(urth) PF as YA

[Henry Eissler]

Fernando Q. Gouvêa wrote:

> See my other comment about "YA". I'm not sure what that means any 
> more. But I still think the themes in PF are appropriate for young 
> adults, and especially young men. This seems to be a concern of 
> Wolfe's. Our society seems no longer interested in "manliness", but 
> Wolfe is.
>
    I think I would have worded that differently, but that in the end 
we'd be talking about the same thing.  I agree.  I hadn't thought the 
novel was intended for a younger audience, but it could have been.  I 
think the spectre of "Treasure Island" helps that impression.
  
> That is my reading as well, though I think that we're also expected to 
> see that some of Chris's choices are pretty bad choices. The business 
> at the end about the vow of celibacy is a particularly discomforting one.
    I realize now that I was somewhat stating the obvious.
    I didn't get the part about Chris making bad choices.  His plan to 
break the vow of celibacy, for instance- didn't disturb me.  At that 
point Chris was long past having decided that his own relationship with 
God was unique.  Perhaps the danger of that is part of what the book 
tries to explore.  But also, the woman in question was his wife.  Why he 
made such a vow in the first place, I don't know; but the idea of 
breaking it bothered him enough to mention it in his "confession".
    All I can say is that upon my first read, I wasn't struck by any 
moral qualms.  I don't know if I'd say that I found the character 
sympathetic, but I felt his actions to be contextually appropriate.  
That is, though I probably wouldn't have done the same things in the 
same situation, it seemed to make sense for him.  It never occurred to 
me to doubt his (young Chris') relationship with his own conscience.
    As I said in a previous post, there were points where I felt that 
Father Chris was tempted to take a dark road.  That owing to freedom of 
choice, there were necessarily a Good Ignacio and a Bad Ignacio in the 
17th century.
    Anyway, thanks for your kind response.
    ---H