As all of you know I enjoy reading. I enjoy it a lot. As an American Studies student I have to read a lot of American literature: Emerson, Thoreau, Child, Stowe, Poe, Franklin, Melville, Hawthorne, Morrisson, Faulkner, etc. are just a few on the reading-list. Besides reading ‘high literature’ I also enjoy reading books that are not part of the canon. In my opinion, one does not always has to read high literature: reading more simplistic books, books in which one does not have to pay attention to every single sentence, stories in which one does not have to think too much, stories in which one simply enjoys the ride.
Joe linked to Mick LaSalle’s latest novel yesterday: Mick publishes one chapter per week of The Event. So far he has published five chapters. In the comment section of that post, some people criticized the story of The Event. Some people, like Dan Schneider and Christin Stanley, focused on Mick’s style, others, like PatHMV, focused more on the content, on the storyline and on the nature of the characters. I dealt with the style of it in the first paragraph of this post: sure, when one reads The Event one is fully aware that one is not reading anything written by, for instance, Melville, but I don’t consider that to be a problem. I’d say just sit back and enjoy the ride. Approach it like you would approach a Grisham.
Regarding the content or storyline I’d like to say the following: PatHMV criticized the nature of the antichrist and the way Mick depicts the Religious Right. Mick LaSalle was kind enough to participate in the comment section and responded as follows:
A wonderful debate here, but PatHMV is making assumptions about The Event based on nothing. The novel does not ridicule the beliefs of others. It tries to convey what would happen if those beliefs about the End Times turned out to be absolutely and completely true. No one is criticized for their faith, but rather for their hypocrisy, and if anyone sticks with the story they’ll see that sincere, devout Christians come off well. The Rapture takes real Christians and leaves behind the phonies and authoritarians claiming to be Christian. That’s why a number of Christian websites, from the United States to the UK to Australia, have recommended The Event to their readers…
Pat responded to Mick’s response:
Mick, I have to disagree with you. When you say that “sincere, devout Christians� come off well, you mean that Christians who share your version of “real� Christianity come off well. Like most people of the far right and the far left, you assume that your vision of the truth is the right one, and mock and ridicule those who do not share it.
In the same comment Pat quotes a passage in chapter five in which the President of the United States tells his daughter that helping drug addicts is “difficult” because doing so means that he has to take money from people who work hard, who made the right choices, and give it to people who made wrong choices. Nobody forced them to ruin their own lives, they did so themselves. Pat writes on that:
No ridicule? In fact, the points he makes are quite valid. By what right does the state take money from a hard-working, honest family who have made tough choices and avoided committing crimes and doing drugs, and give it to some other guy who has made conscious choices through his life to commit crimes, use drugs, or otherwise become a drain on society? As a Christian, it is my duty to love such an addict, but it is not my duty to help him kill himself, or even particularly to save him from the consequences of his own choices. It is certainly not my right to compel others to contribute to the addict’s addiction, even in hopes of some eventual cure.
But you present this valid argument, a belief sincerely held by many millions of reasonable people, in a foolish, vain, and deluded way, out of the mouth of, apparently, the anti-Christ. No ridicule? I disagree.
He is right of course: it does make perfect sense. There is absolutely nothing irrational about it.
And that is the entire point, as Mick points out:
That speech that I give the antichrist is intended to make sense. It makes pretty good sense to me, too. I’m a moderate. And the drug addicts, well, we’re seeing them through the eyes of a social worker, which would probably be a little different from your perspective.
I’m quite sure that the antichrist would sound very rational. In fact, I’d say, he’ll probably be a smooth talker.
Mick goes on to write:
As for who gets Raptured, the point is — if you have any humility before God — you should assume you don’t know everything, and you don’t see into everyone’s heart. Obviously, when I have all the female stars of “Sex and the City� get Raptured, plus “the guy who played Steve,� it’s intended to be amusing, but amusing in the service of a serious point.
Yet another good point. I am a Christian myself and this argument appeals greatly to me. Mick is, in fact, confronting member of the religious right with their tendency to think that they know everything, that they are the ‘right Christians’ and that those who don’t agree with their views are ‘bad Christians’. But… who is to say who is the ‘right Christian’ and who is the wrong one? Sure, we can decide for ourselves how we believe Christians should live and we can encourage people to live like we think is ‘the Christian way’ but should we condemn them if their way of life differs from our ideals?
On the other hand Mick makes the same mistake the Religious Right is making: he talks about ‘true Christians’ for instance, this – it has to be said – weakens his point. It would have been best if he would not have worded it like he did, since, now, he simply decides who is a true Christian, who will be saved and who won’t. That is exactly what he accuses the Relgious Right of doing.
O sweet irony, thou art mysterious and glorious.
That being said, the reality of the situation is that the Religious Right (to make this clear: not every single individual who reckons him- or herself to be part of the RR) has a monopoly on condemning people to hell. In such a situation it is important that Christians who do not agree with the views of more conservative Christians raise their voices. Not in condemnation, but simply to make clear that they disagree.
Lastly, Dan Schneider wrote:
it’s very A to B to C
Why yes, perhaps it is, but… the story was able to capture me nonetheless. It is a story about hypocrisy and deceit: the President or antichrist deceives the American people (and foreigners for that matter) and individuals deceive themselves. They believe what they want to believe. They believe to be true what they want to be true, even when it’s becoming more and more obvious that the reality is different. It will also be interesting to see whether some of the main characters will find personal redemption. Are all of them lost? Will they find redemption? If so, how? Will Sadie break with her father, or will she, despite the screaming of her conscience support him no matter what, etc? How will Wade develop? Will he lose all principles, or will he, eventually be redempted? Will he be seduced by ambition, or will he hold his ground (I fear for the worst)?
In short, even thought it is very A to B to C, I wanted to read chapter two after I finished reading chapter one. After reading chapter two I wanted to read chapter three immediately… and after reading chapter five I couldn’t wait to read chapter six. Is it a reasonably simple novel? Yes. Does it – nonethelss – raise questions that need to be answered? Yes. Did I find it to be addicting? Yes.
If one has to choose – due to lack of time – between, say, Crime and Punishment and The Event I’d say read Dostoevsky’s masterpiece. Assuming that everyone, however, is able to fit one chapter of The Event per week into one’s schedule, I say: go read it, it’s an entertaining read.
P.S.
Some special praise to Mick LaSalle for publishing the book online.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.