I was fooled very, very briefly into thinking that Williams's writing was similar to Chesterton's. Outside of the occasional similarity in the style of structuring sentences, however, Williams's writing is in fact the opposite of Chesterton's- it has no joy, no life, no wit behind it, rather it oscillates between bare competence (when addressing the actions of the characters, which Williams obviously cares very little about) and barely coherent rambling (when Williams is piling on his mystical nonsense). The story of Descent into Hell is a disjointed mess, and is interspersed with long passages of drivel, and in sum total this book is garbage.
I'm going to cover the "story" first, which is a two-star affair if I were being generous. A good, but not first-rate, poet has written a play featuring a talking bear, which the poet acknowledges is flawed. The poet's countryside community, which is full of self-important people that mostly seem to have very little else going on in their lives, are putting on that play. The actress Pauline lives in fear of meeting her doppelgänger yet again. A costume consultant for the play gets saddled with a succubus, though he was apparently already descending into hell before the story began for some reason never mentioned. Another member of the troupe eventually runs into Lilith, the biblical demon. Also, there's the ghost of a suicide wandering around. These threads seldom cross, and do not feed into another how you would expect them to. The play is never given any depth, so it does not mirror or enhance the theme or action occurring elsewhere in the narrative. The suicide ghost plotline resolves itself early on. Others never resolve at all. I'm left not caring either way, because Williams puts no effort into fleshing out these characters or making me in any way care about their predicament. Oftentimes the narrative shifts wildly between tones- Pauline has finished one of the acts of the play, where she plays the head of a chorus of leaves/nature spirits/unnamed theatrical experimental entity in the aforementioned play with the talking bear. Then, out of nowhere, she starts telling the playwright about how one of her ancestors was burned alive near the spot the play is being performed. Williams had no damn clue what he was doing with the tone of this story.
This alone would make this a bad book, as having a bunch of things happen in this manner causes the narrative to be disjointed, with structural problems and a blunting of the intended emotional impact (though, please note, the only emotion I felt while reading this book was boredom, which was not blunted in the slightest). What drops this book from two stars to one star, however, is that the already choppy narrative is made more ponderous, tedious, and nonsensical by Williams's constant blathering on about his mystical christian/pagan self-help belief structure. The centerpiece of the chapter titled "The Doctrine of Substituted Love" is the titular doctrine, which boils down to the idea that you can give your fear to someone else, or can take away someone's burden of fear and place it onto yourself. Pauline's fear of running into her doppelgänger again, which has tormented her for her entire life, she gives to the playwright and that fear is suddenly taken off her shoulders. Then she goes back in time or something and takes the fear from her martyred ancestor as he's about to be burned alive. I've managed to make it sound far less stupid than it reads, but you have to realize that, on top of this mystical philosophy you've also got to deal with Williams's prose, which, when he starts talking about this type of garbage, never uses one word when twenty will do. An example:
"The angelic energy which had been united with Pauline’s mortality radiated from her; nature, and more than nature, abhors a vacuum. Her mind and senses could not yet receive comprehensibly the motions of the spirit, but that adoring centre dominated her, and flashes of its great capacity passed through her, revealing, if but in flashes, the single world of existence. Otherwise, the senses of her redeemed body were hardly capable yet of fruition; they had to grow and strengthen till, in their perfection, they should give to her and the universe added delight. They now failed from their beatitude, and lived neither with intuitive angelic knowledge nor immediate angelic passage, but with the slower movement of the ancient, and now dissolving, earth."
This prose is one small step away from incomprehensible, in my opinion, and in any event it's fucking painful to read. Descent into Hell is a mess of a story barely stringing together disparate events into a tonally inconsistent whole with landmines like the above paragraph strewn liberally throughout. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
That's the end of my review of this work, now I just want to write down some thoughts. I knew that I was really disliking this book before I was even half-way through, but I kept reading. I acknowledge that there is wisdom in stopping a book when you realize you hate it, but in this instance I was rewarded, in a way, because I forced myself through it, because it led me to understand that there's a genre of books I should be avoiding: books that are essentially proxies for the author's spiritual beliefs. Other examples include The Screwtape Letters (boring and obvious rules for how to be a good Christian), Voyage to Arcturus (Gnostic allegory and nothing else), and Pilgrim's Progress (banal life lessons, also from a Christian viewpoint, aimed at the lowest possible common denominator). On the other hand, I love the works of Chesterton, so how do I reconcile that? Well, for one, Chesterton is about three tiers better of a writer than any of the other authors I've mentioned, but that's not all. I think it's that Chesterton isn't using his characters and story just for the sake of preaching to his readers, he obviously cares about writing a good story too (similarly, Narnia works because it's delivering an actual story). Even using a story solely to push political beliefs, a la Ayn Rand, is less off-putting to me than using a story solely to push spiritual beliefs, because by reading Any Rand I can at least see the flaws in her argument and come out the other side having gained something by reading the work. That's not true after having read some author's allegory for his inane mysticism. So in the future I'm going to avoid books described in ways reminiscent of how this one was described as "[t]he key to Williams' mystically oriented theological thought" unless it's from a proven author like Chesterton. If I want a theological treatise, I know where to find those, I don't need one gussied up in lackluster fiction.