(urth) Lupiverse(es)

Thu Mar 15 15:42:26 PDT 2012

Let me put this way:
I think Rose/Marble/Molybdenum and Silk/Horn/Rajan *rationalize* the 
Trinity. They examine how a person can be three-in-one. These are good 
instances for my current purpose because the very fact that these 
persons are three is in dispute.  So, it is not a primary goal in these 
stories for Wolfe to *prove* that the Trinity is reasonable. The 
Mainframe vs possession versions of Kypris nicely demonstrate the 
incarnation. It's why, I think, Wolfe spends so much time explaining the 
mechanics of how it works. But Kypris is not intended to be Wolfe's 
"Jesus". Nor is the Short Sun Magnesia or the Rajan "God".

Wolfe does not map to his own theology close enough to his worlds so 
that you could re-build Christianity or Catholicism from his writings. 
The allusions only work as far as they go. No farther. So I seriously 
doubt Wolfe cares about things "well would Wolfe really create a world 
in which the Catholic Church had become a figure of only etymology and 
myth"? Sure he would.
J.

On 3/15/2012 1:52 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:urth at urth.net>
>     Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120315/32ee9e0b/attachment-0004.htm>