The Gift of Phobos

This is very reminiscent to me of an early work by C. S. Lewis called "Spirits in Bondage." It too is a collection of poetry musing on theological themes. In Lewis' work it was regarding God versus the horrors of Nature, while here you write on the dichotomy between Faith and Reason.

It's not perfectly clear how you meant to delineate Reason from "the reason of men," but I find that delineation intriguing. Certainly it calls to mind the ancient Logos and the less flattering light in which you paint Reason here seems to accordingly satirize man's over-reliance on the many -logies of science and other largely inductive inquiries.

You seem to present a kind of Pantheistic perspective on the nature of Spirit, as well as a kind of Kiekergardian leap into what Francis Schaeffer described as the "upper story" of the post-modern dichotomy between faith and reason. If I'm correct in that assessment it's not a perspective I share but nevertheless I appreciate how you've communicated it. I really only mention it to make clear any admitted bias on my part.

My only real criticism on the heart of the content is the aforementioned ambiguity related to Reason versus reason. Perhaps I'm unusually dense, but I think an extra part to elaborate upon how perhaps "Reason" pertains to consensus or some undue certainty or whatever else is here being expressed. There's a fine line between obscurity and ambiguity, and obviously that will depend on your audience.

I appreciate the archaic expressions, regular structure, rhythm, and rhyme. That being said, there are some lines that are bit jarring grammatically. For instance "And Men was[sic] joyful of Reason choice" in part III. Should this be "Man?" Comparing the singular Man to Reason would seem good to me, in which case it would also need to be changed in the other two instances of the term. If you are sure it should be "Men," then it should be "were" to agree in number. Likewise I would similarly direct your attention to "And secluded Men from himself[sic] and life." Also, up until this line Reason has been anthropomorphized so to suddenly use it as an adjectival noun doesn't make a lot of sense, and presumably you meant "Reason's choice."

Some other lines:
- "And Men felt that the works of Reason are good." Felt in the past tense doesn't really agree with "are" in the present. This *might* be chaulked up to poetic license, but it seems to violate the otherwise conventional grammar of the work.
- "The Priests their malarkey unleashed." Perfectly fine grammatically. The word "malarkey" just seems to me to be a little folksy and accordingly doesn't really fit the otherwise somber archaic mood of the piece. That might just be me, since I tend to acquaint this term with quirky Southerners here in the US. It seems on par with "hogwash."
- "I am him that lives and behold." Here in Part V this is clearly an allusion to Revelation 1:18, but unlike in Revelation "he" is here conjugated in the objective case as "him." Seems like another grammatical mistake.
- "But Men's heart was heavy with void." Another example where I think it should be "Man" rather than "Men."
- "And Men saw a distortion of himself." Same as above.

All in all, I like this work. I would love to see it expanded. While Spirits in Bondage was a short book, it was nonetheless four times as long as your current work in terms of parts. If you really intend this to be a proper book, you have a lot more space to expand upon your themes accordingly. I'm especially interested in seeing you elaborate upon the nature of Reason as that seems less clear to me precisely than Spirit.

Thanks for sharing, and I look forward to reading more.

Posted 8 Years Ago

This is very reminiscent to me of an early work by C. S. Lewis called "Spirits in Bondage." It too is a collection of poetry musing on theological themes. In Lewis' work it was regarding God versus the horrors of Nature, while here you write on the dichotomy between Faith and Reason.

It's not perfectly clear how you meant to delineate Reason from "the reason of men," but I find that delineation intriguing. Certainly it calls to mind the ancient Logos and the less flattering light in which you paint Reason here seems to accordingly satirize man's over-reliance on the many -logies of science and other largely inductive inquiries.

You seem to present a kind of Pantheistic perspective on the nature of Spirit, as well as a kind of Kiekergardian leap into what Francis Schaeffer described as the "upper story" of the post-modern dichotomy between faith and reason. If I'm correct in that assessment it's not a perspective I share but nevertheless I appreciate how you've communicated it. I really only mention it to make clear any admitted bias on my part.

My only real criticism on the heart of the content is the aforementioned ambiguity related to Reason versus reason. Perhaps I'm unusually dense, but I think an extra part to elaborate upon how perhaps "Reason" pertains to consensus or some undue certainty or whatever else is here being expressed. There's a fine line between obscurity and ambiguity, and obviously that will depend on your audience.

I appreciate the archaic expressions, regular structure, rhythm, and rhyme. That being said, there are some lines that are bit jarring grammatically. For instance "And Men was[sic] joyful of Reason choice" in part III. Should this be "Man?" Comparing the singular Man to Reason would seem good to me, in which case it would also need to be changed in the other two instances of the term. If you are sure it should be "Men," then it should be "were" to agree in number. Likewise I would similarly direct your attention to "And secluded Men from himself[sic] and life." Also, up until this line Reason has been anthropomorphized so to suddenly use it as an adjectival noun doesn't make a lot of sense, and presumably you meant "Reason's choice."

Some other lines:
- "And Men felt that the works of Reason are good." Felt in the past tense doesn't really agree with "are" in the present. This *might* be chaulked up to poetic license, but it seems to violate the otherwise conventional grammar of the work.
- "The Priests their malarkey unleashed." Perfectly fine grammatically. The word "malarkey" just seems to me to be a little folksy and accordingly doesn't really fit the otherwise somber archaic mood of the piece. That might just be me, since I tend to acquaint this term with quirky Southerners here in the US. It seems on par with "hogwash."
- "I am him that lives and behold." Here in Part V this is clearly an allusion to Revelation 1:18, but unlike in Revelation "he" is here conjugated in the objective case as "him." Seems like another grammatical mistake.
- "But Men's heart was heavy with void." Another example where I think it should be "Man" rather than "Men."
- "And Men saw a distortion of himself." Same as above.

All in all, I like this work. I would love to see it expanded. While Spirits in Bondage was a short book, it was nonetheless four times as long as your current work in terms of parts. If you really intend this to be a proper book, you have a lot more space to expand upon your themes accordingly. I'm especially interested in seeing you elaborate upon the nature of Reason as that seems less clear to me precisely than Spirit.

Thanks for sharing, and I look forward to reading more.

Posted 8 Years Ago