First and foremost, when reading this book it cannot be emphasized enough enough that this is FICTION! Much like reading "The Shack" by William Paul Young, there could be much confusion theologically if it should be taken as truth. Having said that, Anne Rice did a masterful job on writing this, with much obvious research being evident. The detailed descriptions and narrative appear true to history and culture of the time. She has done her homework on this and is very much a strong point of the book. With her well-written and readable style, you feel very much immersed in the culture in which Jesus grew up. That alone makes it worth the read as long as you realize that there is very little credible information regarding Jesus boyhood and that the book is an informed but imagined account of what it might have been. Anne, being a Catholic, writes in a way that is colored by her Catholic faith, but is not rigid on it. Primarily, Jesus' siblings are portrayed as being born prior to Jesus to Joseph's first wife or adopted in from the family of Mary's sibling. James in the story is Jesus' older "brother" who is key to revealing to Jesus some details on who He is. All this allows Mary to be the perpetual virgin that the Catholic teaching claims her to be. Much of the protestant world believes that Jesus' siblings were, indeed siblings (half brothers and sisters since He was the Son of God born of Mary who was a virgin)who were born to Mary and Joseph later. James' key role is a bit implausible since he supposedly told Jesus who He was and knew, yet the Bible teaches that he did not come to believe in Him until after His resurrection.Another problematic but key part of the story is that the family (a group of relatives, not just Mary, Joseph and Jesus) go to the temple in Jerusalem on their way from Egypt to Nazareth in part for James to be cleansed of his jealousy of Jesus and walking into a bloody rebellion in the aftermath of Herod's death. This flies in the face of scripture as the gospels are clear that they returned to Nazareth, avoiding Jerusalem because of the trouble going on there. It also has the boy Jesus in Egypt doing miracles before He realizes who He is. That includes making live pigeons from pigeons of clay and striking a childhood bully dead, then raising him from the dead as result of the guilt He felt. He also caused it to snow and stopped the rain. These are problematic with the belief that Jesus lived a life without sin. According to the author's notes, these were actually drawn from the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas that has been discredited by theologians, so it was not her original imagination on that. We often wonder what Jesus' childhood was like with Him being both fully man and fully God. This story is the author's attempt to answer that. In my mind, it is legitimate visualizing, but tends to be weighted toward His humanity with the God part only peeking through as he grows and learns. Anne Rice has done a massive amount of research and uses it to write effectively with a style that captures you, but with all the volumes of research, there may not be the best discernment spiritually. Overall, a very interesting book but you need some scepticism when reading, realizing that is is a fictional story.
Why is it that the first-person books set in ancient times invariably have a hyper-simple, naive narrative style? This is supposed to be Jesus telling his own story, not as a child but as a man (there are some nods to "when I was a child, I spoke as a child" in the narrative, just in case you didn't catch on that this is JESUS THE CHRIST narrating, even though I believe it was Paul who was supposed to have written those words), and I'm just not buying that Jesus was Forrest Gump with a better copy editor. Many people say it's written in the voice of a seven-year-old, but the narrator at one point actually writes something like, "But I was a child then and there were many things I didn't understand." Rice depicts him as having received a good education in Greek, educated in the literary tradition of Old Testament, so if you take that along with the stories Jesus tells in the Gospels, there's no reason to think his narrative style would not be more complex, perhaps even lyrical. But, no, it's the same narrative voice as I've found in C.S. Lewis's Till We Have Faces (one of my favorite books, mind) or Martha Rofeheart's first-person novels about Cleopatra and Sappho or The Red Tent. It's the "I am a person in the ancient world. Even though I am an educated and worldly Queen or a celebrated poet or the Messiah, I am a simple person because you see, I live in the ancient world" voice.And in this simple voice, Jesus tells you about his childhood, about his need to know who he is and why. This is the most enjoyable part about the book, the struggle of a little boy who knows that there is something different about him. I only regret that Jesus the boy is a bit too serious. We get to see so much of serious Jesus in the Bible, and I wish Rice had chosen to show parts of his personality that might have been neglected. However, she chooses to take up the story just as Jesus decides he won't have fun and play like other children, which makes him nearly the same as the Jesus of the Bible, just smaller and not yet filled in on the details of his birth and parentage. You want to give the kid a ball and tell him to have some fun. Sure, you're the Messiah, but you don't need to worry about that just yet.The historical details are interesting and seem well-researched. Some of that research really wants you to know it was there because you see, you really ought to be clear on the fact that there were many languages spoken in Jerusalem in the early first century. Even Latin! Did I mention that there were many languages spoken in Jerusalem in the early first century? Even Latin? Oh, and Mary is so innocent, like a child! Very innocent. Because she's a virgin, you know. Innocent, just like a child.I found Anne Rice's author's note annoying. She writes against New Testament scholars who "hate Jesus Christ" and offer faulty arguments against him and yet doesn't mention who these scholars are and in what way their arguments are "based on assumptions." (If it's the assumption that perhaps Jesus was not the Son of God, I think that's a fine assumption for an academic to make in doing research.) And all the personal stuff about her return to Christianity made the book seem so damned earnest that I just couldn't even enjoy it as a story.
Do You like book Christ The Lord: Out Of Egypt (2006)?
This is the first Anne Rice book I've ever read, so I can't tell you if it's better than or worse than her other bestsellers. I can tell you I couldn't put it down. As a Protestant, I had to get over the fact that Anne writers Mary as a perpetual virgin, Jesus' brother James as his half-brother (Joseph's son from a previous marriage), and the rest of the people the bible calls Jesus' brothers and sisters as his cousins. I got over it.The way she brings to life the world in which Christ would've lived makes you feel like you're there. Obviously we can't know how the actual Christ child would have felt and reacted to the world around him, but her theories are excellent.If you like biblical fiction, you'll love this.
—Robin Patchen
Most likely. :) To be honest, Interview was the only one I liked from the chronicels. I got to "The Queen of the Damned" and dropped it. But Interview was very philosophical and very powerful. I thought Louis, Claudia and Lestat were brilliant characters. Especially Claudia! Louis, who is different than everyone else by being the only one, who still cares about right and wrong and feels guilt. His eternal lonliness and pain, and inner struggle were so touching and exiting and they really made me feel for him. And Claudia. What an original idea! To see how she grows into a woman innerly and stays forever child externaly and what it did to her. It was chilling and very powerful. And I think despite her accusing Louis for not being evil, she loved him exactly because of that. And Lestat! I honestly didn't expect him to show such human side in the end. I was sure he would kill Claudia once he got to her. His transformation was amazing! And the scene with him in the end, showing how he doesn't let himself drink human blood anymore. It was incerdible! I have never, ever liked a vampire story, but this one was absolutely gorgeous.
—Kelly Flanagan
I realise that authors go through many stages of their careers, exploring different facets of their personality, trying different roles. I am a great fan of Anne's work. I have attended dozens of her events in New Orleans, and own numerous signed copies and first editions. I love (with the exception of Queen of the Damned) the Vampire Chronicles, I enjoyed The Witching Hour, I owned the Beauty Triology when you still had to ask for it quietly in kink shops on the lower East side. I had read the historical novels when few people knew she'd even written them. I forgave her for selling the title of Exit to Eden to that debacle of a film. And I understood that she became deeply ill with diabetes, had lost a daughter, and then lost her husband Stan. I suppose such things could turn any renegade Catholic back to the Church. I don't know how I would have felt about this book if it had been written by anyone in the WORLD other than Anne Rice. I have read other religious and antireligious works... I believe "The Red Tent" was one of the best books I read the year it was released. I have nothing inherently against fictionalized accounts, I've seen JCS, Godspell and Joseph so many times I sing them in my sleep (some folks dream of the wonders they'll do...)However, over the many years I have read Anne's work, I have come to expect a certain kind of character, and a certain kind of book. Not even necessarily horror, the original scene aside books like "Cry to Heaven" are not horror novels. But I have come to look for the sort of sweeping tale Anne has given us for years. This was not it. This book creeps well into the range of what I would consider to be "oppressively preachy." While alienating her HUGE fan base with a book so off-the-charts Christian, I doubt Anne was able to approach the audience who would have enjoyed this book-- Bible Belt readers, most likely-- since she would have hopelessly alienated them by the time Belinda was released. I still own my copy because it completes my collection, but unless I encounter G-d on the road to Damascus, I do not anticipate being able to finish it. I am just completely unable to reconcile the authoress I have read passionately for two decades with this work. I recommended this book to "The Pope" in my review, because I assume one of the only reasons she would write such a completely out-of-character novel is to "make amends" with the Church for her earlier sexually-charged works, so she might as well get credit for it upstairs.
—Jennifer
