There were 18 of us attending and about 3 or 4 reported that this book was tedious because of the lack of action. There were several points where one felt the plot might take off such as when Kit Carson is introduced or when the problems of the Navajo tribe are introduced late in the book but doesn't really happen to any significant degree. The majority of the group didn't find the lack of action to be a problem and found the beauty of the writing more than adequate. especially regarding the sentiment between the two French priests as well as regarding descriptions of the Southwest landscape. It was pointed out in the discussion and it seemed to be the general consensus that the landscape was a major character in the book.
An attendee at the discussion reported that the author herself has declared that the book is a "narrative" rather than a novel but it seemed to me better described as fiction in biographical format. Basically it is the story of two Catholic missionary priests originally from France, their endearing lifelong relationship with each other and their job to bring territories in the Southwest previously belonging to Mexico under the auspices of the Catholic church.
In many cases, this meant bringing them back to the church as they had been prior to an uprising that had caused the death of Franciscan Catholic priests years before. The interaction between the French priests and Mexican priests established in these territories prior to the arrival of the French priests make up a large part of the story. Other parts include interactions between the French priests and the Indian culture and folklore as well as descriptions of the numerous long trips on horseback over thousands of miles, most of which were desert, that were required for the priests to do Church business or maintain "the flock" of their diocese which kept getting larger and larger.
One early scene shows the astuteness of one of the French priests, Father Joseph (second in command under Father Latour, the bishop) who bartered for two strong healthy mules from a rich Mexican rancher without negotiating for them directly. Cather makes it clear how minimal the resources are of the two priests and this particular scene makes it clear early in the book how apt they are for the job, a job that takes not only religious devotion but also "street smarts" so that they may have the resources for their own survival, let alone survival of the Catholic church.
IMO (and I seemed to be the only one thinking this), this astuteness seemed similar to the astuteness of the Indian trackers and I wonder if Cather doesn't want us to see a connection, rather like the French priests being "soul brothers" of the Indians and also part of the reason they found such satisfaction and fulfillment working in the Southwest though it was not anything like where they grew up.
Our discussion was quite active covering points such as the celibacy of the priests (and how realistic is that?), the correlation of the theatrics of the Mexican culture with theatrics of the Catholic rituals, and stereotyping by the author (or not) of (1) wise, discrete superstitious Indians, (2) poor uneducated Mexicans (3) callous, money hungry white men, and (4) vain 50 year old white women
I must admit I was one of a few (if not the only one) who felt the stereotypes lessened the book (though I enjoyed the book especially NOW after the discussion, LOL). Part of my argument concerning the stereotypes is that we were unable to find any substantive "sins" by the Indians or "sins" by the French priests. Only Mexicans and white men seemed to have flaws and the more money they had, the more flawed they were. This seemed too simplistic to me but didn't detract enough to cause me to dislike the book..
As was pointed out in the discussion, the book is not about the priests and their personalities or character development, it is about their "purposeful faith". One of the participants in the discussion said that parts of the book made him almost want to go out and "take vows". (not sure if he was 100% serious, LOL).
What I was most surprised to learn is that Willa Cather was not Catholic. I would have sworn that she wrote sensing the Catholic Church watching over her shoulder. But now as I write this, I'm thinking that her respectful treatment of the Indians and their superstitions perhaps do show her objectivity more than what appeared to me at first.
We also discussed the title and how it seemed to cause one to think that there would be violence in the story, especially regarding the Bishop but this was not the case. Almost as a subtle contradiction of the title, the bishop lives a long "purposeful" life leaving behind many, many devoted converts and followers.
Though it was a very sentimental story that seemed a little too unrealistic at times for me, I enjoyed a break from our usual fare of literature about indecent, immoral, weak, thoughtless and/or basically extremely flawed main characters which seems to be present to a much greater degree in the rest of the literature we read.
Looking forward to our next discussion of THE INHERITANCE OF LOSS by Kiran Desai on Monday, June 9th, 7pm at the Central Market Community room (intersection of Westheimer and Weslayan) . More info about our group at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/