Subject: RE: (urth) DOORS: The Hero, The Otherworld, The Ending Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:39:01 -0700 From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes"
> >> 1. Lewis wasn't a Catholic and would have been very annoyed at you=20 > >> for suggesting he was. >=20 > No, he was a Mere Christian.=20 No, he was a high-church Anglican. He wrote about "mere=20 Christianity" because he (correctly) regarded the "basics" of the Christian faith as more important than the differences between the various denominations. (In fact, he had somewhat hostile attitudes towards Catholicism, though _not_ towards=20 Catholics.) > But he wrote CATHOLIC FABULATION. Which is > essentially science fiction that presumes the Catholic God=20 > really, objectively, exists, and sort of goes on from there. You here conflate the terms "Catholic" and "Christian." While "Catholic" is a sub-set of "Christian," it does not therefore follow that all Christian fabulation is Catholic.=20 > >> 2. The Eldila and the Valar are not "local gods"; they're angelic=20 > >> powers, pure and simple. >=20 > Within the constraints of CF this is the only possibility. =20 > There is only one God. But the lesser angels start looking > like little gods. ... if little gods is what you are inclined to see, yes. I believe that you are viewing these Christian fabulists through the spectacles of your own inclinations, whatever those may be. > You will find that Lewis attributes the term "god" to his=20 > Oyarses in full knowledge of the fact that the medaeval=20 > syncretists did exactly the same - calling each tutelary=20 > angel a "god" and identifying it with the classical figure. Mmm. I don't know enough about "tutelary angels" to answer this. I am quite certain, however, that Lewis's use of the term "gods" wrt the Oyarses was not intended to suggest that they were gods, but that humans would take them for gods. A niggling difference, perhaps, from where you sit; from where Lewis sat, it would seem quite important - the difference between harmless or even "wholesome" fabulation and heresy,=20 in fact. -- note that I do not argue that your point of view is "wrong," only that one shouldn't attribute its views and conclusions to Lewis (Tolkien, etc.). > It is really illuminating to consider Wolfe's work and in=20 > particular his treatment of "gods" through the prism of=20 > Tolkien and Lewis With this, at least, I have no quarrel -- even agree. Wolfe _is_ working in a kind of tradition that would include all four of the writers you name. =20 > 3. Friday is pretty clearly not a "little god" but God. >=20 > Sunday, surely? Well, maybe you are right there. Duuuh. Terminal brainfart. Yes, Sunday. --Dan'l --