<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Let me put this way:<br>
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".<br>
<br>
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.<br>
J.<br>
<br>
On 3/15/2012 1:52 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGB0RZ7E8EE3e_kUjTQK2Q-5QiZkQRKzAFoq2+-22tuZMFbCOQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>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? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:</div>
<div>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.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>-DOJP<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2012/3/15 António Pedro Marques <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com">entonio@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>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.</div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
No dia 14/03/2012, às 22:36, Daniel Petersen <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com"
target="_blank">danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com</a>>
escreveu:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">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) <b><i>IN THE TEXTS</i></b> 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 <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:13-19&version=NIV"
target="_blank">Colossians 2:15</a>.]
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope to write about it in more detail some
day...
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-DOJP</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Urth Mailing List<br>
To post, write <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>
Subscription/information: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.urth.net" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a>
Subscription/information: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.urth.net">http://www.urth.net</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>