Scan barcode
A review by ciaochow
Elizabeth Finch by Julian Barnes
3.0
“From what I did and what I said, Let them not seek to find out who I was”
Part One was an intriguing introduction to the character of Elizabeth Finch. We know she is a lady who has interesting ideas and charm. Out of her wide reading, she divisively recommends people to read Hitler, says we must understand the ideas of our enemies - one that she links to the early Christian church and her fascination with Julian the Apostate. She encourages everyone to re-evaluate and reflect on history, religion and our world views; something I really appreciated.
Part Two was quite painful, and one I don’t think I saw coming (this is my first Julian Barnes novel). It is essentially a non-fiction chapter reviewing our posthumous memory of Julian the Apostate. I absorbed her/Neil’s anti-Christian - or rather anti-monotheism? Anti-monoculture? She seems to be conflating them into her conception of Christianity as a religion - ideas quickly and found them to be lacking from a critical point of view. We appreciate probing and skepticism, but the narrator/EF proves that they are historians, not theologians after all!
Part Three seemed like a satisfactory denouement. Barnes’ three part format becomes clear: parallels are drawn between the figure of EF introduced in Part One, and the history of Julian the Apostate as revised in Part Two. EF is as much of a myth as the history she criticised. She is mythologised in the imagination of her students, acknowledges the narrator and his fellow classmates - ultimately she is unknowable.
Several moments:
- EF believes that the row of the historian is to challenge historical narratives and correct them. Perhaps the sharp reader will notice that her anti-Christian (or was it monotheistic again? What’s the difference to her?) worldview is no alien to contemporary fiction? (Sally Rooney, for starters.)
- The Christian belief is ultimately not a theory of human virtue as it is often inferred throughout Part Two (but rather a history of divine grace). EF is right in saying Christians did not invent virtue, but the goal of the Christian is also not to simply be virtuous by human standards. I feel if this was addressed, the book would have looked quite different?
Phew!!! This may read like an unintelligible rant, but here are some thoughts I am noting down for myself to remember. I did not enjoy this book like I expected I would (I mean this is based off Anita Brookner!), although I could not put it down. An intriguing novel!!!!!
Part One was an intriguing introduction to the character of Elizabeth Finch. We know she is a lady who has interesting ideas and charm. Out of her wide reading, she divisively recommends people to read Hitler, says we must understand the ideas of our enemies - one that she links to the early Christian church and her fascination with Julian the Apostate. She encourages everyone to re-evaluate and reflect on history, religion and our world views; something I really appreciated.
Part Two was quite painful, and one I don’t think I saw coming (this is my first Julian Barnes novel). It is essentially a non-fiction chapter reviewing our posthumous memory of Julian the Apostate. I absorbed her/Neil’s anti-Christian - or rather anti-monotheism? Anti-monoculture? She seems to be conflating them into her conception of Christianity as a religion - ideas quickly and found them to be lacking from a critical point of view. We appreciate probing and skepticism, but the narrator/EF proves that they are historians, not theologians after all!
Part Three seemed like a satisfactory denouement. Barnes’ three part format becomes clear: parallels are drawn between the figure of EF introduced in Part One, and the history of Julian the Apostate as revised in Part Two. EF is as much of a myth as the history she criticised. She is mythologised in the imagination of her students, acknowledges the narrator and his fellow classmates - ultimately she is unknowable.
Several moments:
- EF believes that the row of the historian is to challenge historical narratives and correct them. Perhaps the sharp reader will notice that her anti-Christian (or was it monotheistic again? What’s the difference to her?) worldview is no alien to contemporary fiction? (Sally Rooney, for starters.)
- The Christian belief is ultimately not a theory of human virtue as it is often inferred throughout Part Two (but rather a history of divine grace). EF is right in saying Christians did not invent virtue, but the goal of the Christian is also not to simply be virtuous by human standards. I feel if this was addressed, the book would have looked quite different?
Phew!!! This may read like an unintelligible rant, but here are some thoughts I am noting down for myself to remember. I did not enjoy this book like I expected I would (I mean this is based off Anita Brookner!), although I could not put it down. An intriguing novel!!!!!