Jonathan Livingston Seagull

[Dixon Carter Lee]

For some reason this book popped into my head yesterday. I read it at about the age everyone else did, around 13 or 14, and I loved it. It was a beautiful, etheral book, with its very short passages and generous black and white pictures of seagulls, and its dewey consciousness-raising themes of individuality and perfection.

But, like most other "literature" beloved in the pre-teen years, through an adult's eyes it's the most cloying, new-agey drivel you'd ever care to read. Here's a passage:

Most of us came along ever so slowly. We went from one world into another that was almost exactly lie it, forgetting right away where we had come from, not caring where we were headed, living for the moment. Do you have any idea how many lives we must have gone though before we even got the first idea that there is more to life than eating, or fighting, or power in the Flock? A thousand lives, Jon, ten thousand! And then another hundred lives until we began to learn that there is such a thing as perfection, and another hundred again to get the idea that our purpose is to find that perfection and show it forth. The same rule holds for us now, of course: we choose our next world through what we learn in this one. Learn nothing, and the next world is the same as this one, all the same limitations and lead weights to overcome."

How DEEP this used to sound!

As bad it is, it's nothing compared to Bach's stunningly awful novel "The Bridge Across Forever". Here's a passage:

“From time to time it's fun to close our eyes, and in that dark say to ourselves, 'I am the sorcerer, and when I open my eyes I shall see a world that I have created, and for which I and only I am completely responsible.' Slowly then, eyelids open like curtains lifting stage-center. And sure enough, there's our world, just the way we've built it."

My vote for Worst Novel Ever Written That Thought it was Good.

 

[kotori]

been sniffing airplane dope again?

 

[sunstruck]

Ok, I'm sorry, but I have to say this: I found Johnathan Livingston Seagul to be insipid, condecending and just plain pointless the first time I read it (maybe 10-12, somewhere in there). My mother on the other hand still holds it to be one of her favorite books and calls every bloody seagull she sees Johnathan - and we live by the ocean!!! Of course, she also own every book of poetry Rod McKuen ever wrote. Sometimes I question her sanity.

 

[kotori]

Who said it?

. . . poetry Rod McKuen . . .

I forgot, but someone once said that Rod McKuen was the most understood poet in America. Maybe it was Dick Cavett

 

[freescorfr]

Some things don't age so well as 1er cru bordeau rouge.
My kids won't watch any B&W movie - just because it's not in colour. They miss a lot. When I go back home to Scotland I thumb through the books that have accumulated over the years and most age pretty badly.
Jonathan Livingstone Seagull, I admit has aged, but not its effect on my soul. I stood on the top of a castle in Castelsardia - in Sardinia - in January and glided with the birds, and dived with the birds. There is a liberation of the spirit, a privileged moment sometimes in communing with the birds. For me it is special, an exhileration, a moment of heightened awareness of my own life and what I share Life with.

new Age, perhaps: human too.

 

[tortoise]

I completely agree about Bach... cloying is the perfect description. But there are a few books that I enjoyed as a wee bairn that I loved just as fervently (if not more so) when I re-read them as an "adult." To Kill a Mockingbird is one that springs immediately to mind, followed by Of Mice and Men, Huck Finn, and Lord of the Flies. Also, there are some that I loathed as a youngster, when I was "forced" to read them, that I absolutely LOVED when I re-read them years later, such as the Great Gatsby.

 

[sunstruck]

I completely agree about Bach... cloying is the perfect description. But there are a few books that I enjoyed as a wee bairn that I loved just as fervently (if not more so) when I re-read them as an "adult." To Kill a Mockingbird is one that springs immediately to mind, followed by Of Mice and Men, Huck Finn, and Lord of the Flies. Also, there are some that I loathed as a youngster, when I was "forced" to read them, that I absolutely LOVED when I re-read them years later, such as the Great Gatsby.

Some of my favorites. I also re-read the Hobbit every few years. Lord of the Rings not as often, and Great Expectations not often enough.

 

[Texan]

DCL, I read Jonathan Livingston Seagull as a senior in high school. As I had just about finished reading the book (in one sitting, of course) I suddenly caught the comparison of JLS to Jesus Christ. I then went back and read the book again and then a third time.

The book was a very clever satire on the life of Christ; from begining to end. Even the Apostle Peter was portrayed as Fletcher Seagull. The "Council of Elders" in the book was a depiction of the Pharisees of the Bible.

The overall purpose of the book was clearly an attempt to portray Jesus Christ as a very special man, but not a diety. The book says that Jonathan Livingston Seagull did not want to be known as the "Only Son of the Great Gull." The book says that Fletcher and the other followers of Jonathan perpetuated a "myth" of JLS as the "Only Son of the Great Gull" after JLS disappeared. Even the way that JLS disappeared at the end of the book was a comparison to the "resurrection" of Jesus Christ.

Some critics have even said the initials JLS are a play on the words: Jesus, Lord, Savior.

The book was a lot more (or less) than "new-agey" literature of the early '70's. It was a philosophical/theological statement couched in a pretty "strive-to-be-your-best" animal story.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Well, yes, the Christian allegory is exceedingly clear (don't worry, I didn't miss it -- it's not possible to miss it), and extends to all his work particularly " Illusions : The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah" about a flier who encounters another barnstormer who may or may not be a reluctant Jesus come back -- an engaging short book, full of sweet but obvious "Jack Handy" type philosophy. But just being allegorical doesn't make it insightful. "Godspell" was deeper.

 

[sunstruck]

[/QUOTE]

The book was a lot more (or less) than "new-agey" literature of the early '70's. It was a philosophical/theological statement couched in a pretty "strive-to-be-your-best" animal story. [/B][/QUOTE]

I wouldn't question the topic, or the biblical tie-ins - they're blatant. But I remember through the whole book feeling like I was being talked down to and bludgeoned about the head and shoulders with meaning and symbolism.

 

[T.H. Oughts]

Well, there is a blast from the past.......

I used to have a notebook I wrote down passages from the book. I must go hunt out a copy and read it again.... I wonder how different it will seem a few decades later?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Still, I think it's a good choice for an introduction to pre-teen introspection. Reading it between 10 and 13 should inspire a kid to ask the same questions he's been asking since he was two years old in a whole, new way. Conversely, if you're 22 and inspired by this book, you haven't been asking enough questions, and should seriously consider a career in the food service industry.

 

[T.H. Oughts]

Conversely, if you're 22 and inspired by this book, you haven't been asking enough questions, and should seriously consider a career in the food service industry.

True, maybe at 38 I better not read it again.... you know what they say.... you can never go home. Kind of like, "Did I really wear those shoes."

 

[SilverVeil]

I liked it.
And I still like it.


I agree it can be somewhat condescending, but it also has a great inspiration to it.

 

[sunstruck]

Guess I'm outnumbered. Oh well. Room for everyone!

 

[tortoise]

I wouldn't question the topic, or the biblical tie-ins - they're blatant. But I remember through the whole book feeling like I was being talked down to and bludgeoned about the head and shoulders with meaning and symbolism. [/B]

Biblical tie-ins?? Jeez, how did I miss that! Next you're going to tell me that C.S. Lewis' Narnia stories were allegories as well.





For the record, I enjoyed the Narnia stories, even when I re-read them as an adult. Sure, the allegory was obvious, but the narrative was strong enough to support it. But the Hobbit was indeed more fun, and allegory-free (Tolkien famously shunned the stuff).

And while we're talking classic children's fare, I must say that I re-read both of the Alice books every few years and enjoy them more and more with each reading. I love Carroll's delicious mix of wonder, absurdity, and utter nonsense for the sake of nonsense.

 

[sunstruck]

Biblical tie-ins?? Jeez, how did I miss that! Next you're going to tell me that C.S. Lewis' Narnia stories were allegories as well.



And this is what I meant by bludgeoned about the head and shoulders. There is grace in simplicity, but there is challenge in subtlety.

I loved the Narnia stories, even saved my copies for my kids.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The "Alice" books always annoyed me more than anything (except for the poetry, which I loved), until I started to understand some of the political allusions (especially in things like the Lion and the Unicorn).

My son and I are about to start the fifth "Harry Potter" book, which is a good series, if as repetetive with its themes and plot structures as Ann Rice's Vampire books.

I always liked the "Hardy Boys" type of mystery stories myself (though I never actually read the Hardy Boys -- I read "Alfred Hitchcock's Three Investigators" and other things).

 

[sunstruck]

The "Alice" books always annoyed me more than anything (except for the poetry, which I loved), until I started to understand some of the political allusions (especially in things like the Lion and the Unicorn).

My son and I are about to start the fifth "Harry Potter" book, which is a good series, if as repetetive with its themes and plot structures as Ann Rice's Vampire books.

I always liked the "Hardy Boys" type of mystery stories myself (though I never actually read the Hardy Boys -- I read "Alfred Hitchcock's Three Investigators" and other things).

The poetry remains the best part of the Alice stories. Just the fact that Carrol was able to get the feelings across using words that didn't exist before. The idea of making up language outside of science fiction is...admirable. And when it's done that well it's inspirational.

As to Harry Potter, well I can't believe I'm going to admit this, but yes - I am an adult reader of Harry Potter! There I said it! I started reading the first one to my step son when he was visiting last summer, and then just didn't stop. They're fun! And it gives us something to bond over. But I admit, I may have read them eventually without him. It's the kid in me.

 

[kotori]

. . .My son and I are about to start the fifth "Harry Potter" book. . .

Is this a review copy? When is it coming out? Or is it out already? I'm sure I would have been kid-napped (by my kids) and dragged to the bookstore at midnight (again).

 

[Tribbin]

I still like JLS

When I first read JLS, I loved it, and it spoke to me. What it said to me was that it's ok to be different, and to question what was told to me. I think it's something that all teenagers should read and take to heart. I don't want my kids to be led around like some dog on a collar, by either me or by their peers. That being said, I still like the book. Not because of it's literary value now, but because it's sentimental value. I like to read books like this. Books that I can put my mind in idle and just read. Not trying to analize it, or pull it apart for symbolism. Just reading the story as a story, nothing else. It reminds me of what it felt when I was a teenager. It's a good feeling.

Trib