The Agony and the Ecstasy
I am sure glad to be done with this book. Now I can say that I read it, learned some things, and am better than you whom has not read it. I guess I have to see the Charlton Heston movie based on it. I didn't know previous to reading this 1961 Irving Stone novel that they had made a movie on it, especially staring Moses as Michelangelo. Had I known, I would have just rented the movie. Therefore I would have gotten a three-step watered-down history of how Michelangelo actually lived/worked/loved in an age of dynamic change. Who would really want the middle-man story - the novelization, or even the history books full of piddly theory - when you could get Hollywood entertainment!
Irving Stone is the very same dude who wrote Lust For Life: a novel of Vincent Van Gogh and a ton of other biographical novels. His real name is Irving Tennenbaum, no relation to Royal. He did his research for this book. There were some passages where I didn't know if I was reading a novel or a recounting of the streets of Florence, and what churches are on them, and what priest molested what boy behind which statue of whom. Wait a minute! We can't talk about homosexuality! This is the early sixties afterall. The sheen of the fabulous fifties hadn't yet been rubbed off by those sadist hippies who have so corrupted the morals of society. Wasn't it much better when we could pretend that great men and dirty homos were clearly separate entities?
I'm not arguing for a gayed up version of this novel (which was a good page turner, especially with the three, count 'em, torrid romances.), but for at least an acknowledgement that homosexuality did exist and was practiced by people, even perhaps religious and important people. I'm not saying for sure that Michelangelo Buonarroti was gay. I didn't know the guy. Butt for Mr. Stone to completely pass off, and write around this possibly (and generally agreed upon) huge part of Michelangelo's motivations, inspirations, and most likely social life, is disappointing. It is somewhat strange that Stone is so unwilling to let homosexuality slip through his tale, but perfectly willing to detail the excesses, corruption, and sins of the six popes Michelangelo has to deal with throughout his life. I loved that aspect of the book. Give me a bloody, sadistic, papal history any day of the week and I'm apt to believe it. Oops! I've revealed my political bias. Never a good sign.
Irving Stone is the very same dude who wrote Lust For Life: a novel of Vincent Van Gogh and a ton of other biographical novels. His real name is Irving Tennenbaum, no relation to Royal. He did his research for this book. There were some passages where I didn't know if I was reading a novel or a recounting of the streets of Florence, and what churches are on them, and what priest molested what boy behind which statue of whom. Wait a minute! We can't talk about homosexuality! This is the early sixties afterall. The sheen of the fabulous fifties hadn't yet been rubbed off by those sadist hippies who have so corrupted the morals of society. Wasn't it much better when we could pretend that great men and dirty homos were clearly separate entities?
I'm not arguing for a gayed up version of this novel (which was a good page turner, especially with the three, count 'em, torrid romances.), but for at least an acknowledgement that homosexuality did exist and was practiced by people, even perhaps religious and important people. I'm not saying for sure that Michelangelo Buonarroti was gay. I didn't know the guy. Butt for Mr. Stone to completely pass off, and write around this possibly (and generally agreed upon) huge part of Michelangelo's motivations, inspirations, and most likely social life, is disappointing. It is somewhat strange that Stone is so unwilling to let homosexuality slip through his tale, but perfectly willing to detail the excesses, corruption, and sins of the six popes Michelangelo has to deal with throughout his life. I loved that aspect of the book. Give me a bloody, sadistic, papal history any day of the week and I'm apt to believe it. Oops! I've revealed my political bias. Never a good sign.
posted by Stephen "Steve" at 6/28/2005 11:11:00 AM
8 Comments:
I think that sounds like an okay book. You know, the reason I dislike catholics the least of all the religious people I've met in my life is because usually there is a spark of doubt and questioning and disallusion with their religion that just makes me giggle. Are you even catholic anymore at all?
Posted by mandy
I would not say that I am a practicing Catholic anymore. Butt I have done all the rank and cerimony of a Catholic, so I guess I would technically be Catholic if you had a gun to my head. Anyway, I haven't found another religion to replace it, except Skepticism.
Posted by Steve
steve, i think you are totally catholic. its not a bad thing, though. being catholic doesn't make you a perv or an evangelical.
from reading that book, does it appear that michaelangelo was crazy like van gogh was - or was he pretty tame, like a monk? i always thought of him as this mad scientist kind of person who kept to himself a lot and hung out near ceilings. but he sounds kinda nuttty and socially interactive the way you said it.
i think catholic churches are neat. there's so much wacky things in them - gory stuff - especially in the old ones - like the missions. its like a horror movie in some churches. maybe people who grow up catholic are doubters and pessimists naturally because of that. catholics have good aesthetics, though.
hey mandy, are you a catholic? i forget. i always thought you were for some reason. maybe because you're irish. you are irish, right? mandy McMurphey?
oh, and steve, every time i push "post comment", a little box implies i smell like beef. that's so mean. what if i get a complex!?
Posted by arron
Michelangelo was def not a monk according to Stone. He was devoted, although to carving figures in marble, so I guess some takes on that would be that he didn't get out much. I'm sure that he had vastly different amounts of social interaction/troubles (like van gogh did, but I'm not sure that they are directly comparable.) He was a artistic lap dog to many popes after all, and that takes a certain amount of face time. Stone covers his whole life from 14 to aprox. 90 years in a bit over 700 pages, so it was a bit glossed over in parts. I.E. the Sistine Ceiling was one chapter, but more than four years for the artist.
As far as being Catholic goes. I am overly happy that I was brought up in the church. Not only are the moral sets important for growing up, the imagery, like you said, was a great part of my mental forming and education. It is strange to be in it and believe it and then to come out of it and look back and see how strange it all actually is. I love it when Catholics, or even Christians in general, talk about Pagans and their silly rites. The history of it all, and having had the Bible and its contents very available is so very relevant to me even now.
You don't smell like beef, Arron.
You smell like bacon.
Posted by Steve
are you trying to tell me that i am a cop?
Posted by arron
It is Mandy McMurphenSTEIN, and no, I am not a catholic. My father was raised catholic, catholic schools, all that. One of my aunts is an actual nun and she is not even the most religious of them. But I was not raised catholic. I wasn't even baptised.
Posted by mandy
i think i remember that you were closely affiliated with catholocism, now. my mom was a nun and i grew up going to the spanish mission every sunday and latin mass from a wee tyke age. very catholic. not any more though. my mom doesn't even go to church anymore. hey, did you know i see tasha and jared at the coop here all the time in austin? they live here. you're old best friend, mandy.
Posted by arron
Does Tasha still have a greeen backpack? Only stupid people wear green backpacks. Is Jared normal now? As I remember he was jumping from extreme to extreme, which is pretty extreme, man.
Posted by Steve