Patrick: content

[CynanMachae]

So... If Lawhead is depicting historical happenings, was it wrong to include it in the book? Was if any more wrong than the Bible depicting the story of Abraham and Hagar?[/quote]

you said it Twrch...
and what about Judah and Tamar? That is about as explicit as it gets(at least in the Bible), so why is that story in there? The same reason its in Patrick, to teach us a lesson... we just have to find it.

[Child of Immanuel]

OMW FF! I just noticed your sig... a few years ago I was obsessed with Redwall! What do you think of the newest books? I think that the writing took a sharp decline after Taggerung... they're not as good anymore.

[CynanMachae]

you are right, they are getting worse...

I guess that happens when you've written 16 books with the same story line. "Redwall" was by far his best, and, though they are rather juvenile, I have been hooked on them since I was pretty young. (Not that I'm real old or anything...)

[Child of Immanuel]

Yes, they are juvenile, but you just hafta love 'em!

[CynanMachae]

Child said:

Yes, they are juvenile, but you just hafta love 'em!

I must admit I do look forward to each new one.
The next one is gonna be about some ottermaid.

[Child of Immanuel]

Do you know the title yet?

[CynanMachae]

Child said:

Do you know the title yet?

"High Rhulain"
His website is Redwall.org

[Child of Immanuel]

Cool!

But when you guys are on here all day, I'm not spending my time there! lol

[thegrimmsleeper]

Just finished this book, and I didn't see the need to start a new topic since this one exists already.

I adored this book. Slow to start but when it took it off, it really took off. I found myself empathizing with Patrick specifically because of his flaws and mistakes.

Lawhead's books, even the more outlandish and fantastic books like Albion, have always been about very real people, who live by the same laws of nature that we do. That is, they use the bathroom, they have sex, they screw up sometimes. I've always loved Lawhead's unapologetic portrayal of such real life things going on. (On a side note, I love Paul Thomas Anderson because he does the same things in his films, small details that add a lot of depth; for example, he doesn't use the cliched "555" telephone numbers, but rather obtains a unique number specifically for the film, that reflects the region the film is set, down to the area code.)

But I think in this instance, you have to look, not necessarily at SRL himself, but at the characters who are telling the stories. Lewis, after all, is the one who told of his encounter with Goewyn, and the narrative was consistent with the character we had come to know over the past two books. Intelligent, articulate, and not at all prone to outbursts of vulgarity. It was respectful of Goewyn's modesty, yet conveyed the love and passion he felt for her.

By the same token, Patrick is unapologetically honest. He tells it exactly as it is, whether listeners want to hear about it or not. Be it Roman senators, Irish kings, or Legionaires, he has a "no b.s." kind of attitude. So I think his description of the encounter outside the bar, as well as his own exploits later on, are all consistent with his character, just as Lewis's more tasteful and toned down narrative is consistent with him.

This brings out one trait I adore in all of Mister Lawhead's books - he is true to the people he writes about. He doesn't soften or sugar-coat who they are to be less offensive or less disturbing. I respect that in an author, especially an author who is openly Christian.

[dgan]

Are we a little uptight around here?

Lawhead does not and never has skirted around sex. Albion and Patrick have been sited - what about the orgy in Empyrion, or the Pendragon cycle? How many times was Morgian's voluptious body bared? Perhaps you find it offensive, or unnecessary - that is fine - but you are mistaken if you think there is a specific "scene" that is out of line with Lawhead's style. All sexual encounters he portrays are in the same vicinity as far as how explicitly they are described.

I, for one, think it adds a great deal to the story. No one complains when he describes a hideous murder, the reluctant joy a warrior feels from the slaughter of his enemies, or a gruesome mutilation of a dead body. But as soon as he describes the passion a man feels for a woman, everyone gets all bent out of shape.

He is not describing the anatomy of genitalia, and is not vulgar in his articulation of sexual acts. He is merely portraying the emotional state of his characters in this very natural "activity." Sometimes he uses it to portray the potence of evil (Morgian), the carnal desire of man (Patrick), or just the act of God-given lovemaking between man and wife.

Think of it this way. The sky is blue; he killed the man; they saw a boat; they had sex. Not very compelling statements. Just because its sex, you should not berate the author for describing it as he does everything else.

Just my opinion.

[dinadan]

dgan said:

Are we a little uptight around here?

Lawhead does not and never has skirted around sex. Albion and Patrick have been sited - what about the orgy in Empyrion, or the Pendragon cycle? How many times was Morgian's voluptious body bared? Perhaps you find it offensive, or unnecessary - that is fine - but you are mistaken if you think there is a specific "scene" that is out of line with Lawhead's style. All sexual encounters he portrays are in the same vicinity as far as how explicitly they are described.

I, for one, think it adds a great deal to the story. No one complains when he describes a hideous murder, the reluctant joy a warrior feels from the slaughter of his enemies, or a gruesome mutilation of a dead body. But as soon as he describes the passion a man feels for a woman, everyone gets all bent out of shape.

He is not describing the anatomy of genitalia, and is not vulgar in his articulation of sexual acts. He is merely portraying the emotional state of his characters in this very natural "activity." Sometimes he uses it to portray the potence of evil (Morgian), the carnal desire of man (Patrick), or just the act of God-given lovemaking between man and wife.

Think of it this way. The sky is blue; he killed the man; they saw a boat; they had sex. Not very compelling statements. Just because its sex, you should not berate the author for describing it as he does everything else.

Just my opinion.

Mine as well.

[Riothamus]

O.K. I'll say it one more time: it's not the sex that bothers me. It's the fact that it seemed unneccesary (as opposed to Morgian's voluptuous body bared and all that.) It served no narrative purpose (as opposed to the Morgian instance,) and was presented in such a way that Lawhead seemed to be forcing it on the narrative. Now if I can see a compelling reason why it was needed, I'll consider changing my mind. But I haven't seen it; the fact is that Lawhead could have done more with less.

And (again,) it's not that big of an issue. It's an artistic thing. [And honestly, dgan's almost convinced me to give the stuff in Patrick another shot. )

[twyrch]

Riothamus said:

O.K. I'll say it one more time: it's not the sex that bothers me. It's the fact that it seemed unneccesary (as opposed to Morgian's voluptuous body bared and all that.) It served no narrative purpose (as opposed to the Morgian instance,) and was presented in such a way that Lawhead seemed to be forcing it on the narrative. Now if I can see a compelling reason why it was needed, I'll consider changing my mind. But I haven't seen it; the fact is that Lawhead could have done more with less.

And (again,) it's not that big of an issue. It's an artistic thing. [And honestly, dgan's almost convinced me to give the stuff in Patrick another shot. )

I guess I'll just have to read Patrick before I can offer an informed opinion either way.

[thegrimmsleeper]

dgan said:

Are we a little uptight around here?

Not that I've seen. I think it's a perfectly valid question and the response I provided should indicate that Lawhead has done well when writing about sex. You completely reiterate my above point that Lawhead does not sugar-coat and is completely real when it comes to these kinds of things taking place in his stories. Sex, like love, war, and death, is a simple fact of life and should be ignored because it makes people uncomfortable.

Riothamus said:

O.K. I'll say it one more time: it's not the sex that bothers me. It's the fact that it seemed unneccesary

Sorry Riothamus, I didn't mean to stir the pot up again and re-engage the debate on this. It's true that there is some degree of stylistic preferences involved, but to me it seemed perfectly natural in Patrick because the narrative was consistent with Patrick's character, his interests, his desires. You'll notice that as he grows, the depictions of lovemaking also change a bit. Compare the tavern incident to Sionan, and compare Sionan to Oriana. As he grows and his priorities and values change, so too does how he looks at sex.

[Riothamus]

As I said in a rather cryptic postscript, I'm beginning to reassess my opinions on the matter. If I seemed huffy in my last post, forgive me; it's just my style. However, statements like

Are we a little uptight around here?

(not from your post,) seem to indicate that the primary objection came from prissy moralism and Victorian blindness. For me, that was not the case--it was purely the fact that every reference to sex seemed, at the time I read, to be shoe-horned in rather abruptly, as if Lawhead were trying to be frank about sex--which is the opposite of frankness.

But as I say--and I shall continue saying--I liked the book. Perhaps it's time for a re-read....