I wonder...

ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus · 18 Jan 2003, 10:35 · 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: "ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus" <zibethicus at hotmail.com>
Subject: (urth) I wonder...
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:35:39 +0000
Message-ID: <urth-v0301-2694 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0301/2694.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You have provoked me into public musing...

The way _I_ read TAD, there was no suggestion that Green was necessarily=20
going to his death.  As to the general issue of the 'reality' of the=20
Goddess, if I remember correctly, Mr. Wolfe stated in I/V that he felt that=20
the Greek gods in the Soldier series were _real_ enough, all right, but not=20
necessarily gods per se...something which the late Mr. Lafferty also=20
declared in 'Fourth Mansions'...

Altogether, it makes me wonder about how much of an author's religious=20
outlook we should be reading into their fiction, assuming they have declare=
d=20
an explicit outlook...

>from where
>Lewis sat, it would seem quite important - the difference
>between harmless or even "wholesome" fabulation and heresy, in fact.

A very important difference, I would say...but, in the juvenile Narnia=20
fictions, he has Tash as a god in 'The Last Battle', a _real_ god as I read=20
it - at any rate, he exterminates someone who has called on him in vain -=20
but an evil god.  My reading, anyway...perhaps the confusion here is betwee=
n=20
the terms 'god' and 'deity'?  Should we define, Socratically, before=20
proceeding further?

>It includes the Inklings' work (Williams too)

Finally!  Someone who remembers that Williams was there!  And this helps to=20
make my point a little clearer; in 'The Place of the Lion', Williams has -=20
more-or-less, and speaking very loosely - certain Jungian 'archetypes' (I'm=20
starting to dislike that word) come to life, and examines their effect upon=20
a community.  Does this make Williams any less of a sincere Christian,=20
although it is hardly orthodox theology?  (We shall pass over his early=20
membership of the Golden Dawn in judicious silence...)

>I believe Wolfe is writing WITHIN that tradition.

I don't know whether Mr. Wolfe's works fit neatly within a single framework=
.=20
  From my reading of them, I would guess that he is indulging in speculativ=
e=20
fiction - he advances many ideas, 'good', 'bad', and otherwise, for the sak=
e=20
of their fictive value rather than for specifically theological purposes pe=
r=20
se.  I would imagine that Mr. Wolfe, like C S Lewis, would be quite capable=20
of writing a theological text if he so desired.

And I would further suspect that dealing with religious issues and question=
s=20
in and through fiction is a very different process to that of the=20
advancement of theological opinion...at least, for authors of deep religiou=
s=20
faith...

>Incidentally, I'm always surprised at how often people claim to have >been
>convinced of the Gospel by CSL's non-fiction. I've found his fiction (for
>example, "Til We Have Faces") to be so much more compelling.

Without wishing in any way to hurt the feelings of any of the Christians on=20
this list, I feel obliged to say that I, personally, find both CSL's fictio=
n=20
and non-fiction less than compelling on this matter...purely personal=20
opinion of a non-Christian religious person...  I have read the story of hi=
s=20
gradual journey to belief, and find that, in itself, much more interesting=20
than the subsequent statements, but I, personally, find his after-death=20
appearance to an unsuspecting Christian minister who had been an=20
acquaintance in his life to be the most interesting thing he ever did=20
regarding religion, if you will allow that 'he' did it...

->Zx<-
____________________________________________________________

Consciousness will always be one degree above comprehensibility.

- G.C.H. Ehrensvard
____________________________________________________________

Weep at least once to see God.

- Sri Ramakrishna

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*=20
http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/virus

--=20

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