Wow, check out this scathing attack on CS Lewis’s Narnia books by Philip Pullman, author of another popular series of children’s books, the “His Dark Materials” trilogy.
It’s been many years since I last read the Narnia books, but I must say I don’t remember them the way Pullman describes them. At best, I can imagine that the books may have some old-fashioned ideas about gender roles (but even then, didn’t the girls fight in the books? didn’t the older girl have a bow and arrow or something?), and maybe seem a bit militaristic to some modern sensibilities. But the books having “not a trace” of love?? What is Pullman talking about??
I read the books when I was younger. I reread them a few years back, and I found them vaguely distasteful, but I can not remember why.
Perhaps he is just operating under the principle that any publicity is good publicity, or perhaps he has a more nuanced critique ot the books yet to be reported.
The guy’s a nut. Yes, the girls did fight, albeit with less destructive weapons than the boys. Devoid of love?? Yeah, right. And I don’t remember any part of the book where racism comes into play. Totally nonsensical review.
Wow, I never knew Pullman was such a pill. Lewis’ books are written from a very British, and very Christian point of view, but I think Mr. Pullman is going a bit overboard.
Regarding Misogyny: In general, Lewis’ female characters are no less intelligent or admirable than his male characters, nor have I ever noticed any assumption the the Narnia chronicles of women being subordinate to men (Susan and Lucy were co-equal rulers with their brothers, for instance). In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Father Christmas does say that “battles are ugly when women fight”. This is not a surprising attitude considering the time period in which the book was written, nor do I find it particularly misogynist. In any case, by the time Lewis wrote The Horse and his Boy and The Last Battle, he had several female characters involved in fighting (Aravis, Lucy and Jill Pole).
Regarding Rascism: I admit, the general description of the Calormenes does make me a bit uncomfortable. I would say that it also isn’t surprising considering the time period, but I can’t blame people for disliking the books on that account.
As for the books “not having a trace of love”, well, that’s just silly.
Utter tosh. Aside from the obvious love of even minor characters such as Mr & Mrs Beaver for each other and for innocent children, did Pullman miss the bit where Aslan gets himself killed in order to save Edmund’s life? Or, indeed, Susan and Lucy’s grief for him and joy at his resurrection? Even a man who writes a fantasy trilogy based on the theme that God is a senile hater ought to have more insight than that.
Or possibly he’s just stirring shit to attract attention to himself. It must really bite that J K Rowling could hire him to empty her chamber-pot. :rolleyes:
Old-fashioned ideas about gender roles? Good God, they were written when - the 1940s? 1950s? Were they meant to anticipate 21st-century post-feminism? :dubious:
Susan was given a bow and Lucy a knife, but they were strictly for self-preservation; although in their extended stay in Narnia at the conclusion of TLTW&TW, all the kids grew to adulthood and Lucy became “Queen Lucy the Valiant”, from which you can guess she at least had an Elizabethan aptitude for heartening men for combat, even if a non-participant herself.
Also would be good if you can remember any of the reasons you found them distasteful.
I did re-read “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” and “The Magician’s Nephew” in my late teens, and I liked them as much as I had when I first read them.
The bit about “outdated fears of sexuality” is laughable too. Given that all the protagonists (apart from the White Witch, I guess, and Father Christmas) are children or animals, I’d be, like, really worried about people looking for sexual subtexts.
Someone else can talk about how “Turkish Delight” is a metaphor for another kind of forbidden fruit, if they like…
We see more of them in “Dawn Treader” and “The Horse and his Boy”, and a bit in “The Last Battle”. Think of them as vaguely “Arabian Nights”, without anything especially Islamic about them - no more than you’d find in a Sinbad or Aladdin movie, at any rate. They are polite, cultured, scrupulously formal, and in some cases wily and dangerous Orientals. They look vaguely Arabic in a pointy-shoes-and-beard kind of way.
This sucks. I really do like His Dark Materials too. Obviously I’m not going to stop liking them, but I do think Pullman’s going a bit far on this. Maybe the comments are taken out of context? Does anybody have a link to a more complete list of his comments?
They are arabs, kind of, and a few times show up as quasi-villains. On the other hand, they are never given to be out-and-out evil through and through, and that is mostly due to the unwholesome influence of their deity, Satan. Ironically, as Aslan himself notes, Satan failed to corrupt them. The Calormenes still made a large and prosperous people, and fairly honorable and tolerant. Aslan notes that good people, no matter what temple they wporship in, worship him [Aslan].
Yes. Such as the prince who turns up in the last book who, while dutifully attending the services in his homeland, decided that God must be much more exalted and worshipful than his country’s holy men made him. Consequently he discarded the nonsense he was taught and lived his life as a true son of Aslan, and as Aslan said, this was not because he and Tash were identical, but because they were so utterly opposite that no service pleasing to Aslan could be acceptable to Tash, though made with Tash’s name upon the lips; and also vice versa.
Also, when at the end of the world all the peoples came before Aslan, Narnians and Calormenes alike divided into two groups; those who could bear Aslan’s glance, and went to salvation, and those who could not, and went to perdition. The implication: that God sees the heart, and pays less attention to religious practice than might be supposed.
Calormenes also append every mention of the leader of their country (don’t remember his name) with “may he live for ever”, which the Narnians find relatively silly and which I’m fairly certain is meant to remind us of the Muslim use of “pbuh”.
Yes, putting words into the mouths of a fictional race in a children’s story for them to speak about their King is bound to remind 1950s children who haven’t the faintest idea what Muslim customs are that Muslims say “peace be upon him” when they mention their Prophet.