I wish that I had had a group like you to talk about The Poisonwood Bible when I first read it in 2000. I gave it three stars, thought it was too long, and wondered why the Orleanna Price didn't take the first boat home from the Congo when it became clear how ill-prepared the family was and how dangerous the Reverend Nathan Price was. I didn't consider what year it was (1959) and that she really didn't have the means (physical, emotional, or monetary) to escape the depths of the jungle. With my second reading 24 years later, I was better able to appreciate so much more in Kingsolver's writing - how she wrote the book, the way she told the story, which characters she chose to tell their stories, and the many political influences at play.
Kingsolver has said, "Before I wrote The Poisonwood Bible, it haunted my office for a decade in the form of a file cabinet labeled "DAB" – the Damned Africa Book. Into that cabinet, I stuffed notes, clippings, photographs, character sketches, plot ideas, anything that struck me as relevant to the huge novel I wished I could write. I did not believe I would ever be writer enough to do it." She clearly was enough of a writer, and I'm glad that I was finally enough of a reader.
So let's get right to it; here are my questions about the book. Why do you think that Reverend Nathan Price is not given a voice of his own? Do we learn enough information through his wife and daughters to formulate an adequate explanation for his beliefs and behavior? Does such an explanation matter?
I'm very interested in many aspects of this novel, and I'll be glad to share my thoughts about these questions tonight during our Zoom discussion. These questions on our blogs and the Zoom discussion are your chance to express your ideas. Be sure to check out Kym and Carole's blogs for their questions, too.
This might be the best question of the book, Bonny! I contemplated this deeply as I read (listened) to the book... and I have some thoughts! First, I think we all have known a version of Reverend Nathan Price in our lives as women. He is not always a minister, but he absolutely always *thinks* he is the answer for what you need/question/wonder about life. Those men are never quiet... they are always loud, over-talking, testosterone filled jerks. They think they are bigger when everyone else in the room is smaller (and they are really good at making everyone else smaller!)
ReplyDeleteI found Kingsolver's decision to give the Reverend Nathan Price no voice to be absolute genius! Everyone else who shared bits about this unbearable man did so brilliantly... with the right amount of snark, honesty, and candor. I loved the book even more for Reverend Nathan Price's silence (and his well-deserved ending... oh my, that was THE BEST!)
I love your observation that we have all known a version of Nathan Price! That is certainly true for me, and I thought about him (while simultaneously cursing him) often while I was reading. I also thought Kingsolver's decision to include Rev. Nathan while excluding him was a good move and it helped to amplify the females voices when they may have not been able to express themselves in person.
DeleteWhat a great question! Aside from the fact that the focus of this book is really the women, I think we don't really need to hear the story from Nathan's point of view because we know exactly what he thinks -- he doesn't hesitate to share his thoughts or opinions (which are, in his opinion, the right ones) with anyone. Given the time and place, he believes himself to be in the right about everything, and he isn't shy about sharing. But the women don't have the freedom -- either within their family or in society -- to share their innermost thoughts, and I think that's what makes them all the more interesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and like I wrote above, I think Kingsolver helped amplify the female narratives because she chose to exclude Rev. Nathan. As readers, we all knew exactly what he was like and didn't need (or want) to hear from him at all.
DeleteYeah, no need to hear his voice...we all know what he was thinking and feeling. I also think that giving him no voice was a very clever way of making him smaller than he thought he was.
ReplyDeletesorry - forgot my name (again)
DeleteYou're right; we all know what Rev. Nathan was thinking because he was never shy about letting everyone know, even though he didn't have a direct voice. He was the whole reason the Price family was in the Congo, suffering in many physical and emotional ways, and he deserved to be made smaller!
DeleteMy hatred for Nathan Price knows no bounds! I agree with everyone else's ideas about why Kingsolver chose not to include him as a narrator and I'm grateful that she didn't give him a voice of his own. He would have tried to take over the entire story if she'd given him the chance!
ReplyDeleteI am with you on Nathan Price! he was a huge part of the story even without a voice of his own, so he surely would have taken over completely if Kingsolver gave him half a chance.
DeleteI agree with all you've said - I also think Nathan is the "problem" of the book in so many ways. And Kingsolver puts us and his wife and daughters in the same place - on the "outside" of him, dealing with all the problems he presents.
ReplyDeleteThat is Nathan in a nutshell; he caused ALL of the problems and then left his family and others to deal with the fallout. I have trouble with the things people do in the name of religion!
DeleteI think we learned enough about Nathan just by the story told by the females in his life.
ReplyDeleteI agree!
Delete