Re: All-Hallows by de la Mare
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 26 July, 2018 04:00PM
Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > I don't think that the theological stance of
> the
> > observer of the phenomenon matters, except,
> > perhaps, as it relates to how he frames his
> > observation.
>
> If the verger's perspective does not matter,
Nope. We are talking about his "theological stance", not the much broader and undefined "perspective".
Let's stay on track, shall we?
> then
> whose does? Without the verger's observations,
> there is hardly any story at all, and without the
> verger's interpretations, there is not much more.
All that's true, but does not related directly to what I said--his "theological stance".
>
> What Walter De La Mare presents to us, he presents
> to us through the verger.
>
> I'm open to the idea that the verger is not
> reliable in his observations and/or his
> interpretations. I am open to the idea that
> Walter De La Mare disagrees with his ideas and
> interpretations. But this must be an argument
> based on the text. It cannot merely be an excuse
> for ignoring the text.
Where do you get the idea anyone is "ignoring the text"?
>
> > So what we've got is an old guy,
> > Manichean or otherwise, committed his whole
> life
> > to the promise of Christ's supremacy, relating
> > that even in the house of Christ, evil is
> battling
> > good. This sure sounds like the basic "good vs
> > evil" duality that's present in a lot of
> splinter
> > interpretations. Sort of that good ol' Ahura
> > Mazda/Angra Mainu struggle --no shades of gray,
> > you're either with us or against us... :^)
>
> You are equating old-school Christian Orthodoxy
> with Manichaeanism merely because neither of them
> are post-modern moral relativism.
No, I'm using "Manichean" as a convenient shorthard for "absolute good versus absolute evil". And this is a common colloquial usage in the same way that the term "Machievellian" is used to mean a sort of cynical real politik.
>
> The verger clearly believes that Evil is a force
> in the World; but there is no hint that he
> believes that Evil and Good are ultimately equal
> in power. So, while he is not a post-modernist,
> neither is he a Manichaean.
Again, I'm using "Manichean" to describe the nature of struggle de la Mare presents to the reader; I am making absolutely no claim to representing what the verger thinks are the the forces involved. He is, as you say, the sole actual claimant that All Hallows is under attack by forces that modify the cathedral, which he hints are evil. So to that end, it doesn't matter what he thinks is the cause, merely what physical manifestations he claims to have seen.
>
> I don't see any basis for the suggestion that the
> verger has a "with us or against us" mentality.
Nor do I, nor do I claim anything about the verger other than his description of what is happening to the church. Recall where I'm saying that he is:
"... relating that even in the house of Christ, evil is battling good. This [evil battling good] sure sounds like the basic "good vs evil" duality that's present in a lot of splinter interpretations. Sort of that good ol' Ahura Mazda/Angra Mainu struggle--no shades of gray, you're either with us or against us... :^) "
> He turns to the narrator for comfort in spite of
> the fact, and even because of the fact, that the
> narrator is not very religious. He calls down no
> harsh judgments
In fact, he does. He accuses them of hiding from the phenomenon, ignoring it, and if they are indeed vested churchmen, they are neglecting to fulfill their mission by allowing evil to progress, without opposition.
> on the Church officials who ignore
> his concerns; and barely presumes to judge them at
> all.
That does not bear upon his physical observations.
>
> > What gives this story additional weight is that
> > evil is contesting not for the imperfect soul
> of
> > an individual, but is confronting the powers of
> > good on its home turf--a cathedral--and
> apparently
> > gaining ground. This adds a sort of urgency to
> the
> > situation--much more threat than otherwise.
>
> I see no hint of any suggestion that the verger
> thinks that what is happening in the cathedral is
> somehow more urgent than the soul of an
> individual.
The narrative POV is not what the verger thinks, but what the hiker thinks might be happening, after all, he's the frame for the story. and he's basing his speculation on the verger's anecdotes, and the tour thru the superstructure. The verger's speculation that it's demonic force influences the hiker's speculation to a degree, but he also clearly entertains the idea that the verger is not a reliable observer.
>
> To him, the manifestations in the cathedral are
> merely one manifestation of a larger issue - that
> evil really is abroad in the World. He also
> mentions "the Great War" (that is, World War I) in
> this context. He does not seem to think that the
> demons who visit the place actually live there.
> He is far more bothered by the head-in-the-sand
> reactions of his religious superiors than by the
> mere fact that these manifestations are occurring
> here, at this particular obscure out-of-the-way
> spot.
Well, that's your assessment. The proximate cause of his discomfort with the "head-in-the-sand reactions of his religious superiors" is the demonic assault. We could test this a bit...
Case 1: The verger makes no claim of demonic assault and yet the superiors ignore other aspects of the cathedral that trouble the verge--perhaps the decline in attendance. Would this have been sufficient to motivate him to tell his tale to the hiker with the urgency that he did?
Case 2: The verger claims demonic assault but makes no judgement of his superiors' indifference. Would the the verger tell this tale to the hiker in the manner that he did?
Which case would seem to motivate the verger to a greater degree, knowing what we know of him?
>
> > BAM!!! Hope evaporates....
> > This is what happens, less dramatically, when
> one considers that a consecrated
> > place of worship can be successfully attacked by
> the forces of evil.
>
> The verger does not see it this way.
I'm commenting on the narrative device that establishes a degree of tone. In both cases, the assumed cause for hope (the life experience of the former bum, the supposed sanctity of the church) is dashed away, leaving the reader with the notion that things are a lot worse than previous.
BTW, I've enjoyed posting here because unlike the "outside world" forums, where I first started posting in '92, on Usenet, I had perceived a sort of fair-minded and convivial collegiality to be the tone here. But your pathetic misrepresentation of my positions, obviously so that you could attack something so as to demonstrate your acumen, is total and complete bullshit--the work of a sad and lonely pissant.
I'll just go away now, since the forum has been polluted by the likes of you.
Bye, all...
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~