some till we have faces thoughts that are less about till we have faces and more about c.s. lewis

[lirazel]

Honestly, if anyone else had written Till We Have Faces, this post would just be, "I love this book, it's so good, I wish that more fantasy writers would explore relationships with divinities to this depth!!!"

But this book was written by C.S. Lewis, so I have ~thoughts~ buckle up.

I read the book for the first time in my early teen years and didn't really ~get it~. When I tried it again several years later, I loved it. And this is my first time rereading it since at least my early 20s. I had forgotten a lot of stuff that happens! It was a joy to revisit!

For those of you who don't know, it's a retelling of the Eros and Psyche myth from the pov of one of the sisters, but it's really a deep dive into how possessiveness rots love and also the human relationship to the divine. It's got a very, very unreliable narrator, some interesting worldbuilding, and good prose. I love it lots.

But dude, it was written by C.S. Lewis, so I can't just judge it by what's on the page!

It is hard to overstate the stature of Lewis in American Protestant circles. He is widely beloved by both the high church Mainline types and the more intellectually-inclined evangelicals. The evangelicals use him as a kind of trump card: yes, Mark Noll, the scandal of the evangelical mind might be that there's not much of an evangelical mind, but we've got C.S. Lewis. So there!

This despite the fact that I am confident that Lewis would utterly reject most things about white American evangelicalism. He was, after all, a Victorian-born Anglican academic. He was conservative, yes, and in some ways that really piss me off. But he wasn't the white American evangelical brand of conservative. (Thank God.)

So I've never really been able to understand why white American evangelicals claim him. But whatever: they do. They really do. Those on the less fundamentalist side of things read Narnia to their kids. (The fundamentalists hate fantasy and probably hate Lewis, but I didn't hang out with them so I don't know.) Mere Christianity is widely, widely recommended (though I think less frequently read outside of those Fred Clark calls the "faculty lounge evangelicals.") The Screwtape Letters is proof that conservative Christians can do satire, yes we can!

And if you're a precocious evangelical child who asks questions (ahem), people will tell you, "Just go read C.S. Lewis!" a lot.

Lewis was very much the product of his time and the fact that he was a white Anglo-Irish dude born in the Victorian era shaped by Oxbridge in every conceivable way. As such, he held, as I mentioned before, a lot of Bad Views. There's plenty to criticize him for. But I do think he was a talented writer and at least trying to be a good person, and let me tell you: he was a lifeline to a lot of us precocious evangelical kids/teenagers who desperately wanted intellectual engagement and weren't finding it anywhere else. (Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle's nonfiction kept me afloat as a teenager, let me tell you.)

Now, his particular intellectual engagement is, again, very white Anglo-Irish early 20th-century Oxbridge. It's got some extreme limits. But it's also got some heft and attempts at honest engagement with...reality. Which is more than most evangelical-approved people could get away with.

So yeah, I read his fiction, I read his nonfiction, he was important to me. Even when I made the transition to progressive Episcopalianism, he could fit inside my world pretty neatly. I mean: lots of things I'd disagree with him about! But I could still appreciate the good he had to offer.

Now, though, as whatever I am religion-wise at the moment (a deist? just a plain agnostic? pre-Jewish? Can you be pre-Jewish? aspiring towards Judaism? WHO THE HELL KNOWS), I'm less comfortable with him. And my awareness of him as an author kept intruding on my enjoyment of this book in ways that I find very rude!!!

As a general reader (as opposed to the critical reader I was in undergrad engaging with all those classic texts), I'm pretty much of the Author Is Dead school in that...I don't care about the author's life. I just judge the book by how good it is on its own. Obviously there are exceptions--authors can go too far morally and I will reject them (JKR, OSC, etc.) But generally I don't want to know anything about the author as a person and I just don't care. I read the book. I engage with the book. That's all.

But it's completely impossible for me to read Lewis like this. Impossible. The entire book, I kept thinking, "What is he saying about faith? How is he using this as an allegory for Christianity? What is his theology here?"

This is possibly unfair. Yes, the Narnia books are mostly allegorical and very heavy-handed in ways that Tolkien and I agree are annoying. But Till We Have Faces is a book for adults and is much more subtle and I don't think he meant for it to be allegorical. I think he was genuinely engaging with the question of the Virtuous Pagan and what faith might be like for those who have never encountered Christianity. And also just writing a good novel.

But I can't help it! I was constantly, constantly wondering about how his theology was showing through! Especially since I know that I would disagree pretty profoundly with that theology now. So I was kind of ~looking for things I needed to disagree with~ which is just not a fun way to read a novel. It tainted my enjoyment!

To Lewis's credit, I do not think it's easy to pin down his theology in this book. He's definitely got a Point of View, which is that the Divine is so far beyond us that the questions we ask of It are nonsense and only the Divine Itself can be the answer. Which many people would find a cop-out, but I don't entirely disagree with. At any rate, it's something I can totally accept within the bounds of the novel.

I also really, really appreciate what he's doing with regards to the things we tell ourselves are love that are really not love. They're about possession and our own egos, and they are toxic to the "beloved." A very good theme to explore! As is the ways in which we rationalize our own choices to ourselves, how we skew our memories of reality in order to make it fit the narrative we've chosen, etc. That's so good and done so well.

I wish I could just take that stuff and leave the question of his theology alone! But it's there, irritating me through the whole reading of the book, like a popcorn husk stuck under my gum. It's very annoying! I wish I could read the book without all that baggage!

Comments

[pauraque]

I've never read this book but I was actually just thinking about reading it! I have read the Narnia series but I don't know any of Lewis's other work and I'd like to change that.

[lirazel]

I really do think it's great and very readable. He considered it his best work and I would say that it definitely is the best of his fiction and probably the best of all of his works period. I wish he'd written more adult novels along these lines.

I would be very interested to know your opinion of it if you do read it.

[theseatheseatheopensea]

I agree, it's a joy to revisit this book! <3

It's a bit funny or ironic that Lewis's religious views get in the way of just enjoying his work as it is, when so much about this book wants to point towards just accepting what we see, think less and feel more, and just Surrender. Like you so accurately put it: "the Divine is so far beyond us that the questions we ask of It are nonsense and only the Divine Itself can be the answer".

As a non-believer, I also feel that the idea of Surrender is not necessarily just about accepting religion, but also love, without all the veils we create for it and are, as you said, so toxic: possessiveness, jealousy, guilt, selfishness, insecurity, ego, fear... because there is something of the divine in true love, isn't there, and so maybe we can't fully know and experience that true love until we let go of these harmful things!

But yeah, because of all his background, it's hard to "just judge it by what's on the page", like you said. Perhaps it's easier for me as someone who's outside belief, because I still see it, but in a less obtrusive way? Mostly I just respect his approach to religion and spirituality after being a non-believer, and the honesty with which he writes about it... but also how it can be taken as a work of fiction/literature. In a way, it can make my reading of it a bit more simple if I leave out the religious content, but it can also free it from it, and just let me focus on the story, and on the spiritual conversion as it speaks to everyone universally and not just from a religious point of view, so I would say that both views are important?

As is the ways in which we rationalize our own choices to ourselves, how we skew our memories of reality in order to make it fit the narrative we've chosen, etc.

Yes! Well said! This was one of my favourite things about it when I re-read it last year. Maybe it's one of those things we can see better the older we are? In any case, I feel that self-knowledge is a really important theme in the book, because dropping the masks and veils to try to see ourselves as we are, with the good and the bad and the in-between, is what gives us freedom--even if it's a very long process, like this book seems to have been for Lewis!

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!! <3

[lirazel]

Yes, the text itself does not invite that kind of speculation--it's entirely about what I'm bringing to the book and what my own specific experience of him as a culture figure is.

It's a bit funny or ironic that Lewis's religious views get in the way of just enjoying his work as it is, when so much about this book wants to point towards just accepting what we see, think less and feel more, and just Surrender.

Yup!

Perhaps it's easier for me as someone who's outside belief, because I still see it, but in a less obtrusive way?

I think it would be hard for anyone to see it in a more obtrusive way than I do!

In any case, I feel that self-knowledge is a really important theme in the book, because dropping the masks and veils to try to see ourselves as we are, with the good and the bad and the in-between, is what gives us freedom--even if it's a very long process, like this book seems to have been for Lewis!

Oh yes! And the veil could have been a heavy-handed metaphor but instead it just works within the context of the story itself. It really is such a good book!

You're welcome and thank you for giving me a reason to visit it again!

[hashiveinu]

I was more or less raised evangelical (it's complicated). And yeah, C.S. Lewis is their Intellectual Figure, and I don't think I could read anything by him without the question of his theology standing front and center for me. I have read Till We Have Faces, but it was a long time ago when I was still Christian and I don't remember much about it.

Lewis and L'Engle (especially L'Engle) were very formative for me growing up, but I knew that basically the whole evangelical world around me disapproved of L'Engle (or would if they'd read her).

I personally kind of doubt that he could write anything without trying to convey some kind of theological message, but that's just me.

(I think that a lot of conservative Christians disapprove of any fiction that isn't written to convey a theological/moral message).

[lirazel]

Evangelicalism is a helluva drug.

but I knew that basically the whole evangelical world around me disapproved of L'Engle (or would if they'd read her).

Haha, I know! It was lucky that no one knew about her (except a few people who'd read Wrinkle) and so we could get away with reading her!

I personally kind of doubt that he could write anything without trying to convey some kind of theological message, but that's just me.

I do think he is trying to convey a theological message in the book, it's just...much more generic and less Christian that you would expect. Which is good!

(I think that a lot of conservative Christians disapprove of any fiction that isn't written to convey a theological/moral message).

I definitely know people who have this exact belief and I'm sure that the closer you get to the fundamentalist side of the spectrum, the more prevalent it is.

[chestnut_pod]

Oh, this sounds very interesting! I do wonder if, as a non-Christian, I'd actually be more able to either completely not notice the Christian bits (as I did in the Narnia books as a child!) or gloss over them with a chuckle. Eros and Psyche is a favorite myth and this seems like an intriguing thematic take on it.

[lirazel]

I would be so interested to hear your thoughts on it! The thing is--the Christianity stuff isn't really there? But I kept looking for it! Of course his worldview influenced the book, but it's really surprising that he wrote this book, to be honest.

(Also I think Narnia is more enjoyable when you don't notice that stuff, but some of the plot twists make zero sense if not viewed allegorically. It's a real weakness of the series!)

[landofnowhere]

So I got exposed to C. S. Lewis mostly through the Catholic side of my family -- my grandfather read Narnia to his kids, and Mom continued the tradition. And also once or twice when I was stuck at the Catholic church with nothing to do on a family trip, Mom looked to see what C. S. Lewis they had in the church library, which I think is how I was first exposed to Till We Have Faces (but only made it partway through before we had to go), and also how I read Surprised by Joy. And my grandmother gave me Mere Christianity as a birthday present when I was 13 or 14.

Anyway, as a result of this I somehow got the impression that C. S. Lewis was Catholic -- I'd read about the Inklings and remembered that one of Lewis and Tolkien was Catholic and one Anglican, but I got them backwards. (And my mom, who self-describes as a Catholic Unitarian Universalist now, considers Lewis as basically Catholic, because Anglo-Catholic, pretty much the same thing.)

Anyway, what this is all leading up to is: I was 15 and at a dinner with the homeschool math team, which was all evangelicals except for my sister. The conversation had gone to the topic of what fiction was ok to read, starting with Left Behind (the message is good, but the content?), Harry Potter (absolutely not), Lord of the Rings (maaaybe, but Tolkien was Catholic... I'm confused because I thought Lewis was the Catholic one of the two, but I hold my tongue), but of course Narnia is OK, because *C. S. Lewis*!

At which point I can't contain my confusion anymore, and blurt out "But I thought C. S. Lewis was Catholic!"

And they all look at me in shock, and are like, "No, C. S. Lewis was the greatest Protestant theologian of all time, duh!" And I remember nothing of what happened after that, only my mortification.

Anyway, Till We Have Faces -- the second time I picked it up, after the first time when I was a kid, I was 20 and reading it at the recommendation of a friend (who did go on to be a professor at a Christian college for a few years, so yeah, faculty-lounge evangelicals) -- and liked it/strongly identified with Orual, but also my experience of reading it was tied up with everything that was going on with me that summer. I've reread it once or twice since, but not recently -- I should unpack it sometime.

[lirazel]

It is so interesting how Lewis's appeal is so wide, to so many different kinds of Christians.

And my mom, who self-describes as a Catholic Unitarian Universalist now, considers Lewis as basically Catholic, because Anglo-Catholic, pretty much the same thing.

Haha, I know most Catholics would strongly disagree, but I love this.

"No, C. S. Lewis was the greatest Protestant theologian of all time, duh!"

This is a totally ridiculous statement but also really funny. What an awkward moment!

[landofnowhere]

(To be fair, it might have been "greatest modern Protestant theologian", but still :-D)

[likeadeuce]

Huh I knew the title of 'Til We Have Faces' -- it was on some family member's bookshelf when I was small, and what an evocative title -- but I think it sat next to the Space Trilogy so I assumed it was one of those. (I must have been quite small, because I would have been familiar with Narnia but convinced they were grownup books and not tried to read them, which was not something that stopped me when I was older than, like, 9.

Have you read The Magicians's Book by Laura Miller? It's about grappling with having been a Narnia-obsessed kid and then revisiting as an adult after going through the betrayal of realizing the author didn't share her value system. (I can't remember if Miller is Jewish or if her perspective is purely atheist/secular but she's writing as someone who was never a Christian, but I think probably deals with some of the same issues you mention)

[lirazel]

Yes it's such a good title!!!!! And when you get to the reason for the title it's like !!!!!

I must have been quite small, because I would have been familiar with Narnia but convinced they were grownup books and not tried to read them, which was not something that stopped me when I was older than, like, 9.

You must have been very tiny indeed!

I have not read that book, but it does sound like something that would be of great interest to me, so I appreciate you bringing it up!

[regshoe]

I've never read any of Lewis's adult fiction, but this sounds really interesting, both the book itself and the ideas (though I suspect I would feel similarly about the theology)—thanks for your thoughts, and perhaps I'll give it a try. Also interesting to hear about Lewis's fame amongst evangelicals—I remember being given (and being very irritated by) Mere Christianity as a teenager asking awkward questions in a Catholic household, and I wouldn't have guessed that.

[lirazel]

You're welcome and I do recommend it! It's nothing like what most people would expect C.S. Lewis to write, and I meant that very much as a compliment.

I remember being given (and being very irritated by) Mere Christianity as a teenager asking awkward questions in a Catholic household, and I wouldn't have guessed that.

Haha he was so wildly applicable to teenagers-who-ask-awkward-questions!