Customer Reviews

Man Born to be King

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

After reading this play cycle, you'll never look at the Gospels in the same way again. Sayers writes in her introduction that she believed the story "should be handled, not liturgically or symbolically, but realistically and historically: 'this is a thing that actually happened.'" It is this matter-of-fact treatment of the story that makes her plays different from almost all the "Jesus movies" that we know today. We're confronted with the shattering truth that God actually came to earth, in a time very much like ours in many ways, and lived among us. We also have to face the fact that humanity -- for reasons of politics and personal pride -- rejected and killed God. So much for the theory that man is basically good! Yet as Sayers writes, "Short of damnation ... there can be no Christian tragedy," and she clearly shows how the love and hope offered by the risen Christ can save us from ourselves. I've been a Christian for many years, and I can still say that this book changed my life. If you have questions or doubts about Jesus of Nazareth, please give it a try.

I came to this play-cycle not knowing what to expect, as did almost all of Sayers' contemporaries. There was a political firestorm when the project was proposed. Clergymen of every stripe rose up to denounce it as un-Christian, distorted, dishonorable. Needless to say, they had not read the script or heard the audio plays, which aired on the BBC during World War Two.

These plays inspired ordinary dock-workers and High Church bishops alike to examine the Christian faith. People who never gave a second thought to some guy named Jesus were confronted with a living, throbbing reality in these plays.

Sayers did her work conscientiously, as in her translation of Dante, by not making any use of any terms which were theologically inaccurate but dramatically potent. That is, she was faithful to the letter and spirit of her original- the Gospel story of Jesus. These plays contained, at times, shocking insight- and at times, human warmth.

Just as Jesus is supposed to be the meeting of Godhood and manhood, these plays are where entertainment and theology, the natural and the supernatural meet. Miss that, and you'll miss the same thing which soon caused thousands of English to arrive late for church service because they were waiting to catch the last moments of these plays on the wireless.

I found that the dramas forced me to imagine the movements of characters and plot as on a stage, something more difficult to do with the Biblical text itself. That made these stories come alive for me, and refreshed and enriched my grasp of these stories, "old bones in new flesh".

This is by far the best dramatization of the life of Christ I have ever read. By far. It moved me to tears and reminded me of the true power of a story too often obscured by platitutes and time.

Never before have I been so moved by the truth of the Life, Death, and Ressurection of Christ. Dorothy Sayers hits home every character and message of the gospels.

In writing this book, I believe Sayers intended to make the Gospel stories of Jesus more accessible. She says she wanted to "tell that story to the best of my ability, within the medium at my disposal - in short to make as good of work of art as I could. "Although she sought to maintain a "determined historical realism", I was disappointed with the historical inaccuracies.

She sacrifices historical accuracy for the sake of art and the ease of story telling. For example, at one point her character says - "he was allowed to cry, 'My stirrup, Elazar" regardless of the much later date which stirrups were introduced into Palestine(p.19). Another example is found on page 90, where there is a conversation among supposedly Jewish people at the Wedding at Cana. One member says "But my mule cast a shoe, so I had to get a lift from Ezras". Only a very wealthy Jews could afford a mule, and they probably wouldn't own one because where not allowed to breed them, due to the mule's mixed parentage (Lev. 19:19). The first century Roman army was only just beginning to experiment with shoes their horses, and a mule would not have had shoes. It is a small point, but what artistic significance was contributed by this historical inaccuracy?

I was also bothered by her Anglo-centric idioms and assignment of various English accents to certain characters. I find her description of the Jewish Matthew, with stereotyping, offensive; "He is a vulgar little commercial ... as ever walked Whitechapel, and I should play him with a frank Cockney accent." She goes on to describe his "oily black hair and rapacious little hands . . . " What is the artistic contribution here?

Reality is better than artistic fluff, and much more inspiring, I find little in this book to interest me.