I have mixed feelings about this because of the subject but the book deserves four stars, at least, so that's what I'm giving it. The author did not have the courage to tackle the subject of an omnipotent and benevolent god and pain and suffering for the good; instead, he merely mentioned that it was a struggle and moved on. This is insufficient. The narrator was clearly a very intelligent and compassionate man; if anyone could have done the subject justice it should have been him. Father Hugh cared deeply about others but only through the windows of his self-built prison. He did good for good's sake and supplied kind words when they were due.
And his job was dull and monotonous. And he liked it that way because he didn't have to think about how things could/should have been different. I connected with him; he didn't like getting up early, tuned out when people spoke, felt like he was going through the motions without feeling anything, and struggled with his own demons internally. He rarely mentioned God. I liked him quite a bit. His realization at the end that he actively chose to stay at Old St. Paul's because he knew he didn't want to move on from the familiar was ironically brave.
I want to point out that this book made me laugh out loud and it's not often that that happens. Charlie's birthday party speech devolved into a scene of insanity, with geriatric guests arguing loudly about the proper care of dwarfs (they can't be kept nice and dry or they'll die, so leave them in a tree trunk) and raging about custard. There were several great scenes like that - some of the best comedy in literature, I think.
The moral and ethical situation Father Hugh eventually gets into surprised me. This priest was as human as human could be and did the right thing, I think. Immoral? That's relative. Like I wrote, he's a compassionate man. Compassion trumps absolute rules.
This was one of the better Pulitzer winners.
And his job was dull and monotonous. And he liked it that way because he didn't have to think about how things could/should have been different. I connected with him; he didn't like getting up early, tuned out when people spoke, felt like he was going through the motions without feeling anything, and struggled with his own demons internally. He rarely mentioned God. I liked him quite a bit. His realization at the end that he actively chose to stay at Old St. Paul's because he knew he didn't want to move on from the familiar was ironically brave.
I want to point out that this book made me laugh out loud and it's not often that that happens. Charlie's birthday party speech devolved into a scene of insanity, with geriatric guests arguing loudly about the proper care of dwarfs (they can't be kept nice and dry or they'll die, so leave them in a tree trunk) and raging about custard. There were several great scenes like that - some of the best comedy in literature, I think.
The moral and ethical situation Father Hugh eventually gets into surprised me. This priest was as human as human could be and did the right thing, I think. Immoral? That's relative. Like I wrote, he's a compassionate man. Compassion trumps absolute rules.
This was one of the better Pulitzer winners.
