I'm posting on a question I had once I read the actual myth in the back of Lewis' Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold. In the true myth, according to Lewis' own synopsis, Psyche had both sisters come to her after she married Cupid. But that's not the difference that really makes me wonder. I wonder why Lewis changed the method of convincing Psyche to use the lamp that night. In the myth, the two sisters are overwhelmed with their jealousy and they convince Psyche to use the lamp because they knew it would destroy her happiness. In Lewis' version, Orual seems to have selfish motives (she wants Psyche back with her, to agree with her, to need her), but she's also seemingly convinced that her intentions are for Psyche's benefit. So I guess my question is two-fold.
One: do you think the accounts are different, or is Orual actually acting to destroy Psyche's happiness for her own sake, and...
Two: if they are different, why do you think Lewis changed it? Or even if you think they're the same, why did Lewis make his account so much more complex? I think even if you argue that Orual really understands what's going on, but she's deceiving herself to justify what she's doing, that's still far more complicated than the original myth that just states how the sisters behave selfishly.
I can't decide how I feel about the first question, whether or not Lewis is changing the motive or not, because I keep going back and forth on whether Orual really does know what's happening but she's just deceiving herself to justify acting in her own best interest. However, I think regardless of the answer to that question, Lewis is definitely making the situation more complicated. And I think one reason may be so that Orual can be more relateable, more understandable, more sympathetic to our own experiences and feelings. We can easily put ourselves in that situation and feel justified making either decision. Whereas, in a situation where we only act out of selfish intentions, it would be much harder, if not impossible, to justify ourselves acting that way.
This is getting long, and I think I've made my questions clear, so I'll leave you at that. Let me know what you all think!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Orual as Ungit
“Without a question it was true. It was I who was Ungit. That ruinous face was mine. I was that Batta-thing, that all-devouring womblike, yet barren, thing. Glome was a web—I the swollen spider, squat at its center, gorged with men’s stolen lives” (276). In Till We Have Faces, Lewis writes how Orual realizes that she herself is Ungit—but what does this mean? How she can be both Orual and Ungit—a mortal and a god?
In Orual’s vision, she is climbing down farther and farther until her father takes her to a mirror and she sees the face of Ungit reflected back at her. This action of going deeper and deeper into the earth parallels the journey Psyche must make into the Underworld to acquire beauty for Ungit. We are told countless times of Orual’s ugliness but now we know that in this way she matches Ungit. But it is not simply external appearances that match Ungit and Orual together.
Orual, like Ungit, is extremely jealous of Psyche’s beauty; however, while this is explicit in Psyche’s relationship with Ungit, her relation to Orual is more complicated. Orual loves Psyche, but it is a twisted love, a jealous love. She wants to keep Psyche for herself. As long as Orual holds Psyche’s complete love (in Orual’s mind), she is also holding part of Psyche’s beauty. Or, as long as Orual has someone she feels is completely devoted to her and loves her exclusively, Orual does not feel the sting of her ugliness. It is only after Psyche has been punished to wandering and is fully separated from her that Orual decides to veil herself, both physically with a piece of cloth and mentally with a new persona—the Queen.
It is Orual’s vision that finally forces her to realize her likeness to Ungit—a god that she despises. She does not wish to be like Ungit and resolves to cease such an existence. Orual will no longer devour those around her—sucking dry their lives in her search for intense, unswerving love. Thus, she begins her transformation. But what it took for her to do so was an epiphany that her love was based on jealousy, resentment of the person she loved—an ugly, distorted love.
In Orual’s vision, she is climbing down farther and farther until her father takes her to a mirror and she sees the face of Ungit reflected back at her. This action of going deeper and deeper into the earth parallels the journey Psyche must make into the Underworld to acquire beauty for Ungit. We are told countless times of Orual’s ugliness but now we know that in this way she matches Ungit. But it is not simply external appearances that match Ungit and Orual together.
Orual, like Ungit, is extremely jealous of Psyche’s beauty; however, while this is explicit in Psyche’s relationship with Ungit, her relation to Orual is more complicated. Orual loves Psyche, but it is a twisted love, a jealous love. She wants to keep Psyche for herself. As long as Orual holds Psyche’s complete love (in Orual’s mind), she is also holding part of Psyche’s beauty. Or, as long as Orual has someone she feels is completely devoted to her and loves her exclusively, Orual does not feel the sting of her ugliness. It is only after Psyche has been punished to wandering and is fully separated from her that Orual decides to veil herself, both physically with a piece of cloth and mentally with a new persona—the Queen.
It is Orual’s vision that finally forces her to realize her likeness to Ungit—a god that she despises. She does not wish to be like Ungit and resolves to cease such an existence. Orual will no longer devour those around her—sucking dry their lives in her search for intense, unswerving love. Thus, she begins her transformation. But what it took for her to do so was an epiphany that her love was based on jealousy, resentment of the person she loved—an ugly, distorted love.
Monday, November 10, 2008
All consuming love
To eat and to love, are they really all that different? This is a question posed several times in Till We Have Faces; from the sacrifice of Psyche to the Shadowbrute, to Orual's possessiveness of her sister, to the Queen's demands on the time and strength of both Bardia and the Fox. It goes against all the warm fuzzy feelings I associate with love to think of it as akin to the act of devouring. And yet, I must admit it is not that different to eat and to love.
For when we begin to eat something it is in order to satisfy a physical need, to fill a void, to reach contentment. When I seek to love, or more often to be loved by, someone it also satisfies a need, fills a void, and improves the quality of my life, at least for a time. This is perhaps why Lewis calls it Need-love, for there is no way to really rid oneself of the need. We must either ignore it or satisfy it. But we learn from Orual that true and ultimate satisfaction is unattainable, at least in regards to human lovers. Even when she is surest about another's love for her, she still seeks more. We also learn from Orual that to ignore the need for love is only to repress it, to bury it deeply and to subconsciously continue pursuing it even as you "suck the life" out of your victims. So what are we to do with this need for love?
As I made my way through the novel I cringed each time the ugly and distorted nature of Orual's devouring love was shown. I wanted to stop her, to show her, to guide her. But what would I have her do? What could I say to her that would open her eyes to the distortion of her love? What would someone have to say to me to make me aware of my own distorted affections? Is it really possible to alter your own feelings? I suppose if Orual could have seen her folly at the time she was committing it she may have changed her actions, but could she have truly altered her emotions? Would it have been possible for her to simply stop desiring to be loved? I suppose what I struggle with most is the idea of eliminating, not ignoring but actually destroying, a desire. Even if I see the distortion in my own love, I cannot convince myself that my desire to love or be loved is wrong. If I can I am still at loss for how I ought to rid myself of such a desire. How do you explain to someone who is hungry that it is wrong for them to eat?
For when we begin to eat something it is in order to satisfy a physical need, to fill a void, to reach contentment. When I seek to love, or more often to be loved by, someone it also satisfies a need, fills a void, and improves the quality of my life, at least for a time. This is perhaps why Lewis calls it Need-love, for there is no way to really rid oneself of the need. We must either ignore it or satisfy it. But we learn from Orual that true and ultimate satisfaction is unattainable, at least in regards to human lovers. Even when she is surest about another's love for her, she still seeks more. We also learn from Orual that to ignore the need for love is only to repress it, to bury it deeply and to subconsciously continue pursuing it even as you "suck the life" out of your victims. So what are we to do with this need for love?
As I made my way through the novel I cringed each time the ugly and distorted nature of Orual's devouring love was shown. I wanted to stop her, to show her, to guide her. But what would I have her do? What could I say to her that would open her eyes to the distortion of her love? What would someone have to say to me to make me aware of my own distorted affections? Is it really possible to alter your own feelings? I suppose if Orual could have seen her folly at the time she was committing it she may have changed her actions, but could she have truly altered her emotions? Would it have been possible for her to simply stop desiring to be loved? I suppose what I struggle with most is the idea of eliminating, not ignoring but actually destroying, a desire. Even if I see the distortion in my own love, I cannot convince myself that my desire to love or be loved is wrong. If I can I am still at loss for how I ought to rid myself of such a desire. How do you explain to someone who is hungry that it is wrong for them to eat?
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Till we have understanding...
There is something about "Till We Have Faces" that everyone can relate to. I think Lewis does a great job of not only retelling the tale of Psyche but of capturing the various pains that the human heart can feel. You do not have to be a hideous person to be able to identify with the hurt and confusion that Orual is going through. In the later part of the book when Orual begins to realize that she was mistaken about how she felt towards Psyche and Cupid, I realized that I myself have had some experiences like this. Experiences that have showed me how mistaken and confused I was about a certain thing and that confusion led me to create erroneous beliefs in my head. Its like realizing the motivation behind why you do something for the first time. Where as before you thought something to be a certain way and when you realize what your true motivations were, its a deeply shameful and humbling experience. I wasnt really sure what to think about this book because so much of our material has included christian theology. I have always had a fascination with Greek myth so that motivated me to read this book. I was taken by surprise by how well Lewis captured the pain of the human heart, like I said before. It really helped me to realize that even though we are all different people we are bonded together by our experiences in life. And some of these experiences, however painful or wonderful they may be, there is a common thread about them and this thread helps bring us together. This book was a rewarding read for me in that way!
Monday, November 3, 2008
Why would I want to Suffer?
So all the while that we were in class discussing the problem of pain we kept coming back to this idea that we suffer because God loves us. This idea has stuck with me, but not in a good idea, I’ve been sitting here pondering this, as to why it bugs me. And it finally dawned on me; my problem is that why then would I want God’s love? If we suffer because God loves us, then why would we not want to do anything we could do get God to despise us if God’s love leads to suffering, and God’s unlike of us would lead to us being left alone?
Now some of you may say but God would know, and God would love you only if He knew you weren’t going to curse Him. But this theology that God’s love leads to suffering, I don’t think that uplifts the Christian. I think it is a stumbling block in itself to say this because then if I believe that the suffering is too great, too much for me to handle, then why would I not curse God? This idea from a theological perspective has no value in showing us what God is like or how we should deal with Him. I mean not in any positive way.
Should we when we suffer praise God for His large amounts of love? Should we think that the more we suffer the more we are blessed? How would this idea help to bring us closer to God? And if it does not bring us closer to God, then how does this bring us better understanding of Him? And if it does none of the above then why should we add this to our theology or thoughts toward life or God?
Mind you I do admit that not all truths about life or God bring us closer to Him, but still could be true. Maybe like the virgin birth of Jesus, this doesn’t affect one’s everyday life, but this one is different. This idea of suffering can do harm to one’s relationship with God, because we as humans by our nature hate that which leads us to suffer. So I have decided after pondering this idea, that while it may be true, it contains no Truth, that will bring us closer to God, and so should be not dwelled on, as it can most likely bring us only farther from God, not closer.
Now some of you may say but God would know, and God would love you only if He knew you weren’t going to curse Him. But this theology that God’s love leads to suffering, I don’t think that uplifts the Christian. I think it is a stumbling block in itself to say this because then if I believe that the suffering is too great, too much for me to handle, then why would I not curse God? This idea from a theological perspective has no value in showing us what God is like or how we should deal with Him. I mean not in any positive way.
Should we when we suffer praise God for His large amounts of love? Should we think that the more we suffer the more we are blessed? How would this idea help to bring us closer to God? And if it does not bring us closer to God, then how does this bring us better understanding of Him? And if it does none of the above then why should we add this to our theology or thoughts toward life or God?
Mind you I do admit that not all truths about life or God bring us closer to Him, but still could be true. Maybe like the virgin birth of Jesus, this doesn’t affect one’s everyday life, but this one is different. This idea of suffering can do harm to one’s relationship with God, because we as humans by our nature hate that which leads us to suffer. So I have decided after pondering this idea, that while it may be true, it contains no Truth, that will bring us closer to God, and so should be not dwelled on, as it can most likely bring us only farther from God, not closer.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Need love or gift love?
Lewis classifies human loves into two types: need love and gift love, and it made me wonder, is our love for God gift love or need love? In a sense, it should be gift love. We die to ourselves to serve God and obey his commands. We accept his love and allow it to transform us. Loving God requires sacrifice-- sacrifice of our earthly nature and sinful desires. In that way, it seems like a gift love. On the other hand, our souls long for relationship with God. As we love God, we receive the hope of his salvation and redemption of our lives. In that sense it is a need love. We can't love God without being blessed in some way, whether it be spiritually or physically. But do we just love God so that we can receive his blessings? Lewis depicts need love as love that is more focused on self than on the object that is being loved. I think we love God because God is worthy of our love. The Bible says we love Him because he first loved us. But we also need God, and while we may strive to give ourselves in selfless devotion to God in honor of Christ's sacrifice for us, we can't deny the fact that we need God and we benefit from loving Him. So maybe you really can't classify our love for God as one type of love or the other.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Reflections on Charity
I have a confession to make. I discovered a very troubling truth about myself not so long ago that makes me ashamed to even think about. But here it is: I am a very judgmental person. I see someone for the first time, not knowing their name or anything about them, and automatically place them in a category; whether this be based on how they are dressed, how they articulate themselves, who they are around when I first see them - doesn't matter. And if I find something in that first glance that I don't like, I tend to write them off or, if forced to interact with them, to unintentionally treat them differently than I would if I didn't have that judgment about them.
This revelation has forced me to examine how I see the world around me. I came to college this year and told myself, "OK, clean slate. Whatever happened last year doesn't hold any influence this year. Keep your eyes open." And you know what? Some of those people who I had a so-so relationship with last year are becoming close friends this year, simply by my intentionally throwing out any previous biases or stereotypes I had placed on them.
The part in the chapter about Charity that really stuck out to me was this: "But Divine Gift-love in the man enables him to love what is not naturally lovable; lepers, criminals, enemies, morons, the sulky, the superior and the sneering" (p.128). God loved us before we were even born. We have been enveloped in an all-encompassing love since the day we were formed in our mothers' womb. We have been gifted an excess amount of love, and shouldn't hesitate to share that love with everyone around us; there is more than enough of God's love to go around. We don't have time to waste on avoiding someone simply because they don't seem loveable by us.
While I am judgmental, I am also an insufferable optimist. My friends know that when they come to me with complaints that yes, I'll sympathize, but also (much to their annoyance) have a statement that begins with "It could always be worse . . .". I realize that my optimistic attitude directly clashes with my judgmental attitude. How can I say I am an optimist if I can't find something good in everyone rather than focus on first impressions?
I guess the point of all of this was to say that Lewis' thoughts about Charity have caused me to reflect on the fact that I seem to ration out my giving because of ultimately irrelevant reasons. God loved me before I even knew Him - in times when I was completely unloveable by any other standards, He loved me completely. Who am I to withhold my love for others simply because they don't measure up to my standards?
This revelation has forced me to examine how I see the world around me. I came to college this year and told myself, "OK, clean slate. Whatever happened last year doesn't hold any influence this year. Keep your eyes open." And you know what? Some of those people who I had a so-so relationship with last year are becoming close friends this year, simply by my intentionally throwing out any previous biases or stereotypes I had placed on them.
The part in the chapter about Charity that really stuck out to me was this: "But Divine Gift-love in the man enables him to love what is not naturally lovable; lepers, criminals, enemies, morons, the sulky, the superior and the sneering" (p.128). God loved us before we were even born. We have been enveloped in an all-encompassing love since the day we were formed in our mothers' womb. We have been gifted an excess amount of love, and shouldn't hesitate to share that love with everyone around us; there is more than enough of God's love to go around. We don't have time to waste on avoiding someone simply because they don't seem loveable by us.
While I am judgmental, I am also an insufferable optimist. My friends know that when they come to me with complaints that yes, I'll sympathize, but also (much to their annoyance) have a statement that begins with "It could always be worse . . .". I realize that my optimistic attitude directly clashes with my judgmental attitude. How can I say I am an optimist if I can't find something good in everyone rather than focus on first impressions?
I guess the point of all of this was to say that Lewis' thoughts about Charity have caused me to reflect on the fact that I seem to ration out my giving because of ultimately irrelevant reasons. God loved me before I even knew Him - in times when I was completely unloveable by any other standards, He loved me completely. Who am I to withhold my love for others simply because they don't measure up to my standards?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)