Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by ASLANSPAL, Jan 9, 2006.
Be careful though, everyone, about reading the "Post Comments" section at the link.
Hi AP, I know you and I have bumped heads a few times here at BB, but am just curious, does your "handle" come from a love or appreciation for Chronicles or C.S. Lewis?
As for your view on "Fundys", what reaction to an author who was not only an Anglican but a relatively High Church Anglican would you expect? Please, note I am not questioning Dr. Lewis' salvation. I will not be the least surprised to see him in Heaven (along with Dorothy Sayers). But there is a matter of the centuries old friction between High and Low Church, not to mention Separatists, Dissenters, and Non-Conformists. So, Fundamentalists (as a post-1900 movement) are not a bunch of uncultured philistines on this matter. What do you expect from a group that's about as Low Church as you can get?
"So, Fundamentalists (as a post-1900 movement) are not a bunch of uncultured philistines on this matter."
I fully agree.
There is however the nagging question if the post 1900 Fundamentalist movement has ever produced literature as well crafted as the Chronicles of Narnia.
Condemning Narnia does not turn a large social movement into cultural barbarians.
Not producing novels on par with the Chronicles (an easy feat for a subculture that spans millions and has existed for close to a century) is more troubling in that regard.
"Not producing novels on par with the Chronicles (an easy feat for a subculture that spans millions and has existed for close to a century) is more troubling in that regard. "
Have the Dutch produced a novel on par with the Chronicles? Not that I know of, and they have been around a lot longer than fundamentalists. What does that say about the Dutch? Nothing. Your point seems redundant to me.
"Have the Dutch produced a novel on par with the Chronicles?"
Hundreds of them.
Name one - that is that people outside of Holland recognise in the same way Lewis' novels are known.
Reasonably high quality novels (the Chronicles aren't exactly candidates for the Nobel prize for literature) are a dime a dozen.
I certainly did not think of international recognition as a qualification.
But using your qualifications Max Havelaar would probably count.
Sorry, but I have never heard of Max Havelaar, and I hazard a guess that very few people on this board have either. (You could conduct a poll to find out). But I think my point is made. You inferred that fundamentalists were somehow culturally retarded by virtue of the fact that they have not produced a novel of Lewis's standard, and yet neither has your entire nation. So where does your argument go from here. Precisely where I suggested earlier - nowhere - it is redundant.
I didn't say that, I said that "There is however the nagging question if the post 1900 Fundamentalist movement has ever produced literature as well crafted as the Chronicles of Narnia. "
It is a question instead of a certainty exactly because most novels don't become worldfamous.
The Chronicles of Narnia are great books and certainly have their purpose. Would I bring them up when witnessing and say, "Salvation is like when Aslan gave his life for the kid..." No, I certainly would not. If someone else brought the topic up then it could probably be used as a spring board to the truth.
I appreciate the Chronicles for what they are, but they are not a theological treatise, just enjoyable and interesting fiction.
So if error is "well crafted" we should give it some recognition? I would rather have barbaric writing leading souls to Christ and living rightous lives rather than "well crafted" writings merely entertaining and send the lost to hell.
"So if error is "well crafted" we should give it some recognition?"
Something that is well crafted deserves recognition as being something that is well crafted.
Harry Potter is well crafted some would say... I would recognise that all the way to a burning fiery furnace.
I think quality of writing has to be carefully balanced with the topic.
Harry Potter is very well written.
The notion that topic is more important than craft is the norm among Fundamentalism.
It's a good p.o.v., however it also contributes to the low level of craftmanship seen in most Fundamentalist attempts at art.
That's why non-fundie christians like Lewis, Tolkien, Sienkiewicz and Rowling produce carefully crafted literary works and the other side is well... Left Behind.
Tolkien and Rowling in the same sentence?
Of course topic is more important than craft. The reason we do not see Fundamentalist's writing works which compete with the likes of Tolkien is the "customer" base.
Fundamentalists are doing eternal work; spreading the Gospel and defending right doctrine. If you write something from the perspective of "We are all sinners" then you eliminate a large base of support.
If you write something that makes every one feel good about themselves then you have a very broad customer base.
But I do believe fundamentalists are producing well written works. What about many of the grads of BJU? That is a fundamentalist school and recently one of its graduates beat John Rutter in a competition. Granted it was writing music. But they produce many talented graduates in the arts.
As a last thought, I consider Paul the Apostle a Fundamentalist, his writings are pretty well crafted, and I am guessing has had more prints than Tolkien.
"The reason we do not see Fundamentalist's writing works which compete with the likes of Tolkien is the "customer" base. "
Sales figures do not art make. After all judging purely by placement on the bestseller lists Left Behind is a huge literary archievement.
"I consider Paul the Apostle a Fundamentalist, his writings are pretty well crafted,"
In the eyes of Paul's Greekreading contemporaries they weren't. Among the New Testament Apocrypha there is a whole exchange of letters between pseudo-Paul and pseudo-Seneca in which the latter chides the former for his atrocious style. Some parts of the NT are great works of literature Paul's letters are not among the lot.
Now there is an opinion on Paul's writings I have not heard before.
I wonder, has any one else heard or read of anything agrees with Mioque's statement. It would not bother me either way, it is Scripture and that is it.
But I had always read and been taught that Paul's writings and use of language were "well crafted."