(urth) Lupiverse(es)

Thu Mar 15 16:46:13 PDT 2012

Yep. I'm not Catholic, but it doesn't really matter. I don't like Wolfe because I *believe* him or have to share his worldview. I'm not looking to have myself confirmed in someone else's fiction.

But those who read him with a real eye for a kind of esoteric knowledge or even for certain gnostic insights might. But those readings also often overlook the story in favor of the background.

________________________________
 From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)

Hear, hear!

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Daniel Petersen
<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> 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>
>>
>> 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.]
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
_______________________________________________
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/20120315/3f2a981d/attachment-0004.htm>