Till We Have Faces - C.S. Lewis

[Ashley]

Just wondering who else has read this amazing, powerful novel and what you thought of it. Did you take anything from it?

I personally thought this was easily the most powerful book I've read, with maybe the exception of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. It combined a lot of elements I absolutely love, like mythology (especially mythology reworked), the Greco-Roman world, and even some Socrates ^^;; I finished it and wept.

It also really powerfully taught me love is not selfish; it's not possesive, and it's not just an emotional satisfaction for ME. It's learning to be self-LESS in love.

[GhostontheNet]

[quote="Ashley"]It also really powerfully taught me love is not selfish] Yes, a good step indeed. Now crucify that self very well and you'll be well on your way, as it is written,

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Galatitians 2:20 ESV)

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Galatians 5:22-24 ESV)

Now, if only more Christians would come to crucify themselves, the world would be a better place.

[jazz]

ah! that is one of my favorite books, ive read it about five times. it is so powerfuly written! i cry every time i read it. there is something about it that just strikes so deep, it hurts. . . it's one that i would definetely recomend to others.

[bigsleepj]

Ah yes, what a good, brilliant book. I've read it once and I could never forget it. It is Lewis' most powerful, fascinating work of fiction in my oppinion (not that I've read everything). I love its take on Greece, and such, as well as the complex characterization. I can understand why Lewis considered it his masterpiece.

It is interesting though that this book has a CHristian 'feel' to it despite the fact that its set in the pre-Christian time in a polytheistic society. It also interesting that it isn't like Narnia a direct allegory (although it does has such elements in it). It possibly because it isn't so straight-forward that it has been neglected by several Christians and Christian book stores.

[Ashley]

Perhaps therein lies its true beauty, SleepJ. It's "easy", I guess, to write a blatant allegory, harder to write a good one, and hardest of all to write a Christian fiction story that never outright says it. To me that is the ultimate mark of artistic quality--to say in a far more powerful way than using words.

[kazekami]

It's definetly a wonderful book. I have a copy. About 6 years ago i read a lot of CS Lewis works, includeing the Space Trilogy, and Chronicles of Narnia. I'd have to say Till We have Faces was the best of the ones I read. I'm going to have to reread it. It's also intresting that the story he uses is a retelling of the myth of Cupid and Psyche. It's definetly not blatent. Narnia and the last 2 books of the space Trilogy are very very much filled with visible Christian symbolism. Till We have faces uses a non-christian story to tell us a beautiful story of love.

[mitsuki lover]

I have a copy also.It's basically the story of Psyche and Cupid as told from the
point of view of the oldest sister.The differences between the two high priests is
rather interesting.The older one takes a basic blood and thunder approach to
religion while the younger one takes a philosophical approach trying to see the
underlying Truths behind the Beliefs.

[Ashley]

I just found a series of lectures by Dr. Peter Kreeft (Christian philosopher and C.S. Lewis expert) on this title and some others. It's available for free download here: http://www.peterkreeft.com (look for "Featured Audio); I listened to his lecture this morning and it was really powerful; it brought out a lot of the layers of it I didn't even realize! I encourage you guys to give it a listen; it's worth an hour. ^^

[bigsleepj]

Perhaps therein lies its true beauty, SleepJ. It's "easy", I guess, to write a blatant allegory, harder to write a good one, and hardest of all to write a Christian fiction story that never outright says it.

I think Lewis did a marvelous job with this book - he certainly did not "rush" through it like he did with his other fiction and seemed to have taken his time with this book. It has been discussed on a Lewis forum I frequent (although not relating to TWHF) that Lewis in certain respects a sloppy writer when it came to his fiction. It was very seldom that he actually went through a second draft or third draft with his writing. The closest he'd come to a 2nd draft would be the proofs send to him by the publishers. I sensed this when I read these stories for the first time (I read them as an adult, not when I was younger - I did little or no reading as a child) and was not too surprised. Off course Lewis was a very, very busy man and did not always have time to do this. The Narnian Chronicles are powerful despite this but for me they never really fitted all that well together. I bought a single volume and read them all in about two weeks time and although I loved them they did feel sort of disjointed as a whole.

Till We have Faces however feels much better constructed and developed and written - the first time I read it I found it disturbing actually with its pictures of cruel gods (like Ungit) and did not finish it for some time. (I could never really think of anything as "just a fantasy"). However when I did I'm glad I kept with it.

To me that is the ultimate mark of artistic quality--to say in a far more powerful way than using words.

I have to agree with you on that. Stories where everything the author is thinking are slowly spoonfed to the reader through narration, exposition and such are sometimes terrible or not very effective. I believe the reader should discover these things through themselves. Also a good book (or movie) should be slightly like an impressionistic painting where the reader projects some of their own views on the story, or parts of it to involve them. Some parts should be obscured on purpose to achieve this.

Also effective is Lewis' use for the first part of an "unreliable narrator" who tells it through her eyes without thinking she might be wrong with her assumptions. [spoiler]Orual thinks a lot of things when she's writing the first part of the story - her anger, bitterness and ignorence is getting in the way. She said she'd suffer when actually in a certain sense she has achieved much despite her corrupted love (but that view is rather materialistic, though). Only when the gods began really pushing down on her harshly through her sickness and through the visions did she realise how wrong what she had thought the truth had been was (I'm thinking particularly of Tarin the eunich who reveals to her the truth about her "jealous" sister). When Orual realised the truth she sees everything as it was and as Psyche sees it. The harsh actions of the gods on Orual reminds me something that Lewis said towards the end of his "spiritual biographySurprised by Joy in regards to got imposing Himself on a young atheist.[/spoiler] "The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation." (liberation from sin and / or ourselves, that is)

[mitsuki lover]

Read Letters To An American Lady.In it Lewis discusses writing Til We Have Faces.
One of the hardest parts for him was trying to speak through the voice of what
he called an "ugly woman".
As far as it goes I think the only thing Lewis was trying to accomplish was to see
how he could take an old and well known myth and give it some new life.
Nothing really theologically revolutionary about it really.

[Ashley]

And yet there is. MistukiLover, I'd challenge you to go listen to that lecture by Dr. Kreeft; he presents 5 questions Lewis tackles in TWHF, including the tension between faith and reason ("why most holy places be dark?"), if God is real and true why hasn't He shown us more evidence, why don't we know why, and two others I don't remember as clearly. I think too when you realize that
[spoiler]Ungit is self; Ungit is sin [/spoiler] It really changes things immensely. I would argue quite the contrary and say there are quite a few theological truths wrapped there; I think it's one of those books you have to read again and again to get the full picture on.

It's my goal to read all of C.S. Lewis' writings in my lifetime, so this was a good one to start off with (I've read Narnia but I was a child and don't count it).

[mitsuki lover]

Freud once said:"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Point is that with C.S.Lewis sometimes it is so easy to misread into his works
some sort of deep theological or spiritual meaning when the thing is he may
just have written it for no other reason than it helped to move the story on.
Again I would refer back to Letters To An American Lady and Lewis' own words
concerning TWHF.
Certainly it would be interesting if Lewis could come back to life to see how he
would have reacted to Kreeft's analysis.

[bigsleepj]

Again I would refer back to Letters To An American Lady and Lewis' own words concerning TWHF.

I have no idea what Lewis said in Letters to an American Lady, but someone once said "Trust the Art, not the Artist". Fact is you can't always believe what an artist says about their works for several reasons - they might be indifferent to it, they might think its not their best work (although we can count those two options out in theis case) or because they produced it they might view it, even subconsciously, as that big a deal. Besides, they may not always say all they want to about the work because they wish to keep their thoughts about it a secret. Off course I'll admit people try to read more into some of Lewis' stories then there is, but quite frankly this one feels like there is more; it doesn't feel like just a simple retelling of an old myth. If it were a simple retelling it would have stopped at the end of part one and there would have been no part two - there would have been no "You will be Psyche" sequences. These elements suggest something more profound than just a simple retelling of a not too popular and little known myth.

Besides, its next to impossible for a good writer's world view to be kept out of their writings.

[mitsuki lover]

Which may or may not be true but I would like to point out again that you have to
keep in mind the author's purpose in writing.For C.S.Lewis his main purpose was
to simply retell the story of Psyche and Cupid from the pov of one of the older
sisters.
I think we also need to remember that the main characters are Pagan and not
Christian so trying to put a Christian spin on the story might actually hurt
more than help.
That's not to say that it has no relevance to the Christian reader,it's only to point out that the story in fact as a Pagan setting.

[Ashley]

It's a pagan story, yes, but I think it does a great job of bringing out the complexity, but also the emptiness, of the pagan gods. Yes, it's a pre-Christian era....but look at the last paragraph by Orual's hand. She says, "Lord, you"....not "the gods" or not "this god". That, in my opinion, is a subtle but powerful nail in the coffin for a larger story at play here. Besides, what about the "I am Ungit" and the "You are Psyches"? I'm with SleepJ, I still think something greater is at play. But, that's my opinion, and you're welcome to your own. ^^

[mitsuki lover]

First off to interpret a novel through someone else's readings of the text amounts to sheer laziness.Each reader has to interpret the author's intention on his or her
own.To do otherwise is to put your imagination in neutral.
Second the ending must be considered in the context of the whole story.
Since this is basically the story of Psyche and Cupid retold from the pov of the
elder sister it must therefore be presumed that when Orual is addressing
the unknown as Lord she may in fact be addressing Cupid.
The whole point of the story is that Orual did not believe Psyche's story that her
bridegroom wasn't the Great Beast of the Mountain but a God.
It's only when Orual goes through the same ordeals(but in her case in her
dreams/visions)as Psyche that she comes to realize the truth of the matter.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Sorry I found this my least favourite C.S Lewis novel. It did have several interesting bits but I definetly didn't get much out of it. I found it boring and too similar to Shakespeare's style of writing and content to be enjoyable. Sorry.