FIND in
<--prev V301 next-->
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.
> 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

> 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.
> 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

> 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.

> 3. Friday is pretty clearly not a "little god" but God.
> Sunday, surely?     Well, maybe you are right there.

Duuuh. Terminal brainfart. Yes, Sunday.



<--prev V301 next-->