What do you think?
Rate this book
David
144 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1967
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 22, 2021
Bilge. Execrable.
Maybe I need to write my own biography of David. Jonathan Hirsch's atheistic perspective was an intellectually bankrupt hit-piece. This biography by a Christian is self-indulgent, disorganised, arrogant twaddle.
Hercus had no idea what he was trying to do. In the space of half a page, for example, he was giving an imaginary lecture to David, then he was a fly on the wall in David's room, then speaking about David in the past tense, and then having a conversation with him. With no warning of switching from one approach to the other.
The book opens with a scarcely relevant, painfully patriarchal/misogynistic Foreword. For example:
"the deep feeling of aggressive fulfilment that is the privilege of the male, and in the equally deep feeling of sheer dependence that is the privilege of the female...". And, "Always an emotional stream that flows that way and that way only. Always from man to woman to child."
Many times Hercus expresses his opinion and then gives an almost Twitter-style ad hominem attack on people who disagree with him. e.g.:
"Phooey! Any man who can allow himself to think like that has not got one single clue in all the world as to how people do in fact tick."
Elsewhere, he imagined an opinion that David didn't go to war because his hormone levels were down, and responded: "But the guffaw that burst out of me at the sheer idiocy of the suggestion was completely lost on David". Why was t lost on David? Because not only was Hercus fielding objections to his theory about why David didn't go to war, but he did so literally in front of David. So the author was with David, laughing out loud, and thus confusing David. I kid you not.
And in case you thought the Foreword wasn't misogynistic enough, here's his comment on the David/Bathsheba first meeting: "Was it mutual? Or was it rape? Does it matter?...Does it ever matter? For the only important thing is that it was simply adultery..." That's not clumsily sticking to Biblical principles, that's a radical and extremely rapey departure from Biblical principles that owed everything to Hercus and nothing to Scripture.
He spent a lot of time slipping - without warning - into scene recreations and dialogue inventions. Usually these come across as purely for his own amusement as they build no kind of picture, add no substantive content, to our picture of David the man. And he kept tripping over himself while he was doing it. One paragraph, for example, contains the following:
"I may be wrong, but I don't think Uriah sat down [as if that's of any importance]...I think he stood stiffly...For I am sure...I don't think I am wrong. I think it was a very awkward little session". That para closes with David patting Uriah on the shoulder and saying, "You toddle off home and at least spend one comfortable night now that you are back in Jerusalem". So we get a bit of farce in there too, for no apparent reason.
Elsewhere: "I can still picture in my mind the slow, grinding effort depicted on Achish's face..."
Can you, John? Really? So not only does the author invent scenes, he invents scenes that he personally witnessed in the past and is now recalling some time later.
Then, about 25 pages before the end (and apparently with a publisher's deadline of later that same day) Hercus realised he'd forgotten to write about decades of David's life including some key events. Amnon, Tamar, Absalom and Adonijah are all introduced to and dismissed from the scene in the space of a combined half a page.
Much of the content is underpinned by a more or less random and idiosyncratic view that Hercus had of David's childhood home. A fabrication which is crucial to understanding the book:
"[David was a] despised and ne'er do well youngest son in a yokel home where his presence was only sheer embarrassment to his thick-skulled father and dull-witted big brother Eliab. This is the essential background to the understanding of David".
No, it's a random viewpoint that Hercus never tried to justify beyond stating that David's parents had been married before, and excluded the very young David from the lineup with Samuel.
Maybe I need to write my own biography of David. Jonathan Hirsch's atheistic perspective was an intellectually bankrupt hit-piece. This biography by a Christian is self-indulgent, disorganised, arrogant twaddle.
Hercus had no idea what he was trying to do. In the space of half a page, for example, he was giving an imaginary lecture to David, then he was a fly on the wall in David's room, then speaking about David in the past tense, and then having a conversation with him. With no warning of switching from one approach to the other.
The book opens with a scarcely relevant, painfully patriarchal/misogynistic Foreword. For example:
"the deep feeling of aggressive fulfilment that is the privilege of the male, and in the equally deep feeling of sheer dependence that is the privilege of the female...". And, "Always an emotional stream that flows that way and that way only. Always from man to woman to child."
Many times Hercus expresses his opinion and then gives an almost Twitter-style ad hominem attack on people who disagree with him. e.g.:
"Phooey! Any man who can allow himself to think like that has not got one single clue in all the world as to how people do in fact tick."
Elsewhere, he imagined an opinion that David didn't go to war because his hormone levels were down, and responded: "But the guffaw that burst out of me at the sheer idiocy of the suggestion was completely lost on David". Why was t lost on David? Because not only was Hercus fielding objections to his theory about why David didn't go to war, but he did so literally in front of David. So the author was with David, laughing out loud, and thus confusing David. I kid you not.
And in case you thought the Foreword wasn't misogynistic enough, here's his comment on the David/Bathsheba first meeting: "Was it mutual? Or was it rape? Does it matter?...Does it ever matter? For the only important thing is that it was simply adultery..." That's not clumsily sticking to Biblical principles, that's a radical and extremely rapey departure from Biblical principles that owed everything to Hercus and nothing to Scripture.
He spent a lot of time slipping - without warning - into scene recreations and dialogue inventions. Usually these come across as purely for his own amusement as they build no kind of picture, add no substantive content, to our picture of David the man. And he kept tripping over himself while he was doing it. One paragraph, for example, contains the following:
"I may be wrong, but I don't think Uriah sat down [as if that's of any importance]...I think he stood stiffly...For I am sure...I don't think I am wrong. I think it was a very awkward little session". That para closes with David patting Uriah on the shoulder and saying, "You toddle off home and at least spend one comfortable night now that you are back in Jerusalem". So we get a bit of farce in there too, for no apparent reason.
Elsewhere: "I can still picture in my mind the slow, grinding effort depicted on Achish's face..."
Can you, John? Really? So not only does the author invent scenes, he invents scenes that he personally witnessed in the past and is now recalling some time later.
Then, about 25 pages before the end (and apparently with a publisher's deadline of later that same day) Hercus realised he'd forgotten to write about decades of David's life including some key events. Amnon, Tamar, Absalom and Adonijah are all introduced to and dismissed from the scene in the space of a combined half a page.
Much of the content is underpinned by a more or less random and idiosyncratic view that Hercus had of David's childhood home. A fabrication which is crucial to understanding the book:
"[David was a] despised and ne'er do well youngest son in a yokel home where his presence was only sheer embarrassment to his thick-skulled father and dull-witted big brother Eliab. This is the essential background to the understanding of David".
No, it's a random viewpoint that Hercus never tried to justify beyond stating that David's parents had been married before, and excluded the very young David from the lineup with Samuel.
Displaying 1 of 1 review