The Narnia Books: "Racist, Mysoginistic, Reactionary" and Devoid of Love

Cafe Society
41

No kidding! If you’ve not read the books since you were a kid, it might be worth giving them a second look before slamming Pullman. I reread some of them as an adult, and was horrified at how propagandistic they were. I fully understand what I’m saying when I say that they’re more propagandistic than His Dark Materials.

The references to Lewis’s hell-and-brimstone Christianity might fly over the heads of children, but they’re absolutely there, in spades. There are also attacks on reform education and on other social trends that peed in Lewis’s Wheaties.

The man was a great writer, sure; but he was also very opposed to the humanistic tradition, and it really shows in his books.

Daniel

42

What about Frank and Nellie (Helen)?

43

I always felt that the problem with Susan was not supposed to be that she was grown-up and enjoying herself, but that she had rejected the reality of Narnia and was concerned only with materialistic things instead of real, important things. I admit it doesn’t come off too well, but it could just have easily been a boy as a girl, and Susan could enjoy lipstick without becoming consumed by vanity. Lewis was very big on enjoying the simple physical pleasures of life, but extremely opposed to any kind of artifice or commercialism, just as Tolkien was.

I agree that he had problems with portraying women in general–his personal life and Oxford culture had a lot to do with that. I wonder if his marriage so late in life changed some of that, does anyone know?

I read Pullman’s comments on Lewis several years ago, and they were very disappointing, though not really suprising if you know anything about Pullman. It’s too bad, I think, because although I loved the first two Dark Materials books, I really felt that his heavyhanded propaganda ruined the last one. I was so disappointed that I haven’t read any of them since. They’re like a toothache on my bookshelf these days.

I agree that the Calormenes are…unfortunate. They’re pretty typical of Lewis and his era, but it is difficult to swallow now, even though the Calormenes are never portrayed as really evil. But a lot of classic children’s literature has the same problems (I had to do some serious instant editing when reading Mary Poppins aloud recently!). I prefer to skim over difficult bits with my younger children, and use them as discussion points when they’re older, rather than throwing the good out with the bad.

44

I’ve read both series rather recently, and I don’t belive either is more propagandistic than the other. I felt beaten over the head with atheism in The Amber Spyglass just as much as I felt beaten over the head with Christianity (and Platonism) in The Last Battle.

45

Not to mention the mice that chewed the ropes off the slain Aslan, and how the children kissed and cried over him.

46

Indeed. One might well note that the wicked prince what’s-his-face (the one who got turned into a donkey!) was described as ruling quite well and humbly the rest of his days. Call it the saving power of God, albeit a rather unpleasant and embarrassing one.

So maybe it would be more correct for me to say that the Calamorines are Arabs who worship Satan, and at least one of them isn’t evil
[/quote]

One could very well say the same about many Narnians. Calormenes were never supposed to be more evil than anyone else. They were merely somewhat unfortunate in that they had a less pleasant land to live in, and possibly had a more rigid social structure.

You must understand that in the Christian view, all good flows from God. Everything worthwhile. To an extent, the beliefs of men are irrelevent. Not wholly of course; the major distinction is that Christians believe that we understand more of what we worship than others.

Perhaps so, but as Lewis himself would point out, does it really matter? The distinction between Satan and any servant of his, and other similarly evil being, is moot.

For Pullman to say this is unusual to say the least. His books aren’t exactly the height of original philosophy. It’s not like he’s the first guy to note that human capacity ofr evil is connected to its ability to choose good.

47

Calormenes always seemed like a very evocative of Color men. He emphasized their skin color and also their culture that seemed based at least loosely on Arabian culture at least the view of Arabian culture you might get from Arabian Nights, and I did not like either as a child or now how he set up the enemy of the Narnians so that you are encouraged or even tempted to think dark is evil and I would not blame anyone from disliking the books on that basis.

However, looking closer, one notices that although he sets Tash up as an anti-Aslan, Calormenes are not condemned because they worship him. Indeed Aslan seems to say that good done in Tash’s name and faithful worship of Tash counts as the same as good done in Aslan’s name and is the same ticket to the promised land as love of Aslan directly. And not only does he see it, we see a Calormene in paradise with the rest of the faithful. If you look at it you may wonder what that means for Islam in relation to Christianity.

He also finds praise for aspects of the culture in that he praises storytelling over essay writing. Also some of the faults of the culture were quite common in England in his time. Beating servants and horses, vain tiresome women who do nothing and talk of clothes and parties and name drop, those who take in children for what the children can bring them rather than to love them as their own.

It was not Lucy, but Susan who was being courted by the Calormene who tired of her vaccilating decides to imprison them all. The courtship seems to speak ill of both Susan and her beau. I see no indication that she ever loved him, yet she seemed to consider marrying him.

The combat is ugly with women comment pisses me off to this day. As if combat is pretty when only young men are slaying each other! But, Lucy and Susan rule under their own name with Peter and Edmund, and are not at all subservient. Also, the more sexist parts of Calormene culture seemed to be emphazised as one more reason they are the bad guys.

48

Well, but that’s Pullman’s point…that the Narnia books are propaganda for Lewis’s view of Christianity, and that children reading them are going to be exposed to Lewis’s Christianity and influenced by it. And Pullman believes that Lewis’s version of Christianity is ultimately harmful and negative.

49

That’s kinda how I took it the first time I read the book. I was young and it didn’t bother me. But when I reread the books as an adult, it bugged me. I thought “of course, she’s interested in nylons and lipsticks, she’s a teenage girl.” I figured CS Lewis was making a point about faith but it just seemed so unfair. If Narnia is a kind of “heaven” and Aslan is great and forgving, it just seem so harsh to reject her for being a girl. Maybe if it had been the older boy and I hadn’t identified with Susan, I wouldn’t have reacted so strongly.

50

I have read them as an adult, while reading to my kids. Yes, they are Christian propaganda, in the technical sense of the word, not the post-Nazi sense. They were intended to tell a Christian story and they do, most obviously with Aslan’s resurrection. So what? Are the only interesting children stories non-Christian? Can not a nonchristian learn something of value from a Christian set of stories?

When I started writing this, I thought the misogyny claim might be a better founded criticism. The villians in two of the books are women (the White and Green witches). But wait, there are more than four books, so that means he’s misogynist for not having enough women villians! (Well, the White witch appears in two books, but the uncle is more the villian in the one that explains the origin of the White witch.)

To knock him for Susan is a bit silly. The books are intended to tell a Christian message that children can see. Someone has to reject Narnia and take the role of the unbeliever. Lucy is the hero of the series, so she couldn’t be “the one” to reject Narnia. (In the second book, only Lucy can see Aslan at first, and Lucy is clearly Lewis’ niece for whom he wrote the stories.) Edmund had already done his bit as the bad guy, and the High King Peter couldn’t or Aslan would not be all knowing. Plus, I assume he was given the name Peter for a reason. Jill and the cousin, whose name escapes me, had already learned their lessons. That leaves Susan to be the one more interested in worldly things than important (to Christians) things. If you think about it, two of the three boys (from our world) are bad at the start, and all the girls are good, although Jill is not perfect.

I would criticize him for the Calormenes. The Narnians are clearly northern Europeans, and really, English. I suppose the big rival kingdom could be French, or something, but it is not unreasonable for him to have modeled them after the Ottoman Turks, who were Europe’s only recent, outside military threat. Yeah, he’s got the Telemarines, or whatever they were called, and they are European, but the Calormenes do seem to be stereotypes.

As stories go, I originally thought they were too simple, when I read them as a kid. I like them better now, which is odd. My kids love them. I think because they like the people and characters. They also love Harry Potter. I think more because of the clever inventions. To call either set loveless is crap.

51

The “Narnia” books are racist, misogynist and devoid of love…

The “Harry Potter” books encourage kids to become satanists…

The “Wizard of Oz” are some kind of anti-capitalist / pro-anarchist tract…

Tolkien’s works likewise encourage interest in satanism…

“Heather has Two Mommies”…ehhhh…

[HelenLovejoyvoice]"Think of the children!! Won’t someone think of the children???"[/HelenLovejoyvoice]

52

I wouldn’t put it that way. “Be afraid of” or “find tiresome,” perhaps, but not “expect.” Most well-read atheists are capable of rising above such petty parochialism (as are most theists).

I, a theist, have no problem enjoying the writing of Christopher Hitchens, an “anti-theist;” he in turn is a great admirer of W.H. Auden, a Christian.

53

It seems to me that the “problem” with Tash, the Calormenes’ god, was that the Calormenes lived in fear of what he might do to them if they disobeyed him. You didn’t obey him because you loved him, or because you knew that he was right or because you knew he loved you (which was how Narnians generally thought of Aslan), but because you feared punishment - and only because you feared punishment.

I also thought that Tash was supposed to be a counterpart to the Old Testament gods/idols that the non-Israelites worshipped, not necessarily an allusion to Islam.

54

Actually, if I’m remembering correctly, what Lewis wrote was a story in response to someone else’s suggestion along those lines—a comic short story of the “What would really happen if…” type.

Read his late novel Till We Have Faces, written with the help and/or influence of his wife Joy. It’s told in the first person by a female protagonist.

55

Quick side question, what with all the talk about Lewis’s Christian agenda: in a church youth group discussion, I once used an analogy from the Narnia series to illustrate a point in an argument. The group leader dismissed my comment because, according to her, Lewis claimed that he had not intended the books to be seen as Christian parables.

Of course, it strains credulity to believe this: whether Lewis “intended” them or not, there are just too many parallels to ignore. But for all you Lewis afficiandos: anyone know if he actually claimed this or not? Or did the youth group leader lie? (She had reason to, because the point I was arguing was contrary to her interpretation of the Bible, hmm…)

56

You fool! Don’t you realize that “honey” is a euphanism for opium? A.A. Milne’s Pooh stories describe the depraved, indifferent lifestyle of a hard-core stoner and his hallucinatory friends, including the meth addict Tigger, the 'Lude popper Owl, the heroin user Eeyore, and the LSD-inspired shared hallucination Heffalump. Rabbit is clearly the pusher who provides his stash (from “the garden”), and Piglet is suffering from cocaine-blues induced paranoia.

You can make the case that the Chronicles of Narnia are (slightly) racist and somewhat condescending toward women (though I think labeling them “mysoginistic” isn’t just stepping out into thin air but actually flinging out over the Royal Gorge) but this is really a product of the time and culture in which they were written. One could make equal–if not far stronger–claim of Tolkien; Lewis at least gives his female characters significant roles, and certainly in the case of The Silver Chair, Jill Pole fares as the more intelligent and level headed of the two children. As for the Christian allegory in Narnia it is certainly there in many aspects, but with the exception of The Last Battle I don’t think it ever becomes intrusive or requires Biblical study as a prerequisite to enjoying the story.

As is typical, the criticism says more of the critic than it does the target. Feeling insecure, much, Mr. Pullman?

Stranger

57

Just in case my reply in the BBQ Pit thread Max the Vool started is missed:

I posted that when I was angry. Not a great excuse, granted, but there it is. I apologize for painting atheists with such a broad brush.

58

But nothing in the books says that Narnia is the only heaven, or that there might not be another heaven world for those who are more interested in nylons and lipsticks than in talking animals. Or perhaps Susan just didn’t die in the train crash.

Emeth, the Calormene who goes into the stable in The Last Battle, clearly does not relate to Tash in that way:

Interestingly enough, “emeth” means “truth” in Hebrew. I don’t speak Hebrew, but I don’t think “Rishda” or any of the other Calormene names are Hebrew.

59

I’m not saying he denied married love. But romantic? Not really.

I forgot about the attack on progressive and gasp co-education. The nerve of boys and girls being in the same school. He’d have done a mullah proud.

60

I’m somewhat head-spun by the number of people who have invoked the term “Propaganda” in this debate. Propaganda means when lies are spread intentionally to support a political or religious cause. If you want to argue that a fictional book, and a work of children’s fantasy at that, is automatically propaganda just because you disagree with the author’s message, where does it end. What isn’t propaganda?

A good book has to do two things. First it has to be entertaining. Second is has to have a theme. Writing a book with a theme does not make it propaganda. It’s a necessity for creating powerful and relevant literature. Arguing for a set of beliefs with strength and clarity and passion doesn’t make an author progpagandistic. Both C. S. Lewis and Philip Pullman know what they believe in and put those beliefs at the center of everything they write. That’s what brings their respective series above ordinary slush.

To be propaganda, in my mind, a work of fiction must have two qualities. First, the author grossly and intentionally distorts reality to their political advantage. Second, there’s no enjoyment to be gotten from the story, only from the smug satisfaction of agreeing with the message. Authors like Edward Belamy and Ayn Rand are propagandists. C. S. Lewis and Philip Pullman are not.