Review of 'Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ' on 'Storygraph'
3 stars
The prose was dry and devoid of any insight into the character's emotions other than when they spoke about them out loud. I suspect that was a choice, reflecting the dry writing of the source material. Don't come at me - I'm a bible fan (secular). That said, if I hadn't been listening to it while playing cities skylines, my ADHD ass would have given up on it midway - though that is true of many books. Overall, I am a fan of biblical retellings, and this is pretty good. I've read worse fanfiction.
This feels…complicated. It’s a reimagining of the Gospels by an atheist. Also by an amazing creative writer. You see the intense complexity.
Much of the book was, to use a rural Pentecostal phrase, “in the Word”. Then it all takes a dark, weird turn.
<spoiler>The author makes Jesus and Christ into twins, born on the same familiar night under the same miraculous star. Christ is visited by a stranger, who is never identified as human, angel, or demon, who tells him to document Jesus’ activity and words, and then to betray him in order to kickstart the Kingdom. Both their names will be known for all time, as it was meant to be.</spoiler>
I am an Episcopalian, so I don’t feel fundamentally uncomfortable with having had read this book as other Christians might. I love religious discourse of all kinds. But I didn’t like it. In some parts, it felt …
This feels…complicated. It’s a reimagining of the Gospels by an atheist. Also by an amazing creative writer. You see the intense complexity.
Much of the book was, to use a rural Pentecostal phrase, “in the Word”. Then it all takes a dark, weird turn.
<spoiler>The author makes Jesus and Christ into twins, born on the same familiar night under the same miraculous star. Christ is visited by a stranger, who is never identified as human, angel, or demon, who tells him to document Jesus’ activity and words, and then to betray him in order to kickstart the Kingdom. Both their names will be known for all time, as it was meant to be.</spoiler>
I am an Episcopalian, so I don’t feel fundamentally uncomfortable with having had read this book as other Christians might. I love religious discourse of all kinds. But I didn’t like it. In some parts, it felt true to Jesus’ ministry, and even respectful and loving. In others, it seemed to claim that the Gospels were full of lying details (“there’s history, and then there’s the truth”), the truth nudged like clay to make things happen. In those parts, it felt…mocking, rather than creative or even exploring a historical theory. There was a sharp unpleasant turn in tone that surprised me.
