This might just be Lewis' masterpiece.

It presents a wonderfully strange way to construct a novel. Lewis delves into his religious philosophy in highly creative manners that I have never witnessed either before or after. It is truly a pity that Uncle Screwtape is not regarded as a more iconic character.

The writing within this work is magnificent. It serves as a powerful testament to Lewis' literary prowess, far surpassing what Narnia ever achieved. Narnia is indeed great, but this piece of fiction truly defines an author's talent and neatly defies any critics. Although I am not a fan of religion and have never been, I still take great pleasure in Lewis' writings on Christianity. His unique perspective and the way he weaves his ideas into the story make it a captivating read. It makes one think deeply about various aspects of faith and life, even for those who do not adhere to the same beliefs.

I fanatically wrote about 500 words critiquing The Screwtape Letters. However, in essence, it all comes down to just 9 words: I am not the target audience for this book.

This realization dawned on me as I delved deeper into the text. The themes and ideas presented in the book, while perhaps profound and meaningful to others, simply did not resonate with me on a personal level.

It's not that the book is poorly written or lacks merit. On the contrary, it is widely regarded as a classic in Christian literature. But for me, it failed to capture my interest and engage my intellect.

Perhaps if I had a different background or set of beliefs, I might have been able to appreciate the book more. But as it stands, I can only conclude that The Screwtape Letters is not for me.

Nevertheless, I respect the opinions of those who do find value in the book and encourage others to read it and form their own judgments.

The Screwtape Letters is, at its core, a work of Christian Apologetics presented in a satirical form.

It centers around a series of letters penned by a master "tempter" named Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood, as Wormwood attempts to lead a Christian, referred to as the patient, astray. Like other works of Christian Apologetics, it's evident that the intended audience is already Christian, with the purpose of strengthening their existing beliefs about Christianity and offering them comfort.

After reading this book, I was eager to explore other reviews on Goodreads, but I was rather disappointed. The book garners overwhelmingly positive reviews, with nearly every reviewer being a Christian. Despite the fact that it could be easily criticized from different Christian theological perspectives than Lewis's, hardly anyone shows interest in discussing the serious theology within the material. The negative reviews were also a letdown, as they usually simply criticize it for being boring (at least in terms of its writing) or, most absurdly, for being too frightening because it's written from the perspective of a "demon." Given that Lewis portrays Screwtape as "affably evil" for comic effect, I find the idea of someone being terrified by this book both amusing and concerning.

The arguments in the book are quite weak. Here are the aspects I found most interesting.

1. It's very clear that Lewis is a reader of Thomas Aquinas, as he frequently employs the "Golden Mean" and Virtue Ethics of Aristotle in his argumentation. Lewis begins by stating that a Christian can be led astray by becoming a "materialist" or a "magician," these two being extremes that are "obviously" vices. Thus, being a Christian conveniently lies in the middle of these two, and so it must be "right" and also "better." However, the problem with this logic is not hard to spot. We see a similar fallacy in politics. For example, the President once defended himself by claiming that since Fox News says he's a socialist and The Huffington Post says he's a corporate shill, he must be neither and is in the middle, which is, of course, the "right" place to be. The obvious issue is that just because a middle ground can be proposed between two things doesn't make it right. If Hitler wants to murder six million people and the Pope wants to murder zero people, the "right" thing isn't to murder three million people. If Lewis wants to label something as a "vice," he has to prove that the extreme is a vice before he can argue for the Golden Mean, but he uses this fallacy repeatedly throughout the book. Lewis also adopts Aquinas's views on science and sexuality. He criticizes the idea that science opposes Christianity by once again using the Golden Mean. He does the same with sex, making it clear that sexuality wasn't invented by Satan but must be experienced the way "God intended."

2. The typical claims of "relativism" are targeted at intellectuals or atheists. Lewis provides no examples but makes the common assertion that only the religious care about "true and false" and "right and wrong." He repeatedly criticizes a "historical" view of religion. This ties into my least favorite of Lewis's claims in Mere Christianity. He says that because the portrayal of Jesus in the Bible doesn't match that of a liar or a mentally ill person, Jesus must have been God. Never mind that this comes from the Gospels written long after Jesus died by people of questionable morals. To Lewis, Jesus is obviously God, to the extent that "faith" seems equivalent to an a priori claim. So, questioning whether an ancient text is in context, meant to be literal, or trustworthy shouldn't be done as long as it tells us what we already believe, which in his case is that Jesus is God. Lewis tries to depict intellectualism as problematic and more than once attempts to link Atheism with communism and anti-populism. Exactly how this works is never clearly explained, but Lewis just wants to ensure his audience understands that all things they might consider "bad" are antichristian, and anything they think of as "good" is inherently Christian. He conveniently abandons his Golden Mean argument here for a more black-and-white view of right and wrong.

3. Lewis speaks very negatively about being "in love." To be fair, he's referring to infatuation and lust as the basis of a relationship. Lewis wants to criticize those who take marriage lightly, engage in adultery and divorce, but he also implies that the real reason to get married is to avoid fornication. To him, sex should only be experienced the way God intended, which, according to the Bible, is through polygamous marriage that includes multiple spouses and concubines, at least for men.

4. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the book is that Lewis implies the sooner you die, the better off you are. Early on, he mentions that one of the best ways to make Christians abandon their faith is to make them believe the pleasures of the physical world are better. You can debate this (as Nietzsche did), but Lewis enters dangerous territory when he admits that most humans, in 1941 when he was writing, would die young without being properly tempted. Since one of the vices in his Golden Mean is pacifism, Lewis comments on the War and implies that Christians should take extreme risks with their lives because while suicide is a sin, an accidental death can only benefit them.

5. Lewis discusses prayer "double speak." He claims that if a prayer is unanswered, it's "proof" to the unbeliever that prayer doesn't work. If it's answered but the physical causes are visible, it's also "proof." He fails to realize that this logic could work the other way around. To a believer, if a prayer is answered, it's because God did it. If it's unanswered, it contradicts God's plans.

6. Letter 26 is a small satirical gem. It's about "unselfishness" and essentially comments on human nature. I disliked most of this book, but Letter 26 is a masterpiece.