I very much wanted to like this book, but ultimately, it is boring and I was not engaged by the journey of the narrator. The writing seems forced and the story comes off as far too formal and removed to be in any way relatable.

My own relation is complicated, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying stories about characters that are religious, and relating to them. If they are well-written. Which this book is not. Spencer's struggles with his faith just don't feel convincing because when he talks about them, he sounds like an alien who only has a rough idea what human emotions are.

<blockquote>My own world, so stilted, so formal, so subsumed by an almost desperate need to be seen as reserved, felt like so many shades of grey beside Donald's world of vibrant colors and mercurial emotions. Was I so much a creature of the grey world that I couldn't indulge in—well, in indulgence? </blockquote>

Yes. Your own world is indeed very stilted. So stilted that I really don't care about it.

And when he's not struggling with his face in a totally natural and relatable way, he's interpreting plays. No, seriously. Pages of this book read like excerpts from term papers on <i>Equus</i> and <i>Sleuth</i>. I mean, I have discovered some interesting books because they were mentioned in other books, but those didn't read like the author thought it was a shame that all the work they did for a uni-course would only catch dust in a storeroom somewhere.

<blockquote> The character Alan Strang seems to have had a passionate (in every sense of the word) relationship with horses and with Jesus. With God. With God as Equus. If that sounds confusing, well... Strang was confused. And he seems to have confused the hell out of his psychiatrist, Martin Dysart, who was thrown into confusion about his own role in life and his own relationship with religion in general and God in particular. Dysart had questions like, could religious passion be good? If not, was it the fault of religion or the religious? Could Dysart lead young Strang out of the darkness of his twisted creed and into the light?</blockquote>

Who cares? Not me.

<blockquote>"He saw Equus as a God figure, and yet he came all over it. Does that strike you as depraved?"</blockquote>

It mostly strikes me as dull, for I did not pick up this book because I wanted to find out what the author thought about some random play.

But there's not only literature class coursework. There's also bible study discussion questions:

<blockquote>What I wanted to believe, based on those verses from Matthew, was that my feelings for Donald were like a window into the incomprehensibly massive Presence that is God. Isn't that why God came to us as Jesus? So that humans, with our limited capacities, could have a personal aspect of God to relate to? </blockquote>

There is actually a good question hiding behind the verbatiousness that would make Cat Valente yell "Stop please! You're overdoing it!" but I was rolling my eyes too hard at the phrasing to care.

And the whole book is like that. Very little plot, a lot of characters sounding like the mouthpiece of the author who is imparting her wisdom about faith and English literature.

And of course there's this sentence:

<blockquote>I felt my erection as it tried to escape from the captivity of my jeans, of my inhibitions, of my fears and of my father's disdain.</blockquote>

I really could have spared myself and you this whole review and just quoted this sentence. It tells you everything you need to know about this book.