|
Josh
|
 |
« on: July 21, 2003, 10:17:29 AM » |
|
Alright, I've read through the first two chapters of Walking on Water, and I've been jotting down some notes as I do. So here you go. Discuss these as I work my way through the rest of the book.
Chapter 1
Not much strikes me here, truth be told, and I'm tempted to report that L'Engle is 0-1. One thing does stand out to me though: L'Engle's acknowledgement that spiritual warfare is constantly going on, and that it is an important part of art. A great point.
In the end, my thoughts on chapter 1 are roughly the same as they were the first time through; the book is obviously meant to be inspirational rather than intellectual, and I still don't think it's all that thought-provoking. It *is*, however, very mobilizing; it renews my passion for the subject of art and faith, which is definitely worth something.
Chapter 2
Ah... L'Engle has fun at the start of this chapter by throwing around a bunch of feel-good, American buzzwords like "freedom" and "choice." And, actually, I don't disagree with her as much as you might think I would, but I do think she's irresponsible here. She never bothers to mention that, without the Holy Spirit, the right choices are never made, and apart from God humans will always make the bad choice. Why does she not make note of this? Baffling.
She redeems herself to some extent when she admits that, to some degree, anyway, craftsmanship is important. Which it is. Just because God speaks to you through something doesn't mean it's good art.
She also points out that good art knows more than the artist, and Christian truths can be found even in the works on non-believers. Excellent points!
The next note I jotted down is still a bit bewildering to me. L'Engle denies that TV is a valid art form. On the one hand, I can't think of any TV programs that I would define as good art, but on the other hand, what separates TV from film? And surely film is an art form! Any thoughts?
Uh oh... it would seem that, at the top of what is page 46 in my copy of the book, L'Engle falls into the trap of asserting that anything that speaks to your heart is good art. Didn't she just deny that earlier? Or maybe I misunderstood her. Point is, I think she's wrong here; things like craftsmanship and technical excellence must be taken into account when evaluating a piece of art.
She ends this hit-and-miss chapter with a quote that I like: "There is nothing so secular that it cannot be sacred, and that is one of the deepest messages of the Incarnation." Good words.
More later...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2003, 11:28:23 AM » |
|
The next note I jotted down is still a bit bewildering to me. L'Engle denies that TV is a valid art form. On the one hand, I can't think of any TV programs that I would define as good art, but on the other hand, what separates TV from film? And surely film is an art form! Any thoughts? Hmm...art is a quite elusive term, and one that can be applied to a whole lot of stuff today. I would certainly say that television could be considered art--especially if film is. L'Engle is probably falling into the trap known as "familiarity breeds contempt." Since we are constantly assaulted by television's pervasive sensory input, we assume that such a commonplace medium could *never* have anything to say to *us*! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
beautifulmess
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2003, 04:19:15 PM » |
|
I'm glad that you're reading through the book again, though I strongly doubt your opinions will shift all that much. I don't love the book so much because it's a deep, theological piece of art. I love it because it inspires me to be the person God made me to be: an artist. I also greatly enjoy the quote you mentioned from the second chapter. My favorite quote by her, however, is the quote in my sig. I'm interested to see what you have to say about the rest of book. Thanks for giving it another shot.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
My Journal*My Poetry\"The quiche made me look fat.\" --Kirk, from Gilmore Girls when Lorelai asked why he was in a hot dog suit
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2003, 04:26:32 PM » |
|
I love it because it inspires me to be the person God made me to be: an artist. Yeah, that's what the book is good for. And L'Engle *does* do a good job of that. I'll post my thoughts on chapter 3 later this evening. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2003, 05:20:30 PM » |
|
Alright... Chapter 3
A few helter-skelter thoughts on this section.
First off, L'Engle's talk on unlearning what we know would make Thom Yorke happy; it reminded me very much of Amnesiac. Has Yorke been reading L'Engle?
An intriguing definition: L'Engle asserts that, without truth, something cannot possibly be a story. any thoughts on this one?
A quibble: WHAT'S UP WITH L'ENGLE QUOTING SCRIPTURE ALL OVER THE PLACE BUT NEVER GIVING US REFERENCES? ARRRGH! When you give us text, lady, I'd like to know where you're getting it from! I adhere to this radical belief that verses are best read, oh, in context.... grr...
In one paragraph, L'Engle walks a very fine line; she says that the tales of Hans Christian Andersen belong in the same categorey as Scripture, but she is vague in her meaning here. Careful, L'Engle...
I'll end this section with a couple of positive observations: First, L'Engle's thoughts on newness in art are right on the money; the best works get better with every listen/viewing/etc. And second, her all-too-brief mention of the importance of laughter at the end of the chapter are right on the money. After all, if I may borrow from Colin Quinn, comedy is the closest we'll ever come to justice.
I'm liking the book better this time, but it's very hit-and-miss. Certainly not a masterpiece.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2003, 07:46:25 PM » |
|
An intriguing definition: L'Engle asserts that, without truth, something cannot possibly be a story. any thoughts on this one? She seems to run into semantic difficulties sometimes by not defining her words. Either that, or you're not filling in the full picture. Without 'truth'? As in, it has to be a true story? I doubt this is what she means. How about, without saying something true about the world? Hm...I would disagree with this statement. A story can have no possible application to the real world and still be a story. In fact, a story can go completely contrary to everything we believe and still be a story. Maybe she means that the writer has to believe what she believes or else it's not a story. But surely she wouldn't be shallow enough to suggest that... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2003, 08:17:50 PM » |
|
It's entirely possible that I inadvertently left something important out of my notes, but I *do* feel quite frequently that she doesn't define things as well as she could and should.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2003, 07:49:55 AM » |
|
Well, I wasn't really accusing you; I was just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. And it's hard to fit a chapter or two's worth of ideas into a phorum post, so it's understandable if you don't go into as much detail as L'Engle did...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
