Thank you for writing this. I grew up in the 90's so I missed the debut of Twin Peaks, but I was thoroughly inoculated with MTV, the Matrix, Truman show, and other 90's sugarcoated-redpills. My journey into the Church feels similar to yours. Rather than coasting-in on the mossy carpets of a medieval melancholy, I came crawling on my knees, thoroughly beaten and tattered by the Gnostic-psychodrama I had subjected myself to through media and rabbit-hole spelunking in a Post-9/11 world. The Church filled a negative space that I had been looking for unconsciously.
The media of my teens and early 20s was mystic in nature, but a different mysticism than the fairy-tale. It was the mysticism of the occult-in-everything, the demonic and the angelic battling it out within every news event and popular tv-show. I saw myself swimming in occult symbolism everywhere, verging on a mania that would lead to long nights of hazy conversation with friends or wasted days of "research" into the underbelly of culture. Taking mushrooms and "exploring consciousness" opened me further to the voyeurism of spirits. A voyeurism I quickly realized was a two-way street. It was an endless hole, one that even feels like it was designed by the very occult institutions I was uncovering.
I found the Church serendipitously after an accident on the beach with a piece of driftwood impaled my head, leading to a medical visit with a man who had been further down the gnostic path than me, and had begun to attend Liturgy, describing Christ and the services as "healing his entire being" and then pointing me towards the work of St. Maximos. No one had ever described Christ in such a way.
Wow, that is an amazing story — driftwood impaled your head? It does not get more symbolic than that! Glory be to God!
Besides the negative aspects of culture you reacted against, were there positive aspects that prepared you to encounter the Church, that gave you advantages that you wouldn't have otherwise?
Yes, the seeking of absolute truth at all costs was the main thing. And the spiritual spelunking in other areas actually raised the bar to make "protestantism" and "Catholicism" look extremely cringe and lacking nutrients. I was really looking for an objective measure for Reality and was tired of figuring it out myself and thinking that knowledge was going to save me.
I had jumped into Jungian archetypes and native cosmologies enough to know that there was some Pattern to reality but I had yet to find the place or Person that truly embodied it.
Ah, Jung! I hadn't yet considered him in regard to this topic, but yes, it may be Jung may be for others a figure similar to what Lynch was to me: an agent of Modernism that carves a path out of it, though with highly dubious outcome. The thing is I've never gotten into Jung and can't speak about him at all. It's funny, Pageau is the same; people have often asked him about Jung, and he's had to say sorry, that he's never looked deeply into Jung.
Are there any other specific figures that have been especially influential on you?
Thank you for asking. The question asked me to go a little deeper. Jung tends to stand as a catch-all for the spiritual-not-religious-but-objective-reality-exists types. He was really one of the last people I encountered on the journey. Jung was the one who set up the bowling pin of "symbolism is foundational", which Pageau came and bowled through by telling me to go back to Church.
In my 20's I was really into types like Robert Anton Wilson who got into the idea of "reality tunnels" and would use puns as if they were some sort of cheat-codes to unlocking the Great Plan of reality. He would mix jokes about Freemasonry and Zen-Baptism together in a way that made the rabbit hole feel more like a ride than a pit. Carlos Castanada filled another slot with his ideas of "Dreaming" and "Macrobes".
Alejandro Jodorowsky, a prolific, psychedelic filmmaker and author, also played a major role in this area. His creativity and personal vision were on par with Lynch and he even proposed a creative vision for Dune, which I think there is a documentary about. "Jodorowsky's Dune" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGzBhWwmEE.
Jodorowsky's "Holy Mountain" is hilariously-profound film about an eccentric group of seekers, from each Zodiac sign, on their way to the "Holy Mountain" led by an alchemist who teaches them the secrets of the universe. This movie possessed me with its scope of what was possible to portray in film.
Yes, I know Jodorowsky: https://boxd.it/FulQ/detail. I never read Wilson, but Lynch also uses puns a lot. A pun is an arbitrary way to connect things, so using puns is a way to express the simultaneity of interconnection and randomness. They emphasize the author’s will in creation, and so, potentially, the Creator’s will in creation. I hadn’t thought of this before, but your description of Wilson inspired it. Thank you for your response, for sharing these way stations on your journey. They are mostly foreign to my experience; our culture is a gnarly and sprawling map. It helps to hear reports from all its folds and wrinkles.
Thank you for your insights. This has been most interesting to read.
I grew up in India as a protestant, but have almost exclusively consumed American media; making my journey to Orthodoxy first through Pageauean channels. I would say more, but I think I am currently with you when you say, "When will my life make sense?". I struggle a lot with understanding what is happening both in the world and in me. (When people ask me how I came to Orthodoxy, I do not know what to say. I simply did. My hope for salvation is here. I do not know what effect listening to Queen as a kid had on this process). I honestly could not tell you if I am more of a modernist or a medievalist, or what media I think shaped me the most, or what the cultural scene is currently, or how to describe what my peers believe, the way that you have done. I cannot yet discern. Does this come with time? I am only 20. I hope it does.
May I attempt to summarise what I think you are saying in my own words.
We should not return to pre-WW1 monarchy (I use monarchy here, exclusively to refer to the previous political systems in Europe, not the idea of divine rule). We should not put the Byzantine Empire on a pedal stool and attempt to return to this political system.
Although the Church Fathers and the Bible speak positively about a monarchical, it is not a good in of itself. We need to take what was good from the Medieval Era. The belief that God acts in government. The focus on the acquiring of virtue. The respect for authority. The submittance to God's will. In as much as these ideals were exercised in reality.
Take these goods, but move forward. Starting from wherever one is. A republic like America, a country in the EU, South Africa, or the town one is in and making due with the resources one has, aim for God's will. And in small steps we will end up, not in a monarchy the way it was in the past, but in something new. Imperfect, but seeking the perfect. This seeking starting in South Africa, and India, will not converge in the same political system in this world. The starting points are too different, but in a spiritual sense they can be the same.
Is this is a fair extrapolation of your ideas into the realm of politics?
Each generation must deal with its trauma. Some need Fantasy, some need Twin Peaks (which I have not watched), but these remedies/diseases should never substitute or point away from the true remedy. Be it Modernist of Medievalist, we come from different backgrounds, and different media speaks to us. The transformation of this media into healing ointments to provide a ladder for us all to reach Christ is a worthy goal.
Is this goal not already partially achieved in fantasy, but not at all yet in modernity? Is modernity not also worth the effort to speak to in its own language? and What is the language of the future generations? We must be prepared for it, as we have limited time and resources, and should implement them with wisdom.
This is a slightly botched summary, but I think it should do. Did I miss the overarching theme of your article?
Some extra questions I have:
Is there any example of media encapsulating modernity that is remedial? Twin Peaks is more of a medical report describing one's illness in a language one can understand, as per your explanation.
The counter to materialism being an increased interest in fantasy, seems to be a simple conclusion. But what is the disease of the coming era? I should probably know better, but I am blind to such things.
What about the modernist era is worth saving? What is the good to be kept in us, as we move to Orthodoxy?
I apologize for my crude writing. Rereading this was painful, and even more painful is my inability to make it better.
Zygyt, my brother, yes, when will our lives make sense? We have faith in the Lord that they will, but, like, when?
To your first question, “Is this is a fair extrapolation of your ideas into the realm of politics?”, I’d say, more or less I suppose, though I’m not sure of the purpose of inserting politics here. You say, “And in small steps we will end up…,” and I just see no purpose to optimism in that regard. The Gospel doesn’t teach us optimism regarding political outcomes in this world.
Regarding your second set of questions, it should be remarked that fantasy genre is already part and parcel of modernism, being born from WWI. And it should be recalled that the medium is the message; various new media are not neutral messengers. Cinema, for example (speaking to modernity), is an inherently anti-liturgical medium. Like opera before it, it is meant to replace the liturgical experience, and many false principalities dictate what’s projected. If the language of a future generation involves still more technological advancement — and we already see this with social media — a high degree of discernment will be necessary for its utilization, if it can be utilized at all.
Remedial modernism? Sure, there’s plenty to pick from. Too much to mention. You’re from India; have you ever seen Esthappan (1980)? It’s a Malayalam movie about a holy fool in a Catholic fishing village. You can find it on YouTube; it’s brilliant. Or how about the Apu trilogy by Satyajit Ray? There is much, much humanist content to 20th-century culture which ports seamlessly into a life of Christian values because that’s where they’re from. All you have to do is make sure something like cinema does not replace your liturgical worship.
The disease of the coming era? My answer is always humanism. Worship of the man-God instead of the God-man.
What about the modernist era is worth saving? A simplistic take on modernism and postmodernism both, but one I think useful, is that modernism elevates form over content, and postmodernism elevates context over either. Regardless of those hierarchies, there is much useful knowledge to be found in the focus of either form or context. Both indeed are important and are key to building a healthy soul. As I, a child of modernism and postmodernism, move into Orthodoxy, you can see in my Scriptural hermeneutics how I import the emphasis on both form and context. It is my attempt at adapting a traditional understanding of Scripture into a contemporary mode of perceiving.
Thanks for engaging with my article! I pray you bear fruit with all your searching.
I feel I'm a prime target for your question and this discussion, not because I have any particular insight, but because I'm "one of those" (medievalists).
I was raised on secondary fantasy medium (movies, comic books, games), I was 12 when LOTR came out, and I was already reading it and playing it (tabletop roleplaying games). I was a history buff in high school, and after a segway into warfare (did some years into the military), I went to university studying religious history which led me to the Church. For me, fantasy (in all its form, whether it's sci-fi or medieval fantasy) always was: I can't remember a moment where it wasn't part of my live in all its facet, even music (my parents listened mostly to old school british prog rock, but also neo-medievalist stuff and baroque music). And notably, I was an atheist for longer than I have been a believer/Churchgoer/faithful. I don't know if fantasy prepared me for it, shielded me from the worst, or hindered me: but I can tell you that from my previous life, a lot have been left out with time and repentance, but I haven't felt (yet) the need to reject that part of my story.
I feel there are three points to answer/discuss based on what you ask. The first one, is Lynch. I can't answer really: I have watched two movies from him (plus Dune), but I haven't watched Twin Peaks. I cannot really see the things you see, nor does it moves me like it moves you.
The second one is your initial question: do we need medievalism if we have Twin Peaks? I can only answer partially (because of my lack of knowledge on Twin Peaks). I feel that I need it. Maybe I still need it as a remedy, maybe I need it because my immediate reality is not so devoid of atheism and materialism as you seem to imply (I'm guessing this might be local or cultural), or maybe I'm attached to it as we are attached to a passion. I'd probably need to thing more about that. Maybe all of the above.
The third thing, however, with which I can totally agree, is the sentiment that it needs to be outgrown, outclassed or out-remedied. I've had this same exact discussion with someone else along those lines recently. However, it begs two questions. The first one, you kind of adress it in your text: if not medievalism, than why Lynch? Why does redeeming modernism seems better or even an alternative? The second one: did we really cross the line where the wound is healed enough that we should drop it? Because one of the issue in medecine, is that if you drop your antibiotics too soon, you can get to a worse shape than you where. That's where I'm really less sure than you.
I feel I'd need to be more steeped in Twin Peaks to engage a proper discussion. But I'm open to hearing more on that subject, for sure. As you imply (or if you don't, I'll do it), medievalist-symbolism is very prevalent, and it can lead astray (and it probably did to some). It cannot be taken "as a good" on its own, in an absolute form. Dante is useless to St John Chrysostom, Tolkien is useless to St Maximus, Lewis is useless to St Gregory Palamas. Three of those are good for me, but the three others, I can't say either way (plus I've never read Lewis).
Your parents listening mostly to classic prog rock is hilarious. It really says something about your musical influences!
My main focus in writing this article was what’s coming up ahead, not necessarily where we are now. Insofar as I looked at the past and present, I was searching for the causes of what’s next. I tried my best to acknowledge not only the usefulness of Medievalism, but its manifest advantages. I did not mean to imply that atheism and materialism are not still with us; I just wonder how much longer they can last. And certainly, as I said, the position of modern fantasy genre should be protected as long as it’s useful; I just see the cultural conditions that provide its purpose as perhaps not lasting beyond this century.
This is a new speculation for me because previously I thought Medievalism might be the future and Moderns like myself were just dinosaurs. Like the fantasy nerds were on the cutting edge, like it was the grunge era and I was the older guy still listening to hair bands from the early eighties. Now I’m seeing it as more relative: Sure, Modernism is a dinosaur, but maybe so is Medievalism. And threads that come out of either have equal chance to be vital in the coming era.
Now what does any of this speculation matter? It matters for how I spend what limited time I have to be creatively fruitful. Where should my attentions lie, and where should I not waste time? In what cultural language should I be attempting to translate the Gospel? Present cultural loneliness is not always an indicator of future irrelevance. Very often what’s relevant to the future induces loneliness at present, as causes lie deep, buried in noise.
Your response to the Lynch you’ve seen reminds me of my response to William Maximos’ mention of Jodorowsky. To what degree are idiosyncratic tastes worth pursuing? Which tastes other than one’s own should one pursue? To express what I feel is the objective importance of Lynch would require such great creative devotion that I don’t know that I should give. I already have one book that I know I need to be working on.
At what point in this inquiry am I just needlessly vexing myself? But the whole reason I’m engaging in it is because I already feel vexed. Lord, just help me bear fruit pleasing to Thy holy ones. I wish to feed Thy Body, O Lord.
I agree with you and it's a good thinking prospect. If you continue to write about this (directly or indirectly), it will be a good thinking exercice for me that's for sure. Like I said I feel directly impacted by the consequences of medievalism.
I'm not a Stephen King fan, neither the man nor his work, but when I was in high school I really was into the Dark Tower series / multiverse?. I wonder, in that case, if it's more modernist or more medievlist, and if the answer doesn't lie in something like this, where in the same cultural artefact, you have both medieval (fantasy, arthurian mythos, etc.) and modernist influence (history of America, corporatism, horror, etc.). Or maybe yet again it's just another "head" of the hydra of fantasy, and it doesn't address your thoughts.
I’ve never read Stephen King, but I’ll keep in mind what you’ve said about Dark Tower. Sounds postmodern. Is it like The Neverending Story, which brings secondary and primary creations into dialogue with each other?
I haven't read it in a while, but yes. It does that, but it also tries to 'explain' our primary word subcurrent (a bit like what I understand in Twin Peaks, although far less subtle and interesting) and spiritual movement by the mix of these primary and secondary creations (I don't think Stephen King has any of the depth of David Lynch, so take this with a grain of salt). Also, it was voluntarily made to be a kind of "American mythology" (a bit like we say Tolkien wanted to do with modern England).
While I was, admittedly, raised primarily on Lewis, and without access to much anything else (I was homeschooled in the country) I've felt a similar dissatisfaction with Inklingite methods of cultural recuperation. In any case, I for the most am unable to honestly say that I share in the rest of your experience, though it's very helpful to hear it. I grew up on a diet of superficial denatured media, and the only meaty stuff I had coming in was through a middle school teacher who was into historical fantasy. Lately, though, I find that stuff dry: it's not as interesting as Life itself when healed from that duality. Perhaps also: I'm inclined to writing, and you (though a more skilled writer by far) are inclined to visual/auditory media. Do you think that has anything to do with this divide, or is it downstream of whatever's foundational?
Also, a question in this regard: whatever Martin Shaw is doing seems to be pretty good: he's not nostalgic, he's skeptical about highty-flighty imagination, and his stories are Weird. How have you experienced him and what he's doing?
Since you raised the question - I don't expect you to answer all of these questions - what do you think, other than hagiography/scripture, is the best thing to share with children growing up now?
For children — you know I don’t have any, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that parents should raise their children with art, literature, and music that they themselves like. Maybe it doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.
I highly approve of Martin Shaw. My instincts tell me he is the real deal, but I’ve yet to be truly inspired by anything specific that I’ve heard/read from him. I’ll be very interested to hear what he has to say about the ancient Irish, which I believe he’s working on now.
I feel mighty uncomfortable being called a more skilled writer than you, you who are so verbally talented, while I on a keyboard am like John Cassavetes with a movie camera, just banging on the thing trying to get something out of it. It’s so strange being a writer when I don’t exactly love words. My idea of a writer is someone who loves describing things, just for the sake of it sometimes. For me, it’s such a chore.
That's a good answer. My tastes are developing anyways. I feel the need to be polyglottic: that's why I wrote the Anime piece. I'm also becoming more and more distant from my generational peers: writing that piece felt like a declaration of con-solidarity. There are things I'm more and less excited about sharing with the next generation, and they fall pretty neatly into the categories of modern-mediaeval. As you said in your most recent article, we're ineluctably Western. There are some kids books published by Church presses, and of course there are the Russian authors, but even still this is a food seasoned with 19th century Fracophilia and sublimated Protestantism. Of course, I love my native culture, but there doesn't seem to be anything 'ready-made' of a robust salubrious quality other than fairy tales and Scripture. But dang, my kids are gonna read Dickens, Shakespeare, Dante, Blake, Whitman, Lewis, Tolkien. They're family.
I agree about Shaw, but he hasn't electrified me either.
If you prefer, a more skilled communicator; or, if not that, a more mature one. I do love describing things. My private numinous words, as Auden said.
Thank you for writing this. I grew up in the 90's so I missed the debut of Twin Peaks, but I was thoroughly inoculated with MTV, the Matrix, Truman show, and other 90's sugarcoated-redpills. My journey into the Church feels similar to yours. Rather than coasting-in on the mossy carpets of a medieval melancholy, I came crawling on my knees, thoroughly beaten and tattered by the Gnostic-psychodrama I had subjected myself to through media and rabbit-hole spelunking in a Post-9/11 world. The Church filled a negative space that I had been looking for unconsciously.
The media of my teens and early 20s was mystic in nature, but a different mysticism than the fairy-tale. It was the mysticism of the occult-in-everything, the demonic and the angelic battling it out within every news event and popular tv-show. I saw myself swimming in occult symbolism everywhere, verging on a mania that would lead to long nights of hazy conversation with friends or wasted days of "research" into the underbelly of culture. Taking mushrooms and "exploring consciousness" opened me further to the voyeurism of spirits. A voyeurism I quickly realized was a two-way street. It was an endless hole, one that even feels like it was designed by the very occult institutions I was uncovering.
I found the Church serendipitously after an accident on the beach with a piece of driftwood impaled my head, leading to a medical visit with a man who had been further down the gnostic path than me, and had begun to attend Liturgy, describing Christ and the services as "healing his entire being" and then pointing me towards the work of St. Maximos. No one had ever described Christ in such a way.
Wow, that is an amazing story — driftwood impaled your head? It does not get more symbolic than that! Glory be to God!
Besides the negative aspects of culture you reacted against, were there positive aspects that prepared you to encounter the Church, that gave you advantages that you wouldn't have otherwise?
Yes, the seeking of absolute truth at all costs was the main thing. And the spiritual spelunking in other areas actually raised the bar to make "protestantism" and "Catholicism" look extremely cringe and lacking nutrients. I was really looking for an objective measure for Reality and was tired of figuring it out myself and thinking that knowledge was going to save me.
I had jumped into Jungian archetypes and native cosmologies enough to know that there was some Pattern to reality but I had yet to find the place or Person that truly embodied it.
Ah, Jung! I hadn't yet considered him in regard to this topic, but yes, it may be Jung may be for others a figure similar to what Lynch was to me: an agent of Modernism that carves a path out of it, though with highly dubious outcome. The thing is I've never gotten into Jung and can't speak about him at all. It's funny, Pageau is the same; people have often asked him about Jung, and he's had to say sorry, that he's never looked deeply into Jung.
Are there any other specific figures that have been especially influential on you?
Thank you for asking. The question asked me to go a little deeper. Jung tends to stand as a catch-all for the spiritual-not-religious-but-objective-reality-exists types. He was really one of the last people I encountered on the journey. Jung was the one who set up the bowling pin of "symbolism is foundational", which Pageau came and bowled through by telling me to go back to Church.
In my 20's I was really into types like Robert Anton Wilson who got into the idea of "reality tunnels" and would use puns as if they were some sort of cheat-codes to unlocking the Great Plan of reality. He would mix jokes about Freemasonry and Zen-Baptism together in a way that made the rabbit hole feel more like a ride than a pit. Carlos Castanada filled another slot with his ideas of "Dreaming" and "Macrobes".
Alejandro Jodorowsky, a prolific, psychedelic filmmaker and author, also played a major role in this area. His creativity and personal vision were on par with Lynch and he even proposed a creative vision for Dune, which I think there is a documentary about. "Jodorowsky's Dune" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGzBhWwmEE.
Jodorowsky's "Holy Mountain" is hilariously-profound film about an eccentric group of seekers, from each Zodiac sign, on their way to the "Holy Mountain" led by an alchemist who teaches them the secrets of the universe. This movie possessed me with its scope of what was possible to portray in film.
There was another author Antero Alli who wrote a book called Angel Tech: A Modern Shaman's Guide to Reality selection which blew my mind when I was 25. https://archive.org/details/antero-alli-angel-tech-a-modern-shamans-guide-to-reality-selection-x/page/n11/mode/2up
Yes, I know Jodorowsky: https://boxd.it/FulQ/detail. I never read Wilson, but Lynch also uses puns a lot. A pun is an arbitrary way to connect things, so using puns is a way to express the simultaneity of interconnection and randomness. They emphasize the author’s will in creation, and so, potentially, the Creator’s will in creation. I hadn’t thought of this before, but your description of Wilson inspired it. Thank you for your response, for sharing these way stations on your journey. They are mostly foreign to my experience; our culture is a gnarly and sprawling map. It helps to hear reports from all its folds and wrinkles.
I am grateful to have our paths crossing!
Dear Cormac Jones,
Thank you for your insights. This has been most interesting to read.
I grew up in India as a protestant, but have almost exclusively consumed American media; making my journey to Orthodoxy first through Pageauean channels. I would say more, but I think I am currently with you when you say, "When will my life make sense?". I struggle a lot with understanding what is happening both in the world and in me. (When people ask me how I came to Orthodoxy, I do not know what to say. I simply did. My hope for salvation is here. I do not know what effect listening to Queen as a kid had on this process). I honestly could not tell you if I am more of a modernist or a medievalist, or what media I think shaped me the most, or what the cultural scene is currently, or how to describe what my peers believe, the way that you have done. I cannot yet discern. Does this come with time? I am only 20. I hope it does.
May I attempt to summarise what I think you are saying in my own words.
We should not return to pre-WW1 monarchy (I use monarchy here, exclusively to refer to the previous political systems in Europe, not the idea of divine rule). We should not put the Byzantine Empire on a pedal stool and attempt to return to this political system.
Although the Church Fathers and the Bible speak positively about a monarchical, it is not a good in of itself. We need to take what was good from the Medieval Era. The belief that God acts in government. The focus on the acquiring of virtue. The respect for authority. The submittance to God's will. In as much as these ideals were exercised in reality.
Take these goods, but move forward. Starting from wherever one is. A republic like America, a country in the EU, South Africa, or the town one is in and making due with the resources one has, aim for God's will. And in small steps we will end up, not in a monarchy the way it was in the past, but in something new. Imperfect, but seeking the perfect. This seeking starting in South Africa, and India, will not converge in the same political system in this world. The starting points are too different, but in a spiritual sense they can be the same.
Is this is a fair extrapolation of your ideas into the realm of politics?
Each generation must deal with its trauma. Some need Fantasy, some need Twin Peaks (which I have not watched), but these remedies/diseases should never substitute or point away from the true remedy. Be it Modernist of Medievalist, we come from different backgrounds, and different media speaks to us. The transformation of this media into healing ointments to provide a ladder for us all to reach Christ is a worthy goal.
Is this goal not already partially achieved in fantasy, but not at all yet in modernity? Is modernity not also worth the effort to speak to in its own language? and What is the language of the future generations? We must be prepared for it, as we have limited time and resources, and should implement them with wisdom.
This is a slightly botched summary, but I think it should do. Did I miss the overarching theme of your article?
Some extra questions I have:
Is there any example of media encapsulating modernity that is remedial? Twin Peaks is more of a medical report describing one's illness in a language one can understand, as per your explanation.
The counter to materialism being an increased interest in fantasy, seems to be a simple conclusion. But what is the disease of the coming era? I should probably know better, but I am blind to such things.
What about the modernist era is worth saving? What is the good to be kept in us, as we move to Orthodoxy?
I apologize for my crude writing. Rereading this was painful, and even more painful is my inability to make it better.
Thank you.
Zyqyt
Zygyt, my brother, yes, when will our lives make sense? We have faith in the Lord that they will, but, like, when?
To your first question, “Is this is a fair extrapolation of your ideas into the realm of politics?”, I’d say, more or less I suppose, though I’m not sure of the purpose of inserting politics here. You say, “And in small steps we will end up…,” and I just see no purpose to optimism in that regard. The Gospel doesn’t teach us optimism regarding political outcomes in this world.
Regarding your second set of questions, it should be remarked that fantasy genre is already part and parcel of modernism, being born from WWI. And it should be recalled that the medium is the message; various new media are not neutral messengers. Cinema, for example (speaking to modernity), is an inherently anti-liturgical medium. Like opera before it, it is meant to replace the liturgical experience, and many false principalities dictate what’s projected. If the language of a future generation involves still more technological advancement — and we already see this with social media — a high degree of discernment will be necessary for its utilization, if it can be utilized at all.
Remedial modernism? Sure, there’s plenty to pick from. Too much to mention. You’re from India; have you ever seen Esthappan (1980)? It’s a Malayalam movie about a holy fool in a Catholic fishing village. You can find it on YouTube; it’s brilliant. Or how about the Apu trilogy by Satyajit Ray? There is much, much humanist content to 20th-century culture which ports seamlessly into a life of Christian values because that’s where they’re from. All you have to do is make sure something like cinema does not replace your liturgical worship.
The disease of the coming era? My answer is always humanism. Worship of the man-God instead of the God-man.
What about the modernist era is worth saving? A simplistic take on modernism and postmodernism both, but one I think useful, is that modernism elevates form over content, and postmodernism elevates context over either. Regardless of those hierarchies, there is much useful knowledge to be found in the focus of either form or context. Both indeed are important and are key to building a healthy soul. As I, a child of modernism and postmodernism, move into Orthodoxy, you can see in my Scriptural hermeneutics how I import the emphasis on both form and context. It is my attempt at adapting a traditional understanding of Scripture into a contemporary mode of perceiving.
Thanks for engaging with my article! I pray you bear fruit with all your searching.
I feel I'm a prime target for your question and this discussion, not because I have any particular insight, but because I'm "one of those" (medievalists).
I was raised on secondary fantasy medium (movies, comic books, games), I was 12 when LOTR came out, and I was already reading it and playing it (tabletop roleplaying games). I was a history buff in high school, and after a segway into warfare (did some years into the military), I went to university studying religious history which led me to the Church. For me, fantasy (in all its form, whether it's sci-fi or medieval fantasy) always was: I can't remember a moment where it wasn't part of my live in all its facet, even music (my parents listened mostly to old school british prog rock, but also neo-medievalist stuff and baroque music). And notably, I was an atheist for longer than I have been a believer/Churchgoer/faithful. I don't know if fantasy prepared me for it, shielded me from the worst, or hindered me: but I can tell you that from my previous life, a lot have been left out with time and repentance, but I haven't felt (yet) the need to reject that part of my story.
I feel there are three points to answer/discuss based on what you ask. The first one, is Lynch. I can't answer really: I have watched two movies from him (plus Dune), but I haven't watched Twin Peaks. I cannot really see the things you see, nor does it moves me like it moves you.
The second one is your initial question: do we need medievalism if we have Twin Peaks? I can only answer partially (because of my lack of knowledge on Twin Peaks). I feel that I need it. Maybe I still need it as a remedy, maybe I need it because my immediate reality is not so devoid of atheism and materialism as you seem to imply (I'm guessing this might be local or cultural), or maybe I'm attached to it as we are attached to a passion. I'd probably need to thing more about that. Maybe all of the above.
The third thing, however, with which I can totally agree, is the sentiment that it needs to be outgrown, outclassed or out-remedied. I've had this same exact discussion with someone else along those lines recently. However, it begs two questions. The first one, you kind of adress it in your text: if not medievalism, than why Lynch? Why does redeeming modernism seems better or even an alternative? The second one: did we really cross the line where the wound is healed enough that we should drop it? Because one of the issue in medecine, is that if you drop your antibiotics too soon, you can get to a worse shape than you where. That's where I'm really less sure than you.
I feel I'd need to be more steeped in Twin Peaks to engage a proper discussion. But I'm open to hearing more on that subject, for sure. As you imply (or if you don't, I'll do it), medievalist-symbolism is very prevalent, and it can lead astray (and it probably did to some). It cannot be taken "as a good" on its own, in an absolute form. Dante is useless to St John Chrysostom, Tolkien is useless to St Maximus, Lewis is useless to St Gregory Palamas. Three of those are good for me, but the three others, I can't say either way (plus I've never read Lewis).
Your parents listening mostly to classic prog rock is hilarious. It really says something about your musical influences!
My main focus in writing this article was what’s coming up ahead, not necessarily where we are now. Insofar as I looked at the past and present, I was searching for the causes of what’s next. I tried my best to acknowledge not only the usefulness of Medievalism, but its manifest advantages. I did not mean to imply that atheism and materialism are not still with us; I just wonder how much longer they can last. And certainly, as I said, the position of modern fantasy genre should be protected as long as it’s useful; I just see the cultural conditions that provide its purpose as perhaps not lasting beyond this century.
This is a new speculation for me because previously I thought Medievalism might be the future and Moderns like myself were just dinosaurs. Like the fantasy nerds were on the cutting edge, like it was the grunge era and I was the older guy still listening to hair bands from the early eighties. Now I’m seeing it as more relative: Sure, Modernism is a dinosaur, but maybe so is Medievalism. And threads that come out of either have equal chance to be vital in the coming era.
Now what does any of this speculation matter? It matters for how I spend what limited time I have to be creatively fruitful. Where should my attentions lie, and where should I not waste time? In what cultural language should I be attempting to translate the Gospel? Present cultural loneliness is not always an indicator of future irrelevance. Very often what’s relevant to the future induces loneliness at present, as causes lie deep, buried in noise.
Your response to the Lynch you’ve seen reminds me of my response to William Maximos’ mention of Jodorowsky. To what degree are idiosyncratic tastes worth pursuing? Which tastes other than one’s own should one pursue? To express what I feel is the objective importance of Lynch would require such great creative devotion that I don’t know that I should give. I already have one book that I know I need to be working on.
At what point in this inquiry am I just needlessly vexing myself? But the whole reason I’m engaging in it is because I already feel vexed. Lord, just help me bear fruit pleasing to Thy holy ones. I wish to feed Thy Body, O Lord.
I agree with you and it's a good thinking prospect. If you continue to write about this (directly or indirectly), it will be a good thinking exercice for me that's for sure. Like I said I feel directly impacted by the consequences of medievalism.
I'm not a Stephen King fan, neither the man nor his work, but when I was in high school I really was into the Dark Tower series / multiverse?. I wonder, in that case, if it's more modernist or more medievlist, and if the answer doesn't lie in something like this, where in the same cultural artefact, you have both medieval (fantasy, arthurian mythos, etc.) and modernist influence (history of America, corporatism, horror, etc.). Or maybe yet again it's just another "head" of the hydra of fantasy, and it doesn't address your thoughts.
I’ve never read Stephen King, but I’ll keep in mind what you’ve said about Dark Tower. Sounds postmodern. Is it like The Neverending Story, which brings secondary and primary creations into dialogue with each other?
I haven't read it in a while, but yes. It does that, but it also tries to 'explain' our primary word subcurrent (a bit like what I understand in Twin Peaks, although far less subtle and interesting) and spiritual movement by the mix of these primary and secondary creations (I don't think Stephen King has any of the depth of David Lynch, so take this with a grain of salt). Also, it was voluntarily made to be a kind of "American mythology" (a bit like we say Tolkien wanted to do with modern England).
With Twin Peaks, David Lynch absolutely nails an "American mythology" (Baby Boomer edition).
Cormac, thank you as always for this.
While I was, admittedly, raised primarily on Lewis, and without access to much anything else (I was homeschooled in the country) I've felt a similar dissatisfaction with Inklingite methods of cultural recuperation. In any case, I for the most am unable to honestly say that I share in the rest of your experience, though it's very helpful to hear it. I grew up on a diet of superficial denatured media, and the only meaty stuff I had coming in was through a middle school teacher who was into historical fantasy. Lately, though, I find that stuff dry: it's not as interesting as Life itself when healed from that duality. Perhaps also: I'm inclined to writing, and you (though a more skilled writer by far) are inclined to visual/auditory media. Do you think that has anything to do with this divide, or is it downstream of whatever's foundational?
Also, a question in this regard: whatever Martin Shaw is doing seems to be pretty good: he's not nostalgic, he's skeptical about highty-flighty imagination, and his stories are Weird. How have you experienced him and what he's doing?
Since you raised the question - I don't expect you to answer all of these questions - what do you think, other than hagiography/scripture, is the best thing to share with children growing up now?
For children — you know I don’t have any, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that parents should raise their children with art, literature, and music that they themselves like. Maybe it doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.
I highly approve of Martin Shaw. My instincts tell me he is the real deal, but I’ve yet to be truly inspired by anything specific that I’ve heard/read from him. I’ll be very interested to hear what he has to say about the ancient Irish, which I believe he’s working on now.
I feel mighty uncomfortable being called a more skilled writer than you, you who are so verbally talented, while I on a keyboard am like John Cassavetes with a movie camera, just banging on the thing trying to get something out of it. It’s so strange being a writer when I don’t exactly love words. My idea of a writer is someone who loves describing things, just for the sake of it sometimes. For me, it’s such a chore.
That's a good answer. My tastes are developing anyways. I feel the need to be polyglottic: that's why I wrote the Anime piece. I'm also becoming more and more distant from my generational peers: writing that piece felt like a declaration of con-solidarity. There are things I'm more and less excited about sharing with the next generation, and they fall pretty neatly into the categories of modern-mediaeval. As you said in your most recent article, we're ineluctably Western. There are some kids books published by Church presses, and of course there are the Russian authors, but even still this is a food seasoned with 19th century Fracophilia and sublimated Protestantism. Of course, I love my native culture, but there doesn't seem to be anything 'ready-made' of a robust salubrious quality other than fairy tales and Scripture. But dang, my kids are gonna read Dickens, Shakespeare, Dante, Blake, Whitman, Lewis, Tolkien. They're family.
I agree about Shaw, but he hasn't electrified me either.
If you prefer, a more skilled communicator; or, if not that, a more mature one. I do love describing things. My private numinous words, as Auden said.