DOORS: The Hero, The Otherworld, The Ending

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 17 Jan 2003, 16:39 · from urth-v0301.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: RE: (urth) DOORS: The Hero, The Otherworld, The Ending
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:39:01 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0301-2680 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0301/2680.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> >> 1. Lewis wasn't a Catholic and would have been very annoyed at you=3D20
> >> for suggesting he was.
>=3D20
> No, he was a Mere Christian.=3D20

No, he was a high-church Anglican. He wrote about "mere=3D20
Christianity" because he (correctly) regarded the "basics"
of the Christian faith as more important than the differences
between the various denominations. (In fact, he had somewhat
hostile attitudes towards Catholicism, though _not_ towards=3D20
Catholics.)

> But he wrote CATHOLIC FABULATION.   Which is
> essentially science fiction that presumes the Catholic God=3D20
> really, objectively, exists, and sort of goes on from there.

You here conflate the terms "Catholic" and "Christian." While
"Catholic" is a sub-set of "Christian," it does not therefore
follow that all Christian fabulation is Catholic.=3D20

> >> 2. The Eldila and the Valar are not "local gods"; they're  angelic=3D20
> >> powers, pure and simple.
>=3D20
> Within the constraints of CF this is the only possibility. =3D20
> There is only one God.   But the lesser angels start looking
> like little gods.

... if little gods is what you are inclined to see, yes. I
believe that you are viewing these Christian fabulists through
the spectacles of your own inclinations, whatever those may
be.

> You will find that Lewis attributes the term "god" to his=3D20
> Oyarses in full knowledge of the fact that the medaeval=3D20
> syncretists did exactly the same - calling each tutelary=3D20
> angel a "god" and identifying it with the classical figure.

Mmm. I don't know enough about "tutelary angels" to answer
this. I am quite certain, however, that Lewis's use of the
term "gods" wrt the Oyarses was not intended to suggest that
they were gods, but that humans would take them for gods. A
niggling difference, perhaps, from where you sit; from where
Lewis sat, it would seem quite important - the difference
between harmless or even "wholesome" fabulation and heresy,=3D20
in fact. -- note that I do not argue that your point of view
is "wrong," only that one shouldn't attribute its views and
conclusions to Lewis (Tolkien, etc.).

> It is really illuminating to consider Wolfe's work and in=3D20
> particular his treatment of "gods" through the prism of=3D20
> Tolkien and Lewis

With this, at least, I have no quarrel -- even agree. Wolfe
_is_ working in a kind of tradition that would include all
four of the writers you name.

=3D20
> 3. Friday is pretty clearly not a "little god" but God.
>=3D20
> Sunday, surely?     Well, maybe you are right there.

Duuuh. Terminal brainfart. Yes, Sunday.

--Dan'l

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net