Amen. Beautifully said.
In issue #819 of "Entertainment Weekly," Anne Rice said something to the effect that longtime fans would appreciate familiar themes in the new book. I couldn't help but wonder, "What? Drinking blood?"
Well she feels that she can authoritatively state that James was Joseph's son from a previous marriage. That's an acceptable and orthodox opinion. A whole lot of Catholic's out there believe that James was Mary's son and a half-brother of Jesus (isn't that what Hollywood says?).
Not sure what this says about the rest of her orthodoxy, but that certainly is promising.
Not sure what this says about the rest of her orthodoxy, but that certainly is promising.
My guess is that she'll be a mixed bag. Her books are filled with admiration for history and tradition, as well as theological themes, so on the one hand my guess is that she'll be drawn to orthodoxy in some way. But she has also interviewed that she disagrees with the Church on gay marriage (gay son and all)....
One recurring theme in her books, from what I understand, is regret for sin, so who knows, maybe this has been brewing for a long time.
Considering that Kirkus Reviews called it "one of the bolder retellings" in comparison to the Last Temptation of Christ - I don't expect much. Additionally she used teh Gnostic gospel story of Jesus creating a bird and then killing it.
The last book of Rice's I read was Memnoch the Devil (back when I used to read her trashy vampire novels) & it was one of the events that led me back to the Catholic Church. That was back in 1995, 3 years prior to her reversion. Even in my worldly, befuddled, non-Mass-attending state, I knew that her theology was totally wacky. While her books have, as Sean pointed out, themes of regret for sin (althought not for the right reasons & usually because Lestat didn't get what he wanted), they have also been devoid of any sort of themes of redemption. Memnoch was no different. Like Philip Pullman, her representation of God was of a weakling who only wants to be worshiped in heaven & hand all that's going on down on earth. Like Dan Brown (although, perhaps, not as malicious), she misuses Catholic imagery & worship to support the nihilistic POV of her vampiric characters.
Now, I've not read any of her stuff since 1995, so I can't speak to the vampire books she wrote after her reversion. Perhaps they're different from the ones I've read. Let's hope she's moving in the right direction & will allow God to use her writing ability for His glory rather than for Lestat's! That would be cool!
I wrote to Anne Rice, and she's sent me an autographed copy of her new book. She also congratulated me on my accpetance into seminary.
I'll let you all know how the book turns out.
While her books have, as Sean pointed out, themes of regret for sin... they have also been devoid of any sort of themes of redemption. Memnoch was no different.... Let's hope she's moving in the right direction & will allow God to use her writing ability for His glory rather than for Lestat's!
Here's some reason for hope on that score:
“I was sitting in church talking to [God ] about it and I finally realized there was no holding back anymore,” said Rice, 64, who returned to the Catholic Church in 1998 after a 30-year absence.
“I just said, ‘From now on it’s all going to be for you.’ And the book I felt I had to write was the life of Christ.... When my faith was given back to me by God, redemption became a part of the world in which I lived. And I wasn’t going to write any more books where that wasn’t the case. You do not have to be transgressive in order to achieve great art.”
Interviews are an interesting source of information for those of us who don't yet have the book.
She doesn't like books that appear driven either by an "agenda" or "fad":
"'Some of the people in New Testament scholarship don’t hide their bias at all. They’re just out to prove Jesus wasn’t God, but of course that’s impossible to prove,' she said, taking issue as well with what she called 'trends' and 'fads,' such as theories that Jesus was a political revolutionary, or married."
I understand that some writers are really biased, but none are completely bias-free. It's hard to tell what she wants or expects from these comments.
She also seems to be opposed to late-dating the Gospels:
"Rice also critiques the widespread dating of the Gospels to between about 60 and 90 AD, and the theory that they appeared decades apart. Instead, she believes they were produced around the same time, and all before Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD."
That's intriguing to me. A lot of faithful, orthodox Christians wouldn't demand such early dating.
According to an article I read:
"Rice’s Jesus is conflicted and confused, a dutiful son who comes to terms with what he first only senses and then fully grasps — that he is the son of God, yet fully human.
'You can’t write a book, or at least I couldn’t, from the viewpoint of someone who knew he was God at every moment,' Rice said. 'But I could write a book from the viewpoint of somebody who deliberately separated himself from that knowledge so he could experience things as a human being.'"
Compare & contrast Catechism of the Catholic Church nos. 471-474.
"The Gospels are almost silent on Jesus’ childhood, giving Rice a wide berth to take certain liberties with her story. In the book, Jesus is taught in Alexandria by the Hellenistic philosopher Philo, which in turn allows for her Jesus to be fluent in Greek, something many historians doubt was the case."
It's not hard to reason that Jesus probably was fluent in Greek, in my opinion, since he grew up within walking distance of a major international trade center (Sepphoris, about 4km from Nazareth). But taught by Philo in Alexandria???
Regarding her use of apocryphal sources:
"Rice also borrows two incidents — the slaying of a playmate and the turning of clay sparrows into live ones — from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a second century work that shows Jesus learning to use his divine powers for good. It was never accepted as part of the Christian Scriptures."
That sounds like a potential problem.
Its no crazier than the blood-and-guts movie maker, Mel Gibson, making the Passion. It not even in dead languges.
Its no crazier than the blood-and-guts movie maker, Mel Gibson, making the Passion.
Sure it is. Even Mel Gibson wasn't crazy enough to try to make his story a first-person narrative. 
In the book, Jesus is taught in Alexandria by the Hellenistic philosopher Philo
That made me smile when I read it because I was reminded of Robert Graves' novel "King Jesus." (Which is not nearly as famous as "I, Claudius.")
Graves posited that Jesus actually came from quite an aristocratic family. Providing Jesus with illustrious teachers and polishing him up a bit must provide comfort to those who prefer a Savior who is not quite as poor and humble and earthy as he comes across in the Gospels. (Our Lord clearly didn't have a posh accent, for instance.)
On an entirely different level, it's like those Victorian literary critics who insisted that Shakespeare's plays were actually written by Sir Francis Bacon or the Earl of Oxford. Really, it just doesn't do to have some actor person from a plain old Stratford family at the center of English lit.
I think Rice's borrowing from the Gospel of Thomas was for artistic license, instead of an indicator that she would take that gospel seriously in the telling of the story. (In short, just a minor use to add color) I highly doubt we'll be seeing a book that narrates Jesus' lustful thoughts on Mary Magdalene.
Heavens, no, Jonathan, no one would ever write such blasphemy, for however millions of dollars.
I wonder if AR's next hero should be called Leglise instead...?
Okay, that was totally obscure on re-reading: "Leglise", instead of "Lestat", ha ha.
+J.M.J+
I like what you said about Instant Transformation conversions, Mark. My return to the Church was hardly an "instant transformation". I was a fairly liberal Catholic (though still prolife) with "Christian feminist" tendancies for the first two years, after which I slowly evolved into an orthodox Catholic. Conversion can be the beginning of a growth experience, rather than simply the end of a journey, so to speak. It's good to know that's something normal.
In Jesu et Maria,
"Heavens, no, Jonathan, no one would ever write such blasphemy, for however millions of dollars."
I meant in this case. Sheesh. 
I think Rice's borrowing from the Gospel of Thomas was for artistic license, instead of an indicator that she would take that gospel seriously in the telling of the story.
Artistic license doesn't bother me, nor does the use of apocryphal sources as such. The stories she chose to incorporate, however, are ones I consider potentially problematic.
Back in the 1980s, Charles Coulombe interviewed Rice for the REGISTER and was plainly hoping that she'd revert. He also cherished such hopes about Madonna.
For a Catholic take on vampires, look up Fred Saberhagen's Dracula series. The first three installments are quite good.
Make what you will of this novel, but know that for me it was serious from the beginning. I believe in Him. I wrote it for Him. This is where my life, novels and all, has led. It's the book I never found; the book I want to read; the book I want to give. It's the Jesus of the gospels in time and space. If I make you think of Him for the first time in your life as real, then I will have succeeded. If I make you feel you were there for a little while, then I have succeeded. If I make you believe in Him as the Son of the Virgin Mary, visited by shepherds who saw angels, and Magi with gifts, then I have done all right. It's worth the risk. I don't want to make a mistake for all eternity. I want to get it right. Anne Rice, Nashville hotel, on tour for Christ the Lord.
Ann-
BRAVO, I hope that the novel is a wild success.
Remember Gen. Pershing's dictum:
Illegitemus est Carborundum loosely, don't let the *&% get you down.
>Like Philip Pullman, her representation of God was of a weakling who only wants to be worshiped in heaven & hand..etc.
I reply: Was that really how God was portrayed in the book or was that how Memnoch portrayed God to LaStat?
Devils do lie why should that suprise anybody?
That's Illegitimus non Carborundum. See
http://alt-usage-english.org/exc...s/
fxillegi.html
I don't know why the URL was automatically munged, but in case anyone can't click on it, the munged part is excerpts, not exc...s
I just dug out my wife's old copies of IWTV. "Drink from me and live for ever" -- it now has a deeper sensus plenior.
I always thought that Jesus *was* from an "aristocratic" family in the sense that Mary's family, from traditional stories, seems to be "nouveau pauvre" (i.e., Joachim and Anne were from priestly families in Jerusalem), and of course Joseph is from a Davidic family, so no matter how little money one had, I'm sure they had status because of that. Not that any of the Holy Family would have taken *pride* in these things, but they would certainly be there. They would have been plenty happy to live simply, but the facts of their background were there, and also allowed them certain things, especially in terms of education, that others in Judean society didn't have access to.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
