after his death, i checked out a collection of essays by gore vidal. i didn't have time to read it (i was bombarded by requests from the library). but i did read part of an article, "the top ten bestsellers according to the sunday new york times of january 7, 1973". for the article, vidal read all ten and wrote about them. this is how i discovered marjorie holmes' "two from galilee"
vidal was a witty, no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is kinda writer. he must have been the perfect sitting at a bar and shooting the shit partner. i loved his wit and feel guilty for not reading his essays but will redeem myself in the future. anyway, this is what he wrote about "two from galilee":
…what about a love story starring the mother and step-father of our lord? A super idea. and marjorie has written it.
seriously, how could i not be interested?!? we all know that i'm not religious but i love jesus-y things (unless they are forced upon me by christians to save my soul, i don't like that).
the novel is just as it is subtitled, "a love story of mary and joseph". it's like christian fan fiction though they think jesus is real so i guess more like christian historical fiction. however you label it, i had to read it, it's like a prequel to the christmas story. and yes i did save it until now to read right before christmas.
according to her bio on the back flap, marjorie holmes isn't a certified jesus expert, no mention of a theology degree nor religious studies, all we get is that she graduated from cornell college of iowa and she taught a writing class at catholic university in maryland. however, her other works include "i've got to talk to someone, god" and "who am i, god?" so she is some type of god expert? i mean she did get me to pick up a bible for the first time in about 5 years (to see what exactly was written about mary and joseph, surprisingly not much) so she has to be some sort of vessel for the work of god.
but in all honesty, i think it's a clever premise for a book. i mean if someone were to claim what mary was claiming today, we would think she was bat shit crazy. we can only assume that it would have been the same back then. and that is something we don't see in the bible. seriously it's bare bones in the bible, angels appear to bring messages from god and she gives birth. no real insight on the whole being pregnant and a virgin or the whole giving birth in a manager. just like men to gloss over that when they are recording the life of jesus, way to go matthew, mark and luke.
so "two from galilee" let's us know about mary and joseph, b.c. before christ. according to holmes, mary was this great beauty that everyone wanted to marry. but she was in love with joseph who was six years her senior. by the way, their ages: mary 13 and joseph 18, which in modern times ewwww, but back than, prolly like whatever, but holmes paints it as something odd. however, her mother (who vidal described as the epitome of an overbearing jewish mother) did not approve of joseph because he was poor and his father was an alcoholic. (good thing jesus wasn't joseph's kid cos we can't have the son of christ with those genetics).
however when mary becomes a women aka gets her period, she than takes fate into her own hands and manipulated her parents into letting her marry joseph. this part felt far fetch to me.
all is well in the world until an angel appeared to inform mary, she was the chosen virgin to birth the christ child. i am disappointed with god on this one, given the gravity of the matter, god should have appeared before mary himself to tell her know what was going on. furthermore, i find it interesting how god and jesus found the time to appear before joseph smith, of mormon fame, but not the mother of jesus.
then she had this weird body experience, which seemed like the ulitimate orgasm the way holmes described it (there was sweat, ultimate bliss and screams of "oh god"), when god impregnates her. again this seemed weird to me, no need for mary to feel anything physically, you're god, just fertilize that egg. in this regard, i find zeus the better god, he had the decency to take on forms like swans to impreganate women.
so mary told her mom, who thought she was bat shit crazy, which i think is a reasonable reaction. her father who always knew mary was special, believed mary but then mom convinced him otherwise. and joseph was just confused because he loved her. anyway, like all premarital pregnant girls, mary was sent away to a cousin. and that cousin was elizabeth who the angel told mary would be pregnant as well. i didn't undertstand why mary didn't tell her parents about elizabeth as proof of her immaculate conception. holmes had mary keep silent for fear of sounding really crazy, unmm too late. also for some odd reason, the part about the john the baptist jumping in elizabeth when mary arrived stayed has stuck in my brain all these years. no idea why. also all of these art pieces with john and jesus playing as babies, are they a sham? they never hung out as toddlers, right?
with mary away, galilee became a buzzed with gossip about what was going on with her and joseph's marriafe and she brought shame to everyone. the rumors were that a) joseph couldn't keep his penis in check or b) mary commited adultry. joseph had to decide what to do, everyone wants him to divorce her but than an angel appeared and he decided to marry her. mary returned because elizabeth gave birth and it's not good for pregnant women to be near. then ceasar put out his tax rules and mary and joseph travel to bethelem. and everyone knows the rest, well christians do.
i did appreciate how holmes did give details about the birth. because no one thinks of mary sweaty, bloody and near death as she gives birth. we just think of her in this cute little manager with sweet animals around her and a glowing christ child. in the story, holmes used the birth as a metaphor for the suffering that jesus would eventually take upon himself. which got me to thinking, if he was the christ child, shouldn't he have taken on the most pain during his birth? shouldn't marry have felt nothing? and once again, where was god? couldn't he have helped with the easing of pain? i get that he don't help jesus on the cross but jesus is god while mary is human, he could have cut her a break. maybe teleport out the baby like i hope will happen in the near future before i give birth.
so on to my critiques. my first is the view of female and male sexuality in this book. i understand it was an indication of the times but there was a double standard because male sexuality was accepted even if it was taboo back then. the only form of acceptable sex for women is one that comes from true love, which i guess mary and joseph would eventually have one day. other than that sex was scary and unenjoyable for women. helene, mary's mother, was scared of sex when she was first married and kept on warning mary of its pain. and then after the wedding of her cousin, mary wonders to herself
"and the bride and the groom. were they growing eager for their hour? how soon would deborah be led to her couch, stripped of her finery and made to lie down to await her husband in the still throbbing music of the darkness? and the groom, slightly drunken, flush and persirpring garland askew, his pudgy hands outstretched."
what nice imagery a woman stripped and waiting for drunken husband to have his way with her. this sounds like rape's first cousin. (thank god i live in modern times where i can be just as drunk as my husband.) and to top it all of mary's cousin was a little risqué wanting to kiss and thinking she should have done more before marriage. yet on her wedding night forced to be the virgin.
and as the double standard goes, men get to spread their seed like no other. no one bats an eye at cleophas who is rumored to have many lovers at ports but everyone wanted to shame mary for possibly committing adultery. furthermore, mary's
father actually felt bad for joseph for having to wait to have sex until their marriage especially after their betrothal. after a discussion with his wife he though to myself:
"hannah had no idea what it was like to be a man--this waiting. no women could comprehend physically passion. . . [mary] but was a child; she did not have the faintest concept of the demon-god that entered a youth's loins at puberty and gave him no peace after. that drove him, a whip goading, lashing him sometimes beyond all reason and honor . . . six months could be an eternity to when you were enflamed by a woman and already bound to her."
disgusting, according to this, it would have made sense if joseph knocked her up before he should have. and once gain the virginal woman not knowing anything about passion.
another critique i had was the talk about marriage for love. it was silly how fortunate mary and joseph felt because they were actually in love and how they talked about how in the future more people would marry for love. it was as if jesus would show people the folly of their ways. no offense but jesus had more important issues than marriage like maybe the whole love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, repent of your sins, and stop with the temple sacrifices, to take on marriage. plus we all know the christian right aren't for love in marriages, they don't believe in love because if they did, they would let gays marry.
there was also a lot of period talk in this book. and if you follow my twitter i like to talk about periods. as i reading about mary explaining to her mom that she was pregnant because she missed her period, i realized i was a naive preteen and my mom failed on the period talk. i didn't get the correlation between period and pregnancy until i had been bleeding for a good three years or so. if i was 12 and the chosen virgin, i would not have gotten the whole, hey i have no period something must be up. i wouldn't know i was pregant until i started showing.
and last but not least, i have to critque how holmes christianized the story especially since jesus was not born yet so the whole christian spin on the world didn't make sense. for example, in the end, when joseph realized all the suffering that his child would endure being the christ child, he discussed how jesus would have the ultimate cross to bear. joseph was right, but this idea of a cross to bear seems to me more of a christian idea than a jewish one.b plus i am pretty sure it's popularity came with jesus' crucifixion, though i know jesus is not the only person to ever be crucified. i also thought it was odd how they discussed the men studying scriptures at home. i am not an expert on this but if in the story joseph couldn't afford to send a reed letter to mary, how could he afford torah scrolls for the home. furthermore, weren't most people illiterate? the novel had both mary's father and joseph not going to school yet they both study scriptures at home? and this isn't saying that jews don't study at home, i just think back than they probably did it at temple. also maybe it's just cos i was raised mormon, this whole study your scriptures at home was a daily task. and last but not least there was talk about mary seeing joseph at the synagogue. i thought the sexes would have been segregated but turn out after googling there is no indication architecturally that there was a divide between the sexes. so holmes got it right.
all in all, a wonderful spin on the christmas story. and if i was a christian i would probably love it. i did love it for purely blasphemous reasons and will probably go to hell due to my life, but that is only if this tale of a virgin giving birth to the christ child turns out to be true.
oh and seriously this was the best part of the whole book:
[deborah, mary's cousin, said,]"his lips--they're like kissing a sausage."
mary gasped, shocked if amused. a sausage was heathen food.
No comments:
Post a Comment