15960Re: [mythsoc] Re: A washingtonpost.com article from: email@example.com
- Dec 6, 2005On Dec 5, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Its a month...guess. wrote:
> Goodness. I really don't give a rat's you-know-what about the man'sIt's easy for us in the US to ignore it, because Lewis's reputation
> religious beliefs. I didn't even know he was Christian until I was
> involved in a church a few years back. An now I couldn't care less,
> he's just a prolific writer and isn't that all that matters. the man
> write's fiction. If it has a christian foundation, so what? We all
> write from what we know and that will show. It surprises me that it's
> such a big deal in Briton that he's a Christian. I'm deffinantly not
> one, but I can turn aside his excellent writing based on the man's
> religious views.
over here was mainly as an author and a scholar (if you ignore his
appearance on the cover of TIME, and that was a v. long time ago and
long since forgotten). In England he was mainly known as a
broadcaster, and one almost exclusively focused on conservative (not
to say reactionary) Christian issues. Some people have long memories,
and they're not going to approach CSL's novels from a neutral
position but based on what they've heard of him from the past, the
cliches they've inherited from their parents and grandparents. For
example, suppose Pat Robertson were a talented poet as well as a
telvangelist: the number of people who'd read his poems a generation
or two from now with an open mind, not caring about his calls for us
to assassinate foreign leaders, is relatively few. Similarly, if
Michael Moore were a talented painter, odds are that only people who
agreed (more or less) with his political or economic views would be
open to looking at his art; those who despise him simply wouldn't be
interested. There are people even now who won't read Ezra Pound
because of his political and social views (although oddly enough most
are willing to overlook his having committed high treason during WWII).
Or, to put it another way, Lewis makes it hard for a reader to
ignore his religion and thus gets judged, for good or bad, by how
much that reader agrees with him on theological detail. Tolkien
worked hard to keep his religion off center stage and thus more
easily appeals across a wider spectrum.
> It's not like he wrote the bible!No, but when you have hyperbole such as Kreeft's saying LWW ranks
alongside the four gospels, or claims such as Wagner's that CSL is
"the most influential Christian since Martin Luther", it's easy to
see why those who consider him an okay author get impatient and
overreact. Annoying, but not surprising. It's certainly been my
impression that Pullman's rants have ramped up in direct proportion
to the recent puffing of CSL in connection with the film.
> This isn't meant to be against the orignal poster. Just my thoughtsSame here.
> . . .
And, for those keeping track, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer/
Seattle Times had a pretty good article on CSL in this past Sunday's
issue by Moira MacDonald. No new revelations or insights, but a
fairly solid piece with no major errors either (only minor ones like
referring to him as an Oxford "professor").
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>