NL: Lamb by Christopher Moore

(Note: I joined too late to read Gore Vidal's Julian, but I read it years ago. I have only vague memories of it, but they're positive ones.)

So. Lamb.

Let me begin by saying that I have now read everything Christopher Moore has written (so far). Not one book has been a waste of time, and some have been sheer delight. In that latter category fall (roughly in order) Coyote Blue, Island of the Sequined Love Nun, A Dirty Job, Practical Demonkeeping, and Fluke. Where does Lamb fall? Down towards the bottom - better than You Suck! and The Stupidest Angel but not quite as good as The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove or Bloodsucking Fiends. A good book, enjoyable and one I'm glad I read, but not something I'm likely to reread.

I'd also like to say that I'm grateful to the NBL for picking this one: although it had been recommended to me by a commenter, and although I love Moore, and although I had bought it, it has been sitting in my stack of to-read books for more than a year now and never got picked up. Some themes I just worry about. I didn't think Moore was going to write something like King Jesus (that is to say, outrightly heretical), but I wondered how (if) his brand of humor would translate to the Jesus story, or whether he'd abandon his usual style altogether and produce something either piously unreadable or boring, whether because too savage or too timid.

I should have trusted him.

On to the review.

Lamb is a peculiar book, which doesn't mean bad. It's actually quite good. Moore clearly did some research before he started writing, and because he chooses to end the story - the main story, the "Gospel according to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal", not the framing device - on Good Friday, with the death of Joshua ("Jesus is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Yeshua, which is Joshua," Biff tells us right away), Moore doesn't have to deal with the other Gospels, except in passing, or Paul or the rest of the New Testament and the whole Christianity thing. His story is about Joshua bar Joseph of Nazareth, primarily about his life from age 5 to 30. Oh, he doesn't ignore the three years of teaching, but most of the book is about the "missing years". He takes on the popular not-quite-heresy that Jesus studied in the east and gives it his particular spin. Joshua and Biff - let me pause a moment to sort out Biff for you. His name is actually Levi - he is, in fact, Levi the son of Alphaeus, who is mentioned briefly in Mark 2 and Luke 5 as a tax collector; Matthew calls this tax collector"Matthew", but he also refers to "a James the son of Alphaeus" who is, in this book, one of Biff's brothers - it's confusing, but then, there are a lot of little contradictions and confusions like that in the Bible. Biff is his nickname.

They head off to find the Magi so they can teach Joshua what it means to be the Messiah, since he's getting no messages from God on the subject. Moore sort of follows tradition here in making them African, Chinese, and Indian, but his "Chinese" Gasper is actually an Indian who lives in China - Moore has to have Buddhist monks in China for his plot, and also because he can't resist Jesus learning kung-fu - and his Balthasar, though African, lives in Afghanistan. (For those of you who've read other Moore, Balthasar is also involved with Catch.) And so what we get is Joshua's journey through the teachings of Lao-Tze, the Buddha, and Krishna in order to craft his own, unique message about the Divine Spark in each of us. When they get back to Palestine we get a condensed version of the three years of teaching, with an odd group of disciples (example: why is Thomas called Didymus, meaning The Twin? Because he has a imaginary twin brother), and Joshua having the authentic hard time convincing the Jews who are longing for the Messiah that (a) he is that but (b) that's not what they think it is. "We can't cast the Romans out of the Kingdom," he says patiently, "because the kingdom is open to all."

That's not a popular message in the Bible, either - or nowadays, for that matter.

I have to hand it to Moore with his ending, too. The first thing Biff writes is :"You think you know how this story is going to end, but you don't." And when Biff comes up with his plan after Joshua is arrested, I thought now I knew, but no. I won't spoil it, but it works if you've decided as Moore did: "theologically, I made certain assumptions about who Jesus was, mainly that he was who the Gospels say he was." That sets this book apart from debunking books or novels (like, say, King Jesus or Dan Brown...). But that doesn't mean that Moore has written a sober, pious bore either. I wouldn't go as far as the guy quoted on the back jacket and call it "sexy", but there is sex in it. (Not explicit, but you can figure out what's going on.) Biff is no ascetic. But the Magdalene is not a harlot, nor married to Joshua for that matter, and Joshua remains celibate (I don't think that's a spoiler). There's a lot of humor in it - whether you think it's funny will depend on your tastes, of course - but it's not sacreligous humor unless your standards are grimly narrow. (If they are, you're probably not reading a book subtitled "The Gospel according to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal" in the first place.)

As for what I alluded to earlier - the contradictions in the Gospels - Moore deals with it by not. After all, Biff wasn't around when they were written, or nor would he even have known the authors (here Moore follows scholars who assign none of the gospels to disciples, regardless of the traditional beliefs; Moore in fact has Biff assert that the Matthew he knew couldn't have written the book if he'd wanted to), let alone would he have known the later books, so how can he be expected to explain them? Moore decides to conflate some people (Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany) and separate others, and gives us continuity by having the same Roman around from Joshua's childhood to crucifixion (the centurion whose servant is healed). But he makes no attempt to reconcile the gospels to Biff's story: Biff's the eyewitness, the others were telling stories they'd heard from those who'd heard from others.

The question to ask is: Does it work? And the answer to that is, Yes. Yes, it does. The Joshua Biff knows is a believable guy, complex and at times irritating - and irritated - but never dull, po-faced, or preachy - even when he's preaching, remarkably enough. Watching him figure himself out reminded me a bit of watching The Motorcycle Diaries: would we have cared about Ernesto's youthful angst, self-doubt and -discovery, and travels had we not known he was turning into Che before our eyes? I don't know, and I'm not sure the question can be answered. Would we care about Biff and Joshua if we didn't know that (within the structure of the narrative at any rate) Joshua is indeed the Son of God? Again, I don't know. But we do know it, and so what we read plays into a much greater whole, and at least half the joy of the book is seeing how Moore aligns his vision with the larger one.

I don't live in Moore's universe. I don't believe that Joshua is the Son of God. But then, I don't believe in vampires, death's helpers, Native American gods, talking animals, angels, demons, or giant lizards, either, and that doesn't stop me from devouring Moore's books.

You don't have to believe in Jesus to believe in Joshua.

ps - want to join us? We read fiction, get six weeks per book, and there are no dues! Go here for details.