In the Beauty of the Lilies (where did he get that title from, by the way?) is a saga that follows the fortunes of one American family down through four generations. Two guiding threads throughout the novel -- religious faith, and the movies. How are those intertwined, I wonder?
In the beginning (of the novel) the Reverend Clarence Wilmot suddenly loses his faith. His problem then is: how to you continue preaching the word of God to people, when you don't believe in God? And he can't. So he becomes a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman. (Get it? Secular knowledge substituting for religious faith?) And so begins a slow decline for the family -- which is the opposite of how it's supposed to be in America. With Clarence a shell of his former self, it's up to his wife to pick up the slack. (And there's another thread for you to follow though the book.)
I can't be the only one who's finding the extraordinary detail and heaviness of this book hard to follow. Mostly the historic references are not of much help to me but I still pick up the somber tone John Updike wants his reader to feel. The loss of something that has led your life thus far sounds excruciating. I wonder though why and how Clarence being a minister, never came across these thoughts before that have now led him away from his faith. What else changed that led him to finally discover his misbeliefs?
ReplyDeleteI know you posted this a while ago but I was thinking of all the historic references they were not much help to me either, really they frustrated me more than anything. To research and understand them all would have taken quite some time since in only the first section of the book they are plentiful. I felt I was getting very little meaning out of the text and for me it was what made the details drag on, giving the overall heaviness and difficulty to follow. Nothing irritates me more than being clueless of what your reading. I almost wish this was not a summer reading novel and we were able to dissect with more guidance the references. I feel we would find more substance to the story than we originally thought existed.
DeleteI totally agree with this too. The historical references kind of threw me off. Even though I understood some of them , they distracted from the story. I often found myself flipping back through the pages trying to remember what was actually happening with the characters.
DeleteNot to be contrary but I really enjoyed the historical references, because it allowed me to visualize the setting and how the characters may have dressed. I especially liked being able to connect the characters' actions and beliefs to what was currently happening in history. I was able to see Essie's change from Essie to Alma and attribute it to the changing times she grew up in, where suddenly women were fighting for their rights and dressing much differently. Hopefully this helps. I do agree that the detail was hard to get through, because there was such an abundance of it.
DeleteMaybe its a Nicole thing, but I have to agree with you Nicole. Being someone who really enjoys historical fiction novels, I found the historical references very interesting. I think what is going on during a certain time in history greatly influences how people act, and it shows in this book. It was intriguing to see how attitudes and feelings change as time moves on. It also provided a reason for some of the characters' actions. For example, Teddy's wife and her foot. In that time period it was looked down upon to have something wrong with you and that showed in her personality: unsure and very quiet.
DeleteNicole Howard
I totally agree with both sides of the historical references situation- at times I felt that I had no idea what was going on, especially during the first half of the Clarence section. It seemed like the story was just going nowhere and I had to force myself to read in order to finish. However, once the story got going, I began to enjoy the hisorical references and liked how I could actually connect and understand the time period since we have just recently learned about it during this past year's history class. I also found it to be thought-provoking to see how much each generation had changed, from Clarence's generation to Clark's. Additionally, it was interesting to read how certain events, like a war, were able to change an entire town's attitude, work ethics and realizations/thoughts about the world. For example, "The war gave everybody something to do" (pg. 253). Due to many men deciding to join the army, which led to shortages of workers at factories, women where now allowed to have jobs. Because of this, the workforce had changed since women were now allowed to hold down a job. Athough some parts of this novel did seem to be dragging on forever, I really do believe that the historical references added more depth to the story.
DeleteKirsten Shea
I completely agree with all of you about all the details being confusing. I decided to tackle the larger book of the two first this summer. It left me feeling really defeated because I wasnt getting anything from this book. I had to re-read the first twenty or so pages a few times and started to look up every reference I didnt understand. When that didnt help I just kept reading. While I vaguely understood the story it was just really frustrating not being able to understand and absorbe everything. Like Elise said we would get alot more out of it if we were being guided during the process. However asside from the massive amount of details the big ideas of the story were understandable. Although Clarence didn't have any choice in whether or not to loose his faith, this occurance effected his family for generations to come.
DeleteI totally agree also. I constantly found my self overwhelmed with the heavy wording and detail to the point where by the end of the sentence i had forgotten what it was that they were describing. The part of Teddy was definitely easier to read and follow and made Teddy's part more enjoyable.
DeleteI'd like to clarify that I understand and see how Clarence's change in his life effected his children and ancesters but I wonder what brought him to change his own destiny
ReplyDeleteHi everyone. I agree with the former posts about how Clarence's motives and beliefs were difficult to follow. My impression was that, with each character, their beliefs were shown through past experiences (not necessarily written in chronological order). For example, Clarence explained the history of the church and his personal memories while trying to figure out his conflicting emotions and beliefs. As the story went onto the other characters, the references to former character's lives and beliefs got more and more in-depth and complicated (for instance, Clark referencing Clarence's loss of belief while he is considering his decision to join Jesse's "church"). Using this information, the author then went to show how these experiences impacted their everyday lives, actions, and thoughts. I have a few questions myself. I am wondering about the message conveyed in this book. I think it's about displaying the different perspectives and levels of "loyalty" to certain religious beliefs. Also, I got the impression that Updike was trying to show that differences in religion can be seen not just between strangers, but also between family members (as a sort of "everyone-has-a-right-to-believe-in-what-they-want" message). Do you think I'm on the right track or am I totally misunderstanding the novel? After all, it was kind of hard to follow the story line, with that kind-of crazy family tree, my relatively limited knowledge of religion, and the constant changing of locations.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone-
ReplyDeleteTo answer Mr. MacArthur's question above as to how Updike came to the title (The Beauty of the Lilies), it comes from the poem "Battle-Hymn of the Republic" by Julia Ward Howe. I don't know if this was mentioned in anyone else's copies of the books, but it was printed in mine. It reads:
"In the Beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
while God is marching on."
I'm not very far into this book yet but I will try to see how this relates to the rest of the story.
Hey everyone! This is a long post, so I’m sorry about that. It pertains to the whole book.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Jen in that there is a slight overload of detail throughout the novel. Updike also includes lots of similes in the book; one in particular stands out in my mind (I am just remembering this off the top of my head; therefore, I don’t have a page number): I believe that Teddy was describing Emily’s skin as being as white as lard. I thought that was a really imaginative (and rather odd) thing to use when describing the color white.
I actually liked the historical references. History is by far not my favorite subject, but I think the use of history in this novel really helped set the scene and even did more than that; it showed what these people were going through at the moment, from an insider’s perspective. I would have to agree, however, that some of the historical references dragged on a little too long, and I think there comes a point where the paragraphs of pure history no longer do much to enhance the story line since the history is not directly tied into the plot and connected to the characters.
Throughout the whole book, I found that I really liked each character’s story and the plot line of each section, but I felt that there was a lot of excess information that just confused me. I’m sure there was a reason Updike included everything he did in the book, but sometimes I found myself quite bored and anxiously awaiting an exciting or interesting event to occur that would push the plot forward. For example, at the end of the book, Jesse preaches to the people in the Temple and he recites lines from the Bible for about five pages straight (473-477). I thought that was a little too prolonged; I didn’t really understand what I was supposed to get out of that speech.
I thought it was interesting how the story goes back and forth between the characters loving and hating God. Clarence loved God, then he stopped believing in Him. Teddy hated Him because his father didn’t believe in Him. Esther loved Him, probably mainly because Emily loved Him. From what I remember, Clark never expressed any major feelings towards God until he got pulled into the Temple and then almost had no choice but to love God radically. Speaking of religion, I also found it ironic that Clarence gave up on religion for the film industry, while Clark left the world of American pop culture for religion.
I think a lot of the characters in this book can be nonsensical. Clark figured he could live happily ever after in a secluded religious commune with a bunch of strangers worshipping some farmer guy who claims to be God and who probably loves his guns more than his own children. (Not to mention being “married” to all the women in the house.) Even if he did say that he thought the place was “freaky” (375), he didn’t make any major effort to escape. Also, Esther annoyed me not only when she was a young adult but also as an adult. As a young adult, she wanted every guy she met to see her naked and fall in love with her, including her cousin… As an adult, the first thing that she does when she hears that her son has been shot and killed is look in the mirror to see if her reaction looks “actressy” (487). Nope, it looks genuine, we’re good. She thought of her career before her son…well that’s odd.
What does the last line mean? “…carrying or holding on to the hands of their children, too many to count. The children.” A simple interpretation would be that this whole book revolved around generations of a family and, therefore, children. I think there is more to it, though.
Sup Team, just finished this book, quite the haul! I have to agree with you Jenna, when I finished the book and read the last line "... the children." I was extremely confused. This is what I believe.
ReplyDeleteI believe the last line is "The children." because each section of the book, or the different family generations, revolves around the children and what happens next. If you noticed in life, and in the book, what happens to your parents generation strongly effects next generation. I believe the last line is "The Children" to hint on the fact that death separated Clark, Jesse, and the other fanatics but their affect on the children will live on through future generations.
Another topic I want to discuss is how certain character flaws are highlighted in the ensuing generation, and either acted upon or denounced. When Clarence's faith started to stumble, and he passed away, Teddy decided to build upon that stumbling faith by having no faith at all! Then when Teddy marries the Sifford girl, who believes she is physically flawed just because she has a limp and deformed foot, Essie (or Alma) becomes a practical beauty queen and model! Then Clark, whose mother is world famous and in the spotlight, desperate for a sense of belonging, runs off to a commune in the middle of nowhere and is in complete hiding, until of course the shooting happens.
Michael Johnson
I also think that this book shows the affect on future generations based on how one generation of children was treated and raised. To me, it seemed like each following generation had a lot of significant differences from the previous generation, but you could understand the changes based on how the children were brought up.
DeleteDallon Asnes
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteI've only read the first section of this book; it was pretty hard to get through to be honest. Not because it was terrible, but simply because Updike had a lot of deep thoughts, which made it a pretty painstakingly slow read. Still, I do think it is very well written so far. I think for the most part I am understanding what Updike is getting at (the personal turmoil Clarence is going through as well as the general struggles of America in the early 1900's), although a lot of the historical allusions go right over my head. To touch on what Jen and Danielle said about Clarence's somewhat sudden lack of faith in God, I also thought at first that maybe Updike didn't present the whole picture, like we were lacking information that would clue us in on the reason of Clarence's loss of faith. Looking back, however, I don't think that is so. It seems to me that Clarence was exposed to skeptics (atheists like Ingersoll) during his early studies at Princeton (which his professors attempted to refute), and through the years, the current struggles and problems in America caused old doubts about God to resurface. Looking back, Clarence says, "There is no God. Perhaps everybody, back to his professors at Princeton, had known it already" (p. 40). Page 66 and 67 in my book give pretty good reasoning behind why Clarence lost faith in God. The paragraph "Clarence felt he was being tugged rather far from the point of his visit." to "Meaning to undermine them, I was undermined instead!" In short, he basically says reading to many atheist works caused him to lose faith.
Hello! I have recently finished the first section of this book, and I am just so frustrated. Clarence lost his faith, as Melissa said, through reading too many books of evolution and science. I can understand that, a lot of people have trouble piecing together faith and science. However, what I can not understand is the fact that Clarence knew he was the one bringing in enough money to take care of his family and he also knew that if he quit his job, not only would he not be able to find another suitable one, but that he also would not be bringing in nearly enough money to sustain. But, he quits anyway. Now I understand that he couldn't think of sermons or even try to preach them; but it seems like he didn't even make an effort to try and regain his faith or even fake it. I am having a hard time getting over his selfishness toward his life and his family. He put his family through utter pain and suffering to the day he died, and even then his family experienced more pain. Wasn't there anything he could have done?
ReplyDeleteIn addition to this, I just have to comment on the excess of detail that Updike uses. I found it very hard to follow the plot line because of all the explanations. I felt myself getting wrapped up in detail after detail and then getting back to the storyline and forgetting what exactly had come before it. However, I found all of the historical references to be very helpful in the setting of the scene. Updike really brought the reader back to that era and I applaud him for that.
So far, I am frustrated with how Clarence treated his family but I am interested to meet the other characters and to see how the generations unfold.
Nicole Howard
Nicole,
DeleteI do agree that from an outside perspective it is hard to understand how Clarence could consciously make his family suffer such heavy financial consequences. But if you put yourself in his shoes, you realize that if you were in the same position how hard it is to not act so selfishly. God and religion was the foundation of his life, it answered every question and gave him a purpose in his life that nothing else could do quite as well. Reading those books of science and
evolution shook the only definite thing in his life that he could always lean and depend on: his faith. Imagine finding out that everything in your life, everything you believed in, may not be true. It completely changed his life, it took away all the comfort, confidence and purpose in his life and replaced it with fear and uncertainty. He didn't see any meaning in his life and any meaning working in an occupation that he did not believe in, and he felt lost. If you felt out the forty years of your life were a lie, it would be extremely difficult to function, and knowing that I feel it is not right to be too hard on him for acting as he did, because I know that if I were in the same position I would probably act in the same way.
Sierra Jesanis
I also just finished the section from Clarence's point of view. I agree with Nicole's point that Clarence's choice to leave the ministry was a very selfish decision. But I can also understand why it wasn't possible for him to stay. He says early on that he felt as though he would be a poor influence to the people of the church, and he didn't want to be held responsible for influencing them to become faithless. He still held a certain amount of compassion for the holy community, and felt that if he stayed, he would be doing more damage than good. It's very hard to preach something if you don't truly believe, and that's obviously where he struggled. That still isn't the greatest reason for leaving, but it shows that Clarence cared more about what was morally right than money or materialistic items.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued to see how Clarence's loss of faith will influence Teddy's life in the next generation of the story, and hope the pace of the plot starts to pick up from here.
Kelsey Riesbeck
Nicole-Clarence did realize the impact that leaving the church would have on his family. But he is in such a bad, miserable place in his life at this point, that you can't really charge him for being selfish. His motives were not selfish. I think he did the right thing to quit because he clearly could not continue in the state that he was. He wasn't doing anyone any good at that point, as Kelsey pointed out(besides supporting his family financially). Also, at this point his kids are capable of earning money, especially Jared. The situation is not ideal, but it is a necessary one considering Clarence's complete collapse of faith in his occupation and in God. Also, he deserves some credit for at least continuing to try to support the family through the other jobs he did after he quit. He never intended to abandon his family; and it is clear that he does feel guilty about quitting, but helpless at the same time.
ReplyDeleteHi everyone,
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is an American patriotic song. Therefore, I think the main, general reason why this book is titled In the Beauty of the Lilies is because it is centered around the evolution of America throughout the time span of 80 years.
I agree with you, Megan, in that the central theme is definitely related to loyalty to certain religions. I think Updike was playing on the theme of where faith can go and how it can change, even within one family.
I was also thinking that it’s interesting how Updike mirrored the loss of religious faith in our society and its apparent replacement by the movies by showing Clarence’s and Teddy’s lack of faith which transforms into Essie’s obsession with the cinema. I am just a little confused on the point of including Clark’s sudden involvement with the religious commune…I’m not sure how that relates back to the history of our country.
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteI just finished this book, and surprisingly enjoyed the book for the most part. Although Updike's writing is very stylized and intricate, I found it to be beautifully written and with much attention to details.
One thing that I found very interesting about this book was the characters. I never found myself rooting for one character in particular because I found them each to be very flawed in ways that didn't make them especially admirable. Each character appeared to have a desire to conform to society's role for them, despite what their hearts were telling them to do. For example, although Clarence did decide that he wanted to leave the church, he ultimately went with what the church told him to do, and stayed an extra year. Teddy followed his family and their dreams for him by traveling to Delaware and later New York, and also by going to college for his mother. Essie molded herself to fit society's bill for the perfect woman by changing her physical features, her name, and by doing things that made her uncomfortable. Clark found himself rejected by the rest of society, and therefore joined Temple, just so he cold be accepted. Due to these similarities, I couldn't make myself really love and invest myself into their lives and storylines.
One of the main themes in this book as previously pointed out is the movies. The movies represent something different to each character whether it is fame, opportunity, solace or shame, and are a continuous motif in the story. The movies are one of the very few things that connect the family together, and show that they are all still Wilmots deep down.
Now I have a few questions. One of the character's that I liked the best (mostly out of pity) was Clark. Why did Clark, in the end, make the brave decision to turn his back on Jesse and do what was right? What inspired him to finally take action? Why did he never do anything so drastic before and why did he take his life in the end?
Katie Gorsky
After re-reading the very end of the book again, I realize that I was mistaken. Clark did not take his own life, he was overtaken by the fire that surrounded him. Is it better that he died in the fire, or would he have been happy living a life after these events? Was this death worthy of his actions?
ReplyDeleteKatie Gorsky
Katie- As far as why Clark did not take action prior to the climax of his arc, I personally believe it was because that was the first point in his experience with the cult that he could count on having a purpose without them in his life. He only ever seemed to join up with them in the first place because he was, as Hannah described him, "lost". Jesse is one of the precious few people treating Clark as his own person and not just his mother's bland son. But when the opportunity arises to be a hero and save the women and children of the group, Clark is finally able to validate himself without relying on Jesse's influence.
Delete-Sarah Torrey
Hi! I just read Teddy's section of the story, and thought that I would share some of my thoughts. I found that I enjoyed Teddy's point of view considerably more than Clarence's story. I think this is because I liked his character and outlook on life more than his father's. I also thought it was cool to see America changing through Teddy's eyes, since he didn't really partake in any of the jazz agers actions. Another thing I found interesting was that Teddy didn't want to live his life like Clarence, yet he still wouldn't attend church or pray for fear of "going behind his father's back." Even though he doesn't nesessarily realize it, his father greatly influenced his life. I was happy to see that this section of the book was much more uplifting than the last, and hope that it continues in this fashion with Essie.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Riesbeck
So I actually finished this book a while ago, and I agree with what everybody said about this book being slow to start. If it wasn't assigned I probably would have put it down after the first 30 pages. I thought it got a lot better as it went on. By the time I got to the end I was really into it.
ReplyDeleteI think one thing that was interesting in this book was how John Updike tied the theme of faith into a lot of problems that we're having in the world today. As science progresses and we continue to see a lot of terrible things happen in the world, many people are losing their faith, just as Clarence did. We also see a lot of religious zealots, like Jesse who do nothing to better religion's name. I felt that Updike made a point that more people should try to remember today, he pushed the idea that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, as long as they aren't doing any harm. Both Teddy and Clarence firmly believed this and lived by it, thought neither of them were religious. He does show that too much faith can be harmful through Clark, who followed Jesse blindly until the very end.
I also felt that this book showed a great deal about how different people relate to god and their families. One of the main things that I noticed about this book was how Essie perceived her grandfather Clarence as a god- like figure when in fact he was an atheist, and his lack of devotion to god had ruined his life. That was very ironic, and also showed how we often don't see the people that influence us the most in the way that they actually are.
I also thought that this book showed the changing roles of women throughout several decades quite well through their relationships with men. We start off with Stella, who for the most part obeys her husband because that is the norm at the time. Even though she is a very liberated woman for that time period, Clarence still mentions that he is shocked at her sexual appetite. We then have Emily, who won't sleep with Teddy until he agrees to marry her, although they do sleep together before being married. We then see a distinct change in Alma who "collects" boys. She is very sexually liberated, which is somewhat representative of the women in her time period.
I also wondered if anybody understood why the movie star was included at the beginning of the book? I know she was mentioned later briefly, but I felt it was never explained. Was her fall just there as a physical metaphor for Clarence's spiritual and social fall?
I have to agree with most of you, this book was a slow read. I usually love detail in a story but this is almost to excess. I liked that the changing in time was not just made by Updike stating a date or a year because truthfully, I do not remember my life by year or dates. I mainly remember seasons and events. Sometimes though his descriptions of the times almost started to draw me in more than the story plot. There were points when I had to go back a bit just to see where the characters where before continuing on.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the way the story was told through generations. Each generation had its own history and own perspective on what had happened with the family and what was happening in the present. I read the book on a Kindle and for some reason a large portion from the end of Teddy's section (right before he goes to live with his brother) was not where it was supposed to be but rather at the end of the book so it was a bit confusing at first but I pieced it together.
I am not sure if anyone else saw this but at the end when Clark died the whole family line ended. We don't know about Teddy's nieces and nephews but the family that the story followed ended.
Katie- I think that when Clark died it was from being shot by Jim and then being burned. When Teddy comes back into the story (again on the Kindle and can't find page numbers) it says, "a Wilmot shot to death and charred to cinders out in some Godforsaken nowhere out west."
I have more to talk about but I will post it as people start mentioning it and as I get the words together.
Kelsey- I also recently finished the "Teddy" section, and I agree with everything you have to say. Throughout the whole book I have found it fascinating how Updike has incorporated so much history into his book. He provides insight into the experiences, attitudes and emotions of someone living in that time period. Also, I found Teddy's character to also be very intriguing as well. Just as Kelsey said, he believes everything his father did, but lives a totally separate life from him. As I moved into the Essie section, it is easy to see parts of Clarence in Teddy, but also at the same time, Teddy chooses his own paths without an influence from his father.
ReplyDeleteNicole Howard
Nicole- I agree that for the most part Teddy makes his own decisions and does not follow the life of his father. However, he did follow his father when, after watching his father lose all faith, he decided to never believe in God again. Later on in his life he married Emily who was Methodist but he never went to church and never spoke to his children about Christianity. Teddy never had any faith in God throughout the majority of his life, all because of his father. I think this shows that Clarence truly did influence Teddy’s life quite a bit.
DeleteOnce I finished this book, I sat and wondered; is it really possible to simply lose one's faith instantaneously? I mean, there has to be some sort of motive or something. That's one thing that really bothered me about the book, is the suddenness of the decline of the characters. For instance, the preacher Clarence is a man of God and dedicates his life the to teachings of Him, and I can't help wondering that someone with such a strong and direct connection to God would simply give up hope on himself and the world around him.
ReplyDeleteSo I asked my priest earlier today at church and he said that he knew a person who was deeply religious, came to a Mass every weekend, prayed at home, and was a very invested part of the congregation. He continued to tell me that this man was stricken with the loss of his wife and one of his children, however he still was faithful to God to get him through it. On one day though the man came by to a confession service where he unraveled himself saying that he didn't believe in God anymore and that he wouldn't be attending the Masses.
To me, this man seemed to have a purpose to stop believing, but the novel doesn't (at least in Clarence's case) did not have me buying that his faith had just expired. With this being the key theme of the book, it took a lot out of me make up reasons for this man to give up his religious beliefs so abruptly. Can anyone help me come up with some reasons that Clarence or any other character would lose their confidence in a higher power so unexpectedly?
Andy Lenoce
Andy, I completely agree, it is very frustrating, as everyone is pointing out, that we do not know the cause his loss of faith. Maybe the author is leaving the reason open-ended on purpose? Although it's not what any of us really want to hear, since I think we are all really curious, maybe it was intentional. Perhaps the author is trying to make the point that his decision affected the rest of Clarence's life (as well as his families) and is not focused on why. Just an idea, I am just as curious as you though. I agree that faith can not completely "disappear". There has to be motive and reason behind a lifestyle change as large as that.
DeleteAndy-
DeleteI think that it actually makes sense as to why Clarence lost his faith. What I've seen happen a lot of times with adults is that they are expected to do something or think that a certain career is best for them, even if it's not. Sometimes once they have been in career or sport or any commitment for a long time, they begin to just lose steam and passion for what they loved. I think that this could go along with Clarence too, and he maybe just lost passion and didn't think that he was the best for the job. I'm not sure if this is what happened, but it's just another idea!!
Katie Gorsky
Andy-
DeleteI totally agree with you. After reading this section I was extremely frustrated. Clarence did, however, keep mentioning the point that everything comes from something and evolution and science. I think as Katie said, he wasn't in the career he wanted to be in, and this new discovery of science sort of pushed him over the edge and he lost the little bit that he believed in. That is what I got from that section, there is probably some strange deeper meaning, but here's my explanation!
Nicole Howard
Andy-
DeleteWhen I read about Clarence losing his faith I felt it was more built up. He says at one point that he has focused so much on reading these atheist texts to disprove them that he has started to realize that they are right. I thought the scene we read where he actually lost his faith was just the moment he realized that it was entirely gone.
Although the book doesn't explain it deeply, Clarence's faith was lost because of his studies of many of atheism's greatest minds, causing him to eventually believe all that they said. Now, that's not to say that that could or will happen to everyone who studies those people, but in Clarence's case that was what happened. We just didn't see Clarence from the beginning so we never got to see the buildup.
DeleteAndy- the only somewhat logical reason that I could come up with for this sudden loss of faith in Clarence was that it was built up over time. I don't think he realized he was being influenced by the many anti-Christ books he had read. Ingersoll and Darwin were so convincing that after a while, he started to believe in what they were preaching. I think maybe his "sudden loss of faith" was actually a realization that he hadn't truly believed in God for a while. I don't know, but those are my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, I was really surprised by the ending of the story. I never liked Jesse and his incessant preaching, but I didn't think he was that crazy until he set the whole temple on fire. I'd have to say that this book became increasingly better with each section, and it was interesting to see the family age and expand.
Kelsey Riesbeck
So I have read the first two sections on Clarence and Teddy so far, and I figured I'd share my thoughts. When I first started reading this novel, I found the detail to be hard to follow and quite overwhelming. Based on the comments I've read, it looks like I wasn't the only one. The extent to which Updike explained Clarence's sudden loss of faith seemed a little excessive to me, but that's just my personal opinion. I agree with what Nicole said initially about Clarence seeming not to even try to regain his faith. I understand that his loss of faith had probably been building up for a while. However, when he realized he had completely lost that faith, he just accepted the fact without even attempting to rebuild it. He knew it would have significant effect on his life and his family's life, and he acknowledged that, but then didn't put any effort in trying to fix it. That just really bothered me about Clarence. I don't think he was being selfish necessarily, because he did try other jobs like trying to sell encyclopedias afterwards to support his family, but I just don't think he put any real effort into regaining his faith. I also would like to comment on Clarence's love for the movies. This might seem like an odd question, but if his family was struggling so much with money, how did he afford to go to the movies so often? This is just something little I noticed and was curious about.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Clarence section of the book, I wasn't really interested in the story and wasn't particularly looking forward to the rest of the book, however I have changed my mind after reading the section on Teddy. Overall, I really enjoyed Teddy's view on life. I really liked the history aspect of this section, personally, and found his thoughts on the industrial revolution to be really interesting. I found was able to appreciate Updikes detail alot more for some reason in this section.
Kristen Machuga
I definitely agree with everyone saying that the book is difficult to follow. So far I have only read Clarence and Teddy's parts, and already I have a lot more questions than I had for A Moon for the Misbegotten. I prefer Eugene O'Neill's writing style to Updike's incredibly detailed and confusing style. There are many times where I feel that I lose important elements of the story because I'm too wrapped up in Updike's extensive details and deep thoughts. One thing I do like about the book is its title. I think it's very appropriate that it comes from the Battle Hymn of the Republic, a very patriotic song. It really ties together with all of the history in the book, since the book spans nearly 80 years of American history seen by four generations of the family. So a couple questions that have already occurred to me are:
ReplyDeleteMy first question seems to be the question everyone else is asking. Why did Clarence lose his faith so suddenly? I’m sorry but this is one aspect of the book I cannot find completely believable. Many of you have posted your opinions and ideas, and while they have all been interesting and creative I still can’t quite wrap my head around it. I’m someone who prefers clean cut and defined answers, so the fact that this question was left up to the reader’s interpretation made me dislike the book that much more. I realize Updike probably did this on purpose, but I’m just not a fan of how he left it open. It would have been much easier to grasp and possibly more entertaining and plausible if he had given an explanation the minister’s loss of faith. I’ll definitely be checking the blog to see if anyone comes up with more answers for this.
My other question is why are the movies and cinema such a big focus of the book? I don’t know if anyone is going to be able to answer this question, but it popped into my head while reading and I would like to know other people’s thoughts on the subject. Again, it might just be my curiosity focusing on something that’s unnecessary and specific. I kind of liked this aspect of the book however, so I’d love to know what everyone else is thinking! Thanks, I’ll post more questions as I go.
Emily Kopsick
Emily- As someone who actually has been swayed from Christianity to atheism in their lifetime, I actually found Clarence's description of it believable (if extremely melodramatic). The best way I could describe a transition of faith is that no matter how much time or influence from outside forces (Clarence seems to have had an ample amount of both) it takes, the actual moment you make a conscience decision to stop/begin believing in something feels incredibly sudden, because there are so many changes in the way you see the world that couldn't possibly have taken place until that very second. It's like someone switching a light switch in your brain.
Delete(Take that with a grain of salt, it's purely based on personal experience and others may disagree completely).
As for the movies, I think they were portrayed as an alternative to religion. The symbolism is certainly there. Clarence and Teddy turn to movies in the absence of religion, Esther becomes a literal "goddess" through movies, Clark is taught that movies are a Satanic form of false idols.
Emily, I agree that "A Moon for the Misbegotten" was much easier to follow than this book. I prefer O'Neill's work to Updike's not only because the writing is less confusing, but also because the play was much shorter and quicker to the point than was "In the Beauty of the Lilies."
DeleteDallon Asnes
Sarah-
DeleteI think your take on the movies makes a lot of sense. I noticed that movies was a symbol that did come up quite often. However, in the beginning I didn't understand why the author would use so much effort writing about movies but as you read the book the symbolism does show.
Eujin Kim
Actually, the book does explain how Clarence lost his faith, all though it is not in detail. Basically, back when he was in college he studied many atheists and over time their ideas became more and more plausible to him and he had the realization that god isn't real.
DeleteAs for the aspect of the book that focused on the movie industry, I believe it was put in there to set the stage of the time period. Movies were a humongous part of pop culture back then, even more so than now. Updike most likely did this to not only make the book more interesting, but also to set the stage for the time period Essie grew up in. Had she been a regular home town girl, somewhat like both of her parents, it would have been somewhat redundant to the book. We needed a different feel to move the book along, as well as something to make us grasp what things were like back then.
When I first started reading this book, I had real difficulty when trying to make my way through it. At first I did not enjoy the book, yet I am unsure what was the main reason for my aversion. I did not find it very easy to relate to some of the older generations, especially Clarence, even though I understood the content. Times were very different then, and yet there are some minor similarities through the generations, such as when Teddy worked as a soda jerk, and kids went to the drugstore to get ice cream or sodas. This was similar to nowadays when kids go to the 7-11. I also found that as I progressed further through the book, I enjoyed the book a great deal more than when I started it, so much that by the end I really wanted to find out what would happen in the temple. I liked the way John Updike transitioned from each character and generation, it flowed well. That said, even though I haven't read too many books in this style, I did enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteGreg Wooding
One thing I would also like to comment on, since everyone seems to either be confused, or have their own opinion, is about Clarence. When I read that he, as a minister, had just suddenly lost his faith, I was quite confounded and confused. When the book opened up with this, it immediately make me dislike the book, simply for the confusion. I am not entirely sure the main reason Clarence lost his faith, but I believe it to sue to many factors. One, as others would agree, is because of all the anti-religious scripture and books he had read. Normally this would have been fine, as a minister, to find somewhere to place an argument against, to prove his religion. However, it appears that over the years, these books have not done good for him as a minister, but have simply become a factor of his loss of faith. Another reason I believe might be a cause of Clarence's sudden faithlessness, was the fact that he was getting older, and the more he went on with this ministry, he began to believe it less, until it became routine, something he MUST do, rather than something he wants to do. These are the two main reasons I believe Clarence simply lost his faith. This really seemed to affect Teddy in the book, because Teddy never went to church and reasoned, that why should he attend church and be religious, when God had seemingly just abandoned Clarence. I just thought it was an interesting chain of cause and effect, and how it really sent a tremor down his family line.
ReplyDeleteGreg Wooding
Hey everyone-
ReplyDeleteI am now almost done with the Essie/Alma section of the novel. It's been said a million times already, but it definitely was difficult to make it through the Clarence section; very slow, not much going on. I have enjoyed the novel much more since then, though. I was almost saddened when reading Essie's story how much she had branched to the materialistic world. Again, I am not quite done but I will be soon. She is so willing to give away her body do achieve the fame she so much admired as a girl. The most interesting part for me was when Essie's cousin asks her what she wants, and her reply was a house, a husband, and children. Immediately, Patrick scoffs at her and tells her what she wants. It seems to be a reoccurring trend that the Wilmots are told what they want. With Clarance's meeting with Dreaver, when he suggests he should not leave the church and see if he rediscovers his faith in time. We see it again with Teddy, who remarks on how he recognizes he is intelligent enough, but says he will leave the accomplishing to others. This of course does not sit well with his mother and aunt, who push him to get a job and a wife. I loved Essie's love for everything and sheer faith and confidence in herself, but it quickly vanished as soon as she became a teenager. I am intrigued to see how the novel will close.
Emily K- In the novel I believe Clarence says his loss in faith was a long time coming- how he lost a little at a time. The novel opens when the last of his faith is gone. I agree though that this is odd; my understanding was that he was influenced by the more factual, scientific discoveries that had proof from the books he read, but, as a priest, shouldn't he always have faith?
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I forgot to mention in my last post- I love seeing mentions of historical events we learned in history this year, such as the stock market crash, the Scopes case, and various presidents we have studied. I think it takes this fictional story and puts it into perspective with our country's true history. It also reminds me of Forest Gump a little, the way history is tied into everything. That's a bit of a stretch, but you get what I mean.
Emily B
Emily I also thought that the mentions of historical events was awesome knowing that we just learned that in our junior year. For the Forest Gump reference, it is a bit of a stretch but I do get what you mean by it. The way the characters are affected by it and the way it definitely ties everything together does remind me of Forest Gump.
DeleteEujin Kim
In response to all the Clarence confusion, I think that his loss in faith really did build up over time. As Greg said, the longer he did it the more it became routine and something he had to do. And the longer he worked for the church, the more time he had to doubt it. Opening up with this loss in faith made me immediately enjoy the novel. It had such a twist and showed true human behavior, even in being the fictional story it is.
ReplyDeleteEmily B- I totally agree about the historical references. I found it much easier to get through the book because of them. I was also able to put it into the perspective of our history.
I agree with Haley that Updike does a very good job of showing the connection between loss of faith and our world's technological advances. As pieces of modern society unfold they leave less room or necessity for religion.
ReplyDeleteHaving read the first section on Clarence, I found that I was extremely discouraged. I felt as though we as the readers were missing information; how did he lose his faith in the spur of the moment when it has been his life and livelihood for so many years? And, why accept this fact and quit his job so quickly when that also meant accepting that he wouldn't be able to provide for his family anymore? I do see how he could have had trouble melding his knowledge of science with his faith, but shouldn't he then have been questioning his beliefs for a longer period of time? Why not fight to get back what he has lost?
ReplyDeleteHowever slow and troubling the first section of the novel may have been, I found that as I was introduced to more members of the family, I was much more interested in the story as a whole. What I began to realize was that flaws of each generation were reflected in the next. For example, Clarence living most of his adult life through his faith, and abruptly losing it, is reflected in the complete lack of any faith in his son Teddy's life. Also, Esther living her life believing she was deformed, making her inferior, contributes to her daughter Essie's vain, entitled view of herself. In my opinion it was almost as if the children were overcompensating for the shortcomings of their parents; preventing any possibility of becoming like them.
Upon re-reading part of Teddy’s section I have possibly found a clue into part of the reason for Clarence’s abrupt decision to leave the church. Right before Clarence’s death Teddy wandered into the sick room to see if Clarence was still alive. When this happened, Clarence had a deep conversation with Teddy that revealed a glimpse into Clarence’s past. “’If I’d valued myself more, I wouldn’t have let my dad scare me into the ministry. He was the one who wanted to preach, and instead he ran a gravel pit’”(Updike 115). From this evidence you can see that Clarence never really felt at ease with being a reverend from the start. Although this isn’t the exact reason for Clarence’s sudden loss of faith in God, it could have been one of the things that was slowly eating away at Clarence his whole life. I agree with the people who said that Clarence’s loss of faith in God was built up over time from the varies anit-God books he read in college, but I also think that from this point from Clarence’s past, maybe he never truly believed in God to begin with and was looking to please his father. All of this doubt built up inside him over the years and finally caused him to snap. I could be wrong, but I definitely think that Clarence’s father forcing him into the ministry had an effect on Clarence’s ultimate decision.
ReplyDelete- Kristina Fusco
It was also clear to me that Clarence never really wanted to start in the ministry. I think we could see that with his later interest in film, where he could watch and feel like he lived another person's life. His decision to quit the ministry later influenced Teddy, since he was very picky with his job choices. I think that Clarence didn't want to pressure him into anything, and live the life he wish he could've.
DeleteI think his spark in interest in film was only due to the fact that he was tired of the way he was living and his only escape was through film. If he were content with his life he wouldn't have felt the need to see a film everyday to feel some kind of relief. I feel Clarence's dissatisfaction with his life lead to his interest and obsession of film. Seeing a film about someone's life struggles made him appreciate the little he did have in his life even if it were for a just a moment. Clarence was trying to cling onto what little hope for his life he had.
DeleteI have such mixed emotions when it comes to Clarence and his section of the novel I find him confusing and frustrating but at the same time I almost admire him. I don’t think he ever had faith to begin with,I don’t think faith is something you can truly lose. To me Clarence appeared as a fake hes truly not satisfied with his life but I think he chose to pursue it because it easily gave him a higher-standard of living and respect. Perhaps reading Darwin and the other works that sparked his atheism really gave him a new perception and a sense of guilt for deceiving everyone. These atheist views seem so obvious and accurate that it makes the ministry which Clarence once treasured (for the wrong reasons) look foolish especially to someone who’s lacking in faith. Perhaps what seemed even more foolish was the act he had been putting on. He didn’t have to enter the ministry to find the life he was looking for he could have gone the complete opposite direction toward secular knowledge and have found true fulfillment. I admire him because he tries to change his ways even though he is sacrificing everything. He is given countless ways out of this madness to just slip back into his game of charades. To everyone else all he needed was to pray and place blame on a kind of mid-life crisis. Dreaver seemed to have all the answers that would satisfy someone with weakest faith. His persistence to undo his lies seems admirable but going so long not being true to yourself has serious consequences that not only now he must face but his family as well.
ReplyDelete-Elise Phelan
Elise I completely agree with your post, I believe Clarence did not have true faith to begin with and even if he did it was because of the influence of his family and not from his own. I did not consider his actions being admirable but now that I have read your post I can see where you're coming from, sacrificing a job of high respect, pay, and with full knowledge that it would affect your family is very hard to do without having a guilty conscience.
DeleteAfter I finished the fist section of the book I found myself almost angry with Clarence. Right off the bat he comes to this personal revelation that God isn't real for him and that he has no faith. He keeps repeating this too. Clarence starts reading about scientific origins and evolution and realizes that he's "wasted" his life being someone with faith. One thing that bothered me about this whole thing is that he kept bringing up how he felt this new emptiness within him after he decided to stop believing in God. It just seems strange to me because he knew why he felt empty and I think that it wouldn't have been such a chore to refill that emptiness. He made no attempt and trying to continue with his job which left him and his family with nothing. In a way I do understand what he was trying to do. Like Elise said, he was trying to find his true self instead of pretending to be something he no longer was. However I feel that the way he went about it was incorrect. His methods left his family dangling by a thread. In the next section Teddy even says how he could never forget how run down and worn his father became after leaving the church. Clarence left his son with an unhappy image. I think that Clarence had the right motives, but he went about it using the wrong methods.
ReplyDeleteSo I just finished In the Beauty of the Lillies and, reading a few of the comment, I can see that many people's thoughts mirrored my own.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I really enjoyed the fact that throughout the entire book Updike continued to reference historical events. It not only gave us a timeline of the story without flat out writing dates, but it also gave a more human aspect to the characters. There are many times in the section "Teddy" where he remember certain things by comparing them to worldwide events. This give a more human feel to me because it seems that everyone always remembers where they were when big events happened. For example, many of us remember where we were when Osama Bin Laden was found or when Michael Jackson died. These little historical details made the characters that much more relatable.
In addition, I agree with many of you that Clarence's section was the toughest to get through. Updike's in depth descriptions seemed lengthy and almost unnecessary. However, it really only seemed excessive in that section. By the time I was done with the section "Teddy", and then "Esther", I had much more interest in the story line. Maybe it was because Teddy's issues seemed more relatable to teenagers. All of us are going to be seniors and the idea of trying to find out the rest of our lives is very daunting. That aspect of Teddy's story was much engaging than Clarence's main issue of loss of faith. I'm not saying that Clarence's loss of faith wasn't important, for it was a reoccurring ordeal throughout all the sections, but for me, it wasn't was relatable as Teddy's.
I agree with you all that Clarence was somewhat hard to associate with, and I also see Katie's point that his complete disconnect from responsibility could even make him irritating at times. I was particularly frustrated with him after first finishing his section, before tracing down the family line through Teddy and the others. However, once those next generation stories were expanded on, I felt my understanding of each new character added to my interpretation of Clarence. Essie's portion in particular had this affect, as she continually drew on his absence as a source of mystery and possibility in her life. It is touched on a few times that Essie fosters a hope of taking after the unknown grandparent, embodying any admirable qualities she could guess at him having. Seeing Clarence from that point of view demonstrated to me that he held more importance than a frustrating struggle with faith or the immediate strain on his family. His lasting and layered affects throughout the story went right along with the greater motif of a faith struggle greatly outlasting any one lifetime.
ReplyDeleteHello again! Although this is a little different than the traditional posts, I hope it is acceptable. :) While reading, I underlined my favorite quotes. I always do this, but this time I can share them, so here goes!(page numbers are from my copy so I apologize if it doesn't match up with anyone else's!)
ReplyDelete"Life’s sounds all rang with a curious lightness and flatness, as if a resonating base beneath them had been removed.” (Updike 7)
“…pain is a fact of human existence.” (50)
“I suggest to you that men are not plants, they have minds and souls and free wills, they are responsible for their deeds and eternal consequences of these deeds.” (51)
These past two quotes were from Clarence’s moving and monumental sermon if that helps set the scene!
“[Faith] is not some merely intellectual choice. It is basic human strength. It is manliness and womanliness. It gives courage and cheer from the infant’s first steps to the aged’s last breath. Without it, we’re the servant who buries his talent in the ground.” (70)
“He was old enough now to see that life is a bent path among branching possibilities- after you move past a fork in the road you cannot get back.” (122)
Teddy’s thoughts.
“He didn’t want to have to compete, and yet this seemed the only way to be an American. Be stretched or strike.” (139)
Teddy again.
“In America opportunity doesn’t keep knocking.” (159)
“Always, he felt how dangerous adult life was, how frought with gambles that could go sour.” (160)
This is still Teddy speaking.
“Life basically had to be endured. Nature fought for you until it turned against you.” (162)
“I think people should be free to do what they want unless it’s hurting someone else.” (171)
This is Emily speaking to Teddy.
“Being alone was like being alone on the deck of a great dark ship slowly moving through an unseen sea.” (245)
Essie’s thoughts.
“One of the sensations she loved was being hidden, crouching where legs and voices would go by with nobody knowing she was there. People seemed larger and less predictable, spied on.” (247)
Essie, again.
“If God were too eager to please, who would worship Him?” (310)
Essie.
“So much loneliness in living, so much waste. So much unredeemable loss.” (334)
Essie.
“We try to live as the lilies, but we must eat, we must wear clothes. We’re not angels, Clark; we’re human beings waiting to be saved.”
Hannah talking to Clark.
“That’s the penalty of success. Nobody knows when to stop. Everybody always wants more.” (407)
Teddy talking to Clark.
“Every trip to the moon took something away from God.” (408)
“Man is a mixed bag, a landscape of swamps and caves as well as sunlit slopes. Reality is a kind of movie the self projects, and the director of special effects just needs a decent budget to turn the sun black as a sackcloth of hair, and roll back the scroll of the sky, and cast the stars down from the sky as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs when she is shaken in a mighty wind.” (436)
“There’s never an end to needing.” (488)
Sorry it’s so long, I hope someone else enjoys the quotes as much as I did.
I like all of the quotes you chose! My favorite one is from Emily when she says, "I think people should be free to do what they want unless it’s hurting someone else"(171). I think that expresses her character very well. She's always kind and supportive of all her family members, and never complains.
DeleteI enjoyed reading the quotes you chose, simply because each quote is what makes the book so important and full of depth. The quote that I think is most true is "That's the penalty of success. Nobody knows when to stop. Everybody always wants more." (407) When a person accomplishes a goal or an idea, they want to raise the bar and achieve a higher more complicated goal. But when it comes to showbusiness like in this novel, Alma/Essie never knew when to stop acting. She not only didn't know when to stop acting, but she always wanted the bigger, better roles-she didn't think she deserved to act as a smaller part in the play or act older than she actually was. I do agree with this quote wholeheartedly because I feel that when success is achieved, some people do not no when enough is enough.
DeleteKirsten Shea
Nicole- I loved reading those quotes. They each seem to apply to real life in their own way. I actually underlined one quote in my book, and it was the same quote on page 436 that you picked out! I love that quote because of its vivid description and the fact that it applies so well to the real world. I have to agree with Kelsey in that I also liked the quote on page 171 that you found: “I think people should be free to do what they want unless it’s hurting someone else.” It’s such a simple concept, but people never seem to understand this. It seems that humans have always had trouble accepting others if they don’t like how they look, what they believe in, etc., but this quote says in the simplest way possible that people should be allowed to do whatever pleases them, as long as it is not harming others in the process. Thanks for those great quotes, Nicole!
DeleteAs a whole, I didn’t find this book to be all that interesting. I thought it dragged in parts and it just wouldn’t have been something I would’ve read if on my own. However, after reading this book, I did notice how it almost made a complete circle in its view of religion. Starting with Clarence, the book had a view of God not being real and not existing. However, before the book began, Clarence must’ve had faith, or he would not have become a minister. So we really start with a lack of faith but with a background of faith. Teddy grows up without going to church and really with no thought to religion because of how he must’ve seen his father ruined by his sudden lack of faith. From him, Essie/Alma has faith, but she keeps it mostly to herself. She goes to church with her mother and Ama but she keeps her prayers secret between her and God. However, her son takes it to the extreme. Clark/Esau/Slick becomes incredibly religious, which makes me wonder how the story would’ve continued if Clark/Esau/Slick had a child, or if the book had started with Clarence’s father or mother. Would the story have made a full circle through their ancestry, from devout faith to a lack of God? The way the characters were going throughout their lives and their decedents just made me wonder…
ReplyDeleteSorry if this is rambling about nothing, but I couldn’t stop thinking about this.
Veronica Spadaro
I favored reading In the Beauty of the Lilies much more over the other assigned works. I thought that Updike's word choice was fantastic, and I was impressed with the amount of historical allusions within the text, although it did get a bit too prolonged at times. It's very ambitious to undertake a story that takes place over such a long period of time and involves such an array of characters; the way that he tied the generations of the Wilmot family together was exceptional. I felt the book had a disinclining start, but as the narrative gained liveliness, It was more and more enjoyable to read. The style of writing tended to veer in proportion to the time period that was being covered in the book, and by the end I was certainly glad i had the opportunity to read it.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to Clarence's loss of faith. I think it's fairly easy to understand why he chose to abandon his religion at that point in his life. I think It was a somewhat gradual change, starting perhaps much earlier in his life, but catalyzed by the study of works written by Robert Ingersall, among other reputable atheists of that time period (I had already been familiar with the writings of Ingersall, so I was pleasantly surprised by his presence in the book, he is a very interesting man for his time). After taking in the words of these men, of whom he began to read with the intention to disprove, he simply has a moment of limpidity within himself and realizes how much sense they do in fact make. Maybe it was a mercurial advance in his critical thinking skills at that point, or something that his perception had been building up to all along. A moment of clarity, if you will. One thing i can't decide was if it was more so selfless of him to leave the church and avoid preaching what he doesn't believe, or selfish of him to leave the church and put his family in a most unfavorable position.
Teddy was an enjoyable portion of the book to read, but it felt to me sometimes that its only purpose was to move the storyline along without much insight. I'm just saying it felt like it was dragging at points and left less of an impression than the rest. Teddy's desire to have a normal life, and his intuition to do such along with his opposition to any other path is interesting.
Essie was my favorite section, due to the transition into more modern times as well as advancement of American media (particularly the cinema) that is going on at the time. She was very egotistical at times, which I suppose only worked to her advantage with her chosen career path. Her sexual licentiousness was a plus for me as well.
Clark's section was without a doubt an interesting way to take the novel in. I was quite fond of it. The social interactions and habits of the religious commune were fun to follow. I like how Clark ends up on the opposite end of the spectrum from Clarance.
Every character needs something to embrace, something they can turn to for gratification. They find this craving in different places. Some find it better than others.
I think I can agree with your view of Teddy; that being that it was only to bring the story along. To fill in the gap of a time period. I also agree that it is interesting Updike was able to completely turn around views on religion from the beginning to the end. I think it wasn't so selfish of Clarence to leave the church. I believe it came out better in the end.
DeleteIn the Beauty of the Lilies is a book centered on faith, decisions, struggles, climbs, and even inheritance. Clarence is a somewhat complex character. You see how he came to turn his head to Christianity, through the studying of groundbreaking atheists ideas. One day he just cracked. Many of the scenes in Clarence were intriguing in insight and allusions to the time period. You see his mental struggle with his now former religion and eventual decline from his post as preacher. I think that the fact that he couldn't hardly speak up in front of everyone was somewhat symbolic, in that he has lost his religion and thus lost his ability to speak on behalf of it. Some may think that Clarence was selfish for leaving the church and ended up dragging his family down with him but as some might argue, he could hardly speak and battled with himself to the point of exhaustion and had he not left, it probably would have driven him right into the ground. He would have just caved and broken and either break apart the family or end up dying himself somehow, whether from suicide or just exhaustion.
ReplyDeleteTeddy was probably the least intriguing section of the book, although I liked it for its internal struggles. Teddy's were certainly not big struggles, but were sort of relative. For example, Teddy's dilemma with the town where he lived and where he wanted to end up, are understandable. Teddy's life in no way was extreme or crazy, so it was sort of just like reading a story about all of us in Tolland. Teddy was a loving and caring husband and father; a real Average Joe if you will.
I don't think Essie's life could be more perpendicular to her parents lives. What a change it was to see young Essie sprout from a young innocent girl to a fast moving woman pulled in by fame and doing things others would never do. Essie's chapter was not so much consumed by minute and useless detail as Teddy's section was, although the allusions became immense and somewhat overwhelming. It was fascinating to see Essie transform from Essie to Alma, as if Alma were a totally different person, although I suppose in some ways she was. Alma was confident and headstrong, never stuttering and ready for anything, ready even to come on to anybody. This was the biggest and arguably the most important difference between father, mother, and finally daughter. It showed changes in society, roles in women, and their sexuality. Updike did an amazing job of this. He was able to show how women were becoming more uninhibited and confident, from the big screen to the bedroom.
Clark is born out of wedlock, to a father who never helps raise him, and a mother who is neglectful and untrustworthy. Clark inherits his mothers recklessness and perhaps even confusion, although that is more prevalent in Clark. Clark's section is easily the most fascinating way to finish up this epic novel, with an explosive and shocking ending. Clark's personality seems to allow him to step into any situation and handle it, although with the sanctuary everything gets away from him. Out of all the sections, this is possibly the best one that illustrates faith. It shows how a person who is vulnerable can cling to something absurd, such as this sanctuary and its people and leader. Clark transforms into Esau and begins to believe all that Jesse says; that there is a Day of Reckoning and Jesus will save them all. Clark was very vulnerable at the beginning, about losing his job and being completely confused in his life. The other people in the sanctuary were most likely vulnerable too, grabbing onto something that is absurd, and ultimately dying for a cause that is hopeless and utterly fake; at least to us.
In the Beauty of the Lilies is an amazing and triumphant book that has left me pondering on questions of life and faith. Awesome book. As for the characters, all were so real and most relative. Decisions can be tough, and all of them have made good and bad choices, but leaving their descendants shattered, and other triumphant.
To be honest, I still haven't finished the book, but I think it's best that I at least get some thoughts down while I'm still reading it. The most basic problem I have with the book is that it is constantly referencing other works of literature that I haven't read. It really shouldn't be required that, to get the full effect of a novel, that you have to read dozens of other books.If I had read all of these pieces that the book is always referencing, especially in Clarence's section, I might have a different opinion and feel like a lot is added to the story because of it. Instead, with where I am currently I mostly feel like I am not intelligent or literate enough to be reading the book and often get frustrated when there's an excess of allusions. That's not to say I don't see some value in the book being a challenging read, because I have found myself enjoying the intricate, almost ornate language Updike uses throughout. When a novel uses a certain time period as a backdrop to its story, it helps to be descriptive, and Updike's dedication to creating a very atmospheric town in Paterson is definitely commendable. However, for me this still hasn't been quite enough to fully engage me in the story, mostly because of the themes that appear to be present. There's a lot of discussion about inequality in social classes, the meaning (or lack thereof) in religion, and the futility of man in general, but I have yet to feel as if Updike is saying anything new or interesting about these topics. I have to imagine that anyone who is reading the ambitious novel has already considered these topics in their own mind, and it really doesn't seem as though any ideas beyond these almost personal musings have actually been presented. Hopefully as I continue to read my opinion will change, but, for now, I'm not sold on the book.
ReplyDeleteThis book reminds me a little bit of John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath," but not just because they are both long and tedious reads. Just like Ms Morrison always told us about how Steinbeck switched from the microcosm and macrocosm to show us the history, I think Updike kind of does the same thing with the microcosm of Clarence and his posterity. However, I'm not sure that a microcosm like this would accurately show history over these generations because one family and its idiosyncrasies could keep it from fairly representing the rest of the people of that time. As cool as I think it is to follow one family over the generations and see how it changes over the changing times, I don't think that this is a good way to show the history of the country and the millions of people that live in the US.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this book wasn't my favorite, I still enjoyed certain aspects of it. I really like books that loop back and connect to the beginning like this one did. Clarence leaving the ministry for the movies, and then Clark doing the opposite of his great grandfather. I completely understand what Dallon is saying with the alternating between two types, but I felt as if it were more the characters in each section of the book alternated views, motives, and dreams. I really liked seeing the cause and effect throughout the book, how one ancestors actions would directly impact the next generation. I liked seeing the contrast between different characters (so closely related) lives and how they would play out. As Jonah said above about Essie and her parents.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I found to be helpful was the refernce to things going on around the characters in the time period, sometimes when I read I loose track of what time and period it is in the book because I am so used to living here and now, these events helped to keep me aware of the time period of and in the book.
Hi Everyone!
ReplyDeleteSo I was not a fan of this book really (can i just read another play and call it a day)? I agree with just about everyone on here trying to get through the first section of Clarence was probably the hardest. There was so much detail it just seemed to weigh me down and make me sad. Clarence was so beaten up even before his death he was just lifeless. It was saddening because I gathered from Stella and her character through out the book that all though her husband may have been odd he was full of great life and had a huge spirit once. I found Teddy much easier to follow and I actually enjoyed reading his section. I felt bad for Teddy sometimes he was just so adamant about following his fathers wishes. I believe that if Teddy had opened himself up more when he was younger things would've been much different. I think Teddy's struggles really come from not having that strong father figure he eventually figures it out but I feel like he could've done more with his life. I’d have to agree with Ashley that maybe it is because we are teenagers we were able to connect with Teddy more. Essie was interesting to finally see a women's perspective. It is clear that even as a child she is just so flattered by her body that modeling and later acting was her only option. The contrast however between her and her parents is just unbelievable. I’d have to agree with Jonah about the transformation from Essie to Alma that it was so fascinating. Finally reading Clarks section kind of brings the book full circle with the religion aspect. Clark really reminds me more and more of Teddy with his lack of direction. Every character definitely had there little ticks. As much as I had trouble getting through the book it absolutely got better as it went on.
As I was finishing this novel, I realized how hard it had been to actually get into and understand the first section. Although, I do agree that it did get better as the story continued from section to section. Honestly, I have to admit, at times I did question why we were even assigned to read In the Beauty of the Lilies anyways. However, as I read further into each character's life, it got easier to understand the reasoning behind their thoughts and actions. During the Clarence section, it wasn't very clear to me why Clarence had quit being a minister/reverend, until I had to reread, I just wish there was just a little more reasoning behind it. However, it was understandable why Teddy didn't continue to attend church after his father passed.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Genevieve when she wrote about Clark reminding her of Teddy with his lack of direction. I think that the reason both of them didn't really know how to begin their adult life was due to the fact that both never really grew up with a fatherly figure. Teddy's father Clarence had passed when he was just a boy. Teddy wasn't able to "connect" with his father when he became an adult, which resulted to him having a hard time finding a suitable job. Additionally, Clark had struggled too due to the fact that he basically grew up with little parental guidance, which led him to make some bad decisions later on in life. It did seem like both Teddy and Clark did have a hard time finding themselves and both appeared to have the lack of direction quality.
Additionally, I agree with Emily when she states that each character seemed to contrast their family member. For example, Emily and Teddy never thought that their daughter would ever have a job acting in movies and tv, however it was really the only job that suited her.
All in all, I found that this book was somewhat intriguing to read due to the contrast of characters and historical references, however it was hard to get into and understand at times due to the overpowering detail.
Kirsten Shea
I was thinking of how the book spanned over multiple generations and it reminded me of the book we had to read before Sophomore year for english. I can't remember the name however, but it was about the painting that was pasted along the hands of many different people. They were similar in a way that each generation was affected by a center piece. For In the Beauty of the Lillies, it was Clarence's faith (or loss of it) and in the other book, it was the painting's beauty or the painting's worth.
ReplyDeleteAshley, I think you're talking about Girl in Hyacinth Blue, and I definitely saw the same comparison. I feel like having that object or concentration repeated throughout the shifting characters and settings helps to keep my focus throughout each story. While each one of the sections from In the Beauty of the Lilies could have stood on its own in terms of characters and story arc, having them twined together by the religious struggle helps carry the reader through the story. Almost completely changing characters and tone every hundred or so pages seems like a huge undertaking, but because we are able to follow the cycling view on faith, it is relatively easy to follow.
DeleteI just finished this book last night, and I wanted to share some thoughts on the last two sections. I thought Essie's section was my favorite of them all. This is because it was probably the easiest to relate to for me. It was great finally having a woman's point of view, and I really got into this part of the book. I liked seeing Essie grow up from an innocent child to this big Hollywood movie star. I agree with Gen that even as a child you can see how she is just so flattered by her body and herself in general, even stating that she thought she was perfect at one point, so modeling and acting would be a natural fit for her. The Clark section of this book was a very interesting and somewhat drastic way to end the book. The fact that Clark kills Jesse (who I personally never liked) and is also killed was very surprising to me, and was unlike anything else that happened in the novel. I found myself still somewhat happy with the ending however. At least Clark finally found a way to be somebody and did something that saved so many lives, even though his own life ended.
ReplyDeleteKristen Machuga
What I found interesting were the similarities between Clarence and Clark even though they are four generations apart. Both characters made an abrupt decision to abandon their faith for moral obligations. Like what Melissa and Kelsey said before, Clarence was in a miserable state in his life and did not think he should preach what he did not believe in to his community. Clarence thought of the well being of his family went along with what other church advisors were telling him to do. Clarence realized he really was not happy and with this mind set he ultimately went with the choice that fit his moral and what would be best for everyone else and decided to leave the church . Clark joined the Temple in search of acceptance from someone where he could feel like he mattered. He went along with Jesse’s radical beliefs because he knew that he had the acceptance he was searching for there, but you could tell that Clark was not truly happy. Ultimately, Clark decides to abandon and betray Jesse because he thinks of the well being of the women and children and could not morally let a Jesse or himself take lives of innocent people. Both of these character face similar situations but yet they are at two completely different times in history. Is it a coincidence that these two are so similar?
ReplyDelete-Kristina Fusco
I was just looking back over the Clark/Esau/Slick portion of the novel as well, trying to compare it alongside the other family members' sections, Clarence in particular. I noticed Clarence and Clark seem to be the two most religiously concentrated portions, and showed similar struggles and inconsistencies with their views on faith. Most of the other characters in the novel were deeply established in their own view on religion, whether it be Teddy's indifference or Essie's own brand of prayer. I liked how we could draw across those chapters the connection of inner turmoil between the opening section and ending. One thing did bother me about Clark's section: Jesse. I found him difficult to take seriously at times, and thought his frequent sermons with very specific biblical references and messages to actually take away from the Wilmot story. Maybe I was just confused by the references I wasn't familiar with, but it seemed I spent more time trying to puzzle out his overbearing biblical allusions than I did actually following the plot.
DeleteBailey- I would have to agree with your opinion on Jesse. I realize that he is supposed to be portrayed as more of an antagonist, but I did not find myself eagerly following his every move and waiting to see what he would do next, as I normally would with an antagonist in a literary work. I found myself more disgusted with him and preferring to put the book down rather than impatiently flipping pages. Perhaps this is what the author intended, but I wasn’t pleased with Clark’s section of the novel because of Jesse. Also, I am not very familiar with the Bible, so Jesse’s constant biblical references did not aid my enthusiasm for him. I definitely agree with you in that Jesse’s character actually seemed to take away from the Wilmot story rather than make it more thrilling.
DeleteBailey -I definitely agree with you. The biblical references ended up being hard to follow for me as well. I think how I reacted to the various references depended on how much background knowledge I had about them. I really like history, so I personally thought those really added to the book because I actually understood what the author was talking about, but the biblical ones were an overload since I didn't follow a lot of them and this made Clark's section confusing.
DeleteWhile reading your comment Danielle about how Clarence did not want to preach what he did not believe, I thought back to the Scarlet Letter. I realized that both Dimmesdale and Clarence were in similar situations, being such prominent religious figures to the public, and having to disappoint them by stepping down from their positions.
Also, I definitely agree that there are many similarities between Clarence and Clark! It almost seemed as if the story was coming to a full circle during Clark's part. The story's first section was with Clarence losing faith and the last section was with Clark going to the religious commune with Hannah so in some way, at least, faith was restored in the family. I also thought it was interesting that while Clarence left his faith to embrace the film industry, Clark joined a faith to abandon the modern life and film.
I think the closing events of this book were the best. Not just because the book was ending and I could put it down, but since the story about Clark really intrigued me. It was great reading about how a man who everyone thought was a "loser" and going no where in life, could end up dying in an heroic way. He working at a ski resort and feeling like his life had no meaning really made me feel sympathetic for him. Once he had met Hannah, it followed by the joining of a group led by Jesse. He ends up liking their stance on Modern American Pop Culture and it the polar opposite of his great grandfather who abandoned religion for the new attractive film industry. That reverse role was interesting. Once the group was forced to kill innocent lives and Clark ended up shooting Jesse and getting killed himself, it showed me that Clark ended his life not as dull man but a hero. I agree with one of you that Clark never really seemed to find true happiness but him leaving this world in this way, is truly a honorable thing. This event is relatable to our lives as we can witness stories of "nobodies" turning their lives around my doing risky but heroic actions.Overall this book had very deep introspections and it was a tough but good read - Shayan Hassan
ReplyDeleteI have to admit unfortunately I am still in the process of finishing this book. Unlike the other piece of work we had to read for the summer this book put me to sleep every time i read a couple of pages. I have fully finished reading Clarence and Teddy's section although Essie's section is more bearable I have come to realize that I just don't care about the lives of these characters. This book has no set plot or antagonists. It is more like little memoirs about regular people and it makes it hard for me to get hooked on the story of their life. The way these characters are portrayed make them rather hard for me to have empathy or any reactions to their lives. As I read Clarence's section and his sudden realization of his lack of faith, what aggravated me the most is how he almost envied and admired others who still had their faith. It was also how he came to the conclusion that his loss of faith was over the course of his whole life. I believe faith grows stronger as the years go by not the other way around, once you find faith you cannot lose it gradually over the course of time but that is just what I believe. Teddy's life was just boring to me, it bothered me that he had no ambitions in his life because he was scared of the world. It bothered me that he was content at a job in a drugstore for years only to venture out into business because he was forced to by his family. Every person goes through all kinds of experiences and emotions to find out truly who they want to become in their life yet Teddy wanted the safest route. However I found that the young Essie was rather humorous. The young Essie believed that she was invincible and she was unaware of the fact that her family had flaws. I liked how Updike portrayed the seven and thirteen year old Essie grow up to a full grown woman. Looking at pasts posts I have better hope in the next character's story.
ReplyDeleteEujin Kim
I found this book interesting but I don't really think I can say that I loved it. The biggest problem I had with the book is the fact that there is so much referencing to other events and places in the book. I read a lot of all of your comments before reading the book but I didn't realize the extent to which this whole referencing thing takes place in the book. The story does take place over almost the entire American 20th century but I think the amount of referencing is still a bit much. What I did like is how there are so many different stories that become part of one larger idea. I like how you got to see all viewpoints from all the generations of the Wilmot family from all sorts of different characters. I found the first part of the book engaging because I thought I would eventually find out why Clarence has given up faith in god. Unfortunately that was not the case. I really didn't care much for the second part. Teddy's story just seemed much slower and less interesting than everybody else's. Essie's part was more striking. The Essie/Amla section was really different from what I was expecting. Her transformation from Essie to Alma was really interesting. Clarks storyline was easily the most action packed. It was completely different from anything that seemed to happen before it. His very nature seemed so different from everyone else's from the beginning. He seemed to be the only person turning back to religion but then of course we find out that the faith he is looking for is tainted too via Jesse. Overall I did enjoy parts of the book but most of the time it frustrated me more than anything.
ReplyDelete-Taaj Cheema
This book was definitely very difficult to follow. I enjoyed it much less than A Moon for the Misbegotten. I've found that most of the book is just describing different things which is not something I really care too much to read. The characters annoyed me a lot because I feel as though most of them had no will to do anything and they lost faith in life. It was just plain boring for the most part and it was very difficult for the book to hold my attention. If I had to be truthful I'd have to say I'm not entirely sure what the book is about.
ReplyDelete-Kayla Singleton
Hello Everyone,
ReplyDeleteAre you excited for school tomorrow? Well after reading this book thoroughly, I realized I could connect every major event in this book to something I have witnessed in life. First off, Clarence reminded me of, Christopher McCandless. He was a dean's list student who after becoming educated on the horrific genocides in Africa, basically eliminates himself from society. He decided he was willing to give up his extremely privileged life to live off nature. Even though it meant not having a nice financial security blanket, he believed he couldn't go another day against his beliefs. Next Teddy reminds of the generic dysfunctional high school relationship, except the girl is usually in his postion. The girl is dating a "jerk", no one understands why she is dating him and her friends and family encourage her to leave him. Eventually when she goes off to college she succumbs to peer pressure and decides to explore newer options, but in the end she goes back to the guy everyone said was wrong for her. Also, did anyone read that crazy Newsweek article on the Scientology leader? There was this in-depth article on the cult like atmosphere of Scientology. The extremist Christian society Jesse joins is scarily similar to the Scientology cult. You would think society could have evolved by now.
Tyson Bridge
So pretty much everyone has addressed what I had planned on talking about. To just add my perspective in to the mix I'll try to say different things from everyone.
ReplyDeleteThinking about how the story almost makes a complete circle I started to see that maybe the movie industry and the faith were a part of the circle in more ways than just connecting Clarence and Clark. It is almost showing how faith sort of disappeared from the family as the movies appeared then as the movies faded from importance faith came back. Clarence showed the loss of faith and the introduction of movies, Teddy carried on the movies, in Essie's life we saw movies almost take over her whole life to the point that she gave up her emotions (the Botox she received prevented her from looking devastated by her sons involvement with Jesse), and final Clark's almost avoidance of movies (the ones he talks about having seen he attended with his mother) and his sudden attraction to extreme faith.
Something else a lot of comments brought up in my mind was Clark's death. His whole life he just drifted around. He didn't really work or try to make friends and rather just took what came at him and dealt with it. His very last moments actually show him taking initiative and doing something. He decided that he wasn't going to let those people continue to die because Jesse told them they should. He lost his life because he was tired of seeing people follow a leader as he had his whole life. They were like sheep just being herded by a shepherd (perhaps Updike's reason for making several biblical references to the shepherd and his sheep as well as having sheep on the groups compound).
I found it almost ironic how throughout Clark's stay with Jesse's group you would find references of burning and fire often as the negative view point and then at the end the whole house goes up in flames and leaves Clark as a "savior" and Jesse dead then consumed by the fire. The roles seem to reverse themselves and I could be wrong in this interpretation and the author not even intending this to be the case but I thought it was almost too much to have been a coincidence.
Madison Florence
P.S. See you tomorrow!!!