Patrick: content

[dgan]

I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit. And I actually haven't read the Avalon books in so long, I should read them again. It could be that my memory is somewhat fuzzy on how SRL went about it in those books.

However, I have read Patrick, Pendragon Cycle, and Byzantium very recently and I can say emphatically that I see very healthy contribution from such things in those books. Although it would seem SRL has a distinct style on the subject, I will withold final judgement until I read Avalon again. It would not be the first time the mind remembers things in the same light it casts, eh?

[Riothamus]

True, true.... On that note, I'm going to look back over Patrick and see if what you all have said changes anything on this end.

[Charis]

The said:

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.

^ Everything he said. I just finished it last nite and thought it was pretty good. Here's my 2 cents! hee hee

Ok the sex parts while very obvious were fine. I like that he doesn't skim over it. I also find it refreshing that his characters go to the bathroom!!! You don't find that everywhere! It was a good book though. I read it in about 3 days. (easy to do when you're sick and its Spring Break) I wanted to know more about what happened to that evil druid guy, Bruinne? I admit that I cried a bit at the end because I'm just that much of a girl. hahaha.

[CynanMachae]

Amen, Charis!!!

Lawhead is too good of a writer to leave out even the wierdest details, even peeing. I give this book a 5/5.

[Steltek]

I agree - I don't believe this was gratuitous at all. I f we look at it from a purely literary standpoint, I cannot see the problem. And from a moral standpoint, well, his depiction of sex no more encourages sexual immorality than his (much more lengthy) depictions of food and eating encourage obesity.

I think that it is laudable for an author to give people positive portrayals of sexuality for a change. No one argues seriously that sexuality is an evil thing, but rather a sacred thing. I have come to trust Lawhead's depictions of sacred things, and the sexual portions of his works have given me no reason to doubt his ability to do so admirably.

[cree8ivone]

I just finished reading Patrick. I thought it was wonderfully well written and showed more of Lawhead's growth as a writer. I enjoy his 'pushing the envelope' style (which is also growing) whether it be in language or descriptions. Bringing realism to writing is one of his appealing literary attributes and one of the main reasons why I like Lawhead's work so much.

[glanynant]

Yeh ... like there's no sex and violence in the Bible !!!
It's part of life, and is NOT done in a smutty, sensationalist, gratuitous way. Read any Grisham? Another VERY Christian author ... no SMUT, but that doesn't mean no sex!

[Messenger of Eden]

I Just finished Patrick. I felt it was rushed and disjointed at the end, like Lawhead was tired of it and just wanted to be done. There is no growth process between the selfish, arrogant, foolish, lustful youth and the wise, powerful, full-of-the-Spirit man who stands on the hill on Beltane night (huh?) defying the king. I think he could easily have done a second book, drawing what is in reality a sudden and cryptic end together with Patrick's return to Ireland. There's no story of his spiritual or emotional growth--only of the glimmer of his turning, and that very late in the book, and due to a prolonged period of self-pity festering into despair (and then the vision of the Man who brings him the scroll and the voices of the Irish calling to him to return).. No repentance of his sins, his pride, his falsehood and lies. No studying under any mentor in the Church (in real life, he was apparently a Bishop when he returned to Ireland--there HAS to be some story there--you don't just go to Ireland and say "I'm a Bishop"....) .One second he has returned and the next second you are in the epilogue where Patrick has won over the Ceile De and is leading them in their new faith, though he has no foundation (in the story) for his own faith and knowledge, and no friend in the Church, and he is leading a standoff against some strange antagonistic king you have never heard of, with not a bit of background to the epilogue. He's raised a Beltane fire against the king's command--why did the king command against it? What does the fire symbolize?--and leading Ceile De filidh in the Psalms. How does he come to this, if he spent every living moment until he decided to return to Ireland antagonistic and unbelieving toward God? Such a man would have no knowledge of Scripture, because he had spent his entire life despising it.

I thought the sex was far too prominent. True, it was not as explicit as in some of his other books, and certainly his scenes are always pretty tastefully done compared to many-- but I have always been uncomfortable with it in his writings. It doesn't need to be there, and it would not diminish the story at all to have some juicy kisses and let the scene pan to the next morning or something. But there was SO much of it in this book, even if it was not particularly explicit. A Christian book should not dwell on that--yes it is a natural and good part of life (when under the God-ordained constraints of marriage) but it is unnecessary to describe it--and it puts imagery in minds that does not need to be there. And there is no hint that Patrick's habit of fornication was wrong whatsoever. This above all, I dislike. I fear that a non-Christian reading this book would become very confused.

As far as the above comments likening SRL's sex scenes with scenes in the Bible, it's not the same. With the obvious exception of the Song of Solomon, the sex scenes such as Abraham and Hagar describe nothing--they just say he lay with her or he knew her. True, the Bible doesn't sugarcoat real people or their sins and errors. But it does not go into detail on sex acts, either. I am sure there are plenty here that will call me a prude--sorry to offend. This is my opinion. If the sex were not there--no one would notice. Would there be a thread here saying "Hey! Why wasn't there any sex scene?" I do concede that he writes his characters as they are, and they describe (whether first or third person) events in a forthright, natural way--and that is one of the things about Lawhead's writing that I love. But if he never wrote a depiction of a sex scene, he would be just as great of a writer, and his books would be just as great--it would never be missed.

Moreover the druidic bent mystifies me. Though it's a common element in Lawhead's books, how this historical Church figure might have been
involved in the druids of Ireland (the Church leaders would never have approved and they probably would have branded him a heretic) and still have any authority in the Church at all is beyond me. How would he have become a SAINT?! I read St. Patrick's Confession out of curiosity today and it said nothing whatsoever about the druids...On the contrary, it says that he spent six years herding sheep in Ireland, and praying devoutly all that time (the book tells it very differently and has him abandoning his sheep and joining the druids in one of several ploys to escape his slavery) *shrugs*

It seems that much of the book is conjecture, but I think perhaps Mr. Lawhead took a bit too strong of liberty with the story in this one. It's one thing to place a fictional character in the context of historical events--and even to take license with historical characters--to a degree. It's another to play with a historical man's life and character so much that a reader is no longer sure just who he was in reality.

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed the book--Even this one is hard to put down and easy to come right back to. He keeps my attention in true Lawhead style. I just love reading his work. But Lawhead did not end it well. In his best books Lawhead leaves questions unanswered, mysteries still lingering in the mind of the reader. This tends to create an echo in the reader's mind following the completion of the book--a lingering sense of wonder and melancholy, as if you have just come home from some great adventure, and must now go about the business of living life, and you don't quite know how to. This one leaves the wrong questions unanswered, and only a lingering feeling that I need to do some homework to find out the real story. A second volume would have cleared up the messy ends, and he built the characters well enough to have successfully pulled it off.

The fact that the story departs from (the little I have read of) St. Patrick's story is okay. In truth we know very little of his life--and that from just two writings of his that have miraculously survived. I can see how much history could be fit between the gaps--between the lines. My problem is that it does not come back full circle to reconcile reasonably with what we do know of him. This made the end shallow and lackluster. Definitely not my favorite--this one will sit beside Byzantium and probably never be read by me again. I think my criticism of this book is so sharp because I know he's capable of so much better. I am looking forward to Hood and I sincerely hope it's better--I'm sure it will be!!!

I suppose even a great author can't win them all!! LOL

[DanTheMan]

Part of me wants to agree with you on that the sex and language is offensive and unnecessary in the book. However, I've been challenged to look beyond that and see its place in making the character real-er. Yes, I don't like seeing Succat and others commiting the acts they do because they are offensive. They're meant to be. Succat is meant to be protraying himself (1st person narrative) as a naughty young man. The book shows his development.
This is the 2nd time I've read the book and I'm enjoying it more this time, in different ways.

[CynanMachae]

dantheman said:

Part of me wants to agree with you on that the sex and language is offensive and unnecessary in the book. However, I've been challenged to look beyond that and see its place in making the character real-er. Yes, I don't like seeing Succat and others commiting the acts they do because they are offensive. They're meant to be. Succat is meant to be protraying himself (1st person narrative) as a naughty young man. The book shows his development.
This is the 2nd time I've read the book and I'm enjoying it more this time, in different ways.

I agree with you 150,000,000%.

I read Patrick in a Christian homeschool book club and I was talking about some of the themes and values we can draw from the book, but EVERY OTHER member of the club kept talking about how the sex was too graphic. I flat out told them, "yes, I would have liked to see less sexual content in the book, but if you can't get past the content of something and learn the lessons the book has, then you can't even really read the Bible! It get's more graphic at times than Patrick by SRL does.

[DanTheMan]

If it were any other author, I might not have finished the book, though, to be honest. But since I've read his other books, and I know to expect something really good and surprising and thought provoking, I kept reading. Thee was a lot more to the book than just those parts.

[dgan]

For those who consider moral values as a treasure, the light-hearted way in which many people are immoral can be literally disgusting to them. Not to get all religious, but this is one of the many taboos Jesus assaulted when he came to earth. Believers are not to be so overwrought with the sin that they cannot associate and reach out to the sinner.

I think that is something that SRL forces the reader to do in many of his books. You can either walk away from the character and never be a part of the amazing changes in his/her life, or you can suffer through your own misgivings and become a part of the story.

The main point is that I don't think SRL throws that stuff in there just for "ratings". It serves a purpose of associating that with a carnal attitude of a character. Let's face it, sex occupies a significant portion of the immoral population throughout history. Even though SRL writes fiction, we all applause his wonderous ability to research and describe settings and events in a historical context. We cannot change history when it becomes uncomfortable.

After not seeing this thread in a long time, I read back through some of the posts and have actually decided that SRL handles this issue interestingly. Instead of off-handedly mentioning such events over and over, he largely leaves that stuff out. Rather, he puts in one or two scenes that convey an underlying description of the character without constantly returning to it. One good smack on the forehead instead of continuous ambiguous commentary.

Anyway, good discussion.

[DanTheMan]

Ha. "Smack on the forehead" - that's funny. Sometimes I feel like I need that.

Well, Succat/Magonus is now in Rome. Something is about to happen but I don't want to say, for those who haven't read it. I guess it's natural to keep wanting the guy to turn around and appreciate more what he's been given. But I guess I don't do that as much as I ought to.

But really. SRL should have written Patrick 2 - The saint. At least he could do it in rough version and give us all a copy. That would do for me, I think.

[dgan]

Patrick - Part II....hmmm.....

*wonders what could be found on Lawhead's hard drive if I had an hour alone with his computer...*

[silversparrow]

Not sure why she was in the book, but I was ok with it.