« FYI | Main | Propositions »
October 25, 2005
Out of Egypt
There is a lot of buzz about Anne Rice's new book, pub date next Tuesday, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. There was a piece in Newsweek, an interview with her on her faith: here.
In two weeks, Anne Rice, the chronicler of vampires, witches and—under the pseudonym A. N. Roquelaure—of soft-core S&M encounters, will publish "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt," a novel about the 7-year-old Jesus, narrated by Christ himself. "I promised," she says, "that from now on I would write only for the Lord." It's the most startling public turnaround since Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" announced that he'd been born again.
I've never been one for Jesus-fiction, and I've never read a word of any of Rice's novels, but I'll definitely take a look at this. It will be interesting to see how she meets the challenge and , as I understand it, directly critiques what she encountered in her research on Scripture, a critique that's alluded to in the interview. I don't doubt, for one second, her sincerity - although I'm not a Rice reader, I've been following her own story since the late 90's, when hints of her renewed Catholicism started appearing in the media.
And here's something. Speculative Catholic blogged on the book. Jeff Miller responded - skeptically - and Anne Rice apparently responded herself. SC has a lot more stuff in an updated post, including a link to Anne Rice's site, which includes a thumbs-up on the novel from Retired Archbishop Hannan of NO.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3447566
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Out of Egypt:
Comments
Our Sunday Visitor is running an interview with Anne Rice about her new book in the Nov. 9 issue. She talks about her faith extensively in that interview.
Posted by: Woodeene at Oct 25, 2005 11:39:01 AM
Don't forget to listen to the audio link. It's an audiobook of part of the first chapter. That should give you an idea of whether you'll like it or not.
Posted by: Maureen at Oct 25, 2005 11:42:48 AM
Anne Rice dialogued extensively with traditionalists last month regarding her book at angelqueen.com. Check it out.
Posted by: stuart chessman at Oct 25, 2005 12:12:02 PM
The Newsweek article makes the book appealing. The apochryphal miracles of the child Jesus are destined to be discussed in an RCIA class near you. The only red flag was Rice's enthusiasm for the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, who if I'm not mistaken chose to publish an essay denying the Virgin Birth on the day of one of last year's Marian solemnities.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 25, 2005 12:16:48 PM
There are HUGE ads for this in Grand Central, and even on phone booths and bus shelters in NYC.
Posted by: tk at Oct 25, 2005 12:25:07 PM
Speaking of Jesus-fiction, I haven't read any since I was a lad. Then last month, scouting for cheap books at a public library sale (to sell at a profit), I picked up a copy ($.25) of a book called "The Apostle" by Sholem Asch, written in 1942.
Asch, earlier in his career had been a very important and famous writer in Yiddisch but, seemed to "get Christianity", beginning with his first New Testament tale, "The Nazarene" in 1938 and his final one entitled "Mary" in the later 40s.
"The Nazarene" is about the life of Jesus told by Pontius Pilate and other familiar Biblical personages; "The Apostle" is about St. Paul from the time of the Crucifixion to his death; and "Mary" is self-explanatory.
Boy, Asch knows his Jerusalem, ancient Jewish religion and ancient Greek and Roman history and geography. The book (The Apostle) is a wonderful, slow, read and creatively fills in the historical/story gaps in Paul's missions to the Gentiles and his rocky relationship with the Jews in doing so.
Like Paul, Asch became estranged from Jewish communities world-wide, and they would not publish or publicize any of his writings after the appearance of this trilogy.
Check Amazon for some good reviews of these books.
Posted by: Minn-Ray at Oct 25, 2005 12:28:16 PM
Rich:
Actually, his inept forays into theologizing aside, there is much to like about Kristof. His series on sex trafficking in Asia is a must read, and he ended up buying the freedom of at least two women, IIRC.
Posted by: Dale Price at Oct 25, 2005 12:50:15 PM
Dale,
Good for him and the women he saved. I'm not a regular reader and have come across two of his forays on various blogs. They were enough to form an initial negative impression.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 25, 2005 1:18:12 PM
Dale, I heard Kristof on CBC radio here talking about that experience and others for a half hour. It was very sober listening, particularly as he also recounted what happened after he rescued those two women. One of them was far too addicted to drugs to resist going back to prostitution, and even after he got her out again a few times and tried to arrange for help, kept going back. He said the last time he had seen her, he had said to her, "You know you're going to die in this life," and she had agreed with him, but couldn't leave.
The other girl had a more happy ending. She's now studying to be a hairdresser.
All in all, I was quite impressed by him, despite what his religious beliefs might be.
As for Anne Rice, I'm just sitting back for the inevitable drama. Anne Rice has never taken criticism well, and anything involving her soon turns into a flame war. For example, her famous hissy fit against negative reviewers on Amazon.com.: "You are interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!"
Posted by: Eileen R at Oct 25, 2005 1:36:53 PM
Rich:
Don't get me wrong--his politics are NYT predictable and his theology farcical, but fundamentally his heart is in the right place. He's been very much involved in publicizing mistreatment of women in the 3d World, and very, very critical of Western feminist organizations for devoting little attention to the brutalization of their non-western sisters.
Posted by: Dale Price at Oct 25, 2005 1:40:12 PM
Eileen:
Yes, I read the followups on Srey Neth and Srey Mom (they are available on the Free Republic site). Hope and heartbreak respectively--and exactly the opposite of what Kristof had thought would happen.
Posted by: Dale Price at Oct 25, 2005 1:43:12 PM
I was interested in the bit about Our Lord's being informed as a child by Mary and Joseph about the events surrounding His birth. I've always imagined that He was told shortly before the Jeusalem trip when He was twelve or almost twelve. That He had been told explains to me His rebuke of Mary and Joseph when they found Him. They, of all people given what they had recently told Him, should have been the last people not to understand that He had to be "about His Father's business."
Posted by: Caroline at Oct 25, 2005 3:04:56 PM
The review in time made the book sound very interesting and appealing, but isn't there something intrinsically blasphemous about daring to write as Jesus in the first person?
Posted by: James Kabala at Oct 25, 2005 3:44:30 PM
But don't you sing: "I am the bread of life...and I shall raise him up on the last day." Or something like that.
By the way it is angelqueen.org where the Rice e-mail exchange can be found - my mistake.
Posted by: stuart chessman at Oct 25, 2005 4:19:46 PM
From the review posted at Speculative Catholic:
"Unable, or at least unwilling, to tell anyone about the dream, Jesus sinks further into seclusion finally turning to God with the words, '“Lord, tell me who I am. Tell me what I am to do.'"
If she explicitly writes that Christ did not have knowledge that He was the Son of God or that He would be crucified, etc., and if she didn't consult a book like Fr. Most's Consciousness of Christ, she should have... the novel may turn out to have all sort of Christological problems, even if ill-catechised Catholics don't realize this.
Posted by: T. Chan at Oct 25, 2005 4:21:58 PM
I cannot wait for certain internet forums to get ahold of this one. I do want to read it myself but will probably get it from the library; Rice is spotty enough that I don't want to risk $25.
Posted by: Sonetka at Oct 25, 2005 4:35:29 PM
Like James, I'm leery of fiction that speaks from the first person view of Jesus. I think it is just too easy to veer into blasphemy or the temptation is to de-mythologize Jesus. It is very dangerous for a man or woman to speculate about what is in the mind of God and the nature of the hypostatic union.
Stuart makes the point: Even in hymns that sing from the first person, it is too easy to substitute our own flawed human will for God's.
Posted by: Domenico Bettinelli Jr. at Oct 25, 2005 5:02:04 PM
I'm getting more and more intrigued by the book the more I read about it. Funny - a couple of weeks ago, I was on Amazon reading reviews of Charlotte Allen's book about the quest for the historical Jesus and there was a highly complimentary one signed "Anne Rice, New Orleans." I was startled and then thought, "Surely it can't be that Anne Rice!" I guess it was.
Many years ago, I attempted to read "Interview with the Vampire." I put it down halfway though - I was initially fascinated, but lost interest in the travails of supernatural Beautiful People filled with ennui and guilt. But I have friends who are huge Rice fans. I remember a gay guy in DC telling me "The Vampire Chronicles" have achieved cult status among many gays. (Perfectly understandable - beautiful young men who stay forever young,...,) Rice will undoubtably alienate much of her fan base with a book about Christ. But, if it's good, she'll gain thousands of new fans. I'm hoping for the best.
Posted by: Donna at Oct 25, 2005 5:17:31 PM
Have only read reviews, not the book, but it sounds to me like Jesus as Harry Potter and Nazareth as Hogwarts.
It is, of course, quite convenient that she focuses on the "hidden years," so there is very little basis for quibbles about what Scripture says (it says nothing about those years....and maybe for a reason?).
Posted by: Zhou De-Ming at Oct 25, 2005 5:30:12 PM
Have only read reviews, not the book, but it sounds to me like Jesus as Harry Potter and Nazareth as Hogwarts.
LOL! Yeah, it certainly has that aspect to it. But a novelist taking poetic license with the "hidden years" is a step up from married Jesus, gay Jesus, or Jesus as CEO (I just read a review today of a biography of Bruce Barton, the man who gave us Businessman Jesus). An improvement over George Burns talking to John Denver over the car radio too.
(Although it's good to remind oneself that in the Gospels, the townspeople of Nazareth express astonishment when Jesus preaches to them, because he's "just" the carpenter's kid and they had never noticed anything special about him. That would not have been the case if he had been out there raising bullies from the dead, curing people, and making dead birds fly.)
My hope is that Rice's novel will lead people to discover the real Christ of the Gospels.
Posted by: Donna at Oct 25, 2005 6:37:42 PM
I've read an advance copy. Don't hang the lady out to dry for possibly having "all sort of Christological problems, even if ill-catechised Catholics don't realize this" until you've read it. She is faithful to the teachings of the Christ. She is faithful to the Gospels. Jesus, as the Scriptures say, grows in wisdom and understanding of his unique role. He does not, however, speak like God almighty when he is 7, even though he is aware on some 7 year old level of who he is. Mary is ever-virgin. None of the "brothers and sisters" are Jesus' biological siblings.
It is Anne Rice's writing--lush, detailed, engaging and all the rest, but she is Catholic, Eucharistic, Sacramental in this.
However, it is FICTION and she clearly says she is not writing a 5th Gospel, but a fictional account.
Give her break before you decide it's Jesus as Harry Potter!
Posted by: Radactrice at Oct 25, 2005 6:41:10 PM
There was a long story about this in the Washington Post that I was going to send to Amy, but I couldn't find the link online. The story was illustrated with a photo of Rice in her old New Orleans home, and behind her was a darn near life-sized statue of Mary.
Apparently she moved from New Orleans to San Diego earlier this year.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Oct 25, 2005 7:01:21 PM
I wonder how much she might have drawn upon Coptic Christian sources for this book. The Copts have an extensive tradition of the Holy Family's travels through Egypt. See http://www.middleeast.com/holyfamily.htm
Posted by: Jim at Oct 25, 2005 7:18:11 PM
I was a big Rice fan in my younger days, read many of the vampire novels and some of her witch books as well. I think her heart is probably in the right place. But I would be suspicious of a fictionalized biography of Jesus coming from any writer. And especially one that attempts to get into the mind of any of the major figures of history. I just think she's playing with fire. Too many temptations and pitfalls. How do you avoid making God into your own image and then worshiping that false idol? Any time we get too attached to one image of Jesus it can be dangerous for our spiritual life because He cannot be encompassed by any image we can create.
Posted by: MelanieS at Oct 25, 2005 8:00:18 PM
Another thing: While I normally don't pay a great deal of attention to the doings of celebs (including celebrity authors), it is refreshing to have one publicly embrace orthodox Catholicism, rather than Scientology, Kabbalah, "Eastern religion," New Age fluff, or Jane Fonda-type "Christianity" complete with goddess.
Posted by: Donna at Oct 25, 2005 8:08:26 PM
"Jesus, as the Scriptures say, grows in wisdom and understanding of his unique role. He does not, however, speak like God almighty when he is 7, even though he is aware on some 7 year old level of who he is."
"Christ's soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence." (Sent. certa)
(Christ the man knows Who He is through the beatific vision.)
see also Most, Consciousness of Christ
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=215
Fr. Romanus Cessario, O.P. points out that in recent decades the trend has been to downplay or deny Christ's human soul having the beatific vision and suggests that this is a teaching that should be reconsidered and defended.
Posted by: T. Chan at Oct 25, 2005 9:55:20 PM
So Jesus at age 7 spoke, thought and acted exactly as he did at age 30 when he began his mission and no one happened to notice that this little boy never needed anything explained to him, never needed to learn anything, could read while still in the manger, spoke all languages fluently, and knew all secrets of the universe, the future, past and present
Posted by: Radactrice at Oct 26, 2005 12:02:34 AM
Looks very promising. Not deviating from what is already known about the boy Jesus from Luke's or Matthew's Gospel. Not sure if I'd call this period a Renaissance of authentic Catholic art, coupled with TPOTC. But not a bad start.
And completely off the thread but needs mentioning- may light eternal shine upon Wellington Mara, co-owner of the NFL New York Giants. Departed this life Tuesday morning at age 89. A Catholic gentleman in the fullest and best sense of the word. Continually associated with the team since he was a 9-year-old ballboy. Advocate of the revenue sharing system that enriches the other 31 teams. Most importantly, a straight-up Catholic. Married to the same woman for 50 years. 11 children, 40 grandchildren. No better friend of the pro-life movement among U.S. sports executives, and probably among any wealthy person. May he rest with the angels and saints in glory.
Posted by: Gerard E. at Oct 26, 2005 8:06:40 AM
It's interesting that there has long been something of a tradition in Anglo-American literature for outre and self-consciously "decadent" writers, often homosexual, to feel an attraction toward Catholicism and eventually to convert. Examples include Frederick "Baron Corvo" Rolfe, Ernest Dowson, Aubrey Beardsley, Oscar Wilde, and Ronald Firbank. I even remember reading somewhere that Tennessee Willliams had become a Catholic in his adult life, although I never heard this anywhere else and, even if it was true, it could be that Williams was an in-and-outer like Robert Lowell. (Come to think of it, Lowell, although straight, could also be fit into this category.) Rice is a somewhat different case since she is a "revert" to her childhood faith rather than a convert, but the similarity is there. The reason may be that Catholics are viewed as "outsiders" in the English-speaking world and therefore have something in common with homosexuals and with weirdos of all kinds. Of course, there have been many normal and well-adjusted people among literary converts, from G. K. Chesterton to Walker Percy, but the trend is worth noting.
Posted by: James Kabala at Oct 26, 2005 9:23:48 AM
hear hear Gerard! Mara was a daily Mass attendee. Big funeral at St. Pats Friday I think.
Posted by: tk at Oct 26, 2005 9:26:16 AM
An art historian observed that 19th C Decadents in France became Satanists but in England, Roman Catholics. Comparable frisson.
The great Catholic poet Charles Peguy did an even scarier literary leap: he wrote in the first person as God the Father, who delivers such lines as "It is sufficiently known that I am the Almighty." GOD SPEAKS (translated by Catholic homosexual Julien Green) was a great college favorite in my generation.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Oct 26, 2005 10:18:39 AM
James,
"Normal and well-adjusted" people would never become Catholics in the first place - at least not in any real sense. Chesterton certainly did not consider himself "normal" neither did his society view him as such. Being "normal" in the society of modernity is being insane/evil objectively.
For example, a Yale professor recently wrote an elaborate account of Newman's Anglican years in which he advanced the somewhat startling propositions that Newman was driven by inner demons, power-hungry, ambitious, vindictive, perhaps incestuous and probably mad.... which all is understndable from the "normal" perspective of Yale.
Posted by: stuart chessman at Oct 26, 2005 10:25:49 AM
Sandra,
Your art historian may not have followed the lives of his French "satanists" beyond a certain point. Joris-Karl Huysmans went from a certain occult phase to be the leading literay apologist for Catholicism in the 1890's. And what of Baudelaire? And Barbey D'Aurevilly?
Posted by: stuart chessman at Oct 26, 2005 10:51:09 AM
Sheesh, Stuart, I wasn't trying to rag on any of these people, let alone on the Catholic Church. Don't read into my post what wasn't there.
Posted by: James Kabala at Oct 26, 2005 11:03:46 AM
If anything, I had thought that if my comment received negative feedback, it would be from the opposite direction - that I was somehow sticking up for homosexuals or advocating a Mark Jordan-like thesis.
Anyway, I meant "normal" in the "not likely to have ever engaged in an orgy or done copious amounts of drugs" sense.
Posted by: James Kabala at Oct 26, 2005 11:06:50 AM
"So Jesus at age 7 spoke, thought and acted exactly as he did at age 30 when he began his mission and no one happened to notice that this little boy never needed anything explained to him, never needed to learn anything, could read while still in the manger, spoke all languages fluently, and knew all secrets of the universe, the future, past and present."
Radactrice:
The human and divine natures are united in the Person of the Word--there is no division or compartamentalizing, as if there were two separate people, one ignorant of what the other is. Now if Christ has the beatific vision, does that mean He cannot learn as man? No. But this is a far cry from claiming that He as man is ignorant of His Divine Personhood or of His mission from the Father. In the case of Christ, learning does not imply absolute ignorance, it is the acquisition through the normal human manner of knowledge that He has access to in other ways. As for evidence of His knowledge surprassing that of a normal 7 year old, see Luke 2:46-7. For St. Thomas's discussion of Christ's human knowledge, see
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/400900.htm
Posted by: T. Chan at Oct 26, 2005 1:15:33 PM
First off, if we really needed to know this stuff for salvation, we'd know it. But we don't, so it's not something real important for us to know. Things a lot closer to home in our own brains are a lot more slippery, so headshrinking and soulshrinking Jesus is not my top priority.
Now I've read a diverse range of opinions from good ol' orthodox theologians on exactly how much Jesus knew and when He knew it. To be honest, it's not the sort of theological speculation that really seems very fruitful (though probably the Old Oligarch and Zorak find it helped along by the fruit of the vine). It certainly isn't written to be helpful to either the ordinary Christian or the novelist.
So there's only so much theology the novelist can read before he or she has to pick a position somewhere along the orthodox opinion spectrum and just start writing. It seems to me that Rice has done so, although she seems to be giving herself more leeway by using the "grew in grace" thing to let her use various amounts of divine awareness at various points in Jesus' life.
This provides scope for character development, as well as plot points and opportunities for lyrical prose. It will probably also lead to lots of theologians getting a moment of dramatization during the course of the book, but I doubt that any theologian will be followed all the way through. I'm not sure how one could. As long as she doesn't say anything actually heretical, I don't think Rice needs to stay awake thinking about this, either.
I wish her good luck and good writing. She'll need both. But "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
Posted by: Maureen at Oct 26, 2005 11:09:15 PM
