Some things are better left unread

I got into this discussion twice in the last week. Granted, once was because I started the discussion, but still.

A while ago, a friend of mine suggested I read a certain book. It was, the friend said, a favourite. The sort of book one reads over and over so that none of it is forgotten. The sort of book that changes lives. I read the book (as a side note, I do try to read most of the books people recommend to me).

I don’t like to think I’m one of those literary snobs who only reads books that are incomprehensible or that have been shortlisted for an award no one has heard of. I don’t like to think I’m the sort of person who starts a book discussion with : “The perspicacity of the characters are reminiscent of early Dickensian writings, although in a far more parochial, muted sense”. You know what I mean…the kind of high-brow academic malarky that basically makes everyone think you’re an enormous jerk. People like that usually go on to compare *something* in the book to some Greek philosopher, or to some obscure French medieval poet, and then start talking about how *important* the book is. This is usually a precursor to ripping apart everything about the book, from the opening title pages to the author’s photograph on the inside leaf. Maybe I *am* that sort of person and just don’t recognise it in myself.

I really prefer to find something wonderful about every book I read. It’s not always possible.

It wasn’t possible with this book. I agonized over what to tell my friend. In fact, I might not have ever told my friend what I thought of this book. I might have just decided to cop out with something like : “Well, it’s not something I would ever choose to read. Again. Ever.” But the truth of the matter is, the book was a total and complete waste of my time. Now, I know my friend reads my bournal, and I just want to be clear that my opinion on your most favourite book of all time in no way colours my opinion of you, so none of the vitriol and yellery that follows is directed at you. I know I probably don’t have to say that, but. Favourite books are sometimes like dear friends and I’ve discovered purely through trial and error that if I insult someone’s best friend, I often raise ire.

Although I cannot imagine what one could say about this book that could be insulting. There is nothing *rude* you can say about it that isn’t true. Except maybe that it’s pornographic. But that’s not rude. It’s also not true. It also would have made the book tolerable.

It’s important to me, when I don’t like a book, to really think about *why* I don’t like it. There was one book I read (also recommended by a friend) that I didn’t like. In the end, I figured out that the writing was extremely well done, and the book itself was amazing, but I just hated the protagonist so much it made me dislike the book. Which is ultimately a *good* thing, because it certainly highlights the writer’s skill. But that character was a total douche.

So. What didn’t I like about this book?

Well, I didn’t like *anything* about this book. Not. One. Redeeming. Factor.

The Shack, by William P. Young (Self-Published)

First of all, it’s a thinly veiled attempt to talk about Christianity without talking about Christianity. As if you could slip it in there without anybody recognising what you were up to. This pisses me off. It’s insulting. First of all, to assume that your reader isn’t going to figure out in less than five seconds what you’re up to is, frankly, a gross misunderstanding of your readers’ capacity. Second, why beat around the bush with this? Why try to be coy? Why not just come right out and say: “I’m trying very, very hard to write one of those…whattayacallits…ALL-A-GORY…thingummies” Because unless you’re CS Lewis or Tolkien (which you’re really, really not) or any number of other writes who’ve written allegorical stories, you’re not going to do it well. Do you know how difficult it is to write a competent, workable allegory for any religion’s theology? It’s REALLY HARD, without sounding like a simpering idiot or a pretentious jerk.


The basic premise is offensive. I mean, it’s even offensive to Christians.

The execution is terrible. It’s a book full of meandering, pointless prose, and dry, repetitive narrative. It’s hackneyed and trite, and there isn’t, I don’t think, a single original thought in the entire manuscript.

On to the thinly-veiled and horribly executed ‘allegory’ of the Trinity.

Jesus, of course, is a young middle-eastern fellow with a beard. He wears jeans and a plaid lumberjack shirt. And workboots. Or no boots. I don’t remember if he has stigmata, but it wouldn’t bloody surprise me. The Holy Spirit is some kind of weird, garden-tending hippie that is ‘shimmery and difficult to see’. I know a lot of hippies. Many of them are shimmery, some of them are difficult to see, and all of them tend gardens. I think the Holy Spirit might also be Asian. I don’t remember now. But his/her name is Sarayu, and I think s/he is supposed to be Asian. The ethnicity of any of the characters really oughtn’t be important, but the writer makes such a big deal of it, I suspect what he wants us all to know is that HE IS INCLUSIVE. HE IS NOT RACIST. HIS HEAVEN CAN INCLUDE THE YELLOW PEOPLES AND THE BROWN PEOPLES.

Which brings me to God. The Holy Father. Who is an African-American woman. Who calls herself Papa. And Elouisa.

I mean. ELOUISA? Really? You get a note in your mailbox after you’ve just announced to nobody that you’re giving up on your faith, and the note is signed from “Papa”, and your own father is dead, and you come to the conclusion that the note must be from God, and not from some weirdo who wanders around putting notes in people’s mailboxes? And God – I mean ELOUISA – *puts a note in your post-box*?? I guess things have really gone south since the whole burning bush thing. Modern-day equivalent would probably be a slightly charred and smoking potted plant, which just doesn’t have the same panache.

And let me go back here, a moment. I’m not saying it’s ridiculous to picture God as a black woman. I’m saying that by making it such a big deal in the novel, and by making the main character have to work so hard to get his own mind around the idea, you’re basically saying: “Look! Readers! God can be anything! EVEN a  black woman!” And “Even ASIANS can be included in theology! Even though many of them are godless communists!” And “Not ALL Middle Eastern men are terrorists who want to destroy western culture and eat your babies! Some of them are Jesus!”

One of the tenets you’ll hear as a writer is “show, don’t tell”. It’s really not a difficult concept to grasp. Except for William Young (the author of the book).

Apparently, he wrote the book as a Christmas gift for his children. And then, as is the way with things like this, some of his friends made the mistake of telling him that the book was *really good* and that he should get it published. And it’s books like this that sometimes make me disparage the relative ease with which people can now publish their own work. Don’t get me wrong, self publishing has been around since the 1600s. William Blake, for God’s sake (or should I say for “Elouisa’s Sake”), was a self-publisher. I don’t even know, to be fair, whether William Young tried to shop The Shack to traditional publishers, but if he did, it would have been rejected by most. Why? Because it’s trite, it’s not well written, it’s pedantic, the narrative is plodding, unnatural, and forced, the dialogue is stilted and ridiculous, the premise is tenuous, and even the editing is shaky. There are self-publishers out there who are extremely professional, who wouldn’t want anything out under their name that isn’t perfect. William P. Young is not one of those sorts of self-publishers.

So aside from the story itself, the actual writing, the production quality, and the narrative, what’s left to criticise?

The page numbers are stupid.

Okay, I say that kind of in jest. But it was also clear to me that the people who produced this book didn’t give a fiddler’s fart about design. And design is important. But then again, the people who produced this book didn’t care that it was terribly written to begin with, so there are a few strikes against them already.

Other Christians have spoken out against this book, from ministers who say there are heresies in the story, to apologists who claim there are “theological errors” in the book. Of COURSE there are theological errors in the book; the author is not a theologian. He’s probably never even read the church fathers. He probably hasn’t even read anything but the biblical passages he’s required to read in church. I don’t doubt the man’s devotion to his faith and to his family, and that’s all lovely, but his book sucks.

I mean, sure, theologically, if you happen to be Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, the book is rather terrible on a religious front. The basic message it gives you is: “if you’re having a terrible time of things, if things are really hard, you should know that God will do everything He can to make it better, provided you pray hard enough and properly”, and “God is whatever you want Him to be”, and “God makes everything happen for a reason”. If you’re Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, and if you’ve actually taken the time to learn what your faith teaches, you’ll know that all three of these premises are incorrect, hurtful, and are damaging to your faith and to the expression of your religion. I mean, I could go on about the horrible depiction of the Trinity as three separate persons, but that’s probably a little too heavy for a Monday morning, and you probably don’t care much about deeply theological arguments like Trinitarianism. (Incidentally, what Young offers in his book is not a Trinity. It is a Tritheism, which is very, very different…or, I suppose, you could argue that it’s Modalism, but again, Heavy. Monday. Stop.)

In short, don’t waste your time. Or your money. I’ve no idea why this book is so popular, except perhaps that fundamentalists think it’s incredibly clever and hopeful, like The Celestine Prophecy was, or The Secret (both of which were terrible books that attempted to disguise a thought pattern/belief system either in narrative or in a series of revelations…not unlike any holy book, I suppose, but the ancients did it so much better…I mean, at least the Old Testament is a good, rip-roaring fantasy adventure, right?), and that it bolsters their belief that prayer is about God helping them. Which it isn’t.

So, I’m sorry that I hated your favourite book. No, ‘hate’ is the wrong word. I despise your favourite book.

If I was going to rate this book, I wouldn’t even flip the bird once. I’d just toss the book in the recycling bin.




, , ,




9 responses to “Some things are better left unread”

  1. Ernst Bitterman Avatar
    Ernst Bitterman

    Thanks for confirming everything I imagined to be the case when I read the dust jacket on that thing. Which I wouldn’t have done, except the cover art suggests it’s some sort of isolation-horror novel in the mode of _Gerald’s Game_

    1. cenobyte Avatar

      Which it isn’t. It really, really isn’t. At all. Well. Parts of it are almost an isolation-horror novel. But then there’s ELOUISA. And Sareyu. And Jesus. Who live together. And Jesus is a fisherman. *sigh*

  2. Kaila Avatar

    Working in a book store was the worst thing that ever happened to my love of books. How on earth can I say this you may ask. Well this book, The Secret, The Lost Symbol, The Twilight saga are a few books that come to mind. All those fad books. The books that people only seem to buy because a talk show host or a magazine told them to. I have a huge long rant about these books, sometimes the words pile and burn come up in that rant. I just really wish poorly written books wouldn’t become so popular as they tend to steal all the limelight from the books that deserve it.

  3. brielle128 Avatar

    So? You don’t like it. Ok. But you read it. For me, it was witnessing one man who faced a crisis in his life that he would compare it to the death of his child. A little child,killed in THE worst way imaginable. In his mind, this crisis was as terrible as that. He faced it and discovered his own faith, which he choose to represent in his own way. I’m not a book snob and I happen to enjoy mind candy and yes, I have had some people judge me because of it. Not you, per say but some. And I really don’t give a rat’s patootie.
    : )
    I’m me and I liked it and I just thought someone else might. I haven’t read it again, but I might. I have read The Lovely Bones and enjoyed it as well. They both have the same darkness around a child’s death that scares me. No it terrifies me. I suppose it’s because I have lost a child, but that is something I have yet to face. In my own way. There’s so much more that I connect to in this book, but I am not going to get into it here. It’s not the place.

    Oh well. I’m not offended. And honestly I forgot I gave it to you. But at least you didn’t waste any money on it right?
    But please don’t toss it the recycle bin.
    I might have the courage to read it again.
    But again, at least you gave it a chance. Like I tell my kids you don’t have to finish nor enjoy what I put on your plate. But you do have to try it.

    1. cenobyte Avatar

      Nope. Don’t like it. In fact, the best part of the entire book was the bit where the fellow loses his child. But he STILL didn’t react in a believable way.

      I am glad you like it. Although I do wish it was a better book for you to like.

      1. brielle128 Avatar

        Got the package today..thank you very (very) much for the beautiful women’s calendar inside. I will use it in my English classes next semester.

        I think, it would be a wonderful world of more people could debate and discuss and discover new ideas the way we have here. Wouldn’t it be awesome if politicians could do that? Is sad when the intelligent have to be governed by the ignorant.

        hugs…and have a super day. I know I will!!

        thank you so much!

  4. Jim Avatar

    I’ve had this book given to me twice. I returned it both times. I finished reading it, despite throwing it across the room several times. I utterly despise the evil god portrayed in this book. Young’s god created plants that, if treated properly, can provide much-needed medicines, and purposefully did not tell this to humanity because all children love hide and seek and we are God’s children (The Shack 132). I am surprised Young doesn’t notice how callous and cruel his portrayal of God is. Perhaps we could make it clearer by asking him to pretend someone he cares for is suffering terribly and the medicine that will ease that suffering is in a pharmacy we have access to and will let him take all the pills he wants, free of charge. The pills are not labelled; too few of the correct pills will do nothing, too many will act as poison, the wrong pills may ease a symptom, but will not cure the illness, or they may poison the sufferer. Still, if he thinks of it as a game of hide and seek, then it’s all good. Right? Right?


    1. cenobyte Avatar

      Yes. I thought the God portrayed in this book was particularly evil, and its portrayal showed a shocking lack of understanding of basic Christianity on the part of the author. And then that made me sad, because if folks’re going to church, what the hell are they learning?

  5. Alicia Butcher Ehrhardt Avatar

    Not my type of book. After your review, DEFINITELY not my type of book. So, you see, your giving an honest opinion (I’ve never heard of the book) can help people you’ve not even met.

i make squee noises when you tell me stuff.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.