“No man should be told he’s a god while he still lives,” he said at last. “It doesn’t promote good thinking.”
Rating: 2/5
Spoiler Alert! If you haven’t read the book, this review will contain spoilers so it’s up to you if you continue…
Having loved The Power, I was really excited to read more of Naomi Alderman’s books (especially because my copies have matching covers and that’s always a plus). However, The Liars' Gospel was a disappointment. Maybe my expectations were too high for it, but the blurb made it sound much more exciting than it actually was.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a book rewriting Jesus’ life from different perspectives should probably focus on him throughout. Instead, the last two perspectives - Caiaphus and Bar-Avo - barely touched on Jesus. He was maybe a paragraph in each of their lives. (Maybe this is some grand statement about the way we, as humans, can affect the people around us, but I don't really think so). I read about them with some interest, for the events within them were based in some history, but the lives of a high priest and a rebel weren’t what I’d picked up the book to read about.
Being raised a Catholic I like to think I know a fair amount about Jesus, and the idea of telling his story as if he was a rebel figure rather than a religious teacher was exciting. The Liars' Gospel treated him like a madman though. It was odd and undeniably innovative to hear a man so generally thought of as good (whether you believe he was the son of God or not) slandered like this, but it didn’t feel very connected to the version I know from the Bible. I’m no expert in Jesus’ life, but I know some things, and yet recognised very little. The ‘Cleansing of the Temple’ was used brilliantly as an example of something recorded in the Bible which was intended to show Jesus’ connection to God but in Alderman’s text revealed him to be angry and reactive. This was an instance in which the reader can see it is a matter of perspective as to whether one thinks him a good man or not. This, I believe, was the point of the book. Sadly, that’s the only example I can think of where that point is so succinctly made. Otherwise, it felt like the four points of view told us more or less that people had tried to move on from his death because he was a madman who did them no good.
As for the good? Well I appreciated the use of Jewish names rather than Anglicised ones for the characters - an important reminder of the way history is skewed. Likewise, the Roman presence wasn’t always shown as the aggressor in the situation. Obviously they were wrong to invade, but it was interesting to see the way peace could be negotiated by those in power, emphasising the Roman ability to negotiate, not just fight wars. Honestly though, that’s about it. I got through the book pretty speedily but it wasn’t great. Disobedience is still on my TBR but I imagine The Power will remain on its pedestal, unchallenged.
Comments