Duh. I just commented about thinking there might have been a succubus in the book and here you have a question about it. Maybe I didn't miss as much as I thought.

In terms of the style, it was not untypical of other books written about Victorians. With these kinds of books, you often have to read between the lines to get at the meat of the story because a lot of it is usually about people being all proper and upholding good moral values.

Wasn't "the play within a play" first done by Shakespeare? I seem to remember something about that being an important literary device from high school English.

Tripp, someone is going to have to explain the Wentworth/succubus thing to me. Once I related it to the near-marriage of Chef on South Park, I couldn't get the comedy of it out of my head. My suspicion is that Wentworth's hate of Adela and Hugh's relationship created the succubus.

If the above is the case, what created Pauline's doppelganger?

I also totally missed the chapter titles on my first read and just looked at the book. Stanhope took on Pauline's burden, so I'm assumuing that's what "substitute love" means. He helped her out by letting her transfer her anxiety to him.

marydell | October 22, 2002 10:32 PM

Yep, you are on target all around. Williams through a theological treatise into the genre. Williams had a very victorian sensibility...also, one of teh religious/spiritual hallmarks of the era was this king of embodied spirit world. Lovecraft and others played in it as well. People believed in the tangible reality of teh spirit world...well...maybe belief is too strong. Is there such a thing as a spiritual fad? ;-)

The doppleganger truely is The Self. How you meet with it, how you engage it, is essential to salvation according to Williams. The perceived danger of meeting the self that Pauline struggles with is embodied in what Wentworth experiences. Adel's self is so tainted, both are so tortured that the succubus (Adel's Self) becomes reality for both of them, driving them insane.

With Stanhopes help (metaphysical good stuff) Pauline is able to release her anxiety and accept her Self upon meeting it.

And to further the Doctrine, Williams is trying to elaborate on the whole Body of Christ thisng and the real effect of prayer. He and Lewis ecpecially were into this. And, I'd bet, that if you were to reread some of the Lord of the Rings stuff you may see shades of it as well, though JRR had a more political agenda and the books went their own way.

Tripp | October 23, 2002 8:04 AM

Although disinclined to comment without finishing the book, I often the think the reason for not finishing has to do with more than some lack on the reader's part (or perhaps I'm just kidding myself). Descent started out very readable/engaging for me, the immediate immersion in this behind-the-scenes theater experience, the introduction of this "cast" of characters, the amusing(hysterical even) discussions of art with and without the artist, the compelling tale of the suicide of the disenfranchised laborer who descends from the loft and lands firmly on his two feet in what one assumes to be hell(ish). This otherworldly story-within-the-story picks up speed when Wentworth starts dreaming of the white rope and as Pauline battles her fears of herself incarnate and Adele's shimmering double appears. The doppleganger/other self device is fascinating. But then there are these long passages of meditation/contemplation, points/ideas buried beneath a lot of confusing chatter that drive me to skip over a lot (and this may in fact just be me). Anyone else have a hard time getting through?

I could never wrap my mind around C.S. Lewis's non-fiction, but relished the sci-fi trilogy and could appreciate the symbolism in Narnia Chronicles--the Christian analogies--and was still mightily entertained and perhaps even illuminated. Perhaps Williams is packing in too much of his cosmology/theology for my taste? I don't mind it when it exists within the characters and action, but some of the passages make me zone. Out.

Re: Mary's comment on Shakespeare's play-within-a-play...Hamlet for one, in which awful truths are revealed. Haven't gotten far enough in Descent to know how the play is actually used as device. The entire Taming of the Shrew is a play within a play too. Anyone know of others?

kathy | October 23, 2002 9:39 AM

I had a hard time with the book as well. I have a hard time with Dickens for the same reasons. Just tell the friggin story!

But the purpose, for Williams, is to use the story to tell a greater story. In his estimation, I gather, we are engaged in an existance many do not recognise as reality. This mystical quality, the Doctrine of Shared Love etc express all of this.

Tripp | October 23, 2002 11:31 AM

I'm definitely with Kathy: The book started off being incredibly readable and engaging, and just fell off (and maybe because of that, I've yet to finish). It lost its momentum.

I agree, Tripp, that he's trying "to tell a greater story" with the story, but I think he does too much telling and not enough showing. Or maybe it's too much hyper-showing; I'm not sure. Unless I'm reading an essay, I prefer for fiction to totally wrap me in a world that may indeed be a giant metaphor, but one that does not remind me that it's a giant metaphor, if that makes any sense.

Andy | October 23, 2002 1:12 PM

Yeah, like many of you, I'm about halfway through. I really do want to finish it, but we'll see. I loved the dueling "art is..." bits from the ladies at the beginning, though.

Was anyone else ready to throttle Mrtyle Fox with her "I find trees and naturea nd art so friendly..." crap? She is exactly the sort of person who would be surprised when she got gored by a bison she's gone up to pet in Yellowstone park. Nature isn't something we control, and it's much, much bigger than us. There's a lot of beauty and wonder, but you can't be complacent with it. The same could be said about art, I suspect, although i've never heard of a stupid tourist being trampled by a ballet company or mangled by a one-act play.

Sarah | October 23, 2002 6:42 PM

Sarah, I refer you to the mosh pit. Then again, is that art?

I am sorry for the sometime tedious nature of the book. According to local myth and tradition, it is his best work. Who knew?!

I think Williams, responding to Andy here, gets tangled up in the frevor he has for his subject. In the 1800's we see, especially in Western Europe, England, and the US a rebirth in the Romantic ideal behind religion. Symbol and myth is being reintroduced to Protestants. This, I think, bleeds over into the 1900's. Atleast I think it does for Willams. He seems desperate to develop a mysticism that speaks to, or spells out, what it means to damn oneself...or to be saved for that matter. I think he has a void in his own faith experience, or is deeply aware of a void in the commhunity that he is trying to address.

Perhaps he gets a little carried away.

Tripp | October 24, 2002 9:49 AM

I keep trying to finish this book, but have been having a really tough time with it. I think Kathy hit the nail right on the head when she said:

"Perhaps Williams is packing in too much of his cosmology/theology for my taste? I don't mind it when it exists within the characters and action, but some of the passages make me zone. Out."

Around the fourth chapter or so I found myself reading pages and then realizing that I had no idea what was written on them. After a while, I found that this was happening more and more frequently, so I took a little break from the book and am finding it harder and harder to get back into it. I promise to try though, as I've never left a book unfinished before.

Also, back to the "play-within-play" theme, didn't Midsummer Night's Dream have that going on as well?

kara | October 24, 2002 10:18 AM

Maybe it would be useful to compare Williams with Lewis and Tolkien, his cohorts and contemporaries, in terms of this mystical spirituality they espoused. Has anyone read these two? What do you think, Tripp, in terms of comparison? Lewis and Tolkien were certainly driving the same dogma, yes? Is Sci-Fi and fantasy more conducive to this mystical spirituality? Tripp, could you perhaps explain this dogma?

I am glad to be exposed to this book even if it didn't click 100% for me...always good to stretch. :)

On the Christian theme, has anyone read Karen Armstrong's autobiographical "Through the Narrow Gate?" It's a fascinating account of her experience of becoming a nun pre-Vatican II style, and eventually leaving the order. FASCINATING BOOK. And this may be even further off track, shoot me for straying from Descent if you must, but the life story of Sor Juana Ines De La Cruz, a Mexican poet/nun from the 15th century is also fascinating. Octavio Paz wrote a biography, "Sor Juana, Or Traps of Faith," and there is a low-budget film usually stashed in the gay/lesbian section called "I, Worst of All." It promises something like "steamy lesbian sex behind convent walls," but either I missed the steam or have a higher level of experiencing steam. Not what I would call a great movie, but a great story in her life.

kathy | October 24, 2002 10:20 AM

P.S. I had the exact same experience as Kara at about the same point in the book. I think Williams assumes we will care enough about his cosmology in advance to stay with him, rather than exposing us unbeknownst to ourselves as Lewis and Tolkien do.

kathy | October 24, 2002 10:25 AM

I am not sure just how much I can sayt about Tolkein and Lewis and the Oxford Movement. They were all fairly Orthodox in thier belief. You could not call them conservative, but neither were they liberal. They believed in a liberating God...in the orthodox fashion.

At any rate, if you were to read Lewis' othe essays and such, you might have similar difficulties. Though, since they are more staright forward than Williams mysticism, the ideas he presents may lead you through the opaque use of language.

Tolkein, it is sadi, used the Hobbit as an alegory for Communism. I dunno. This may be a myth. But you can certainly find common religious themes in his writing.

Okay, back to Lewis...if you have read Narnia, do you recall "further up and further in?" That is a mystical commentary on the salvific nature of God. It is not a single transformative movement. It is gradual, and as we are transformed, illusion is slowly stripped away. Our salvation is gradual, but it is assured.

Williams takes this idea and plays it out in a different genre...not a "children's book" (lousy language). He has his Doctrine of Sunstituted Love be the salvific machinery. Think about the Suicide...what was his name?...anyway, he is saved ONLY when Pauline takes on his burden. He participates in that by his willingness to allow someone else in. Vulnerability. But for him as well, his transformation is gradual.

I think it is interesting that Williams presupposes that Hell and Heaven are both attainable realities here on earth...as we are living. Curious.

Well, there you go. Is that enough Christianity for everyone?

tripp | October 24, 2002 3:49 PM

In the last two months, I've finished The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring, and The Two Towers. I'm about to start in on the last book.

The idea that LOTR is a Christian work kind of baffles me. Fine, Tolkien was a devout Catholic, but there isn't a single mention in any of the books about a church, prayer, or a deity. They do thoroughly explore many "Christian" themes like good vs. evil, mercy for enemies, and perseverance in the face of adversity. However, I don't believe such ideas are exclusive to Christians.

I mostly find it interesting how LOTR is so revered and embraced by Christians while the Harry Potter series is at the top of the Challenged Books list for 2001 for promoting wizardry and magic. Could it be possible the magic/fantasy of a Catholic is less harmful to society than the magic/fantasy of a divorcee?

marydell | October 24, 2002 6:35 PM

Thereis a new book to get. The Gospel According To Harry Potter. It is a Christian trying to get other Christians to leave the good children's books alone. I wonder if it is on AMazon.

Tripp | October 25, 2002 6:33 PM

If you haven't found the Christian parallels in the Lord of the Rings, consider the Christ figures: 1)Gandalf comes back from the dead. 2) Aragorn is the "returning king" [similar to the second coming of Christ]. 3) Frodo as the substitute for man. 4)Sam as the "suffering servant" (see Isaiah 53:1-2, 7, 10-12). There are many other parallels in the LOTR, you just have to be open to seeing them.

ashleyn | December 8, 2003 10:24 AM