It isn’t merely “transformed,” his old skin is peeled from his body by the Christ figure while he’s in water. The books aren’t quite as blatant as say “Pilgrim’s Progress,” but I am amazed that people who are at least vaguely familiar with Christianity miss the symbolism, even as children.
Still, the scene at the stone table gets to me. I re-read it right about the time “The Passion of the Christ” came out. One of the reasons I didn’t see the movie is because I didn’t think it could top that book. I’m a bit worried about the movie.
Seeing it anyway, of course. I still don’t like turkish delight.
Except it’s more like Guess what? The world you’ve lived in up to now was only an image of the real one, which is where you’ve just arrived! Enjoy! Everything you have loved is here; Earth, Narnia, and more than you can possibly imagine. They would call you “dead” where you came from, but the truth of the matter is that you have just begun to truly live.
The Free Methodist Church around the corner from me has “Aslan is on the move” on their message board near the road. Now I’m a United Methodist and have never been in that church, but I’m tempted to go this Sunday just to find out how they are going to tie this in.
I know that now. But, back in third grade, I felt that our teacher and Lewis had lied to us and tried to fool us. I had never heard of Screwtape, Mere Christianity, or Lewis. I thought we were just reading another book. Then, the whole thing turns out to be a thinly disguised Christian allegory.
I think the key word on Prince Caspian’s subtext comes near the end of your assessment: doubt. Everyone is kind of a “doubting Thomas” in PC. Only Lucy really believes all the way through. I guess the message is about “faith in the face of doubt.”
I can see how the themes fit the other books, except for perhaps *The Silver Chair. *I know that the story has the children receiving Aslan’s instructions, and things go wrong on their quest when they disregard the instructions, but is that really a matter of faith? It seems more like carelessness rather than a faith/lack of faith question. Can anyone amplify on TSC? Also, does Puddleglum–one of my all-time favorite characters–fit any established Christian archetype? I’m not seeing it, if he does.
Not that I really care that much about the subtext. I’m another of those who read the books as a child and had the symbolism fly right over my head. I just like the stories.
I don’t have a copy of the book here with me, but I was thinking of Puddleglum’s marvelous speech toward the end, when he and the children are nearly convinced that their memories of the Overworld and Narnia are just a dream. He basically says that if Narnia and Aslan were just a game made up by children, it’s still a good deal better than the “real” world underground, and that he intended to continue to live as if Narnia and Aslan really existed. I guess I was also thinking of Jill and Eustace’s following (or not following) Aslan’s instructions, even though they did not understand the purpose of them.
I think that live action talking animals, even CGI ones, can’t help but look ridiculous. I just don’t see how it’s going to be possible to show real talking beavers and still retain any gravitas. It’s going to look like the talking animals in Babe. If you’re not playing that kind of thing for laughs, it just won’t work.
As to the OP, Lewis’ friend, J.R.R. Tolkien hated the Narnia books because he found the Christian allegory to be so heavy-handed. The Aslan death/resurrection is particularly unsubtle. Tolkien also found other elements of the books to be ham-fisted or illogical (The Father Christmas appearance basically clashes with the Aslan allegory, for instance) but mainly he thought that trying so deliberately to write religious allegory constrained the imagination and made for bad fantasy.
That’s my biggest fear about the new movie. Talking animals are going to be incredibly difficult to pull off convincingly. Fauns, minotaurs, giants, no problem; but lions, beavers, bears and badgers? It’s just too unnatural. I hope they can can pull it off all right, but even the brief clip of the wolf in the trailer speaking outside the beaver’s dam was jarring.
I think it’s too strong to say that Tolkien “hated” Narnia, but you’re right about his criticisms. I think that if Lewis had been trying to create something akin to Middle-earth, then Tolkien is completely correct; however that wasn’t Lewis’ intention anyway. His goal was different, making his use of symbolism and allegory appropriate. I never found Father Christmas (or Father Time, or Bacchus) out of place in the world that Lewis had created.
Indeed. I’m concerned that they will de-Christianize it; but I’m equally concerned that they will cater to American Protestants by cutting out the smaking and drinking.
Lewis said very nearly the opposite in many places – that while he believed that the Christian god was the only ultimately “real” one, nonetheless there was truth to be found in all sorts of creeds. Indeed, some fundamentalists have claimed that Lewis was a “universalist,” believing that all religions are equally valid. That was untrue, but it’s probably closer to the truth than your absurd claim.
Not a universalist indeed, but Lewis said in Mere Christianity something along the lines that you would expect pagan religions and Christianity to overlap in places, and the message there wasn’t “so much the worst for the Christians” (because theirs is shown to be nothing more than a reworking of older religions) but “so much the better for the Pagans” (because they have stumbled upon an image of the truth from time to time). It is unreasonable, after all, to expect the Pagans to be wrong every time.
I can assure you, Lewis was not trying to hide anything. Heck, writing about Christianity was pretty much what he did, and quite well.