DOORS: The Hero, The Otherworld, The Ending

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 17 Jan 2003, 17:43 · 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 10:43:36 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0301-2684 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0301/2684.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I should explain that reading C S Lewis's books converted me=3D20
> to Christianity when I was young (but I got better) , and I=3D20
> was an obsessive fan of Lewis, Tolkien and the Inklings for years.

Those books, and especially "Mere Christianity," preserved me in=3D20
Christian faith at a time when I was particularly prone to falling
off. I find them far less, ah, persuasive now, but they served
their purpose at the time.

> I think, however, that you are fearing a word here.

Perhaps. I think, rather, that I am attempting to use words=3D20
clearly. Words tend to get in between us and "reality," but=3D20
we can minimize that by using them carefully (and remembering
not to let them use us).

> When Lewis wrote (at the triumphant climax of PERELANDRA)=3D20
> that his hero was no longer going to regard Malacandra and=3D20
> Perelandra as eldilia, but as "Mars and Venus" I believe he=3D20
> fully understood everything that you are worried about and more.
>=3D20
> I invite you to reread that bit.

Well, I agree with what you say, and while I disagree with
your interpretation of it, I don't think the list at large
probably cares very much, so I'll drop it at this point.

> Whether or not this is heresy does not concern me, much.=3D20

This was not my point; nor do I (as a practicing Catholic)
necessarily consider it heresy. My point was that _Lewis_,
who was far more conservative than I, would have considered
it heresy, and so a liberal dose of caution is indicated=3D20
prior to attributing such a view to him.

> I am an Asatruistic pagan nowadays :).

And I don't even know what that means. Neither the dictionary
nor Google helped me any.

> What I am trying to explain by the coinage "Catholic=3D20
> Fabulation" is that there is a tradition of storytelling that=3D20
> runs along these lines.
>=3D20
> It includes the Inklings' work (Williams too) but does NOT =3D20
> include such unambiguously religious works  as, for example, =3D20
> A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWIZT

I suppose I'm quibbling about the word "Catholic" because
it seems confining - you point out Williams, and I agree;
I might add Tim Powers and James Blaylock as writers who=3D20
have worked in this tradition. Possibly Connie Willis, but
that may be pushing your intent.=3D20

And the point of my quibble is that the word "Catholic" is
so strongly associated, in most peoples' minds, with the
Roman Catholic church that -- well, that I didn't even feel
a need to say "Roman" when I identified my own denominational
association above. It seems better to use the word (mere)=3D20
Christian to avoid confusion - for, again, clarity.

> The difference lies in the treatment of the supernatural.
>=3D20
> CF embraces the supernatural and **enables** it:
>=3D20
> It occurs in the stories, but in drag, in disguise.
>=3D20
> The keynote is that angels or demons or gods pop up and they=3D20
> pretend to be aliens.  God pops up, but he pretends to be The=3D20
> Increate or The Emperor Over The Sea.
>=3D20
> I believe Wolfe is writing WITHIN that tradition.

Nothing here I'd even begin to disagree with. You've identified
the elements of a tradition that (as you say) goes back a long
way. However, this ...

> I furthur believe it goes back a long way - and that it is a=3D20
> very European tradition, enforced by the historical fact that=3D20
> the ancient giants and gods and fairies had to be fitted into=3D20
> a dominating Semitic/Christian framework.

while related, seems to be almost the reverse process: where=3D20
CF (I like the initials, they're usefully ambiguous 8*) )=3D20
disguises Christian entities as "naturalistic" entities --=3D20
eg, angels as aliens -- the older syncretism disguised non-
Christian entities as Christian entities -- e.g, a goddess
as St. Brigid.

> It occurs in many Arthurian romances, for example, where the=3D20
> ancient Celtic legends have to be jammed ino the framework of=3D20
> Christian explanation:  and so in Beowulf.

I think what's going on in Beowulf is a bit more complex --
if you've read "The Monsters and the Critics?" To do with
the poetic expression of a transitional period when the=3D20
culture had nominally adopted Christianity but was still=3D20
largely pagan in outlook, language, and traditions.

> Tolkien reflexed back on this - he was in love with "The=3D20
> Northern Thing" like Lewis, but he had to fit it within "The=3D20
> Southermn Thing" - Christianity - as a worldview.      Wolfe
> is doing the same thing and may be taking both Tolkien and
> Lewis as mentors.

Again, I should not be the least surprised. He could do
far worse.

--Blattid

--=20

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