William E. Barrett (1900–1986)

I almost didn't read this book. I never would have picked it up on my own, and as it was it had been sitting on my shelf for a LONG time, on loan from my mom, who promised it would be worth my while. But it's just so unassuming, and I'd skipped over it so many times that I was starting to feel a little guilty....oh, all right, let's just get this over with.

But, as usual, Mom was right. This book is an absolute gem. Konrad has no reason to help Ursula - Ursula has no reason to trust Konrad - show more and yet they both do, and what results is a piece of beautiful, melancholy literary perfection. It is quiet and intelligent and masterful. It proves that you truly cannot judge a book by it's cover. Highly recommended. show less

This is an odd little book. My copy is only 72 pages. It's even shorter than Barrett's more well known [b:The Lilies of the Field|396082|The Lilies of the Field|William Edmund Barrett|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348280909l/396082._SY75_.jpg|385573]. I read this one because I enjoyed "Lilies" so much, and was eager to visit with Homer Smith again. I love this character. But, something was missing in this sequel that I just can't seem to put my finger show more on. Maybe because the writing was so sparse that the characters just couldn't be fleshed out. I couldn't get a sense of who they were and the motivations behind their actions. Homer seemed a bit strange as well. The ending was really odd, too. Although it tied the loose ends, which weren't many, Barrett did it with a page and a half last chapter that seemed to be an afterthought by an editor. That last little chapter begins:
"So, a story is told and there are always readers who want to know what happened ultimately to the people involved. Readers will seldom accept the fact that if a story has any value or meaning, the fate of individuals is of little importance. Readers want to KNOW. One tries to oblige."
Well, yes, I am one of those readers. Barrett gives us a couple of sentences per character to tell us a little more of what they went on to do. It wasn't much, but I guess it was enough. I just feel like Barrett could have done so much more with this story. It's a good one, just not fleshed out very well. I can't say I wasted my time though, because it only took a little over an hour to read. Plus, I got to visit with an old friend, Homer Smith, again. show less

I love the movie with Sidney Poitier, and of course it was running through my head all the time I was reading this book. But Barrett's Homer Smith is not the one played by Sidney Portier. I think I like Barrett's better. And the book ending is very satisfying. I won't stop watching the movie, but the book is a real treasure.

If the final words had not already been in CK I would have added them.

When Kirk Donner—a renowned painter—and three of his friends are summoned to Lorenson Galleries to view a mysterious seventeen-century painting, their lives are changed forever. For, in the masterpiece portraying the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, they all see their own condemning faces on the canvas. Impossible? Trickery? Sorcery? Searching for answers, Kirk travels to the artist's place of birth, the small town of Friedheim in Germany, where the locals still enact a Passion Play every show more ten years. But, instead of gaining answers, he encounters the promise of love and hope. show less