Showing posts with label C.S. Lewis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label C.S. Lewis. Show all posts

Thursday, January 27, 2011

In Haste: Girl with a Pearl Earring

 
What does love mean? 

What the hell is it, anyway?

Tell me.





Vermeer and the Pearl Earring Girl have some sort of bond. It is at once known, and yet dually and equally ineffable. Now, the thing exists, this attraction, but the painter is betrothed to another -- somewhat happily even. What happens next? Well, Roger Ebert had this commentary to add to the situation,
"Sometimes two people will regard each other over a gulf too wide to ever be bridged, and know immediately what could have happened, and that it never will. That is essentially the message of Girl with a Pearl Earring."
 And now my hopeless-romantic side rears its ugly head in revolt to this filthy sentiment. It declares!, "But what could possibly be stronger than love! From this, the world was made over by God, and was once redeemed, and will someday be refreshed, all because the world is loved by its Maker. Surely this talk of impregnable gulfs is a monstrous display of lack of faith, says I, says I!" Unfortunately, right about as I get to that final 'says I', the voice of C.S. Lewis comes whispering in. I remember his book, Four Loves, and how it is true that we cannot love too much, but we can love disproportionately so. If we love others more than God, then we have made a demon out of this natural phenomenon. Perhaps such demons visualize themselves as gulfs...


----------------------------

This isn't fair, but I'm posting it anyway. I recently stumbled over this apparent love-test:

WHAT EACH KISS MEANS:
- Kiss on the Forehead: We're cute together.
- Kiss on the Cheek: We're friends.
- Kiss on the Hand: I adore you.
- Kiss on the Neck: I want you, now.
- Kiss on the Shoulder: Your perfect.
- Kiss on the Lips: I LOVE YOU...

WHAT EACH GESTURE MEANS:
- Holding Hands: We definitely like each other.
- Holding you tight pressed against each other: I want you.
- Looking into each other's Eyes: I like you, for who you are.
- Playing with Hair: Let's fool around.
- Arms around the Waist: I like you too much to let go.
- Laughing while Kissing: I am completely comfortable with you.

ADVICE:
- If you were thinking about someone while reading this, you're definitely
in Love.

REQUIREMENTS:
- Add this to ur favorites after reading!!
Or you will have a bad year of Relationships.

IF YOU (LIKE), (LOVE), OR (MISS) SOMEONE RIGHT NOW:
- and can't get them out of your head.
- then add this to ur favorites within One Minute and Whoever you are missing
will surprise you.
 
See!!??! It's so simple! I never knew how easy it is! Wowzer, what have I been doing my whole life without this handy-dandy guide? Oh, and thank heavens I reposted this on this blog, so now I know all my lovely dreams will come true this year. Huzzah!

----------------------------
  
To conclude on a more charitable note, I am quite fond of this quote attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald, probably because it tells me that love is the stimulus of story, and that's a very sweet fragrance to inhale at any point in life.

I love her and it is the beginning of everything. 
 
 

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Dedications

A dedication, according to my own summation, should honor the source, the very being of inspiration, from which a work outpours.

--------------

Stalker by Andrei Tarkovsky

My thoughts have reigned in already several times prior on the dedication presented as the conclusion to Lars von Trier's Antichrist.

As time has past, I am bothered most singularly, not by my inability to understand why von Trier made such a dedication known, or how he saw himself in relation to the great Russian himself. Rather, I find the source of my frustration being in form that the words themselves harbor a continuous need to make sense of the comparison. In effect, the dedication forces me to think of von Trier's and Tarkovsky's work as somehow now forever connected. This is bothersome.

--------------

Charles Bukowski and ol' Lars may have had much in common when it came to their anger issues, but at lease Bukowski was honest about himself. He begins his book Post Office this way:

This book is presented as a work of fiction and is dedicated to nobody.

 --------------

And in a close to present now, somewhere else, I happened upon the ending of The Town. After two odd hours of adventure through the bank robberying center of Boston, known as Charlestown --- after much time spent between thugs and the police the thugs shoot at, when nearly all has been done, something more is needed to be said. The director and star of the film, Ben Affleck, felt the need to comfort his dear audience. The beginning of the film sets the stage for us; we are told that Charlestown is the bank robbing capital of the world. Then, as in a final act of contrition, the film is dedicated to Charlestown, and we are told that the citizens of that fine town are smart, loving, kind, generous, lovely, splendid, beautiful, remarkable, magnificent, delightful, respectable, ambitious and benevolent people. We are told that most of them are nothing like the conniving criminals the film focuses its entire film on. Why this dedication? Why spend your film zeroing in on the licentious croons of Charlestown, if it was this place you longed to make proud? Charlestown is given anti-heroes. Why would they accept such a dedication? Is this the road to retribution for the 'bank robbery capital of the world'? I question.

--------------


And then there is the master, C.S. Lewis, in his dedication to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
 
To Lucy Barfield
My Dear Lucy,

I wrote this story for you, but when I began it I had not realized that girls grow quicker than books. As a result you are already too old for fairy tales, and by the time it is printed and bound you will be older still. But some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again. You can then take it down from some upper shelf, dust it, and tell me what you think of it. I shall probably be too deaf to hear, and too old to understand, a word you say, but I shall still be


your affectionate Godfather,

C.S. Lewis 


--------------

Still, I reckon, the Gospel writer John wins, as far as dedications go:

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name... And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."
20:30-31, 21:25

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The Next Lewis

PREVIEW: This column will include: Jesus, Mohammad, C.S. Lewis, and An Artist to be Named Later.

I am in Turkey. This is a first for me. I've never ventured to the Asian side of Eurasia before, I've never been to a predominantly Muslim nation before, and I've never stood inside the walls of a mosque. All things come to pass...

Of paramount importance to me in this experience are the conversations that can be had here that impart the sharing of both ideas & souls to one another. There are many intriguing people in this nation; so much more than I can comprehend.

And then there's Mohammad.


The question that turns and turns and turns here is this: will anything from Islam last? That is to say: what from this fourteen hundred year tradition is pleasing to the Savior of our sins, the Lord Jesus Christ?

Such questions must come to a center; a pivot point. That point is, undoubtedly, the authenticity of Mohammad himself. A man here of whom I have entitled much trust to is currently investigating a hypothesis: could it be that Mohammad was at one point meant as a prophet for the Arab world to reflect upon the majesty of Christ Jesus. That is assuredly an excruciatingly difficult premise to follow, and will involve much tiptoeing. BUT -- it appears perhaps as both a compassionate and honest approach to at first seek a place of hope for such a deep tradition, rather then to upon initial inspection degrade it and declare holy war upon its very fabric.

Sub-thoughts in the Realm:
What has longed confused me is the Islamic presumption that it was Ishmael who was nearly sacrificed by Abraham, not Isaac as the book of Genesis propounds. The prominence of Ishmael is important, for in him the Arab world claims their heritage. It is then evident to me that overtime the desire for their race to be seen as superior (particularly to the Jews), the people of Islam began to assume Ishmael as the son worthy of near sacrifice. 
Despite the Biblical discrepancy, Ishmael is given a promise in Scripture. While an everlasting covenant is promised to Isaac, Ishmael is told that he will be made into, "...a great nation." (Gen. 17:20) Furthermore, this blessing is repeated in chapter 21, and then it is said that, "God was with the lad," (Gen. 21:20) so... you know... that sounds pretty good.  What should the expectation of this blessing be? What does a great nation look like?


The hope: Mohammad was sent as a figurehead as an Arab to the Arabs, to turn the people of Ishmael to their Redeemer, Christ our Lord. Somewhere along the way that message got distorted. Mohammad's later 'revelations' extol a road to salvation that appears to be opposed to that of the God of the Bible, but maybe he just went sour. Perhaps he became an exaggerated version of Jonah -- a man who knew God, but valued his own reasoning more than God's plan for him.  Maybe.

If we allow ourselves to consider anything remotely present in a post-resurrected Jesus world akin to a prophet, suddenly, a history of questions arises. What does a modern day prophet look like? What evidences would this person illustrate to convince the flock of his position? What authority would God give to such a person? Why would we need a prophet? What is their function?

One thing is certain: a prophet's purpose will never extend beyond calling the chosen to Jesus.

If we consider the door open for a new age of prophets -- then surely there would be evidences of other prophets in the last two millennia. And if a prophet is now not elucidating new intel -- that is to say, the canon of revelation is closed, then it is a simply logical step for me to hypothesize that any prophet would perchance by nature be an artist.

An artist expresses the ephemeral, presents the unutterable, crystallizes that which has no language -- in essence, I see the function of the artist as being one of personalizing the world into tangible bits of empathy.

The Artist as Prophet:
Take The Chronicles of Narnia: C.S. Lewis distills Bible into an allegory strong enough to entertain and recalibrate the mind in how it comprehends our relationship with God. God as a friendly, yet fierce lion was an indelible insight for 20th century Christians, but it by no means is a mode of revelation. Take The Screwtape Letters: Lewis gratuitously and precisely depicts the assault on a man's soul by a conniving adversary -- with that thrust Lewis makes both the spiritual and the moral conflict of living amidst a greater world war then we know personal and tangible. The Great Divorce: Lewis paints a Heaven and Hell that has significance and much more weight than a portrait of mere pearly gates. The lists extends and extends -- the course of the man's life.

If you know C.S. Lewis then surely you know his wit and wisdom. He is indispensable.  Let's just go ahead and call him a prophet. If he is that, if we can make claim to his position as such, who is his replacement? Who among the myriad bears righteous Psalms to the Lord in his or her bosom in such a way that through their work I may portend to draw nearer to the Almighty? Who? Who will speak to our age? Who has the nerve to inch that close to the searing light of the Father?

Sub-thoughts in the Realm:
A step in Joseph Campbell's distillation of classical narrative structure includes 'Refusal of the Call'. This is the point at which the protagonist is called to action and knows what obstacles stand in front of him, but for personal reasons shows great reluctance to take up his cross. Moses certainly expressed this step in spades when being in the presence of an un-consuming flaming bush, he still tried to waddle out of his duty. Even in the presence of the Angel of the Lord, Moses was 'bold' enough to show reluctance to his calling. Jonah takes the whole refusal business to an even greater extent by absolutely sprinting away from his duty. It seems appropriate to me to think that any called prophet should not be too quick to jump into the cockpit. The call comes with a price. Spiderman told us correctly when he stated solemnly, "With great power comes great duty."

Who?

I have a hope. I have an idea. I have a wish.
I suggest this name to you: Sufjan Stevens.
What if?
What next?