War in Heaven, by Charles Williams > Likes and Comments

Our group read of this novel starts today; we hope you can join in! I plan to take part, but I'll have to start a bit late, since I'm still finishing up another book that I began reading last month. But I'll plan to post a more detailed introductory comment this evening, if I can.

Thank you for setting this up, Werner!

My first comment is that I love the opening sentence!

Deb wrote: "Thank you for setting this up, Werner!"

No problem, Deb!

British writer Charles Williams (1886-1945) was born in London to middle-class parents, but the family was later reduced to genteel poverty due to his father's failing eyesight. He got some financial aid for studying at London's University College, but not enough to enable him to graduate. His eventual day job was as an editor at Oxford Univ. Press, from 1908 until his death. As a writer, he's best known for his fiction, but he also wrote nonfiction, and regarded his poetry as his most important work.

Like his friends C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, Williams was a member of the informal literary society, the Inklings. He was also a committed Anglican Christian, whose faith is often reflected in his writing. The fictional conceit behind War in Heaven, which is probably his best-known novel, is a search for the mythical Holy Grail, supposedly the cup from which Jesus and his disciples drank at the Last Supper, and treated in high medieval legends as a sacred object invested with great mystical powers.

In my reading, I came across this quote by Sir Giles: "'To adore strength is to confess weakness.'"

I stopped right there in my reading to puzzle this sentence out. At first glance, this seems contradictory. Adoring strength seems like a first step towards achieving strength. But I really thought about this, and I think Sir Giles might be onto a keen insight (even though as a person he is not someone readers would want to emulate). I know I can think of a few real-life examples of people (who shall remain nameless) who adore strength but utterly lack it themselves.

I'll be starting this later this week.

Deb, I don't think Sir Giles' generalization is always correct (few generalizations are!), but I definitely agree that it can be!

I'm expecting to start reading this later this week (how soon will depend on whether or not I'm able to get any reading in today).

Werner wrote: "Deb, I don't think Sir Giles' generalization is always correct (few generalizations are!), but I definitely agree that it can be!

I'm expecting to start reading this later this week (how soon will..."

True, like you, I don't think his generalization is always correct. I think it's mostly his use of the connotative word "adore" that I connected with. I think one can admire a strong, great person and desire to incorporate those positive attributes. To me, adoration implies something more sinister.

That makes sense, Deb!

I got started on this read on Wednesday. So far, I'm into Chapter 4.

I'm about 50 percent in right now.

I love the archdeacon. Whenever he's in a scene, I am fully on board. I find him lovable, unflappable, and brave. He also employs a practical mindset when tackling difficult problems. As well, he can engage with people from different religions and classes. He's definitely a guy you want in your corner!

I'm not nearly that far in, but I'm liking the Archdeacon, too!

I'm finding the writing uneven. As I mentioned, I'm in heaven when the archdeacon is on scene, and there was a very fun Keystone Kops moment.

But there was a dark magic incantation that felt campy and cringey to me. Maybe a 1920s audience would find it scary, I don't know. And I'm finding a lot of "talking heads" dialogue without context or internal thought or body language. Characters suddenly became angry at each other for reasons I didn't see.

The good news is that once I passed the 50% mark, the story seemed to settle into itself. Now I'm seeing more plot progression and some evolving conflicts. Hoping for more of the same!

Deb wrote: "I'm finding the writing uneven."

For me, some of the writing style is problematic because it involves 1930s British usages/slang that I don't fully understand, (and therefore miss out on the meaning); and even without that factor, some of the dialogue comes across to me as off-sides. Then too, being for practical purposes pretty much monolingual as I am, passages of untranslated French or Latin (which educated Brits in 1930, of course, could translate) go over my head.

The latter was my problem with the dark magic incantation you mentioned. To me, it sounded impressive and scary, even powerfully so (of course, not having read as much of that sort of thing as some readers have, I come to it less jaded); but though the fact that it's in Latin lends it more gravitas (okay, I know a few Latin words!), I had only a very limited perception of what was being said. (Of course, the emotional effect of the sound of the words is more important to the author's purpose than a full understanding of their meaning --but it would be nice to have the latter, too!)

Despite these quibbles. personally, I'm actually really liking the book overall. I'm finding it very gripping and suspenseful.

I've read two chapters and that's enough for me. I find that if I don't like a writer's style, I won't like the book-which is how I feel about this book.
I tried-but I have other books to read.