<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>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.</span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>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.<br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo@gmail.com><br> <b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> The Urth Mailing List <urth@lists.urth.net> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:19 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)<br> </font> </div> <br>Hear, hear!<br><br>On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Daniel Petersen<br><<a ymailto="mailto:danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com" href="mailto:danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com">danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Yes, said better than I did. However, now I'm wanting to qualify: let's<br>> not de-fang the Wolfe. He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge him that. If<br>> some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her work,<br>> so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and<br>> somehow morally commendable. But when a Christian author does the same with<br>> their
faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should<br>> definitely be open-ended, etc. As I say, I do think Wolfe is marvelously<br>> generous and humble about 'sharing' his faith in his fiction (to reduce a<br>> very complex artistry to a cliche - apologies), but I do think his overall<br>> body of work is fairly clearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism<br>> being true and good and the 'way of salvation'. AND THAT'S FINE. (Mind,<br>> that an 'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should<br>> be drawing my dagger.) It would have been just as fine if the work had<br>> pointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever. An<br>> author is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such<br>> trajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a real<br>> respect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly
viewpoints.<br>><br>> It's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any other<br>> writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any *definite*<br>> Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative writing<br>> instructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once she<br>> discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out to be<br>> Christian in theme. If she had a beef with the artistry that would be<br>> completely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of the<br>> 'religious faith' the works evinced. In my opinion, that is not a good<br>> reason to dislike a work. I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing<br>> because it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully<br>> wrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because<br>> it is barely discernible and
I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I<br>> abhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message'<br>> is smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. If a<br>> work of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's<br>> worldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that?<br>> Why should any of us?<br>><br>> PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:<br>> I'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept<br>> ambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that<br>> HIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. I'm<br>> beginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the<br>> debate here. If so, I think it mistaken. We could easily accept that his<br>> work points this way and the discussion and analysis would be
FAR from done<br>> with - so very far. If that's not the case and people are arguing for a<br>> non-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of Wolfe because they genuinely<br>> see the evidence pointing that way - and if they became convinced otherwise,<br>> they would NOT then abandon the discussion - then that is, of course, very<br>> different. No one needs my stamp of approval for anything I realise. I'm<br>> just airing this opinion.<br>><br>> -DOJP<br>><br>> 2012/3/15 António Pedro Marques <<a ymailto="mailto:entonio@gmail.com" href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com">entonio@gmail.com</a>><br>>><br>>> I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors<br>>> present their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and<br>>> irritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely,<br>>> aware of it or not, watch them unfold in the
way the author wants them to so<br>>> they will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon their<br>>> worldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't think one<br>>> needs to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even find them<br>>> interesting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe is not<br>>> writing books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics, at all.<br>>> Wolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic ideals are<br>>> vindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his perspective on<br>>> religion poses certain questions and provides certain answers, and he tries<br>>> to build on that in order to weave more questions and a number of equally<br>>> valid answers into his work. If you happen to share his beliefs, you'll find<br>>> that certain questions and answers resonate and lead you
to an increased<br>>> appreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't, you're only losing<br>>> because you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't have, not because<br>>> someone is locking you out or trying to influence you.<br>>> I'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know<br>>> Tolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe<br>>> - though I also see a lot of differences.<br>>><br>>><br>>> No dia 14/03/2012, às 22:36, Daniel Petersen<br>>> <<a ymailto="mailto:danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com" href="mailto:danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com">danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com</a>> escreveu:<br>>><br>>> Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's<br>>> where you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card (is<br>>> that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a
clearly spiritual (and, dare I say<br>>> it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. I, at least, have found a richly<br>>> rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and<br>>> 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the likes<br>>> of Chesterton or Lewis) IN THE TEXTS of the Solar Cycle, an invitational and<br>>> 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly<br>>> idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g.<br>>> from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for<br>>> those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). [Akin to St Paul's 'cosmic<br>>> judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15.]<br>>><br>>> I believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the<br>>> 'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly
intend to induce.<br>>> But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to<br>>> acknowledge them.<br>>><br>>> I hope to write about it in more detail some day...<br>>><br>>> -DOJP<br>>><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Urth Mailing List<br>>> To post, write <a ymailto="mailto:urth@urth.net" href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>>> Subscription/information: <a href="http://www.urth.net" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><br>><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Urth Mailing List<br>> To post, write <a ymailto="mailto:urth@urth.net" href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>> Subscription/information: <a href="http://www.urth.net" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><br><br><br><br>-- <br>Dan'l
Danehy-Oakes<br>_______________________________________________<br>Urth Mailing List<br>To post, write <a ymailto="mailto:urth@urth.net" href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>Subscription/information: <a href="http://www.urth.net" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>