I was so struck by Talkative's desire to talk theology until its application became the topic. Then he is no longer interested. I had so much poor (random really) theology to correct in my earlier years that I saw being right about doctrine as a measure of spiritual life and growth. Bunyan has seen it all. He's living in the middle of the biggest theological debate ever and recognizes that a person can talk theology beautifully but if their life is inconsistent with the character of Christ, they are very poor companions on the pilgrimage.
I could have written my entire essay on Talkative. Then I decided I couldn’t even bring him up and do him any justice. But I knew my readers would. So thank you, Kevie! This is brilliant.
I love the hopeful (oops!) note that Bunyan strikes, "This Hopeful also told Christian, that there were many more of the men in the Fair that would take their time, and follow after." More of "the reasonable voices of moderation" one presumes, but perhaps even some of those most violently opposed. We can but pray so.
The violence and chaos of the scene brought to mind the riot that occurred at Ephesus around Paul's preaching. There are all kinds of accusations flying about the purpose of Paul's preaching from the "Vanity Fair" group at Ephesus, and a couple of Paul's traveling companions were dragged into the fray when they couldn't find Paul.
' "The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. 33 The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander to the front, and they shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. 34 But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” ' Acts 19:32-34
Perhaps Bunyan was drawing on this instance in the life of Paul as his model for the chaos in Vanity Fair?
How are you now after what seems a really awful experience?
I think that the creators of the magazine surely never read the book (like me until now) but Thackeray and Alcott must have done. It also just occurred to me that probably all the Paradise Lost Satan fans did not go further than the third book or they must have mentioned his dramatic transformation.
Oh, I think the magazine knew full well what Vanity Fair was. But they embraced it, cheekily perhaps, but it was an intentional riff.
I appreciate your asking. It’s funny because as I was finishing this post it occurred to me that I may be at the point where I’ve talked about this horrible chapter of my life enough. The chapter lasted about 10 years (it took me 10 years to understand what was happening and get out). So I can give myself a few years to process it all. But maybe I’m getting closer to letting it all go. Closer anyway. But I have to be honest and process it all fully and not pretend that everything is healed overnight. The space has been a crucial part of my ability to process in what I hope is a healthy way. 🩵
Bunyan seems to give equal weight to any event , momentous or trivial. So the death of Faithful (imagine how Hilary Mantel would have written that) is over in a few lines. Then poor Faithful is hardly mourned as Hopeful arrives. Is that because Bunyan and his readers are all convinced this is just an episode in Faithful’s journey to the celestial city, or everyone in those times had witnessed violent death ?
What a great question! I think a couple of things might help us better understand this approach by Bunyan to storytelling. First, consider how minimal the narration in the Old Testament can be. Think of Abraham’s journey in which he expected to sacrifice Isaac and how little detail we get about what he might have been feeling and going through. The great shift toward more emotional and psychological insight into the interior of characters lives is actually a product of modernity. This is in fact the great “invention” of the novel, an innovation brought largely (not solely) by Samuel Richardson’s Pamela. (Ahem, Holly!) the fun twist is that bunion contributed significantly to the development of the English novel. He did so, not only with The Pilgrim’s Progress, but also his spiritual autobiography, which offer offers much more description of the interior life than this work does.
But you are keen and noticing that part of what’s so disorienting about this work is this kind of flattened narration which does not ring in tune with modern ears.
Or of course what Isaac might have been thinking ? And what made him carry on following this strange new religion, only followed by his parents, who were willing to kill him for it ?
Faithful's faithless jury men are so comically apropos in their characterizations that one can see Bunyan's influence on Dickens.
Bunyan usually cites his scriptural sources throughout the narrative (I'm assuming the references in my text were put there by him), but I observed that he did not put in one for his description of the wares of Vanity Fair. Whenever I read Revelation 18, I think of Bunyan's Vanity Fair and vice versa - from verses 12-13, when the merchants are lamenting their losses after Babylon's fall:
"The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men." [KJV]
All this section is about worldly values versus the pilgrims' values. After the Fair, we have Mr. By-Ends and his gainful associates debating the value of assuming religion as a means of gaining promotion and business, and Demas with his treacherous silver mine. Christian and his friends often seem a bit harsh in their words to these men, but the blend of social and political gain with religion was a considerable trap in Bunyan's era. This is the era of the Restoration, with Charles II, serial adulterer and spenthrift, and his pleasure loving court, in a nation where, due to the recent association of devout religion to bloody rebellion during the English Civil War, only approved pastors could preach in approved churches.
Partly, yes - by all accounts Charles II himself suffered considerable trauma while escaping the fate of his father. There is also the fact that Cromwell's Protectorate had ridiculously strict rules that people would have chafed at, so the relaxing of the rules with Charles' return would have opened the floodgates of pent up behaviours.
But this is the also the era, in France, of Louis XVI, the Sunk King and his even more dissipated and extravagant court at Versailles. Charles II's sister, Henrietta Anne, was married to the Duc d'Orleans, Louis's younger brother. Louis was the more powerful monarch, and Charles II, with the Treaty of Dover in 1670, allied himself to Louis' interests.. The Restoration court was a pale imitation of the court of Versailles when it came to open adultery, intrigue, and spenfing money.
Yes, the thesis and antithesis. Gothard used the Hegelian dialectic of history to argue that synthesis should never be formed because it would cause compromise. He argued Christians should always be the antithesis to society's thesis. Hence the regressive dress codes, etc.
These days, I prefer the 2nd century Epistle of Diognetus view of Christians as citizens of heaven passing their days on earth, observing the ordinary customs of whatever place they live in and obeying the laws while surpassing the laws in loving and doing good to all - "as the soul is in the body, so are Christians in the world". Not above the Hegelian dialetic, just not part of it.
Wow. Holly, can you direct me to a source to that Epistle? (I can obviously Google it, but if there is a book where I can read it, I’d prefer that). Very compelling in the context you set it in here.
Karen, the Epistle usually occurs in collections of early church writers, like Donaldson and Roberts' 1867 translation 'Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1'. I couldn't afford a print copy when I started reading the church fathers, so I sourced the public domain translation from Wikisource - New Advent also has it. The listings I can see for print editions of the Epistle by itself appear quite expensive, and I couldn't speak to their relative merits.
Oh, I love that connection to Dickens! I bet you’re right.
Interesting that Bunyan doesn’t give the Rev. gloss (those are his glosses). I wonder what the history of the Puritans’ relationship with that book is (may not be different from any other book of the Bible, I don’t know).
Man oh man that is even more like my undistinguished ancestors-in-law ‘s divorce case in the 18th century (Karen did you come across it as you are an 18th century expert? There is a famous portrait of the notorious Lady Worsley in a very fine hat .) They were the very non puritan branch of the family
I looked her up. The painting is familiar! The details of the story weren’t but such licentiousness really was common. This was the sordid ground upon which the Evangelical Revival would take root.
I suppose it was - never thought of that. But at least they never pretended to Christian virtues so far as I know and what I find so horrible now are the statements made and actions done in the name of Christianity .
She’s back in the news again ! The historian who studied her is now saying she definitely was not a feminist, unlike in the tv adaption , just an heiress out to get as much money and as many lovers as possible as she could. Some of my ancestors in law would have been right at home in vanity fair .
Falwell would have gotten on well with Samuel Pepys, the famous Restoration era diary writer. Tried reading Pepys in my late teens and kept being shocked at his treatment of women. Finally decided he wasn't worth my while - and I read the entirety of Boswell's 'Life of Johnson', so I could read long and boring. Whenever people suggest 'the former days were better than these' (Eccl. 7:10), I know they haven't grasped the sheer moral chaos of the period from the Restoration to the Georgian era. The 17th and 18th centuries were not an easy time to be a woman in England.
Speaking of the Georgian era, which early novelist have you in mind - Fielding or Goldsmith? Please don't say Richardson, I made it through 'Pamela' but got lost somewhere around the fourth volume of 'Clarissa'. Love Goldsmith's 'Vicar of Wakefield', tried Fielding's 'Tom Jones' before I was ready to handle it, and still haven't gotten around to it again. In some ways, the picaresque novels of the 18th century are very much the successors of Pilgrim's Progress. I know Dickens read those, as he has David Copperfield read them when he is isolated as punishment for biting his stepfather.
By the way, 'Vanity Fair' is one of the few famous Victorian novels I never finished. Couldn't stand Becky Sharp.
I got to visit Samuel Pepys’ library at Cambridge last summer. It was amazing. He was definitely a Restoration man. I’ve only read some of his diaries. But I have read all of Boswell’s Life of Johnson and that is a wild ride!
It’s a good question about what book to do…I LOVE teaching Pamela but do so in context for English majors so don’t think that would work well here. I love Fielding as well but it would have to be something shorter than Tom Jones! It would be super fun to do Tristram Shandy….hmmm… I think I’d have to spread any 18 century novel out quite a bit and maybe alternate it with other (short) readings. I’m trying to hit the balance here between going deeper into literature, but also be general enough to draw people in. The 18th century is not most people’s favorite, ha ha.
I do think we must do Gulliver’s Travels (and treat it as a pre-novel).
I think Thackeray succeeded in his intent of making an unlikable heroine in Becky Sharp.
The part I found most interesting in Boswell's Life was Samuel Johnson's own account of the Gordon Riots. Dickens' 'Baranaby Rudge', based on the Gordon Riots, was an early teen favourite of mine, so Johnson's real life account was fascinating.
Yes, definitely to Gulliver's Travels.
Goldsmith's 'Vicar' is quite short, but I guess he is not quite as formative for the novel as Fielding and Richardson. But I do see him as a link between the early novel and Austen's solidifying of the form.
Now I am intrigued why Anne Bronte is your preferred pick of the three. When I tried reading 'Agnes Grey' to my mother, she found it too depressing and stopped me, and you know how she loves Charlotte's works. I've read both of Anne's books, but I could never finish Emily's one, despite multiple attempts.
This section made me angry. It unexpectedly unearthed some feelings. Part of my anger stems from feeling confused, and another part from again grappling with how I was raised.
First, there is Christian and Faithful's treatment of Talkative. Christian is the one who tells Faithful that he "knows" all about Talkative, and some of what Christian communicates about him is hearsay. Faithful is the one who interrupts Talkative and talks the most. Then Faithful basically tells the talkative, "I know who you are and you're wrong." He states his case, and they leave Talkative to fend for himself. I say all this understanding the type of person Talkative is and what Bunyan was trying to convey. But, it's like once we meet up with these "bad" people, there is no compassion or empathy, no sharing about Jesus—just this attitude of "you are bad for me, so let me tell you how bad you are and continue towards Jesus." For all this striving that Christian and Faithful are doing, it rubs me the wrong way that these people seem to be discarded by them.
Then there's Vanity Fair. In my young life, I was taught to fear "the world." I was taught to fear the non-Christian men who would take advantage of me, of drinking, smoking, having sex, etc. "the world" is bad" they said. And yet, my only negative encounters were men within the church and school system who viewed me as something to desire. And the women who supported that system. There were constant undertones of that. I was told to hold firm to the faith, while the men and women around me just did and said what they wanted. To me, Vanity Fair was not "the World" but rather people in "the church," both from my home church and, as I got older, "the church" at large. It was very disorienting to make that connection
Finally, the bit with Hold-the world, Save-all, Money-love, and By-ends felt to me not like a non-Christian whom I encounter in the "Marketplace" but like many people I know within the church trying to justify their actions. Then I felt the spotlight on my own heart, it revealed how I had sadly done the same thing, too. Then Christian says, "That man that takes up Religion for the world, will throw away religion for the world." I couldn't help but think of my friends and family who are just so wrapped up in mixing their religion with politics, and how only 4 years ago, had I not chosen to walk away, it could have been me—and that's scary.
Maybe it's silly, but I find myself wanting redemption for all these people in the book, and that makes Christian walking away from them seem so cruel. However, it may have something to do with how the undertones of Bunyan's theology reveal themselves in his writing. There is so much striving here to be a better person, so much pushing, and not a lot of resting or abiding in Jesus.
And then perhaps it's just where I'm at in my own life and my heart.
Good Job, Karen, and I'm so sorry those things happened to you.
It’s not silly at all! It is interesting to think about how differently Bunyan saw the world, sin, temptation, and the Christian journey than we tend to.
I feel like I’ve emphasized seeing the richness and layers of the symbols in the allegory. And you do so here! Yet Bunyan really did mean to portray actual vices, to put flesh on their bones, so to speak. And so some of these vices are literally irredeemable. Yet, he does show the gradations. Apollyon is clearly the worst! And some of these other characters (vices) are annoying or mildly bad, not sheer evil. And of course some of them are our own vices (I’m definitely guilty!).
I appreciated how Bunyan described Faithful’s defense. He makes a series of affirmative statements. He doesn’t over explain and he doesn’t address everything that was lodged against him.
It made me curious about how Bunyan defended himself when he was put in prison.
I was so struck by Talkative's desire to talk theology until its application became the topic. Then he is no longer interested. I had so much poor (random really) theology to correct in my earlier years that I saw being right about doctrine as a measure of spiritual life and growth. Bunyan has seen it all. He's living in the middle of the biggest theological debate ever and recognizes that a person can talk theology beautifully but if their life is inconsistent with the character of Christ, they are very poor companions on the pilgrimage.
I could have written my entire essay on Talkative. Then I decided I couldn’t even bring him up and do him any justice. But I knew my readers would. So thank you, Kevie! This is brilliant.
I love the hopeful (oops!) note that Bunyan strikes, "This Hopeful also told Christian, that there were many more of the men in the Fair that would take their time, and follow after." More of "the reasonable voices of moderation" one presumes, but perhaps even some of those most violently opposed. We can but pray so.
Here for all the puns, Richard!
I love your insight about the hopefulness even more.
The violence and chaos of the scene brought to mind the riot that occurred at Ephesus around Paul's preaching. There are all kinds of accusations flying about the purpose of Paul's preaching from the "Vanity Fair" group at Ephesus, and a couple of Paul's traveling companions were dragged into the fray when they couldn't find Paul.
' "The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. 33 The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander to the front, and they shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. 34 But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” ' Acts 19:32-34
Perhaps Bunyan was drawing on this instance in the life of Paul as his model for the chaos in Vanity Fair?
That seems like a real possibility Teri.
That’s a great connection, Teri.
How are you now after what seems a really awful experience?
I think that the creators of the magazine surely never read the book (like me until now) but Thackeray and Alcott must have done. It also just occurred to me that probably all the Paradise Lost Satan fans did not go further than the third book or they must have mentioned his dramatic transformation.
Oh, I think the magazine knew full well what Vanity Fair was. But they embraced it, cheekily perhaps, but it was an intentional riff.
I appreciate your asking. It’s funny because as I was finishing this post it occurred to me that I may be at the point where I’ve talked about this horrible chapter of my life enough. The chapter lasted about 10 years (it took me 10 years to understand what was happening and get out). So I can give myself a few years to process it all. But maybe I’m getting closer to letting it all go. Closer anyway. But I have to be honest and process it all fully and not pretend that everything is healed overnight. The space has been a crucial part of my ability to process in what I hope is a healthy way. 🩵
Bunyan seems to give equal weight to any event , momentous or trivial. So the death of Faithful (imagine how Hilary Mantel would have written that) is over in a few lines. Then poor Faithful is hardly mourned as Hopeful arrives. Is that because Bunyan and his readers are all convinced this is just an episode in Faithful’s journey to the celestial city, or everyone in those times had witnessed violent death ?
What a great question! I think a couple of things might help us better understand this approach by Bunyan to storytelling. First, consider how minimal the narration in the Old Testament can be. Think of Abraham’s journey in which he expected to sacrifice Isaac and how little detail we get about what he might have been feeling and going through. The great shift toward more emotional and psychological insight into the interior of characters lives is actually a product of modernity. This is in fact the great “invention” of the novel, an innovation brought largely (not solely) by Samuel Richardson’s Pamela. (Ahem, Holly!) the fun twist is that bunion contributed significantly to the development of the English novel. He did so, not only with The Pilgrim’s Progress, but also his spiritual autobiography, which offer offers much more description of the interior life than this work does.
But you are keen and noticing that part of what’s so disorienting about this work is this kind of flattened narration which does not ring in tune with modern ears.
Thanks for this, Miranda!
Or of course what Isaac might have been thinking ? And what made him carry on following this strange new religion, only followed by his parents, who were willing to kill him for it ?
Faithful's faithless jury men are so comically apropos in their characterizations that one can see Bunyan's influence on Dickens.
Bunyan usually cites his scriptural sources throughout the narrative (I'm assuming the references in my text were put there by him), but I observed that he did not put in one for his description of the wares of Vanity Fair. Whenever I read Revelation 18, I think of Bunyan's Vanity Fair and vice versa - from verses 12-13, when the merchants are lamenting their losses after Babylon's fall:
"The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men." [KJV]
All this section is about worldly values versus the pilgrims' values. After the Fair, we have Mr. By-Ends and his gainful associates debating the value of assuming religion as a means of gaining promotion and business, and Demas with his treacherous silver mine. Christian and his friends often seem a bit harsh in their words to these men, but the blend of social and political gain with religion was a considerable trap in Bunyan's era. This is the era of the Restoration, with Charles II, serial adulterer and spenthrift, and his pleasure loving court, in a nation where, due to the recent association of devout religion to bloody rebellion during the English Civil War, only approved pastors could preach in approved churches.
Do you think the restoration court was partly so decadent as they would all have been traumatised by war , like in the 1920s?
Partly, yes - by all accounts Charles II himself suffered considerable trauma while escaping the fate of his father. There is also the fact that Cromwell's Protectorate had ridiculously strict rules that people would have chafed at, so the relaxing of the rules with Charles' return would have opened the floodgates of pent up behaviours.
But this is the also the era, in France, of Louis XVI, the Sunk King and his even more dissipated and extravagant court at Versailles. Charles II's sister, Henrietta Anne, was married to the Duc d'Orleans, Louis's younger brother. Louis was the more powerful monarch, and Charles II, with the Treaty of Dover in 1670, allied himself to Louis' interests.. The Restoration court was a pale imitation of the court of Versailles when it came to open adultery, intrigue, and spenfing money.
I'm just going to leave that autocorrect typo in place, because it made me laugh.
Honestly, history is a history of one pendulum swing to another, including that from strictness to licentiousness and back again.
Yes, the thesis and antithesis. Gothard used the Hegelian dialectic of history to argue that synthesis should never be formed because it would cause compromise. He argued Christians should always be the antithesis to society's thesis. Hence the regressive dress codes, etc.
These days, I prefer the 2nd century Epistle of Diognetus view of Christians as citizens of heaven passing their days on earth, observing the ordinary customs of whatever place they live in and obeying the laws while surpassing the laws in loving and doing good to all - "as the soul is in the body, so are Christians in the world". Not above the Hegelian dialetic, just not part of it.
Wow. Holly, can you direct me to a source to that Epistle? (I can obviously Google it, but if there is a book where I can read it, I’d prefer that). Very compelling in the context you set it in here.
Karen, the Epistle usually occurs in collections of early church writers, like Donaldson and Roberts' 1867 translation 'Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1'. I couldn't afford a print copy when I started reading the church fathers, so I sourced the public domain translation from Wikisource - New Advent also has it. The listings I can see for print editions of the Epistle by itself appear quite expensive, and I couldn't speak to their relative merits.
The section of the Epistle to Diognetus that I was summarizing is quoted in this old blog post: https://travellerunknownblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/the-diognetus-option/
Oh, yes! That’s an excellent insight.
Oh, I love that connection to Dickens! I bet you’re right.
Interesting that Bunyan doesn’t give the Rev. gloss (those are his glosses). I wonder what the history of the Puritans’ relationship with that book is (may not be different from any other book of the Bible, I don’t know).
And, man oh man, it’s like today’s headlines were ripped right out of Charles II’s court: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2025/05/20/liberty-university-jerry-falwell-jr-settlement-sex-scandal/83675753007/
Man oh man that is even more like my undistinguished ancestors-in-law ‘s divorce case in the 18th century (Karen did you come across it as you are an 18th century expert? There is a famous portrait of the notorious Lady Worsley in a very fine hat .) They were the very non puritan branch of the family
Indeed.
Sorry that is of course on response to the Falwell story.
I looked her up. The painting is familiar! The details of the story weren’t but such licentiousness really was common. This was the sordid ground upon which the Evangelical Revival would take root.
I suppose it was - never thought of that. But at least they never pretended to Christian virtues so far as I know and what I find so horrible now are the statements made and actions done in the name of Christianity .
She’s back in the news again ! The historian who studied her is now saying she definitely was not a feminist, unlike in the tv adaption , just an heiress out to get as much money and as many lovers as possible as she could. Some of my ancestors in law would have been right at home in vanity fair .
Who is the historian studying her now?
Falwell would have gotten on well with Samuel Pepys, the famous Restoration era diary writer. Tried reading Pepys in my late teens and kept being shocked at his treatment of women. Finally decided he wasn't worth my while - and I read the entirety of Boswell's 'Life of Johnson', so I could read long and boring. Whenever people suggest 'the former days were better than these' (Eccl. 7:10), I know they haven't grasped the sheer moral chaos of the period from the Restoration to the Georgian era. The 17th and 18th centuries were not an easy time to be a woman in England.
Speaking of the Georgian era, which early novelist have you in mind - Fielding or Goldsmith? Please don't say Richardson, I made it through 'Pamela' but got lost somewhere around the fourth volume of 'Clarissa'. Love Goldsmith's 'Vicar of Wakefield', tried Fielding's 'Tom Jones' before I was ready to handle it, and still haven't gotten around to it again. In some ways, the picaresque novels of the 18th century are very much the successors of Pilgrim's Progress. I know Dickens read those, as he has David Copperfield read them when he is isolated as punishment for biting his stepfather.
By the way, 'Vanity Fair' is one of the few famous Victorian novels I never finished. Couldn't stand Becky Sharp.
I got to visit Samuel Pepys’ library at Cambridge last summer. It was amazing. He was definitely a Restoration man. I’ve only read some of his diaries. But I have read all of Boswell’s Life of Johnson and that is a wild ride!
It’s a good question about what book to do…I LOVE teaching Pamela but do so in context for English majors so don’t think that would work well here. I love Fielding as well but it would have to be something shorter than Tom Jones! It would be super fun to do Tristram Shandy….hmmm… I think I’d have to spread any 18 century novel out quite a bit and maybe alternate it with other (short) readings. I’m trying to hit the balance here between going deeper into literature, but also be general enough to draw people in. The 18th century is not most people’s favorite, ha ha.
I do think we must do Gulliver’s Travels (and treat it as a pre-novel).
I think Thackeray succeeded in his intent of making an unlikable heroine in Becky Sharp.
I think definitely Tristram Shandy
The part I found most interesting in Boswell's Life was Samuel Johnson's own account of the Gordon Riots. Dickens' 'Baranaby Rudge', based on the Gordon Riots, was an early teen favourite of mine, so Johnson's real life account was fascinating.
Yes, definitely to Gulliver's Travels.
Goldsmith's 'Vicar' is quite short, but I guess he is not quite as formative for the novel as Fielding and Richardson. But I do see him as a link between the early novel and Austen's solidifying of the form.
Not to get too far ahead of myself, but the 19th century choices will be so fun. I think The Tenant of Wildfell Hall would be fantastic!
Now I am intrigued why Anne Bronte is your preferred pick of the three. When I tried reading 'Agnes Grey' to my mother, she found it too depressing and stopped me, and you know how she loves Charlotte's works. I've read both of Anne's books, but I could never finish Emily's one, despite multiple attempts.
A reply to this comment will require my laptop and the refreshment of the morrow, haha! Stay tuned.
I think I'm caught up now. I've found that I read the narrative sections quite easily, but get more bogged down with the dialogue.
That makes sense! I think the dialogue is where Bunyan gets most didactic.
This section made me angry. It unexpectedly unearthed some feelings. Part of my anger stems from feeling confused, and another part from again grappling with how I was raised.
First, there is Christian and Faithful's treatment of Talkative. Christian is the one who tells Faithful that he "knows" all about Talkative, and some of what Christian communicates about him is hearsay. Faithful is the one who interrupts Talkative and talks the most. Then Faithful basically tells the talkative, "I know who you are and you're wrong." He states his case, and they leave Talkative to fend for himself. I say all this understanding the type of person Talkative is and what Bunyan was trying to convey. But, it's like once we meet up with these "bad" people, there is no compassion or empathy, no sharing about Jesus—just this attitude of "you are bad for me, so let me tell you how bad you are and continue towards Jesus." For all this striving that Christian and Faithful are doing, it rubs me the wrong way that these people seem to be discarded by them.
Then there's Vanity Fair. In my young life, I was taught to fear "the world." I was taught to fear the non-Christian men who would take advantage of me, of drinking, smoking, having sex, etc. "the world" is bad" they said. And yet, my only negative encounters were men within the church and school system who viewed me as something to desire. And the women who supported that system. There were constant undertones of that. I was told to hold firm to the faith, while the men and women around me just did and said what they wanted. To me, Vanity Fair was not "the World" but rather people in "the church," both from my home church and, as I got older, "the church" at large. It was very disorienting to make that connection
Finally, the bit with Hold-the world, Save-all, Money-love, and By-ends felt to me not like a non-Christian whom I encounter in the "Marketplace" but like many people I know within the church trying to justify their actions. Then I felt the spotlight on my own heart, it revealed how I had sadly done the same thing, too. Then Christian says, "That man that takes up Religion for the world, will throw away religion for the world." I couldn't help but think of my friends and family who are just so wrapped up in mixing their religion with politics, and how only 4 years ago, had I not chosen to walk away, it could have been me—and that's scary.
Maybe it's silly, but I find myself wanting redemption for all these people in the book, and that makes Christian walking away from them seem so cruel. However, it may have something to do with how the undertones of Bunyan's theology reveal themselves in his writing. There is so much striving here to be a better person, so much pushing, and not a lot of resting or abiding in Jesus.
And then perhaps it's just where I'm at in my own life and my heart.
Good Job, Karen, and I'm so sorry those things happened to you.
It’s not silly at all! It is interesting to think about how differently Bunyan saw the world, sin, temptation, and the Christian journey than we tend to.
I feel like I’ve emphasized seeing the richness and layers of the symbols in the allegory. And you do so here! Yet Bunyan really did mean to portray actual vices, to put flesh on their bones, so to speak. And so some of these vices are literally irredeemable. Yet, he does show the gradations. Apollyon is clearly the worst! And some of these other characters (vices) are annoying or mildly bad, not sheer evil. And of course some of them are our own vices (I’m definitely guilty!).
What rich thoughts, Mel.
I did kind of forget I was reading an allegory. I’m invested now. 😆
SUCCESS!!!
I appreciated how Bunyan described Faithful’s defense. He makes a series of affirmative statements. He doesn’t over explain and he doesn’t address everything that was lodged against him.
It made me curious about how Bunyan defended himself when he was put in prison.