November 2013: Colm Tóibín: The Testament of Mary

[Meadow337]

The deadlock in voting finally being broken, this months discussion is:

Colm Tóibín: The Testament of Mary (2012)

In a voice that is both tender and filled with rage, The Testament of Mary tells the story of a cataclysmic event which led to an overpowering grief. For Mary, her son has been lost to the world, and now, living in exile and in fear, she tries to piece together the memories of the events that led to her son's brutal death. To her he was a vulnerable figure, surrounded by men who could not be trusted, living in a time of turmoil and change. As her life and her suffering begin to acquire the resonance of myth, Mary struggles to break the silence surrounding what she knows to have happened. In her effort to tell the truth in all its gnarled complexity, she slowly emerges as a figure of immense moral stature as well as a woman from history rendered now as fully human.

Better late than never I guess.

 

[Peder]

The deadlock in voting finally being broken, this months discussion is:

Colm Tóibín: The Testament of Mary (2012)

In a voice that is both tender and filled with rage, The Testament of Mary tells the story of a cataclysmic event which led to an overpowering grief. For Mary, her son has been lost to the world, and now, living in exile and in fear, she tries to piece together the memories of the events that led to her son's brutal death. To her he was a vulnerable figure, surrounded by men who could not be trusted, living in a time of turmoil and change. As her life and her suffering begin to acquire the resonance of myth, Mary struggles to break the silence surrounding what she knows to have happened. In her effort to tell the truth in all its gnarled complexity, she slowly emerges as a figure of immense moral stature as well as a woman from history rendered now as fully human.

Better late than never I guess.

As with many a blurb, while I don't disagree necessarily with that statement about Mary or the book, I frequently have trouble seeing the origins of the assessment in the book itself. Which is a major reason for a reread: things can be clearer the second time around. So I am looking for the book in all the known last places I might have put it around here. /rolleyes/ If it doesn't turn up very soon I'll get another copy -- for Kindle.

Meanwhile, this excerpt from the Amazon description corresponds more closely to my recollection of what I read:

". . . provocative, haunting, and indelible portrait of Mary presents her as a solitary older woman still seeking to understand the events that become the narrative of the New Testament and the foundation of Christianity. . . ."
​

To me, the book presents an entirely plausible picture -- which is not the same thing as saying I doubt the testimonies of the New Testament. In my view it is indicative of differences in belief that have been present from then until now.
And now, enough blabbing from me until I reread the book.

 

[Meadow337]

I shall try to not let the obvious prejudices of the author colour my perceptions.

 

[Peder]

I shall try to not let the obvious prejudices of the author colour my perceptions.

It is indeed a difficult book to look at with a fresh eye and keep at arms' length from one's thoughts on the subject. But a fascinating exercise anyway.
To begin:

I would say it is a "Testament" without a testament, unlike any other book in the Bible.
It is an alternate history with almost no history.
Mary is a fictional character with no resemblance to Mary.​

Not all exactly true, but close enough for discussion.
/still looking for the book /

 

[Meadow337]

Well I found a copy and will be diving in tomorrow.

 

[Peder]

Well I found a copy and will be diving in tomorrow.

I found my copy too. Amazon tells me it was on my kindle all along. /humiliating shame forever /

 

[Meadow337]

I found my copy too. Amazon tells me it was on my kindle all along. /humiliating shame forever /

lol its always in the last place you look

 

[Peder]

Re-read was well worth it. Recalled much that slipped my mind. Changes the slant of my offhand opinions given above, but still some worth as discussion points.

 

[Meadow337]

It is indeed a difficult book to look at with a fresh eye and keep at arms' length from one's thoughts on the subject. But a fascinating exercise anyway.
To begin:

I would say it is a "Testament" without a testament, unlike any other book in the Bible.
It is an alternate history with almost no history.
Mary is a fictional character with no resemblance to Mary.​

Not all exactly true, but close enough for discussion.
/still looking for the book /

Ok so I finally got off my proverbial and read it. And straight off I think I need to read it again because at the moment I'm failing to see what the fuss is about.

It's written in almost a stream of consciousness kind of way in a very non-linear fashion. And you are right - it bears almost no resemblance to any picture of Mary I have either has an individual who lived and died, or as a religious icon.

As far as being a testament is concerned - a testament to what exactly? Although Mary says a few times throughout that these are the last words she will speak, or she must speak now before she can not, ie she will die soon and therefore you can take it as being her 'last will and testament' but 'testament' in any sense of providing proof of anything is entirely missing.

The cynicism was terrible. Honestly I have an almost overwhelming urge to ... I don't know what lol because I'm not a violent person and profoundly and absolutely disagree with violence as a solution to anything ...but once in a while I could almost make an exception and give in to the urge to knock some sense into some people.

I admit I did go and read why he wrote the thing - and it started as a one woman play inspired by religious art in Venice - he was looking at two very disparate paintings of Mary and came up with this piece, which has since morphed into a book / novella which won the Booker Prize. The play itself was nominated for 3 Tony Awards before it closed on Broadway a month before it's run was due to end. Me I would have tossed the book back at him and suggested he get some help with that depression.

 

[Peder]

Ah, Meadow!
I am glad you finally read it, and more than glad (elated?) to see your reactions. I too thought it rather unsatisfying after first reading -- an uncommunicative protagonist is hardly very interesting -- but I found the book, overall, much more fascinating after second reading.
The book is set in Biblical times, during and after Jesus' ministry and Crucifixion, and seems to acknowledge the historicity of three miracles and the Crucifixion -- events whose religious message seem (perhaps understandably) to completely bypass Mary's distraught anguish. She, who was there as eyewitness to events, ends up skeptical that her son's sacrifice was worth it and she will not endorse the narrative of events that one of Jesus' supporters is writing.
So, though the ultimate theme of the book is skeptical, at least to my ears, it avoids the sledge-hammer approach that has been heard over and over again, namely: There is no God, Jesus is not his Son, there were no miracles, there is no salvation or everlasting life, it is all a fabrication, and so on.
Perhaps Toibin, in his balanced blending of religious issues, has rendered unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's.

 

[Meadow337]

I think if we step aside from the Biblical for a moment - because I think it may be necessary to actually get a true picture of what Toibin has written - we have a woman (and again let's step aside from 'Mary') whose beloved son became the leader of a grass-roots popularist uprising and got himself killed for his troubles. Throughout the centuries young men have found themselves in this position, and their mothers left wondering if the cause was worth the sacrifice. It is in a way a pity he chose Mary and Jesus to tell this story, but it is also understandable that he did. They are the most iconic image of mother and son to many people.

We also can't forget Toibin is Irish and how many Irish mother's have found themselves trying to reconcile the myth their son has become with their memory of the real person? And wondering all the while if their son's death was worth it?

I'm not sure, after thinking about it for a bit, if Toibin ever meant it to be any kind of religious statement. I think it is far more a political statement about certain kinds of war and leaders who become martyrs to the cause.

 

[Peder]

I'm not sure, after thinking about it for a bit, if Toibin ever meant it to be any kind of religious statement. I think it is far more a political statement about certain kinds of war and leaders who become martyrs to the cause.

I think I agree with your take; I certainly doubt that the book was meant to resolve ages-old religious/atheist viewpoints -- unless perhaps to gain more tolerance for opposing views (which I doubt). But definitely yes, the story of Mary and Jesus certainly provides a ready-made fabric for themes such as you describe.

I think the book is a neat example of the craft of story-telling.

PS: It may be an example of the "one story" common to mankind of children maturing and growing away from their parents -- told from a parent's viewpoint.

 

[Meadow337]

I think I agree with your take; I certainly doubt that the book was meant to resolve ages-old religious/atheist viewpoints -- unless perhaps to gain more tolerance for opposing views (which I doubt). But definitely yes, the story of Mary and Jesus certainly provides a ready-made fabric for themes such as you describe.

I think the book is a neat example of the craft of story-telling.

PS: It may be an example of the "one story" common to mankind of children maturing and growing away from their parents.

Or contribute to it. I was tempted to fall into the trap of dismissing it as the anti- ravings of a lapsed Catholic homosexual, but it just wouldn't sit neatly in that categorization. I read 2 or 3 interviews of the author and he didn't sit in that categorization either (despite that being the firm opinion of one or three reviewers). So if it didn't fall into any kind of religious framework (despite the identity of the characters) what was Toibin trying to say? In the political context of a modern Ireland, and in a post 911 world, I can identify with a mother whose son was martyred, whose followers are attempting to fashion a myth, who is wondering was it worth it, trying to cope with her own guilt ... I think the old adage applies here - to write what you know, and the story of Mary is a suitable vehicle for the questions being asked of the reader, but it is a shame really because the story hasn't escaped the religious nuts on both sides of the fence who have alternately lauded and condemned it and in doing so missed the point.

 

[Peder]

Or contribute to it. I was tempted to fall into the trap of dismissing it as the anti- ravings of a lapsed Catholic homosexual, but it just wouldn't sit neatly in that categorization. I read 2 or 3 interviews of the author and he didn't sit in that categorization either (despite that being the firm opinion of one or three reviewers). So if it didn't fall into any kind of religious framework (despite the identity of the characters) what was Toibin trying to say?

Um, I'm out of touch with what ardent followers of either stripe are thinking of the story. I live in my own cocoon here and I haven't yet seen pronounced reaction of any sort. Although I can of course imagine people who would view much of what Toibin puts in print as being blasphemous. My own attitude is that he was fashioning a through-and-through fiction here, re-fashioning well known tropes from the real world to suit his story.

In the political context of a modern Ireland, and in a post 911 world, I can identify with a mother whose son was martyred, whose followers are attempting to fashion a myth, who is wondering was it worth it, trying to cope with her own guilt

I think the anguish over a son lost to a mother need not be as narrowly defined as relating to Ireland's pronounced troubles, in order for it to have relevance to the anguish of mothers everywhere with children similarly lost (to drugs, perhaps, or criminality, or even just loss of life's opportunity by falling into indigence and panhandling).

... I think the old adage applies here - to write what you know, and the story of Mary is a suitable vehicle for the questions being asked of the reader, but it is a shame really because the story hasn't escaped the religious nuts on both sides of the fence who have alternately lauded and condemned it and in doing so missed the point.

I do think the story leaves the reader wondering just what Mary was thinking at the end. I do not agree with the Amazon summary that Mary was

"still seeking to understand the events that become the narrative of the New Testament and the foundation of Christianity. . .

. It seems to me that her giving up worship at the Temple and shifting to worship at the shrine of Artemis was clear indication that all the commotion, anguish and competing claims about her son were now completely behind her and that she was looking forward to a placid old age.
I see her as a person who heard the Message, but for whom it clearly did not register. A symbol for modern secular mankind?

 

[Meadow337]

Um, I'm out of touch with what ardent followers of either stripe are thinking of the story. I live in my own cocoon here and I haven't yet seen pronounced reaction of any sort. Although I can of course imagine people who would view much of what Toibin puts in print as being blasphemous. My own attitude is that he was fashioning a through-and-through fiction here, re-fashioning well known tropes from the real world to suit his story.

I'm inclined to agree with you on that - that it is primarily fiction, that is just using readily identifiable tropes.

I think the anguish over a son lost to a mother need not be as narrowly defined as relating to Ireland's pronounced troubles, in order for it to have relevance to the anguish of mothers everywhere with children similarly lost (to drugs, perhaps, or criminality, or even just loss of life's opportunity by falling into indigence and panhandling).

I never meant to imply that that was the only way to read the story, just that in terms of who the author is, that I could see the possibility that was the life experience he was using / expressing, especially as several members of his immediate family were deeply involved in 'the troubles' and so he had up close and personal experience of that.

I do think the story leaves the reader wondering just what Mary was thinking at the end. I do not agree with the Amazon summary that Mary was . It seems to me that her giving up worship at the Temple and shifting to worship at the shrine of Artemis was clear indication that all the commotion, anguish and competing claims about her son were now completely behind her and that she was looking forward to a placid old age.
I see her as a person who heard the Message, but for whom it clearly did not register. A symbol for modern secular mankind?

LOL and you are putting it back into a religious interpretation - I really think any attempt to read it that way is missing the point. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't feel like it was meant to be any kind of religious statement, except in that, in the end ... hm LOL do I go out on a limb here? In a sense Artemis is Mary, at least, more accurately part of the cult of Mary, so if you want to go that deeply into the possible meanings of the symbols of the book, you could say that Artemis represents Mary coming to terms with herself.

I also found the choice of 'events' interesting - the wedding at Cana (and his chronology is totally off here as the wedding was, before Jesus' public ministry not just prior to the crucifixion as it is in the book - another indication we are not to read this as a 'Biblical' account), the resurrection of Lazarus and the crucifixion.

All three events deal with life and death. And life and death, more particularly death, are interwoven throughout the narrative.

The book starts with Mary contemplating her own imminent death, and , on re-reading the story I'm wondering if death, and coming to terms with death, isn't the primary theme.

Even the story of Lazarus which should have been about life, isn't. Lazarus may have been raised from the dead, but he does not represent life, but death. He sits like death at the wedding feast, which again should have been a celebration of life, but death sits at the table while more death in the form of the strangler lingers in the back ground. And the book ends with Mary's slow descent into death.

 

[Peder]

I never meant to imply that that was the only way to read the story, just that in terms of who the author is, that I could see the possibility that was the life experience he was using / expressing, especially as several members of his immediate family were deeply involved in 'the troubles' and so he had up close and personal experience of that..

I missed the possible, or even likely, significance for the Irish situation which you pointed out. On reflection I think your view is well taken.

LOL and you are putting it back into a religious interpretation - I really think any attempt to read it that way is missing the point. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't feel like it was meant to be any kind of religious statement, except in that, in the end ... hm LOL do I go out on a limb here? In a sense Artemis is Mary, at least, more accurately part of the cult of Mary, so if you want to go that deeply into the possible meanings of the symbols of the book, you could say that Artemis represents Mary coming to terms with herself..

Well, leaving for the moment what the point is that is to be seen or missed, I think the message is pretty clear after a further day mulling it over. Reading backward from the end of the book, we (or I) see a Mary who: has shifted her worship toward Artemis; regards as false the narrative history being written; and, who has unequivocally stated that her son's sacrifice was not worth it and had accomplished nothing. Phrased a little differently, not only did the new message being preached fail to convince (whether religious or political), it actually caused an entire loss of her original faith. That's quite a devastating judgment on the impact of the reported events.

I also found the choice of 'events' interesting - the wedding at Cana (and his chronology is totally off here as the wedding was, before Jesus' public ministry not just prior to the crucifixion as it is in the book - another indication we are not to read this as a 'Biblical' account), the resurrection of Lazarus and the crucifixion.

All three events deal with life and death. And life and death, more particularly death, are interwoven throughout the narrative.

The book starts with Mary contemplating her own imminent death, and , on re-reading the story I'm wondering if death, and coming to terms with death, isn't the primary theme.

Even the story of Lazarus which should have been about life, isn't. Lazarus may have been raised from the dead, but he does not represent life, but death. He sits like death at the wedding feast, which again should have been a celebration of life, but death sits at the table while more death in the form of the strangler lingers in the back ground. And the book ends with Mary's slow descent into death.

Yes!. I too was extremely interested in the coverage of the miracles. I think Toibin, in his presentation of them is deliberately luke warm. Regarding walking on water, Jesus only "seems" to be walking on water, and Mary was not an eyewitness if I recall correctly. Regarding "wine into water," Mary was present, but neither she nor anyone seemed to notice anything strange, certainly nothing miraculous. And Lazarus, yes, yes.! As seen by Toibin, he was not exactly raised from the dead, or not all the way from the dead anyway. He cannot be claimed to have been given a living life. So Toibin's mention of the miracles is far from hearty endorsement, but rather more like acknowledgement "with faint praise," allowing the reader to continue to discount them if they wish. (I won't harp on Toibin's clear and decidedly jaundiced presentation of the behavior of the crowds/followers surrounding Jesus.)

In sum, I think one can argue that the book is a negative assessment of its target, whether that be Christianity, with a direct reading, or the Irish troubles with an allegorical reading. But intentionally negative it would certainly seem to be.

Regarding meditation on life and death, I think that is always a worthwhile introspection and perhaps that really is Mary's final frame of mind (as also suggested in the Amazon summary). It just seems to me that the story takes the long way 'round to such an outcome. But I won't take issue with your musing; it would lend more substance to the story, and leave it less as muted polemic.

It continues to provide food for thought

 

[Meadow337]

I think it is an intentionally negative statement on the creation of martyrs for 'the cause' whatever 'the cause' may be and I'm with him on that. Martyrdom may seem all noble and all that, and it certainly provides a rallying point for the masses once the myth has been created, but IMHO is rarely, if ever worth the sacrifice. Its all very well to be willing to die for a cause, but I think it takes far more courage, and accomplishes a great deal more if you are willing to live for a cause.

 

[Peder]

I think it is an intentionally negative statement on the creation of martyrs for 'the cause' whatever 'the cause' may be and I'm with him on that. Martyrdom may seem all noble and all that, and it certainly provides a rallying point for the masses once the myth has been created, but IMHO is rarely, if ever worth the sacrifice. Its all very well to be willing to die for a cause, but I think it takes far more courage, and accomplishes a great deal more if you are willing to live for a cause.

I'm glad that at least we agree that it is an intentionally negative statement. About what still seems open. But about martyrdom, I'll refrain from comment without much more thought -- not my area at all.

 

[Meadow337]

I think the author is clever enough to have written what looks like a polemic against the church / Christianity on the surface, while not meaning that at all, and having a quiet private chuckle at the people who react from their entrenched preconceptions.

Doing that would be far more of an indictment of the reactions (and I think it applies to both sides of the reactions) than a simple polemic would have been.

 

[Peder]

I think the author is clever enough to have written what looks like a polemic against the church / Christianity on the surface, while not meaning that at all, and having a quiet private chuckle at the people who react from their entrenched preconceptions.

Doing that would be far more of an indictment of the reactions (and I think it applies to both sides of the reactions) than a simple polemic would have been.

It might be a little more than entrenched reactions that Christian believers may be reacting with. Very specifically, having Mary hearing the Gospel message and ignoring it is more than blasphemous. It is specifically the one unforgivable sin in the Bible (as I learned it many years ago), and denying the Word in order to worship a pagan goddess, Artemis, doubly underlines it. In view of Mary's stature in the Bible and subsequent iconography, Toibin couldn't have picked a deliberately more inappropriate target for his unforgiveable sin. That is a very hard-hitting alternative conjecture and I am surprised there is not more comment, here or elsewhere. I cannot think of a worse slap against a pious and sanctified figure and I would suspect that Toibin knows that.

Although. Motivations of authors are frequently inscrutable, and given the benefit of the doubt, when writing fiction.

One can, at best, ignore them if one disagrees. Or forgive them if one is so inclined.