Clearly this is a novel written in a
moment – the tale of the first female Archbishop can probably only
be told at this moment when it is about to become a possibility yet
is not yet a reality – because in the gap between the two there is
room for fiction and fantasy.
This is a big book, close to 550 pages,
but it is pretty light...
There are some inaccuracies which limit
the ability to lose yourself in the story – for example the
conversation between the Archbishop and the Queen, in which the Queen
uses the “Royal We” which she doesn't do even really use in
formal public settings and it shatters the supposedly cosy intimacy
of these encounters. Also in a similar way in which even close
colleagues refer to here as “Vicar”, “Bishop”, and latterly
“Archbishop” is really rather outdated. Also it seems highly
unlikely that anyone makes it through Theological College with their
virginity intact, and here was probably the moment when I lost any
ability to believe in Vicky Burnham-Woods as a character.
There are other questions too. Does the
Archbishop really have the power and influence the plot requires? Are
the “scandals” which shape the story line really scandalous
enough to drive the plot?
I think the novel tries to do too much
– there is one story about power and ambition (and the corrupting
effects of both), another about gender dynamics, another about the
invasion of privacy in our celebrity culture, one about religion
freedom and the place of faith in the public square, to name but a
few, and they are all competing for our attention and getting muddled
up in the process. Perhaps Guinness should have been encouraged to
develop this material into two, or three, shorter novels, each with a
more distinct focus and identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment