1. I especially appreciate your point three. I have read quite a bit about Shelley’s circle, and I think they were yearning toward God. The wildest of them, Claire Clairmont, lived the longest, and eventually ended up a Christian,

  2. notleia says:

    I had to laugh about labeling Donne “good” because he’s kind of a pervert, Anglican priest or not. He did use a lot of religion in his poetry, in direct appeals or in symbolism, but he did stuff like compare the Trinity with the mingling of his and his love’s blood within the belly of a flea (“The Flea”).
    But as much as you try to mellow the Acceptable Interpretation According to the Christian Worldview(TM), I still think that approach has problems, and I’m going to outsource my commentary on that to the blog post of someone who articulates it better than I: http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/spectacles/.

    • bainespal says:

      I had to laugh about labeling Donne “good” because he’s kind of a pervert, Anglican priest or not. He did use a lot of religion in his poetry, in direct appeals or in symbolism, but he did stuff like compare the Trinity with the mingling of his and his love’s blood within the belly of a flea (“The Flea”).

      My English teacher at community college seemed to take a small amount of pleasure in pointing out that John Donne had been promiscuous, and that a lot of his poems have sexual themes or subtext.

      But, if that sonnet is any indication of Donne’s heart, no one can say that his life and work were not ultimately good. That despairing, helpless prayer, frankly acknowledging his shameful weakness in the last line, has got to be about the purest appeal that anyone can make.

      • notleia says:

        From what I remember of him, it’s rather simplistic to say that he was good despite his pervyness. His pervyness seemed to exist alongside, almost independently, of his (relative) piety. If it were a perv vs pious thing, I think he would contrast them, not mix them. Then again, it was later, more in the Victorian age, when sex became the Evilest. Thing. Evar. in the cultural consciousness.

    • L.B. Graham says:

      This short exchange might serve as another kind of object lesson in reading carefully for two reasons. First, the paragraph being referred to never refers to Donne as ‘good’ because he wrote ‘Holy Sonnet 14,’ but that some might think ‘Holy Sonnet 14’ was good because of the obvious Christian worldview. Second, it illustrates our tendency to judge the man (or woman) and not the work, which can lead us to accept things we shouldn’t because we admire the one writing it, or on the other hand, reject things we shouldn’t, because we know of the shortcomings of the author. Risky business, I think.

  3. Galadriel says:

    I think that we need to get beyond “x worldview is bad and therefore we must reject any literature that supports x”, but any replacement theory would be equally reductionist.

    • bainespal says:

      Agreed. If we try to craft an all-encompassing law or formula to settle the question of which books and stories are acceptable for Christians and which are not, we will fail. The lines that we draw should always be individual — drawn for ourselves, and at most suggested for others in humility and the understanding that such a line might not be suitable for other people, because only God understands them.

  4. I suppose it’s better to have poetry going through your head rather than quotes from Stephen King novels, hee hee.

    I enjoy arguing with books in my head. I learned to do it in high school when I had my worldview training (I believe it was Gene Edward Veith’s book Reading Between the Lines that taught me this). It’s always fun to pick out the worldview in the book, and ponder how that may or may not reflect the writer’s worldview.

    It’s why I was totally fine with the So You Want to be a Wizard series until the book with the computer planet. There’s a line where the angels tell the wizards that someday the angels will worship the wizards–and I was done. I mangled my way through that sort of thing with L’Engle and I’m tired of running into it in middle grade fiction. (Behold, ye shall be as gods!)

    Plus that series always kills the interesting minor characters.

    I don’t mind arguing with a book’s worldview when it’s layered and complex, like in the Merlin Conspiracy, or The Raven Boys. Each book is saying, “Hey, wouldn’t it be neat if the world worked THIS way?”

    On the other hand, if I’m arguing with their science–as happened with the last post-apoc book I read–I put it down with a poor view of the author. If you’re going to move the moon closer to the earth, talk to some scientists and figure out what that would entail. Sheesh.

  5. L.B. Graham says:

    Kessie, I appreciate the ‘arguing with books’ point. There is something to be said for the dialogue/conversational view of reading. I like to say sometimes that my favorite books are friends, and just like I don’t always agree with my friends, even on big questions like worldview questions, I don’t always agree with my favorite books – but that doesn’t mean they don’t have value.

What do you think?