Excellent as usual! I was excited to see you had substack-length thoughts on this.
It is ironic, I think, that what so many imitators are missing from the equation is a sense of the "mere Christianity" that Lewis famously wrote about elsewhere. It's a faith that cares little about culture war and more about the broad call of the gospel to live and love like Christ. If your Screwtape-copy sounds like he prefers one denomination over another, you haven't read enough Lewis at all.
Thank you for articulating so well what I’ve been trying to identify whenever I come across these Screwtape spin-offs. They are always so obvious, so ham-fisted, and so theologically pompous that I don’t see how one could possibly get anything out of them. I actually always saw how Screwtape could be so unpleasant for Lewis to write. When I read it, it was legitimately disturbing to try to put my mind in that headspace. The homages I see today lack the subtlety and creeping depth that made Screwtape get under my skin. Great analysis.
Such a good look at why the Screwtape Letters work and the imitations don't.
Even apart from the writing, which is frequently gobbledygook.
I get frustrated by imitators bc I read Screwtape as an angry 9th grader and it was so insightful that it just changed the way I looked at everything.
Lewis shocked me into seeing myself clearly, but he did it a way that made me laugh too and I don't think it would have worked without that. There's a bit about people using humor to turn the mean things they do into a joke so people won't condemn them for it - I almost fell out of my chair in the middle of the YMCA lobby - I've never felt so seen.
But, you're right, these authors can't do that, because they're picking apart other people and not themselves. Lewis writes about really common foibles, but they're also his OWN. I'd never thought about the patient being meant to be Lewis himself (more or less), but now that you've mentioned it, it totally makes sense.
Also these authors just don't have the same sense of <i>beauty</i> that Lewis does. The beauty of a book you just really enjoy, the beauty of a walk, the beauty of the church around the world and throughout time and finding part of that beauty in the person singing too loudly in the pew in front of you? Morse could never.
I can certainly imagine that this style of writing could be easily fumbled with less than optimal results. Have you read “My Dear Hemlock” by Tilly Dillehay? It’s a book written in the style of The Screwtape Letters, but the patient is a woman. I haven’t seen many other of these types of spin-offs online, but I personally found “My Dear Hemlock” to be insightful and nuanced.
This is WONDERFUL. That last point in particular really helped me understand why I've always hated those Screwtape Covers other writers put out. It sounds similar, but ultimately the notes are wrong.
Aaaaak. This is spot on. Thank you!
Excellent as usual! I was excited to see you had substack-length thoughts on this.
It is ironic, I think, that what so many imitators are missing from the equation is a sense of the "mere Christianity" that Lewis famously wrote about elsewhere. It's a faith that cares little about culture war and more about the broad call of the gospel to live and love like Christ. If your Screwtape-copy sounds like he prefers one denomination over another, you haven't read enough Lewis at all.
I wonder how many American Christian pundits would find Lewis' Mere Christianity "demonic"?
Thank you for articulating so well what I’ve been trying to identify whenever I come across these Screwtape spin-offs. They are always so obvious, so ham-fisted, and so theologically pompous that I don’t see how one could possibly get anything out of them. I actually always saw how Screwtape could be so unpleasant for Lewis to write. When I read it, it was legitimately disturbing to try to put my mind in that headspace. The homages I see today lack the subtlety and creeping depth that made Screwtape get under my skin. Great analysis.
Such a good look at why the Screwtape Letters work and the imitations don't.
Even apart from the writing, which is frequently gobbledygook.
I get frustrated by imitators bc I read Screwtape as an angry 9th grader and it was so insightful that it just changed the way I looked at everything.
Lewis shocked me into seeing myself clearly, but he did it a way that made me laugh too and I don't think it would have worked without that. There's a bit about people using humor to turn the mean things they do into a joke so people won't condemn them for it - I almost fell out of my chair in the middle of the YMCA lobby - I've never felt so seen.
But, you're right, these authors can't do that, because they're picking apart other people and not themselves. Lewis writes about really common foibles, but they're also his OWN. I'd never thought about the patient being meant to be Lewis himself (more or less), but now that you've mentioned it, it totally makes sense.
Also these authors just don't have the same sense of <i>beauty</i> that Lewis does. The beauty of a book you just really enjoy, the beauty of a walk, the beauty of the church around the world and throughout time and finding part of that beauty in the person singing too loudly in the pew in front of you? Morse could never.
Encore, encore! Brava!!
So very good!
Excellent analysis. Good writing, as always. Thank you for this!
Thank you!!
I can certainly imagine that this style of writing could be easily fumbled with less than optimal results. Have you read “My Dear Hemlock” by Tilly Dillehay? It’s a book written in the style of The Screwtape Letters, but the patient is a woman. I haven’t seen many other of these types of spin-offs online, but I personally found “My Dear Hemlock” to be insightful and nuanced.
This is WONDERFUL. That last point in particular really helped me understand why I've always hated those Screwtape Covers other writers put out. It sounds similar, but ultimately the notes are wrong.