• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

November 2013: Colm Tóibín: The Testament of Mary

Ok but when I read it I had this powerful sense of the author going - 'religious are you? lets see how you react to this?' and alternatively saying 'think I'm on your side poking religion in the eye? hee hee' and the more he gave me that feeling the more I thought 'this isn't the way to read this' and so I looked for other interpretations.

Just BTW - he never actually identifies Jesus. Yes it could be - but there are a lot of important points that are wrong. Very few people are identified and when they are important details about them are wrong. Barabbas for example was not a robber, but the leader of a 'freedom' group seeking to over throw Rome. In fact I vaguely remembering reading speculation recently that he may have been involved with the bunch who ended up at Masada. Jesus is not identified by name. Important details of the crucifixion are wrong / missing. So I really think that this was deliberately written to be just sufficiently detailed to make you assume it is one thing while entirely avoiding being absolutely definitively one thing or another.
 
. . . . Jesus is not identified by name. Important details of the crucifixion are wrong / missing. So I really think that this was deliberately written to be just sufficiently detailed to make you assume it is one thing while entirely avoiding being absolutely definitively one thing or another.

Well, he certainly was elliptical, and recognizably so. And I have to plead guilty to recognizing the many points of contact with Scripture, however incomplete or blurred they were. Outraged by the book, however? Not. In sympathy with it? Not, either.
 
Well, he certainly was elliptical, and recognizably so. And I have to plead guilty to recognizing the many points of contact with Scripture, however incomplete or blurred they were. Outraged by the book, however? Not. In sympathy with it? Not, either.

It does make it an interesting book to discuss though.

I have to say that I disagree with his concept that death is a long sleep wherein you reinvent your history to suit you.

Me I'm with Dylan Thomas -

Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on that sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
 
It does make it an interesting book to discuss though.

I have to say that I disagree with his concept that death is a long sleep wherein you reinvent your history to suit you.

Me I'm with Dylan Thomas -
Memorable, indeed, and valiant. But, for thoughts of that great passage from life, I think it might be truest of all said: "To each his own."

(As for Dylan, I've always been intrigued by the imagery of The Boys of Summer. But that's another topic.)

Cheers!
Peder
 
Memorable, indeed, and valiant. But, for thoughts of that great passage from life, I think it might be truest of all said: "To each his own."

(As for Dylan, I've always been intrigued by the imagery of The Boys of Summer. But that's another topic.)

Cheers!
Peder


aah but when the author is discussing a subject we can't ignore it :)
 
Toibin - author - death as theme in book - discuss ;)
As theme in book, two possibilities.
1. Book as indirect attack on Jesus' death (or life) using Mary's disbelief as vehicle. A clever twist for a novel, but I have regularly refrained from discussing my Christian faith on this forum. So no discussion from me along that line.
2. Life and death in general seems to me to be a departure from discussion of the book itself. I do not think the book is about life and death in general, and my thoughts and reading have been too wide ranging for compact discussion here. I know of better books.
So, I repeat my only contribution to the topic: Everyone has their own view of the matter.
Perhaps someone else will join in on the broader topic. :)
 
As theme in book, two possibilities.
1. Book as indirect attack on Jesus' death (or life) using Mary's disbelief as vehicle. A clever twist for a novel, but I have regularly refrained from discussing my Christian faith on this forum. So no discussion from me along that line.

no discussion from me either - in case you haven't noticed but I have completely sidestepped any and all interpretations of the book along those lines :)

2. Life and death in general seems to me to be a departure from discussion of the book itself. I do not think the book is about life and death in general, and my thoughts and reading have been too wide ranging for compact discussion here. I know of better books.
So, I repeat my only contribution to the topic: Everyone has their own view of the matter.
Perhaps someone else will join in on the broader topic. :)

Yes I agree there are far better books, but nonetheless death is a theme in this one, perhaps not death, but coming to terms with guilt? A really pervasive topic Mary or "Mary" comes back to several times is her guilt, there is her guilt over having not enough to pay attention when all the young men were talking in her house, not having done enough to persuade her son not to get involved, and to stop before it was too late, and guilt at having left the scene of his death, even perhaps guilt at helping those who have mythologized (? is that right?) him. And at the very end she chooses to not deal with it at all.
 
Yes I agree there are far better books, but nonetheless death is a theme in this one, perhaps not death, but coming to terms with guilt? A really pervasive topic Mary or "Mary" comes back to several times is her guilt, there is her guilt over having not enough to pay attention when all the young men were talking in her house, not having done enough to persuade her son not to get involved, and to stop before it was too late, and guilt at having left the scene of his death, even perhaps guilt at helping those who have mythologized (? is that right?) him. And at the very end she chooses to not deal with it at all.
Despite all you say, I don't remember much about the crucial matter (to me anyway) of what was going on inside her head.
Perhaps I need a third or fourth reread. Lacking that, or them, no further comment.
 
1. She doesn't pay attention to the talk.

It was simply the end of something, and there was a crowd when he left because that day others were leaving too, and I came home almost smiling at the thought that I was lucky that he was well enough to go and smiling too at the idea that we had been careful in the months – maybe in the whole year – before he left, not to talk too much or grow too close because we both knew that he would go.

But I should have paid more attention to that time before he left, to who came to the house, to what was discussed at my table. It was not shyness or reticence that made me spend my time in the kitchen when those I did not know came, it was boredom.​

2. She goes to the wedding to convince him to stop, but gives up before she even speaks.

I went to Cana not to celebrate the joining together with much clamour of two people, one of whom I barely knew and the other not at all, but to see if I could get my son home. For days before, I summoned what strength I had in my eyes and Ipractised with my voice, worked out ways of keeping it low and insistent. I prepared warnings and threats if promises would not do. There must be, I thought, one thing I could say that might matter. One sentence. One promise. One threat. One warning. And I was sure as I sat there that I had it; I had fooled myself that he would come back with me, that he had had enough of wandering and that he was broken now, or that I could break him with some words.

When I arrived in Cana some days before the wedding I knew, or I almost knew, that I had come in vain. The only talk was the talk of him, and the fact that I was his mother meant that I was noticed and approached.​

3. She abandons her son on the cross.

It is only now that I can admit this, only now that I can allow myself to say it. For years I have comforted myself with the thought of how long I remained there, how much I suffered then. But I must say it once, I must let the words out, that despite the panic, despite the desperation, the shrieking, despite the fact that his heart and his flesh had come from my heart and my flesh, despite the pain I felt, a pain that has never lifted, and will go with me into the grave, despite all of this, the pain was his and not mine. And when the possibility of being dragged away and choked arose, my first instinct was to flee and it was also my last instinct. In those hours I was powerless, but, nonetheless, as I went from grief to further grief, wringing my hands, holding the others, watching with horror, I knew what I would do. As our guardian said, I would leave others to wash his body and hold him and bury him when his death came. I would leave him to die alone if I had to. And that is what I did. Once I signalled my agreement, Mary slipped away first and we watched her go out of the sides of our eyes. I did not look at the figure on the cross again. Perhaps I had looked enough. Perhaps I was right to save myself when I could. Butit does not feel like that now and it never has. But I will say it now because it has to be said by someone once: I did it to save myself. I did it for no other reason. I watched our guardian slip away and I pretended not to notice. I moved towards the cross as if I were going to sit at the foot of it and wring my hands as I waited for his final moments. And then I slipped around the back. I pretended I was searching for something or someone, or a place to relieve myself where I could not be easily seen. And then I followed our guardian and Mary down the hill on the other side, walking slowly, walking slowly away.
4. At then end all she wants is for it all not to have happened and part of the burden is that she realises she could have stopped it.

In the meantime, when I wake in the night, I want more. I want what happened not to have happened, to have taken another course. How easily it might not have happened! How easily we could have been spared! It would not have taken much. Even the thought of its possibility comes into my body now like a new freedom. It lifts the darkness and pushes away the grief. It is as if a traveller, weary after days of walking in a dry desert, a place void of shade, were to come to a hilltop and see below a city, an opal set in emerald, filled with plenty, a city filledwith wells and trees, with a marketplace laden with fish and fowl and the fruits of the earth, a place redolent with the smell of cooking and spices.​
 
1. She doesn't pay attention to the talk.

It was simply the end of something, and there was a crowd when he left because that day others were leaving too, and I came home almost smiling at the thought that I was lucky that he was well enough to go and smiling too at the idea that we had been careful in the months – maybe in the whole year – before he left, not to talk too much or grow too close because we both knew that he would go.

But I should have paid more attention to that time before he left, to who came to the house, to what was discussed at my table. It was not shyness or reticence that made me spend my time in the kitchen when those I did not know came, it was boredom.​

2. She goes to the wedding to convince him to stop, but gives up before she even speaks.

I went to Cana not to celebrate the joining together with much clamour of two people, one of whom I barely knew and the other not at all, but to see if I could get my son home. For days before, I summoned what strength I had in my eyes and Ipractised with my voice, worked out ways of keeping it low and insistent. I prepared warnings and threats if promises would not do. There must be, I thought, one thing I could say that might matter. One sentence. One promise. One threat. One warning. And I was sure as I sat there that I had it; I had fooled myself that he would come back with me, that he had had enough of wandering and that he was broken now, or that I could break him with some words.

When I arrived in Cana some days before the wedding I knew, or I almost knew, that I had come in vain. The only talk was the talk of him, and the fact that I was his mother meant that I was noticed and approached.​

3. She abandons her son on the cross.

It is only now that I can admit this, only now that I can allow myself to say it. For years I have comforted myself with the thought of how long I remained there, how much I suffered then. But I must say it once, I must let the words out, that despite the panic, despite the desperation, the shrieking, despite the fact that his heart and his flesh had come from my heart and my flesh, despite the pain I felt, a pain that has never lifted, and will go with me into the grave, despite all of this, the pain was his and not mine. And when the possibility of being dragged away and choked arose, my first instinct was to flee and it was also my last instinct. In those hours I was powerless, but, nonetheless, as I went from grief to further grief, wringing my hands, holding the others, watching with horror, I knew what I would do. As our guardian said, I would leave others to wash his body and hold him and bury him when his death came. I would leave him to die alone if I had to. And that is what I did. Once I signalled my agreement, Mary slipped away first and we watched her go out of the sides of our eyes. I did not look at the figure on the cross again. Perhaps I had looked enough. Perhaps I was right to save myself when I could. Butit does not feel like that now and it never has. But I will say it now because it has to be said by someone once: I did it to save myself. I did it for no other reason. I watched our guardian slip away and I pretended not to notice. I moved towards the cross as if I were going to sit at the foot of it and wring my hands as I waited for his final moments. And then I slipped around the back. I pretended I was searching for something or someone, or a place to relieve myself where I could not be easily seen. And then I followed our guardian and Mary down the hill on the other side, walking slowly, walking slowly away.
4. At then end all she wants is for it all not to have happened and part of the burden is that she realises she could have stopped it.

In the meantime, when I wake in the night, I want more. I want what happened not to have happened, to have taken another course. How easily it might not have happened! How easily we could have been spared! It would not have taken much. Even the thought of its possibility comes into my body now like a new freedom. It lifts the darkness and pushes away the grief. It is as if a traveller, weary after days of walking in a dry desert, a place void of shade, were to come to a hilltop and see below a city, an opal set in emerald, filled with plenty, a city filledwith wells and trees, with a marketplace laden with fish and fowl and the fruits of the earth, a place redolent with the smell of cooking and spices.​
Well, Meadow, if you see death as a theme in those excerpts, then you'll have to carry the discussion yourself. I just don't.
And I am truly sorry that you went to such great effort on my behalf for no effect. My apologies.
 
Well, Meadow, if you see death as a theme in those excerpts, then you'll have to carry the discussion yourself. I just don't.
And I am truly sorry that you went to such great effort on my behalf for no effect. My apologies.


her guilt :)
 
I think we wander further from the main and overt theme of the book. In terms of guilt, I think she has missed the main point and her guilt is over the wrong things.

I guess that depends on how you interpret the book :)

Maybe I'm being too generous with the author's intent ... but it's just too easy to interpret it within a narrow religious construct and the author is too clever for such a narrow interpretation.
 
I guess that depends on how you interpret the book :)

Maybe I'm being too generous with the author's intent ... but it's just too easy to interpret it within a narrow religious construct and the author is too clever for such a narrow interpretation.

Narrow religious construct? Please. A retelling of major events from Jesus' life and death -- with characters named Lazarus, Mary, Marcus, including Roman soldiers and a crucifixion thrown in for horror -- a fictional construct? And narrow? No narrower than the widely known Gospels themselves.

But my point is not specifically that Mary did not accept her Son's message of salvation. Rather, she seemed throughout to be completely oblivious to what was going on around her, so deeply (and perhaps morbidly) was she wrapped up in her own self-oriented sorrow at the growing distance of her son from her -- even before his Crucifixion. If grief (or guilt, as you would have it) is a theme, it seems to me to be a mother's "grief" at the growing up of a child into a full-fledged person. It seems like the mother's side of a coming-of-age story, which (with apologies to all mothers and women, if need be) seems to me a usual part of life for most families. Again, providing a whole Gospel framework by way of context seems like the long way around for framing a simple theme of a mother's sorrow (and not happiness?) for her maturing child.

But, I grant you that Toibin is the author, not me, and certainly more clever than I am. No questions there.
 
Last edited:
The more I have thought about this book, the more unsympathetic I have found Mary. On first reading I was very sympathetic, I could identify with her grief, but with deeper reading she actually comes across as a very selfish and self absorbed person. She does not react like a normal mother. At the crucfixion "they" tell her not to attempt to see or speak to her son and she obeys them. The only time throughout the whole thing she has any kind of emotional reaction is when she sees how heavy the cross is. Now if this was supposed to be the real crucifixion(and the absense of these details makes me question if it is) Jesus was beaten to the point of being unrecognisable, and all she reacts to is the weight of the cross? Speaking as a mother that isn't normal.

I'm now wondering if this isn't exactly the kind of book you'd expect from a man writing about an emotional landscape he knows nothing about, but instead reveals the paucity of his?
 
The more I have thought about this book, the more unsympathetic I have found Mary. On first reading I was very sympathetic, I could identify with her grief, but with deeper reading she actually comes across as a very selfish and self absorbed person. She does not react like a normal mother. At the crucfixion "they" tell her not to attempt to see or speak to her son and she obeys them. The only time throughout the whole thing she has any kind of emotional reaction is when she sees how heavy the cross is. Now if this was supposed to be the real crucifixion(and the absense of these details makes me question if it is) Jesus was beaten to the point of being unrecognisable, and all she reacts to is the weight of the cross? Speaking as a mother that isn't normal.

I'm now wondering if this isn't exactly the kind of book you'd expect from a man writing about an emotional landscape he knows nothing about, but instead reveals the paucity of his?

Well, Meadow, there I have to agree with you in very large measure. She is presented as a rather one-dimensional figure through almost the entire book. (The exception I'll get to.)

Almost the only aspect of her inner self which is accessible to the reader is her emotional trajectory in response to events. She begins by being dismayed at the crowd of rabble that her son has fallen in with, who follow him all over making a nuisance of themselves. She wishes she could speak to him for a word or two, presumably to call him to his senses with some motherly persuasion. Next, she does get to share the table with him at the wedding, but his distancing of himself causes her to realize to her despair that he is lost to her. Phase three is of course her understandable grief at his crucifixion. Phase four, her abandonment of the Temple and any memories of the past, and her departure on a new life of serenity and worship of Artemis.

But, throughout, we are not made privy to her thoughts about the message or the words which her son is preaching. She argues with the scribe about the scribe's deliberate distortion of events which disagree with her eyewitness memories, but there is zero discussion, either agreeing or disagreeing, about the words or preaching of her son. Zero, zip, zilch. So she comes across to me as a hollow character who has been there, but hasn't seen or heard.

But it turns out that she has seen, and heard, and thought, after all -- one can almost hear the clashing of cymbals at the orchestral climax -- as she makes her unexpected declaration (or testament?) that her son's sacrifice has been a total waste and has accomplished nothing. I think Toibin preserved that seeming hollowness at her center in order not to give away the dramatic thunderbolt of her thoughts that he was preparing. There I give him (yet another) mark for clever crafting of the narrative.

But, overall, yes, she still does not come across as a very emotionally or intellectually rounded mother figure.

On a different note, Christianity turns out to be nothing less than a total disaster for her life. She loses everything: her son, her home, her faith, her social circle, and lives on in seclusion seeking serenity, but waiting (hopelessly?) for the end. Not a hopeful message for what Christianity presents as Good News.
 
Normally with fiction one doesn't get much more than a glimpse of the thoughts and beliefs of the author but this piece has a very personal feel to it. I think what we are looking at is something personal to the author. Would it alter your perception of the work if I added the fact that at one time he thought of entering the priesthood.

This interview is very revealing of his own life and makes me think this is perhaps more than a little autobiographical even though his main character is a woman.

A New 'Testament' Told From Mary's Point Of View : NPR
 
Normally with fiction one doesn't get much more than a glimpse of the thoughts and beliefs of the author but this piece has a very personal feel to it. I think what we are looking at is something personal to the author. Would it alter your perception of the work if I added the fact that at one time he thought of entering the priesthood.

This interview is very revealing of his own life and makes me think this is perhaps more than a little autobiographical even though his main character is a woman.

A New 'Testament' Told From Mary's Point Of View : NPR

That would certainly be something to think about. It would mean to me that he had thought more about religious issues than most of us do. What that might mean for the novel at hand is something worth more careful thought. I'm not sure that many priests or clergy I have known would be recognizably different without their vestments or collar from, say, the usual novelist or parishioner or person

Autobiographical? Maybe. But also maybe in the role of almost any of the characters. :D (Since it is fiction we are looking at.)
 
Back
Top