Conclave
Ratings7
Average rating4.2
Okay, so. Not a very action-packed (so to speak) read, which is perfectly fine given what the story’s about, but a story that is very rich in TENSION. This is created by having the story told entirely from the perspective of one character (Lomeli), whose head the reader inhabits for the duration of the novel, so that the reader only knows what Lomeli knows, and sees their inner thoughts and concerns. It also helps that Lomeli’s primary characteristic - at least for a huge majority of the novel - is doubt. I actually like that his primary characteristic is doubt: of himself, his fellow cardinals, the dead Pope, the Church, and sometimes even God, though he’s quick to scold himself for that last one. It makes Lomeli approachable, if not necessarily relatable.
I also really liked how the novel showcases the Church as a bureaucracy in its own right, along with ALL the problems that come with being a bureaucracy - especially one as far-reaching and, frankly, MASSIVE as the Catholic Church. Throughout the novel Lomeli tries to believe that the Church serves God and is guided by God, but is constantly smacked in the face with the reality that, while this MAY be true to some extent, the Church is also a very human organization, with very human concerns.
That’s one of the things this novel does best, actually: portraying the Church as HUMAN. Sure, it can be great, and it can be a force for good, but it’s also got some darker aspects to it, and depending on the people running it, it can be a force for evil too. This is most clearly portrayed by Lomeli (who doubts, and doubts, and doubts), but also by the initial leading contenders for the papacy, as well as some of the other cardinals: Tutino, for instance, who was caught in a scandal for expanding his apartments. Or Courtemarche, the French cardinal who is also a fucking Holocaust denier. The Church is diverse, yes, and it is both a weakness and a strength.
Speaking of diversity, the way that’s represented in the novel is interesting. It’s clear that the cardinals come from all different parts of the world, but it’s also clear who holds the most influence - and it is NOT the Third World cardinals, despite their congregations being larger in terms of population. Tedesco points this out in the novel’s first third, in what I call his “Why Rome?” dialogue, and he does have a very good point about the representational imbalance - even if his overall point is to consider this imbalance a hostile attack on Rome’s supremacy, instead of a problem that may need to be addressed.
Which leads me to something I think was missed in the novel, but has lingered on the edges of my mind while reading: the WHY of the Church’s diversity. All the non-European cardinals are from countries that were colonized by European powers, and then forced to accept Catholicism; apart from the North American cardinals (who are, incidentally, mostly white), the cardinals from Asia, Latin America, and Africa all have less power in the Church. I can understand why this wasn’t addressed directly in the novel, and frankly I wouldn’t quite trust the author to do it, given that he is a white British man, but it’s definitely something more readers of this book and viewers of the movie might want to think about.
There is also the question of gender representation in the Church - and by that I don’t refer only to the most obvious one when it comes to this novel, but also to the way women are portrayed and discussed in the story. From the “invisible” nuns functioning as cooks and housekeepers for the cardinals, all the way to the female victims of gang wars, actual wars, and rape who are Cardinal Benitez’s primary flock: the relationship of the Church with women is something that runs as an undercurrent throughout the novel, and, like so many things about the Church, isn’t quite addressed. There is a moment in the novel when Bellini contemplates how he might address this if he becomes Pope, and is quickly shot down by his supporters, who say that putting forward such “radical” ideas will ruin his chances at the papacy. The fact that his view is deemed so radical it could damage his reputation is something that more readers can stand to think about - and, given the current political climate, one that’s very relevant to the real world.
As for the movie, I haven’t seen it, but I HAVE seen the fandom love for it, and it makes me wonder how much it differs from the book. I suspect that the interpersonal relationships between the cardinals are portrayed much more intensely in the movie, which would make sense given that the film audience can’t necessarily hear what’s going on in the characters’ heads the same way they can see into Lomeli’s thoughts in the book, so there’s probably a dramatic oomph there that the novel, sadly, doesn’t quite portray as well. I’m aware that the movie has altered characters and included scenes that aren’t in the book (like the turtle scene), but that it doesn’t otherwise deviate much from the book’s original intent and themes. It’d be interesting to compare the two.
Overall, this novel provides some fascinating insight into the inner workings of the Catholic Church during one of its most important events: the election of a new Pope. Through the eyes of the doubter, Cardinal Lomeli, the Church is portrayed as grandly good, deeply flawed, and very, VERY human. While I wish that some aspects had been explored more deeply (such as the relationship between the Church’s seeming diversity and Europe’s colonial history), what is indeed explored, or at least briefly tackled, is relevant not only to those interested in understanding how the Catholic Church works, but to anyone who wants to see how the world at large can influence an institution that claims to be guided solely by a higher power.
Originally posted at kamreadsandrecs.tumblr.com.
Okay, so. Not a very action-packed (so to speak) read, which is perfectly fine given what the story’s about, but a story that is very rich in TENSION. This is created by having the story told entirely from the perspective of one character (Lomeli), whose head the reader inhabits for the duration of the novel, so that the reader only knows what Lomeli knows, and sees their inner thoughts and concerns. It also helps that Lomeli’s primary characteristic - at least for a huge majority of the novel - is doubt. I actually like that his primary characteristic is doubt: of himself, his fellow cardinals, the dead Pope, the Church, and sometimes even God, though he’s quick to scold himself for that last one. It makes Lomeli approachable, if not necessarily relatable.
I also really liked how the novel showcases the Church as a bureaucracy in its own right, along with ALL the problems that come with being a bureaucracy - especially one as far-reaching and, frankly, MASSIVE as the Catholic Church. Throughout the novel Lomeli tries to believe that the Church serves God and is guided by God, but is constantly smacked in the face with the reality that, while this MAY be true to some extent, the Church is also a very human organization, with very human concerns.
That’s one of the things this novel does best, actually: portraying the Church as HUMAN. Sure, it can be great, and it can be a force for good, but it’s also got some darker aspects to it, and depending on the people running it, it can be a force for evil too. This is most clearly portrayed by Lomeli (who doubts, and doubts, and doubts), but also by the initial leading contenders for the papacy, as well as some of the other cardinals: Tutino, for instance, who was caught in a scandal for expanding his apartments. Or Courtemarche, the French cardinal who is also a fucking Holocaust denier. The Church is diverse, yes, and it is both a weakness and a strength.
Speaking of diversity, the way that’s represented in the novel is interesting. It’s clear that the cardinals come from all different parts of the world, but it’s also clear who holds the most influence - and it is NOT the Third World cardinals, despite their congregations being larger in terms of population. Tedesco points this out in the novel’s first third, in what I call his “Why Rome?” dialogue, and he does have a very good point about the representational imbalance - even if his overall point is to consider this imbalance a hostile attack on Rome’s supremacy, instead of a problem that may need to be addressed.
Which leads me to something I think was missed in the novel, but has lingered on the edges of my mind while reading: the WHY of the Church’s diversity. All the non-European cardinals are from countries that were colonized by European powers, and then forced to accept Catholicism; apart from the North American cardinals (who are, incidentally, mostly white), the cardinals from Asia, Latin America, and Africa all have less power in the Church. I can understand why this wasn’t addressed directly in the novel, and frankly I wouldn’t quite trust the author to do it, given that he is a white British man, but it’s definitely something more readers of this book and viewers of the movie might want to think about.
There is also the question of gender representation in the Church - and by that I don’t refer only to the most obvious one when it comes to this novel, but also to the way women are portrayed and discussed in the story. From the “invisible” nuns functioning as cooks and housekeepers for the cardinals, all the way to the female victims of gang wars, actual wars, and rape who are Cardinal Benitez’s primary flock: the relationship of the Church with women is something that runs as an undercurrent throughout the novel, and, like so many things about the Church, isn’t quite addressed. There is a moment in the novel when Bellini contemplates how he might address this if he becomes Pope, and is quickly shot down by his supporters, who say that putting forward such “radical” ideas will ruin his chances at the papacy. The fact that his view is deemed so radical it could damage his reputation is something that more readers can stand to think about - and, given the current political climate, one that’s very relevant to the real world.
As for the movie, I haven’t seen it, but I HAVE seen the fandom love for it, and it makes me wonder how much it differs from the book. I suspect that the interpersonal relationships between the cardinals are portrayed much more intensely in the movie, which would make sense given that the film audience can’t necessarily hear what’s going on in the characters’ heads the same way they can see into Lomeli’s thoughts in the book, so there’s probably a dramatic oomph there that the novel, sadly, doesn’t quite portray as well. I’m aware that the movie has altered characters and included scenes that aren’t in the book (like the turtle scene), but that it doesn’t otherwise deviate much from the book’s original intent and themes. It’d be interesting to compare the two.
Overall, this novel provides some fascinating insight into the inner workings of the Catholic Church during one of its most important events: the election of a new Pope. Through the eyes of the doubter, Cardinal Lomeli, the Church is portrayed as grandly good, deeply flawed, and very, VERY human. While I wish that some aspects had been explored more deeply (such as the relationship between the Church’s seeming diversity and Europe’s colonial history), what is indeed explored, or at least briefly tackled, is relevant not only to those interested in understanding how the Catholic Church works, but to anyone who wants to see how the world at large can influence an institution that claims to be guided solely by a higher power.
Originally posted at kamreadsandrecs.tumblr.com.
