He seems to extrapolate his theory of language and consciousness across all his books but mostly I'm thinking of Saving the Appearances and Poetic Diction. Interesting books even if they are *slightly* out there :)
Her previous one, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell, is about 900 pages long. But at least it isn't in journal form. I enjoyed it very much and didn't find it too long - have read it twice. It's about two magicians living in a pseudo-Victorian world and the realm of Faerie. Piranesi I've only read once so far. Don't the two guinea pigs from Magician's Nephew also transfer across? And is the statue with lamp Christlike from the Holman Hunt picture?
Thanks for the recommendation! It's on my shelf but I haven't gotten around to it yet! It's on the list for this summer. Yes--the children find at least one of the guinea pigs in the Wood Between the Worlds. I'm not sure that the statue refers to that painting in particular, mostly because Christ holds the lantern down rather than up, and is pretty obviously Christ, rather than an unidentifiable figure. But I do think the image of "the light of the world" applies here--as Piranesi's savior, Raphael could definitely be seen as a Christ figure. I would not be surprised to learn that Clarke had a particular piece of art in mind for that image, but I've yet to find it!
I obediently stopped reading when you warned of spoilers and just requested it at the library!🤣 Saving this article for when I finish reading it. Sounds so intriguing.
My library had it right away and I finished it last night! Wow what an odd and beautiful book. I kept thinking I should be bored because of the confined setting and small list of characters. But instead I was fascinated and couldn't stop reading. I felt that she had placed so much trust in me as the reader. She did not spoon feed or hold my hand. I had to do the work of remembering the details and putting it together, and that sense of being entrusted with lyrical writing and parsing the meaning reminded me of that illumination from a poem that I'm just about to understand. I read a bunch of reviews last night, curious how others perceive the work, and it's so split. I wonder if poetry readers love it more than straight fiction readers? Of course there's so much overlap the categories are meaningless, and maybe detective fiction readers have a leg up as well. Whether you read for plot, atmosphere, or character development, there is much to appreciate, so the negative reactions were surprising except for how I kept marveling as I pictured hall after hall of statues, "HOW is this not boring yet???" Knowing there was a C.S. Lewis connection from reading the opening paragraphs of your essay also piqued my interest. I really loved this book and I really loved your essay about it. Thank you! Something about it reminds me of Till We Have Faces, but what? The mood? The ending? Raphael's character? I can't place it.
That was fast, I'm so impressed! Love your impressions here. You're so right--it does feel like trust. I hadn't thought of it that way.
Fascinating to hear that the reviews are so split. As a girl who had the nerve to call her newsletter "the better reader," I think anyone who dislikes it is...wrong!! haha. But I do know what you mean about feeling like "how am I actually enjoying this right now?" The book is certainly very odd, perhaps unique, so I suppose I could see disliking it on aesthetic grounds. Still bugs me though. ;)
As an adult I have discovered a love of mystery/detection fiction that I didn't know I had, and I do think you're on to something there. The actual plot is very much a mystery--I'm realizing right now that it's literally a detective story when you get to the end. But that genre is definitely hidden behind the language, which is so poetic and lyrical and strange. Maybe that's how to pitch it to more practical readers--it's a mystery! I promise!
I'm interested in connection with Till We Have Faces, because I think you're right. Both books leave you sort of melancholy. And both have a sense of great mysteries beyond our comprehension. I haven't read TWHF in years though, so it's time for a reread!
I am glad I found you on Substack. This kind of niche bookish analysis is my favorite. And detective fiction is one of my favorites: Sayers, Christie, Heyer... The only problem is I stay up way too late. I need to reread Till We Have Faces now. It's probably the book of Lewis's I have read the least. Even though I appreciate and admire it, for some reason I don't have a connection to the characters, but I have noticed how different books look now that I'm in my forties. I am curious what connections with Piranesi will emerge.
I am glad too! Thanks for being here! Would love your recommendations for, say, top three detective novels. Let me know if you do read it and find connections with Piranesi! Would love to hear about it!
Top three! That is a fun challenge. I am terrible at narrowing down literary favorites. My teens are going through a big Sherlock Holmes/Agatha Christie phase, which is so fun, so we chatted about what our top three might be. They are big fans of Death on the Nile, Murder on the Orient Express, and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. For how prolific Christie was, amazing there are almost no duds. The three mysteries that stand out for me personally (though some may be nostalgia speaking) are Death Comes to Pemberly by P.D. James (any novel by her is probably worth reading), The House on the Roof by Eberhart, and The Big Four by Christie, with the entire Lord Peter Wimsey series by Sayers as MUST reads and the Heyer mysteries praised by Sayers herself as “an abiding delight.” Curiously although I always enjoy Heyer, none of them stand out to me right now as being especially memorable. I'm bringing Behold Here's Poison on vacation this week.
This is fascinating. I have an illustrated hardback Chronicles of Narnia that I got as a child (and would save from a fire), so I’ve read The Magician’s Nephew but not That Hideous Strength. I caught the Tumnus reference but quickly forgot about it and didn’t notice anything else. Piranesi is such a wonderful book - thank you for this!
Thanks Amy! Glad you enjoyed it! That set sounds like a treasure. My first read through of Piranesi sounds about like yours. I was so impressed by Susanna Clarke when I started pulling on the C.S. Lewis thread and it just kept coming. :)
Such a wonderful piece! I didn’t remember that the line about who the Ketterleys needed was echoed like that.
I am amused about our different interpretation of the statues. The first is a queen and a “protector”. Sounds brave to me? The second, the light in the darkness, yes there is also bravery there but the first thing I think of is wisdom.
I loved THS when I was much younger and more patriarchal in my leanings, so I was curious to reread it. I still loved it, especially that part where Ransom goes a little nuts and Mrs Dumb is like yeah, don’t listen to everything he says.
Here I feel the need to say that I think women absolutely belong in the workforce at every level and that I don’t think he meant us to apply Jane and Mark‘s predicament universally. But in fact, even with my more critical lens 20 years later, I find Jane’s character echoed all around me: women who are doing what they *think* they should be doing work-wise, to be spared the ‘humiliation’ and (a much more real problem) the vulnerability of being “only” a wife and mother. Women who would prefer to be home, but don’t feel that it’s socially acceptable in their circles. (Or who won’t give up the houses/cars etc)
This could be seen as a weak point in his characterization of Jane— it doesn’t seem from the start that she would prefer to be more home-centric. But I always read her character as having been so influenced by the forces of the moment that she didn’t actually know what she wanted, and she felt relief and freedom in abandoning her very mid academic work. I definitely don’t think that’s universal! Many women know exactly they want, and I’m not saying that they all secretly want to be barefoot in the kitchen. But then, of course, there’s the fact that women are more strongly tied to the home (or: repelled out of the workforce) if they do have children, because of the vulnerabilities of pregnancy and months or years of nursing, and Lewis would have been more conscious of that gravitational pull than we generally are now.
In general I do agree that Lewis takes sex and gender little too far sometimes. Perhaps because I’m hypersensitized by today’s purportedly-Christian misogynists who would use that to keep us under their boots. But I don’t mind it so much directly from him because I feel that I’m in safe hands.
Thank you! I see what you mean about wisdom in the second statue. I think it rings "brave" to me because I find that walking into the unknown requires more bravery that being in a position of power. But of course, a protector is brave as well! I think that's why the images work so well together. They don't contradict each other, just illuminate different facets of Raphael's character.
I think I agree with your thoughts here about Jane. Like I said, she's not exactly unbelievable...I just don't think she's the strongest version of a character struggling with her particular predicament. It's as though Lewis identified a problem but couldn't quite get into Jane's head to understand how it would actually feel. I am a stay-at-home mom myself, and I have certainly encountered the tension between what society often pitches as an all-important career and the desire and need to be at home to raise my children. Lewis is right to point out that this is a problem, even if it's a problem with no easy solution!
Another reader pointed me back to Till We Have Faces, which has one of the best female characters written by a man that I've ever read. And apparently Lewis had the help of his wife in writing that one. For a long time I resisted any suggestion that Lewis wasn't 100% right about everything, but it feels good to finally acknowledge that he may not be perfect--that in fact, he is highly unlikely to be. ;)
Oh Ellen this was so very beautiful to read. I read Piranesi very quickly several years ago and have always meant to revisit it. It also drove me back into the works of Lewis. Apparently she was heavily influenced by Owen Barfield, too, whom I have not read yet. I love the insights you bring to the character of Raphael. You've got me ruminating on a possible connection with St. Raphael, as both a messenger and patron of travelers, and because of the genderless-ness of angels.
I love that charioteer illustration at the end, and it's interesting to think of that image of a maternal, protective charioteer as being a kind of inverse image to Jadis flying through the streets of London on the cab with her terrifying whip.
I didn't find Jane and Mark's marriage all that compelling either. Have you read Till We Have Faces? It's almost miraculous how much psychologically richer his portrait of a female character is in that one. And then you find out his wife contributed significantly and it makes sense haha
Dominika, what a lovely addition to this piece! Thank you! So many great things in your comment.
Someone else told me to go read Barfield and now I'm curious! Adding him to my reading list.
Raphael really is such a wonderful character. I was also thinking of her namesake--it certainly doesn't seem accidental, and there are several interesting possibilities. I was so delighted to find that charioteer illustration, which is a drawing of a fresco by Raphael the Renaissance artist. And I absolutely love your connection to Jadis. I didn't think of that and the two images are perfect foils--the good vs. the evil queens. Very powerful.
I always think of Till We Have Faces when I get gripey about C.S. Lewis's women. Just a stunning book and a stunning character. Miraculous is the right word for it! I did not realize he had the help of his wife, and it does indeed make all the sense in the world haha.
Last--that poem is STUNNING! Applying "In my Father's house there are many rooms" to the possibility of many worlds is so cool and thought provoking. Definitely a poem worth revisiting.
Glad you enjoyed the piece--thanks so much for the kind words. It's always a treat to hear your insights.
"Gripey about C.S. Lewis's women" made me laugh. He's such an unimpeachable writer in other ways, but I also feel this.
Also, please write more about contemporary novels. I really struggle to find ones I admire and enjoy. It's basically Clarke (though I've only read Piranesi), Ishiguro, Vodolazkin, and Wendell Berry for me. I do admire what Donna Tartt does thematically with her novels but I don't enjoy them all that much. Plus, with so many old books to read, I just never have much of an impetus to try newly published fiction.
"otherwise unimpeachable"--Couldn't have put it better myself!
Thanks for saying that--I'm glad you think it would be helpful--that's definitely one of my goals, because I feel the same way! There are so many old books that have been vetted by time, and the new ones always feel like a risk because sometimes they are so lame. I am drawn to modern prose stylists, though, so I am always looking. I also love Ishiguro and Berry, but haven't hear of Vodolaskin--where would you start with him? A couple more I enjoy are Leif Enger and Brian Doyle (particularly The Plover).
I haven't heard of Brian Doyle! Going to check him out! I struggle a bit with Leif Enger, but I know I'm the outlier. I've literally never met anyone else who didn't just absolutely love Peace Like a River. I've only read Laurus by Vodolazkin, but it was spell-binding! Genre-bending and metaphysically rich. I'm hoping to read more of his work soon.
Oh I would love to know what you didn't like about Peace Like a River! That's so fun and interesting. My favorite of Doyle's is The Plover. The prose is wacky in a way that I really enjoyed. It's not ground breaking philosophically but it is lovely. I am adding Laursu to my list right away!
I don't know with Peace Like a River! I read it once years ago and skimmed it again last fall for a book club. I just don't jive with the tone I think.
Haha, I can relate to your last sentence-- it's almost like, what is the point, time is short?!! lol. I have read a couple Ishiguro but find him hit or miss, and have yet to read any Donna Tartt or Vodolazkin. I did really enjoy Leif Enger and will check out his others, with trepidation that they won't hold up to Peace, and same with Amor Towles.
I also agree about Lewis' writing on women, and I think he did really need the influence of women in his (very male-centric) life to flesh out his ideas about how women think and operate. In Gina Dalfonzo's wonderful book *Dorothy and Jack*, she discusses how Sayers was this corrective for Lewis for many years before Joy came into his life. I think she was probably pretty critical and frank with him about where he needed to improve. He valued her input and friendship tremendously (their friendship story is really beautiful!). On pg. 93 of her book, Dalfonzo writes, "...Jack's portrayal of Jane Studdock in THS, who is portrayed as being clueless about the importance of obedience in marriage and whose career is downplayed, still makes many readers cringe." She goes on to highlight how his life and influences and the time he was living in as an Oxford academic would have given him the ideas of women that he had, and that many people who knew him in real life said he was "a better man than his theories when it came to women." (pg. 97). Anyway, I thought that particular chapter of her book really helped me understand where Lewis was coming from with these female characters!
Thanks for this addition! That is helpful and certainly rings true to what I already know. I remember hearing an anecdote about Lewis writing to Sayers and asking her to speak up to the public to argue that women shouldn't be priests, because it would mean more coming from a woman...and she said she couldn't think of a good reason to do that. haven't fact checked that story but it made me smile--the bold assumption that of course my female friend will agree with me about this!! Dorothy and Jack sounds like a really excellent book!
I will go ahead and warn you that Peace Like a River is definitely Enger's best. My second favorite is Virgil Wander. Love his prose, always, but I don't think he's hit upon such a good plot again.
Yes, I have heard that as well! Thanks for letting me know. I do think his story in Peace is really what makes the book, though his writing voice and style is a pleasure too. I'll have to check out Virgil Wander soon and see how it hits me!
Haha, I can relate to your last sentence-- it's almost like, what is the point, time is short?!! lol. I have read a couple Ishiguro but find him hit or miss, and have yet to read any Donna Tartt or Vodolazkin. I did really enjoy Leif Enger and will check out his others, with trepidation that they won't hold up to Peace, and same with Amor Towles.
I also agree about Lewis' writing on women, and I think he did really need the influence of women in his (very male-centric) life to flesh out his ideas about how women think and operate. In Gina Dalfonzo's wonderful book *Dorothy and Jack*, she discusses how Sayers was this corrective for Lewis for many years before Joy came into his life. I think she was probably pretty critical and frank with him about where he needed to improve. He valued her input and friendship tremendously (their friendship story is really beautiful!). On pg. 93 of her book, Dalfonzo writes, "...Jack's portrayal of Jane Studdock in THS, who is portrayed as being clueless about the importance of obedience in marriage and whose career is downplayed, still makes many readers cringe." She goes on to highlight how his life and influences and the time he was living in as an Oxford academic would have given him the ideas of women that he had, and that many people who knew him in real life said he was "a better man than his theories when it came to women." (pg. 97). Anyway, I thought that particular chapter of her book really helped me understand where Lewis was coming from with these female characters!
This book is a balm to my soul. Her connection to another Inkling, Owen Barfield, is also worth taking a deep dive into.
I agree. And thank you! I wasn't aware and haven't read Barfield, but will certainly investigate!
Which book in particular?
He seems to extrapolate his theory of language and consciousness across all his books but mostly I'm thinking of Saving the Appearances and Poetic Diction. Interesting books even if they are *slightly* out there :)
Thank you! I have struggled with Barfield in the past more than the other Inklings, but I am going to give him another go.
He's more of a vibe guy :) I understand about .01% but find it invigorating
You called me out. I do like to think that I'm smart and well-read.
oh, me too! haha
Tickled to find your Substack - love your writing!
Thank you so much! glad you're here!
Her previous one, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell, is about 900 pages long. But at least it isn't in journal form. I enjoyed it very much and didn't find it too long - have read it twice. It's about two magicians living in a pseudo-Victorian world and the realm of Faerie. Piranesi I've only read once so far. Don't the two guinea pigs from Magician's Nephew also transfer across? And is the statue with lamp Christlike from the Holman Hunt picture?
Thanks for the recommendation! It's on my shelf but I haven't gotten around to it yet! It's on the list for this summer. Yes--the children find at least one of the guinea pigs in the Wood Between the Worlds. I'm not sure that the statue refers to that painting in particular, mostly because Christ holds the lantern down rather than up, and is pretty obviously Christ, rather than an unidentifiable figure. But I do think the image of "the light of the world" applies here--as Piranesi's savior, Raphael could definitely be seen as a Christ figure. I would not be surprised to learn that Clarke had a particular piece of art in mind for that image, but I've yet to find it!
So pleased to have discovered you and your newsletter. Thanks for this. I have the book but haven’t read it yet. And CS Lewis is one of my favorites.
Glad you're here! I would certainly recommend it! :)
I obediently stopped reading when you warned of spoilers and just requested it at the library!🤣 Saving this article for when I finish reading it. Sounds so intriguing.
Haha, atta girl! It's worth it! Happy reading!!
My library had it right away and I finished it last night! Wow what an odd and beautiful book. I kept thinking I should be bored because of the confined setting and small list of characters. But instead I was fascinated and couldn't stop reading. I felt that she had placed so much trust in me as the reader. She did not spoon feed or hold my hand. I had to do the work of remembering the details and putting it together, and that sense of being entrusted with lyrical writing and parsing the meaning reminded me of that illumination from a poem that I'm just about to understand. I read a bunch of reviews last night, curious how others perceive the work, and it's so split. I wonder if poetry readers love it more than straight fiction readers? Of course there's so much overlap the categories are meaningless, and maybe detective fiction readers have a leg up as well. Whether you read for plot, atmosphere, or character development, there is much to appreciate, so the negative reactions were surprising except for how I kept marveling as I pictured hall after hall of statues, "HOW is this not boring yet???" Knowing there was a C.S. Lewis connection from reading the opening paragraphs of your essay also piqued my interest. I really loved this book and I really loved your essay about it. Thank you! Something about it reminds me of Till We Have Faces, but what? The mood? The ending? Raphael's character? I can't place it.
That was fast, I'm so impressed! Love your impressions here. You're so right--it does feel like trust. I hadn't thought of it that way.
Fascinating to hear that the reviews are so split. As a girl who had the nerve to call her newsletter "the better reader," I think anyone who dislikes it is...wrong!! haha. But I do know what you mean about feeling like "how am I actually enjoying this right now?" The book is certainly very odd, perhaps unique, so I suppose I could see disliking it on aesthetic grounds. Still bugs me though. ;)
As an adult I have discovered a love of mystery/detection fiction that I didn't know I had, and I do think you're on to something there. The actual plot is very much a mystery--I'm realizing right now that it's literally a detective story when you get to the end. But that genre is definitely hidden behind the language, which is so poetic and lyrical and strange. Maybe that's how to pitch it to more practical readers--it's a mystery! I promise!
I'm interested in connection with Till We Have Faces, because I think you're right. Both books leave you sort of melancholy. And both have a sense of great mysteries beyond our comprehension. I haven't read TWHF in years though, so it's time for a reread!
Thanks for taking my recommendation! I'm honored!
I am glad I found you on Substack. This kind of niche bookish analysis is my favorite. And detective fiction is one of my favorites: Sayers, Christie, Heyer... The only problem is I stay up way too late. I need to reread Till We Have Faces now. It's probably the book of Lewis's I have read the least. Even though I appreciate and admire it, for some reason I don't have a connection to the characters, but I have noticed how different books look now that I'm in my forties. I am curious what connections with Piranesi will emerge.
I am glad too! Thanks for being here! Would love your recommendations for, say, top three detective novels. Let me know if you do read it and find connections with Piranesi! Would love to hear about it!
Top three! That is a fun challenge. I am terrible at narrowing down literary favorites. My teens are going through a big Sherlock Holmes/Agatha Christie phase, which is so fun, so we chatted about what our top three might be. They are big fans of Death on the Nile, Murder on the Orient Express, and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. For how prolific Christie was, amazing there are almost no duds. The three mysteries that stand out for me personally (though some may be nostalgia speaking) are Death Comes to Pemberly by P.D. James (any novel by her is probably worth reading), The House on the Roof by Eberhart, and The Big Four by Christie, with the entire Lord Peter Wimsey series by Sayers as MUST reads and the Heyer mysteries praised by Sayers herself as “an abiding delight.” Curiously although I always enjoy Heyer, none of them stand out to me right now as being especially memorable. I'm bringing Behold Here's Poison on vacation this week.
I loved Piranesi and it's been years since I read the Chronicles of Narnia, maybe it's time for a reread
It's worth it! We are reading The Horse and His Boy to my son right now and I had forgotten how captivating it is.
This is fascinating. I have an illustrated hardback Chronicles of Narnia that I got as a child (and would save from a fire), so I’ve read The Magician’s Nephew but not That Hideous Strength. I caught the Tumnus reference but quickly forgot about it and didn’t notice anything else. Piranesi is such a wonderful book - thank you for this!
Thanks Amy! Glad you enjoyed it! That set sounds like a treasure. My first read through of Piranesi sounds about like yours. I was so impressed by Susanna Clarke when I started pulling on the C.S. Lewis thread and it just kept coming. :)
I just LOVED Piranesi and I enjoyed digging in a little deeper here with the CS Lewis connection. Thank you Ellen.
Thanks Tash! I just loved it too. So good.
Such a wonderful piece! I didn’t remember that the line about who the Ketterleys needed was echoed like that.
I am amused about our different interpretation of the statues. The first is a queen and a “protector”. Sounds brave to me? The second, the light in the darkness, yes there is also bravery there but the first thing I think of is wisdom.
I loved THS when I was much younger and more patriarchal in my leanings, so I was curious to reread it. I still loved it, especially that part where Ransom goes a little nuts and Mrs Dumb is like yeah, don’t listen to everything he says.
Here I feel the need to say that I think women absolutely belong in the workforce at every level and that I don’t think he meant us to apply Jane and Mark‘s predicament universally. But in fact, even with my more critical lens 20 years later, I find Jane’s character echoed all around me: women who are doing what they *think* they should be doing work-wise, to be spared the ‘humiliation’ and (a much more real problem) the vulnerability of being “only” a wife and mother. Women who would prefer to be home, but don’t feel that it’s socially acceptable in their circles. (Or who won’t give up the houses/cars etc)
This could be seen as a weak point in his characterization of Jane— it doesn’t seem from the start that she would prefer to be more home-centric. But I always read her character as having been so influenced by the forces of the moment that she didn’t actually know what she wanted, and she felt relief and freedom in abandoning her very mid academic work. I definitely don’t think that’s universal! Many women know exactly they want, and I’m not saying that they all secretly want to be barefoot in the kitchen. But then, of course, there’s the fact that women are more strongly tied to the home (or: repelled out of the workforce) if they do have children, because of the vulnerabilities of pregnancy and months or years of nursing, and Lewis would have been more conscious of that gravitational pull than we generally are now.
In general I do agree that Lewis takes sex and gender little too far sometimes. Perhaps because I’m hypersensitized by today’s purportedly-Christian misogynists who would use that to keep us under their boots. But I don’t mind it so much directly from him because I feel that I’m in safe hands.
Thanks for all the food for thought!
Thank you! I see what you mean about wisdom in the second statue. I think it rings "brave" to me because I find that walking into the unknown requires more bravery that being in a position of power. But of course, a protector is brave as well! I think that's why the images work so well together. They don't contradict each other, just illuminate different facets of Raphael's character.
I think I agree with your thoughts here about Jane. Like I said, she's not exactly unbelievable...I just don't think she's the strongest version of a character struggling with her particular predicament. It's as though Lewis identified a problem but couldn't quite get into Jane's head to understand how it would actually feel. I am a stay-at-home mom myself, and I have certainly encountered the tension between what society often pitches as an all-important career and the desire and need to be at home to raise my children. Lewis is right to point out that this is a problem, even if it's a problem with no easy solution!
Another reader pointed me back to Till We Have Faces, which has one of the best female characters written by a man that I've ever read. And apparently Lewis had the help of his wife in writing that one. For a long time I resisted any suggestion that Lewis wasn't 100% right about everything, but it feels good to finally acknowledge that he may not be perfect--that in fact, he is highly unlikely to be. ;)
Thanks for reading!
His imperfection almost makes me like him more!
I agree! :)
Oh Ellen this was so very beautiful to read. I read Piranesi very quickly several years ago and have always meant to revisit it. It also drove me back into the works of Lewis. Apparently she was heavily influenced by Owen Barfield, too, whom I have not read yet. I love the insights you bring to the character of Raphael. You've got me ruminating on a possible connection with St. Raphael, as both a messenger and patron of travelers, and because of the genderless-ness of angels.
I love that charioteer illustration at the end, and it's interesting to think of that image of a maternal, protective charioteer as being a kind of inverse image to Jadis flying through the streets of London on the cab with her terrifying whip.
I didn't find Jane and Mark's marriage all that compelling either. Have you read Till We Have Faces? It's almost miraculous how much psychologically richer his portrait of a female character is in that one. And then you find out his wife contributed significantly and it makes sense haha
Also, your thoughts on the multiplicity of worlds and the goodness that sustains them reminded me of this poem: https://redredshoes.blogspot.com/2015/05/april-orchard-franz-wright.html
Anyway, thank you again! I'm going to send this to a friend who just read Piranesi and whom I was discussing the C.S. Lewis connection with.
Dominika, what a lovely addition to this piece! Thank you! So many great things in your comment.
Someone else told me to go read Barfield and now I'm curious! Adding him to my reading list.
Raphael really is such a wonderful character. I was also thinking of her namesake--it certainly doesn't seem accidental, and there are several interesting possibilities. I was so delighted to find that charioteer illustration, which is a drawing of a fresco by Raphael the Renaissance artist. And I absolutely love your connection to Jadis. I didn't think of that and the two images are perfect foils--the good vs. the evil queens. Very powerful.
I always think of Till We Have Faces when I get gripey about C.S. Lewis's women. Just a stunning book and a stunning character. Miraculous is the right word for it! I did not realize he had the help of his wife, and it does indeed make all the sense in the world haha.
Last--that poem is STUNNING! Applying "In my Father's house there are many rooms" to the possibility of many worlds is so cool and thought provoking. Definitely a poem worth revisiting.
Glad you enjoyed the piece--thanks so much for the kind words. It's always a treat to hear your insights.
"Gripey about C.S. Lewis's women" made me laugh. He's such an unimpeachable writer in other ways, but I also feel this.
Also, please write more about contemporary novels. I really struggle to find ones I admire and enjoy. It's basically Clarke (though I've only read Piranesi), Ishiguro, Vodolazkin, and Wendell Berry for me. I do admire what Donna Tartt does thematically with her novels but I don't enjoy them all that much. Plus, with so many old books to read, I just never have much of an impetus to try newly published fiction.
"otherwise unimpeachable"--Couldn't have put it better myself!
Thanks for saying that--I'm glad you think it would be helpful--that's definitely one of my goals, because I feel the same way! There are so many old books that have been vetted by time, and the new ones always feel like a risk because sometimes they are so lame. I am drawn to modern prose stylists, though, so I am always looking. I also love Ishiguro and Berry, but haven't hear of Vodolaskin--where would you start with him? A couple more I enjoy are Leif Enger and Brian Doyle (particularly The Plover).
I haven't heard of Brian Doyle! Going to check him out! I struggle a bit with Leif Enger, but I know I'm the outlier. I've literally never met anyone else who didn't just absolutely love Peace Like a River. I've only read Laurus by Vodolazkin, but it was spell-binding! Genre-bending and metaphysically rich. I'm hoping to read more of his work soon.
Oh I would love to know what you didn't like about Peace Like a River! That's so fun and interesting. My favorite of Doyle's is The Plover. The prose is wacky in a way that I really enjoyed. It's not ground breaking philosophically but it is lovely. I am adding Laursu to my list right away!
I don't know with Peace Like a River! I read it once years ago and skimmed it again last fall for a book club. I just don't jive with the tone I think.
Haha, I can relate to your last sentence-- it's almost like, what is the point, time is short?!! lol. I have read a couple Ishiguro but find him hit or miss, and have yet to read any Donna Tartt or Vodolazkin. I did really enjoy Leif Enger and will check out his others, with trepidation that they won't hold up to Peace, and same with Amor Towles.
I also agree about Lewis' writing on women, and I think he did really need the influence of women in his (very male-centric) life to flesh out his ideas about how women think and operate. In Gina Dalfonzo's wonderful book *Dorothy and Jack*, she discusses how Sayers was this corrective for Lewis for many years before Joy came into his life. I think she was probably pretty critical and frank with him about where he needed to improve. He valued her input and friendship tremendously (their friendship story is really beautiful!). On pg. 93 of her book, Dalfonzo writes, "...Jack's portrayal of Jane Studdock in THS, who is portrayed as being clueless about the importance of obedience in marriage and whose career is downplayed, still makes many readers cringe." She goes on to highlight how his life and influences and the time he was living in as an Oxford academic would have given him the ideas of women that he had, and that many people who knew him in real life said he was "a better man than his theories when it came to women." (pg. 97). Anyway, I thought that particular chapter of her book really helped me understand where Lewis was coming from with these female characters!
Thanks for this addition! That is helpful and certainly rings true to what I already know. I remember hearing an anecdote about Lewis writing to Sayers and asking her to speak up to the public to argue that women shouldn't be priests, because it would mean more coming from a woman...and she said she couldn't think of a good reason to do that. haven't fact checked that story but it made me smile--the bold assumption that of course my female friend will agree with me about this!! Dorothy and Jack sounds like a really excellent book!
I will go ahead and warn you that Peace Like a River is definitely Enger's best. My second favorite is Virgil Wander. Love his prose, always, but I don't think he's hit upon such a good plot again.
Yes, I have heard that as well! Thanks for letting me know. I do think his story in Peace is really what makes the book, though his writing voice and style is a pleasure too. I'll have to check out Virgil Wander soon and see how it hits me!
"Many people who knew him in real life said he was 'a better man than his theories when it came to women.'"
That's good to know!
Haha, I can relate to your last sentence-- it's almost like, what is the point, time is short?!! lol. I have read a couple Ishiguro but find him hit or miss, and have yet to read any Donna Tartt or Vodolazkin. I did really enjoy Leif Enger and will check out his others, with trepidation that they won't hold up to Peace, and same with Amor Towles.
I also agree about Lewis' writing on women, and I think he did really need the influence of women in his (very male-centric) life to flesh out his ideas about how women think and operate. In Gina Dalfonzo's wonderful book *Dorothy and Jack*, she discusses how Sayers was this corrective for Lewis for many years before Joy came into his life. I think she was probably pretty critical and frank with him about where he needed to improve. He valued her input and friendship tremendously (their friendship story is really beautiful!). On pg. 93 of her book, Dalfonzo writes, "...Jack's portrayal of Jane Studdock in THS, who is portrayed as being clueless about the importance of obedience in marriage and whose career is downplayed, still makes many readers cringe." She goes on to highlight how his life and influences and the time he was living in as an Oxford academic would have given him the ideas of women that he had, and that many people who knew him in real life said he was "a better man than his theories when it came to women." (pg. 97). Anyway, I thought that particular chapter of her book really helped me understand where Lewis was coming from with these female characters!
Thanks for the shoutout!
You bet! I enjoyed your post about it!