Reading the 20th Century discussion

Welcome to our June 2023 group read of...



The Followers

by

Rebecca Wait


Feel free to contribute at any time before or after June 2023

Here's to another wonderful discussion


On the windswept moors of northern England, a small religious cult has cut itself off from society, believing they have found meaning in a purposeless world. Led by their prophet, Nathaniel, they eagerly await the end times. But when the prophet brings in Stephanie and her rebellious daughter Judith, the group’s delicate dynamic is disturbed. Judith is determined to escape, but her feelings are complicated by a growing friendship with another of the children, the naive and trusting Moses, who has never experienced the outside world.

Meanwhile, someone else is having doubts, unleashing a horrifying chain of events that will destroy the followers’ lives.

In the aftermath, the survivors struggle to adjust to the real world, haunted by the same questions: if you’ve been persuaded to surrender your individual will, are you still responsible for your actions? And is there any way back?

I am so pleased that I have read this - I hadn't read Rebecca Wait before, but I would certainly like to read more by her.

And I didn't care for it at all. I look forward to exchanging views.

Ah well, how boring it would be if we all enjoyed the same things, Ben.

I noted some reviews thought the plot unlikely. However, as someone who works in a Central London university once a week, I can testify that there are often people (as well as a rather dubious shop) in the locality that are definitely linked to something I would consider cult-like. Judging by the end of the book, it seems the author had a brush with something similar too.

This looks like it'll be an interesting discussion!

I haven't started yet but I do wonder if some people at some points in their lives are somehow 'ready' for being absorbed into a cult ... So that the onus is on reception rather than persuasion? I couldn't imagine ever switching off my critical faculties in that way but could imagine it being restful!

I don't see cults as particularly restful, RC. This one certainly isn't!

Ha, I meant not thinking for oneself and simply giving in to what someone else thinks, believes and does. But yes, I haven't started this yet so could be completely wrong. I'm looking forward to this and the discussion.

I don't know if I'm going to read this one but I did snap up a bargain copy so should get to it as some point but maybe not in June 23.

Interesting point RC, I don't know about restful either but clearly there's something attractive for many about total delegation and never having to trouble themselves with decision making.

I'm sure there are many types of cults. Some want to reshape the world according their vision (such as Q-anon) and some to withdraw from the world into their own Utopia or to prepare for their heavenly reward, as in this book.

What I found interesting about the world Wait created was the mix of rationales for joining and remained.. For Some it seemed like a sexual attraction. For some it was religious. For some it was power. And for the children born there, it was the only world they knew. I kept waiting for more understanding about what led them to the cult and why they were unable to leave. But I was frustrated by the book's failure to go much beyond setting up the world and the failure to reveal more about the individual motivations of the members.

I also never really understood the nature of Nathaniel's attraction to them. He didn't seem sexually magnetic to me or particularly inspiring. More pathetic than anything else, although certainly an excellent manipulator. And that made me wonder what led him to become "the Prophet." What about his past?

I hope I'm not discouraging you from reading it. I would like to know what others saw in the book that led to a different experience.

Susan wrote: "Ah well, how boring it would be if we all enjoyed the same things, Ben.

I noted some reviews thought the plot unlikely. However, as someone who works in a Central London university once a week, I..."

If you're talking about the shop in Tottenham Court Road then I agree. Mona Awad implies something similar through her references to Tom Cruise in Rouge but like here, since the particular group's recognised as a religion now can't actually say anything explicit.

Is that shop still there?


I used to walk past it in the late 70s and would always be invited in for "a personality test". Always declined. Only later discovering it was a Scientology place.

I would, however, sometimes say yes to the Hari Krishnas though who offered a free vegetarian lunch in their place off Soho Square in the same era. It may have been some grated carrot and cucumber but hey, it was free and I was a hungry teen

That is, indeed, the dubious shop to which I am referring!

Haha, we used to go to the Hare Krishna place all the time when I was a student - it was always delicious and they did ask for a donation of whatever you could afford which, as a student, wasn't much but they were very gracious all the same.

Is scientology recognised as a religion now?

Reminds me of a few years ago when I used to go to Cranks near Carnaby Street. LOVED Cranks....

Ooh yes, Cranks! Haven't thought of that in years.

I had a friend from law school who was captured/joined a religious cult. After a year his mother persuaded him to leave it and come home, but he was never the same afterwards.

But I'm not sure what the difference is between a religious cult and the other kinds. Maybe they seem less threatening to those who (nominally) share an adjacent religion. Or maybe more so. I don't really understand them, but then, there is a lot of group behaviour I don't understand!

I'm not sure what the difference is between religion and a cult. I mean, Christianity started off as a break-off cult built around a charismatic leader...

I don't mean to be disrespectful here, that is a genuine question. Does a cult become a religion when there are enough followers and it is officially recognised? Is that what's happened with scientology?

The religion/cult that has approached me the most are the Jehova's Witnesses. Unfailing smartly dressed and polite but totally bonkers to my mind. All those failed predictions for starters.

I've always been morbidly curious about religions invented in the United States. I can understand the aesthetic from an ironic or camp sensibility, particularly for the bevy of odd ones that sprang from Upstate NY in the late 1800s. But my impression is that most adherents approach it with a self-serious earnestness that just feels off to me.

When I used to use the Central Line I'd get invitations almost every day to come and join the bible reading group. Turns out they don't seem to like the Elizabeth Line so I'm safe now!

The only distinctions I can draw between cults and other organisations, whether religous or not, is the degree to which they demand the subordination of individual thinking to that of the leader, and the degree to which rational discussion and disagreement are allowed. But by that measure, some political parties at present qualify as cults.

I also went to the Hari Krishna place when I was a student too - in the hols anyway. And the Indian canteen fairly close by. Great veggie food.

R. C. Scientology was officially recognised as a religion in the UK back in 2013. There's a list of requirements that allowed it to qualify:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...

Although the hummus kebab and chips at the - technically Jewish but strictly secular - Gaby's Deli in Charing Cross Road was my go-to.

Ben wrote: " But by that measure, some political parties at present qualify as cults."

And that National Conservatism conference last week, funded by American right-wing Christian fundamentalists, which wants to put the bible at the centre of all culture, bring in strict gender differentiations and enforce heterosexual marriage for everyone with women in the home and having babies... Sounds like The Handmaid's Tale. Both Suella Braverman and Michael Gove attended, she gave a speech there.

Alwynne wrote: "I also went to the Hari Krishna place when I was a student too - in the hols anyway. And the Indian canteen fairly close by. Great veggie food."

I love the way we were all wandering around the same London streets - we were clearly fated to meet here! :))

Roman Clodia wrote: "Is scientology recognised as a religion now?"

By the IRS. So they are able to write off the vast sums they donate to the cult. They'll always be a cult to me.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "I also went to the Hari Krishna place when I was a student too - in the hols anyway. And the Indian canteen fairly close by. Great veggie food."

I love the way we were all wanderin..."

Definitely weird synchronicity at work! Although makes sense was traditionally a great area for bibliophiles.

I worked in and around Soho as a 16 year old messenger for a film company in the days they needed someone to travel to and from other places with cannisters of film

Cool job, Nigeyb!

I loved (still love) that whole area from Trafalgar Square up to Russell Square... or The National Gallery to the British Museum via Foyles and Chinatown. I was a student in Bloomsbury - loved those years!

I've started The Followers now and find it fascinating. The relationship between Judith and Stephanie is poignant, I feel for them both. Have just got to where Judith bottles the sex pest on the bus, cheered on by me! She's a fantastic character, and I like that Wait doesn't sentimentalise the mother-daughter relationship.

In response to Ben's comment above on Nathaniel: he clearly is perceived as charismatic by people around him - the other women in the cafe, as well as Stephanie and Thomas, the latter having an almost erotic response to him.

I like the structure too, not yet knowing exactly what Stephanie did to end up in prison, though I could make a guess.

Glad you are enjoying, RC. I loved it too. I agree that the women in the cafe were obviously flattered by his attentions. He was not seen as creepy but attractive and interesting.

Roman Clodia wrote: "In response to Ben's comment above on Nathaniel: he clearly is perceived as charismatic by people around him - the other women in the cafe, as well as Stephanie and Thomas, the latter having an almost erotic response to him."

My question to both you and Susan is what is the source of his magnetism. (Just asking for a friend 😉). I couldn't find it in the interactions. For me it was a case of Wait telling but not showing.

I did like the structure of the book, running the two time periods but keeping the mystery alive of how it all ended.

I've just arrived at The Ark so not that far in but I'd say one of Nathaniel's skills is his ability to read people and give them what they want - in a manipulative way, of course.

Stephanie wants to feel seen, she's adrift, lonely and purposeless. He's especially good at offering her the former, making her visible. And we can see how she changes immediately to please him: cleaning the house whenever he's coming around. It strikes me that the relationship between them shows all the red lights of a coercive or abusive relationship. He asks those leading questions about wanting to be happy that she has to agree to.

It's especially interesting that we have Judith as a dissenting view of him right from the start. There's clearly an element of her being jealous at him taking her mum away, but despite her age she's smart and more mature than Stephanie gives her credit for. So we see that his magnetism or charisma or whatever we call it is only works on certain people.

I think we've talked before about charismatic personalities in a psychological sense at some point? Hitler and Bill Clinton both fit the profile, did JFK as well? It can be difficult to understand on paper and only works in person. But I could see it in action when he targets Stephanie.

Ha, so the women stay in The Ark and do the preparing of breakfast and cleaning up while the men drive off to work... same old same old!

Also, Nathanial, of course, doesn't work at all, either in or outside the home. Just pontificates... Really the same old!

Charisma seems very much in the eyes of the beholder but I would have liked to see a literary portrayal of how it works in action, as in All the King’s Men.

Boris, Corbyn (“Oh Jeremy!”) and Trump seem like modern day examples. I can’t imagine serenading any leader but there do seem to be many willing followers who adore their men (usually, men) beyond reason.

Boris and Trump: probably yes, as unbelievable as it may seem to those of us with some sanity in our make-up!

But Jeremy Corbyn I don't think trades on any kind of personal magnetism - he's actually quite dull with his allotment and his jam making! I think his pull is his genuine passion and sincerity in all that he believes - quite startling in modern politics and that comes over in his public speeches. Personally, my problem with him is that I think he still sees the world as it was when he was younger, probably about the 1970s and hasn't caught up with the geo-politics of today.

But no, like you, I'm too sceptical and critical by nature to be in thrall to any leader. And yes, I was wondering too if there have been any female cult leaders - from the little I know it seems to be inextricably bound up with the male ego - just as religion is often the ultimate patriarchy ;)

Stephanie aka Sarah has just realised that she can't leave The Ark.

Yep, definitely all the markers of an abusive relationship: Nathaniel has separated her from the few acquaintances she had 'outside' and severed her from her mother. He's made her sell her house and possessions and seems to have taken that money as her contribution to being 'kept' so that she is now economically dependent on him. No mention of phones, TV, presumably this is pre-internet as Judith has a Game Boy?

Interesting too that Moses talks about the fear that he and the other children feel around Nathaniel hoping anxiously that he won't turn into punishment mode, and being relieved when he smiles and remains gentle. Very similar to all the testimonies from women who have been in abusive or violent relationships, that sense of walking on eggshells in order not to trigger the abuser's anger.

I'm at about 30% so going to post my predictions as a spoiler:

(view spoiler)[that either Stephanie kills Nathaniel in order to protect Judith - or that Judith, copying her biblical namesake, kills him and Stephanie takes the blame for her (hide spoiler)]

I don't want to spoil the spoiler, so it's wait and see time I think!

Is anyone else reading this or planning to? If so, I give warning that there are spoilers below from now!


This is interesting on how Nathaniel's power works with Stephanie: this is when she confronts him after learning he's sleeping with Esther and he tells her that she's still in thrall to all the wrong ideas of the world:

She couldn't pretend she wasn't distraught. But perhaps that was where this feeling of wrongness lay, not in what he was doing but in her reaction to it. If she could just get her reaction right perhaps things wouldn't feel so awful any more. She needed a moment to be alone, to think clearly again, but she knew she couldn't risk losing him when she'd come so far already, when she'd given up so much.

Lots to unpack here: Stephanie taking the onus upon herself to 'think rightly' about Nathaniel's infidelity. Acknowledgement that The Ark is set up so that there's no time to 'think clearly' with all the constant activity and praying and being watched. The desperation of that 'she couldn't risk losing him' so that she's prepared to accommodate whatever he wants to do, whatever the impact on herself, and that revealing concept of 'sunk costs', that she's already given up so much that the idea of rewinding and going back is too overwhelming.

I would guess one of the reasons why Stephanie is targeted is that she's unhappy, questioning her own value, lacking in confidence and self-respect, desperate to be loved and saved from herself. It's interesting that Judith isn't so easily manipulated and has such a strong sense of self.

One of the tactics that Nathaniel is using in this scene is wielding twisted logic, so overpowering Steph with his, presumably, better education.

I thought that paragraph was well done, although I don’t think that type of thinking is unique to a cult situation, but rather in any relationship where there is an imbalance of power and a controlling partner. But one thing I didn’t find credible is that Judith is able to maintain an independent perspective at such a young age. I would feel differently if she were 14 or older.

Yes, that's exactly my point about the red flags being similar to those of controlling or coercive or abusive relationships.

I also think Judith isn't credible as a 12 year old, but I've just aged her up a bit in my head!

It's less clear how Nathaniel exerts so much power over the men, specifically Thomas (ref to Doubting Thomas? a bit unsubtle, no?). I had been thinking that they're like the pack following the alpha leader and get to enjoy the women etc., but maybe that's a bit simplistic?

Oh, and what a surprise that we learn from Esther that Stephanie is very pretty - who'd have thought it, eh?!

Roman Clodia wrote: "Is anyone else reading this or planning to? If so, I give warning that there are spoilers below from now!


This is interesting on how Nathaniel's power works with Stephanie: this is when she confr..."

Thanks

Ah, my predictions were wrong!

I had expected that too.

It's dropped in quite late that Esther is beautiful - Nathaniel's harem?

I did wonder how everyone knows that Esther is infertile - has she been examined by a doctor?

Nathaniel remains an enigma to me - was he always a conman and arch-manipulator or did he start out with genuine religious belief and become corrupted by his own power? He certainly rules as much by fear as anything else. The closing down of thought by keeping people occupied all the time as well as colonizing their minds reminds me of the techniques exposed in 1984.

Ben, was this one of the reasons for your low rating that we don't get insight into Nathaniel?