(urth) Lupiverse(es)

[David Stockhoff]

On 3/15/2012 2:52 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:
> 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?

I think you're saying that "pointing" or expressing an ideology does not 
play a zero-sum game with artistry. I agree, and Wolfe proves that.

However, art involves asking honest questions. Historically, that has 
meant questioning received wisdom of various kinds, and even today we 
find it easier to swallow novels that tell us to watch out for 
illiberalism (Orwell; Atwood; Lessing; Le Guin) than the reverse. But I 
don't think it's just an accident: either you came by your beliefs 
honestly and you invite the reader into an attractive and rewarding game 
of questions with a level playing field, or you didn't and you don't.

Failure in one is failure in the other. And so it is that we do not 
discuss the novels of L. Ron Hubbard. (That and pacing and dialogue and ...)

Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age. This was partly 
because I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of 
all kinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism, and partly 
because once you "get it," nearly all the books after the first (or 
first three at least) turn to cardboard. Only the first is consistently 
told with a level of artistic ambiguity an adult can appreciate or tries 
(successfully) to capture the wonder of a child discovering literature 
and its intrinsic worth. By the time I reached the end of the last book, 
I was angry at Lewis for treating the dwarves the way he did simply 
because the rigid blueprint for his story needed scapegoats: if you have 
a Last Judgment, you have to have some bodies to throw into the flaming 
pit. Fuck that.

So maybe your creative writing teacher is actually judging Lewis on his 
artistic merits after all, not just her culturally-programmed aversion 
response. It may be difficult for her to tell the difference, herself. 
But do you really think Lewis's main strengths (or intentions) were 
literary? No more than Tolkien's, I think.

i am quite sure Wolfe does not get high or condone the use of 
recreational drugs. But I'd like to see him write a story that would 
meet a drug czar's requirements for a suitable antidrug message! I would 
read it anyway, but it would never happen---and if it did, the joke 
would be on them, I'm sure.