(urth) Lupiverse(es)

[Daniel Petersen]

Yes, said better than I did.  However, now I'm wanting to qualify:  let's
not de-fang the Wolfe.  He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge him that.  If
some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her
work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and
somehow morally commendable.  But when a Christian author does the same
with their faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should
definitely be open-ended, etc.  As I say, I do think Wolfe is marvelously
generous and humble about 'sharing' his faith in his fiction (to reduce a
very complex artistry to a cliche - apologies), but I do think his overall
body of work is fairly clearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism
being true and good and the 'way of salvation'.  AND THAT'S FINE.  (Mind,
that an 'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should
be drawing my dagger.)  It would have been just as fine if the work had
pointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever.  An
author is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such
trajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a real
respect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly viewpoints.

It's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any
other writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any
*definite* Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative
writing instructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once
she discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out
to be Christian in theme.  If she had a beef with the artistry that would
be completely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of
the 'religious faith' the works evinced.  In my opinion, that is not a good
reason to dislike a work.  I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing
because it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully
wrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because
it is barely discernible and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I
abhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message'
is smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'.  If
a work of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's
worldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that?
 Why should any of us?

PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:
I'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept
ambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that
HIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out.  I'm
beginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the
debate here.  If so, I think it mistaken.  We could easily accept that his
work points this way and the discussion and analysis would be FAR from done
with - so very far.  If that's not the case and people are arguing for a
non-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of Wolfe because they genuinely
see the evidence pointing that way - and if they became convinced
otherwise, they would NOT then abandon the discussion - then that is, of
course, very different.  No one needs my stamp of approval for anything I
realise.  I'm just airing this opinion.

-DOJP

2012/3/15 António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

> I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors
> present their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and
> irritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely,
> aware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way the author wants them to
> so they will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon
> their worldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't
> think one needs to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even
> find them interesting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe
> is not writing books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics,
> at all. Wolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic
> ideals are vindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his
> perspective on religion poses certain questions and provides certain
> answers, and he tries to build on that in order to weave more questions and
> a number of equally valid answers into his work. If you happen to share his
> beliefs, you'll find that certain questions and answers resonate and lead
> you to an increased appreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't,
> you're only losing because you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't
> have, not because someone is locking you out or trying to influence you.
> I'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know
> Tolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe
> - though I also see a lot of differences.
>
>
> No dia 14/03/2012, às 22:36, Daniel Petersen <
> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's
> where you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card
> (is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I
> say it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way.  I, at least, have found a
> richly rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia'
> and 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the
> likes of Chesterton or Lewis) *IN THE TEXTS* of the Solar Cycle, an
> invitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they
> ever so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other
> systems (e.g. from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog'
> sort of way (for those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully).  [Akin to
> St Paul's 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:13-19&version=NIV>
> .]
>
> I believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the
> 'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce.
>  But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to
> acknowledge them.
>
> I hope to write about it in more detail some day...
>
> -DOJP
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20120315/538c435d/attachment-0004.htm>