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 loved "In the Beauty of the Lilies"! I love books that tell multiple people's stories in one; I think it's so interesting. While reading I noticed the reoccurring idea of success. Basingstokians are surprised that the daughter of a mailman could become a successful movie star like Alma. But personally, I'd rather live like Teddy than Alma, even though Teddy is seen as "playing it safe" through Clark's eyes. But my opinion may be skewed by how much I love true love. Any thoughts?
ReplyDelete- Phoebe Mrozinski
While I at first found myself struggling through the first hundred pages of this book, I soon was struck with how similar familial traits manifested in the different members of the Wilmot clan. At one point in the book, I remember there being a comment about how the Wilmots have always had a certain pride, as it is easy to see through Jared's blatant attitude that he was going to succeed, Esther's aloofness when it came to her own life, Essie's inner dialogue and rise to fame, down to Clark's name as "Slick." Teddy, in my mind, is exempt from this family tree of personal tragedies. Like you, Phoebe, I loved watching the ultimate underdog (even in Clarence's point of view, he regarded Teddy as the weakest of his brood) grow up to be one of the only characters who was happy with the life that he had. Though he lacked what everyone around called "ambition," Teddy had the gift of self-awareness, of knowing himself, what he was happy with, and, most importantly, what he would and would not settle for. He went against the "better judgement" of his entire family to be with Emily, and showed more backbone than the rest of his bloodline.
Delete-Sarah Lateer
"I'd rather live like Teddy than Alma, even though Teddy is seen as "playing it safe" through Clark's eyes." This part I have to disagree with. I would hate to live like Teddy does. I feel as if Teddy's relationship was unfulfilling because his upbringing had affected his self esteem. I don't think he ever truly "loved" Emily, rather he took the first opportunity at love that presented itself to him. His lack of self esteem prevented him from realizing that true love could be out there for him, but he was afraid to take the chance. All of this leads me to believe that he "played it safe" like Clark said.
Delete-John Leahy
Going off of what John said, I agree that Teddy's life was probably significantly affected by his father's death and although he grew to love Emily and maintain a fulfilling relationship with her, Emily herself acknowledges that Teddy saw her as the easiest/safest option. Essie, on the other hand, did follow her ambition and was able to get what she wanted out of life, similar to Clarence's decision to break free of his religion or Clark's ultimate killing of Jesse. The gap in values between Teddy and his daughter emphasized choosing a life of passiveness in exchange for happiness or success in exchange for unhappiness.
DeleteI agree with you, Phoebe because I would rather be "playing it safe" and living a life that you are proud of and happy with the decisions you made. Teddy had a life where he was successful in his own ways. Teddy had the perfect romance, even though they were judged. He was content with being the mailman even though the success that Clarence was waiting for Teddy to achieve was missing. Living like Alma would be too stressful in a way where you were always had to better yourself with so many people criticizing you. I also agree of what Eliza said about how Alma was ambitious and took a step that was farther than anyone had expected. Even though "playing it safe" is the easiest option, the end result could be far greater than going through the ups and downs of chasing your dream.
Delete-Abbey Chmura
I agree with Sarah that the first portion of this book was rather hard for me to really get into! I didn't think I'd like the book very much, but in the end found it to be interesting that it could capture the lives of so many in one chronological piece. I also think that Teddy wanted to take the easier route to ensure the best he could, a normal and safe life in the future. Having his father die took a toll on his family, and I think that he probably wanted to live with the least amount of competition and hardship so that he could always be somewhat content.
DeleteI agree with what Kacie said about Teddy. In my opinion since Teddy was the youngest when Clarence put his family in despair, he took it the hardest. His father left his job thinking only of himself and not the realities of life. He saw his family fail. And in turn I think that made Teddy never want to do that to a family of his own. So he does play it safe. He supports his family in all the right ways. He does the one thing that Clarence never could, provide.
DeleteWhat really struck me while reading In the Beauty of the Lilies was the author’s ability to trace one family over eighty years while maintaining a strong narrative and tying multiple character’s stories into one. I also really loved the writing style and the beautiful language employed. The use of Paterson, New Jersey as a setting was very interesting to me because I have relatives there whose history goes almost as far back as the beginning of the Wilmots’ story. I do wish there had been less gender disparity and we could read the point of view of another female character. I think Emily or Esther (Teddy’s sister) would’ve been fascinating.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Eliza in wishing that another perspective from a female character had been added. Personally I did not like the Essie/Alma section because her character was selfish and petty. I believe that being able to read the outlook of a non-Wilmot like Emily would have added to the understanding of the family itself.
DeleteI also agree with Eliza and Annie. I believe another female perspectives should have been added in order to help balance out the book. As Eliza mentioned, I believe Emily or Esther (Teddy's sister) would have been an insightful and impactful addition. Emily would have been able to describe the Wilmots as an outsider looking in so the reader could get an objective viewpoint. Esther would have offered her side of the story as growing up in the same conditions as Teddy but she would have also incorporated all the self sacrifices she had to make for her old and new family, including being a major role in Teddy's life. Throughout the story we were told bits and pieces of everyone's lives which forced the reader to make some assumptions about what is going on. If more perspectives were allowed, the bigger picture might have been more seamless and cohesive. However, with saying this, I understand that a work can become to detailed and overwhelming. But I think the work as a whole would benefit more with additional perspectives.
DeleteI agree with all of the above's statements. My favorite female characters, Ama (not Alma) and Teddy's sister Esther were the most fascinating to me. I loved that through all the different narratives we were able to get a distinct characterization of these two women, as well as their endeavors throughout their lives, but I would have loved to see the world they lived in through their eyes. Esther's character I found particularly interesting because though the outside narratives of her family members, it did nit appear that her character developed a whole lot. She went from being an independently-minded young typist to an independently-minded young woman who had a number of gentleman companions to a still-fast paced woman of New York, indulging in only the best that the Prohibition age had to offer, to a married woman still of an aloof personality. Despite the appearance that she was a static character in the story, there were a lot of sacrifices and heartbreaks in her story that I would have loved to experience through her narrative.
Delete-Sarah Lateer
I also enjoyed seeing the families develop throughout the years, and how different each one is. I think it was especially interesting to begin with Clarence as the main character, then slowly move through each relative as he becomes the great-grandfather of the family. Definitely neat to see.
DeleteWhile the concept of having another female narrator seems appealing, and I would agree that hearing personally from Esther in particular, it seems that the author's choice to limit the perspectives of the family as he did served to create exactly the picture of the Wilmots he intended to. Sarah Gorman's desire for an "objective viewpoint" would indeed help a reader more clearly understand what the family was like, however this story is much more than a four-part character analysis. I appreciate how in-depth one can get with the characters chosen as foci and yet still leave the reader feeling somewhat detached. This feeling led me to perceive the story as much more about the development and presence of its themes, rather than specifically about the characters. While each individual provoked their own interest within me, I found that throughout the book there was an undeniable sense that these characters were just pawns with which the author played out a much larger story. After finishing the book, it was finally apparent what that was: the twisting and turning path of human attachment and struggle between societal and divine promise. I believe that had John Updike including more precise or varied descriptions of this family's tale, that very precision would have taken away from the greater meaning.
DeleteI completely agree with Camryn, who put it so much more eloquently than I ever could have.
DeleteI really enjoyed "In the Beauty of the Lilies" because of the way a story of a family is transposed through many different ideas of a belief/custom that they have. The basis of religion that this family has was lost, but gained three generations later in a different means. The idea of family was also an important topic to me because in Clarence, Teddy, and Clark's sections, family was the center of who they were. Clarence fell to his family after his nonbelief in his religion and God himself. He also needed his family to be there with him as he was ill. Teddy's entire life was dedicated to his family, including caring for his mother and staying in the area where he grew up to raise his family the way he remembered. Clark surrounded himself based on a different kind of family, after Essie lost communication with him. Clark found himself in his religious family where he could find who his true identity is and not the one where his mother's fame got him to be.
ReplyDeleteTia Meares says: I completely agree that family was a significant theme in this novel, especially in the male characters as Abby stated. In each generation, from Father to Son, they tried to avoid the same mistakes their Fathers made. They purposely chose a different path in life than the Wilmott before them because they didn’t want the same misfortunes. Indeed, they all succeeded in living clearly distinct lives from one another but in the end they all reached the same conclusion; trying to find themselves, whether it included God or not. For starters, Clarence was still trying to make a living by selling encyclopedias after he resigned his job/way of life as a minister. Teddy felt uncertain about his future and what he was supposed do for the rest of his life, until he finally recognized that delivering mail had always resonated with him. As for Clark, he described himself as mediocre at most things and didn’t really have a goal in life. He claimed he didn't have a “life story.” I disagree, in fact, Clark has the most to tell out of all the generations. He is the outcome of all of the past accumulation, from Clarence, Teddy, his mother Essie/Alma and now himself. To me, it's as though he picked up where Clarence fell off. He joined the Temple in hopes of making up for the God he never knew growing up. With the Wilmott blood running through each of their veins, they all have more in common then their is to be said. -Tia Meares
DeleteWhen Clarence had lost his religion and was speaking to Mr.Dearholt about his troubles, he was offered a vacation at a seaside cottage at Ocean Grove. I found this highly humorous seeing as I have spent 17 summers in the quaint town and that it is a extremely religious community. So much that they call the town itself "God's square mile". During this time period Ocean Grove had blue laws, which prohibited certain things on Sunday such as people could not garden, play ball, or hammer a nail. I found it coincidental that Mr.Dearholt suggests Clarence to take a vacation here seeing as Clarence basically wants nothing to do with religion anymore. His intentions were most likely to try to rehabilitate the ministers fleeting faith.
ReplyDeleteTia Meares says: As soon as the book mentioned Ocean Grove I immediately thought of you and the time we spent there back when we were 11 or 12. I remember I had to keep myself from blurting out, "Oh my god" as a casual expression because of the seriousness in religion there. I never would have thought that a book I was reading for English would take me back to that place or those memories from so long ago but I'm glad it did.
DeleteExtending onto your conclusions about Mr. Dearholt, I noted as well that during that conversation he was trying to turn around Clarence's decision to resign. In fact, this reminded me of the conversation Jim and Josie held during their night under the moon. How Josie tried to convince Jim to stay with her. She reassured him that if he abandoned his bad drinking habits and self pitying then things would look up him. Or in Clarence's case, Mr. Dearholt believed that if Clarence declared his faith in God again then everything would go back to normal.
I think this truly shows how much effort and knowledge John Updike put into this book. Even little details people may not think anything of have a much greater meaning.
DeletePaige Fluckiger
Overall I did enjoy "In the Beauty of the Lilies" for many reasons. First and foremost I loved the structure of the book. The author wrote about one character so you could obtain their thoughts and feelings then he followed that section with a section from the former's child. In each section the reader was able to familiarize themselves with the specific character. The book flowed from parent to offspring in a very cohesive manner. But my one critique of this exclusive pattern is that, like Eliza, Annie and I mentioned above, is that another female's point of view be added to balance out the story. For example, Emily and Esther would have added more insight on the storyline and their lives that is essential for developing a better understanding of the book as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I believe the author did an OUTSTANDING job of incorporating the vernacular of the time into the writing. Words and phrases such as "speakeasies" and "Gibson Girl" immersed my mind into the early 1900s. I could visualize the towns, the people, and the way of life. Updike utilized strong imagery and elaborated heavily on certain details which allowed the reader to captivate the reality of the scene.
I believe reading the book was refreshing because its style and structure were very unique. Each character demonstrates inner conflict which is relatable to the reader because no one is perfect or can have a perfect life. This book includes so many different pieces that I believe is has something for everyone to connect to or take interest in.
-Sarah Gorman
I really enjoyed the structure of the book as well! However, one inconsistency really bothered and disappointed me. As each section flowed into the other, some time is missing in between each section. This brings the reader further into the important parts of each character's life creating the "meat" of the storyline. Each time the end of a character's section does not clearly state what happens to the next character. The exception for this is the end of Essie/Alma, where it is directly stated that Clark joins The Temple of True and Actual Faith. This spoiler was annoying to me because I feel that the turn of events which leads Clark to turn to Jesse and Christ is very ironic considering how the story began. I feel this would have been much more meaningful if it was not already revealed to the audience.
DeleteI don't think it's an inconsistency more than it is an artistic choice on the authors part. While I agree that the spoiler might ruin the story for some people, I felt as if this story was more about the journey than the destination.
DeleteAidan Doyle says: (in response to Sarah Gorman (August 12, 12:07pm post)
ReplyDeleteThis book left a very similar impression on me. I really enjoyed the "vernacular of the time" being so well done, especially reading this right after taking U.S History where we heard a lot of these words being used. I also felt I would not have understood this book as well if I had not just taken that class, which was fun to see knowledge from one class apply to another. I also agree that there is a way for everyone to connect with or find interest in at least one of the characters in this book in some way that makes them enjoy the book just a little bit more. For me I found Teddy to be the most interesting character because he had so many different conflicts going on. Between his father bringing social ruin on the family by giving up his position/religion, his struggle to find a job/purpose in life, and dealing with finding a girl his family approves of, he had a lot on his plate! When I first started reading this I did not enjoy John Updike's writing style but the more I read the more I grew fond of it. The very descriptive and vivid style became very engaging for me and was unlike anything I have ever read. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the book and agree it would be helpful to get another female perspective added to the story. I personally would prefer to hear Emily's perspective rather than Esther because Emily is mentioned more throughout the book and interacts a lot more with one of our other main characters, Teddy. - Aidan Doyle
Haley Zmijewski says (in response to Sarah Gorman and Aidan Doyle): While in my first comment it is easy to tell that overall this book was not my favorite, there are many bits and pieces of the story that I did really enjoy, and I wholeheartedly agree with both of you that Updike did a fantastic job of making me feel as though I was immersed in the time period of the early 1900’s. I could see the events that we all just learned about in U.S. History last semester unfold before my eyes. Although I did not thoroughly enjoy the plot I did find the imagery created by the author to be quite magical.
DeleteIn response to Eliza Browning, Sarah Gorman, and Sarah Lateer:
I definitely agree with all of the previous statements that another female’s point of view would be fascinating to see; however, to branch of of Eliza’s comment a bit, if we were able to read another person's point of view, I would like to read about Patrick's life in more depth. When we were introduced to Patrick in Essie's part he told her that he was gay. In this time period that the book takes place I feel like it would be very interesting to read about how he found himself especially being at a boarding school, and to get a sense of the trials and tribulations that he went through to either be accepted or not by his family. It would also be interesting to see how that affected his relationship with God.
I did think Patrick was a very interesting side character and would've liked to see more of him throughout the book; another reason I enjoyed In the Beauty of the Lilies was the detail and attention given to the minor characters as well as the major ones. Often I thought that other members of the Wilmot family might have an even more interesting perspective than the narrators and would have enjoyed reading about their internal lives as well.
DeleteAnd Aidan also wants to add: When I first started reading the final chapter of this book, I thought Jesse was most certainly based off of Charles Manson. They both had many similarities. They are both family cult leaders, were stationed in a California valley,and both manipulated their followers into thinking they were Jesus. I was really curious to see if John Updike did actually base this chapter off the famous serial killer so I looked online and found out I was actually incorrect! The final chapter was actually based off of the "Branch Davidians" who were another religious cult that came after Charles Manson. I thought it was really cool that parts of this chapter like the "Waco Siege" actually happened and Jesse was based off of a real person, David Koresh. I think it is possible that John Updike looked at both of these people and used bits from both their lives to create this story which would also be fascinating. - Aidan Doyle
ReplyDeleteI think that the whole cult ideology that Updike created in this book was fascinating, specifically because we were able to see it through Clark, who was more in-tune with the outside world and seemed to have a higher degree of common sense, yet was still in a sort of trance led by Jesse. It's also a cool idea that Jesse and Clark's story was based off of a combination of real life events. This is definitely something I want to look further in to.
Delete-Sarah Lateer
I have a book called Cold Zero. It's the memoirs of an FBI agent who, among other things, was present at the Waco siege. It's one of my favorites, and it includes a lot of details about the siege from law enforcement's side. I'd be willing to lend it to anyone who's interesting in learning more.
DeleteWhile I can certainly see the Charles Manson similarities which have been mentioned, my first thought upon reading the cult chapter was of similarity to Jonestown - another infamous and indescribably grotesque real life cult which ended in death and chaos. Anyhow, on a note of speculation, I believe Updike's inclusion of the violent cult may be a thematic device of sorts which is meant to mirror the ever-growing rift between religion and society, in that such hardline spiritual beliefs were once the status quo for Western society and have since been washed away by the tides of liberalism and social progression. Thus Jesse's cult is, in a way, a bizarre living memory - a holdover from a very different time which has since been deemed eccentric by the vast majority of society.
DeleteCarling Albrecht says: To be honest, after reading the first couple of pages of this novel I was utterly lost, confused, and kinda bored. It wasn’t until I went back, re-read the sections, and continued on did I recognize and truly admire the beauty behind Updike’s description of characters, feelings, thoughts, and landscapes.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy novels that include multiple protagonists because the audience really understands each character’s story from their point of view. In this case, I loved how each character, all coming from four different generations, were all affected by the same misfortunes and that they were all blood-related. This book is complicated in that you want to sympathize with each character but it seems almost impossible to do so. Like many of my classmates, I also wish there was a fifth generation that came from another female point of view. In Essie’s section, it seemed to be very theatrical and dramatic. It would have been interesting to read another female perspective contrasting Essie’s story.
Updike did an effective job at utilizing two key, contrasting symbols throughout all four chapters; faith/religion and film. Updike writes through eighty years of history, throughout the 20th century, as the Wilmot family struggles to find it’s religious faith again in a world that has been consumed with the superficial and unreal. In the end, each member discovered society has replaced this with cinematic illusions.
If anyone if having doubts in their faith, this would be such an intriguing and credible novel for them to indulge in.
I also was bored at the beginning, since the writing style is quite wordy and slow-moving, but the way Updike utilizes diction/connotation and description is extremely interesting to read and as time went on I started to enjoy it. It was extremely unique and painted a vivid sensory picture for me.
DeleteI also agree with the last part. In the beginning, when Clarence keeps repeating that there's no god, and is pretty much dead inside after losing his faith which was his life's purpose, he comes to the other sad realization that even if there is no god, that doesn't change anything. The world around him is still the same as it was when he thought there was a god, and just the way he contemplates it is so realistic. As someone who used to be atheist and has a few friends with anxiety that often go through similar crises where they feel that they and their beliefs are insignificant, this felt very real and authentic. I agree that someone struggling with faith could get a lot out of it.
Haley Zmijewski says: While reading In the Beauty of the Lilies it was easy for me to appreciate Updike's elegant word choice and this beautifully crafted work. However, I found it challenging for me to actually enjoy the story being told. To start off, as I was reading Clarence's part I felt that I would never get into the book because to me that entire first part was very slow, but once the story moved on to Teddy it began to pick up a bit. However I still didn't find myself loving the book because it was very disheartening. Throughout reading you are rooting for the characters to stay hopeful and as I finished the book I felt as though I just wanted more for everyone. Clarence died while no longer having any faith in God who had guided him throughout a good portion of his life, Teddy was left never having any faith in God because to paraphrase, "he had a kind of grudge because of what had happened with his father", Essie/Alma had also pretty much lost her faith in God once she became famous and very conceited; however, she did begin to regain some of that faith in the end when she was left with a dead son. As I read Clark's part I began to think that the book was going to come full circle because opposite to Clarence in the start of the book, Clark spent his part finding/ beginning his relationship with God. I was hoping for Clark to have a great life once he seemed to have found himself at the Temple after some crazy misunderstood years growing up in Hollywood; however, he never got his happy ending after being led by the false prophet, Jesse whom he ending up shooting to death before dying himself. In the end I was left with an almost sour taste in my mouth because overall I felt as though everyone's life and story was pretty depressing and no one seemed to have any good outcomes. Personally I didn't really even find any positive messages within the story, it just left me feeling hopeless.
ReplyDeleteReplying to what Haley said about Clark. I too believed he would become successful after his time in the temple, but also in the beginning after just barley learning about Clark, I had hoped that he wouldn't fall under this false prophets spell. I thought that I was going to like Clark's section but while reading it I found myself thinking that I did not like him after all. He seemed like he was trying too hard to fix his life, like he was trying to put a square peg in a circle hole. I believe that he almost saw Jesse as a father figure, due to the fact that this would be the first time Clark actually had a man in his life who really cared about him or said he did. In the end I think Clark took all of his feelings about childhood and abandonment by not only by his mother but the men in his life too and he put them into Jesse. Making Jesse the main person he wanted to trust and love. It's pretty sad if you think about it, another man essentially 'betrayed' him, leading him down the path to self destruction.
DeleteMeghan Gifford says:
ReplyDelete• Updike really likes to be descriptive.
• It's interesting to see an American classic where a main character gives up on God, seeing how the foundation of the classics is based on praising God when not discussing corruption.
• I personally like how art gave Clarence comfort.
• I'm glad that Ted ended up following his heart and actually ended up fairly well. It's not really common for decent characters to end up with a good ending in American lit.
• Found the American corruption at its finest- the film industry! True that there are twisted people, but Essie's story is the stereotype that is basically why no parent want their child to pursue acting. It also reinforces the idea that famous people make terrible parents because they are too caught up with their own lives.
• All I can say about Clark is that his story is a bit of a rollercoaster. In his defense being neglected as a child would lead to a life without guidance and such craziness.
•While some parts of the film industry I thought weren't fairly portrayed, I liked how for people like Clarence and Clark art shoed to be able to bring people comfort. As an artist, one of our biggest goals while pursuing our passion is to connect with other people in one way or another and make them feel something.
I didn't enjoy Updike's complex and prolonged style of writing in Clarences section at first, but as I thought about it I felt that the slowness of the plot and the intricacy of his descriptions mirrored Clarences situation. Clarences life after realizing his loss in faith drags on for him with no real meaning, and his complex thoughts about the concepts of his faith and what it means for him to have become faithless tie into the ornate detail of Clarences experience. I think it was a smart move to break the book into sections, it allows the reader to connect to the characters more personally because you gain a deeper understanding of each character, and you don't lose interest as quickly as you would if all the characters didn't have their own parts.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that Updike allowed the reader to connect with each character in a deeper way by giving them their own chapter. I felt that if the story had been written from one perspective or as a general overview of the family over the years, it would not have been nearly as effective. I also thought Updike's choice of characters to represent each generation was interesting. For example, I personally would have liked to hear more about Stella and how she was coping with her husband's loss of faith, but I think the author's choice of focusing solely on Clarence shows how the significance of this section is not within her side of the story. Looking back, I realize that if Stella had been the main focus, I think it would have been more difficult to understand Teddy and why he felt so strongly about things such as how he did not want to work selling anything like his father had done. He did not want to end up in the fragile state Clarence died in, which I could understand because I was able to see Clarence’s perspective. However, if the chapter had been written from Stella’s point of view I may have struggled more to understand how Clarence was truly suffering. Although I would have liked to see different sides of each generation, I think Updike was able to give enough information on each character to seamlessly transition from one generation to the next.
DeleteLike Emily’s opinion, I felt that Clarence’s section was very slow paced, and sometimes even confusing to read. However, I think it is interesting how Emily pointed out that this slow paced section represents how Clarence felt and his situation. I find this comment about Clarence's section to definitely be very true. His entire chapter is mostly only about him explaining the process he went through while he was losing his faith. It never seemed to have any other exciting or important events. In addition, I also really liked how Updike divided the book was into different sections that were written from different characters points of views. I liked how each section had an entirely different story and I think that this, overall, made the book more interesting and enjoyable to read. Like Kaitlyn said, as well, this format of the book made it much more effective for me while reading it!
DeleteI agree that it was somewhat tedious to read, but the deliberateness of that tone and pace is what amazes me. There is so much precision in the words used throughout the novel to create different tones for different characters. Updike's writing style is extremely advanced and intelligent in my opinion.
DeleteI'll be honest, when I first started reading In the Beauty of the Lilies, I wanted nothing but to quit. However, skipping over the parts the first time through and then going back a second time helped me use context to understand not only the plot of the text, but also Updike's style of writing. While it is extremely difficult to follow, I completely agree with Emily in that it was done purposefully to correlate to Clarence's complex struggle with religion.
Delete-ricky
I didn't enjoy Updike's complex and prolonged style of writing in Clarences section at first, but as I thought about it I felt that the slowness of the plot and the intricacy of his descriptions mirrored Clarences situation. Clarences life after realizing his loss in faith drags on for him with no real meaning, and his complex thoughts about the concepts of his faith and what it means for him to have become faithless tie into the ornate detail of Clarences experience. I think it was a smart move to break the book into sections, it allows the reader to connect to the characters more personally because you gain a deeper understanding of each character, and you don't lose interest as quickly as you would if all the characters didn't have their own parts.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with feeling like Updike used very complex diction, having a dictionary handy whenever I was reading. I like your interpretation about why he chose to use such complicated language, relating it to Clarence's life dragging on slowly. That could be a definite possibility because in other character's sections, I found the language was different.
DeleteSomething I also thought about was that he could have split this book up by character and how that could have changed it in anyway, if it would have at all.
I also agree with not enjoying Updike's complex language. At times it was hard understand what was happening in the story because I was focused on trying to depict his language. Emily, I had not thought about the reason behind why he used such intricate language, but that is a great interpretation. The book did seem to really drag on, similar to Clarence with his wavering faith. I also liked how the book was divided up by character with the third person narrator. It allowed me to really see what each character was feeling, going through, and the different time periods that were incorporated throughout the book. I find that I tend to enjoy books more when they have the plot being told through multiple characters. Overall, the complex language at times I thought took away from the story, but it may have been used as a result of Clarence's situation and I enjoyed living the story through multiple characters encounters. -Brie McNamee
DeleteI find myself disagreeing with seemingly popular distaste for Updike's intricate language. As someone who more thoroughly enjoys when writing and words are used like art themselves opposed to used as a mode by which to demonstrate a story, I found the actual writing of this story to be enthralling. Precision of language is very important, especially when attempting to describe very fine ideas like faith and human perseverance.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe most interesting thing for me about "In The Beauty of the Lilies" was how well Updike incorporated the different culture shifts in each section. Obviously with a story spanning many decades there will be changes in civilization and how people act. For me the "Roaring Twenties" is an especially exciting and compelling time period, so I really enjoyed Ted's section. Reading about the speakeasies and bootlegging brought me back to U.S. history class, as Haley had also mentioned. I was also elated that he chose to incorporate the idea of the occult into his novel. About two years ago I watched a documentary about an occult in Texas and have been fascinated ever since. As a result, when Clark joined the religious commune I was excited to see how it would all play out. Culture is something I am very interested in, so that was one aspect I was really able to enjoy about this book.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the culture shifts in this novel were very intriguing. While this book was not my favorite, I admired the way that Updike seamlessly integrated the culture of each time period that played a role in this story. The ability to take this 80+ year timeline and coalesce the changing cultures in a coherent and consistent way is nothing short of impressive
DeleteAs I mentioned in my previous post, the culture change throughout all the sections was immense, but there was one observation I had that was particularly interesting. Clarence, a holy man his entire life previous to the start of the book, winds up losing his faith in a time when religion was a big part of everyday life and society. He turns to the newly thriving world of film and movies. On the other hand, about seventy years later, his great grandson, Clark finds faith. The 80s were a time of pop culture where movies played a big role in influencing society. Clark turned away from this culture trend and moved towards religion, the exact opposite of his great grandfather. Both characters turned their backs on the cultural normalities of the time. I'm not saying religion wasn't prevalent in the 1980s, but I believe it is safe to say it was not as strict as the earlier days. Clark would not have faced the financial or social consequences Clarence did had he chosen to drift away from God.
ReplyDeleteI do agree strongly with the point regarding the culture change. I would actually describe this novel as a great irony. Clarence's significant decision to give up on his religion and life's work as a reverend not only have economical, but psychological effects on his family. It not only affected his immediate family (most importantly Teddy), but every subsequent generation that followed. It is not only ironic, but comical that Clark, his great grandson, ended up living in this religious commune. He also was a very prevalent member of this society which is also similar to Clarence's former role in the church. Clarence also had been looked up to as a hero in his society when he preached as a reverend, and essentially became a nobody, selling encyclopedias door-to-door. Clark was a neglected child by his mother and worked at a ski resort. He eventually became a hero, saving the lives of many innocent women and children by assassinating the maniacal preacher of the Temple. While the characters of Teddy and Essie are paramount to the plot and the development of the characters, Updike wants to show the irony between Clarence and Clark and how the generations between shaped this.
DeleteWhen I began reading this novel, my expectations were not high and I assumed that I would not like it. I felt Clarence’s section was quite boring and drawn-out; however, once the story progressed, I found I actually quite liked it. Last year for summer reading, we had to read “The Color of Water” by James McBride, which was “a black man’s tribute to his white mother”. This novel shifted between two completely different point of views and I thought that was a very interesting way to write a book. We got to learn two stories of two generations and the hardships of both. I find that this book and “In the Beauty of the Lilies” connect very well. While “The Color of Water” was only two alternating perspectives, this book offered four diverse stories. Also, in both of these novels, the theme of generations was dominate. In McBride’s story, we saw the life of a young man learning his way and we also got to learn the difficult life his mother had. In John Updike’s novel, we read a continuation of generations, as Clarence was Teddy’s father, and Essie was Teddy’s daughter, and so on. I felt that the changing of point of views kept the story interesting and for me, made me want to read on to see each viewpoint. -Katie Yates
ReplyDeleteJillian Haggerty says: To add along to Kaitlyn and Katie, you could definitely say Clarence's section of the book wasn't the most enjoyable or easy to read of the four. Most likely due to the difficult word choice or vernacular Updike used as well as Clarence's lack of action or rather significant events throughout his section. But as you work your way out of his section and into the others, I think you realize the importance of Clarence and how his beginnings and life connect very much to his descendants. The actual connection between him and his relatives brings interest to the story as a whole. As the setting and time period changes with each character, the book definitely becomes more understandable and relatable. As well as how much the other character's value Clarence brings awareness to his value for the story. On another note, personally, I really enjoyed the book. Seeing how each character connected to another in a whole different life and world was very interesting to watch as the book progressed. Esther's part was probably my favorite partly due to it being the only female section of the book. It helped break the book up a bit. Her story was glamorous and dramatic and farther away from the everyday lives and basic stories of the other men.
DeleteI agree Katie, I liked the use of the generational shifts, and how it kept the reader interested. I think its neat to see how people from the same family can live such varied lifestyles, yet still have a common thread lacing them together. I like how Updike incorporates all different decades, the reader gets a sense of time moving forward and changing, which keeps the plot moving forward. I also agree with Jillian, that the female influence was used very well. The glamour, as Jillian said, of her story contrasted well with the rest of the book.-Emily Steiner
DeleteI enjoyed this novel much more than I originally thought I would because I struggled to read Clarence's chapter. I found his drab and hopeless view on life to be draining to read and I often zoned off. However, once I got more into the book I was able to look back and appreciate Clarence as a character more. Teddy's admiration of his father helped me to look past the fact that he gave up on God and put his family in a difficult situation. As I continued to read, I was honestly surprised about how much Stella and Teddy loved and looked up to Clarence. They still thought of him as the strong leader of the household, even when he was on his deathbed. Stella often told Teddy "Clarence wouldn't want his son under a lot of greasy cars…” or an accountant or any of the other various jobs his family thought of for him. They still viewed him as a strong influence in their family, even after his reputation was tarnished in the eyes of the community.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very insightful outlook of Clarence. Personally, I did not like Clarence as a character and also felt his section was draining to read; however, the way that you took the family's views of him into account in order to reform your own opinion, also made me reexamine my initial impression of Clarence. It was honorable how the entire family stuck by him, even throughout his wavering faith and the hardships he put them through.
DeleteSeemingly contrary to most people here, I quite enjoyed Clarence's bleak and hopeless worldview; he seemed to represent a rather somber generation of lower class Americans desperately struggling to survive in a world where the American Dream seemed increasingly fake (Gatsby anyone?) and the poor suffered the tortures of an obtusely capitalist society & culture. I found Clarence most relatable as he attempted to make a living as a shoddy solicitor, during which I could completely relate to his depressed outlook; indeed, I would find any sort of significant optimism from such a desperate man unrealistic and benignly irritating. All of Clarence's misery sets his chapter apart from the rest of Updike's story in a very significant way, as his proletarian struggle makes for a fittingly joyless tale which ultimately ends with a humble working man ruined by the American ideals of faith and Hoover-esque rugged individualism. Personally, I found Clarence's story to be the most compelling and easily the most tragic in all of the novel.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with this. His viewpoint set a tone for the beginning of the book, and I liked how it connected back to the theme of the American dream, especially in the dinner scene where people are discussing productivity and technology and how wonderful America is compared to Europe. While they do that, it is intriguing to watch Clarence sit quietly with his thoughts that god is dead and there is no purpose in any of the things they were talking about. It is heartbreaking watching him fall apart internally and not speak his mind at first, as he tries to maintain the outward appearance that he is the same man he always was.
DeleteJoshua Walls has this to say: I find it hard to believe that anyone could have made it past page 15 of this godforsaken book. The first three pages have literally nothing to do with the story, the dialogue is bland and unfulfilling to the amount of praise this book received, the sentence structure is awkward, unsettling to the eyes, and is actually painful to read. Of all the books I have read in or for school, In the Beauty of the Lilies was by far the most unreadable of them all.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that this book is far from my favorite, I feel that you are being overly harsh on Updike. I'm not particularly fond of the plot line, however, after some adjusting I found the sentence structure almost poetic. This may have just been me, but there was something very soothing about the way he wrote, almost lulling me to sleep. You could view this positively or negatively, but I enjoyed reading the words of Updike, but not his story.
DeleteI feel the opposite way about John Updike's writing style. I really enjoyed this story and its the only reason I was able to read this book. I found the writing style had too many details turning the sentences into chaotic strings of words. Many sentences seemed completely unnecessary and actually further confused me. I jokingly tell my family I read this novel twice because I had to read every paragraph two or three times to re-piece together the storyline and differentiate it from excess details. I completely agree with Josh Walls. I feel some of his critiques may be a little bit harsh. However, I can relate to his frustration toward the first few pages of the novel. I understand it may serve as some sort of foreshadowing (The movies), but it made me feel that this book was going to be an impossible task. This novel seemed like a monster in the beginning, but now that I've completed it I can truthfully say I really enjoyed the story that Updike created.
DeleteI agree with Thomas. There are two types of stories, one relaying the story of action and one relaying the story of a person. This book wasn't hot on the action (until Clark), but told the story of the Wilmot's family life. I think it would be easier to read in an abridged form, maybe 300 pages instead of 500, but it's still important to read in order to understand things from other people's perspective.
DeleteI have previously stated that this book was not a favorite of mine and was hard for me to get into; however, I do agree with Thomas and Phoebe about how Josh was being too harsh on Updike. I am glad I had to read this book because honestly if it wasn't for this class this is not a book I would gravitate towards, and even though I didn't truly enjoy it I was still able to appreciate the imagery Updike created. This book exposed me to a new kind of author and a new kind of story and for that I am grateful.
Delete-Haley Zmijewski
This book was also quite slow at first, but I wish Josh gave it time to warm up. He's being a little harsh in my opinion, as the beginning is supposed to be dull and slow, to mirror Clarence's feelings. It is written almost like complex poetry, and even if that doesn't interest you, looking at the plotline and the way it was done was at least interesting.
DeleteI agree with Josh Walls. The first chapter of this book is way too descriptive, so it is very easy to be lost in the ornate words Updike uses. For example, the sentence "the sunbaked leather of the saddle scorched her buttocks and thighs, and the tousled hair of her steed's mane seemed to lead her consciousness invitingly down toward the roots of a shady tangle." This description is unnecessary and really makes the first 50 pages of this book nearly impossible to read. However, when I got to the chapter about Teddy, the description of every pointless thing seemed to die down and the book was a little easier to understand. So I don't know whether Updike wanted us to think that Clarence thinks deeply about everything, or that's just the way Updike introduces his novels. Either way, I am not impressed by this book as it really lacks any sort of main plot or purpose, rather it describes pointless objects for multiple paragraphs.
ReplyDelete-Jake Robertson
I think the excess description was on purpose, to tell how Clarence thinks and give us an idea of how he feels. The description of unimportant mundane objects, while tedious, interested me, as the attention to detail of Updike's writing style is quite unique and just cool to read, though a bit difficult.
DeleteI commend Updike for his ideas and interesting plot points the story. For example, Reverend Clarence losing faith out of thin air it seems. You almost never hear of something like this happening in real life, but it's a feasible storyline that shakes things up in the beginning. Saying this, Clarence's section annoyed me. Too many things were described, and I felt as though the words and sentences he used were a bit unnecessary at times. Aside from this, I tried my best to double down and get through the first couple of pages, and I was happy that I did. Teddy's section was much more effective for understanding in my opinion, and I felt that I related to his section the most.
ReplyDeleteI agrere with your comment about the story plots. Although droping religion in this day and age may not seem too big of a deal, back then it could be compared to being convivted of a felony. I actually beleive as far as a plot goes, Clarence's section was more exciting than Teddy's seeing as Teddy seemed to just sit around all day and go to the movies. When reading Clarence's section, I realized it was necessary for me to look deeper into Clarence's mind and emotions, and try not to dwell on unnessesary language. Also, keep in mind Jack that language develops over time, and considering the story takes place about a century ago, it would be possible that that type of language was how they spoke and thought.
Delete-Luke Bowden
Corynne Mahlstedt says: I think this novel can be best described as “dense.” Right off the bat we were hit with so much symbolism, poetic language, witnessing a minister amidst a life crisis, and just advanced vocabulary combined with the vernacular of the 1910s. It’s a lot and at first I didn’t really like it. It was just a bothersome challenge to read it and like Carling, I found myself lost and bored. I slowed myself down by highlighting lines I found meaningful, beautiful, confusing, etc. I gained an appreciation for this “dense” style of writing where Updike seemed to craft every line to perfection. For example, I highlighted, “In the purifying sweep of atheism human beings lost all special value” (7). This is a heavy quote in itself, summing up the drama of the situation.
ReplyDeleteIt was also dense in the sense that we were introduced to many different characters with many different problems. It was quite interesting to see so much history through one family’s story. It led me to download Ancestery.com but it was too much of a hassle and my free trial ran out. Other people have already hit on the idea of Updike connecting film and faith throughout the book. I also think that this was interesting and really tied everything together. My favorite section/character was Clark’s because he was the product of all the decisions and struggles that the other characters (his family members) had gone through and that we as readers had witnessed.
I definitely did the same thing, underlining meaningful, confusing, and poetic phrases. I tend to read quite fast and almost skim, as my reading comprehension is good, but with this book, that strategy didn't work and I found myself going back and rereading or having to constantly slow myself down, as well as take time to look up the definitions of some words.
DeleteCorynne also says: Another line that stood out to me was, “The Puritans likened men to spiders suspended above roaring hearth fire…”(18). This, as we learned last year in Mrs. G’s class, is an illusion to Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” So that was cool.
ReplyDeleteAnother connection I found in this novel was Clarence’s attachment to the movies which mirrored Cecilia’s situation, a character from the film The Purple Rose of Cairo (a movie I watched in Film Studies class last semester). In the movie, Cecilia went to the cinema all too often, watching the same movies over and over. Movies were her way to escape the harsh realities of her life; the depression, an abusive husband, and a sad, stuck life. Likewise, Clarence’s dependence on the nickelodeon cinemas offered him comfort from his similarly sad, stuck life. Both Clarence’s section in In the Beauty of the Lilies and the film The Purple Rose of Cairo offer the same theme of “escapism” where both characters rely on the movies to virtually leave their unfavorable situations.
What I found to be most interesting about this novel is the way that each main character is affected by the character that preceded them. Clarence's spiritual upheaval led Teddy to choose a life without confrontation, Teddy's banal lifestyle led Essie to want more, and Essie's work-crazed conduct and shallowness led Clark to search for meaning in life. These purely reactionary personalities that all these characters possessed made their exploits predictable and their weaknesses unambiguous. I think this added an extra dimension to this story, as the reader can focus on the cause and effect relationship between the personalities of characters and their predecessors, as opposed to their specific actions.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great point. It is compelling to think of how each generation could have been wholly different if Clarence had not lost his faith. The loss of faith in Clarence followed by his death shaped the life that Teddy and Jared subsequently lived out. Teddy's life-to-be fell apart and was replaced by the life of the fearful man. Jared seized life and became a veteran and successful, yet criminal, entrepreneur. It is entirely possible that both these characters would have become men complacent in living traditional lives. The stimuli of their father losing his faith and passing brought out the inner person that each of them were. Because of this Teddy may have never become pleased with becoming a mailman and marrying Emily. Teddy played life too safe and never gave himself the prospect of a mildly exciting life. Because of his involuntary decision to live a non-confrontational life, everything succeeding Clarence was shaped by his faith being lost paired with his death.
DeleteKatrina Griffin says: When reading this book, I thought that having the multiple points of view would be unnecessary or confusing in ways, but overall, I enjoyed hearing the four generations of Wilmot’s in different sections. The third-person narrator of each section has a limited point of view, so the narrator knows the thoughts and feelings of the character for whom the section is named. I thought that this was interesting in order for the reader to hear each of the central character’s thoughts and feelings from the narrator, but also still reading about characters from previous sections/chapters. While thoroughly enjoying the different sections revolving around different characters, I agree with my fellow classmates in the sense that the majority of the central characters were male. It would have been interesting to have a section for Stella or Esther (Teddy’s sister) to gain more insight into their lives during the time period and have another female perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I liked about this book was how each of sections moved along through history and John Updike acknowledged this. He mentioned multiple times different events that were happening in that time period, to allow the reader to understand what year it was, but also make the storyline relevant to the time period. He mentioned speakeasies, the first world war, John Kennedy’s assassination, and multiple other historical events. I personally liked how he inserted the little bits of history into his story because it made me think back into American history and how it changed from year to year, which may have been his goal.
In addition, there is a contrast between small towns and big cities is apparent in Essie’s case. Unlike her father, she is adventuresome, and is quick to seize the opportunity to enter the world of modeling and show business. Helped in New York by Patrick, she makes the connections she needs to land contracts in magazine advertisements, on television, and eventually in films. Her successful career as the star Alma DeMott leads to roles with all the major male stars of the 1950’s, but she pays a price in her personal life: constant pressure by fans, multiple lovers and husbands, and disrespectful treatment by agents, directors, and producers who want her for her image, not herself. The contrast between the Hollywood life and that of small-town America is clear when Updike writes about the occasions when Essie visiting family in Basingstoke, and how her career affects her future.
Christina Lawrence says: I enjoyed reading "In the Beauty of the Lilies" and how the author had the story have different viewpoints. I found it interesting to see each character's outlook on religion and how the Wilmot family's beliefs and customs evolved throughout time. The story started with a clergyman named Clarence who fell out of faith and traded his priesthood to become an encyclopedia salesman. Then the perspective switches to his son Teddy who decided to stop believing in God because he felt that he was betraying his father if he did. Next Essie, Teddy's daughter, wasn't religious but had her son Clark baptized and only went to church for funerals. Finally, the belief of religion returned in the family when Clark decided to become involved in a religious group. I thought it was fascinating how different customs and beliefs eventually reappeared in the family at the end. In addition, I really liked John Updike's utilization of sophisticated language. This book was beautifully written with an incredible amount of detail and imagery. The reader could picture exactly what was happening. Overall, I liked the book and appreciated the author's writing style and his use of unique perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI agreeing with everything that has been said here. Almost imediately, the author creates an interesting atmosphere when Clarence pulls away from his faith, and it only get more dramatic when Teddy marries into a very religious family. The transition to Essie was not as intense, but when Clark joined the extreme religious group, I actually found myself turning the pages quicker than I had yet in this book. I loved the ending, and actually enjoyed passing through the characters and seeing their religious connections.
Delete-Luke Bowden
Meaghan Rowedder says: I found this book to be very interesting and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I love books that are told from many different characters perspectives. Especially one like this where it is passed down in the family. I thought the insight from the four characters and their lives were all very interesting and I also loved how it stretched over such a large period of time, covering most of the 20th century. I also found it interesting how there was a constant connection in each section of the book, or each person's story, back to movies. With Clarence, movies were his way to comfort himself. For Ted, he saw a movie on his first date with his controversial girlfriend Emily whom he later marries. Then, for Alma, she dreams of becoming a movie star, and follows this dream throughout her section of the book. Finally, for Clark, he joins a religious group his girlfriend is in partially because of their ideas on pop culture and movies. I found this constant connections to be really interesting and beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Meaghan and I, too, noticed this special connection. I usually do not enjoy books that are told through multiple points of view, but this story was an exception. As many other people have said, the first section was challenging to get through and I was frustrated knowing about the upcoming switch between characters. However, after reading more of the book, I didn't mind the change. I thought it was captivating how each character's story, despite being so unique and different from the rest, was connected through one similar detail - movies.
DeleteI also thought that this connection alluded to a unique, subtle sense of unity throughout the whole book. Updike did three things that made the unity clear to me. First, he did the obvious - mentioned characters in sections of the book that were not their own. Next, he constantly made small connections, such as the movie one, which linked the characters together. Finally, he consistently specified the time frame of the events. While that did not quite provide unity, it proved that although these stories took place years apart, the characters still had a shared connection. These three techniques created what I interpreted as a sense of unity across all generations of the Wilmot family.
Ryan Angers says: I was not too intrigued by this book, but did appreciate seeing the butterfly effect play out. Clarence no longer found his faith fulfilling and the rest of the story displayed what the decision to lose faith would do to not only Clarence, but generations following. Each decision and action by the characters in the book had an underlying tie to something that happened before to cause it and also had an effect that would impact the future. That made it interesting because you would always keep the implications of what could be affected by each choice. In addition to the chain of cause and effect, Updike also made some of the actions and reactions ironic. It was interesting that Clarence chose to sell encyclopedias as science contradicted with his prior faith. Also, Clarence chose to leave his faith in a time where faith was the center of most people’s lives, but Clark found faith in a time where faith was becoming less and less of a central role in people’s lives.
ReplyDeleteTimothy Lewis says: When this book began I absolutely hated everything about, the pace was slow and seemed almost meaningless in the incredible amount the descriptiveness the author employed, and the concept of the book irked me as well, a story about the influence of faith across four generations of a family. Noting that I am not religious at all, this first section for a while felt pretty uncomfortable for me to read, and I put off reading this book as in addition to that I didn’t understand nearly all of what was being said in relation to religion. Eventually though I got through it and it opened up to be a decent story and I realized that the seemingly unnecessary description gave rise to strong character development and allowed them to come alive more. I got a strong sense of how Clarence was actually feeling towards the end of his section with the help of what, at one point, seemed worthless. Later on I began to actually enjoy reading it and was able to connect with characters like Teddy, who wanted to be useful, but at the same time felt he wasn’t suited to really do anything to help. Overall I enjoyed the book in the end, but just because of the initial part of Clarence’s section I wouldn’t want to ready it again and have a minor dislike for the piece as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThere is one character that many readers seem to skim over. Jared is a very essential character in this novel as he acts as a foil to Teddy. Updike shows how both their lives are differently affected in the wake of the death and loss of faith of Clarence, their father. Readers quickly pick up how these events sculpt Teddy's life. Many would describe Teddy's subsequent actions as a attempt to live a conflict-free and safe life. Teddy struggles to determine what he wants to do in life, essentially wasting the family's waning supply of money on classes that he ultimately won't utilize. He eventually gets engaged and marries the sole woman that he ever dated. On the other hand, Jared becomes a World War One veteran and marries the daughter of a bootlegger, kick-starting his life as an entrepreneur. Jared exhibits the heart and determination to take adversity head-on as he strives to achieve the "American Dream". Courtesy of the Great Depression, Jared faces numerous hardships but always "lands on his feet". Unfortunately, Teddy fails to take the necessary risks in life and lives an uneventful and lackluster life. Many readers will not pay much attention to Jared, stocking him up to a secondary personality to the general plot. However, Jared is much more than that. Updike utilizes him as a foil to show how people act in the face of difficult and uncomfortable circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of reading this I found it very difficult to want to keep reading more and just found myself lost in the complex and unnecessary descriptions as many people have already said. However, as the story progressed I found it much easier to read, as a result I was able to then truly appreciate the story being told and found myself deeply intrigued in how the story passed down through the family. One of the most interesting aspects of this was how each the preceding characters life and decisions affected the life of the one after them such as Teddy when it said “Watching his father's horrifying collapse had left Teddy with a number of aversions”. For example, Clarence’s battle with religion led Teddy to live a life without one. In addition, the way that Updike integrated the cultural shifts that affected each character in the story and seamlessly carried the story onward through multiple decades was flawless.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who found the death of Clarence fitting to the storyline he led in the novel? Almost immediately in the book, it is revealed that Clarence has suddenly lost his faith in God, and cannot bring himself to preach about a god he doesn't believe in. His family suffers at the suddenness of this, as his income is severely cut and his wife is required to help out financially by cleaning houses in town. When Clarence dies in the second section of the book, it happens very suddenly, and hits the family hard. His doctor had been saying for weeks now that he was starting to look better and was seemingly getting over his bout with tuberculosis when one night he passed away, leaving the family speechless. Much like his change of faith, Clarence's death left the family scrambling for money and searching for a new identity, eventually moving to Basingstoke, Delaware to start fresh.
ReplyDeleteThe way I took it was that Clarence died the day he lost faith in God. On that day his soul died and his body started fading, until he passed away a short while later. It is very sudden how his faith leaves him within a moment, prompted from nothing but too many scientific readings.
DeleteI agree with Phoebe that his metaphorical "death" happened before he actually died. It's definitely an important symbol in the novel, as well as his faith/loss of faith.
DeleteI think that the expansion of scientific knowledge has really changed how many people in the world view religion and faith. I don't think the world will ever not have faith in it, but I do believe that since we know so much about evolution and how the world has changed over time, that many people will come to believe in science more often than before. Just as Clarence had lost faith, I think that many others probably did so as well in real life.
DeleteOne interesting pattern that I picked up throughout all of the generations presented in In the Beauty of the Lilies was the idea of living as a good wilmot. Throughout the entire novel, the characters felt pressure from others to live up to the Wilmot name, most often when they were deciding what to do with their lives. For example, Clarence was humiliated within in his family because he was selling encyclopedias, something that was deemed below the Wilmot standard. The idea that he had dropped a respected position in the community to a job that was the equivalent of begging was unheard of and a disgrace to the family. In addition, Teddy was ridiculed for being an ice cream boy and pressured into being an accountant or a stock salesman simply so he wouldn’t tarnish the Wilmot name, even though all of those jobs were terrible for him. He finally found an acceptable position as a mail man. Even Clark felt superior to all of the cult members he was around, saying that he, “had come to dwell around strange, rough rubes,”(398). He was even offended by his cult name, Esau, because he felt like it was a name of a rube. This superior attitude most likely came from being a Wilmot. Like the others in his family, he associated the name something upper class and almost noble. However, I wonder, what exactly is a good Wilmot, especially since it seemed like many of the later generations based their model on Clarence, someone who had lost their faith and sold encyclopedias in shame.
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting to me that the only person who was never pressured by others into following the career of a good Wilmot, if I remember correctly, was Essie, despite her career path being very scandalous and not very noble. The fact that she slept with practically everyone she worked with and used her sexuality to move up in the movie industry is not something I would associate with the noble career path of a good Wilmot. This is even more interesting because many times Essie compared herself to Clarence and tried to model herself after what she heard everyone else saying about him, despite his failings in life. I feel as if even the Wilmots own idea of who they are and where they stood in the world became skewed as the generations passed.
-Phoenix Grover
That's very interesting Phoenix. I'm not exactly sure what a "good Wilmot" is; probably something based on status (like an accountant).
DeleteAs for the admiring grandparents (like Clarence), it's a reoccurring theme in real life too. It's sort of like "Why We Tell Stories;" in future generations the stories told about the grandparents become who they are. It's also the unknown about the deceased person that allows the future generations to mold the deceased person into someone they wish them to be.
Did anyone notice how sad and pathetic each Wilmot's love life is? Clarence, although married with a family, is not happy about his wife. Ama is not described physically with many kind words. Clarence always speaks fondly of Ama's eyes but other than that he just talks about how large of a woman she has become. Teddy did the same thing as his father. He speaks kindly of Emily's eyes and the complexion of her skin. After their marriage he makes comments about her gaining weight. Beyond the physical commentary, it is very clear to the reader that Teddy settled for Emily because she was easy. She was the cripple that nobody else wanted. Essie's love life continues to be a chaotic mess throughout her whole life. She sleeps with every man she can in order to further her career and boost her own ego. Even when she was younger she dropped her towel in front of HER COUSIN Patrick because she thought he would sleep with her. During Clark's section the reader understands that Essie's last marriage is based on her being able to spend her husband's money. He lives in Boston while she continues to work around the globe and live on the West Coast. She uses him for his money and the occasional moments where she may need emotional support, like when she goes back to Colorado to identify her son's remains. Lastly, Clark has no clear cut love in his life. He clearly sleeps around with many girls. Even at the temple he sleeps with Hannah who is supposed to be Jesse's wife, which was forbidden. The men at the temple were not supposed to have sex with the women unless they came there married. This seemed to be an unspoken rule at the compound. Is this another Wilmot curse passed through the generations?
ReplyDeleteLooking back in the story, one of the only faithful marriages shown is the Siffords, Emily's gardening father and Moorish mother. Throughout Teddy's and Essie's sections there are little details of this love. I found these details heart warming and uplifting. I found myself hoping that Essie would see this and change her ways in order to find love. I though it might have been a sign all Wilmots are doomed. Later, however, we see an example of a WIlmot being in love. Danny, Essie's younger brother, marries a Cambodian woman and has a family with her. Although not many details are shared about this part of Danny's life. there is one point that his family sees the news of the cult's war and it appears that Danny is committed to his family. Did he follow his Grandparent's example and avoid the Wilmot way or did he just get lucky?
I strongly agree with Alex. I did notice this continuous trend of tragic lives, however I didn't necessarily put together that they all resulted from their lack of true love. I think that is a very insightful observation, as well as your comment about the Siffords. I didn't really notice how their family contained the only real, faithful, genuine marriages until you mentioned it, and I think that further develops the book. It provides further insight on the character's lives, and kind of adds explanations for why they act the way that they do.
DeleteHmmm, I didn't notice the Sifford's until you said that, Alex. I wonder if that has any correlation with the Sifford's being seen as outcast and bizarre, maybe since it was told through Wilmot eyes. Along with other traits signature to the Wilmot name, it seems a Wilmot thing that they can't handle love.
ReplyDeleteI found the book enjoyable, the writing was complex and thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteIt was relatively easy to read, despite the plot (and our characters) spanning multiple generations. There were many themes, and I could certainly read it again and again and keep getting a slightly different perspective; I’m still not sure I get it. I appreciate how Updike cleverly used movies to portray the era each of the characters lived in. My biggest complaint is that the book was depressing, with no clear protagonist (or at least no likeable protagonist); I was almost apathetic about the characters.
I also see that no one discussed the title, which is unfortunate since it holds great meaning. It is a line from “Battle Hymn of the Republic” (full song here:https://www.lds.org/music/text/hymns/battle-hymn-of-the-republic?lang=eng&_r=1). The song originated from a popular tune sung by Union soldiers, which then had its lyrics changed to convey the righteousness of the abolitionist cause.We know that the abolitionist movement was rooted in Christian values, and the full quote in the song is “In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea”. Now, since a major part of the novel is the disintegration of traditional Christian devotion (Clarence loses faith in God), the title might symbolize some sort of objective. Perhaps Updike wants his story to clarify what it means to be a good Christian, and for his readers to strive for that.
Clarence Wilmot’s decision to leave his job as a minister was obviously loosely planned and led to drastic changes in his family socially and economically. However, I think it's important to understand that the problem with his decision was how unprepared he was for the future consequences, rather than him actually leaving the church. I don’t think you can be upset with Clarence losing faith because you can’t force someone to like something forever. Considering the position he held in the church, Clarence had to maintain this complete trust in religion and preach it to the community, but how can you properly do a job when you don’t fully believe in what you’re doing. We can’t force Clarence to be religious if he doesn’t want to be/or isn’t, just like you can’t force someone to like geometry. Also, part of the reason why I think Clarence rushed into leaving was that his family was so immersed in this religious community to get out he needed to leave quickly in a somewhat harsh manner, similar to the phrase “ripping off a bandaid”. To summarize, we can’t force someone to be interested in something, however we can critique how unprepared they were for the future consequences of their decision.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the discussions in these blogs can be summed up to people’s reaction and style of Updike’s book. I think most of us, towards part 3 and 4, began to get more comfortable with the writing and style, which makes the reading slightly more easier. In the Beauty of the Lilies is a book that really highlights the characters of the Wilmots for four generations. This book is mostly a book about characters and their development through the ages. You can tell this book focuses on characters because if you tried to plot out the events of the book you would realize that there wouldn't be that many and that most plot points are related to characters making mistakes and learning. I think as we get older, the more books we are assigned in school tend to be heavy on characters and their development like The Awakening or even The Catcher in the Rye. In my opinion, these books can be more difficult to read because I think as a society we are used to event after event and being constantly engaged, and the development of a character tends to be slow and methodical.
ReplyDeleteMegan Corbin says: While reading this book, I was incredibly frustrated by the slowness of Clarence’s part. The verbose detail upon his office alone seemed to go on far longer than necessary. Yet, reflecting on it now, I see how the exhaustive attention to detail helped develop Clarence’s “new” personality. Among the extensive detail, Clarence was often struck with the “searing persistence,”(p30), of the absence of his faith. As he trudges through each moment, trying to find a new meaningful direction his muddled mind is felt by the reader with the dry coverage of life’s tedious tasks. In this section however, I did take interest in the religious doctrine’s Clarence conformed too. Coming from a stricter baptist background, I found the sermon he gave after the visit with Mr. Orr to be quite familiar. Even without the passion to drive his career, he had clearly enough knowledge and linguistic elegance to appeal to calvinistic followers. Moving through the book, I agree with Brian and Andrew above, that each generation acquired personalities contrary to the one before them. Because of this I would expect to pity Teddy, as it result in his lack of ambition. Yet I genuinely liked Teddy, his life was simple and carried on with general success compared to the american dream. Instead, of all the characters I most cheered for Essie. Though she starred with great actors, her fame was slower coming than you can imagine she would want. Her father's simple life enticed her dreams of greater things. And therefore directed her son’s life into the crazy rollercoaster. It is easy to argue her neglect allowed for Clark's actions to follow into the cult that would take his life. Though I could not truly say I liked this book, I did appreciate the dedication to character building. The fine detail, no matter how exhausting, construct realistically complex characters.
ReplyDeleteA small side note, I do enjoy the use of the Battle Hymn as the title of the book. The most famous lines of which are “Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His Truth is marching on.” The death of Clarence’s faith is ironic, as the very title of the book in which his life was constructed, exalts a God who goes forth and wins all battles for his people. Yet, the battle faced by this Reverend was not won. Clarence was defeated, and his faith collapsed. He could no longer believe in a god who seemed to lose to the modern day science.
Aidan Devaney says: Personally, this was my least favorite work that we had to read. The beginning of the book was very slow and it seemed to throw you into the middle of the plot with little explanation. It was very difficult to get through the first 50 or so pages due to the vagueness of what was going on. I saw that his loss of faith coincided with Mary Pickford fainting, but I don’t quite understand why it was included in there. It seemed irrelevant and didn’t really have a purpose in progressing the plot. As it got more in depth about Clarence’s problems it became more clear and the storyline was much easier to follow. Although the rest of the book didn’t share the strangeness of the beginning, the feeling of disliking the book stuck with me.
ReplyDeleteTeddy is very similar to his father in the sense that he is very diffident and lacks an overall ambition in life. Although where Clarence loves the cinema, Teddy isn’t as fond of them because he just thinks that they are tiring. There seemed to be a continuous trend about being a social pariah with Clarence leaving the ministry and Teddy being involved with Emily, whose family is looked down on by the rest of society. Then, Clark is neglected by his mother due to her career and seen as an outcast as he grows up. When he’s older he works as a ski lift operator with no real ambition or drive either until he meets Hannah. Aside from Jared, the boys/men in the family all grow up neglected/outcast but they have one redeeming moment that sets them aside and gives some more fulfillment to their lives.
I agree that the first three pages were to correlate with Clarence’s loss of faith and to also provide an introduction of how the movies were going to slowly replace people’s religion and what they worship. I think it is particularly interesting that the film Mary Pickford was filming was called The Call to Arms. With this, it seems as if Mary’s fainting is her failing to respond to a call of arms. This can then be translated to Clarence, who also failed to respond to a call of faith and responsibility, instead allowing it to slip away from him. In addition, I believe this foreshadows the movies taking over faith and the obsession of people’s lives because of the glamorized and perfect situations they portrayed. When describing the filming with a church, apparently full of suffering, in the background, Updike writes, “the moving-picture camera was aligned to exclude any such modern view”(4). The movies were crafted to perfect the ills people faced and to provide an escape that was not burdened by modern problems. Thus, we see Clarence and practically the whole nation turn toward the cinema and away from religion.
Delete-Phoenix Grover
Colton Freeman says: Although I found the book as a whole to be very interesting with each section dedicated to a specific character’s life story, I found myself getting frustrated the most in the Teddy section. He was kind of a low-key, boring character in my opinion because he seemed to not know what to do with his life and it seemed to me as though he was wasting his life away. Frankly, he was constantly conflicted among his own feelings, his deceased father’s, and his mother’s, but he seems to try to please everyone rather than stick to one person which I believe to be why he seems to be so self-conflicted throughout his early life.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Clarence section, I was surprised to see Clarence transform from being an inspiring priest to a selfish, depressed man. The book mentioned that many of the members of Clarence’s church were always awed and blown away by the inspiration of Clarence’s sermons, so if canes as a shock to see him give up on his church so quickly. He refused to listen to his family or the church board, making the decision to quit the church solely for his own benefit. Even while he is walking the streets desperately trying to make money while his family practically starved at home, he never seems to regret his decision. It was this selfishness that brought him into depression and eventually to his downfall when he is diagnosed.
After reading the Clarence section over again, I have come to believe that Clarence’s diagnosis of Tuberculosis was merely just the depression he faced for the mistakes he made. When Clarence left the church, we see him turn from an inspirational and powerful leader of his church, to becoming a depressed salesman who can barely provide for his family. Then we see him develop and hobby for movies, which was merely an escape from the depressing life he had brought upon himself. When he could no longer escape and the depression became too much for him to handle, he gave up and let his life turn to despair while he lied in bed all day trying to cure an incurable illness that was really his depression.
I agree with your opinion on the section dedicated to Teddy. Though it was an easier read than the Clarence's section, Teddy was miserable, worthless, and at times came across as quite petulant. He is too lazy to go out and get anything he truly wants, and is content with his job as a postman when it is found for him. He was not a relatable character in any way, except for his willingness to go against society's wishes and marry the girl of his dreams.
DeleteAs far as the story of Clarence goes, I don't believe that he was selfish, he was just acting on impulse. For some reason, he completely lost faith in the God he had trusted his entire life. While the parishioners of his church needed his powerful sermons, he could no longer preach with a lack of faith and heart. On his deathbed, Clarence regrets this decision, as he believes his people needed him to push through the faithless slump and preach. With that pang of guilt, he feels that he deserves to die, and resigns to be consumed by the tuberculosis.
Rylee Kavanagh says: When I started reading "In the Beauty of the Lilies" I was a bit skeptical because I am not usually a fan of books that discuss God's relation and the power of faith in each person's life. However, as I was reading the book it began to grow on me. I loved how Updike wrote the story from various points of view and how each generation of the family affected the future generation. I also liked how Updike highlighted personal conflict experienced by humans, especially with Clarence and his decision to leave the ministry. The title of the book is interesting in that comes from a verse in Julia Ward Howe’s Battle-Hymn of the Republic which was written during the Civil War. The song gave the Union Army deeper meaning to the North’s cause and the abolitionist movement. However, when trying to make a connection to the book I’m having difficulty because the main purposes of each piece are different. Is the title to be taken as a tribute to soldiers who died fighting for American rights? Or is it a reminder of the religious propaganda that people died for in war? And how does that connect to “In the Beauty of the Lilies” and Clarence’s original decision to leave the ministry. When thinking of the war aspects I thought of the deaths that occurred at the Temple Compound, that Clark was involved in, but overall I’m confused on the connection between the two pieces. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteWhile reading In the Beauty of the Lilies, one of the most interesting stories to follow was that of Essie. It was also in Essie’s character that we began to see a return of religion to the Wilmot family, however it was not in the way Clarence would have hoped for. Essie begins to take on religion as an accessory in her life, as a status symbol. As a child, she decided which of her parent’s faith to adopt simply by how flashy the churches were. Essie talked about how, “ the children who went to the Presbyterian Sunday school weren’t so rough, though, as those who went to the Methodists and Baptists and the Church of the True Word, which didn't even have a steeple”(234). Essie also talked about how her grandfather was a Presbyterian minister and his flashy robes, showing further how she was only impressed by the outward appearance of these religions and not their deeper meanings. It is especially ironic that she thought Presbyterians were the most fashionable, useing her grandfather’s time as a minister as a reason, because he gave up his faith not wanting to carry on a facade similar to the one Essie had now in her own life. This also shows a change in people’s idea of religion as the times had changed. This was first seen with Clarence's council pushing for showier and fancier churches to draw in more worshippers and its result can be seen in Essie. As the times change, people began to replace faith with material items and use it as an accessory to who they presented themselves as. Essie, throughout all of her filmmaking, proudly and almost snobby declared herself a presbyterian to directors and fellow actors, despite having never lived up to their ideals. The only moment that we see Essie perhaps truly useing her faith, and not just as a prop, is when she is praying for her son Clark, thanking him for being a hero at the end of his life. This is also the only moment that we see her feel true emotion, rather than feigned emotion. It seems, by looking at her entire life and her outlook on certain things, that Essie was built for being an actress. Almost everything she did was for keeping up appearances and maintaining her status, however not for any real and personal reason. Essie’s entire life, not just in the movies, is an act and we are only able to get a glimpse of her true character when she is struck by the tragedy of her own son’s death.
ReplyDelete-Phoenix Grover
Lacey Ryan says: I didn’t enjoy Clarence’s chapter of this book as much as I enjoyed the others. Although I thought the idea of a priest losing his belief in God was entertaining and unique, I felt that this chapter was very repetitive. I liked the repetition of how it kept saying God doesn’t exist but I felt that a lot of his encounters were very much the same. Almost every person tried to talk him out of it or said that it was just a phase even though no one should change what they truly believe in based on someone else. This chapter was dry to me but the book did get better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily Steiner about the writing style of the book. I thought that it gave good insight to each character by having only a couple chapters, but each one is dedicated to a specific character. Since, it was written in third person there is still a limited insight into each of the characters, but I would have rather had one outside narrator then for the narrator to keep switching between chapters. I also agree with Sierra DeCarli that the writing style changes between each chapter. Like I mentioned earlier, I noticed that Clarence’s chapter was harder to read because his life wasn’t as exciting, to me, as his offspring down the line.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike most of my classmates I agree that the first 20-100 pages are difficult to get through but I also noticed what Sierra noticed. The language changes throughout each chapters as Updike seems to shape the text according to the character. Sine the first character presented is an old-fashioned minister of the Victorian era wrestling with his own spiritual/philosophical demons, the style is wordy, flowery and kind of cumbersome. Then as the story moves on to his son, things loosen, and then on to that son's daughter, Which is is smooth and simplified. I think it is a difficult task for a writer to put himself/herself into many different personas and make each of them sound genuine. Updike did a great job with that.
ReplyDeleteThis book was absolutely mind-blowing. Although it started off slow and difficult to get into, by the end of the last section, I was blown away by the complexity of the novel and how seamlessly the storylines are tied together. I was not too enamored with Clarence, as the writing of the section was elaborate and overdone, much like the writing of his time period. However, by the time the novel got to Clark and his tragic death, I did not want to put the book down. The perfect cycle of the lives of Clark, Clarence, and all the relatives in between can be likened to a conspiracy theory that actually makes sense; it made me rethink life as I knew it.
ReplyDeleteThroughout this book I noticed many cyclical elements that contributed to the shock of the ending. In the beginning, Clarence starts as a clergyman but loses his faith. He then instills faith in movies. Ted, his son, ends up being exhausted and bored by movies that his father would have enjoyed. Ted's daughter, Essie (Alma), then becomes a movie star. Her son, however, learns to hate modern movies because of the religious cult he joins. The whole novel is an endless cycle of films and religion.
Samantha Cochis says: Okay first off, every single time I pick up this book I get the Battle Hymn of the Republic stuck in my head. On that note I think this song was an excellent choice to title this book, because for the characters, faith really was a battle. Clarence's decline in life is incredibly representative of this fact. He spends the later half of his life struggling with the stark contrast between what he was raised to feel and what he actually feels. He tries to battle for his faith, but in the end he can't muster up the courage to continue. Teddy almost feels that if he were faithful, he would be a traitor. Because his father so dramatically lost his battle, to side with his enemy seems impossible to Teddy. It shows how what our parents do really affects us later in life. Essie’s battle is not so dramatic, as a small child she loved church and she throughout the book turns to her faith when life gets tough. Even she has to fight, though. Essie, or rather Alma, experiences long periods where she forgets her faith and has to fight for its return. This shows that even the faithful are not immune to the warfare of religion. For me at least, Clark’s battle was most dramatic. Not only did he emotionally wrestle with his faith, he actually physically fought for it. A quote from the Battle Hymn of the Republic is a most suiting title when one considers the battle that all four main characters waged with religion throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteI like Sam's take on this book because I agree and thought this about the book as well. I especially like that the battles, while still affecting every character, are almost vastly different, showing how we really all fight our own battles, even if they seem insignificant to the troubles another is facing, it no less devalues your fight, even within the same bloodline struggling as they do, it is recognized from the reader's point of view just how demanding the battles of each character's life is and how fitting the title is. All the battles are diverse, but alike in some ways too - they all feel like they are letting down someone in some way if they lose their battle, something that terrifies each and every one of them.
DeleteI really wanted to like this book, because the plot lines are very good. It was fascinating to see how each generation's choices affected the next, and I was intrigued by the use of a real-life event - the Waco siege - to create the climax of the story. Unfortunately and ironically, I felt that the vivid descriptions actually took away from the book. While it's always a good thing when a writer is descriptive, it's more important to strike a balance between description and action, and Updike often didn't manage to do that. It was a very pretty book, but there wasn't a lot to convince me to keep reading, and I think if I'd been reading it of my own accord I would've stopped shortly after starting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anna when she says this is a very pretty book, it is indeed. Almost too pretty, the amount of fluff that Updike puts on the pages is a bit too much. I often found myself struggling to get through the descriptive parts and craving for some dialogue to come along in the next couple of pages.
DeleteI will agree with Anna in that I wanted to desperately like this book to enjoy my summer reading since that is something that I always want to do. However, I think that Updike is extremely wordy and to be honest my entire first time through Clarence's section I found myself only reading so that I could get to the next part. I finally came to understand that he wrote with a quality that would be found in a writer at the time period of the main character of each part, and I definitely gained respect for the author as time went on. I also like the concept of writing through four generations of a family and each's own personal struggle, but I cannot downplay just how wordy he really is. I cannot say that I would have been able to get into the book had I not been forced to read it, but I did not hate the book much by the end, though I certainly did in the beginning.
DeleteI liked his writing style for its poetic and literary attributes, and it definitely fit the book well, especially how the writing became easier to read as the book went on, to match with the characters' personalities/situations. It is extremely deep, symbolic, and well-done. However I agree with Anna that if I had chosen this as a pleasure reading book I probably wouldn't have made it through Clarence's section, as it was a little too slow-moving compared to my normal reading preferences.
DeleteOverall I was very impressed by this book and the way it was handled, in terms of format and each individual character. The beginning was hard to get into as many have said but the different points of view definitely helped the story, handing it off from parent to child. They were all growing up and becoming adults within completely different time periods and under different circumstances. It was the great to read about how each character was reacting to how the world was changing around them from generation to generation, and I think Updike portrayed each time period very well through the actions that each character took. Reading about the interconnected workings of this family was actually my favorite part. As the reader we got to watch each person go through their life and understand how that connects back to the people that came before them, it was a very nice full circle situation. Essie's story interested me the most in her drive toward bigger things, as well as seeing her direct opposite reaction to how her father lived and decided from a young age to do something different and make a name for herself. Many of the characters demonstrated that opposite view from their parents and that helped set them apart and live individually.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting to see how these stories connected since it made me think about my own life. Each of my relatives' actions in past generations have impacted me in some way, which is different since I usually wouldn't think that a decision my grandparents made would affect me today.
DeleteI think that “In the Beauty of the Lilies” was a great book! It was much different than anything I have read before. I really thought that it was interesting how the book took place through the different generations of the family, starting with Clarence and ending with Clark. My favorite section to read was definitely Essie/Alma. I loved how throughout her section, she was able to grow apart from the rest of her family from a small town in Delaware, and become big in Hollywood with her acting career. Furthermore, I really enjoyed reading about Essie growing up to become her independent self. The first time that Essie started to gain independence was I when she was a little girl (I believe she was in the third grade) when she wanted so badly to go see a movie on her own. Although her mother, Emily, was resistant, she allowed her to go and Essie loved the independence she was given. From there she then took it upon herself to begin her modeling job, and go to meetings in New York, and fly to Hollywood for job opportunities. Seeing Essie grow up and develop her character as an independent and hardworking woman made the section very interesting and enjoyable for me while reading.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a really cool thing as well. It was interesting to see Essie grow up and become the person she wanted to be and the person she actually set out to be. Starting to think about college right now is crazy to me, and the fact that I have no idea what I want to go to school for or what I want to be when I grow up scares me. I wish in some ways I could be like Essie and know where I want to be and have that big dream and aspiration in life.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike others have also said, I think the beginning of the book was unusually slow. I appreciated how the thorough descriptions enabled me to put myself in the story, but if I was able to choose, I would have made the wording more concise. I found myself wanting to skip over long descriptions to get to other plot points. I noticed this most in Clarence's section, but I also think that was because I found the details of the other time periods more interesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree in where the beginning of the book was slow. I believe this is because Clarence's disbeliefs of his religion is new to our generation. The generation of Clarence's section was very old fashioned where church and religion was very important where business were mainly closed to solely focus on religion and rest.
DeleteI also agree as that the other sections were more interesting, which made them less slow. For me, I especially loved Teddy's section because of how simple his life was, but also the happiness associated with it. Teddy was happy to put a family life filled with happiness far above what Clarence and his brother wanted out of him. I also liked that Teddy controlled his own destiny and chose the decisions that would make him the happiest. I also love a great love story, so that could add to my favoritism to Teddy's section.
I agree with you Abbey, that I liked Teddy's section because of how simple his life was and his eagerness to defy the societal norms such as when he married Emily. However, it also frustrated me at the same time, Teddy was constantly conflicted between his own feelings and seemed to be wasting his life away. In addition he was too lazy to go out in the world to find what he truly wants to do and settles for a life of mediocrity. I found this aspect of Teddy’s character very hard to connect to when reading.
DeleteI think in a way, the "boringness" from the beginning can somewhat contribute to the time period and the generational differences that this story sets forth. For myself, I wasn't really interested in Clarence because of the time period and him being a minister, whereas I was more interested in Essie seeing that she wanted to be a famous actress with a busy, different lifestyle which nowadays is more entertaining to readers our age. I think as the story went on, I could relate more to the times as well as the characters.
DeleteSimilar to my classmates I felt that it was hard to get past the first 100 pages. I got lost in the language that was used and had a hard time focusing on the storyline itself. As a result, this was not one of my favorite books to read, but I would like to praise Updike on how he wrote it. Through four character’s encounters he was able to cover many decades filled with events and cultural changes. This is a very hard thing to do, and Updike was not only able to cover all of that history but he had a story to go along with it. The ability to have the decisions of one character affect the next made the story flow smoothly and made it interesting. He was also able to keep the themes of film and religion throughout each of the four characters stories, which helped to tie the story together. My favorite part of the book to read was Essie’s section. As Isabelle said, I enjoyed watching her character develop and her independence grow. Overall, this was not one of my favorite books but I did enjoy watching the history flow through the stories of four people and how their decisions affected one another.
ReplyDelete-Brie McNamee
I agree that the first 100 pages are confusing because Clarence does mention a lot of authors, scientists, and philosophers that I'm not at all familiar with. Although I didn't know who Clarence was alluding to most of the time, I believe the rest of the book makes up for the confusion of the beginning.
DeletePaige Fluckiger
As I first began reading In The Beauty Of The Lilies, it took me a while to get used to Updike's writing style. My first impression was that he lacked transitions and seemed to go into detail about insignificant things, that would cause me to lose my focus as a result. However, about halfway into the Clarence section of the novel it became easier to understand and follow. In fact, I grew so accustomed to this writing style that I grew in favor of it. Like Thomas said, it had a poetic rhythm to it. The "overly detailed" descriptions actually began to help me imagine the setting and feelings that the characters were experiencing at the time. I believe that I went into the book with a negative mindset, however after I accepted the uniqueness of it, I truly did enjoy it. Although at times I wished there was a stronger plot, I believe that the author did a remarkable job at tying all the characters together despite their large range in generations. For example, although Essie/Alma never met her grandfather Clarence, they showed many similarities in their dying love for theatre. Also, I loved how Ama numerously mentioned this similarity because it shows that she never stopped thinking about her husband, even years after he passed. Furthermore, in the last section, Clark ended up finding his faith, as Sierra mentioned. I enjoyed this addition to the novel because it gave me closure. Its as if he carried on the life that Clarence abandoned years prior, and regained the faith that someone generations before him lost. Also, it was a way to tie together his ancestors and relatives. For instance, despite the fact that Clark was kind of neglected and shamed by his family, they looked at his sacrifices and heroism as a beautiful and brave action.
ReplyDeleteI saw similiarities in Clarence's character and that of Mr. Dimmesdale from Scarlet Letter. Both clergymen (or ex-clergyman and sort-of-ex-clergyman) in some way or another had to accept their doom - Clarence suddenly lost his faith and became determined he would leave the parish, what he had dedicated his life to (and having crises meanwhile, grappling with the sudden loss of belief) while Dimmesdale committed adultery, a grave sin, and was convinced he would suffer in the afterlife (and meanwhile physically tormented himself). They were forced to be hypocrites (for a year in Clarence's case) as Clarence didn't believe what he was preaching, and Dimmesdale had to present himself as a man of honor he didn't think himself to be (when he had committed a sin). The major difference between these two is Clarence's sin, in some ways, granted him freedom. He no longer believed in God and therefore could no longer believe in damnation (but he still has lingering guilt from losing his faith and not being able to provide for his family). Dimmesdale had never let go of his faith. He suffered incredibly from his guilt over his sin. I found a connection in both their mental struggles, with guilt and religion.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to my previous comment, I believe that Clarence set the stage for a tragic life for the Wilmot generations after him. For example, Ted seems to have gathered many similar characteristics from his father. For example, they were seen as rather quiet individuals that never truly had the self confidence to stick up for themselves. In the section of Ted I got a personal feeling of sadness for the lives of Clarence's sons. They both married women that people did not approve of and were rejected by their families. However Jared's life seems much more dangerous than Ted can handle, thus leading him to face his family and returning home. At the beginning of the next section, I thought that Essie would have a change in tone for the novel. As a young girl, Essie was full of life and optimism and truly loved everything about her life. She had an unbelievable appreciation for her town as she describes it as "the nicest and prettiest town in the whole wide country, in the happiest home, that just fit the five of them like a glove fits five fingers". This description was so innocent and grateful that I began to really love Essie as a character. However, as Essie's character was developed, I began to see that tragic lifestyle reform. That grateful little girl began to be replaced by a greedy teenager, who then began to only focus on her looks and boys. Throughout her actions we are able to see underlying self confidence issues and dissatisfaction with her life. As she began to be embarrassed by and forget her family as she faced fame, I personally believe the most tragic and drastic change was when she created her new name "Alma DeMott". Following Essie's character is Clark. I already mentioned him in my above comment. His life continued on with this tragic lifestyle. At first, he is completely unsatisfied with the life he's living and the only excitement he ever really had was when he encountered Hannah. However, I believe that his death ironically signified the end of this tragic trend. For example, after this we see Essie show real, genuine signs of faith. Like Phoenix mentioned, Essie was pretty much built to be an actress. However, after Clark's heroic death he caused Essie to really pray and thank him. Also, we see that his family finally acknowledge him, thus hopefully stopping their common theme of rejecting the children or relatives that they don't approve of.
ReplyDeleteEven though his language was hard to follow and it wasn't a book I would necessarily pick up by myself I thought his interworkings of film in the book was very interesting. I really enjoyed how Updike viewed movies as a form of escapism; a model, that pitiful reality attempts to match; as a higher form of reality altogether. As he says, "a realm beyond time and space.'' I firmly believe in this vision. I think movies and film give us a chance to experience something and take our minds off of harsh reality, or in most cases, relate to it. They force us to give emotional, mental, and even physical responses to something that's on a screen. Something that's not real. But it is. I also liked how he connected it to religion and the family. The movies may become part of the divine plan: for Clarence's widow, Ama, Essie's success is God's way of making things right for the family after Clarence's ''fall.'' Mr. Updike does not address it directly but lurking within the plot is that definition of the perfect Hollywood film: a tragedy with a happy ending, which would translate easily into religious terms: human life followed by heaven.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this book. I thought it was very interesting how it told the stories of multiple people as they grew up and had their own families. One theme I noticed while reading "In the Beauty of the Lilies" was religion, specifically Christianity. Updike recounted the lives of four generations of the Wilmot family, and how their faith was affected by the events happening during the 1900s. Each member of the Wilmot family questioned their faith, and didn't know what to believe in. In the first half of the book, they lost their faith and focused on making money. However, towards the end of the book, Clark isn't comforted by money, and turns back to religion. I think Updike wanted to show that faith is part of the struggle of life, and it helps people realize who they are and what they want to become.
ReplyDelete- Kyle Ferguson
In my first comment, I criticized the parts of the novel that I found unenjoyable. However, after finishing the novel, I was quite content with how the book was written. It was truly interesting to see how the actions of Clarence Wilmont affected his children for the better or worse. For example, after Clarence lost his faith, Teddy begun to act more reserved and didn't do anything until he knew it was safe. Being named after the famed Theodore Roosevelt, you would think Teddy would be gun-ho about everything, but because of his father's actions, you can say the two Teddys are completely different people. Then to see how Clarence's great grandson was a member of a cult, opposed to Clarence being a priest, was fascinating and ironic. Though there obvious reasons that the novel was far from my favorite, the ending of it was satisfying.
ReplyDeleteAllie Simon says: Like many people have already noted, I also found it interesting to see many different perspectives of the family members. I spent a while trying to figure out what triggered Clarence's initial loss of faith. I came to the fairly simple conclusion that his questioning nature and decision to read viewpoints opposing his religion led to his faithless demise. This made me realize that I actually admire his ability to accept something that he didn't want to believe. He admitted that his faith had not dimmed, but had completely gone out. His quest for knowledge led to his eventual realization. Although he hadn't set out to reach this destination, he didn't deny it when he reached it. I think it takes an immense amount of wisdom to turn your face on everything you have ever known. This is why I liked his character so much
ReplyDeleteAvery Savoie says: In Response to Eliza Browning:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eliza’s opinion about Updike’s ability to trace one family through four generations while maintaining a strong narrative and tying the character’s stories into one. I think that Updike did a beautiful job of illustrating the internal conflicts that his characters struggled with, even though the struggles differed greatly from character to character. I also agree with Eliza’s statement in wishing that Updike would have included a female character as a narrator in one of the chapters. I would have loved to read about what Esther’s view of her youth was, and her opinion on being a “flapper” in the 1920’s.
I found that this story was strikingly similar to A Moon for the Misbegotten. Just like throughout the play, I felt as though there were several times throughout the novel where I wished the characters had made different decisions, and I feel like the most prominent example of this was Clarence quitting the ministry. His family had lived a life of luxury to some degree and was one of the most prominent and well-known families in town and by no longer being a pastor, his family would lose all of their income and their status in society. As a reader, especially after reading Teddy’s chapter of the book, seeing how his decision impacted his life and those of his children, I wanted Clarence to remain the pastor, regardless of his feelings of dishonesty. Something that I found ironic about his decision to quit the ministry was his motive. Stereotypically, people that make life-altering decisions for the better of others are extremely religious, and he was an atheist.
Holly McGrath says: In reply to first comment on the thread: I actually tend to dislike reading books that tell more than one story. For some reason I don’t like having to continuously switch between characters,conflicts, and settings. However, I felt differently about this book. I think a major reason why this book didn’t frustrate me as much as I expected it too is because of the strong connections between each story. As Eliza began to point out, many character's lives were impacted by the lives of other characters, and generations easily flowed into each other. This allowed me to easily interpret the individual stories while still being able to piece together the big picture.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aidan’s entry from Aug 20: I had the same immediate connection between Jesse and Charles Manson. In fact, the cult aspect of the characters was what I found most interesting throughout all of the book. Now, after reading Lionel’s comment, I am even more intrigued. It is interesting to explore how this cult, an insulting memory of a past society, can lead to “death and chaos”.
Karly Nivison says: While I liked the book, I feel like it could have been better. I found Updike’s writing style a little bland and at points i felt like I was not really into or retaining what was happening in the scene. This book could have been a lot better had Updike avoided some of his lengthy descriptive prose. In some parts, he would describe furniture or other mundane objects for so long that my eyes would just glaze over. Had these been eliminated or shortened, this nearly 500 page book could have been condensed to 400-450 and been much better for it. I also felt like Clarence's character was a bit boring as well.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that i found myself loving about the book was how much history and ground it covered. The book covers so much in the history of 20th-century American life, it's near impossible not to recognize places, items, phrases, people, films. There are so many different references to very monumental things in history and I love when a book does that. It was really cool getting to experience and get to know a family after 4 generations. Each of the characters experience was different and unique. the thread running through four generations is the inability to maintain a faith, the proliferation of doubt. I think the concept of a book which chronicles the lives of four generations of one family is a good one. Updike does a wonderful job making the story flow from character to character seamlessly.
One of the most interesting lines in the book for me was a line from Teddy's section. "Strange, Teddy thought, that the crack, the imperfection, had become the important thing."(209) Teddy is talking about the crack in the Liberty Bell. This quote got me thinking about how society is today. People all over the world travel from far away to see famous places like the Liberty Bell, the Leaning Tower of Pisa along with the Great Sphinx of Giza. All of these worldly attractions have one thing in common, they are all imperfect, the tower leans, the bell is cracked, and the sphinx lost its nose. Humans are attracted to imperfections, they draw us to them like magnets. It's almost as if the history behind the monument is gone and replaced by the infatuation with the blemish. People do that to other people as well. An imperfection becomes the only thing people can see, and sometimes it becomes the thing that makes you interesting. For example if you were to lose your leg and got a prosthetic, that would become the thing that everybody talked about. Jared had this same problem with his limp arm, Teddy couldn't really ever get it out of his mind that Jared had that arm issue. When thinking about Jared that was Teddy's front most thought. I think the quote just shows how people are obsessed with imperfections, and how it's almost human nature to make them a big deal.
ReplyDeleteI love your view on this line Annie, and I couldn't agree more. I have also noticed that the majority of people gravitate towards imperfect things, but is it out of sheer interest or because there is no such thing as perfection? Our world is riddled with imperfections, nature itself is imperfect. And I feel like people still haven't come to terms that perfection doesn't exist and every attempt to create something perfect only leads to another imperfection, therefore contributing to a continuous loop of attempted perfections. However, I can comprehend why humans are naturally drawn to imperfections, I think it's because people admire others' imperfections in some cases it might comfort them or even just be flat out endearing to them.
DeleteI agree, I think people are prone to focusing on differences. It's something you notice, a first impression. It's what keeps things interesting.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo be quite honest this book was hard to get into, I felt as though Updike's writing style was a little dry. However I did think the plot was interesting, and that Updike did great in the detail department. I liked that this book was following a family through four generations, giving me a great look at the evolution of the family as well as the country they live in. I really appreciated Updike's balance between the details of the Wilmont clan and America with all its issues at the time.
ReplyDeleteI say this with no certainty, but an interesting thought crossed my mind and I would be curious to know if anyone might agree. It seems unanimous to state that the initial chapter about Clarence was comparably dry and rather boring. While I know that many aspects of a book simply fall into place as a story is written, I also know that many symbols are more than coincidence. For that reason, I wonder if the vibrancy, or lack thereof, in Clarence's section was meant to reflect the sudden "dryness" he was struck by in terms of his own belief. The feeling of living over any duration in the absence of the belief that once sustained you is equivalent in feeling to reading an endless novel with no excitement in its pages. It definitely seems to be a long shot to assume this is the case in John Updike's story, so I would be very curious to see if anyone else has more precise proof or disproof.
ReplyDeleteUpdike makes many illusions to historical and cultural references. Sometimes, it seems he tried to hard to make the period clear simply because he uses too many. I could not begin to imagine just how many names or events he added. However, it was really fascinating to see the things I remembered from US history and European history. Martin Luther, the Scopes Trial, Prohibition, the Gilmore girl, the Teapot Dome scandal, just to name a few.
ReplyDeleteOn an unrelated note, there is a part where Emily tries desperately to reassure Teddy that she is not of Native American blood (or was it African blood? I can't seem to find the page to confirm) when her ancestry on her mother's side is called into question. This reminded me of Desiree's Baby, the story we read in English last year where a wife was disowned (and it was implied she died by suicide) by her husband after her child looked African, calling her ancestry into question as to whether she was truly fully white (and ironically, the African blood was actually from the father's side).
*too
Delete*used
This book kind of reminds me of the Great Gatsby and A Streetcar Named Desire from last year because during the reading itself I found it slow and tedious, but looking back, I appreciate the literary elements of the book greatly. I definitely like it more now that I've finished it than when I first started, as the complex plotlines came to a close and tied up loose ends together.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting how Clarence and his descendant Clark share many of the same qualities, that lead to drastically different outcomes. Clarence realizes he is an atheist, which compels him to resign, though he has no other recourse to provide for his family. One might argue that he is a strong individual, willing to sacrifice his livelihood to stand by his beliefs. I might argue that he is spineless, aimless, even selfish. He could lie through his teeth each sermon; disregard his beliefs, for his family. Instead, he’d rather see them suffer before giving up his moral high-ground.
ReplyDeleteBecause of his character flaws, Clarence went from a respected member of his community, to a man who dragged his family into poverty. For Clarence, his inability to let go of his beliefs was his undoing. While for Clark, his life was already mediocre (due to his own lack of motivation) and continued to decline, but by having a strong moral compass, he ended up being a hero in the end. The difference is that Clarence was an Atheist for himself, but Clark saved those people out of the good of his heart.
Clarence's character in the novel was very frustrating for me. I struggled to see both sides of his dilemma. Instead I tended to sympathize with his family. Often, I found his decision to be dismissed from the church rather selfish and close minded. I understand that he was trying to be honest and just to the congregation but I believe his family should have came first. When he had made up his mind to leave the church he was thinking it would be best to ease his mind. Clarence is unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices for the family. Why can't he just say the necessary words to get the people through? I guess that is easy for me to say as someone who doesn't understand the full meaning/power of religion. I mean from a real world perspective I would have no clue if my minister truly believed that there was a God. He is just doing a job like any other worker. Like a slaughter house for instance, the workers there can still be against the killing of animals for human consumption but yet they come to work everyday, to put food on the table because that is their job. I just feel like he could have continued his job for his family.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved the idea of a book of a family through the generations. It was captivating to see something so everyday as movies play an ongoing narrative in each character because they all have such differing opinions about them. We see Clarence being almost brought to life by the moving pictures, and they’re his savior when he loses all his faith in God. His son, Teddy, could never grasp his father's fascination because all he saw was the horrors of life reflected in them. Then his daughter, Essie, was so passionate about them she became the star of the movies. Finally, Clark protests his mother's moviestar business with influence from Hannah. The opinion of the movies goes back and forth with each character; Clarence loving them, Teddy uncomfortable with them, Essie becoming them, and Clark against them. It shows the differences between each generation and how the movies are symbolic to each of them in their own way. Though I don’t usually enjoy reading books that are mainly just about characters with no major ongoing plot, In the Beauty of The Lilies was most definitely an exception. John Updike does an incredible job of tying each character together while also making each one entirely different from one another. While the characters opinions of the movies was more of an up and down, their ties to religion came full circle. Clarence started off a reverend, but lost faith. Teddy never really had any sort of belief system due to his want to honor his late father. Essie started off a non-believer but after losing a son, begins to have faith. The circle is brought back to the beginning by Clark who immerses himself into a cult like family of believers. What really impressed me about this book is that I enjoyed it despite not liking any of the main characters all that much. It proves Updike does an perfect amount of weaving their story lines to create a page turning flow.
ReplyDeletePaige Fluckiger
At one point during Clarence's ongoing internal struggle with God, he mentions that cannot continue with ministry because that would allow him to be compared with Benedict Arnold. I found this very interesting because preaching words that have no meaning to him would make him a traitor and a hypocrite but how is he not turning his back on his family. His wife, Stella, feels betrayed by his decision and his children feel abandoned and left to fend for themselves. I thought that Benedict Arnold was a great historical figure to go along with his situation although I think it shows his selfish characteristics.
ReplyDeleteSophia Webster says: In the Beauty of the Lilies by John Updike was not the fast paced action thriller that I usually find most entertaining, however the story of the Wilmot family still proved to be quite captivating. I found through Updike's writing style and extreme description when it came to the characters, their emotions, and even scenery, the details of the four different lives made them all the more believable and relatable.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as many of my classmates are saying, I can certainly agree that some descriptions made the story drag in places and made it feel as though it lacked a plot.
Regardless, my favorite part about this novel was the progression. The family members each found their way through life in ways that could not have been more different and through these journeys the reader could also see the progression of the characters' surroundings. Through four generations not only does the family change but America changes right along with them. Through the years America can be seen at very unique and interesting decades from the early to mid 1900s.
Overall, by the end of this book I was able to appreciate the lessons about life, happiness, and faith, along with the history John Updike was able to create within his piece.
In Response to Annchi’s Comment:
I think that this is a very interesting connection you have come to regarding Clarence and Dimmesdale from The Scarlet Letter. I can definitely agree that both of these characters are similar in their role in society as ministers as well in their almost failure to practice, and in Clarence’s case, truly believe what they preach. The connection with guilt and religion is certainly a common denominator with these two characters, and I think it can be extended to many other books in addition to real life. Many people struggle to truly believe what they are told is truth as far as religion and in some ways I can admire Clarence for leaving behind something that is not true to himself and what he believes in.
Mallory Goldsmith says: While reading this novel, I became very focused on the psychology of the characters. I was intrigued especially when Clarence had decided that he didn't believe in God anymore. In the book, he starts to frantically go through all his science books, and focuses in on the parts that point the reasoning for humans toward evolution. I think that in a way, it was meant to be a kind of liberating act for Clarence. I say this because as a person of the christian faith, I know there is a part of me, and many other Christians, that is curious to explore more secular ideas of how the world came to be. However, many don't, in fear that they will stop believing in creationism, and therefore, lose their faith. Once Clarence loses his faith however, he seems to go into a downward spiral, and the act of researching evolution is less liberating for him, and more harmful. I think it ended up being harmful for Clarence because many of his beliefs and values went down with his face. He started comparing himself to other living creatures on earth, and felt worthless, and without a purpose. Not to mention his job became hypocritical, and an occupation he didn't want to continue pursuing. I really like the way the author made this book, and especially this part, realistic down to the theological psychology of a person.
ReplyDeleteJulia Pereira says: After reading this story, I couldn't help but find my way back to the title. I decided to do some digging and found that the title comes from a hymn called “Battle Hymn of the Republic”. Specifically, it comes from a stanza towards the end of the hymn. It talked about how Jesus died to save man and how men should die to make us free. Jesus committed a selfless act and we should follow in his footsteps. That led me to wonder if the Wilmot line ever followed this idea. However, I realized that each protagonist in the story did things for their own reasons and for themselves rather than for others. For example, Clarence stopped being a minister because of his sudden lack of faith. Even though Clarence knew that if he stepped down, life for his family would be much harder and more difficult to maintain, he did it anyways. Ted, was a man that did whatever he wanted, he married the woman of his choice took the job of his choice and lived the life of his choice. Although being able to stand up for yourself and do what you would like instead of pleasing others is a good quality, he could have been a little more flexible. For example, when he was offered a higher position in the postman industry, he could have taken it. It would have led to a higher salary and more comfortable life. Instead, he kept the job he had and the life he had with it. He wasn't willing to do too much for others. His daughter, Esther, was self absorbed, only caring about herself and her career. She always wanted to stay in the spotlight,and was willing to do anything for it. Even when she had her son, she still gave herself more attention. Then there’s Clark, he was neglected as a child and no one had any real hope for him. Yet, he was the only one in his family since Clarence, to commit a selfless act. He could have just shot the woman and children, or find a way to escape on his own and leave everyone else for dead, or as gloomy as it seems, he could have just killed himself so that he wouldn't have to deal with any of it. Instead, he shot Jesse, and risked his own life in order to save others. He gave the women and children a chance at life even though he knew that his own death was coming. He died a true hero. He was part of the beauty in the lilies.
ReplyDeleteKettie Rose Cormier says: I have to honestly say that the book "In the Beauty of the Lilies" was a book that was hard for me to read. Although I followed the main plot points decently well I struggled to get through each page because of Updike's dry writing style. Like what Samantha said, looking back on this book, I feel as though I appreciated it more after reading it thinking of all of the great literary elements and the storyline it told, rather than while I was in the middle of the book. Appreciating it after however still did not make me believe this book was a book I would recommend to someone as a good read.
ReplyDelete[Past Deadline]
ReplyDeletePaige Dodd says: I enjoyed this book and thought that it was written very well. What I really liked about this book is that it was written in four parts. John Updike did an outstanding job connecting each section to the others. He made it easy to follow and read. I do have to agree with others when they said it was hard for them to get into at first, but after the first section it was an easier read. I agree with Eliza when she says that it stood out and struck her that John Updike was able to trace one family over eighty years. I also agree with having another female perspective sort of the book. I feel as if it would've added more to the book. Plus it also would've added different experiences as well as different emotions to similar or the same situations other characters had experienced.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[Past Deadline]
ReplyDeleteI liked how this book followed three generations of a family, showing how each man’s life affected his son’s. I thought this was a very interesting concept in the book, especially in having to do with religious views, considering Clarence fell away from the church but his grandson somewhat brought back.