I have mixed feelings about this book. First the homophopia really surprised me but then I tried to remember when it was written and that times are different. I really did not understand what happened with Max. I know she got drunk but then what did she do? And Renny was way to old for Polly - I can’t imagine thinking that relationship was okay. And why did it lead to sex? Had he just helped her and taken care of her that would have been fine.

This young adult novel follows Polly O'Keefe, oldest of the O'Keefe children and someone who doesn't quite fit in or feel secure in herself. In short, she's a fairly typical teenager, but with a pretty brilliant mind and a lack of social belonging (or even the need to seek it). She's sixteen and is mature in some ways, but still very much sixteen in others. This story is told as two stories happening simultaneously - the first is her experience in Greece, where she spends a week in Athens with handsome Zachary Gray (waiting for her aunt and uncle to arrive) and another bit of time working at at a conference in Cyprus. The second is her flashbacks to her time on Benne Seed island where she lives with her family, goes to school and became good friends with an older woman, Max. For a while, her relationship with Max was fulfilling and opened Polly up to new ideas and self-assurance, despite the vicious gossip about Max and her lifestyle. But Max's life holds shadows, and one evening Max's shadows affect Polly and the relationship crumbles. Now Polly is in Greece contemplating the nature of forgiveness and love.

In many respects, this is an incredibly well-written story, with Polly reading as a rather realistic teenager (at least enough for me to connect to, though it often did feel like she was whiny) and some absolutely stellar descriptions and introspection about life, love and forgiveness. I love that this theme is about forgiving and accepting others as they are...and Polly manages to do that. I can also appreciate it for its 1984 treatment of homosexuality. It was probably ground-breaking in its time...but this story is from 1984 and understandings about culture, sexuality and race kind of date this story a bit.

On the flip side - there was a lot here that made me uncomfortable. First and foremost is the fact that Polly's parents allow her to date a 26-year-old guy (he's an intern at the hospital, so it's reasonable to assume...he's definitely mid twenties at least) and the fact that he has sex with her when she's emotionally vulnerable. I'm sorry, but any 26-year-old who sees a teenager that young as "romance" material should be shot. And the fact that he's totally forgiven and held completely unaccountable for taking advantage of her is bothersome to me. But there's a pattern for Polly here - she later crushes on another guy in his mid-twenties. And the one guy she doesn't lust after, is within 3 years of her own age. And this from a teenage girl who made a comment that "Not yet thirty sounded quite old to me." What do she think 26 is? Even 25? Closer to thirty than she is to his age... I'm not sure if this is a reflection on the author or a statement she's trying to make, but my parents would have shot me rather than send me out of the house on a date with a man ten years my senior (when I was 16). Now Zachary (the 19ish year old) was slimy, manipulative and selfish, but at least he was a teenager. I didn't hate him, but it says a lot about Polly's insecurity (even after Renny) that she's flattered at his slimy attention.

I also find it interesting that there are so many people who read the scene with drunken Max as sexual...or even that Omio was trying to say that they could still have a romance even though he was married. I totally missed any and all sexual overtones to that scene with Max (except maybe the reference to how she was like her father...but that could also interpret the other way). If there were clear sexual overtones that Polly picked up on (which she never states she does), then her reaction and inability to forgive was spot on and her family was wrong to force her to forgive. If however, there wasn't, then her reaction was way over the top and overly emotional for someone so seemingly level-headed and her family was right to press on her the urgency of forgiveness. So I have no idea what to think about that. As for Omio, I don't believe he intended anything sexual. Culturally he's from an affectionate culture and doesn't see any reason they can't be close and affectionate friends. But Polly, not understanding that, naturally misinterprets. I just don't believe that Omio did anything wrong here, nor do I think he was advocating an affair so much as explaining that he could still be close and affectionate (not sexual) without betraying his marriage.

I think Polly and the people around her (especially men apparently) forget that she's just a child, which she would surely vehemently argue against. Even Renny's housekeeper, Nell, calls her a child  mere hours before he takes her virginity . Even her aunt and uncle challenge her with responsibility by not telling her parents that Polly is all alone in Athens for three days (my parents would have flipped!). There's trust and then there's forgetting that someone is not an adult.

It’s very painful to write a negative review of a wonderful writer, but this is bad on the sentence level, on the plot level, and in its preachiness of a particular kind of White liberal Protestantism that reads as regressive almost 40 years later in its attempts to make sense of and then round off particularity in religious pluralism and religious experience. That’s before the 16-year-old girl having romantic relationships exclusively with guys in their 20s, and her parents either actively encouraging it or oblivious in the name of “trusting” the daughter they’ve raised. Intellectually I understand that that age difference in that male-female direction was a historical norm for most of recorded human civilizations, but I now am unable to get past a plot point of sex between an adult and a minor shown as basically positive and loving. It’s just really troubling. Finally, the book is also an interesting historical marker of the lengths and limits of Christian love for lesbian and gay people. It just isn’t worth reading for that reason alone.

I could not finish this book.
Overall, I did not enjoy this series as a whole as much as the wrinkle in time books, which I loved, but this book just made me too uncomfortable.

First of all, Polly and Renny's relationship is gross and messed up. He is much to old to be with her, and not as responsible as someone of his age ought to be. I can not believe that the characters I loved grew up to let their teenage daughter date men in their late twenties.

Also, the guy she meets on vacation is creepy and manipulative.

Third and final, the way the LGBT+ characters are portrayed is absolutely terrible and awful, and it upset me to read it.

I had a strong emotional reaction to this book. I felt like I could connect personally with Polly on many levels and in many situations, but Polly had the wrong reaction to almost every situation she was in. Like Polly, I was the oldest child who acted as a third parent to her siblings, I also had a younger family member who was more attractive / popular / social, and my mother was concerned that I didn’t go to dances or have a boyfriend. Like Polly, many people in high school (and my Dad) thought I was a lesbian because my friends were. This did not bother me like it did Polly, though. Similar to Polly, I have gone to Europe to forget a traumatic relationship with an older (married) person, and I have had a selfish, manipulative, and inappropriate married man tell me that it was my fault I fell in love with him as a teenager. There are EVEN more similarities, if you can believe it, but I need to get into all of my issues with this book before I explode.


1.tMax. Max awakens Polly’s self-confidence, intellectually and physically. She is a mother-figure in many ways, and puts a heavy relationship on Polly – of her fulfilling the role of Max’s baby who died in infancy. Polly handles that with maturity, and even accepts that Max is dying of a made-up AIDS metaphor (OoOoooo a gay person gets a deadly tropical disease!!) with grace. She has difficulty accepting that Max is a lesbian, however, and pretty much says “why don’t you keep it all in the closet.” Loads of homophobia in the book – brace yourself. One night, Max’s partner is out of town and asks Polly to keep an eye on Max. Max, in her chronic pain and fear of death, drinks too much bourbon and becomes sloppy drunk in her fear and confusion. She cries and laughs and falls over and asks Polly if she is afraid, which she is. According to everyone else’s review of this book, Max “makes a pass” at Polly in this scene. I have read and re-read this bit probably 10 times now, and I don’t see it. It is so deeply buried that it is like it didn’t happen. I spent the majority of my time reading this book wondering why Polly was so traumatized by Max getting wasted and wondering why in the world Polly didn’t help Max get some water and get into bed. I guess I can see a thinly veiled reference when Max says something about being just like her father, but this is all very vague and very confusing. I reject this homosexuality = pedophilia plotline, if it is true. Again, if it is true that Max was making a pass at Polly, I do not think that the great climax of the novel should be Polly forgiving Max & calling her to tell her she loves her. If Max is preying on a 16-year-old, Polly should keep her distance. Overall, Max was the only character I liked in the book and I don’t see why L’Engle would take pains to get her readers to accept and love a gay couple only to have them turn out to be pedophiles.

2.tRenny. Max introduces Renny and Polly, which is the only fault I can see with Max in the book in my current understanding of it. Renny is at least 25, but likely in his late 20s. No one seems to think it is a problem that he is dating 16- or 17-year-old Polly and making out with her regularly. Then, when Polly is in an emotional state of shock and at her most physically and emotionally vulnerable, he seduces and sleeps with her. This is not only statutory rape, it is manipulative, selfish, and coercive. The sex is unprotected, and I am pretty sure Polly was still crying when he started kissing her. Renny realizes that what he did was wrong and that he could go to jail for this, but Polly has zero problem with this situation and fixates on Max’s betrayal instead of this actual betrayal. I shocked at how this relationship was handled in the book – Renny comes out as a comforting hero, rather than the creep he is.

3.tZachary. Zachary is a sexist, chauvinistic asshat and pretty much every review I’ve seen agrees with me on this, so I won’t spend too much time on him. I will say, however, that I understand being so emotionally vulnerable and unsure of myself that I entertained a complete douche-bag.

4.tOmio. Omio is written as a healing character who helps Polly forgive and move on. In reality he is a married man who seeks out Polly to develop emotional and physical intimacy with her – he holds her hand as they walk to the beach together, he kisses her eyelids as she is crying, and he asks for something of hers so he can always have a piece of her. When she understandably falls for him, he claims he told her that he is married with a kid, and all he ever wanted was friendship. We are supposed to read this as a cultural difference, by the way. Polly does all of this internal work to blame herself for “demanding” too much of her friendship with Omio, as if his un-boundaried, flirtatious, and intimate actions were not at fault. It is this confusing and unhelpful relationship that “helps” her forgive Max, which makes no sense to me.

I like the idea of a book that teaches a young, sheltered girl that humans are complex & complicated, but L’Engle did a poor job of that. I feel like this book should be title “A House Full of Sexual Predators.”

Though it’s about a 16yo Polly O’Keefe, I’m adding this to my shelf with my “adult” L’Engle novels. I appreciated it more as an adult — I remember it unsettling me as a teen. I think this book may be one where some detractors question the author’s faith, her views, etc. Ultimately, there was the theme of being able to love those who are profoundly different from us — other flawed humans, especially those who are difficult to love because they have hurt us. It’s an important message, but I did not grasp it as a teen. And these are issues of lesbianism and pre-marital sex, and polygamy, which a young teen might not be ready to encounter in this way. Still, I cannot dislike it anymore — and it makes me want to travel to Greece and to Cyprus, a bit like Mary Stewart’s books always did. I also felt it left so much of Polly’s story unfinished. Guess I’ll read An Acceptable Time!

I enjoy L'Engle's work, and this novel certainly had a cast of well-developed characters and many interesting descriptions. However, for me this work took a turn from the preceding two novels in this series (Poly O'Keefe). *Spoiler alert* It is essentially the story of a teenager coming to terms with a sexual assault (or rather, one very narrowly avoided). There book was written in 1984, and as such comes across as woefully out of step with current (deserved) emphasis on respect for victims. I appreciate the exploration of themes such as forgiveness, love, and vitality in the face of wrongdoing. There is also excellent portrayal of how complicated people and relationships can be. However, I would never want this book to be read as any sort of example or ideal for victims, because there is far too much emphasis on restoration with the perpetrator to the exclusion of any sense of new boundaries it emotional distance for the victim. I hope that individuals with similar experiences can all come to peace within themselves and a restored wholeness. Sadly, though, I fear this novel would hinder such progress by placing higher value on the sympathetic reasons behind aggressive actions. There is a time and place for understanding people's backstory and motivations, but it is NOT during the immediate aftermath and not a burden others should impose on the victim. I would not recommend this book.

DNF.

I stopped at about halfway through and skimmed the rest. This was told with a present tense timeline and flashbacks. Neither one was particularly interesting. The driving force of the plot is what is going on in Polly's mind and I don't particularly care for that type of novel.

Zach is kinda creepy.

Renny is very creepy. Also, having sex with Polly while he is 20 something and she is 16 is at least statutory rape. The fact that he pushed her into it while she was in shock is just appalling. I hate that she wrote it off like she wanted to.

I'm not sure what the problem is with Max? If there was a sexual advance, I get the trauma, but it wasn't clear that's what happened. If it was a dying woman getting drunk and falling down, then Polly's hysteria is incredibly melodramatic.

Moving towards forgiveness is always a good goal, but I think Polly needs to be clear about who actually hurt her.

So I appreciate what L'Engle is trying to do here. It hasn't aged quite so well, and I think even for the time, she didn't super manage to convey what she wanted to perfectly, but it was at least an attempt. We're still falling into her classic writing tropes of having "Noble Savages" and assimilating all foreign religions into being actually Christian the whole time. L'Engle clearly heard these criticisms at the time of publishing, because she goes as far as to deny that she does these things in universe through Polly, who is starting to feel more an more like an author insert. I don't love that despite trying to preach tolerance, we still have Max as a predatory lesbian. And, in general, I don't love the romantic relationships in this one. Polly's love interests are all men in their mid 20's. Polly is 16, just no. Surely people knew this was weird in the 80s, right? Also not loving that Polly has devolved into the "not like other girls" girl who puts down and relishes in one upping girls who are too normal or popular or pretty or whatever it is that "other girls" are like. Still, it did well enough to go back up to the middle of the road 3. Decent enough of you're into coming of age Christian lit, but now that we've completely abandoned the fantasy and sci-fi elements, I'm losing steam.

This book gets a big "nope" from me. I loved L'engle's books as a child/teenager. This was the one that always deeply disturbed me. The feel is so different from the other Murry/O'Keefe books.

This may have made a better essay than a novel. The critique about trauma is valid. Polly definitely has some immediate PTSD symptoms, but the pressure of deathbed repentance leads to unrealistic behaviour in the name of over-idealized forgiveness. It's definitely in keeping with L'Engle's world view and still manages to be mostly believable, but the execution of this topic works much better in A Live Coal in the Sea.

House Like a Lotus has a distinct feel from many of L'Engle's other books of fiction--from the Time quintet, O'Keefe family or Austin family chronicles.
This is very much voicey, angsty first person YA. Polly isn't always a reliable narrator. She struggles with how she fits in the world and who she is. At one moment, seeming older, wiser and more competent than her age and at others, young and naive. And the other characters seem to lose the ability to place her as well.
It sets up a complex story with complicated characters. And many choices with harsh, real consequences. Nothing about this story is easy. It wasn't when it was written in the 1980s and isn't now.
But ultimately it is a story of forgiveness, for learning to love a broken world and the broken people in it. There is beauty in that. Even if it is harder to see.