Walking Disaster, Chapter 25

This is a chapter-by-chapter review of problematic romance novel ‘Walking Disaster’ by Jamie McGuire. Posts in the series will all be linked back to the initial post, here.

This was initially a companion series to the magnificent Jenny Trout‘s review of the original novel, ‘Beautiful Disaster’. Jenny has since stopped her review, not wanting to give McGuire any further publicity in the wake of her attempts to run for office.

 

Content warnings: Stalkery controlling behaviour (the narrative). Gratuitous use of the word ‘fuck’ (me).

 

Chapter Twenty-Four: Possession

Is it just me or does that title not bode well?

We’ve timejumped forward; this chapter starts with Travis going round and round in his head over what turns out to be a decision on whether to go to the Valentine’s Day party (pros: Abby will be there, cons: he’ll potentially have to watch her dancing with someone else/meeting her future husband). Shep and America are back together, though it took them five weeks after the break-up at the end of the previous chapter, and have been busy with makeup sex.

America never missed a moment to let me know she hated my guts

Well, at least she got there eventually, though it would have been a lot more constructive if she could have worked that out back when she was urging Abby to get together with him.

And, wait a moment here, sounds like we skipped over another event:

I had talked Abby into leaving her date with Parker to come with me to a fight. Of course I wanted her there, but I made the mistake of admitting it was also that I had primarily asked her so I could win a pissing contest. I wanted Parker to know he had no hold on her. Abby felt I’d taken advantage of her feelings for me, and she was right.

So it sounds like we had another whole scene in ‘Beautiful’ which has just been skipped over and retrospectively summarised in ‘Walking’. On the one hand, not even bothering to write important scenes in your own book is really shoddy writing, but on the other hand it’s a fair guess that if McGuire had written the scene then that would have been substantially more shoddy writing for me to wade through. I’ll take it as a win.

All of those things were enough to feel guilty about, but the fact that Abby had been attacked in a place where I’d taken her made it nearly impossible to look anyone in the eye. Adding to all of that our close call with the law totaled up to me being a gigantic fuckup.

….okaaay, what? Just how much did McGuire leave out here? I’m going to have to go and at least skim through this scene in ‘Beautiful’.

OK. Back. I’m going to have a shot at summarising the left-out parts of ‘Beautiful’ as I read through them, so, braced for WTFery:

  • The weekend before Valentine’s Day, Abby and America are dancing at the Red and keep feeling men dancing behind them who then disappear, which turns out to be because Trav and Shep are dragging away any men who try dancing with them. Which they’re apparently accomplishing without starting any fights or any yells of ‘WTF do you think you’re doing?’, since all Abby’s aware of each time is that someone is dancing up against her just behind her and then he isn’t. This is, apparently, something the boys don’t see any problem at all with doing; when Abby finally notices what’s happening and confronts them, the boys are described as ‘smiling’ and ‘proud’ of what they’re doing. America doesn’t notice what’s going on, so she and Shep get back together at this point.
  • Abby then accepts an offer from Parker to go out for pizza and a film together as ‘just friends’, having apparently forgotten how he was previously spreading rumours and slut-shaming her when she was with Travis, which does not sound like a great basis for friendship.
  • Travis and Shep then turn up at the pizza place, to Parker’s alarm. The waitress spends ages hanging hopefully round their table and getting ignored, because we haven’t been reminded in a while of how irresistible Trav is to women and how inferior all other women are to Abby.
  • Travis gets a call and gets up to head out to a fight. Good job he hadn’t ordered his food yet, or he’d have had to leave it. It really makes no sense that Adam gives him so little warning (we’re told it’s 45 minutes, in which Travis has to include journey time). He stops by Abby’s table and says he wants Abby there, and then changes this to saying he needs her there, implying that he’s worried because the other guy has been training.
  • Abby apparently makes up her mind to go with him ‘the second he asks’, and, when Parker protests, she tells him that she’s going because Travis is her ‘best friend’. So, never mind America, who has been her best friend whom she’s known lifelong; apparently the ex-boyfriend she hasn’t spoken to for almost three months except for a couple of arguments is now her best friend. (BTW, I would feel sorry for Parker right now, but as per above he’s a dick as well so I don’t.)
  • Abby leaves with Travis and holds hands with him on the way out and in the taxi, because that’s not really giving mixed messages at all.
  • They get to the place where the fight is being held and it’s dangerously crowded. Adam (the guy who arranges the fights) wants to be sure Travis is going to fight properly as there’s so much money on this, but Travis is being a cocky little shit about the whole thing as usual. So much for him being worried, I guess.
  • The fight starts and it’s pretty vicious, and not going all Travis’s way. Abby turns aside for a moment and, as it’s so crowded, she gets shuffled off to the side away from Shepley and against a wall, where Ethan (the guy who tried to chat her up several chapters ago and who Travis implied had a history of sexual assault) starts trying to chat her up again and grabs her and mauls her when she tries to get away.
  • Travis sees what’s going on and tries to get to her to help, but one of the others keeps shoving him back into the ring to fight. Abby gets Ethan off her temporarily by kneeing him in the groin, and Shep manages to get to Abby and gets her out.
  • Travis runs out to find her, sees the guy who kept pushing him back into the ring, and beats him up. Then Shep yells to alert him that Ethan’s going past (yeah, well done, Shep, clearly what this situation needs right now is even more violence/s) and Trav beats him up as well. Oh, and this included ramming Ethan’s face into his car headlight, shattering the headlight.
  • Police arrive and block the exit. The gruesome foursome get out of there PDQ and Shep manages to find another exit and drive them back to the apartment.
  • Travis lifts Abby out of the back seat and carries her into the apartment, funnily enough without her feeling any apparent need to point out that WTF, she isn’t a swooning Victorian maiden and can actually walk here. Toto’s all excited to see her but Trav shifts him out of the room (gently, at least).
  • Trav is really upset and apologetic about what happened to Abby. He tells her to stay over as the residential hall is ‘crawling with cops’ (why? It’s not where the fight was).
  • Trav promptly goes to take a shower and all four of them drink quite a bit of alcohol, because some things apparently never change.
  • Abby’s sympathetic with Trav until he confesses to her that he only tried to get her to the game to prove a point to Parker. After that, she’s PO’d. She throws a glass at him, throws him out of the room (she’s sleeping on the bed, he’s going to sleep on the sofa), and cries her eyes out, with America coming in to hold her.
  • Abby and America go back to the dorm the next morning. Abby miserably reflects on how shitty the whole situation is.

Following which, we see Abby with Finch at the party, so that seems to be us caught up. Well, that was a wild ride. (counts back) Almost two chapters worth of significant stuff just left out and summarised in a couple of paragraphs, so, way to avoid writing your own fricking book, McGuire. But, again, at least it did make it somewhat quicker for me to get through, so at least for once I’m benefiting from McGuire’s crappy writing skill.

Anyway… back to ‘Walking’. Shep is about to head off with America, and Trav apologises to him again for screwing up. Trav drinks ‘the last of the whiskey’, considers going out to get more, and has a rare moment of self-honesty in realising that no amount of whiskey is actually going to help him decide whether to go to the frat party or not. So… he goes to get more whiskey on his way to the frat party anyway, and drinks a half-pint of that before going in because he’s ‘finding courage in the bottom of a bottle’. Thank you once again, McGuire, for this excellent role-modelling for the youth of today.

Travis looks for Abby and eventually finds her dancing with Finch. In case it isn’t clear, Finch is The Gay Best Friend and Travis appears to be fully aware of that, so hopefully no tragic misunderstandings here. Trav walks over to them and asks Finch if he can cut in. Neither boy seems interested in asking Abby whether this is OK, despite Finch being well aware of the situation. Great.

Abby, for unclear reasons, does go along with dancing with Trav, though apparently resists his attempts to pull her closer. Trav tells her she looks beautiful and that he didn’t really mean what he’d said before about asking her to the fight to prove a point to Parker. Excuse me, McGuire, but just a few pages back Trav was describing himself as having ‘admitted’ this to Abby, so that certainly sounds like it was actually true. So I guess he’s now lying to her. Maybe this is one of the bits for which McGuire’s reason for omitting it from this book was because she was trying to gloss over just how bad Travis sounded in it.

Abby says that she wishes she did hate him because it would make everything a lot easier, which is true enough.

A cautious, small smile spread across my lips. “So what pisses you off more? What I did to make you wanna hate me? Or knowing that you can’t?”

This further attempt at point-scoring is enough for Abby, who turns and legs it out of there.

Trying to speak to her at all seemed futile, now. Every interaction just added to the growing snowball of clusterfucks that was our relationship.

Well, sounds like you should learn something from that…

I walked up the stairs and made a beeline for the keg,

…yeah, that wasn’t actually the lesson I had in mind.

cursing my greediness and the empty bottle of whiskey lying somewhere in Sig Tau’s front lawn.

So he’s a litterbug as well? I mean, not that I’m even surprised by this point…

Trav spends the next hour drinking beer. I’m going to guess that this won’t have any apparent physical effect on him. He then looks over to try to catch Abby’s eye and instead sees that she and Finch are just getting ready to leave. Just as Abby’s walking out, the song that she and Travis danced to at her birthday party comes on. I assumed this was going to be one of those soppy romance ‘fall back into each other’s arms thinking about the memories, all is magically forgiven’ moments, but I had, as so often, managed to utterly underestimate Maguire’s awfulness level, because here’s what actually happens:

One of the frat boys asks her to dance and without thinking about it Trav darts over to her and also asks her to dance. (Well, at least that was a relief; I thought Trav was going to punch him.) Abby refuses, gets narky, and dances with the first guy instead. (Huh. Another relief.) Apparently this is as much functional stuff as Maguire can sustain, however, because…

Trav then jumps on a chair, shouts out a semi-coherent toast to ‘douche bags’ and ‘girls that break your heart’, and, despite Shep trying to stop him, pushes his way over to where Abby’s dancing with the other boy (Brad), says he’s cutting in, and threatens Brad with having his throat ripped out if he doesn’t back off and go along with this. Okaaaaay, so apparently we’re back in scary stalker territory. Abby tells Trav that the way she feels about him ‘very closely resembles hate’ and refuses to dance. Good for her. She goes and grabs someone else to dance with. Another guy dances up behind her and starts grinding into her, and Trav decides he needs to rescue her, so he grabs her and throws her over his shoulder ready to drag her off back to his cave apartment like one of those bad stereotypes from the Neolithic.

Trav carries Abby upstairs (past America, who flat-out laughs at her when she calls out for help, so fuck you, America, so much for the protective friend), and outside, where the designated driver is handily waiting at the wheel of his car. Wait, is he a hired chauffeur or something? Wouldn’t he be inside at the party? Travis threatens Donnie into driving both of them back to Trav’s apartment, then physically restrains Abby when she tries to get out of the car. Yes, this is a thing that the love interest is fucking well doing in this fucking book which we all fucking know is going to fucking end with this fuckbag fucking getting back together with her and with that fucking well being presented as a happy fucking ending.

Abby bites Trav in an unsuccessful attempt to get away, to which he tells her ‘”Do your worst, Pidge, I’m tired of your shit.”‘

My shit? Let me out of this fucking car!”

I pulled her wrists close to my face. “I love you, dammit! We’re not going anywhere until you sober up and we figure this out!”

Jesus H. Freaking Christ, Travis, she has broken up with you and you are fucking assaulting and restraining her and the only thing you need to figure out right now is how to stop being one of the later chapters in a book analysing the typical sequence of ways that abusive partners escalate their behaviour until it reaches murder. Fuck you with a cactus.

Abby, having apparently realised that she has no chance of successfully fighting back physically against Trav and that her best bet is to at least not make him angrier, stops trying to fight and waits it out till they get to the apartment. When they get there, she tries asking Donnie to take her home, but Trav drags her out, slings her over his shoulder again, and marches upstairs with her.

Abby tries telling him she’s going to call his dad and Travis laughs and tells her her dad would pat him on the back for this. Classic abuser behaviour of making the abused person feel everyone’s on the abuser’s side. He drags her struggling into the apartment and throws her down on the bed to ‘sleep it off’, and when she tries yelling at him that she doesn’t ‘belong to’ him any more, he gets all up in her face and screams back that he belongs to her.

And, to everyone else thinking ‘Fuck, this is going to be presented as a successful way of winning her over, isn’t it?’  …yes. Sadly, you were right.

Abby reached out, but instead of slapping my face, she grabbed each of my cheeks and slammed her mouth into mine.

…and they rip each other’s clothes off and she drags him on top of her. Of course.

By the way, if you want to know how foolishly optimistic I can be, I actually did hold out hopes that maybe this would be another time where she’d tell him to get stuffed and maybe it would be another chapter before they got back together and so at least the book would only show them getting together in spite of Travis’s behaviour, not because of it. But, no. Maguire has to show Travis being the kind of controlling stalkery ex who’s one step away from getting zip ties and show that as being what induces Abby to get back with him. Fuck. This. Shit. With. A. Fucking. Cactus.

Trav does then hold off for a minute on having sex because he realises Abby’s drunk, and does say that he’s ‘been an ass’ and that he ‘never wanted Abby to wonder if he’d taken advantage of this moment’, and so I dared to hope maybe we’d get a sliver of decent appropriate behaviour showing through the rest of this shitshow, but, nope; what he actually does at this point is tell her to say that she belongs to him and she’ll take him back. So, no, Travis is actually not trying at all to make sure that he’s not taking advantage of the drunk woman he just fucking dragged back to his apartment; he’s trying to take even more advantage of her to make sure that she promises to stay with him.

And, yes, of course, Abby promises him that she’s his and she’s going to stay with him and love him forever… because that’s such a wonderful idea to promise to the teenager who not only has enough red flags to open a flag store but whom you have only known for a few months. This isn’t romance or love, this is limerence hitting your dopamine centres.

Anyway, there are still almost four pages left in this senseforesaken chapter but I can sum them up fairly quickly: Trav wakes up convinced that Abby’s going to be angry with him for last night and leave him again, Abby doesn’t have the sense to do any such thing and convinces him she wants to stay, it turns out Abby’s desperately wanted to get back with him since Thanksgiving but thought he didn’t want her, blah-de-blah, apparently everything’s sunshine and roses now, chapter ends.

Oooookaaaaay. Since all I seem to be doing with this clusterfuck of a chapter is swearing non-stop, I figure it’s worth putting in at least a bit of thought as to why people think this sort of stuff is so amazingly romantic.

To recap: We have a man who threatens other people with violence, drags his ex out of a party (humiliating her in the process), and forces her to come back to his apartment when he doesn’t want to. This is all on top of his immaturity, his anger control issues, his problem drinking, his lack of relationship experience, his toxic possessiveness, the fact that the reason his ex split up with him was due to his insistence on disregarding her opinion on a major issue that deeply mattered to her, and his stalker-type behaviour since then. This is our romantic hero. Numerous people actually like this book and agree that the above plot is wonderfully romantic. Why?

The only reason I can see is that the book portrays a male love interest who really, really wants to be with the female love interest, and this is what’s seen as romantic. He loves Abby so much he’s willing to fight for her! He’s not willing to listen to her opinion when it counts, leave her alone for her own sake, or avoid the stalker-type behaviour, but he’s willing to fight for her! And he’s somewhat changed at least some things about his behaviour for her! Doesn’t that prove it’s a great romance? So… I suppose people get so focused on the way Travis is proving how much he wants Abby that they dont see any need to think about whether he’s a person worth being with himself.

All this is then also presented within a bizarre sort of competitive framework in which multiple other women are denigrated and criticised in order to frame Abby as soooo much better than all the Other Girls, the one good-quality women amongst all the designated trash, the virgin among all the whores. So I guess if you already believe life is that sort of constant competition with others, then it must be reassuring to read about a protagonist who’s winning it.

And it’s just so damn sad and frustrating. People learn that ‘big dramatic gesture to prove he really wants you’ is the important thing rather than ‘look at who this person shows themselves to be in day-to-day life’. Women get taught to think in terms of ‘I’m better than all these whores’ rather than seeing the other women around them as people who can be potential friendships, supports, or, at a bare minimum, just people living their lives who don’t need this kind of hate or dismissal.

I did check out ‘Beautiful’ to see what McGuire would give us as the in-story explanation for why Abby thought it was worth getting back with Travis. But, nope, we don’t get one. No explanations, no justification. Abby wants to get back with Travis, so she does. The fact that she had good reasons for leaving him is just ignored, to the point where Abby flat-out blames herself for not getting back with him sooner. ‘I had made us both suffer, and I had no excuse’ Abby thinks, because every fucking time I think McGuire has got the bar as low as it can get she manages to push it a little further into the earth’s core.

Anyway, chapter’s done, and there is at least not too much left in the book. So I’ll post this now and keep pushing on through and get done with the whole thing.

‘The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari’, Chapter One

Well, readers, here we are: it’s finally time for a new book! (In this case, a very old new book; my copy is practically falling apart.) As planned, this next book is my long-postponed review of Robin Sharma’s ‘The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari’.

 

Background  

The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari is a book in the self-help meaning-of-life genre and was written in Canada back in the ’90s. I believe it was pretty big in North America, but that might for all I know just be the cover blurbs talking it up. I don’t recall it making any kind of splash in the UK, but it’s hard to tell because I don’t normally check out self-help sections; that said, I spend enough time in bookshops and libraries that I think at the very least it probably wasn’t put in massive front-of-shop displays (I think I’d have noticed the title). 

It is apparently (very) loosely based on the author’s own experience of giving up a legal career to go into the self-help industry. So that’s kind of meta. 

I discovered this particular copy when browsing a shelf of second-hand books in a small general store, and picked it up because it looked like something that might be worth a blog post. As I read the first few chapters I realised that I’d been wrong; this wasn’t worth a blog post, it was worth a full-on chapter-by-chapter booksnarking. This, as I’ve said, then got delayed for many years when two other booksnarking projects jumped the queue… but the time has finally come. 

I got several chapters into it (can’t remember how many) but then decided it would be better to leave the rest until the actual review so that I could report my reactions to it as I went along. This means that I still haven’t read most of the actual self-help bits, so for all I know they might turn out to be really good once I get there. We shall see! Anyway, this means that for the first few chapters I’ll be going over distantly familiar ground (‘distantly’ because it’s years since I read even the part that I did read), and after that I’ll be on unknown territory.

It seems to be quite a bit shorter than the last few books I’ve read, so I’m hoping I can get through it relatively quickly. Relatively. Maybe several months instead of several years? We can hope.

Aaaaand here we go! 

 

Chapter One: The Wake-Up Call 

He collapsed right in the middle of a packed courtroom. 

Well, apart from anything else, absolutely full marks for a gripping opener.  

The rest of this paragraph gives us some background info: the ‘he’ in question is a nationally-recognised top lawyer by the name of Julian Mantle who buys really expensive suits. Julian Mantle is now: 

 squirming on the ground like a helpless infant, shaking and shivering and sweating like a maniac. 

So, quick mention that words like ‘maniac’ are now known to be ablist slurs (because of a whole load of anti-mental-health prejudice that comes with them) but it’s also fair to note that Robin Sharma wouldn’t have realised this was an issue in 1999. 

Everyone freaks out. The bailiff starts doing CPR, which irked me because it doesn’t sound as though Julian had actually stopped breathing (since he was described just above as ‘squirming’) and so it’s not medically appropriate, but that’s just me and my annoying habit of actually knowing medical stuff. Meanwhile, we go into a flashback for the narrator to fill us in on some background: 

  • Julian is a workaholic (‘willing to work eighteen-hour days for the success he believed was his destiny’ who also likes living it up (‘Late-night visits to the city’s finest restaurants with sexy young fashion models, or reckless driving escapades with the rowdy band of brokers he called his ‘demolition team’ became the stuff of legend at the firm’). These two descriptions sound somewhat contradictory to me, but maybe he alternates between the two ways of doing things. 
  • He comes from money and success, and has plenty of both himself. We hear about ‘the three-thousand-dollar Italian suits that draped his well-fed frame’, his ‘Armani-clad shoulders’, ‘income in seven figures’, ‘spectacular mansion’, ‘private jet’, ‘summer home on a tropical island’, and, of course, the titular Ferrari. I’m guessing there’ll be a major theme coming up about material things not really mattering at all. (Which, to be fair, we can also deduce just from the title.) 
  • The narrator is a lawyer at the same firm as Julian who was picked out by him as an intern to work on a ‘sensational’ case defending a wife-murderer, which Julian wins, although it’s hinted that Narrator (I don’t know whether we ever get his name, but I can’t see it in this chapter) thinks the accused was actually guilty. So, apparently Julian’s pre-change-of-heart backstory involves being the sort of lawyer that works for rich people to get them off the hook. Narrator was then invited to stay on as a lawyer, and did so.
  • Julian is not the easiest person to work with, as he’s a ‘his way or the highway’ type who gets into ‘late night shouting matches’ with the narrator, and possibly other colleagues. However, we’re assured that he has a heart of gold underneath this, as evidenced by the fact that he always remembered to ask about Narrator’s wife and, more importantly, he helped Narrator out of a financial hole by arranging a financial scholarship for him.
  • Although we’re told again that Julian ‘loved to have a wild time’ and also that he ‘never neglected his friends’, Sharma leans heavily into the workaholic narrative at this point, describing Julian (and, as a result, the narrator) as working longer and longer hours, with Julian taking on more and more cases and forever obsessing over not having prepared enough. This reads as if Sharma was trying to advise simultaneously against devoting yourself to work and devoting yourself to wild living, and didn’t realise (or maybe didn’t care) that it didn’t quite make sense to use one example for both narratives.
  • Julian’s obsessed workaholic life (and the long restaurant meals he’s supposedly also finding time for) takes its toll: his marriage fails, he stops talking to his father, and at the age of 53 he looks to be ‘in his late seventies’. Ironically, this is also messing up his professional abilities: ‘Where he would once dazzle all those present with an eloquent and airtight closing argument, he now droned on for hours, rambling about obscure cases that had little or no bearing on the matter before the Court.’ (Sigh. When I first read this, my reaction was ‘so… wouldn’t people stop giving him important cases?’ and now it’s ‘so… he’s now qualified to be POTUS?’)
  • He has some dreadful tragic backstory. Narrator knows this exists, but no-one will tell him what it is because they’re sworn to secrecy (though that apparently didn’t stop someone from letting slip the existence of said tragedy even though whoever-it-was did manage to keep shtum about the details).

And all that brings Narrator back to the events of the first paragraph, whereupon we learn that Julian’s medical issue was ‘a massive heart attack’. Really? From the description, I’d thought it was going to be epilepsy. (The description actually reminded me more of acute hypoglycaemia, but no way was that going to be the diagnosis in a non-medical book, and epilepsy would have fitted reasonably well.) I mean, I know this isn’t a medical book, but even pre-Internet it was fairly easy to find descriptions of how heart attacks present. Couldn’t Sharma have taken a few minutes at the library to look this up? Oh, well; from what I remember of the part of the book I did read, realism isn’t its strongest point.

Anyway, that’s the end of the first chapter, so we’re off to a good start here. This is definitely more readable than the last few books. As per my usual practice, I’ll link all further posts on this book back to this one when I post them.

Thoughts and plans for future book reviews

Having finally finished one of my two ongoing book reviews (pause for cheering), I can now pick a new review to start. Also, I now seem to be only a few chapters from the end of Walking Disaster, which, even at the rate I go, means that at some point in the just-about-foreseeable future I should (hey, let’s think positive here) also finish that one and be able to pick a second new one to review. So… what should be next on the agenda?

The first one’s simple enough; years ago, I came across a second-hand copy of The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari, and decided that this absolutely needed a full-on snarkreview. Then Walking Disaster came up as an option because I had the idea of doing it in parallel with Jenny Trout’s review of the companion book, and Deciphering The Gospels because Price donated me a free copy, and so both of those ended up jumping the queue. Having finished one of those, I can now finally start TMWSHF, so that’s the one that’s next up.

As to which book should replace Walking Disaster when the joyous time comes that I complete that as well, I have an entire list of options in mind. Here, as best I can remember (and no doubt I’ll remember something else after hitting ‘publish’), is the list of books I’d potentially like to deconstruct/snarkreview at some point:

  • Midwives – Chris Bohjalian (about homebirth/midwifery in the US)
  • Lila – Robert Persig (sequel to his more famous Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, and not nearly as good)
  • The Little Voice – Josh Sheldon (supposed to be about self-actualisation or some such, seems to be largely ‘privileged guy whinges about stuff he doesn’t want to do’)
  • Suzanne’s Diary for Nicholas – James Patterson (badly-thought-out romance novel)
  • Beyond Choice – Don Baker (dreadful and fortunately obsolete anti-abortion book)
  • The Daughter Of Time – Josephine Tey (a re-examination of the Princes in the Tower case which, while a vastly better book than some of the drek on this list, could definitely do with some re-examining of its own)
  • The Surrendered Wife – Laura Doyle (never actually read this, but it looks worth a takedown)
  • On The Historicity Of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason For Doubt – Richard Carrier (self-explanatory, but do note that this one is not going to be any time soon, as I definitely need a change of pace at this point)
  • Too Good To Be False – Tom Gilson (apologetics book)
  • The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce – Judith Wallerstein (a research project on the effects of divorce on children; I want to write about why I disagree with her widely-cited conclusions)

Readers, I would love to hear what thoughts you might have here. It’s not a vote; I’ll pick when the time comes based largely on convenience/practicality/how I feel at the time. But there’s some wiggle room there and I’d still be interested to know if anyone has any thoughts on any of the above. And I’d also be interested to know if any of you have had moments of looking at a book and thinking ‘If only some skeptic would volunteer to take this book’s argument apart; I would so like to read that!’ because, well, I make no promises, but I’m at least somewhat open to suggestions. What say you?

‘Deciphering The Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed’: Questions, part 3

Deciphering the Gospels’, by R. G. Price, argues the case for Jesus mythicism, which is the view that Jesus never existed on earth in any real form but was an entirely mythical figure in the same way as Hercules or Dionysus. (The author is not the same person as Robert Price, also a Jesus mythicist author.) I’m an atheist who holds the opposing (and mainstream) view that Christianity started with a human Jesus. In other words, the Jesus referred to as the founder of Christianity was originally a 1st-century human being, about whom a later mythology grew up, whose followers became the original group that would mutate over time into Christianity. I’m therefore reviewing Price’s book to discuss his arguments and my reasons for disagreeing.

The first post in this book review is here. Links to the posts on all subsequent chapters can be found at the end of that post.

 

Readers, we’re nearly there; we made it to the last post on this book. I noticed a few weeks ago that the first post I published on this book was on the 17th Feb 2019, and since then I’ve secretly hoped to be able to get finished by what’s about to be the seventh anniversary of that date… and here we are with the end in sight. The realisation that I’ve spent seven years on this has indeed made me question some of my life choices (especially when I also realised that this means I’ve spent even longer on Walking Disaster), but, nope, I like taking this sort of stuff apart and I have, at least on this subject, no regrets. But I’ll still be glad to tick this one off my list and move on.

So! Home stretch. Four more questions from Price’s list, four more from my list, and we’re done. Let’s get going.

 

Questions from Price

9.
Why would Paul insist that his knowledge of Jesus was superior because it came from revelation, if Paul knew that other apostles had direct knowledge of Jesus the person and were taught directly from the mouth of Jesus?

Paul believed that Jesus actually had appeared to him, so he and his followers believed that Paul had heard directly from Jesus, and he thought that was better than getting information second-hand from the apostles. (This would have no doubt been fuelled by the fact that Paul’s beliefs about what Jesus had told him fitted a lot better with what he wanted to hear, meaning he was pretty well motivated to hang onto this belief.)

10.
If a real Jesus were worshiped and executed, then why was his real grave unknown and unvenerated?

His followers were so reluctant to accept his death that they started believing he’d miraculously come back to life. I very much doubt they wanted to think about his body rotting away in a criminal’s graveyard when they could keep believing that he’d magically risen from the dead instead.

11.
If the “Q” teachings come from a separate independent source, then why does the “Q” dialog fit so neatly into the Markan narrative, using elements of language that are unique to the Gospels?

The problem with this question is that Price hasn’t demonstrated his premise here. I went back to what Price wrote about Q earlier in the book as I’d skimmed over it before, but I hadn’t missed much.

Price’s claim (from back in Chapter 6) is that the Q material (material shared by both Matthew and Luke but not Mark) is too well integrated with the Markan material to have been added later, from which he concludes that Matthew and Luke originally copied a longer form of Mark that also contained the Q material. However, although Price claims there are ‘dozens of examples’ showing this, the only one he gives is the temptation scene (the scene in which Jesus is fasting in the desert and is tempted by the devil). And… looking at that, I’m hard-pressed to see how else Matthew and Luke would have integrated the material.

Mark gives us a very brief account; Jesus went into the desert and fasted for forty days, the devil tempted him, angels ministered to him. Matthew and Luke both add a more detailed account of the devil’s temptations. Not surprisingly, they both add this just after the bit about Jesus fasting in the desert and just before the bit about angels ministering to him. Looking at the three accounts side by side, I’m at a loss as to where else Price thinks the extra details would have been added. And, while I’m sure he’s convinced himself that he does indeed have ‘dozens’ of other examples, my seven-year experience with reading Price has not left me with any reason to trust that those examples will stand up any better. So, again, if Price wants to claim that the Q material is integrated in such a way, he’s going to have to show his working.

Meanwhile, I’m still wondering how on earth Price hasn’t spotted the problem this whole theory causes for the rest of his argument. Price’s original claim, if you recall, was that every single important scene in gMark could be shown to be derived from somewhere else, and, despite the flaws in his argument, he did at least put a lot of effort into going through gMark sequentially trying to hit every scene and come up with some kind of explanation. Yet he somehow doesn’t seem to have noticed the glaring contradiction between ‘I have demonstrated this for every important scene in gMark’ and ‘gMark also had a lot of extra material that I haven’t previously mentioned’. I honestly wonder whether Price has ever thought critically about his own arguments at any point.

12.
If Paul knew that Jesus was a real person who was recently on earth, then why did he never talk about him “returning” or “coming back”?

I can’t say one way or the other whether this is even true, as I don’t know Koine Greek. However, Price doesn’t either, and at this point I don’t think it’s unwarranted for me to be somewhat suspicious about whether he’s actually correct or not. Oh, well, if you want to think about whether it means anything whatsoever even if Price is right about it… I doubt it. Discussed it a bit further in this post.

And that’s it for Price’s twelve questions and for Price’s first book. Just my last four questions for Price here:

 

Questions for Price

9. If Jesus was thought of by his original followers as a purely heavenly being, why were specific members of the group (who weren’t even the apostles) referred to as his brothers? If this was meant metaphorically, in what way would it make any sense to think of humans as being even metaphorically the brothers of a heavenly being, especially when this designation was given only to a few men who weren’t even apostles?

10. Why is it that there’s no sign at all, amongst all the diversity of opinion in existing writings, of anyone believing that Jesus lived and died entirely in the heavens? We have mention of beliefs that Jesus was originally a heavenly figure before being born to a woman on earth, we have mention of beliefs that Jesus only appeared to be leading a human life on earth but his flesh wasn’t really real flesh. But we have absolutely no record – not even in the form of anyone attempting to refute the belief as heresy – about anyone having believed that Jesus lived entirely in heaven. If this was really what the group believed at their origins, why would they have no record of it at all?

11. New religious sects are typically started by charismatic and inspiring individuals who become indelibly part of the records of the movement (as the great divine prophet who taught the true wishes of God, that kind of thing). In our records of Christianity’s beginning, we certainly seem to see such an individual in Jesus. If the first group wasn’t started by a historical Jesus, then why is there no record at all of whomever did start it?

12. Given the evidence we do have for a historical Jesus, plus the fact that none of your arguments or evidence have actually stood up to examination, plus the difficulties you yourself have had in explaining parts of your case that don’t make sense… can you think of any reason at all why we should believe your claims instead of the much simpler explanation that Christianity started with a historical Jesus?

 

That’s it; this book review is officially over. I look forward to seeing whether anyone wants to join in with further discussion in any of the comment threads (if you do, just remember to keep it civil). But for this post, it remains only for me to indulge in my habit of misquoting Richard Ayoade each time I finish a book review, by saying: Thank you for reading, if indeed you still are.

‘Deciphering The Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed’: Questions, Part 2

Deciphering the Gospels’, by R. G. Price, argues the case for Jesus mythicism, which is the view that Jesus never existed on earth in any real form but was an entirely mythical figure in the same way as Hercules or Dionysus. (The author is not the same person as Robert Price, also a Jesus mythicist author.) I’m an atheist who holds the opposing (and mainstream) view that Christianity started with a human Jesus. In other words, the Jesus referred to as the founder of Christianity was originally a 1st-century human being, about whom a later mythology grew up, whose followers became the original group that would mutate over time into Christianity. I’m therefore reviewing Price’s book to discuss his arguments and my reasons for disagreeing.

The first post in this book review is here. Links to the posts on all subsequent chapters can be found at the end of that post.

 

Second part of the question list with which Price finishes the book, and second part of my question list for him. I just want to start this post with a shout-out to the four Ifs that start these four questions for the amount of heavy lifting they’re doing; it certainly puts my gym regime to shame.

 

Questions from Price

5.
If we can conclude that the “cleansing of the temple” is a truly fictional
event based on literary allusions, what then would explain why a real
Jesus would have been executed?

I’ve already disagreed that we can conclude that, but I’m also very puzzled that the second part of this (the query as to why Jesus would have been executed) is even something Price finds worth questioning.

The story we’re given is that Jesus was gathering an increasing crowd of Jewish followers that thought he was the Messiah and were proclaiming him as such. ‘Messiah’, to the Jews, meant the king who would rule over Israel in a time when their oppressors and enemies (who at that time were the Romans) had been overthrown, and plenty of Jews believed that the Messiah would play a direct role in the overthrowing. There had already been incidents in which Jewish attempts at rebellion against the Romans had had to be forcibly put down with execution of the leader. This is, therefore, exactly the sort of scenario that the Romans would want to nip in the bud, and execution of the troublemaker thought to be the Messiah was exactly the sort of action a governor like Pilate would have found it appropriate to take. All of this is well accepted among scholars. How on earth does Price not know that?

6.
If we can conclude that the crucifixion of Jesus during the Passover
festival is not credible, then what would account for the fact that every
description of his execution follows the narrative from Mark, other than
that no one had any knowledge of the actual event?

This seems to be more of a problem for Price. Since Matthew and Luke clearly did think Mark’s account worth using as a source, that suggests that they had some reason to do so that was good enough to convince them. Such as, say, being part of a group that was handing this and other stories down as being real stories of a real Jesus.

7.
If the events of the Gospels are indeed a purely fictional postwar
narrative, then what could explain why a real human Jesus would have
been worshiped as such a powerful divine being? If the “real Jesus” didn’t
perform miracles, didn’t actually rise from the dead, didn’t have teachings
that were cited by either Paul or James, then what would cause people to
worship this real human Jesus who had no deeds or teachings worth
noting by the earliest writers about him?

Addressed here. The tl;dr version is that I don’t think the original human Jesus was worshipped; he was followed, which is not the same thing.

As for ‘the earliest writers about him’, the earliest surviving writings we have about him are those of Paul, whose lack of interest in a human Jesus we’ve already discussed, and the next earliest are those of Mark, who does indeed spend most of the gospel noting Jesus’s deeds or teachings. As per my answer to question 4, we don’t know whether or not there were earlier writers and thus can’t make any assumptions about what any writers before Paul might have written. So this claim of Price’s doesn’t stand up at all.

8.
If the earliest worshipers of Jesus believed that the material world was
corrupt and needed to be destroyed, then why would they worship a
material human being? The only theological explanation for why a Jesus
of the flesh would be worshiped is that by becoming flesh and
“overcoming death” Jesus transcended the corruption of the material
world. But if we can conclude that a real-life Jesus wouldn’t have actually
“overcome death,” then why would a real-life Jesus be worshiped?

I’m baffled by this one because Price seems to be asking us to explain the very problem that his theory sets up.

Price is the one claiming that the earliest followers of Jesus were worshippers who believed the material world was corrupt and needed to be destroyed and that the Messiah therefore had to be heavenly. All of that is a theory that came from Price. And yet he’s now pointing out to us exactly what I’ve been trying to point out to him; that this doesn’t fit with the known fact that within the next couple of generations Jesus’s followers believed him to have been a material human being. Yes, Price, that is indeed a major contradiction, and it seems to me that the obvious way to resolve it is by working with the vastly more plausible theory that in fact Jesus’s followers didn’t believe that at all, but instead were following an actual human Jesus.

 

Questions for Price

Questions 5 – 8 from my list:

5. The original sect belonged to a culture that overwhelmingly believed holy sacrifice to be by throat-cutting. How would they have spontaneously come up with the idea that Jesus’s sacrifice was by the completely different and (under their beliefs) accursed method of crucifixion?

6. The entire reason that Jews eagerly hoped for the Messiah was because he was supposed to usher in a wondrous age of freedom, peace, and plenty for Jews on earth. Why would a group have taken such a sideways swerve into believing the Messiah was a divine being whose sacrifice was needed to wipe out all sin?

7. If gMark was a fictional account written for a small sect who believed in a heavenly Jesus rather than an earthly Jesus, why would multiple authors write expanded accounts adding all sorts of extra stories and details and go on to form a religion based on this earthly Jesus, all apparently without noticing that this earthly Jesus had never existed, and without being corrected on this extremely obvious point by the existing sect?

8. If Jesus’s life on earth never happened, how is it that within less than 50 years things could go from ‘one little-known and anonymous author wrote a fictional story about his life on earth’ to ‘ it’s so widely believed that this person was real and was really executed at Pilate’s order that Tacitus reports this as an unquestioned fact’?

‘Deciphering The Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed’: Questions, part 1

Deciphering the Gospels’, by R. G. Price, argues the case for Jesus mythicism, which is the view that Jesus never existed on earth in any real form but was an entirely mythical figure in the same way as Hercules or Dionysus. (The author is not the same person as Robert Price, also a Jesus mythicist author.) I’m an atheist who holds the opposing (and mainstream) view that Christianity started with a human Jesus. In other words, the Jesus referred to as the founder of Christianity was originally a 1st-century human being, about whom a later mythology grew up, whose followers became the original group that would mutate over time into Christianity. I’m therefore reviewing Price’s book to discuss his arguments and my reasons for disagreeing.

The first post in this book review is here. Links to the posts on all subsequent chapters can be found at the end of that post.

 

This is the first part of the list of questions that finishes off Price’s book. It’s a twelve-question list and I’ve decided to divide it into three posts of four each, which works out rather nicely. I’ve also collected my own list of questions for Price, which I was originally going to list at the very end but which I’ve decided also to split up between the three posts to avoid getting one huge long post at the very end. Here we go:

 

Questions from Price

1.
If Jesus were a real person, then why do neither the letters of Paul nor the
epistle of James provide any description of him?

Probably the main reason is that they’re religious writings and not celebrity biographies. Why would they provide any description of him? On top of that, there’s the fact that Paul never met Jesus and we have no idea who the James was that wrote the epistle of James and so have no idea whether he ever met Jesus.

2.
If Jesus were a real person and his brother James became a prominent
leader of the Christian community, then why didn’t James provide any
account of the life of his brother Jesus?

Since we don’t know what accounts James did or didn’t provide of his brother’s life during his own lifetime, I’m going to assume that Price means that James didn’t provide any written account. Given how poor literacy levels were at that time, I’m going to guess that the reason was that James just wasn’t good enough at writing, plus the fact that, again, this was not a celebrity biography situation and people probably weren’t as interested in getting some kind of inside scoop as Price seems to be assuming.

3.
The epistle of James goes into an extensive discussion of the importance
of works, yet uses examples of figures from the Jewish scriptures to show
the importance of works. Why wouldn’t this letter have used Jesus’s deeds
as an example of the importance of works if the writer were someone who
knew of Jesus or thought that Jesus was a real person?

With thanks to GakuseiDon for his work on this one: Because this was a time when tradition and the scriptures were the sources considered important as roadmaps of how to act. Jewish followers thought Jesus was important as the king who was going to bring forth the awaited Messianic age, and Paul and his recruits believed Jesus was important as a sin sacrifice. But the concept of Jesus being the ultimate ideal example of how people should behave was more of a later development.

4.
If the narrative of Jesus’s life and death were developed before the First
Jewish-Roman War and maintained by a community of Jesus worshipers,
why was it not recorded until after the war?

We don’t know when it was first recorded, and have no way of knowing whether or not it was recorded before the war, so this question is based on a premise that can’t be demonstrated.

Having done the tl;dr, I will now go into (quite a bit) more detail about this:

The usual reason for believing that the gospels weren’t written until after the war is that they show Jesus giving predictions of coming disaster, and thus it’s assumed that these refer retrospectively to the Jewish-Roman War and that the gospels were all written after this. And this is, to be fair, a belief very widely accepted by scholars. In fact, this is perhaps the only occasion on which I’m arguing against a mainstream belief held by Price.

However, for some time now I haven’t believed that this particular claim stands up. What gMark actually gives us is a very vague generalised prophecy of disaster. (In fact, even in its vagueness, it doesn’t match the details of the Jewish-Roman War; Jesus is shown as prophesying that the Temple will be thrown down and ‘Not one stone will be left upon another‘, but in actual fact a) the Temple was burned rather than knocked down and b) one wall has remained to this day. So it’s hard to see this as an after-the-fact prophecy.)

Bear in mind that this was a culture in which it seems to have been fairly normal to make fatalistic proclamations about the doom and destruction that were awaiting people for supposed sins, and, of course, it was a time of considerable unrest and upheaval for the Jews; the Jewish-Roman war was not out of a clear blue sky. So, it strikes me as well within the bounds of probability that someone of the time could have made a vague doom-and-destruction prophecy that ended up approximating actual events out of sheer coincidence, and I find it perfectly plausible that that could be what happened here.

(To add to that, there’s also the possibility that Mark could have been reacting to some event other than the War. I’ve seen a theory that these passages were in fact a reaction to Caligula’s plan to put a statue of himself in the Temple in 39 CE, which would make Mark a few decades earlier than thought; I don’t know enough to comment on how well this stands up, but I’m not aware of any reason to dismiss it as at least a possibility.)

And, on top of all this, there’s the fact that we don’t know what was or wasn’t done about recording the story prior to Mark. I’ve been reading some of Maurice Casey’s work, and his claims include a) that Mark worked from various rough notes that were written by followers in Jesus’s time, and b) that the Q material was a collection of similar rough notes in various languages. He’s got some interesting arguments for these claims, but this isn’t the time to go into them; the question in this context is whether we can exclude this as being at least a possibility. Since it seems perfectly plausible that devoted followers of a travelling rural preacher would make these sorts of notes and that, once the content of the notes had been written up properly and coherently as the gospels, the growing church wouldn’t put that much care into keeping the original notes (remember that we don’t even have to picture a scenario in which they were thrown out, just one in which they were put in a drawer somewhere and not checked or recopied; time and entropy would have taken care of the rest), I can’t see any reason to dismiss this possibility. So, since we don’t know what notes were made in or shortly after Jesus’s time, that’s another reason why we can’t just go with Price’s claim that Jesus’s life and death were ‘not recorded until after the war’.

Lastly, there’s the question of why it would be an issue if gMark were written after the War. Christianity started out as a small group of whom most of the members were probably illiterate or very poorly literate, and who believed that Jesus’s return and the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth were imminent. They were spreading their teachings to a population of whom the majority were also illiterate. It seems perfectly plausible that they’d focus on oral teaching for a good while before they got to the point of realising they needed more of a written record. On the whole, thinking it over, I do think it’s less likely that they’d take forty years to get to that point and so I do lean more to believing that gMark was earlier and possibly that written notes were earlier than that, but I can’t rule out the possibility that the followers did leave it that late to write an account.

 

Right, my turn:

Questions for Price

  1. A significant part of your argument is around the similarities between gMark and other writings of the culture (the Jewish scriptures) or of the proto-church (Paul’s letters). How have you decided which of these similarities are likely to be due to derivation from other sources and which are more likely to be due to coincidence?
  2. Since we know that it was normal for biographies of real people of the time to embellish and mythologise their subjects (as per your statement in Chapter 4), why do you feel that the mythological embellishments and scriptural references in gMark are evidence that this isn’t a biography of a real person?
  3. If Mark believed Jesus was actually a heavenly being, why is one of his main messages that the Jews were being punished for killing Jesus along with other prophets?
  4. Mark and the other gospel writers had no need to name a specific executioner in their accounts, would have probably found it politically better not to do so, and clearly weren’t happy about doing so, given all the attempts in the gospels to excuse and explain away Pilate’s involvement. That being so, why would they have all brought Pilate’s name into it if the scene was a fiction that they could write any way they wanted?

‘Deciphering The Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed’: Chapter 12, Part 3

Deciphering the Gospels’, by R. G. Price, argues the case for Jesus mythicism, which is the view that Jesus never existed on earth in any real form but was an entirely mythical figure in the same way as Hercules or Dionysus. (The author is not the same person as Robert Price, also a Jesus mythicist author.) I’m an atheist who holds the opposing (and mainstream) view that Christianity started with a human Jesus. In other words, the Jesus referred to as the founder of Christianity was originally a 1st-century human being, about whom a later mythology grew up, whose followers became the original group that would mutate over time into Christianity. I’m therefore reviewing Price’s book to discuss his arguments and my reasons for disagreeing.

The first post in this book review is here. Links to the posts on all subsequent chapters can be found at the end of that post.

 

Hoo boy, nearly at the end… I’m going to try to finish off this chapter in this post, then use three posts to cover the final list of questions.

Content warning for ablism regarding mental illness.

Paul

We can see that the vast majority of teachings Christians have attributed to Jesus actually come from Paul, not Jesus.

While I will certainly buy that some such teachings did, if Price wants to claim ‘vast majority’ he needs to break it down and show his workings here.

Who was Paul? Nothing is known about him other than what is recorded in his writings, but
any objective assessment of his writings reveals Paul to have essentially been a raving lunatic.

(facepalm)

‘Raving lunatic’ is what’s known as an ablist insult; in this case, one using stereotypes and prejudice about mental illness. Ablist insults don’t work well for anything, but they certainly don’t work as a substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.

OK, I’m going to try to break it down… ‘Raving lunatic’ is a term used to dismiss someone by evoking the false stereotype that people with any form of mental illness and/or psychotic experience can’t possibly be a reliable witness on any other subject. Oh, and mixed in there we frequently get a huge dollop of assumption that beliefs based on religious or cultural differences can be taken as a sign of mental illness, which they can’t.

Meanwhile, these stereotypes can be deeply harmful to people who do have some type of mental illness and as a result can’t get taken seriously in other areas of life. Price, if you take nothing else away from this entire critique – which I’m suspecting will be the case – please, please, in future, think twice about this careless use of terms like ‘raving lunatic’ to dismiss those with whom you disagree.

As for Paul, an ‘objective assessment of his writings’ actually shows him to have been a man who could write articulately and fluently, and teach a rather complex theology which he seems to have also worked out himself. So, no, dismissing him as a ‘raving lunatic’ is not only offensive, it’s inaccurate. And, yes, you can take that as my medical opinion as a qualified and experienced GP.

Ablism aside, how much weight should we give to Paul’s writings as any sort of evidence about Jesus? Well, I do think it’s fair to say that on the subject of Jesus he is not particularly reliable; he didn’t know Jesus, he’s tried to minimise his contacts with people who did know Jesus, and he’s driven by the theology he’s worked out around who he thinks Jesus is. So, although Paul did in fact clearly believe Jesus had lived a human life on earth, I don’t think that’s particularly good evidence for whether Jesus did have a human life on earth. However, when it comes to more basic prosaic stuff such as whether he met such-and-such a person or whether he knew of particular people within the church, I do think he was perfectly capable of commenting on what happened. So, his two comments about brothers of Jesus are in fact strong evidence for the existence of people referred to as Jesus’s brothers.

 

Other Abrahamic religions (alternative subheading: ‘Seriously, WTF, Price’?)

The legitimacy of Islam is every bit as dependent on the historical existence of Jesus as Christianity is. Likewise, it is reasonable to conclude that Judaism itself would either no longer exist today or would have a significantly diminished status and following if not for the rise of Christianity. The preservation of Jewish works and culture occurred to a large degree because of the relationship between Judaism and the dominant religions of Christianity and Islam, despite paradoxical hostility toward the ancestral religion by its descendants.

Hoo boy.

I can’t speak for Islam, although I very much doubt that ‘every bit as dependent’ claim; I’m guessing that ‘we’re wrong about the existence of somebody else’s prophet’ would blow at least somewhat less of a hole through a religion than ‘we’re wrong about the existence of our own leader and founder whose willing death was supposedly absolutely necessary for erasing our sins’. However, as far as Judaism’s concerned, Price seems to be overlooking the very obvious fact that Jews have done a good job of preserving Jewish works and culture over the centuries, and have been far more motivated to do so than Christians, who’ve tended to be somewhat more interested in retconning Jewish history and a lot more interested in changing Jewish future by converting and/or persecuting Jews.

So, excuse me, but I am absolutely not giving the credit for preservation of those works to the very group who’ve done so much to destroy Judaism. As someone who’s ethnically part Jewish and still cares deeply about it from the cultural point of view, I can tell you that this had a very uncomfortable white saviour vibe to it (in this case, Gentile saviour). Don’t do that, Price.

 

Conclusion (Price’s)

Price has a couple more paragraphs at this point to wrap up. He tells us that the ‘Jesus of Christianity’ was just a hallucination of Paul’s, which is… actually not too far off correct, since the concept of Jesus as a deliberate sin sacrifice certainly seems to have been an invention of Paul’s. However, that still leaves us with the question of who Jesus was before Paul retconned him this way. Despite Price’s exhortations in the final paragraph that we ‘have to’ recognise that Jesus never existed, Price has still failed to give us any convincing evidence that Jesus was originally an imagined divine being rather than a human preacher who founded the group that became Christianity.

 

Conclusion (mine)

Well… looks like I made it through Price’s argument. Which, as far as I can see, breaks down to the following claims:

And I think that’s it. Did I miss any? As far as I can see, those are all the arguments Price has made that are actually pro-mythicism rather than rearguard attempts to explain away the various bits of evidence for historicity. And, on going through them, none of them have stood up to examination. Deciphering the gospels hasn’t come out with the answer Price wanted, and deciphering Price’s work has left us with no valid arguments for his case.

 

Well, that was the end of the last chapter! As I’ve said, this leaves us with a list of twelve questions for mythicists which Price has included as a sort of epilogue. I plan to split those up into three groups of four, just to manage post length. I’ve also taken the opportunity to come up with my own list of questions for Price and other mythicists that haven’t been answered properly (or, in most cases, at all) through this debate, so I’ll include those as well. And then – after a mere seven years – we will finally be done with the book! See you guys soon.

 

‘Deciphering The Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed’: Chapter 12, Part 2

Deciphering the Gospels’, by R. G. Price, argues the case for Jesus mythicism, which is the view that Jesus never existed on earth in any real form but was an entirely mythical figure in the same way as Hercules or Dionysus. (The author is not the same person as Robert Price, also a Jesus mythicist author.) I’m an atheist who holds the opposing (and mainstream) view that Christianity started with a human Jesus. In other words, the Jesus referred to as the founder of Christianity was originally a 1st-century human being, about whom a later mythology grew up, whose followers became the original group that would mutate over time into Christianity. I’m therefore reviewing Price’s book to discuss his arguments and my reasons for disagreeing.

The first post in this book review is here. Links to the posts on all subsequent chapters can be found at the end of that post.

I’d optimistically planned for this post to finish off Chapter 12, but of course it got longer than I’d expected, so there will be at least one more post after this one addressing points in Chapter 12 (plus the planned posts for the question list at the end).

 

The Gospels

Price, having cobbled together his supposed proof about gMark being fictional, builds on this for the next stage of his argument:

The Gospels do not corroborate each other. In fact, the only thing that the Gospels do corroborate is that none of their authors could possibly have had any knowledge of a real Jesus, because every single Gospel, canonical and noncanonical, shows dependence on the fictional story that we call the Gospel of Mark. The only way that every single writing about the life of Jesus would be based on a single fictional story is if no one had any knowledge of a real Jesus.

…which, of course, falls down at the premise, since Price’s attempts to show that gMark is fictional have been so utterly unsuccessful, so that’s that. However, there is something further I wanted to say here:

This argument seems to be based on the assumption that the other gospel writers were casting around for the best account they could find of this Jesus person of whom they were writing. But this seems like yet another thing that doesn’t fit with the rest of Price’s argument, because Price also believes that this whole shebang started out with one fictional account written for a group who actually believed Jesus was a heavenly being, and that the people writing embroidered versions of that account somehow completely failed to find this out at any point.

Well… you can’t have it both ways. You can’t simultaneously claim that Matthew and the rest would be so colossally undiscerning that they never asked even basic questions like ‘hey, this Jesus sounds really interesting, can you tell us a bit more?’ and that they would also want to look round to see whether any better or more detailed accounts were available before opting for gMark as their source. Price, once again, doesn’t seem to have thought about how any of this would have happened in practice.

Meanwhile, Price has still completely failed to explain why on earth all these gospel writers would be putting so much effort into writing expanded versions of a fictional story. I mean, imagine someone reading gMark with no knowledge whatsoever of the background, just as a random manuscript they’d come across. Yes, some people would believe it. Yes, some might even have wanted to find out more about this Jesus person and whether he really had risen from the dead as the ending claimed. But Price’s theory seems to require a situation where multiple people would decide to start proclaiming this gospel as fact and rewriting it with a load of extra detail… but all without making any effort at all to check whether the existing group had any extra detail. There’s no realistic way in which I can see any of that happening.

By the way, while I think of it, let’s also not forget the unlikelihood of someone reading gMark with no context or background in the first place. Again: all manuscripts at that point were handwritten. No-one was going to be running off extra copies in a print run or keeping them on the shelves of a local bookshop. Mark would have been passing his copies around himself, because that was what happened in those days. Anyone who acquired one would be getting it from someone they knew (if not Mark directly, then someone else who was passing it on). So… did whoever passed a copy on to Matthew not give him any kind of explanation as to what this book was? Did Matthew not go back to that person to ask them any questions before writing an expanded version and spreading it as a new belief? How on earth does Price picture this as having worked?

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…

Furthermore, if we accept that the Gospels do not actually describe the life of Jesus, nor do any of the early epistles, then what could possibly explain why a real Jesus person would have been worshiped as an eternal heavenly being capable of overcoming death, destroying the world, and saving the souls of the righteous? If one acknowledges that a real-life Jesus wouldn’t have performed miracles, risen from the dead, or fulfilled prophecies, then why would this real-life Jesus have been worshiped? Clearly, later Christians worshiped the Jesus character from the Gospels, precisely because they believed that he had performed miracles, risen from the dead, and fulfilled prophecies. Those are, explicitly, the reasons why Jesus is worshiped by Christians. But if those are the reasons that Christians worship Jesus, and a real-life Jesus wouldn’t have done any of those things, then why would the real-life Jesus be worshiped at all?

A couple of notes: Firstly, can we note that the actual explicit reason why Jesus is worshipped by Christians is that they believe he was part of God. Secondly, I’m slightly amused by how unaware Price seems that in fact quite a few real-life people have been worshipped by others over the centuries. Being worshipped certainly isn’t a sign of being fictional.

That said, I think the main point to make here is that I don’t think the real-life Jesus was worshipped by his original followers. I think that he was followed, not worshipped; in other words, his followers saw him as a human leader rather than as a divinity. And beliefs then changed over the years so that he came to be seen first as a divine being probably more on the level of an angel, and eventually (after what seems to have been some centuries and quite a bit of controversy) as a part of Yahweh himself.

As to why people would have followed a real-life Jesus, there are obvious reasons for that. He was apparently charismatic and a good preacher, and and he was what we would call a faith-healer (which does not involve actually performing miracles but has more to do with what your followers/the people you’re healing believe you can do). In addition, his followers were looking for someone who might be the prophecied king who would usher in the Messianic age, and Jesus looked like he might fit the bill. Wishful thinking did the rest.

It actually makes far less sense that worship of a powerful celestial being who had overcome death would have started with the worship of a mere mortal, than for it to have started with the worship of a celestial deity to begin with.

This gives Price a much greater problem which he still hasn’t solved: how would this belief take the reverse journey? How would worship of a powerful celestial being turn into a belief that this celestial being lived a mortal life? According to Price, all that was needed was for one person to write a fanfic. Multiple people then believed this so strongly and unquestioningly that they formed a whole belief system with even more detailed accounts of this imaginary life, completely obliterating the original belief in Jesus as a heavenly being, all without these people ever noticing that everyone else who believed in Jesus (including the original author of the fanfic that started the whole thing) believed that he had in fact been a heavenly being. Just how does Price think all that happened? He’s yet to explain.

There is absolutely no evidence of belief in a real human Jesus prior to the writing of the Gospel stories.

… you mean, other than Paul repeatedly writing about Jesus in human terms and mentioning having met his brother?

 

Price still misunderstands Docetism

When faced with opposition to the belief that Jesus was actually human, or had ever been on earth, even the earliest believers in “the flesh” of Jesus could do nothing more than cite scripture to support their beliefs […] Within two hundred years of his supposed life, the only evidence that could be produced to show that God, or God’s son, had come to earth and taken
human form was four written accounts that supposedly corroborated each other and corroborated the divine prophecies that predicted his life, deeds, and death.

Yes, because there is no evidence of anyone disputing that Jesus had been on earth. There was plenty of argument over whether he was human, a divine being cunningly disguised as human, or a divine being that had become human… but you know what all those beliefs have in common? The belief that this Jesus person had showed every indication of having been on earth as a human. And what would be the most likely reason why everyone would believe this? That Jesus actually was on earth as a human.

On which note, I’ll split the chapter here and hope to get the last of it dealt with in one more post.

Walking Disaster, Chapter 24

This is a chapter-by-chapter review of problematic romance novel ‘Walking Disaster’ by Jamie McGuire. Posts in the series will all be linked back to the initial post, here.

This was initially a companion series to the magnificent Jenny Trout‘s review of the original novel, ‘Beautiful Disaster’. Jenny has since stopped her review, not wanting to give McGuire any further publicity in the wake of her attempts to run for office.

 

Chapter Twenty-Four: Forget

Another surprise: at the beginning of this chapter, Travis is actually trying something helpful. He’s realised he’s got to keep himself from constantly calling Abby, and he’s recognised there’s a huge chance of him giving in to temptation, so he’s managing this by avoiding having his phone with him. Initially he leaves it in his car. Shepley objects because what if Travis’s dad wanted to get in touch with him (uh, Shep, you’re Jim’s nephew; I’m sure he could send a message via you in case of emergency) so Travis leaves his phone on the TV so that he’s not constantly reaching for it. Good for you, Travis!

And another: This bit is actually reasonably well-written. Did Maguire take a writing class part way through and then just not bother to go back and rewrite the earlier bits? Anyway, we’ve time-jumped forwards to what we find out is New Year’s Eve. We learn that Trenton keeps phoning Travis in what Trav describes as ‘some sort of Maddox suicide watch’ which is well-meant but a) irritating for both Trav and Shep and b) really not helping with the whole ‘stay away from the phone’ thing, and that Travis is trying to take his mind off things by doing as many of the illegal fights as Adam will arrange, which isn’t very many because it’s winter break and there aren’t enough people around to want to watch them.

Trent tells Trav he’s being ‘a huge pussy’ for not doing more to get over it, because apparently we’d gone a bit too long without having some sort of misogynistic/toxic masculinity moment. Oh, well, my few minutes of not hating this book were quite nice while they lasted.

Anyway, Trent thinks Trav ought to come out with him for New Year’s Eve, so when Trav keeps refusing Trent tells him that if Trav isn’t showered, dressed, and ready to go out by the time Trent turns up Trent will phone everyone up and tell them that Trav’s having a party at his place with beer kegs and hookers. That’s… actually kind of ingenious in a ‘yes, but next time use your powers for good and not for evil’ kind of way. Anyway, it works and Trav gets ready, but not before taking a few minutes to gaze longingly at the engagement ring he bought for Abby back when they were still together. You know, when these teenagers dated for… I was going to say a couple of months but it isn’t even that, since it was well into autumn when they got together and still before Thanksgiving when they broke up. During which less-than-two-month period Trav bought her an engagement ring. Because, apparently, it ‘made sense to keep it just in case the perfect moment happened to arise’. No, Trav, it makes sense not to assume you’re going to get to the proposal stage with a relationship that just started weeks ago. Sigh.

Trent arrives and the three of them (Shepley included) head out to the Red. Apparently Trent has got ‘a friend coming’ and Trav seems to understand immediately who he means by that… (scans ahead) oh, wait, it wasn’t that Trav had someone specific in mind, it was that Trent’s trying to set Trav up with someone. The ‘someone’ in question turns out to be a divorced woman called Carissa who apparently used to babysit for Trav, which doesn’t sound like a great setup for getting together. Though she was in the same school year as Tyler and Taylor, so it must have been a teenager babysitting for a slightly younger child rather than a situation where she was taking care of an actual toddler, so, less weird than I initially thought.

Anyway, she drunkenly tries the whole don’t-want-to-be-alone-tonight line and Trav’s not interested. Carissa tries kissing him at midnight anyway and he pulls away, runs off into the bathrooms, struggles with himself over whether to phone Abby, and ends up resisting the temptation and hurling his phone at the wall instead, startling some poor guy at the urinal. Then he tells the guys he’s going and Trent drives him home…. despite having been drinking heavily through the evening. Sigh. They make it back without incident but Jesus fuck, McGuire, stop normalising drunk driving. Stop normalising something that destroys lives both metaphorically and literally.

We time-jump ahead to the start of spring semester, which Trav has very mixed feelings about because he’s longing to see Abby again but at the same time dreading it. He tells us that he was ‘determined to be all smiles, never letting on how much I’d suffered, to Abby or anyone else’, which makes me suspect that we’ve got some sort of ‘clearly he doesn’t really care that much about me at all’ misunderstanding coming up, but, oh, well, hopefully I can skim through it quickly if so.

Anyway, Trav sees Abby at lunch but spends the first part of lunch telling his frat boy friends Wild Anecdotes of drunken adventures with his brother, then briefly tries making heartily casual conversation with Shep and Abby while resting his hands on Abby’s shoulders and… swinging her from side to side? Is she now a fidget toy or something? Anyway, Abby sounds unhappy and it’s all seriously awkward and Trav heads outside pretty quickly.

Trav makes it through his last couple of classes and heads home with Shepley. Shep reluctantly tells him that America reported that Abby’s been miserable over Christmas break. Since Shep isn’t sure why she’s miserable or what she wants from Travis, this doesn’t really help the situation and Travis just gets upset again.

Shep, still trying to be helpful, tries the following suggestion:

“You think . . . you think if maybe you focused on all the bullshit you had to endure with her, that’d make it easier?”

I’m at a bit of a loss as to what ‘bullshit’ Shep thinks Trav had to ‘endure’ as a result of being with Abby, though I’d have no problem coming up with examples of the converse. Trav’s reply that he wishes he could ‘have all the bad stuff back . . . just so I could have the good’ is not much help in clarifying what the hell McGuire thought she meant here.

Shep is saved from his further clumsy struggles to be helpful by Trent texting to ask Trav to pick him up from work and take him to Cami’s, as his own car’s broken down. Oh, sorry, not Cami’s place, but the Red, where she works. (Cami is the main bartender there and Trent’s love interest for the next book in the ‘Beautiful’ series, or at any rate the next one after ‘Beautiful Disaster’, since I believe ‘Walking Disaster’ was written later.)

Trav borrows Shep’s car to take Trent to the Red and proceeds to get blasted drunk, without Trent trying to stop him despite the fact that he is supposed to be driving someone else’s car home. McGuire, fuck your horrible examples with a cactus. Megan (I think she’s the one who was staying over in the first chapter but who gives a fuck at this point) comes and tries to get off with him; she does offer to drive him home and Trent persuades him to let her, which, despite her obvious ulterior motive, is a pretty good idea right then.

They get out to the car and Megan promptly starts snogging the face off Trav and moves on to pretty much dry-humping him. Trav goes along with this in a why-the-hell-not kind of way, and they go back to the apartment, obviously planning sex. I assumed from the start of reading this bit that Trav would look up at some point and see Abby was watching all this, and, with depressing predictability, so he did. When he and Megan get back to the apartment, to be specific. Also, Abby is holding Toto, so Maguire has clearly remembered his existence yet again after weeks of him getting ignored during the breakup.

Abby storms out in a huff saying that she doesn’t even know why she’s surprised. Yes, Abby, you broke up with him weeks ago, I don’t know why you’re surprised either. He does get to move on.

No matter what I did – moving on without her, or lying in my bed agonizing over her – she would have hated me.

Trav follows her screaming at her for being mad at him for this, and, just for once, he’s not wrong. (Oh, wait… have now checked the scene out in ‘Beautiful’ and it seems my skimming means I missed the bit where this whole argument, including the bit where Abby is getting huffy with him, is only happening because instead of just letting her go he runs after her and grabs her coat to keep her there. Which, by the way, is on icy ground so she damn near falls over. OK, I retract my statement. Trav’s still actively being a dick.)

There’s a short scene which is basically several lines more of Abby being mad that the man she split up with has now decided to have sex with someone else and Trav being upset about that she’s mad about it, and then Trav grabs Abby’s arm to try to stop her leaving. Which I agree isn’t great and he should lay off, but America loses her entire shit over this and starts hitting him.

“How could you? She deserved better from you, Travis!”

So once again America, who has regularly been willing to give Travis a pass for his aggressive, stalkery, and borderline abusive behaviour, decides that the one thing she’s not going to stand for is Trav having sex with someone else while he’s single. And, when Shep tries stopping her, she ‘glares at him in disgust’ and we get this:

“Abby broke up with him. He’s just trying to move on.”

America’s eyes narrowed, and she pulled her arm from his grip. “Well then, why don’t you go find a random WHORE” – she looked at Megan – “from the Red and bring her home to fuck, and then let me know if it helps you get over me.”

America gets in the car with Abby and drives off after telling a pleading Shep ‘”There is a right side and a wrong side here, Shep. And you are on the wrong side.” Shep reacts to all this by punching Trav, which Trav figures he deserves, for… the heinous crime of being about to have sex with someone else almost two months after his girlfriend broke up with him, I suppose. Anyway, this all puts a comprehensive damper on anything he was about to do with Megan, and the chapter ends with Shep being about to drive Megan home.

Walking Disaster, Chapter 23

This is a chapter-by-chapter review of problematic romance novel ‘Walking Disaster’ by Jamie McGuire. Posts in the series will all be linked back to the initial post, here.

This was initially a companion series to the magnificent Jenny Trout‘s review of the original novel, ‘Beautiful Disaster’. Jenny has since stopped her review, not wanting to give McGuire any further publicity in the wake of her attempts to run for office.

 

Chapter Twenty-Three: Acceptance Speech

I hope, dear readers, that you will not be too shocked to learn that when Trav promised Abby that this Thanksgiving meal wasn’t ‘some stunt to try and get back together’, he was in fact lying. We have this unsurprising point confirmed for us in the second paragraph:

The plan was for her to play the part, start to miss me, and then maybe I would get another chance to beg her back. It was a long shot, but the only thing I had going for me.

Well, at least that last bit is true; it’s not as though he has charm, personality, or skill in bed going for him.

However, I did then get a pleasant surprise just a few paragraphs further on; when Travis’s father says he’s putting them in the guest room (apparently there’s a double bed in there), Travis does admit right away that it’ll only be Abby in the guest room and he’s going to sleep in his own bedroom. It’s the first time I can remember Travis not trying to push Abby into something.

Trenton does his bit of stirring by asking why they’re in separate bedrooms when of course he knows exactly why. Since he’s described as having a look of ‘disgust’ while he does this, which doesn’t quite go with the situation, I do wonder whether the bit about him having supported Travis through this was only added for this book and Maguire is trying to find a way to retcon this in.

Anyway, turns out there’s a problem because Thomas’s room is being used for storage so they’re short of a room. Abby reluctantly volunteers to sleep in the same room as Travis and makes some excuse about how they were just trying to ‘be respectable’. They get up to the spare room and Travis offers to sleep on the floor and Abby tells him damn straight he’ll be doing that.

I sat on the bed, realising just how unhappy she was about the situation. I guess part of me hoped she’d be as relieved as I was to be together.

Sigh.

The two of them go and start prepping the stuff for tomorrow, which is, apparently, all there already, so I guess at least someone went shopping for it. The other brothers arrive. Their dad regales them with stories of cooking disasters of attempted Thanksgiving meals in the past; apparently he just decided there was no point trying to cook meals after his wife died. Clearly a grown man can’t be expected to learn cooking skills. (And, all right, turkeys are notoriously difficult, but other foods exist, FFS. Last Christmas was my first since separating from my husband and therefore the first in which I’d ever had to do Christmas dinner myself; I got round the problem by finding a decent traybake recipe. Which I thought of as an option because I’d tried other traybake recipes in the course of actually cooking regular meals in the previous months because doing that was my responsibility as a parent. Which of course raises the question of what Jim was doing for dinner on the other 364 days of the year.)

Trenton wants to start a poker game but their dad puts his foot down about no gambling that weekend; he’s got the dominoes out instead. It’s not clear why, since he doesn’t know any of what happened with Abby, but under the circumstances it’s a damn good thing. This doesn’t seem to have occurred to Mr Sensitivity, who doesn’t really have any sort of reaction to it at all. He does say he’ll stay and finish helping Abby, but she waves him away telling him she’s nearly finished, so everyone just goes and plays dominoes and leaves her to it. Except we’re then told it’s half an hour until Trav hears the dishwasher start. So that doesn’t sound like ‘nearly finished’, that sounds like a bunch of menfolk leaving their supposed guest to do a lot of clearing up on her own. (We get absolutely no indication that anyone else thought to say ‘Hey, let’s all pitch in and then we can get the rest of this done in no time’.) I mean, points to Trav for at least offering, but minus points to the patriarchy.

Having got the meal prep done, Abby’s ready to head up to bed. Trav persuades her to stay and watch a film with the family, and she keeps up a not-very-convincing pretence to the rest that nothing’s wrong between her and Trav until she can go upstairs. They do finally go up to their room and Trav is actually doing a good job of being considerate, checking whether she wants him to wait outside while she changes and making up a bed on the floor. Good contrast to previous behaviour.

They have a poignant little conversation where Trav asks whether she did love him and she says she still does. Trav asks if he can just hold her for the night since it’s their last night together and Abby, after being clear about this not leading to sex, agrees. However, she then finds it too difficult:

“I . . . I don’t think I can do this, Travis,” she said, trying to wriggle free.

I didn’t mean to restrain her, but if holding on meant avoiding that deep burning pain I’d felt for days on end, it just made sense to hang on.

Oh, FFS, I’m even out of snark. Once again I’m actually liking the way Travis is behaving and then, wham, it all turns around. He’d rather keep forcibly holding her when he sees she’s upset by it than be upset himself. He’s treating her like a human teddy bear, and putting her through this crap because he can’t face telling his family how much he screwed up.

They have an angsty little conversation where he says he’ll never love anyone as much as he loves her and he knows he could never be good enough for her, to which I would have sharply replied ‘Well, then, start thinking about how you can be better for the next person. Goodnight.’ But, to be fair, that is middle-aged me with decades of life experience.

Travis is woken early next morning by the sound of Abby in the kitchen, getting the turkey into the oven with what he describes as ‘commotion’, which conveniently doesn’t seem to wake anyone else. It’s freezing cold and they snuggle back under the covers together and look out at the snow outside.

I pulled my mouth into a half smile, and then leaned down to kiss her lips. Abby pulled back and shook her head.

“Trav . . .”

I held on tight and lowered my chin. “I’ve got less than twenty-four hours with you, Pidge. I’m gonna kiss you. I’m gonna kiss you a lot today. All day. Every chance I get. If you want me to stop, just say the word, but until you do, I’m going to make every second of my last day with you count.”

And, of course, this is once again treated as sweet and romantic instead of one more round of boundary pushing from a man who has already been told no. Abby starts kissing him and they end up having sex and he keeps on kissing her throughout the day. Wow, thanks for those great ‘she didn’t really mean it when she said no’ messages.

The meal comes out really well. Their father tells Abby that she’s ‘a Maddox now’ and that he expects her at every holiday, which I’m sure was meant to sound warm and welcoming, but, even allowing for the fact that he doesn’t know they’ve split up, is waaaay OTT for a couple of teenagers who’ve been dating for a few weeks. Trav’s brothers do cleanup duty (about time they did something) and Trav sits and massages Abby’s feet for her. We get one of the rare good lines in the book:

Abby did love me, but she also cared about me too much to send me packing when she should. Even though I’d told her before that I couldn’t walk away from her, I finally realised that I loved her too much to fuck up her life by staying, or to lose her completely by forcing us both to hang on until we hated each other.

And not only that, but it’s followed up by, if technically not quite an apology, a really good apologetic speech:

“I don’t know what happened to me in Vegas. That wasn’t me. I was thinking about everything we could buy with that money, and that was all I was thinking about. I didn’t see how much it hurt you for me to want to take you back there, but deep down, I think I knew. I deserved for you to leave me. I deserved all the sleep I lost and the pain I’ve felt. I needed all that to realize how much I need you, and what I’m willing to do to keep you in my life.

“You said you’re done with me, and I accept that. I’m a different person since I met you. I’ve changed . . . for the better. But no matter how hard I try, I can’t seem to do right by you. We were friends first, and I can’t lose you, Pigeon. I will always love you, but if I can’t make you happy, it doesn’t make much sense for me to try to get you back. I can’t imagine being with anyone else, but I’ll be happy as long as we’re friends.”

“You want to be friends?”

“I want you to be happy. Whatever that takes.”

Abby jokes that she bets he’ll be thanking her when he meets his ‘future wife’, and then says she’s ready to go home. Trav takes her back to the dorm and actually leaves her there without hassling her, then goes home. Trenton’s already told his family about the breakup and they all rally round and support him (and give him more whiskey because terrible coping skills, but nothing’s perfect). So, in an unprecedented event, I got an entire consecutive two and a half pages of this book that I actually quite like. Even better, this brings us to the end of another chapter.