The Kingdom

Okay. OKAY. This was an interesting ride. And I honestly don???t know any other term to describe it except that. 
First things first: the author is VERY egotistical. Like, his ego is large as a planet and it permeates EVERY SINGLE THING in this book. The ENTIRE FIRST FOURTH of the book is just him explaining (though some might argue he???s actually just whining) about how he fell into a deep Catholic fervor for around two years before he drifted out of it after a while. 
But, once one gets past this part (or even while reading it), one will also have to deal with the author???s many prejudices, including: misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, fatphobia, ableism, and imperialism. These, on top of the author???s aforementioned ego, will DEFINITELY grind on a reader who tries to get into this based solely on the premise that the book???s blurbs present: that this is a book about the history of the early Church. 
If the above two points don???t make a reader drop the book, then this third one probably will: the author???s utter disregard scholarly responsibility. Oh sure, at first it seems like he cares about it, but it quickly becomes clear that he doesn???t really give a damn. He constantly throws out pronouncements that will read like he???s stating fact, when he really, really isn???t. He also has a tendency to pick and choose which version of an idea or theory he prefers, and THEN puts that forward as fact, just because he likes the way it comes together in his head, or supports some prejudice he has, or some other, silly reason that will definitely raise the blood pressure of any scholars who read this book, no matter which subject they study. 
There is a moment in the book where, after he claims to have read all the important texts related to early Church history, he says that, like a chef who???s read many cookbooks, he is now ready to do away with the experts and write what he wants. Which, if the reader approaches this book as a nonfiction piece of work - and it certainly feels like it at the beginning - will be utterly rage-inducing because who the hell claims to have read EVERYTHING in terms of scholarly documentation? This is especially true when it comes to a subject like history, which is constantly changing and being updated as discoveries are made and previous evidence is adjusted and altered. 
Which brings me to the question of narrative style. This book reads A LOT like nonfiction: like an autobiography at first, and then nonfictional history of the early Church. But there???s a reason why this book is categorized as “fiction”: precisely because of the author???s aforementioned tendencies to play VERY fast and loose with facts, both about himself and the story he???s trying to tell about Church history. For a while I contemplated calling the narrative slightly Borgesian, because Borges does a similar thing with his writing where he blurs the edges of the fictional and the nonfictional, but I quickly withdrew that notion. The comparison would be an insult to Borges??? work, not least because his technique is far more subtle than what???s going on here. 
Honestly I think the best way to actually get through this book is to think of it as absolutely fictional instead of nonfictional. As in: do not even consider the facts to be facts, just presume they???re all made up. When I started viewing the book that way it became a bit more tolerable because then I could consider the author/narrator as a fictional entity, instead of a real life person who is also an absolute shithead. This also has the benefit of making all the scholarship-related bullshit a bit more tolerable too, because then one can approach the material in the same way one would a historical novel: with some grace to allow for artistic license. 
But despite ALL OF THAT, there is something very compelling about this book, and it has to do with reading how the author grapples with his Catholic faith. It???s fascinating to read how the author goes from falling in, then out, of love with Catholicism, and how he basically uses this entire book to wrestle with how he feels about it, struggling to come to a conclusion about how to answer the question: ???Do you believe in God???? 
Overall, this is definitely a read that will require immense patience, and many readers will give up within one-fourth of the book, maybe even after the first five chapters. But for readers who decide to be stubborn mules about it and hang in there (if for no other reason than they don???t want to be beaten by this asshole of an author), they might find a read that???s complicated and also interesting. There is PLENTY to dislike about this book, very many reasons to put it down before I actually finished it, but as I said, it???s immensely compelling. I attribute that a little bit to the writing style itself (which is a credit to both the author and - especially - to the translator), but I think the main reason I stuck around to the end is because I???m a lapsed Catholic myself and related, in some small way, to what the author was going through when he was struggling with his faith. The final line is the answer to his main question of ???Do you believe in God????, and I have to say: it???s an answer I agree with.