that art tends to build and evolve from the past. Even movements that supposedly go back to a style actually reformulate that style, at least those that stand out and are considered great. Perhaps I will be surprised and when I finish Irving's novel, that despite the 19th century style will seem new somehow. But if it doesn't then in my opinion Irving has put a ceiling on his artist potential.

----------


## Schokokeks

> I'm 100 pages into the novel and I don't know what the themes are.


I have read it several times, and I still don't  :Smile: . And I like exactly that, because I while reading feel as if I was Irving's collaborator in the process of producing a novel. He does not confront me with a finite number of clear-cut issues to think about, but I am free to choose them myself while being presented with Owen and Johnny and their lives. This sounds a little, well, esoteric  :Smile: , but I mean to say that I do like to read of loosly constructed and multi-layered ideas from time to time, because I feel it fits these very days.




> To get into the weeds of politics as Irving appears to have done rather reduces the scope of the novel for me rather than increases. I see that at the point I'm at he takes a cheap political shot at several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan. [...] For instance, this novel was published in 1989. [...] Now unless Irving's political point is that we should all be communists it seems to me Irving has egg on his face.


I do not think _Irving_ is trying to make any political point at all - Johnny is (or Owen, or both of them, according to which passage you are referring to). And surely criticising Ronald Reagan (especially when done by a fictional character) does not necessarily have to equate with an appeal to adhere to communism.
I remember that I at first found the book's shifts into political discussion disturbing as well. Have you already got to the point where it becomes clear why Johnny writes from/in Canada at all ? This solution (and also the very end of the book) at least for me shed some new light on the political talk before.




> Perhaps I will be surprised and when I finish Irving's novel, that despite the 19th century style will seem new somehow. But if it doesn't then in my opinion Irving has put a ceiling on his artist potential.


Let me know what you think of it once you have read the whole of it, please  :Nod: .

----------


## Janine

> I have read it several times, and I still don't . And I like exactly that, because I while reading feel as if I was Irving's collaborator in the process of producing a novel. He does not confront me with a finite number of clear-cut issues to think about, but I am free to choose them myself while being presented with Owen and Johnny and their lives. This sounds a little, well, esoteric , but I mean to say that I do like to read of loosly constructed and multi-layered ideas from time to time, because I feel it fits these very days.


*Schokokeks*, I like how you expressed this - the freedom to choose which issues are important to you in the novel. I agree with that idea. I, too, felt a little strange reading the political part, and actually I found that a bit boring, but then I quickly went on thinking there must have been a reason Irving wrote that chapter and it would be revealed later in the novel. It is a very "loosely constructed and multi-layered" novel, like how you termed that. I think I like that about this book to some degree, it is a relaxed way of writing and sort of natural like writing in a diary. It does feel realistic, but actually it set in the 50's (past). What is funny is I can relate to the nostalgia of the book, although I was a baby at this time that Owen and Johnny were about 11. It transports me to a different time - one I grew up in.





> I do not think _Irving_ is trying to make any political point at all - Johnny is (or Owen, or both of them, according to which passage you are referring to). And surely criticising Ronald Reagan (especially when done by a fictional character) does not necessarily have to equate with an appeal to adhere to communism.
> I remember that I at first found the book's shifts into political discussion disturbing as well. Have you already got to the point where it becomes clear why Johnny writes from/in Canada at all ? This solution (and also the very end of the book) at least for me shed some new light on the political talk before.


I do think using 'communism' was a bit extreme, *Virgil*. I don't know yet if he is making a political statement. It is fine if he has his individual preferences and we should accept them as the authors own and not read too much into them. 
*Schokokeks*, didn't Johnny, as a adult, state that he had avoided the draft and that is why he went to Canada? That is mentioned early on in the narrative, I believe. I think he mentioned the Vietnam War being his reason.




> Let me know what you think of it once you have read the whole of it, please .


I am not yet to the midpoint of the book.  :Frown:  I am such a slow reader. Hope I finish by the end of the month. I am enjoying reading this book, although it is much different than what I normally read.

----------


## Virgil

> I have read it several times, and I still don't . And I like exactly that, because I while reading feel as if I was Irving's collaborator in the process of producing a novel. He does not confront me with a finite number of clear-cut issues to think about, but I am free to choose them myself while being presented with Owen and Johnny and their lives. This sounds a little, well, esoteric , but I mean to say that I do like to read of loosly constructed and multi-layered ideas from time to time, because I feel it fits these very days.


Well, I'm at the half way point now, and I do detect several themes which I'll talk about once I'm further along. I want to make sure.  :Tongue:  There definitely are themes. You can't have a work of art without themes. 




> I do not think _Irving_ is trying to make any political point at all - Johnny is (or Owen, or both of them, according to which passage you are referring to). And surely criticising Ronald Reagan (especially when done by a fictional character) does not necessarily have to equate with an appeal to adhere to communism.


Now that I'm further along, I can see the distinction between johnny as narrator and Irving. However I still have no idea why the politics. Yes Johnny is a draft dodger. Other thing I find a little disturbing is the anti-Catholic references. While I'm beginning to understand the religiuos theme, I'm not sure why he chooses such a prejudiced attitude (and I assume it's the characters and not the author). 




> Let me know what you think of it once you have read the whole of it, please .


There are moments I enjoy it and there are moments i find boring. Why does Irving spend over 50 pages on the Christmas pagent and A Christmas Carol play? It got so tedious.

----------


## Janine

I have some questions. I have just gotten past the Christmas pagent and I was wondering why this luminous and insightful little being - Owen - wise beyond his years - suddenly drives away his parents from the church? He does this in front of the whole congregation and the parents let him, furthermore some parishiers think it part of the play and brilliant - I don't quite get that, unless to make a joke of it. It all did not seem believable to me. Then why do the parents stick around, after public humilation by their only son, to drive him home? He could easily have gotten rides from anyone. 

I am also confused about the sudden switch back to the present, when John has the discussion with the other church member, who keeps bringing up elections. It seems this embodies the issues that Virgil found offensive about John's critisism of Regan, arms testing, etc. Now, I do see where the man offsets John's strong opinions on the subject. I have always gotten the impression that Irving shows both sides of the coin, to give a fair account of important issues. Am I correct in asuming this and in reference to this passage? Not sure if this makes any sense, but I am trying feebly to explain this. Hope you get the idea.

----------


## Virgil

> I have some questions. I have just gotten past the Christmas pagent and I was wondering why this luminous and insightful little being - Owen - wise beyond his years - suddenly drives away his parents from the church? He does this in front of the whole congregation and the parents let him, furthermore some parishiers think it part of the play and brilliant - I don't quite get that, unless to make a joke of it. It all did not seem believable to me. Then why do the parents stick around, after public humilation by their only son, to drive him home? He could easily have gotten rides from anyone. 
> 
> I am also confused about the sudden switch back to the present, when John has the discussion with the other church member, who keeps bringing up elections. It seems this embodies the issues that Virgil found offensive about John's critisism of Regan, arms testing, etc. Now, I do see where the man offsets John's strong opinions on the subject. I have always gotten the impression that Irving shows both sides of the coin, to give a fair account of important issues. Am I correct in asuming this and in reference to this passage? Not sure if this makes any sense, but I am trying feebly to explain this. Hope you get the idea.


Actually Janine, I think I am seeing a pattern that would answer both your paragraphs. One theme I am seeing is that as the boys are growing up, they are increasingly rebelling against authority. Owen breaks from his parents, from traditional religious doctrine, and other adults. That is why the Catholic church, a very authoritative and traditional institution, is slighted; the congregationalists are possibly among the least authoritative. The adult Johnny, the one in 1987 time, has grown to violently resent the institution that is above us all, our government. I see this as paralleling the transition from the idyllic 1950's into the rebellious 1960s and beyond. This is a loss of innocence, linked to the death of the mother, by a very American event, baseball. I haven't been able to formulate exactly what Irving is alluding to, but I'm only half way through.

And then there is the sex motif that also parallels this transition. The boys are on the verge of puberty. This loss of innocence tied with the loss of idyllic childhood, reinforced with hormonal changes that must be going on. And so we get erections, experiments with condums, and semi-innocent sexual contact.

How this all ties together I don't know yet.

----------


## Janine

*Virgil*, thanks for that explanation - that is one way of looking at all of this. You are right there is a progression of rebellion to authority and their growing up. I always thought the one theme that Irving was particularly stressing was the idea of fate - a set fate - or predestination. It seems this is what Owen strongly believes in and impresses Johnny with continually. "There are not coincidences" for Owen. It just seemed that that whole rejection of the parents in public was extreme to me and somewhat out of character for Owen but then Johnny did say he was unpredictable. odd contrast a figure who is unpredictable believing in predictable, or the idea of predestination. Just something to think about.

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil*, thanks for that explanation - that is one way of looking at all of this. You are right there is a progression of rebellion to authority and their growing up. I always thought the one theme that Irving was particularly stressing what the idea of fate - a set fate - or predestination. It seems this is what Owen strongly believes in and impresses Johnny with continually. "There are not coincidences" for Owen. It just seemed that that whole rejection of the parents in public was extreme to me and somewhat out of character for Owen but then Johnny did say he was unpredictable. odd contrast a figure who is unpredictable believing in predictable, or the idea of predestination. Just something to think about.


Oh yes, fate versus free will is in there too. That also ties in with the religious themes. How, I don't know yet. I should probably look up how each of those religious denominations regards fate and free will. I know Roman Catholicism believes in free will.

----------


## Janine

> Oh yes, fate versus free will is in there too. That also ties in with the religious themes. How, I don't know yet. I should probably look up how each of those religious denominations regards fate and free will. I know Roman Catholicism believes in free will.


*Virgil*, that would be interesting to know if you can indeed look them up. It seems significant to Irving - the divisions of faith in the various churches he mentions. It must be important in someway also to the outcome of the book.

----------


## bouquin

> I have read it several times, and I still don't . And I like exactly that, because I while reading feel as if I was Irving's collaborator in the process of producing a novel. He does not confront me with a finite number of clear-cut issues to think about, but I am free to choose them myself while being presented with Owen and Johnny and their lives. This sounds a little, well, esoteric , but I mean to say that I do like to read of loosly constructed and multi-layered ideas from time to time, because I feel it fits these very days.
> 
> 
> I do not think _Irving_ is trying to make any political point at all - Johnny is (or Owen, or both of them, according to which passage you are referring to). And surely criticising Ronald Reagan (especially when done by a fictional character) does not necessarily have to equate with an appeal to adhere to communism.
> I remember that I at first found the book's shifts into political discussion disturbing as well. Have you already got to the point where it becomes clear why Johnny writes from/in Canada at all ? This solution (and also the very end of the book) at least for me shed some new light on the political talk before.
> 
> 
> Let me know what you think of it once you have read the whole of it, please .




Who knows, perhaps John Wheelwright's rantings and ravings about politics could very well be the expression of Irving's own personal point of view. Just like Thomas Hardy (cited in _Owen Meany_) - whose own writings reflected _his_ outlook and philosophy in life.

----------


## Virgil

> Who knows, perhaps John Wheelwright's rantings and ravings about politics could very well be the expression of Irving's own personal point of view. Just like Thomas Hardy (cited in _Owen Meany_) - whose own writings reflected _his_ outlook and philosophy in life.


Hardy spoke about ideas and values. I don't recall Hardy ever speaking about a prime minister or a politician or even political events. Of course I haven't read all of Hardy.

And as to the anti-Catholicism, there better be a point to it, because it definitely has crossed over into pure bigotry.

----------


## bouquin

> Well, I'm at the half way point now, and I do detect several themes which I'll talk about once I'm further along. I want to make sure.  There definitely are themes. You can't have a work of art without themes. 
> 
> 
> Now that I'm further along, I can see the distinction between johnny as narrator and Irving. However I still have no idea why the politics. Yes Johnny is a draft dodger. Other thing I find a little disturbing is the anti-Catholic references. While I'm beginning to understand the religiuos theme, I'm not sure why he chooses such a prejudiced attitude (and I assume it's the characters and not the author). 
> 
> 
> There are moments I enjoy it and there are moments i find boring. Why does Irving spend over 50 pages on the Christmas pagent and A Christmas Carol play? It got so tedious.




What I sometimes found boring and tedious were John's diatribes on politics and his repetitive exposé and opinions of the reading requirements at the Bishop Strachan School where he taught. But the worst, I think - the most tiresome part of all was having to read over and over again about Hester's vomiting!




> Hardy spoke about ideas and values. I don't recall Hardy ever speaking about a prime minister or a politician or even political events. Of course I haven't read all of Hardy.
> 
> And as to the anti-Catholicism, there better be a point to it, because it definitely has crossed over into pure bigotry.



My comment on post#36 was actually a response to Schokokeks who said, "I do not think Irving is trying to make any political point at all - Johnny is ..."

I am more inclined to suppose that Irving could very well be expressing his own political opinions through his creation, the character John Wheelwright. Isn't that often the case (although not all, of course) among writers and their works? That they express their heartfelt opinions, air out their own anguish, doubts and indignation; tell their own life story through their writings? Just like Thomas Hardy, for example. What happens to the characters in Hardy's stories, the thoughts they express are most often/most likely a direct reflection of Hardy's own "ideas and values" (not necessarily political) - of what Hardy was himself. 

I hope I have come across more clearly this time.

----------


## Idril

> And as to the anti-Catholicism, there better be a point to it, because it definitely has crossed over into pure bigotry.


The anti-Catholicism is Owen's and yes, it has a point or at least it's explained. And if it makes you feel any better, it does, I think, show that it was misguided and came from ignorance and superstition. And eventually Owen makes a sort of peace with it, sort of...kind of... And the reason for the anti-Catholicism ties into Owen's reaction to his parents presence at the Christmas pageant.

The political rants are there as evidence of how disillusioned John becomes with his government because of what will eventually happen and at some point in the novel. I don't know where all you guys are but eventually we get the definite impression that other people view his rants and intense hatred of his former country's government as being not entirely healthy.

----------


## bouquin

> I have some questions. I have just gotten past the Christmas pagent and I was wondering why this luminous and insightful little being - Owen - wise beyond his years - suddenly drives away his parents from the church? He does this in front of the whole congregation and the parents let him, furthermore some parishiers think it part of the play and brilliant - I don't quite get that, unless to make a joke of it. It all did not seem believable to me. Then why do the parents stick around, after public humilation by their only son, to drive him home? He could easily have gotten rides from anyone. 
> 
> I am also confused about the sudden switch back to the present, when John has the discussion with the other church member, who keeps bringing up elections. It seems this embodies the issues that Virgil found offensive about John's critisism of Regan, arms testing, etc. Now, I do see where the man offsets John's strong opinions on the subject. I have always gotten the impression that Irving shows both sides of the coin, to give a fair account of important issues. Am I correct in asuming this and in reference to this passage? Not sure if this makes any sense, but I am trying feebly to explain this. Hope you get the idea.




I have finished reading the book and yet I still can't figure out the reason for Owen's outburst against his parents at the Christmas pageant. I suspect it had to do with the revelation that they had made to him regarding the circumstances of his birth. Which brings me to another question ... Did Owen believe what his parents told him?

----------


## Idril

> I have finished reading the book and yet I still can't figure out the reason for Owen's outburst against his parents at the Christmas pageant. I suspect it had to do with the revelation that they had made to him regarding the circumstances of his birth. Which brings me to another question ... Did Owen believe what his parents told him?


As far as whether or not Owen believed his parents, yes, I do think he believed them but it's hard to talk about it fully without spoilers as is what the connection is between that revelation and his outburst. Like you, I know a connection is there but my theories as to what it is are hazy at best. It will be interesting to see what other people have to say about it when they get to the end.

----------


## bouquin

> He's a big Dickens fan. Half of _Trying to Save Piggy Sneed_ is Dickens appreciation, from what I remember. And the book of choice to be specifically honored in _The Cider House Rules_ is none other than _David Copperfield_. It is read throughout that book and the narrator gives you many comparisons himself. Irving's books are not all in that extreme style, but I do remember _Owen Meany_ being a particularly slow read for me (I can't read Dickens. Just can't.)
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you that can't get enough of the character, you can always also check out Günter Grass's _The Tin Drum_, as Owen Meany seems to be at least part homage to the very similar character Oskar Matzerath.



This is my 3rd Irving book; reading him is always slow-paced for me, too. The 2 others that I've read were _The World According to Garp_ and _A Son of the Circus;_ I liked them a lot better than I did _Owen Meany._




> As far as whether or not Owen believed his parents, yes, I do think he believed them but it's hard to talk about it fully without spoilers as is what the connection is between that revelation and his outburst. Like you, I know a connection is there but my theories as to what it is are hazy at best. It will be interesting to see what other people have to say about it when they get to the end.



I'd be happy to discuss this part of the story as soon as everyone is done reading.

----------


## Janine

> I'd be happy to discuss this part of the story as soon as everyone is done reading.


Thanks, since I am only on about Pg 200 and need to get reading it faster to finish up. I have gotten distracted lately from reading. I don't want to know the ending yet, nor answers to some of the important questions in the book. No spoilers please - everyone - thanks...J

----------


## Virgil

I have to say that the high school years chapter is boring. Owen as The Voice in the school paper gets so predictable. The more this book goes along, the less charming it becomes. What kept my interest, despite the loose writing, was the charm of the characters. Well, the writing is the same, but the characters are not as charming.

----------


## bouquin

> Actually Janine, I think I am seeing a pattern that would answer both your paragraphs. One theme I am seeing is that as the boys are growing up, they are increasingly rebelling against authority. Owen breaks from his parents, from traditional religious doctrine, and other adults. That is why the Catholic church, a very authoritative and traditional institution, is slighted; the congregationalists are possibly among the least authoritative. The adult Johnny, the one in 1987 time, has grown to violently resent the institution that is above us all, our government. I see this as paralleling the transition from the idyllic 1950's into the rebellious 1960s and beyond. This is a loss of innocence, linked to the death of the mother, by a very American event, baseball. I haven't been able to formulate exactly what Irving is alluding to, but I'm only half way through.
> 
> And then there is the sex motif that also parallels this transition. The boys are on the verge of puberty. This loss of innocence tied with the loss of idyllic childhood, reinforced with hormonal changes that must be going on. And so we get erections, experiments with condums, and semi-innocent sexual contact.
> 
> How this all ties together I don't know yet.



The way I understand it, Owen's criticism of the Catholic Church started before he got to that usual age where kids question and/or defy authority. He had been influenced by his father whose decision it was to break away from the Catholic Church and transfer his family (Owen especially) to the Episcopals. Owen must have witnessed his parents suffer and agonize because of lack of moral sustenance from the priests and other Catholic Church leaders that they consulted regarding their problem. He might also have seen and heard his mother and father being ridiculed. This could have substantially affected him, thus his negative attitude toward the Catholic Church.

----------


## Virgil

> The way I understand it, Owen's criticism of the Catholic Church started before he got to that usual age where kids question and/or defy authority. He had been influenced by his father whose decision it was to break away from the Catholic Church and transfer his family (Owen especially) to the Episcopals.


Hmmm. I haven't finished the novel, but Owen defies his father and just about everyone. Why would he be influeneced by his father in this matter. He seems to make up his own mind on just about everything.




> Owen must have witnessed his parents suffer and agonize because of lack of moral sustenance from the priests and other Catholic Church leaders that they consulted regarding their problem. He might also have seen and heard his mother and father being ridiculed. This could have substantially affected him, thus his negative attitude toward the Catholic Church.


Again I haven't finished so I don't know if Irving backtracts here and fills in this information. But this wasn't given at the beginning. Is this information that will come in later on? And even so, it still sounds like Catholic bigotry to me.

----------


## SleepyWitch

I've finally found a spare minute to pick up the book and start re-reading it.
hehe, i don't think I'll catch up with you guys, seeing as i've got another major exam coming up...
but it's cool to re-read it again. you have mentioned some passages that I've totally forgotten...

----------


## Idril

> Again I haven't finished so I don't know if Irving backtracts here and fills in this information. But this wasn't given at the beginning. Is this information that will come in later on? And even so, it still sounds like Catholic bigotry to me.


Yes, as I think I've stated before, those answers are given. You will later understand why there is this anti-catholic fervor in their house and I think it's made clear, as I said before, that it comes from a place of ignorance and superstition. Owen even eventually strikes up a very positive relationship with a Catholic priest, we only really learn of it in retrospect and second hand and while he always maintains his anti-catholic bent, it become clear that he respected this priest a great deal.

----------


## bouquin

[QUOTE=Virgil;377767]Hmmm. I haven't finished the novel, but Owen defies his father and just about everyone. Why would he be influeneced by his father in this matter. He seems to make up his own mind on just about everything.


As early as chapter I (page 21 of the paperback edition that I have) John narrates: 
_He_ (Owen) was changing churches, he said, TO ESCAPE THE CATHOLICS - or, actually it was his father who was escaping and defying the Catholics by sending Owen to Sunday school, to be confirmed, in the Episcopal Church ... the Catholics had committed an UNSPEAKABLE OUTRAGE - that they had insulted his father and mother, irreparably.

Furthere down on page 22, John continues to say:
And what was the cause of the falling out between the Catholics and Mr. Meany? I always asked. Owen never told me. The damage was irreparable, he would repeat; he would refer only to the UNSPEAKABLE OUTRAGE.

My impression is that Owen was not defiant towards his dad right about that time when he was around 10 years old (when John talks about their attending Sunday school together); it was more like his parents have left him to fend for himself. That is why he became so independent and made decisions for himself. But a couple of years later, right after Tabitha died, Mr. Meany says to John:
"I'm gonna listen to what your mother said. She told me not to interfere if Owen wanted to go to the academy. And I won't ..."
Then John comments: It would take me years to realize that from the moment Owen hit that ball, Mr. Meany wouldn't "interfere" with _anything_ Owen wanted.
I think it was only from that point onwards that Owen got the upper hand of his parents and became definitely authoritative towards them.

----------


## Virgil

Thank you Idril and bouquin. Thanks for taking the time. I intend to finish the novel. So I will get the complete picture eventually. Sorry if I'm just whining. But you know hardly anyone gives their thoughts on these book club forums. They'll have a post at the end on whether they liked it or not with some vague emotional feeling. And at that point who goes back to various scenes in the book. I thought the point of a book forum discussion was to talk to each other while we read.

----------


## bouquin

> Thank you Idril and bouquin. Thanks for taking the time. I intend to finish the novel. So I will get the complete picture eventually. Sorry if I'm just whining. But you know hardly anyone gives their thoughts on these book club forums. They'll have a post at the end on whether they liked it or not with some vague emotional feeling. And at that point who goes back to various scenes in the book. I thought the point of a book forum discussion was to talk to each other while we read.




I think _Owen Meany_ is a fun book to discuss - because it is such a strange tale and leaves a lot of questions hanging.




> I have to say that the high school years chapter is boring. Owen as The Voice in the school paper gets so predictable. The more this book goes along, the less charming it becomes. What kept my interest, despite the loose writing, was the charm of the characters. Well, the writing is the same, but the characters are not as charming.


SPOILER ALERT!! You might not want to read this post if you have not yet reached the latter part of chapter 7 of the book.

It was quite audacious of Owen to speak up as The Voice but yes, his rebelliousness got kind of predictable after a while. I absolutely rooted for him though, while he stood up against Mrs Lish! 

What I still could not fathom was why he had to cut off Mary Magdalene. What was _his_ logic behind that? I see Owen as bold and daring and determined but not foolhardy - so cutting off that statue seemed out of character to me. I suppose that Irving did it for the purpose of symbolism and foreshadowing, but I think he went overboard on this one - an overkill.

----------


## Idril

***SPOILER***




> but I think he went overboard on this one - an overkill.


And Irving is certainly is capable of doing that. I know that Owen never liked the statue's arms, didn't he complain that it looked like she was begging or something along those lines? Although what that has to do with Randy White, I don't know. Maybe by removing Mary's begging arms he was showing the headmaster and the school board that he wouldn't beg to be let back or act in any way subservient? I don't know, I just made that up, I really have no idea.  :Tongue:   :FRlol:

----------


## bouquin

SPOILER!!
(unless you've read through to Chapter 9) ..........
.................................................. .......................

Another point I would like an explanation on is why Irving decided that John Wheelwright should remain a virgin (non-practising homosexual?). What is the significance of that if any?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> SPOILER!!
> (unless you've read through to Chapter 9) ..........
> .................................................. .......................
> 
> Another point I would like an explanation on is why Irving decided that John Wheelwright should remain a virgin (non-practising homosexual?). What is the significance of that if any?


why ever not???
i don't think Irving meant to say John Wheelwright is a non-practicising homosexual.. that's what some of his aquaintances think, but he thinks it's crap.
why shouldn't he remain a virgin? does there have to be any significance to it?
ok, i admit it's unusual for a man in RL to remain a virgin... 
let me put it the other way round: if Wheelwright were to lose his virginity in one way or the other (e.g. get married or stay single but have casual sexual encounters or hire a prostitute or all of them), would you ask "what's the significance of that"?

i think most of Irvings characters are a quirky mix of realistic and unusual.. so maybe that's all there is to it.. I mean John Wheelwright is rather boring in some ways.. it's not him who's special but his friend Owen. John functions as a narrator of Owens life and his own life was clearly affected by Owens... but if there's anything special/unusual about him, that's because he knew Owen, not because of himself... 
hehehe, no offence, I'm not trying to argue with you... 
maybe I'll be able to make a more coherent contribution when I've finished re-reading the book  :Smile:

----------


## Idril

> i think most of Irvings characters are a quirky mix of realistic and unusual.. so maybe that's all there is to it..


I can buy that because you're right, Sleepy, Irving books are positively littered with unique and unusual characters with odd little quirks, like the main character in _Until I Find You_ who can't watch movies unless...well...he has a weird way to watch movies.  :Rolleyes:  Anyway, it may just be that this is Johnny's quirk. I've also thought perhaps it was because he was so damaged by what happened to Owen that it left him unable to really have a full life, it left him so scarred that he isn't able to make normal connections with people. Before John moves to Canada, we hear of incidents when Johnny does try to change his virgin status and while we don't have a tremendous amount of details about his life in Canada, it does appear as if his attempts to change his status stop. I think his experience with Owen just left him largely emotionally numb, except of course for his political rants.  :Tongue:

----------


## Virgil

Such a quirk would have to have some significance, and I think it does. I have not finished the novel, but let me suggest this, that remaining a virgin signifies a stunted develpment, someone who has not been initiated fully into adulthood. His virginity counterpoints Hester's (the molestor  :Wink:  ) nymphomania and parallels the nuns that seem to cross the novel every so often in the background. That's one way to look at it. Another is to suggest that Johnny is priestly, an apostle to Owen perhaps?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Such a quirk would have to have some significance, and I think it does. I have not finished the novel, but let me suggest this, that remaining a virgin signifies a stunted develpment, someone who has not been initiated fully into adulthood. His virginity counterpoints Hester's (the molestor  ) nymphomania and parallels the nuns that seem to cross the novel every so often in the background. That's one way to look at it. Another is to suggest that Johnny is priestly, an apostle to Owen perhaps?


wow, I'd never thought of it that way...  :Thumbs Up:  
my far less sophisticated explanation would have been that after Johnny experienced something as miraculous as Owen's life the whole "getting laid" thing would appear overrated to him...

----------


## Schokokeks

> Who knows, perhaps John Wheelwright's rantings and ravings about politics could very well be the expression of Irving's own personal point of view.


Yes, exactly: who knows ? 



> Isn't that often the case (although not all, of course) among writers and their works? That they express their heartfelt opinions, air out their own anguish, doubts and indignation; tell their own life story through their writings?


Maybe some do, maybe others do not. I do not see why it should be of interest whether the issues brought forth in his books are congruent with what Irving or any other writer took for his personal opinion. When reading fiction, I do not want to know about the author's opinion on whatsoever. If I did, I would read his autobiography or listen to an interview. I read (his) fiction, however, because I am interested in (his) _presentation_ of (not necessarily his) opinions and views. But that's just me  :Smile: .





> But you know hardly anyone gives their thoughts on these book club forums. They'll have a post at the end on whether they liked it or not with some vague emotional feeling. (...) I thought the point of a book forum discussion was to talk to each other while we read.


I agree that it would be more entertaining and profitable for the rest of the Book Club if more persons gave their views and share their ideas here  :Nod: . However, I at least don't have the time to come here every day, and being a very slow reader on the screen and having missed a lengthy part of some discussion, it takes me a lot of time to read through the previous posts to follow the thread.
Of course I don't know about others, but I could imagine that for some of those who voted in the polls, the Book Club is more of an individual psychological motivation to get on with their reading list, and I don't see what could be wrong with that function of a book group.
However, for those behind the screen who are just waiting for an invitation to join: this is it  :Biggrin: .




> Another is to suggest that Johnny is priestly, an apostle to Owen perhaps?


That's a good idea, I had never thought about that either  :Smile: . The apostle thing might give you another interesting meaning for the ending, if you're still determined to read on  :Wink: .



> my far less sophisticated explanation would have been that after Johnny experienced something as miraculous as Owen's life the whole "getting laid" thing would appear overrated to him...


Another interesting thought ! My even far less elaborated idea was that, in comparison to the many episodes illuminating Owen's particulars, Johnny is simply being held plain, and thus placing even more emphasis on Owen. I had the impression that very little of the plot is actually dedicated to Johnny's person only: he gets the armadillo but Owen mutilates it, Owen takes over kissing Hester, Johnny can't get through college without Owen's help, and more. I remember that on first reading the novel I was very annoyed when the narrative switched to Johnny's diary written from Canada. Even in his 'present' life, separated from Owen, he does not have a great many interesting things to tell about himself. Of course these excerpts have their place and function within the novel, but I still prefer the more intriguing retrospect episodes with Owen  :Smile: .

----------


## bouquin

> why ever not???
> i don't think Irving meant to say John Wheelwright is a non-practicising homosexual.. that's what some of his aquaintances think, but he thinks it's crap.
> why shouldn't he remain a virgin? does there have to be any significance to it?
> ok, i admit it's unusual for a man in RL to remain a virgin... 
> let me put it the other way round: if Wheelwright were to lose his virginity in one way or the other (e.g. get married or stay single but have casual sexual encounters or hire a prostitute or all of them), would you ask "what's the significance of that"?
> 
> i think most of Irvings characters are a quirky mix of realistic and unusual.. so maybe that's all there is to it.. I mean John Wheelwright is rather boring in some ways.. it's not him who's special but his friend Owen. John functions as a narrator of Owens life and his own life was clearly affected by Owens... but if there's anything special/unusual about him, that's because he knew Owen, not because of himself... 
> hehehe, no offence, I'm not trying to argue with you... 
> maybe I'll be able to make a more coherent contribution when I've finished re-reading the book



I would question the significance depending on who John married or had sex with. If it was one of the girls he grew up with or met while in college or even Hester then I would most probably interpret it as part of the natural course of things and not wonder about it. But if, for instance, he were to keep on insisting that he only has sex with hand surgeons then chances are I would find that curious! 

Anyway, I think I can answer my own question after all. Reviewing the parts where John speaks of his sexuality, I re-discovered this statement of his (early chapter 9) --
What has happened to me has simply _neutered_ me. I just don't feel like "practicing."

So it seems that there is after all a significance and it's part and parcel of the symbol of armlessness (the armadillo, the dressmaker's dummy, Mary Magdalene, the finger).

----------


## Virgil

What I still could not fathom was why he had to cut off Mary Magdalene. What was _his_ logic behind that? I see Owen as bold and daring and determined but not foolhardy - so cutting off that statue seemed out of character to me. I suppose that Irving did it for the purpose of symbolism and foreshadowing, but I think he went overboard on this one - an overkill.[/QUOTE]
 
Well, it does fall into the pattern of cutting arms off, but it did seem strange that he would vandalize the Catholic Church since the issue at hand had nothing to do with them. What I question is how could Owen physically do what he did alone, given the weight of the statue. I guess we just have to accept it, but it doesn't seem possible to me.




> Maybe some do, maybe others do not. I do not see why it should be of interest whether the issues brought forth in his books are congruent with what Irving or any other writer took for his personal opinion. When reading fiction, I do not want to know about the author's opinion on whatsoever. If I did, I would read his autobiography or listen to an interview. I read (his) fiction, however, because I am interested in (his) _presentation_ of (not necessarily his) opinions and views. But that's just me .


I agree. What makes an author think he's more knowledgable on any given controversey than an expert. It's like a celeberty or a rock star preaching to me about global warming.  :Sick:  




> I agree that it would be more entertaining and profitable for the rest of the Book Club if more persons gave their views and share their ideas here . However, I at least don't have the time to come here every day, and being a very slow reader on the screen and having missed a lengthy part of some discussion, it takes me a lot of time to read through the previous posts to follow the thread.
> Of course I don't know about others, but I could imagine that for some of those who voted in the polls, the Book Club is more of an individual psychological motivation to get on with their reading list, and I don't see what could be wrong with that function of a book group.
> However, for those behind the screen who are just waiting for an invitation to join: this is it .


I understand Schoky. 




> Another interesting thought ! My even far less elaborated idea was that, in comparison to the many episodes illuminating Owen's particulars, Johnny is simply being held plain, and thus placing even more emphasis on Owen. I had the impression that very little of the plot is actually dedicated to Johnny's person only: he gets the armadillo but Owen mutilates it, Owen takes over kissing Hester, Johnny can't get through college without Owen's help, and more. I remember that on first reading the novel I was very annoyed when the narrative switched to Johnny's diary written from Canada. Even in his 'present' life, separated from Owen, he does not have a great many interesting things to tell about himself. Of course these excerpts have their place and function within the novel, but I still prefer the more intriguing retrospect episodes with Owen .


There's something to the thought that Owen fulfills all of Johhny's desires. Or at least he seems to.




> Anyway, I think I can answer my own question after all. Reviewing the parts where John speaks of his sexuality, I re-discovered this statement of his (early chapter 9) --
> What has happened to me has simply _neutered_ me. I just don't feel like "practicing."
> 
> So it seems that there is after all a significance and it's part and parcel of the symbol of armlessness (the armadillo, the dressmaker's dummy, Mary Magdalene, the finger).


But that doesn't quite answer it. Why doesn't he not "feel like 'practicing'"? Can it be (again I haven't finished; I'm on page 400 or so) that Johnny has been frozen emotionally at the time of his mother's death and has not been able to grow from there? He was eleven and pre-puberty and a significant core within him has not been able to move on. 

Also, the sections where the narration jumps to present time, the 1987 sections where johnny is just always angry. It seems to me that the adult Johnny has remained an adolescent, aestheiticaly dramatised by Irving by the fact that narrative never goes anywhere. It's just repetative and never progresses. At least up to the point I've read.

----------


## bouquin

> But that doesn't quite answer it. Why doesn't he not "feel like 'practicing'"? Can it be (again I haven't finished; I'm on page 400 or so) that Johnny has been frozen emotionally at the time of his mother's death and has not been able to grow from there? He was eleven and pre-puberty and a significant core within him has not been able to move on. 
> 
> Also, the sections where the narration jumps to present time, the 1987 sections where johnny is just always angry. It seems to me that the adult Johnny has remained an adolescent, aestheiticaly dramatised by Irving by the fact that narrative never goes anywhere. It's just repetative and never progresses. At least up to the point I've read.



The way I understand Johnny's statement is that _after what has happened to him_ (you will be enlightened regarding this remark after you've read the last 2 chapters) he feels as if his sex apparatus has been severed - and so obviously once you've lost that, "practicing" would not have much appeal to you anymore, would it?  :Frown:  
I don't think he attributes his lack of sex life to his mother's death.

By 1987 Johnny has become very politically aware. In days past, it was Owen who was politicized, Johnny was merely content to listen and follow like a faithful disciple. I would dare say that Owen's legacy was not only that Johnny became a Christian because of him but also that Johnny became avidly interested in the intrigues and maneuverings of the US government.

In Ch 7 (towards the beginning) John narrates:

*Nineteen sixty-one was the first year of our friendship that was marred by unfriendly criticism and quarreling. Our most basic dispute began in the fall when we returned to the academy for our senior year, and one of the privileges extended to seniors at Gravesend was responsible for an argument that left Owen and me feeling especially uneasy.*

So Owen was against doing the rounds of the Harvard Square striptease bars and he disapproved of drinking, and the discovery of the secret life that Tabitha had led in Boston was disquieting for him - and John especially, but I can't find the scene where they had an argument about these matters. 

The school year 1961 was indeed tumultous, especially for Owen - the Mrs Lish incident, consultations with Dr Dolder, being found out about the fake draft cards, the Volkswagen incident, Mary Magdalene off her pedestal, the conflict with Headmaster White, among other things. But nowhere did I detect that these problems manifestly _marred_ the friendship between John and Owen.

Anybody saw otherwise? Did anyone read through a passage/s where John and Owen quarrelled about these issues?

----------


## Janine

Well, I have been reading along but trying not to read stuff that will spoil my reading or the ending. Unfortunately, I just passed page 300 and doubt I will finish in time to disguss this book. However, discussions seem to be going well here and I find the entries so far enlightening.

----------


## bouquin

I am also wondering about Owen's relationship with his parents. He obviously doesn't regard them with any deep affection. Is his attitude simply a consequence of the family being dysfunctional? Or is it because Owen believes in his virgin birth and thus does not consider Mr & Mrs Meany his true parents?

----------


## Virgil

Great questions bouquin. I'm a 100 pages from finishing, I haven't even reached his virgin birth. To this point, Owen's family relationship is hardly developed. Yes, we see a static situation where they don't quite get along, but there is no development as to how it got there or how it evolves over time. We are led to believe that it is pretty much the same from when Owen is a child to when he is in his twenties. Perhaps the last hundred pages will clarify that.

----------


## Scheherazade

I am only half way through and cannot say I am enjoying it much (guess, you can tell... averaging about 10 pages a day :-/). 

However, I thought the part where Owen's parents found out that he would be playing the Baby Jesus instead of the Angel was very interesting. His mother first time shows a reaction (stares). Owen hastily explains that they liked him to play the Angel.

I need to read the posts carefully before I can post but I would like make couple of quick remarks:

- I am not reminded of Dickens at all while reading the book. If anything, I am somewhat reminded of Capote (without the charms of his style).

- I haven't finished the book so I am not sure how things will reveal themselves but while reading I cannot help thinking that it is Johnny who is more like Christ as he is born without a (known) father. And I hear from you guys that he is a virgin (pure?) as well.

- I find Owen annoying beyond words. 'Nobody likes a know-it-all!'  :Tongue:

----------


## Virgil

Good points Scher. I didn't think about Johnny in that way. But I too haven't finished so I can't really comment.

To me the writing does seem like a cross between Dickens and Capote.

----------


## Janine

> I am only half way through and cannot say I am enjoying it much (guess, you can tell... averaging about 10 pages a day :-/). 
> 
> However, I thought the part where Owen's parents found out that he would be playing the Baby Jesus instead of the Angel was very interesting. His mother first time shows a reaction (stares). Owen hastily explains that they liked him to play the Angel.
> 
> I need to read the posts carefully before I can post but I would like make couple of quick remarks:
> 
> - I am not reminded of Dickens at all while reading the book. If anything, I am somewhat reminded of Capote (without the charms of his style).
> 
> - I haven't finished the book so I am not sure how things will reveal themselves but while reading I cannot help thinking that it is Johnny who is more like Christ as he is born without a (known) father. And I hear from you guys that he is a virgin (pure?) as well.
> ...


I also agree with you, *Scher*, on several of your points. I find Owen annoying at times, too. I don't really perceive him as 'saintly' or 'Christ-like' at all. You are right in a way about the 'know-it-all'. He seems often to be smart-alecky. I think that is what annoys me about his persona. He does come off that way quite a bit and 'above it all', also. I don't know any saintly people who use the harsh words he comes out with. He is pretty blunt at times, don't you think? I also can't picture kids talking like this in the 50's, but maybe I was sheltered. It seems the dialogues are pretty much contemporary. I have just gotten to the part where he and Johnny goe to Boston and they look up the voice specialist. Owen is quite stubborn about any help with his voice, even to the extent of doing exercises or anything. I thought he was a little bit rude to the doctor who seemed very nice to the two boys.
I am a slow reader and particularly with this book for some reason. I have to force myself to read some each night and I am averaging about 10 pages like you. I am only to about 321. :Frown:  which is frustrating. 
I also don't think the book Dickens-like, at all. I thought this book had great charm when I started and for about 100 pgs in, but now I am disappointed with the tone and the way the book is dragging on. Maybe I just need to get past the point I am to and find out some interesting new facts to spur me onward. I think it feels more like Capote's writing - without the charm, as you said, *Scher*. His characters are quirky like in Capote's novellas, but not quite as likable, I think.

----------


## bouquin

In chapter 2, Johnny makes this comment after Noah and Simon forced him to kiss Hester:

*Did Noah and Simon ever consider the danger of the game?... they thought nothing was dangerous. But Hester and I were dangerous. And they started it: Noah and Simon started it.*

I do not understand these lines. What did Noah and Simon start? And do you consider John and Hester dangerous? In what way/s?

----------


## Virgil

I thought it refered to the potential for sexual interaction between Johnny and Hester. Borderline incest since they are cousins.

----------


## quasimodo1

"A Prayer for Owen Meany" that is the tome I'm wondering about. Sounds a little like the plot lines of "The Tin Drum" by Gunter Grass but surely quiite different. Is it worth reading or will a synopsis do? quasimodo1

----------


## Idril

> "A Prayer for Owen Meany" that is the tome I'm wondering about. Sounds a little like the plot lines of "The Tin Drum" by Gunter Grass but surely quiite different. Is it worth reading or will a synopsis do? quasimodo1


The plot lines are quite different but there are certainly similarities between Owen and Oskar. I think it's worth reading, I'm very fond of the book but others may have a different opinion.

----------


## bouquin

> I thought it refered to the potential for sexual interaction between Johnny and Hester. Borderline incest since they are cousins.




That's what I understood, too - that the "danger" had to do with the potential for incest. But John kissed Hester only once; if I remember correctly, no other such similar episodes transpired between them ever again. So in retrospect (since John describes the kissing incident years later, when he is already in his 40s) why would he associate it with _danger_? Nothing ever came of it, right? Not as far as Hester and John were both concerned anyway. 
And when he says *Noah and Simon started it* it would seem as if, with that kiss, the 2 boys got something (dangerous) rolling that ended up with some serious or significant sexual consequences for John and Hester together. And yet obviously nothing progressed along these lines.

----------


## Virgil

> That's what I understood, too - that the "danger" had to do with the potential for incest. But John kissed Hester only once; if I remember correctly, no other such similar episodes transpired between them ever again. So in retrospect (since John describes the kissing incident years later, when he is already in his 40s) why would he associate it with _danger_? Nothing ever came of it, right? Not as far as Hester and John were both concerned anyway. 
> And when he says *Noah and Simon started it* it would seem as if, with that kiss, the 2 boys got something (dangerous) rolling that ended up with some serious or significant sexual consequences for John and Hester together. And yet obviously nothing progressed along these lines.


True, but when John is retelling the episode, he's trying to get into the emotion of the moment. Isn't that what most narrators looking back do? And if I remember, John got an erection from the contact, so the potential was there. And Hester may not have stopped him. While nothing progressed, John in many moments desires it and is a little jealous of Owen when he becomes Hester's boyfriend.

----------


## Janine

Wow, I just finished the book. I really liked the last 200 pages or so. Had a hard time putting it down in the last 50 especially. I have to let it all sink in and I am a bit tired now, but will comment on it sometime tomorrow, hopefully. It was a good book - very thought-provoking indeed!

----------


## bouquin

> True, but when John is retelling the episode, he's trying to get into the emotion of the moment. Isn't that what most narrators looking back do? And if I remember, John got an erection from the contact, so the potential was there. And Hester may not have stopped him. While nothing progressed, John in many moments desires it and is a little jealous of Owen when he becomes Hester's boyfriend.



By "emotion of the moment" do you mean to say that it was Johnny as a young boy who recognized that kissing Hester was a perilous act, that he and she were both dangerous? 
I find it hard to imagine that a 10-year-old boy, after kissing his cousin (and getting an erection), could make a moral judgment that that was a dangerous thing to do because what if it goes further than that the next time, that's borderline incest, etc. I could picture him feeling disgust, anger, embarrassment, confusion - but being capable, at such a young age, of thinking that it was a dangerous act because of the risk of incest... I'm rather skeptical about that.

----------


## Idril

> Wow, I just finished the book. I really liked the last 200 pages or so. Had a hard time putting it down in the last 50 especially. I have to let it all sink in and I am a bit tired now, but will comment on it sometime tomorrow, hopefully. It was a good book - very thought-provoking indeed!



The ending really does hit you a little hard. There is no end of foreshadowing but it still seems to take you by surprise when it finally comes. 

As far as Johnny's labeling his contact with Hester as dangerous, I think any 10 year old is going to recognize sexual contact of any kind as dangerous or forbidden whether or not it's borderline incestuous and Hester wasn't called Hester the Molester for nothing, she was incredibly provocative and she wasn't above using Johnny's obvious attraction to cause trouble. I think it's another case of Owen saving Johnny, this time from his sexually aggressive cousin.  :Wink:   :Tongue:

----------


## Virgil

> By "emotion of the moment" do you mean to say that it was Johnny as a young boy who recognized that kissing Hester was a perilous act, that he and she were both dangerous? 
> I find it hard to imagine that a 10-year-old boy, after kissing his cousin (and getting an erection), could make a moral judgment that that was a dangerous thing to do because what if it goes further than that the next time, that's borderline incest, etc. I could picture him feeling disgust, anger, embarrassment, confusion - but being capable, at such a young age, of thinking that it was a dangerous act because of the risk of incest... I'm rather skeptical about that.


Well, I don't quite remember exactly my lust of when I was ten years old, but I'm pretty sure my cousin (and I grew up with several of my female cousins near by) was not within them. Yes, I do think a ten year old knows what are legitamate and off limits lusts are.




> The ending really does hit you a little hard. There is no end of foreshadowing but it still seems to take you by surprise when it finally comes.


Hard???? The ending made me laugh. You mean the practice basket ball shot is what this was all about? It was so forced and rediculous. I'm sorry. I did not think this was that good a novel.

----------


## bouquin

Who is/are your favorite character/s in _Owen Meany?_

----------


## Janine

> Well, I don't quite remember exactly my lust of when I was ten years old, but I'm pretty sure my cousin (and I grew up with several of my female cousins near by) was not within them. Yes, I do think a ten year old knows what are legitamate and off limits lusts are.


I could so easily relate to this cousin thing. I played with my cousins - 2 boys and one girl and my two sisters, included. My boy cousins were more my age and one exactly my age. I am sure I had a crush on him for years but nothing ever came of it. I think once I asked my mother if cousins could marry. I do recall how very jealous I got when his other girl cousin (same age) visited from the south. His attention was quickly drawn towards her. I hated her right off. Funny, the book brought all this back to me, and I had to laugh now but then it was serious stuff and real emotions on my part. I felt so wounded and left out. I could relate to how Johnny felt this way when Owen and Hester were off together and he was the 3rd wheel and left at home alone.




> Hard???? The ending made me laugh. You mean the practice basket ball shot is what this was all about? It was so forced and rediculous. I'm sorry. I did not think this was that good a novel.


*
Virgil*, You know as emotional as I felt at times reading this book's ending (say the last 50 pages), most of the emotion I felt was not at the very end. I thought, in someway, that the 'practice basket ball shot' was a little contrived for the ending, as well. It did bring in a little bit of the ridiculous, but then it seemed that Irving's work survives in it's wit and this was maybe a further us of wit on his part. In the face of tragedy to interject this moment of wit may have been his full intention. I think the fact that Owen intentionally took the grenade and wedged it between himself and the wall and sacrificed his life was the big thing. I don't think he ever had the intention of throwing it through that window, did he? 
What I found most interesting about the closing pages in the book is the doubts that suddenly Owen began feeling about his destiny, and the possibility that maybe everyone else was right, and his dream was just that - merely a 'dream'. He had flickers of 'hope'. to the extend, that he even tried to plan how he would get out of going to Nam. So when the moment of 'reckoning' did finally come it hit me as much more poignant. 
Mostly, my own personal hight of emotion came on the discover of who Johnny's father was. Also, I felt deeply, when it was revealed to Johnny about Owen's birth, according to his limited-minded parents' view. Also, emotional for me was when Owen and Johnny spend the night together playing the remembering game. The funneral tore me up. The actual death scene was more of a relief in a way.
The arms I found to be the most interesting part of the death scene. I need to go back and re-read those final scenes. So what is everyone's take on the recurrent 'arms' or missing 'limb' theme throughout the book, even to the extend to Johnny's missing finger? First the Armadillo, the Indian legend, then the statue, then the dressform, then Owen's arms, etc.

*Virgil*, I have to disagree that this was not a good book. I felt it too lengthy at time, but that might be my own impatience. I have some criticisms of the book, but I felt it was a good book, afterall. I was glad I had read it. I am still thinking about it, so that is something to say about the ideas and theme presented in this novel. I felt it was quite thought-provoking.

----------


## Virgil

> *
> Virgil*, You know as emotional as I felt at times reading this book's ending (say the last 50 pages), most of the emotion I felt was not at the very end. I thought, in someway, that the 'practice basket ball shot' was a little contrived for the ending, as well. It did bring in a little bit of the ridiculous, but then it seemed that Irving's work survives in it's wit and this was maybe a further us of wit on his part. In the face of tragedy to interject this moment of wit may have been his full intention. I think the fact that Owen intentionally took the grenade and wedged it between himself and the wall and sacrificed his life was the big thing. I don't think he ever had the intention of throwing it through that window, did he? 
> What I found most interesting about the closing pages in the book is the doubts that suddenly Owen began feeling about his destiny, and the possibility that maybe everyone else was right, and his dream was just that - merely a 'dream'. He had flickers of 'hope'. to the extend, that he even tried to plan how he would get out of going to Nam. So when the moment of 'reckoning' did finally come it hit me as much more poignant. 
> Mostly, my own personal hight of emotion came on the discover of who Johnny's father was. Also, I felt deeply, when it was revealed to Johnny about Owen's birth, according to his limited-minded parents' view. Also, emotional for me was when Owen and Johnny spend the night together playing the remembering game. The funneral tore me up. The actual death scene was more of a relief in a way.
> The arms I found to be the most interesting part of the death scene. I need to go back and re-read those final scenes. So what is everyone's take on the recurrent 'arms' or missing 'limb' theme throughout the book, even to the extend to Johnny's missing finger? First the Armadillo, the Indian legend, then the statue, then the dressform, then Owen's arms, etc.
> 
> *Virgil*, I have to disagree that this was not a good book. I felt it too lengthy at time, but that might be my own impatience. I have some criticisms of the book, but I felt it was a good book, afterall. I was glad I had read it. I am still thinking about it, so that is something to say about the ideas and theme presented in this novel. I felt it was quite thought-provoking.


Well, what exactly made this a good book? The sparkling prose?  :Sick:  The insightful characters? Except for the mother they were all borderline cartoons. You mention the father: All I kept thinking was Arthur Dimmesdale from The Scarlet Letter except without the depth. Owen Meany? Oh, we all know such Christ figures. Actually he seems more of an alien from outer space.  :Alien:  Johnny?  :Yawnb:  So if it didn't have Sparkling prose or insightful characters then it must have great themes. What themes? Religious cliches (I don't think Dostoevsky or Tolstoy have to worry a challenger here for religious depth) and erections as symbols for adolescence. The sixties as loss of American innocence - how any times have you heard that? So what was so original about Irving's treatment of it? What exactly did he have to say about the Vietnam war that wasn't a cliche? Soldiers as baby killers? How original. And what about the insults to Catholcism? What was that all about? And treatment of poor people in Arizona as some crazy rednecks? I happen to know people in Yuma Arizona and while they may not all be well off they are not single and pregnant and throw around grenades. In fact Irving seems to strive for the lowest characterization of any group he doesn't seem to like. Where was any hint of complexity of life? I frankly don't think he has the skill to portray complexity.

So what Owen died a hero? It was just tugging at heartstrings. I've seen many a cowboy or war movie where the hero dies valiantly in the end. And we all cry. But that's not how you judge the work.

----------


## Janine

*Virgil*, This is not going to be easy to answer. We are not critiquing a Lawrence book here or an Dostoevsky or a Tolstoy. I am one to hardly ever read contemporary literature. I felt this book was hard to stick with, but usually when I start a book I don't abandon it - I persist until it is over with. So let's look at exactly what you wrote below:




> Well, what exactly made this a good book? The sparkling prose?


Ok, who says we have to have sparkling prose in this book? I think the book had it's own type charm, wit and humor, and yes, intelligence. 



> The insightful characters? Except for the mother they were all borderline cartoons. You mention the father: All I kept thinking was Arthur Dimmesdale from The Scarlet Letter except without the depth.


 Last one is really funny  :FRlol: ...Arthur Dimmesdale? - never thought of him. I don't know if you can go as far as saying the characters were 'cartoons' - that sounds a bit harsh. Real people do have their quirks and their ecentricities. Maybe you could call them cartoons. I really did not think I liked the depiction of the family in Arizona, that did seem a bit extreme, and biased as well; and I kept thinking the kid who pulled the pin on the grenade was just too extreme and also who would have let him wander around an airport? I felt the ending was a bit shaky. 



> Owen Meany? Oh, we all know such Christ figures. Actually he seems more of an alien from outer space.  Johnny?


 Who knows maybe Owen Meany was an alien. Yes, Christ figures are not that uncommon but maybe he was not that at all but believed he was from what his parents told him. That whole story could have been untrue - I tended to believe it was and not a miracle - afterall the mother was semi-retarded or slow. I think Owen took that knowledge and believed he was there for a reason. I don't even think he did feel he was the real Christ child. He did not act all that Christlike at times - maybe that was the idea Irving was trying to get across - that really he was only human even if he was insightful, perceptive, smart and had faith. I think Johnny was opposite Owen for a reason. Owen was a leader and Johnny a follower. 



> So if it didn't have Sparkling prose or insightful characters then it must have great themes. What themes?


I see the main themes as 'accepting ones fate and living accordingly, also 'faith' and 'believing that all things happen for a reason'. I also, I see 'friendship' as a big part of the theme of the book and being faithful to your friend.



> Religious cliches (I don't think Dostoevsky or Tolstoy have to worry a challenger here for religious depth) and erections as symbols for adolescence.


 Maybe there were some religious cliches but it really did not bother me. As far as the erections were concerned, I did not know they were meant to tie in with the religious themes. I just thought them written as a natural part of boyhood and growing up and life. I did not look on that part of the book as too significant. Maybe you are putting too much emphasis into their having to have deep meaning. At times I did find them irksome and out of place, being a bit overdone. 



> The sixties as loss of American innocence - how any times have you heard that? So what was so original about Irving's treatment of it? What exactly did he have to say about the Vietnam war that wasn't a cliche? Soldiers as baby killers? How original.


I would like others to answer this. I really don't know what to say. Again do we have to put huge significance on this loss of innocence that is mixed in with the country's loss of innocense. 



> And what about the insults to Catholcism? What was that all about?


I did not particularly like this aspect of the book either. I don't know what that was all about and I was shocked the priest would so readily forgive Owen for defacing the Mary statue. Also, I thought there was a big story about Owen's parents and the Catholic Chruch really being horrible to them. I did not connect this but maybe I should go back and read the part when Johnny is told about Owen's birth and how the parents went to their church or priest about it. I can't recall now what was said exactly concerning the Catholics. If they did tell them Owen was born from a virgin birth no church would probably have believed them seeing how lame-minded the mother was, the father not much better. 




> And treatment of poor people in Arizona as some crazy rednecks? I happen to know people in Yuma Arizona and while they may not all be well off they are not single and pregnant and throw around grenades. In fact Irving seems to strive for the lowest characterization of any group he doesn't seem to like. Where was any hint of complexity of life? I frankly don't think he has the skill to portray complexity.


This I agree on to some extend. I think he would have done better to have less characters and less extreme ones - then they would have appeared more real and human. The book was too long and too many character sketches to have full complexity of each. 




> So what Owen died a hero? It was just tugging at heartstrings. I've seen many a cowboy or war movie where the hero dies valiantly in the end. And we all cry. But that's not how you judge the work.


This might be true, but this guy Owen Meany killed Johnny's mother and that is how the whole story got started. In a way Owen's death was justified in his going where the mother had gone...supposidly Heaven. His fate met up with her's eventually. How else could the book end, if Owen were not to die a hero, more importantly in a sacrifice of his life to save others. He knew it was to be from the time he saw the image of his gravestone with the dates, then the recurring dream. So, the story was a bit fantastical, if you care to view it that way, some may say it was a miracle and some pure fantasy. It really does not matter as long as the basic ideas come across.

Hope all of this makes sense - but if not everyone is entitled to his/her opinion on whether the book was good or bad and whether it touched something personal for you or left you cold. I liked the book but would not call it the best book I have read. I am not even sure I will venture to read another Irving book in the future, but I don't regret reading this one.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Who knows maybe Owen Meany was an alien. Yes, Christ figures are not that uncommon but maybe he was not that at all but believed he was from what his parents told him. That whole story could have been untrue - I tended to believe it was and not a miracle - afterall the mother was semi-retarded or slow. I think Owen took that knowledge and believed he was there for a reason. I don't even think he did feel he was the real Christ child. He did not act all that Christlike at times - maybe that was the idea Irving was trying to get across - that really he was only human even if he was insightful, perceptive, smart and had faith. I think Johnny was opposite Owen for a reason. Owen was a leader and Johnny a follower.


spot on, Janine. Irving once said in an interview that Johnny is so fascinated with Owen, he believes every word Owen says. But maybe he's just taken in by his friend's religious babble.
Irving seems to argue that Johnny is not a reliable narrator.
well, to be honest, the first time I read the book, I was taken in by Owen, too and I don't like the idea of forcing myself to disbelief Johnny.

----------


## Virgil

If Johnny is an unreliable narrator, what would the point be? That would really baffle me altogether. That means I couldn't trust anything about Owen, so what would be his significance?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> If Johnny is an unreliable narrator, what would the point be? That would really baffle me altogether. That means I couldn't trust anything about Owen, so what would be his significance?


yep, that's exactly why i don't like this idea altogether... why read 500 pages just to learn that Johnny is unreliable and none of what he's told us is "true"?
what's more, there's no way an unsuspecting reader like innocent little Sleepy could figure out that Johnny is supposed to be unreliable

----------


## Janine

> yep, that's exactly why i don't like this idea altogether... why read 500 pages just to learn that Johnny is unreliable and none of what he's told us is "true"?
> what's more, there's no way an unsuspecting reader like innocent little Sleepy could figure out that Johnny is supposed to be unreliable


*Sleepywitch*, that is good. Yes, why would Irving think we would be dupped into reading that many pages, if Johnny was unreliable? Perhaps Irving merely meant that Johnny was human and all humans color their stories with their own opinions and therefore the 'truth' we are hearing might not be 100% the 'truth', in actuality. Even Johnny is 'wishy-washy' at times (often in fact) about what is happening to Owen or what Owen confesses to be true. He seems to listen, but not always believe totally what Owen is saying, as they are growing up. He never has a great deal of faith about finding his own father, as Owen does. So when Johnny hears the 'virgin birth' story why would he believe it a miracle. In fact Johnny reasons it out thinking it is not a miracle but an outrage to tell a young child this story at a formative age. 

Johnny is always more practical minded and Owen is more idealistic. Johnny therefore is looking throught Johnny's "practical-minded' eyes. I truly think this is Irving's full intention in using Johnny to tell the story. In this way he would be somewhat like we would be - sceptical of miracles and of what Owen tells him. Isn't Johnny convinced, till the very death of Owen, that Owen's dream was only that, a "dream", and that Owen's vision of the tombstone also could be explained in earthly terms. I think this makes it more feasible by pitting Johnny's own non-faith next to Owen's supreme faith.

An interesting thought came to me - if Owen's birth were a figment of the imagination of his parents, and not a true miracle; say his mother got pregnant without realising it - it has happened before - then Owen would be so much like Johnny - not knowing who his real father was. It never dawned on me, but both of them would be living with stepfathers. It is an odd thought.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> *Sleepywitch*, that is good. Yes, why would Irving think we would be dupped into reading that many pages, if Johnny was unreliable? Perhaps Irving merely meant that Johnny was human and all humans color their stories with their own opinions and therefore the 'truth' we are hearing might not be 100% the 'truth', in actuality. Even Johnny is 'wishy-washy' at times (often in fact) about what is happening to Owen or what Owen confesses to be true. He seems to listen, but not always believe totally what Owen is saying, as they are growing up. He never has a great deal of faith about finding his own father, as Owen does. So when Johnny hears the 'virgin birth' story why would he believe it a miracle. In fact Johnny reasons it out thinking it is not a miracle but an outrage to tell a young child this story at a formative age. 
> 
> Johnny is always more practical minded and Owen is more idealistic. Johnny therefore is looking throught Johnny's "practical-minded' eyes. I truly think this is Irving's full intention in using Johnny to tell the story. In this way he would be somewhat like we would be - sceptical of miracles and of what Owen tells him. Isn't Johnny convinced, till the very death of Owen, that Owen's dream was only that, a "dream", and that Owen's vision of the tombstone also could be explained in earthly terms. I think this makes it more feasible by pitting Johnny's own non-faith next to Owen's supreme faith.
> 
> An interesting thought came to me - if Owen's birth were a figment of the imagination of his parents, and not a true miracle; say his mother got pregnant without realising it - it has happened before - then Owen would be so much like Johnny - not knowing who his real father was. It never dawned on me, but both of them would be living with stepfathers. It is an odd thought.


or maybe Owen's "father" is his real, biological father after all, but the parents didn't have sex ed seeing as they come from a Catholic background and they just didn't realize that what they were doing was having sex and that sex can lead to pregnancy??? it doesn't even take a stepfather....

maybe the underlying question is meant to be something like: even if Owen's birth was NOT a miracle (Virgin birth), couldn't he still do miracles (like seeing visions and saving those children)???
--> by analogy: was Jesus' birth really a miraculous virgin birth or was he a normal human like any Tom, Dick and Harry, but he could do miracles anyway??? this would be really provocative and somehow I don't think that's what Irving intended, but who knows?

----------


## Virgil

> or maybe Owen's "father" is his real, biological father after all, but the parents didn't have sex ed seeing as they come from a Catholic background and they just didn't realize that what they were doing was having sex and that sex can lead to pregnancy??? it doesn't even take a stepfather....


Sex leads to pregnancy??  :Confused: You mean this is what I've been doing wrong all these years.  :Confused:   :FRlol:  I didn't know Catholics don't know how babies are made.  :FRlol:  Judging by how large traditional Catholic families are I would venture to guess this isn't true.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Sex leads to pregnancy?? You mean this is what I've been doing wrong all these years.   I didn't know Catholics don't know how babies are made.  Judging by how large traditional Catholic families are I would venture to guess this isn't true.


oh come on, Uncle Virg, you know what I mean  :Smile: 
i wasn't talking about you... my own relatives include the worst kind of back-in-the-woods Catholics and they seriously didn't know how it works, because their families where so uptight they never explained the story about the birds and the bees to their children

----------


## Virgil

> oh come on, Uncle Virg, you know what I mean 
> i wasn't talking about you... my own relatives include the worst kind of back-in-the-woods Catholics and they seriously didn't know how it works, because their families where so uptight they never explained the story about the birds and the bees to their children


 :FRlol:  I find it hard to believe that any adult doesn't know how babies are made.  :Tongue:  They may not know the biology of it all, but they certainly know the mechanics of how. Even animals don't need to be taught how to do it. It tends to come naturally. And even "back-of-the-woods" people have animals that they see mate, don't they? This is an old wive's tale. And why only Catholics? I've known lots of Protestants who very religious and uptight about sex.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I find it hard to believe that any adult doesn't know how babies are made.  They may not know the biology of it all, but they certainly know the mechanics of how. Even animals don't need to be taught how to do it. It tends to come naturally. And even "back-of-the-woods" people have animals that they see mate, don't they? This is an old wive's tale. And why only Catholics? I've known lots of Protestants who very religious and uptight about sex.


heheh  :Smile:  yep me too.. but we have different kinds of Protestants over here.. I think in the U.S. you get some Puritan-style Protestants who are just as conservative and uptight as Catholics are often said to be... over here, we don't really have the Puritan kind of Protestants except in some pockets in the south west. So our Catholics are the German equivalent to your "Puritans" as far as sex is concerned (dancing, idleness and taking sick leave to go on holidays is a different matter)....
hehe, what I'm driving at is that it's a common cliché about Catholics that they don't know about contraception (in reality most of them know about it of course, but are against it).
so Owen's mother might be one of those Catholics who don't even know about contraception and the biology of reproduction whereas her body didn't catch on to the fact that it's supposed to _either_ abstain _or_ reproduce on purpose...  :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> heheh  yep me too.. but we have different kinds of Protestants over here.. I think in the U.S. you get some Puritan-style Protestants who are just as conservative and uptight as Catholics are often said to be... over here, we don't really have the Puritan kind of Protestants except in some pockets in the south west. So our Catholics are the German equivalent to your "Puritans" as far as sex is concerned (dancing, idleness and taking sick leave to go on holidays is a different matter)....
> hehe, what I'm driving at is that it's a common cliché about Catholics that they don't know about contraception (in reality most of them know about it of course, but are against it).
> so Owen's mother might be one of those Catholics who don't even know about contraception and the biology of reproduction whereas her body didn't catch on to the fact that it's supposed to _either_ abstain _or_ reproduce on purpose...


Hahahaha. This was a hilarious bit of dialogue between us. I guess i have nothing more to add.  :FRlol:

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Hahahaha. This was a hilarious bit of dialogue between us. I guess i have nothing more to add.


hehe, have you never heard of the standard rural-Catholic mating procedure? it goes like this:
1. two people date; one of them is engaged to another person, but never mind
2. they have sex; the woman pretends she's on the pill, but she's not
3. the woman gets pregnant
4. the man has to break up his engagement with the other girl and marry her
5. the child is born prematurely 6 months after the wedding, but it's plump and healthy
6. "A miracle, hallelujah" aren't we all glad the little bugger is so big and fat after only 6 months?

at least that's how my aunt did it...

well, this was slightly off-topic...
back on topic: do you think Irving intended to critize Catholicism as harshly as my original post would imply?

----------


## Virgil

> hehe, have you never heard of the standard rural-Catholic mating procedure? it goes like this:
> 1. two people date; one of them is engaged to another person, but never mind
> 2. they have sex; the woman pretends she's on the pill, but she's not
> 3. the woman gets pregnant
> 4. the man has to break up his engagement with the other girl and marry her
> 5. the child is born prematurely 6 months after the wedding, but it's plump and healthy
> 6. "A miracle, hallelujah" aren't we all glad the little bugger is so big and fat after only 6 months?
> 
> at least that's how my aunt did it...


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  She got the guy she wanted, I guess. Did the marriage at least work out? 




> well, this was slightly off-topic...
> back on topic: do you think Irving intended to critize Catholicism as harshly as my original post would imply?


I don't know what to make of Irving's harshness to Catholicism. Owen's rantings just don't seem to add up to a point. At least not one that I got. Why did he have to do that? I don't understand.

----------


## Janine

Owen didn't have any siblings, right? Maybe the parents didn't know how to do it? Maybe they both are a little short in the 'brain' category? 
At anyrate - that does seem doubtful, as Virgil has pointed out citing animal behavior. I really have enjoyed your (Virgil and Sleepwitch) conversation on reproduction. Very entertaining! Thanks - :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> Owen didn't have any siblings, right? Maybe the parents didn't know how to do it? Maybe they both are a little short in the 'brain' category? 
> At anyrate - that does seem doubtful, as Virgil has pointed out citing animal behavior. I really have enjoyed your (Virgil and Sleepwitch) conversation on reproduction. Very entertaining! Thanks -


 :FRlol:  Glad to add to any fun.  :Biggrin:  I guess if any parents are now feel shy about talking about the birds and the bees to their children, they can send the little rascals to us and we'll teach them.  :Tongue:  Of course i don't actually have any children to prove I know what I'm talking about.  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

*Virgil*, Well, those last five posts or so I could not stop laughing.  :FRlol:  Thanks again for the entertainment! Well, I don't think we better venture into the field of teaching the 'birds and bees'. Do as I did with my kid; brought home some animal books from the library (I was using them for an art project); then found my young son seated in the middle of the living room floor intend on one; I wondered why he was so interested and later I discovered it was heavy on reproduction. I don't think after that, I had to do much explaining.

Yeah, maybe your the one who needs the education.  :FRlol:

----------


## SleepyWitch

my mum used to be a hippie and she had those little wooden dolls (about 2 inches tall). one of them had a hole and the other had a piece of string with a little bit of wood attached to it.....  :Biggrin: 
my bro was around 4 and a half y/o when she showed them to us... I don't think he got it at that stage...  :Smile: 
....
arrrgh, this is about 5 miles off topic...

I'll definitely have to re-read the book when I've got more time. there are so many aspects I didn't catch or have forgotten....

----------


## Janine

*Sleepywitch*, yeah, we better stop - next thing you know we will get bumped to Live Chat or censored altogether. But for the record, I found your story quite humorous. I think I recall those dolls, I went to a hippie art college, but I always tell my friends, I was on the outskirts of being a real hippie. Guess I was a little bit square. Those were the days! In a way I related to things in OM, because of the time I grew up.

----------


## Asa Adams

yay reading. Who doesnt love it! Pray for my students! Their exam starts on the 10th of june!!! Love you all!

Asa

----------


## Janine

> yay reading. Who doesnt love it! Pray for my students! Their exam starts on the 10th of june!!! Love you all!
> 
> Asa


Hi *Asa*, We will pray they all get A's.....as in Asa..... we have missed you greatly! Glad you are back.

----------


## Schokokeks

> The sparkling prose?


Would you mind clarifying this ?  :Smile:  Maybe with an example of a contemporary of Irving writing 'sparkling prose', in your opinion ?




> Owen Meany? Oh, we all know such Christ figures.


Well, I don't know about you, but I did not. For me, rather than scrutinising the book for themes of depth already addressed by writers of centuries before (wasn't it Plato who said that everything has been said before ?  :Smile: ), Owen for me was, amongst other things, more of an allegory of how we tend to underestimate children in their capacity of constructing a world for themselves and their ideas on the grown-ups'. In fact, the part I liked most was the description of the two boys' childhood.




> The sixties as loss of American innocence - how any times have you heard that?


Again, not that often  :Smile: . But maybe this is more interesting to me because I have not grown up and don't live in the United States, and my idea of these times results from reading history books about a foreign country only. For me, this literary treatment is a relatively new one. 
Now that I think about it, I recall having read an interview with Irving where he holds the political issues in _Owen Meany_ and _World According to Garp_ (about feminism -> appealing, eh, Virgil ?  :Wink: ) as one of the reasons why these books of his were more successful outside the USA, where his readers were/are not that close in mind to these experiences.

----------


## SleepyWitch

very good points, Schoko...
i find it interesting to read about growing up in the 50s and 60s (in the U.S.), too...
what I also like about Irving is how he makes every-day small town life seem so interesting and often gives it a weird twist. his characters tend to be regular people like you and me only they are a bit more bizarre.
so his characters are neither _unusual_, as in people you don't normally get to know (kings, queens, dukes, aliens, seductresses, vampires...) nor are they members of the work-go home-eat-sleep-work-die variety.
i like the idea of finding interesting aspects in everyday life

----------


## Janine

> very good points, Schoko...
> i find it interesting to read about growing up in the 50s and 60s (in the U.S.), too...
> what I also like about Irving is how he makes every-day small town life seem so interesting and often gives it a weird twist. his characters tend to be regular people like you and me only they are a bit more bizarre.
> so his characters are neither _unusual_, as in people you don't normally get to know (kings, queens, dukes, aliens, seductresses, vampires...) nor are they members of the work-go home-eat-sleep-work-die variety.
> i like the idea of finding interesting aspects in everyday life


*SleepyWitch*, Curious to know, since you and *Schokokeks* are not from the US, what impression you got from this book about Americans? Also about the political atmostphere, and other aspects of American life here in the US, where I do live. By the way, I was a teenager/college student during this era of the Vietnam war and experienced all the political strife, assinations, war protests, etc. 
I liked your last paragraph and I feel the same way. I agree with both your posts basically in answer to *Virgil's* comments. Sorry....Virg... :Frown:

----------


## Virgil

First Schoky I'm sorry I denigrated a novel I know you think a lot of. I knew my comments might upset you, but I felt I had to give my honest opinion.




> Would you mind clarifying this ?  Maybe with an example of a contemporary of Irving writing 'sparkling prose', in your opinion ?


American contemporaries? I'm not up on all the contemporaries but Toni Morrison is not bad. John Updike and Philip Roth and Annie Proulx and Joyce Carol Oates are pretty good. I have a special love for the work of Cormac MacCarthy. A great read is All The Pretty Horses. There are others with good reputations but I have not read them so I can't vouch for it.




> Well, I don't know about you, but I did not. For me, rather than scrutinising the book for themes of depth already addressed by writers of centuries before (wasn't it Plato who said that everything has been said before ? ), Owen for me was, amongst other things, more of an allegory of how we tend to underestimate children in their capacity of constructing a world for themselves and their ideas on the grown-ups'. In fact, the part I liked most was the description of the two boys' childhood.


There was a certain charm in the first three chapters. I felt the mother was very well drawn out as a full character. The very young Owen was also well characterized.




> Again, not that often . But maybe this is more interesting to me because I have not grown up and don't live in the United States, and my idea of these times results from reading history books about a foreign country only. For me, this literary treatment is a relatively new one.


That may be, but frankly a lot of the novel felt like a TV movie. Be aware that a work of art is an approximation of one view of experience. I have met people who would argue against the 1950's as ideal and golden and others that the sixties were a period of radical upheaval. Real life is complex. At this point, without adding complexity to these common notions is to dwell on cliches. If I have to hear one more time that America lost its innocence with the Kennedy assination I'm going to vomit like Hester. A novel can withstand a cliche or so, but when I look through this and one sees the simplified view of the 50's, the 60s, religion, soldiers, and "rednecks." I'm sure Germans feel how simple to portray all WWWII era germans as nazis. It's become a cliche and we all know the reality is complex. Irving has simplified so many things here in a similar fashion that frankly it doesn't have depth. 

On top of that, he stretches credulity over and over that one gives up on it. I think Hemingway once said a writer can always get a reader to believe in one extraordinary thing in a novel but beyond that the reader begins to question the realism. Well lets look at this. A series of wierd events leads to owen, who has hardly ever hit a baseball before, hitting a ball that strikes the mother of his best friend at just the right spot to kill her. OK that's one. Then there is the weirdness of Owen's body and character. Ok, then there is the fact that he's a precocious genius. Then there is the fact that he's more skilled at cutting stone at the age of 18 than his father. Then he's able to carry a statue to his school and bolt it down all by himself. Then he can stuff a basketball while being tossed in the air in three seconds. Then he sees his death. Then we learn he's of a virgin birth. Then it all coordinates into the reality of his dream. I wonder what Hemingway would say. 

On top of that there is the two dimensionality of just about all the characters. His cousins as children reminded me of the simpsons cartoons. Does anyone really throw up as often as Hester? Louis Merril is an allegory, doubt. And so on.

So, hard to believe events, cliches for themes, and two dimensional characters. I'm sorry, average is the best I could give it.




> Now that I think about it, I recall having read an interview with Irving where he holds the political issues in _Owen Meany_ and _World According to Garp_ (about feminism -> appealing, eh, Virgil ? ) as one of the reasons why these books of his were more successful outside the USA, where his readers were/are not that close in mind to these experiences.


My complaints had nothing to do with the politics, even though Johhny's politics are I'm pretty sure Irving's politics. Perhaps that was part of Irving's mistake. All politics, whichever side, is a simplification to cliche. Perhaps Irving sees life as political cliche. Who knows.

----------


## Schokokeks

> First Schoky I'm sorry I denigrated a novel I know you think a lot of. I knew my comments might upset you, but I felt I had to give my honest opinion.


Oh no, Virgil, you didn't. It's very gentlemanly of you to be so concerned, but I assure you there was no damage done  :Smile: . It would not earn a writer much credit if his/her books didn't elicit different views on them, and not much credit to their readers if they didn't offer theirs  :Smile: .




> I'm sure Germans feel how simple to portray all WWWII era germans as nazis. It's become a cliche and we all know the reality is complex. Irving has simplified so many things here in a similar fashion that frankly it doesn't have depth.


Yes, I understand your argument. However, somehow these simplifications didn't bother me that much. While reading, I felt that the character of Owen is so extraordinary and so far beyond credibility that a sophisticated description of the complex and changing world around him would have been 'too much' in one book. It feels more balanced this way. For me, the politics, and to some extent also the other characters, were the portrait's background, and I didn't mind the colours to be less bright. 




> American contemporaries?


I was thinking maybe you might have read Paul Auster. I mention him here as my exemplary postmodernist (I'm not very fond of literary theory and the classification into "periods" and "currents", but I will use the label "postmodernism" here in order to clarify my understanding of _Owen_ and Irving). 




> On top of that, he stretches credulity over and over that one gives up on it. I think Hemingway once said a writer can always get a reader to believe in one extraordinary thing in a novel but beyond that the reader begins to question the realism.


As far as I understand it (I've only been reading English for 6 years now, and I'm only 20, so I may err  :Smile: ), that is exactly what the postmodernist wants the reader to do, to question the realism - or rather, the irrealism. I brought up Paul Auster because he's a vehement advocate of the idea that there is no such thing as coincidence. I think Owen uses the same words somewhere in the book. Everything has a purpose, Owen's strange bodily appearance, his voice, his ability to handle the stone cutting machines, ... According to the postmodernists, we, by having discarded the idea of connectedness, are lulled to an extent that once we find ourselves confronted with an extraordinary story (reality's complexity also does include these), it hits us with full force, and we tend to dismiss it as unreal.
The way I presented it now may shed a somewhat mystical or esoterical light on postmodernism, and of course the theory is more complex and elaborated than my abstract here. If I got anything wrong, somebody benevolent please correct me.

Maybe you would have like _The Cider House Rules_ better, as it is far-fetched only at -some- points, but I guess there's not much chance of you ever reading an Irving book again  :Wink: . But diversity of opinion makes for good discussions, and one cannot like unexceptionally everything  :Nod: .

----------


## Virgil

> I was thinking maybe you might have read Paul Auster. I mention him here as my exemplary postmodernist (I'm not very fond of literary theory and the classification into "periods" and "currents", but I will use the label "postmodernism" here in order to clarify my understanding of _Owen_ and Irving).


I've never even heard of him. I looked him up and he's right here in New York writing about New York. I'll have to check him out.




> As far as I understand it (I've only been reading English for 6 years now, and I'm only 20, so I may err ), that is exactly what the postmodernist wants the reader to do, to question the realism - or rather, the irrealism. I brought up Paul Auster because he's a vehement advocate of the idea that there is no such thing as coincidence. I think Owen uses the same words somewhere in the book. Everything has a purpose, Owen's strange bodily appearance, his voice, his ability to handle the stone cutting machines, ... According to the postmodernists, we, by having discarded the idea of connectedness, are lulled to an extent that once we find ourselves confronted with an extraordinary story (reality's complexity also does include these), it hits us with full force, and we tend to dismiss it as unreal.


Hmm, did you think A Prayer For Owen Meany was in a postmodern style? I didn't get that impression at all. That's why I said it felt like a Dickens novel. If the central theme of the novel was that everything has a purpose (and i think it might be) then wouldn't you expect Irving to be subtle with that. Everything seemed so grossly exaggerated, and in the context of realism it rings a false note. Somehow Irving's style and theme seem to contradict each other.




> Maybe you would have like _The Cider House Rules_ better, as it is far-fetched only at -some- points, but I guess there's not much chance of you ever reading an Irving book again .


Oh who knows, maybe someday.  :Smile:

----------


## SleepyWitch

bah, Virgil, you old spoil sport  :Smile:  I used to love Irving (still do) and only noticed all those things after you pointed them out  :Bawling:  
hehe, I gave up re-reading _Owen Meany_ this time round... will do it later... heeheee, I'll revive this thread in 2010, OK?

----------


## Schokokeks

> Hmm, did you think A Prayer For Owen Meany was in a postmodern style? I didn't get that impression at all. That's why I said it felt like a Dickens novel ... wouldn't you expect Irving to be subtle with that. Everything seemed so grossly exaggerated, and in the context of realism it rings a false note. Somehow Irving's style and theme seem to contradict each other.


I agree with you that the style was not postmodern, but rather Dickensian. As Sleepy pointed out earlier in this discussion, Irving believed that today's writers don't write in the style of "proper novelists", which might be an explanation for his taking up the 19th century style. However, I think the purpose-coincidence topic might hint at his being still in line of thought with them. I find this makes it more interesting and "new", not like the "typical" postmodern novel, if such a thing there be.
No, I wouldn't expect Irving to be subtle with that, especially since his style then might cover the issue altogether. In fact, taking Paul Auster and Ian McIwan, two of the postmodernists I like best, the former is not a lot more subtle than Irving, while I feel Ian McEwan definetely is. But then again, I'm not all that sure about labelling McEwan a postmodernist ... Best you just find out for yourself  :Wink: .




> I looked him up and he's right here in New York writing about New York. I'll have to check him out.


Oh, yes, do  :Smile: . Just don't read _The City of Glass_ - it's totally gaga  :Smile: . _Moon Palace_ is equally beyond credibility as _Owen Meany_ is. I heard that _The New York Triology_ is supposed to be very good, though I haven't tried it myself yet. Let me know what you think of his writing if ever to come across one of his books. It's very interesting to read your opinions  :Nod: .

----------


## Scheherazade

I am still suffering... I mean, reading this book but agree with most of the points Virgil has raised. It is a strange mixture of 'fantasy' and cold reality and I don't think the balance has been struck right. Very tempted to give it up but it is one of my BBC 200 books as well so I guess I will endure it.  :Sick: 

Still hoping that somehow, somewhere it will all come together and make sense and we will see why Irving wrote the book.

Yours Sincerely

Scheherazade, the ever-hopeful-one

----------


## Domer121

Have any of you seen the movie that was based on it?? Simon Birch... check it out if you have not already..

----------


## Virgil

> taking Paul Auster and Ian McIwan, two of the postmodernists I like best


Oh I have been wanting to read McIwan for the longest time. I have Atonement on my bookshelf waiting to be read. Ever since Lit Net I always seem to push aside my reading list for the forum read.




> I am still suffering... I mean, reading this book but agree with most of the points Virgil has raised. It is a strange mixture of 'fantasy' and cold reality and I don't think the balance has been struck right. Very tempted to give it up but it is one of my BBC 200 books as well so I guess I will endure it.


 :FRlol:  Hey I made it through. It does remarkably all pull together, that's why I gave it an average.

----------


## Janine

> I am still suffering... I mean, reading this book but agree with most of the points Virgil has raised. It is a strange mixture of 'fantasy' and cold reality and I don't think the balance has been struck right. Very tempted to give it up but it is one of my BBC 200 books as well so I guess I will endure it. 
> 
> Still hoping that somehow, somewhere it will all come together and make sense and we will see why Irving wrote the book.
> 
> Yours Sincerely
> 
> Scheherazade, the ever-hopeful-one


*
Scheherazade*, I suffered, too, but made it to the end. I know what you mean though. I figured I had made it that far, I had better finish it. I was curious to see how it was all going to 'come together' at the end. 
I am now contemplating whether I would venture to read another Irving book. I had hoped to read "A Widow for One Year" and "The Ciderhouse Rules" of which the second I loved the film based on it. The first one the film was good, too. I will have to see. Maybe the style is a bit different in those books, as I think Schok pointed out...not so much fanatasy but more reality.

*Domer*, yes I saw "Simon Birch" and actually was not sure at first I liked it but by the end I did. I heard however that Irving made them change the title since he said it was nothing like his book OM. If you watch it as a film in itself, I think it is fairly good. Oddly enough, I have taken it back out of my library to re-watch, now that I read the book - I am curious to see how very different it is from the book and why Irving made them change the title. Been awhile since I viewed it.

----------


## Scheherazade

Well, I did it! Finally finished it last week so yay me!  :Biggrin: 

Read the thread with my new-found-wisdom so just throwing in my two cents too:

- Yay! I was right about the Father! I rule! (see post #21 in this thread)  :Banana:   :Biggrin:   :Tongue: 

- I am afraid I still cannot see how Irving's style is Dickensian... apart from the fact that he is writing about the life of a boy, following him from his early days (a la _David Copperfield_ of Pip of _Great Expectations_).

- I am not sure about Owen's thoughts about his own so-called 'Virgin birth'. If he really believed that, he wouldn't be cross with his parents, in my opinion. I thought he was upset to see them at the Nativity play because he thought their claim was blasphemous (hence, so was their presence there).

- Going along with the Christ metaphor, is it possible that Hester = Mary Magdalane?

- If it is true that Owen's existence had a reason along with everything else in his life, how does killing John's mother fit in? Why did she have to die (killed by Owen, more importantly)? What was the significance of her death in the grand scheme of things?

- I think the book has conflicts, which are resolved at the very end: the identity of John's father, Owen's dream and whether it will come true or not...

- By bringing the statue to the Academy, Owen possibly tried to show that he doesn't have any respect for the school either. 

- Lost limbs (especially arms) as an imagery might be a premonition of sorts as Owen died in this manner.

----------


## Virgil

> - I am afraid I still cannot see how Irving's style is Dickensian... apart from the fact that he is writing about the life of a boy, following him from his early days (a la _David Copperfield_ of Pip of _Great Expectations_).


I was the one who made that initial comment, and it struck me that way at the beginning of the novel. But I think it was a superficial reaction without much thought. I'm not sure I would still stick to that. I would have to re-read. Not sure if I'll ever do that.




> - I am not sure about Owen's thoughts about his own so-called 'Virgin birth'. If he really believed that, he wouldn't be cross with his parents, in my opinion. I thought he was upset to see them at the Nativity play because he thought their claim was blasphemous (hence, so was their presence there).


You know, that is a very good point. Why exactly is he against his parents?




> - Going along with the Christ metaphor, is it possible that Hester = Mary Magdalane?


Oh yes. I should have picked up on that. 




> - If it is true that Owen's existence had a reason along with everything else in his life, how does killing John's mother fit in? Why did she have to die (killed by Owen, more importantly)? What was the significance of her death in the grand scheme of things?


That went through my mind as well at the end. The only thing I can think of is that it is linked to the theme of fate. Must be more than that, though. I would love to hear more thoughts on this. That early part of the book was the part I found most interesting.

----------


## Janine

> Well, I did it! Finally finished it last week so yay me! 
> 
> Read the thread with my new-found-wisdom so just throwing in my two cents too:
> 
> - Yay! I was right about the Father! I rule! (see post #21 in this thread)   
> 
> - I am afraid I still cannot see how Irving's style is Dickensian... apart from the fact that he is writing about the life of a boy, following him from his early days (a la _David Copperfield_ of Pip of _Great Expectations_).
> 
> - I am not sure about Owen's thoughts about his own so-called 'Virgin birth'. If he really believed that, he wouldn't be cross with his parents, in my opinion. I thought he was upset to see them at the Nativity play because he thought their claim was blasphemous (hence, so was their presence there).
> ...


*Hi Scheherazade,* glad you finished the book. It took me a long time, too; was a real struggle to make it to the end of the month; such a long book. Glad to see this discussion is far from dead. You bring up some very valid points. I like the way you have listed them. 

Statement #1 - Yes, you were right about that. Great! I saw the film 'Simon Birch', which is loosely based on the book, and I still could not recall who it was - I had forgotten.

Statement #2 - I probably could see the correlation in the beginning, but then I thought characters were much different and themes also were of a different nature. Characters were quirkier, too.

Statement #3 - I agree, I was wondering all the time if indeed Owen just thought he was born from a 'virgin birth' since they told him that. He would have had this strong faith, but it might not be that he was really divine. I did not think he was, but rather that the parents were not too bright and told him this. The mother seemed to be 'out there', almost bordering on insanity, so I could easily envision those parents as saying this and not knowing what great effect they would have on Owen. Well, I agree about the question as to why he would be cross with his parents at the nativity scene. Oh, maybe because they would view him there as the 'virgin birth'. Still, if he did believe or was truly 'divine', why would he lash out like that at them and point a finger at them in public. I still can't come to terms with that scene.

Statement #4 - I thought that, too - Hester representing Mary Magdalane.

Statement #5 - Yes, good point - why did she have to die. Maybe it just was her time to go and Owen was the instrument of her death - but why did it have to be him? Was it to show the strange way fate works? Owen was really close to the mother and the mother adored Owen so it was fate's way of being ironical that he should be the instrument of her death, or was their a deeper meaning to it, do you think?
Ok, another thought just came to me - just throwing this out there for now. If she had not gotten hit by the baseball, Johnny's real father would not have picked up the ball and then that led to a quest to find his father bonding both Owen and Johnny even closer in that quest. Also it showed the true nature of his father when Johnny finally discovers who he is. It lead his father to a change of salvation and belief, also, eventually. Many of the events of the story would not have taken on the same significance or would not have happened as they did. Characters would not have reacted as they did or been changed in their religious beliefs, as they were in the end. Irving's/Johnny's first statement in the book indicates this one event (his mother's death by the hand of fate and Owen, his best friend) changed his life forever and caused him to believe in God.

Statement #6 - Yes, the book themes and conflicts do seem to be resolved at the end, pretty much so. I agree. All except perhaps John's conflicts about politics and religion and going back to the states.

Statement #7 - I am still not sure about the motives concerning the statue. Also I found that scene so outlandish or maybe it was the one at the Catholic school I really found hard to believe - that Owen could have accomplished that. Since it was so amazing does that indicate Owen was indeed divine? I don't know personally. 

Statement #8 - That is a really good observation about the limbs. I quite agree. All along the mention of them is so prophetic of the ending.
*
Scher,* Interesting to go back the way you did and review the thread. I think by reading the full book and doing so ones perspective changes and as you so aptly put it, you now have "new-found-wisdom" - that is so valuable in reading the posts.

----------


## Scheherazade

I am sorry that I keep reviving this thread but this book won't leave me alone... The unanswered questions keep bugging me.


> You know, that is a very good point. Why exactly is he against his parents?


Because he does not believe he was born as a result of some kind of Immaculate Conception? If he didn't believe that, it would be only natural for him to be outraged by his parents' claims since he is a strong believer.

Thinking about it, even though he called his parents blasphemous, it is ironic that he himself ended up with an erection as a baby Jesus!


> That went through my mind as well at the end. The only thing I can think of is that it is linked to the theme of fate. Must be more than that, though.


Exactly how I feel; there must be something more to this... 

Just after I typed the part about Owen's 'blasphemy' as the Baby Jesus, it occured to me... Is it possible that Owen is being portrait as a not-so-pure-one despite his parents' claims? His erection in the Nativity play, committing a murder and all as a child yet? If he is a Christ figure, maybe Irving is saying that Jesus was another humanbeing too (even though he was destined for great things)? Maybe we don't have to be 'perfect', to achieve great things? John's mother's death is a meaningless one. Even though Owen did not kill out of malice, he did not kill in self-defence etc either.
(I am sorry if I am not making much sense at this stage - as I said, it just occured to me. Maybe I should sleep over it!)


> I did not think he was, but rather that the parents were not too bright and told him this.


I don't think his parents' claims were true (even though I do believe that they honestly thought so). Like you said, the Nativity scene is a confusing one.


> Ok, another thought just came to me - just throwing this out there for now. If she had not gotten hit by the baseball, Johnny's real father would not have picked up the ball and then that led to a quest to find his father bonding both Owen and Johnny even closer in that quest.


This is a plausible theory, Janine. My only hesitation stems from the fact that her mother does not influence the final act of Owen... Confusing!

----------


## Janine

I edited this out - posted twice - due to it saying it did not go through - now it suddenly appeared - strange, sorry.

----------


## Janine

> I am sorry that I keep reviving this thread but this book won't leave me alone... The unanswered questions keep bugging me.Because he does not believe he was born as a result of some kind of Immaculate Conception? If he didn't believe that, it would be only natural for him to be outraged by his parents' claims since he is a strong believer.


*Hi Scher* - no problem coming back to this thread. Don't appologise - no need. I thought threads could stay open forever, well at least as long as we all are around here. I think this book had a lot of unanswered questions for me at the end and final analysis. I don't know if I personally can ever answer them all. I think they did bug me at first but now I have been off the subject for awhile and not thought about them. I don't know I read last night in a late book by my favorite author (I know you can't tell, haha) that when a book becomes solved totally one can never reread it again - it is done for. Maybe OM is like that. I never came to any conclusion myself on the conception deal and I agree with your question. Did Owen indeed really believe he was born out of Immaculate Conception or was he just following what he believed in out of an unshakable faith? Would you say this is partly your question here? I don't know if it can be conclusively answered without asking the author what he intended; would be nice if there were a 'special features' like in films; then the author would expound on his intentions. The answer sure seems crytic to me, as well.





> Thinking about it, even though he called his parents blasphemous, it is ironic that he himself ended up with an erection as a baby Jesus!Exactly how I feel; there must be something more to this...


This is what tripped me up too. It seemed inconsistent in my eyes if he were truly holy/divine and the choosen one.





> Just after I typed the part about Owen's 'blasphemy' as the Baby Jesus, it occured to me... Is it possible that Owen is being portrait as a not-so-pure-one despite his parents' claims? His erection in the Nativity play, committing a murder and all as a child yet? If he is a Christ figure, maybe Irving is saying that Jesus was another humanbeing too (even though he was destined for great things)? Maybe we don't have to be 'perfect', to achieve great things? John's mother's death is a meaningless one. Even though Owen did not kill out of malice, he did not kill in self-defence etc either.
> (I am sorry if I am not making much sense at this stage - as I said, it just occured to me. Maybe I should sleep over it!)I don't think his parents' claims were true (even though I do believe that they honestly thought so). Like you said, the Nativity scene is a confusing one.This is a plausible theory, Janine. My only hesitation stems from the fact that her mother does not influence the final act of Owen... Confusing!


Some of this I can fathom. I don't know if I could call the killing of Johnny's mother murder. That seemed strickly coincidental or fateful, as Owen believed. Things like that can just happen, not often, but they do happen. I don't think his parents claims were true at all, but then when he installed the statue in the school yard, I found that to be so unbelievable. Did Irving do that so that we just might consider Owen as 'divine' or possessing 'divine/supernatural powers, or to show that he had that much 'faith' - like the kind that is enough to move a mountain? I think the parents did believe it was true, but Owen knew where babies came from and he seemed much more advanced and intelligent than his parents. Odd though that there is a direct parallel to Owen being a laborer, using his skill with his hands, since Christ was a carpenter's son and carpenter himself. Still, as you point out perhaps the concept of Jesus is of a human man and not God's actual son and therefore Owen is holy and choosen, but not truly divine or a Christ figure in the sense of the divine. You made perfect sense to me in presenting these ideas, even if you were tired, when you wrote it.

----------


## blond3391

So I just read "A Prayer for Owen Meany" by John Irving and I was looking for some symbols. One symbol I was looking at was the armadillo. I began to wonder why Irving chose an armadillo. I know armadillos symbolize barriers and protect but I need to know how that connects to the book.

Thanks!

----------

