During the reading of this book, I couldn't put it down. It is very compeling. I wanted to stop the process of discovery by Nan on several occasions and also wanted to change the outcome on many occasions. However, it was interesting that I felt that the two women characterizing good and evil were both very likeable. In fact 'good' was a little icky at times and this turned me aside from her wishes. It is a very interesting book that takes some consideration and self-discovery. I liked it.

Arleen Lorrance has written a magnificently complex, spellbinding novel, set in our nation's capital, though nonpolitical. It has a main, moralistically challenging theme of good vs. evil, with several sub-themes, including the subtleties of relationships and how a political city responds to nonpolitically oriented events.
The author calls her work a spiritual thriller, focused on the unfolding conflict between two lifelong activist female friends, doing good deeds until rebellious Nan hears that their supposedly conservative minister has "gotten away" with at least one evil act committed against their female friend in the church.
This discovery incites Nan to start experimenting, doing evil acts (some illegal; others just anti-social) to see if she will be punished or get away with them like her minister. She also wants to know if evil is actually stronger than good, as embodied by her friend Martha. The latter is typically bewildered by her friend's negative acts which often target her, usually blocking Martha's efforts to continue doing good, plus straining their otherwise strong relationship.
The plot has a number of unexpected twists and turns at many levels, including the sub-themes involving other characters. The latter are brilliantly and intricately intertwined with the main theme and the two main characters, making it difficult to put the book down.
As a psychologically trained Marriage and Family Counselor, I was impressed also by the author's insights into the characters' development from childhood, including their complex motivations as manifested in the inner workings of their relationships.
To find out whether good or evil wins, plus how Nan and Martha's relationship struggle is resolved, not to mention discovering insights into your own moral structure and value, read The Two.
I give it my highest recommendation.

In her first novel, Arleen Lorrance takes on the theme of good and evil in a nonpolitical context, yet the story addresses the very dilemma in which the world is caught today. The title The Two apparently refers to good and evil, or so the powerful Escher drawing on the cover suggests. But it could also refer to the two main characters, ordinary women in their forties, best friends for a lifetime, who engage with the question of good and evil because of their dedication to matters spiritual.
Nan and Martha are both activists who have devoted their lives to bringing about good in the world around them. When they determine to penetrate the meaning of a phrase an Indian swami used-that good and evil are equal-they find themselves living out their exploration rather than just thinking about it.
The reader is caught up in the drama from the beginning, because these women are not by nature evil. Yet Nan determines to act out the evil polarity while her best friend Martha continues to embody the good. Is one more powerful than the other, or are good and evil truly equal in power? That is the question Nan and Martha live out, and it is the question the reader is compelled to ask self. Suspense is sustained to the end, even as the reader inevitably takes sides and hopes or prays that her side will win.
Perhaps what is most gripping about the story is that these women are ordinary, educated, upper middleclass, fine people. It is easy to identify with them. Yet as Nan pursues her quest, it is hard not to find yourself fighting with her, criticizing her, and in the end even hating her. As a reader wanting to stand on the side of good, it is easy to end up saying, "I could have killed Nan." Who is the pot and who is the kettle?
This book is hard to put down. It so gets hold of your emotions and calls all your naïve idealism into question that even after you finish the book you go on arguing with it. It is impossible to think about the central issue - are good and evil equal? - in purely theoretical terms. Instead, you will find yourself examining your own thoughts, feelings and actions, wondering, "which side am I really on," and "are there really two sides, or are the two actually one?"
The author calls this a spiritual novel. In fact, most people interested in living a "spiritual" life would probably prefer not to wrestle with such a fundamental question. Many new age spiritual movements make it a practice to focus only on the light and good, and to avoid the darkness and evil at all costs. The Two does not allow the reader that luxury. It presents a viewpoint more aligned with the Principle of Polarity taught by the ancient Hermetic philosophy, which says that apparent opposites are actually the same, differing only in degree. And perhaps it is in that principle that the reader, and the world citizen of this twenty-first century, can find hope. It declares that all truths are really half-truths and therefore the pairs of opposites may be reconciled by those who acknowledge that wholeness emerges when the two become one.
Read The Two and ask yourself if you are willing to embrace both good and evil in order to live in a world based on what is real rather than on half-truths.