You really need to brush up on your theology and scripture.
“In the Christian view, all good flows from God. Everything worthwhile.” James 1:17, and others
“the major distinction is that Christians believe that we understand more of what we worship than others.” Acts 17:22 ff
In my own (semi-fundamentlist) Bible education, I’ve never heard any different than Lewis on these points. Lewis differred from many Christians only by suggesting or implying (but AFAIK never saying outright) that the general grace and enlightenment given to all humans might lead to salvation outside of Christ.
Well, quite. Peter’s description of Susan’s behaviour is a description of symptoms, not the cause of what has happened to her. But it’s a literal description of the vapid and shallow things she now holds as more important than the “silly games they used to play as children”.
King, queen or knave, I feel sure that Lewis would have it that there is hope for anyone, even those who pee away an enormous privilege. But it’s up to them to seize the opportunity.
I agree. The books were written in the period 1950-56. Half a century later, they are a little out of touch with the prevailing zeitgeist, which is unsurprising, given that it’s going on for 3 generations ago. If anyone can find a work of fiction dating back to a decade before the civil rights act which is spot-on in its portrayal of gender, ethnicity, and society they are doing pretty well.
Devoid of love? I don’t know what the hell he is on about. Lots of devotion and loyalty as far as I can remember. If he’s after humping or soppyness then he should stick to reading penthouse or Mills & Boon. I don’t think either would improve the Narnia books.
(I have to say, I am consistently impressed by the places Dopers can take discussions).
To add my viewpoint to some of those already listed:
Yes, they were books intended to bring readers to Christianity, but as someone else says, so what? I read them when I was young and impressionable and didn’t suddenly convert from Hinduism to Christianity. They are adventure books, albeit simple ones.
The so-called problem of Susan. There is no problem of Susan that she didn’t bring on herself. And I also read it as a metaphor, that she was more interested in growing up than anything else. I always read it as a choice she made, not that she was cut off. She didn’t believe anymore, so she no longer was allowed to come back. Isn’t that the case with atheism…? When you don’t believe anymore?
The Calormenes and the misogyny…well I’ve read enough fiction to know sometimes you have to make allowances for the time it was written in. And women are more prominent than in many other books. How many books are there really out there that have two female leads?
The books are *full * of love. Nothing else to be said about that.
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone you were around back then! You’re dating yourself, dear.
Eru the creator, gave to Man, the second of his children, the gift of Death, that they will age and die and when they die, they leave the realm of the world entirely, never to return. Elves, the first of his children are bound to the world and do not die save through being slayed and they are reincarntated and sent back into the world to live once more.
Yes, exactly so. The upshot of this is that, glorious as the ageless and deathless (death being only a time-out for them) Elves are, Men are uniquely gifted with the promise of something greater and longer-lasting than Arda itself. Also Men have the power to “shape their ends” in a way that Elves don’t, which might be a way of saying that Men, and only Men, are not subject to predestination.
What is the interesting, new, or truthful about the human condition in that?
I’ve only read the trilogy twice, so I may have missed it, but I don’t recall dying being a particularly wonderful gift. Perhaps that explains the species-wide fin de siècle ennui that the elves suffered; however, I really don’t recall much discourse on the question of immortality vs. death, except that what’s-her-face gave up immortality to marry that dude, didn’t she?
That’s another discourse that I completely missed in the trilogy.
Heh. “That dude.” “What’s-her-face”. I think you’re being facetious, my friend. Otherwise, you’re right as far as that goes - you need to read the Silmarillion to get very much of it. Arwen only says in Appendix D, as Aragorn’s death approaches to be followed inevitably by hers, that she now understands more of why the Numenoreans became obsessed with avoiding it, much to their detriment; but you’d have had to be reading pretty closely to catch it.
As for the Elves - yes. They’ve been about the place for a long time, the whole world’s got steadily shabbier around them, the ancient glories that they created in memory of Valinor (those that did) were long since laid waste by Morgoth, and deeply as they love Middle-Earth they are gradually drifting towards the long trip home, never to return.
It is both interesting and truthful as far as we Christians are concerned. “New?” perhaps now. But there’s nothing new under the sun. Bu it was certainly a new way of presenting it.
Okay, but that’s the point, really. If one needs to go through the Silmarillion with a fine-toothed comb in order to get to something interesting about the human condition, then Pullman’s remark about why the trilogy is hardly a diss, as was suggested in the post to which I responded. It’s really a point worth considering, even if one ultimately disagrees with it.
I believe death as the gift to man is in the trilogy, or I’m not sure I’d have known of it. My kids have read the other books; I never have. Maybe I heard it from them. (It seems to me it is mentioned in the account of the genealogy of the kings. Appendix A?)
I think that death can be viewed with dread and as a gift is one of the most interesting aspects about humans. Arguably, it is the source of much that is religion. You certainly see both sides with suicide bombers, both in their willingness and in the grief of those killed. Is it new? Hardly.
To get closer to the op, you could argue that Pullman could be used to argue that Narnia is great literature. I’m not sure if it is new, but Lewis gives an interesting account for the source of evil. The White Witch was not part of the creation of Narnia, she was brought in (by the professor, as a boy, IIRC). She came from another in an apparantly infinite series of universes. That structure permits evil to have persisted for an infinite time, and not to have ever been created, and yet God create each universe.
I actually wrote my response before yours, but work got in the way. At any rate it is definitely in the trilogy. There are other interesting points, also. For example, while Man is not necessarily responsible for the existence of evil, we have a definite responsibility to fight it.
Propaganda 2) any organization or movement working for the propagation of particular ideas, doctrines, practices, etc. 3) the ideas, doctrines, practices, etc. spread this way
(From the New Wrold Dictionary)
The Narnia books are Christian propaganda. They’re even being marketed as such. Disney is deliberately targeting churches. The churches are buying out whole theatres for their memberships to attend.
I don’t have a problem with it, as long as you know what you’re getting into. I enjoyed the Narnia books as a child back when I was still laboring under the Christian indoctrination I refer to as brainwashing. I enjoy them now when I no longer believe in the Christian religion as some kind of ultimate truth about the world.
They’re still fine stories with some good values as well as some bad examples (much as I think the Bible is). I’ll admit I enjoy the Narnia books less now because the were written for children, so – to me at least – they don’t grow as much with me as I get older.
I think Pullman was right in calling it “thinly veiled religious propaganda” though I don’t think he was right in much else.
I can’t even pretend to be objective about this. The first time I read the Narnia series was the summer my father died.
I was appalled at what happened to Susan. And the reaction of her family as they went off to enjoy “heaven” without giving their sister another thought.
I didn’t and don’t think there was any Christian love in that.
From “Here Follows a Part of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen”
Aragorn –
‘to me has been given not a span thrice that of the Men of Middle-earth, but also the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift’
Arwen –
‘But I say to you King of the Numenoreans, not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men it is bitter to receive.’
Though Tolkien does talk about it more in The Silmarillion. As I get older I actually grow to prefer The Silmarillion to LoTR. (You might have guessed that if you recognize my screen name.)
But in the chronology of the stories it’s about right.