Katherine Walker

Christine Wright, an ex-Special Forces soldier, Victoria Cross recipient, and recovering alcoholic, is now an Anglican minister in Victoria, B.C. The novel begins with her killing a man in self-defense. Rather than call the police, she buries the body. Besides trying to avoid criminal charges, Christine has other problems. Shawna, the widow of Christine’s victim, is angry and suspicious; Mrs. Dee, one of the church ladies, dislikes their new minister and is upset about a missing rug and damaged candlestick; and Seth Kassman, a retired military police officer, has a vendetta against Christine.

This book reads like two books. There’s a serious element in that Christine has been scarred by life and her military experiences and is deeply troubled. She suffers with survivor guilt and feels alienated from God, believing that He has not forgiven her for past actions. She is lonely, having no friends except for Joey. Then there’s the comic element with totally implausible events, especially at the end. This incongruity jars; I found it difficult to reconcile the serious theme with the light-hearted tone.

There is a suggestion that in the end Christine does find inner peace and a sense of belonging, but she has her epiphany only after some of her parishioners behave in a totally unbelievable way. I kept hoping that indeed all would be well for Christine, but her happiness because her parishioners imitate her behaviour does not bode well. How can all be well if she continues in the same behaviour as at the beginning?

There are several problematic characters. I don’t expect ministers and priests to be totally prim, proper, and pious, but would one actually think, “God damn that Mrs. Dee”? Then there’s Joey, Christine’s bishop-appointed “spiritual director” who once served in a cathedral, “before he got as far away as possible from religion, a challenge for a Catholic priest.” At one point he tries to join a group of faux-Benedictines who “are just run-of-the-mill do-gooders playing dress-up.” Joey gives Christine absolution even though she makes no attempt to right her wrong but also dispenses wisdom like “’We are made from love to love and be loved’”?

Mrs. Dee is another character who behaves inconsistently. In the beginning, she resents Christine, thinking of her as arrogant and tiresome and an idiot. She is aghast at a man’s erection and very bothered by Biblical references to circumcision. Yet this same woman doesn’t flinch at people modeling in the nude, and gives her husband a special visit? And all of this change takes place in about 6 ½ months, between Easter and All Souls Day?

The novel is described as “wickedly funny,” but I found the humour uneven. I did like some of the more subtle humour like Christine’s describing Mrs. Dee as “a face shifter. Like a chameleon. Like that Michael Jackson video, but not with the upbeat tune” and a bar owner ejecting the fake Benedictines by proclaiming, “’Brothers and Sisters: there’s no room at the inn.’” The description of the missionary window with its jagged hole is wonderful commentary. But then there’s the slapstick comedy: the events at the wedding ceremony, at Christine’s aikido class, and during Christine’s visit to the RCMP depot are replete with cheap humour. We even have Christine managing “to get the straw into her mouth after poking herself in the face a few times”?

I wish the proofreading had been more assiduous. Reading alter when altar is needed is irritating. Raphael, the French martial arts teacher, would know that “’mon cherie’”should be ma chérie because he is speaking to a woman. And Christine says, “’I really wish they hadn’t of printed that’”??!! These types of errors do not leave a positive impression.
It has been said that writing humour is the most challenging of writing, so I applaud the author on her efforts. However, I was left confused and dissatisfied. Was the book’s purpose to be funny or to convey a serious theme? In the midst of tragedy, people will joke and find humour, but the book’s comic antics overshadow the book’s serious purpose. If the book’s main goal was humour, it didn’t work for me because it too often relies on physical comedy which I don’t find funny. This novel might appeal to other readers, but it just wasn’t the book for me.

Note: I received a copy of this book from the publisher.

Please check out my reader's blog (https://schatjesshelves.blogspot.com/) and follow me on Twitter (@DCYakabuski).… (mer)