Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
Let me begin this review by making a couple of things about this book absolutely clear. First, it's not a book about marraige or divorce. Secondly, it depicts a vision of the relationship between Heaven, Hell and Purgatory which is utterly incorrect. However, Lewis admits to this second point at both the beginning and end of the book. It's a work of fiction; nothing else, so with that said, we can move on to the book itself.
In this novel, a soul travels from Hell to Heaven, with a few of his fellow souls, and bit by bit, each discovers just why they don't belong there. The slavedriving, condescending boss doesn't even want to be around so many miscreants, the apostate is repulsed by the idea of knowing one idea to be true and all the others false, the thief finds he can't steal anything from Heaven, because he has nowhere to put it, etc... It's a clever little device for a story, although as the book goes on, one is forced to wonder; just what did the narrator do to end up in Hell, and will he be able to overcome it and remain in Heaven?
This, by the way, is the element of fiction that the book makes ample use of; that technically, souls in Hell are given a chance to visit Heaven, change their ways, and remain there. This is ludicrous, of course; the very idea of Hell implies that people have already chosen not to change their ways, and made their final decision already. There are no further choices of this sort to be made after Death. Still, as a basis for a story, it's an amusing little plot device. It's just a shame that we never really learn anything of substance about the narrator. I feel Lewis could have fleshed him out and made him an interesting character, rather than a mere cypher for viewing the other occurrances. Still, it was fun to read, for what it was.
Now, on to specific goods and bads about the story. I have no major complaints to speak of for the entire first half of the book. As I said, the premise is absurd, but apart from that, it holds up very well.
However, in Chapter 9, Paragraph 88, one of the saints says that people who drink the waters of Heaven see their works as though they belonged to someone else. Thank you, but no. I already know what it's like to watch other people do great things, and I know it's not sufficient. If I wanted that, I wouldn't need to go to Heaven for it.
This is one of those things that I don't think Lewis ever really understood; the notion that being with God implies the -exhaltation- of man, not his suppression. In retrospect, many of my problems with his books stem from this basic issue.
Ch9Par100-103, for example, in which the ghost of a painter "realizes" that people receive no recognition in Heaven at all, except from God. Needless to say, I don't agree. God grants to the saints all things which are good, and no things which are evil. Recognition from peers is a good thing. Therefore...
In Ch11Par14, it's implied that people must never treat God as a means to other good things. While I admit readily enough that God is the greatest possible goodness, and should not be undervalued, we sorry humans sometimes need to motivate ourselves, which is made even harder for those of us who have difficulty being motivated by something as abstract as true and complete goodness, or as humanoid as the son of God. In this kind of situation, it would be prudent to seek some other good, so that one might be motivated to make the right decisions and arrive in Heaven to receive it. Now, this is not relevant to the situation of the woman the saint was talking to in this paragraph, but I feel it should be pointed out.
As the book continues beyond these segments, however, it begins to make a number of very good and interesting points. First is Ch11Par113, where it essentially says that every aspect of man can be raised to glory, so long as it's killed first. I personally believe this to be true, since otherwise, the glorified man wouldn't really be a complete "man" at all.
Next is Ch13Par43, which makes the point that those who make others miserable until they choose to be happy on their own terms will be very unhappy in the end. Still, I think this point needs to be studied just a little more closely. On the one hand, this point really only applies to those who make other people miserable by their own choices, but on the other hand, it could be misread to imply that there's something wrong with being hard to please, which I don't think is true by itself.
Then, in Ch13Par47, we learn that the action of pity must be elevated, and the passion of pity must be executed. Mostly correct, I think, and an important distinction to make. When we become weak and immoral, and let ourselves become victims as a result of feeling pity towards others, we're not helping anyone, and there does need to be some way to correct this.
Finally, I feel I should mention that this book includes George Macdonald as one of its characters. He shows up as a saint in Heaven, which by this point, I'm inclined to think he is. Macdonald's biggest problem, aside from not being Catholic, was his universalism, and unless he intended to apostatize, which seems unlikely, I don't think his mistakes were enough to merit eternal punishment. I disagree with him about some things, but I don't see any reason for supposing that he failed to make it to Heaven. It did bother me a bit to see him treated like the old mentor there, though.
Ultimately, the book is about the people we observe; the study of the kinds of people who failed to make it to Heaven and why. Of course, during this study, we examine many types of choices and psychological conditions, and find out what's wrong with them and what kinds of problems they cause for the soul of whoever has them. This is the real meat of the story, and I really enjoyed it, in spite of all the things I was hoping to see.
On the whole, I found this book to be very enjoyable and very fun, although again, it needs to be treated as the fiction it is. Take it in that context, and you should be just fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment