Till We Have Faces, by C.S. Lewis

[py3ak]

I wouldn't say that it's about depravity, simply (Notes from the Underground, even, is more specifically concerned with honesty and hypocrisy and self-awareness). There's obviously a lot of other things in Russian literature. Levin's happiness the night he proposes, for instance, is not simply about depravity, and the end of Crime and Punishment certainly sounds a note of restrained hope. And there's a lot of value in it; all I'm saying is that the specific quality which I think is most (not uniquely) helpful in making our imaginations Christian is not the keynote. It's not the keynote in Shakespeare, either, or in George Orwell, or Katherine Mansfield (though she might come closer to a secular version of it than anyone else) or even in ecclesiastical writers like Donne, so its absence isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[JennyG]

That said, I realize that Tolkien has never enjoyed universal appeal due to a tendency toward archaic words, sentence structures, and including stretches of poetry and elvish language in places. It's amazing a) that his work was ever published b) that it was as great a bestseller as it was, given these obstacles--it seems that there is a market for great literature.

I dunno -- there's a market for geek-fodder, perhaps! I'm not sure Tolkien's world is a million miles from Harry Potter, or Terry Pratchet.
I also know people who give him the same place in their intellectual and imaginative lives that Scripture ought to have. Seems he lends himself to obsessive fandom, especially since the films came out.
I know that's not the topic, but a lot of the posts on this thread are fascinating and thought provoking. I wonder if we give enough thought to the enormous power of literature in a culture. it's not really enough for it to be clean and unobjectionable, or even morally on the right side. Ruben's right, and the deficit in truly Christian fiction is a serious matter -- not to suggest it can be remedied by reformed believers deciding to sit down and write novels!

-----Added 8/5/2009 at 07:17:03 EST-----

....or perhaps Ruben wasn't even quite saying that, but it is what I think!

 

[dr_parsley]

Perhaps it would make my meaning, as well as my categorization plainer, if I clarified that it is not merely possessing an imagination, or literary talent, or professing Christianity, but rather having a vivid imagination with a literary talent suitable to its expression, so as to make holiness a practically tangible quality in your work.

Dostoevsky definitely fits that description:Brother's Karamazov?

And more unequivocally in The Idiot. One could disagree with the holiness presented in The Karamazov Brothers but not I think with that of The Idiot.

Dostoyevsky is the world's greatest novelist: he is also its worst great novelist,...

Can you indicate specific works that qualify him for this last statement? All great novelists include in their bibliographies some merely-passable work (by their standards), so I can only think you mean there is a work of Dostoevsky that is worse than merely passable... (btw I've read all his works more than once, even the out of print, except A Writer's Diary which is in any case journalism and is on my shelf waiting for inspiration).

But the genre as a whole, I TOTALLY agree. Most of it is simply about depravity, and not holiness.

It's perhaps easy to miss, but I think 19th Century Russian writers assume the reader has the context to identify holiness in the common people and in particular in their sufferings.

 

[Montanablue]

I'm just popping my head in to let you all know how much I'm enjoying reading your discussion. Its been really thought provoking. I rarely have the chance to have/observe really good conversations about literature. (Man, I miss college sometimes!) Thanks.

 

[he beholds]

Perhaps it would make my meaning, as well as my categorization plainer, if I clarified that it is not merely possessing an imagination, or literary talent, or professing Christianity, but rather having a vivid imagination with a literary talent suitable to its expression, so as to make holiness a practically tangible quality in your work.

Dostoevsky definitely fits that description:Brother's Karamazov?

And more unequivocally in The Idiot. One could disagree with the holiness presented in The Karamazov Brothers but not I think with that of The Idiot.

Dostoyevsky is the world's greatest novelist: he is also its worst great novelist,...

Can you indicate specific works that qualify him for this last statement? All great novelists include in their bibliographies some merely-passable work (by their standards), so I can only think you mean there is a work of Dostoevsky that is worse than merely passable... (btw I've read all his works more than once, even the out of print, except A Writer's Diary which is in any case journalism and is on my shelf waiting for inspiration).

But the genre as a whole, I TOTALLY agree. Most of it is simply about depravity, and not holiness.

It's perhaps easy to miss, but I think 19th Century Russian writers assume the reader has the context to identify holiness in the common people and in particular in their sufferings.

Oh The Idiot--you are right! What a fun, fun book to read. Brothers Karamazov is still my favorite, but The Idiot was incredible. I was/am reading The Possessed right now, but then my husband interrupted my reading by raving about Till We Have Faces, so I read that (a much quicker read!) and then I went right into Out of the Silent Planet (Lewis, again) so, after this trilogy, I will jump back into The Possessed!

-----Added 8/5/2009 at 10:01:18 EST-----

I'm just popping my head in to let you all know how much I'm enjoying reading your discussion. Its been really thought provoking. I rarely have the chance to have/observe really good conversations about literature. (Man, I miss college sometimes!) Thanks.

I hear you about missing college and good discussions!

 

[py3ak]

And more unequivocally in The Idiot. One could disagree with the holiness presented in The Karamazov Brothers but not I think with that of The Idiot.

Can you indicate specific works that qualify him for this last statement? All great novelists include in their bibliographies some merely-passable work (by their standards), so I can only think you mean there is a work of Dostoevsky that is worse than merely passable... (btw I've read all his works more than once, even the out of print, except A Writer's Diary which is in any case journalism and is on my shelf waiting for inspiration).

It's perhaps easy to miss, but I think 19th Century Russian writers assume the reader has the context to identify holiness in the common people and in particular in their sufferings.

None of Dostoyevsky's work is merely passable. All of it has patches of verbal barbarity. His greatness is not that of the crafstman. Now I know that there are some clumsy spots in the Space Trilogy, and obviously not all of Narnia has the perfection of, Once there was a boy named Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it. But there is always a certain level of natural polish in Lewis, and few sentences that are just bad.

I don't know that I can make what I mean much clearer, but think of the scene in Pilgrim's Regress where John and Vertue come back from slaying their respective dragons, or in Great Divorce where the Lady goes on after her unsuccessful interview with the Tragedian, or Bunyan's Delectable Mountains. I think those scenes share a quality of holiness made tangible (as opposed to simply desirable, admirable, intelligible, practical, etc.); that quality -not of holiness simpliciter, but of holiness imaginatively realized and brought through imagination almost into the realm of the senses- I do not find in Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy, although Tolstoy probably comes closer.


To Jenny, I think a bigger problem than a lack of literature is a lack of enjoyment of the existing literature. Already there is no end of the books that have been written, and to read just the good or tremendously influential books is more than the work of a lifetime. One way this shows up is the destruction of the ear for rhythm. Although computer keyboards are an improvement over typewriters in that regard, because their clicking isn't so loud, still it is unusual to find someone who can so much as tell when a line of poetry is unmetrical (musical choices probably have something to do with that as well).

 

[JennyG]

To Jenny, I think a bigger problem than a lack of literature is a lack of enjoyment of the existing literature. Already there is no end of the books that have been written, and to read just the good or tremendously influential books is more than the work of a lifetime. One way this shows up is the destruction of the ear for rhythm. Although computer keyboards are an improvement over typewriters in that regard, because their clicking isn't so loud, still it is unusual to find someone who can so much as tell when a line of poetry is unmetrical (musical choices probably have something to do with that as well).

I think you're quite right about the destruction of the ear, Ruben, but I still wouldn't be sure it's the bigger problem. How good would it be to have a really sizeable corpus of great works which embodied and expressed a truly godly worldview?
For example,- I wouldn't really count Felicia Hemans a first-rank poet, but I wish any of the top-rankers expressed as purely the thought behind
"Alas for Love, if thou wert all,
And nought beyond, O Earth!"
It's one reason I love the AV so much. The Book of Samuel (for eg) so effortlessly outclasses Shakespeare simply as a piece of human writing. It's a pity no-one will ever be able to convince the University English Departments of that!

 

[py3ak]

I don't think that the lack of a good ear for verbal rhythm is the biggest problem at all - it is one symptom of a widespread lack of ability to enjoy good literature. I don't think we can take any steps towards a corpus of great and godly works, though, when most of us aren't able to tell what is godly, and fewer of us are able to tell what is great.

We also have to be very careful with regard to the Bible and Christian literature. While there can be no doubt that Hebrews, Isaiah, Job, etc., are works of art as well as divine revelation, there are dangers that imperil us when the artistic element becomes too prominent in our thinking. Since we believe in plenary inspiration it is difficult to dissociate the artistry from the inspiration; but it is also the case that some parts of the Bible are less artistic than others, yet they are no less inspired, authoritative, or spiritually impressive. There is a story of Thomas Goodwin deliberately making his sermons less artistic in order to be more comprehensible, and I think it was Gregory the Great who was unashamed of the barbarity of his style because he had no time for literary niceties. In other words I would see the sanctification of the arts as a gain for the arts, rather than as a gain for sanctification.

And I don't think you can compare Shakespeare and Samuel, because Shakespeare has only dialogue to work with, and Samuel is also using narration. I'm also cautious about comparisons - I remember one speaker attributing the complexity of structure and intense overlapping quality he found in the Apocalypse to inspiration, saying that no mere man could write so well; it seems unlikely that he had ever read Pearl, which though not inspired is remarkable complex both verbally and in structure.