Good writing there, Philip.
I guess having benefited from a mostly non-religious upbringing at home, and therefore being mostly free of the usual religous trauma, I've never understood all the panic about the "christian propaganda" of the Narnia books. That's been the hot subject for as long as I remember. I didn't read the books when I was young but I do remember the intriguing talking lion of the BBC series. Religion played no part in my private life and I wouldn't have thought that there was anything religious in any of it even if someone had tried to explicitly exlain it to me. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference.
Anyway, it's a children's story - what kinds of moral complexities can you honestly expect? I'll take the story about the heroic (manly!) talking lion over some shitty digital romp about a goofy shark with sexual identity issues and a passion for karaoke, no matter how black-and-white it may seem. Seriously, fuck that shark, fuck all the annoying idiotic animal characters on a constant sugar-high, fuck the creepy Sponge-Bob creature and fuck all their dumb fucking celebrity-voiced buddies. They killed Bambi's mom but these nightmare circus freaks just keep on discoing through their meaningless lives until the universe collapses from their weight.
But no, we should be worried about the story in which the lion is resurrected, because that will turn all children into mindless servants of Jesus. Personally, I've never read a story that wouldn't have benefitted from a resurrection or two. They should kill and resurrect the muppets, constantly.
And since when has "outdated fears of sexuality and women" not been great material for fiction? I've always hated characters with this idealised, "modern" easy-going attitude about sex and love (the inevitable prolonged exposure to *that* on TV *will* seriously fuck up your kids), and I really don't think that children will be corrupted if they are told stories with a little more meat than what you see on sitcoms. I haven't read Pullman's big trilogy, but he sounds like a tiresome moralist to me - much more so, in fact, than Lewis does in his non-fiction work.
So it's 4.20 am and I fear I have produced a rant.
I agree with some of what Finn says - that the possible harm this film may cause is probably not that great and that, on balance, I would prefer kids to watch something with a little bit of depth rather than some sugary, superficial cartoon about high school girls going shopping (lay off Spongebob Squarepants though, Finn - it's actually pretty good).
However, there is something at least a little sinister about the link up withthe Evangelical churches. Remember that these churches have a far greater hold over sections of the US population than they do here. If this film really does crank up the christian allegory and crank up the racism in Lewis' books (and I agree with what Philip says about the Calormenes) then it could be fairly dangerous.
In fact the racism and chauvinism in Lewis is, I think, quite serious - perhaps this is more worrying than the Aslan as Christ allegory (though the two are linked of course). In today's climate the idea of a last battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil (embodied by dark skinned men wielding scimitars and looking suspiciously middle eastern) could be have quite significant effects on young minds.
I'd much prefer kids to watch His Dark Materials - can't they make a film out of that?
Now I'm feeling guilty for having passed ny original hardback editions of the 'Tales of Narnia' to my kids. Luckily, they seem to have bypassed these AFAIK though the elder is entranced by Pullman and Garth Nix (neither of which I've read myself).
Brought up as an atheist, it was a profound disappointment to learn only as an adult from critical reviews the allegorical, Jesus allusions of Aslan and CS Lewis' works. These allusions had bypassed me at the time, and it was only good vs evil that got through- a basic structuralist dichotomy (see Levi-Strauss). In fact, the religiosity spoilt these for me, which were in my pre-teen years my favourite childhood books.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that there's some "sinister link" between Disney and the evangelical christian communities. I'm pretty sure that Disney's decision to film Narnia has very little to do with religion and a hell of a lot to do with Harry Potter. Of course some christians will embrace the allegory (and there's nothing wrong with allegory people!) which is their right, I suppose, but that doesn't imply anything about the filmmarkers's motivations or the film's ideological effects on children. A huge over-reaction in my view.
Religion plays a big part in the fantasy and science fiction genres, and honestly I don't understand why Narnia is always singled out as the perfect example of some kind of poisonous christian propaganda. Who cares if Lewis was a christian or what motivated him to write the stories? You have "the last battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil" in Lord of the Rings as well, embodied in part by the same "dark skinned men wielding scimitars and looking suspiciously middle eastern" as in Narnia, but somehow I must have missed all the moral panic about that one when the movies became some of the biggest hits in film history.
But Lewis is the religious nut, right, so we have to protect our children from it? I once attended some thingy with Neil Gaiman and I think he also talked about his "disappointment" when he realised that the story was modelled after christian themes. I don't get that at all. Why is it even relevant? Could this be a british thing?
I consider much of Lewis's non-fiction work great literature, by the way.
I certainly see no reason to "protect" children from Lewis' stories or anyone else's. As I said, I think most children will react in much the way I did, enjoying the stories for their readability and undoubted imaginative flair. I just wish he'd trusted his readers sufficiently to let the allegory spring naturally from the plot, rather than editorialising in the sanctimonious and instantly-dating manner noted. On a purely personal level, I'm also a bit saddened that I can no longer enjoy the Narnia books as I still enjoy, say The Phantom Tollbooth and The Hundred and One Dalmatians.
Finn - would the great literature you mention be Lewis' literary criticism?
That question translates as: "Surely, that doesn't iclude his christian writings, finn?"
I meant all of it, basically: the autobiographical stuff, the theological stuff, and, although I'm not sure I've read any of it, probably his literary criticism as well. He's a clear thinker and writer, but most importantly he's also very honest, and that's more rare in literature than people realise. I don't have to tell you that I often don't agree with him, but I don't always agree with St. Augustine either, and that has never bothered me one bit.
As I said earlier my upbringing wasn't religious but it wasn't atheistic either: it was *indifferent* to religion, so I seem to have an easier, more sympathetic attitude towards religion than most of the people I meet around these parts of cyberspace. I don't even know whether my parents believe in god, and I'd be too embarrased to ask.
If I'm allowed a moment of Lewis-like honesty here, in reality I was just personally offended when Pullman implied that fears about women and sexuality are "outdated". Oh no they're not!
I've fallen in love with the new Mew record (thank you Denmark!) - does anyone know what or who 'agarina' is (that's indeed with a g, ion)? I have a feeling that Philip may have an answer. Of course I initially heard it as 'okarina', which would have been so much better.
That question translates as: "Surely, that doesn't include his christian writings, finn?"
Well, perhaps just a little.
The little I have seen of his Christian writings is clearly written, certainly; but the thinking behind it seems somewhat murkier, as in The Case for Christianity where he asserts that
"a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said wouldn't be a great moral teacher. He'd either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he's a poached egg - or else he'd be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse."
The possibility that Jesus might have been a first-century Palestinian with royal aspirations, or might have believed himself the Son of God as the term is now understood but been mistaken in this belief, do not appear to get much consideration; elsewhere Lewis simply declares that historical biblical criticism has "shot its bolt" and "begun to die out" ("Religion without Dogma?"). If this is clarity and honesty, it seems to be the kind that has its eyes tight shut and its hands over its ears.
The reason I asked about the literary criticism is because S T Joshi, who supplies the above quotations in the course of an attack on Lewis' religious beliefs, claims that the critical works are the ones on whose strength he deserves to survive. Aside from the Narnia books, I've only ever read The Screwtape Letters, which as a teenager I found rather enjoyable; Out of the Silent Planet, which during my twenties I found intolerable; and the unfinished The Dark Tower, which sets up a wonderfully intriguing (and frightening) science-fiction situation but breaks off after sixty pages or so.
Agar is a jelly prepared from seaweeds or any of the seaweeds concerned; so agarina, I presume, would be the female of the species.
By honest I don't mean "free of ideology" but that he really tries to communicate what he sees and believes, without trying to hide or play the usual intellectual games. He makes no attempt to cover his ass.
From a literary viewpoint that either-or thinking you quote actually sounds interesting and refreshing to me when coming from a man who appears to be truly seeking. But I cannot defend his views.
For example, on the subject of sex, I much prefer some repressed christian mystic wrestling with his demons than let's say something like Thomas Moore's 'The Soul of Sex', which is sort of a pointless let's-celebrate-everything exercise in sexual affirmation. The good thing you can say about Moore is that he appears to have a healthy attitude towards sexuality, but that doesn't carry you very far and it means nothing to me as a reader.
It's been years, but I remember liking Lewis's autobiographical works the best. 'Surprised by Joy', and the one about his time of mourning after his wife died. His description of how the only time he felt his wife's presence in his room he could only sense a kind of pure intelligence, devoid of all passions and emotions, was pretty striking to me for some reason. Religion usually being this theatre of big human emotions above all else, I guess. And, of course, because I believed him.
I don't know this Joshi (something to do with Lovecraft?) but in general attacking someone's religion is pointless at best and usually without any intellectual interest to me. But that's an old subject for us, isn't it?
Agarina, hmmmm... Somehow that doesn't entirely satisfy me. Okay, something to do with seaweeds, but she's really really hot, right?
Joshi started out as a Lovecraft critic (and authored the definitive biography), but has since broadened his interests to include such luminaries as Ambrose Bierce, H L Mencken, George Sterling and others.
This weblog does not pretend to intellectual interest, being purely an ego trip for its Author and a handy location in which to carry out the verbal massacre of whoever incurs said Author's disapproval.
Was that last part for me? I hope my comments didn't sound abrupt or anything like that. I often do that - it's a combination of laziness and my prodigious inability to step into the other person's shoes in an internet discussion. Seriously, that worries me sometimes. It's like sometimes I assume the other person can read my mind and then I'm genuinely surprised when the response is not what I expected.
I have sort of a funny story for you about that so please bear with me. Just tonight I was engaged in what I thought was the beginning of some light humorous banter with a woman who played a part in this finnish sci-fi parody, and we were joking about googling information about her, fans trying to get her phone number or something like that. So, being the comedic genius that I am, I cooked up this little story about how I did get some number and I tried to call her but some bloke answered it and I choked and hung up, and so on. Then I thanked her for what by standards was quite the erotic adventure.
You can guess the rest. She asked, "are you serious?" and then the moderator came and posted a warning that if anyone starts making obscene phonecalls to her, he'll be banned from the message board. Hilarious. I'm such a goddamn loser, I must have neurological damage or something. 
Anyway, all I've done on that message board is some weird good-humoured trolling, I'm sure angering much of the native population in the process, so I shouldn't be surprised, but this time my lack of sensitivity astounded even myself.
So take those failings of mine into account when you read my posts. I'm usually perfectly cheerful when I post. Until I fuck up, that is.
You know, you could probably post some of your blog entries also on the persistence of vision message board. It could generate some discussions there, which would be good for the board.
Sorry for the long, rambling message again.
Hasn't any humanoid recently read "The Screwtape Letters" by C. S. Lewis? That book renders this entire thread redundant.
I have read it, but not recently. How does it render this thread redundant?
Finn, the last bit was intended for you, but purely as a mission statement and not as a reproach.
No, I didn't take it as a reproach at all, but couldn't really figure out the statement's purpose. Still can't, but that's fine.
Anyway, I've been staying up way too late to listen to hockey, drinking coffee, which shows in some of those messages. At least around these parts I'm not considered a potential rapist, yet. Talk about a disgraceful exit from a message board. I think I'm going to post a message there saying, "Please believe me, I'm not a sexual predator" - yeah, that might help.
"Eminent theologians at the National Association of Evangelicals and the Billy Graham Centre have praised The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as an effective tool for God or his earthly minions to communicate the Gospel message."
## "Eminent theologians" my ****** 
- Karl Barth was an eminent theologian - these people are most unlikely to be remotely comparable. Theological hacks they may well be - but theologians ?
And why oh why do Americans always have to be so over-earnest ? The Narnia books are stories, for crying out loud, & if they don't work as stories, then they have failed completely.
This is the same inability to appreciate literature *as literature* that people display when they insist on making Tolkien's books into allegories of Catholicism; that Tolkien explicitly denied that he was writing an allegory is pointedly ignored.
As for the Calormenes not being white, & all that stuff - what of it ? Lewis wasn't writing an essay on ethnology, or the politics of race, but something far more worthwhile; he was writing a children's story which can also be read as a Christian allegory. And to write at all, one relies on language, which is a human & culturally-affected artifact - so there is only so much an author can do, if he resorts to symbolism. And darkness, whether of one's skin or any other thing, is not associated with moral goodness.
The only way to avoid being collared for (supposed) "racialism", is to invent connections between (say) goodness & symbols for it. But that would reduce the symbolism to a private language of symbols, instead of using already-existing symbolism. "Greenmail" may be desirable as a replacement for the evil word "blackmail" - but it is certainly not self-explaining, nor current, as the unliked word is. Besides, do Lewis's critics watch *their* linguistic habits, in case *they* should be collared for sins against the sensibilities of future generations ? How can they possibly *know* that they will not be criticised by their descendants for some wholly unintended offence against the sensibilities of their descendants ? If his critics cannot be sure that they will not be criticised for holding beliefs or assumptions considered objectionable by their descendants - they cannot apply that standard to authors now dead for a generation or two.
BTW - all Calormenes are not alike: see "The Last Battle", passim; especially the last half of the book
Eminent theologians was meant in irony. Try not to be so over-earnest.
The Narnia books are stories, for crying out loud
Who denies it?
he was writing a children's story which can also be read as a Christian allegory
And I am criticising him for his Christian allegory. In which case, why am I guilty of the same incapacity that people display when they regard Tolkien's work as Catholic allegory?
darkness, whether of one's skin or any other thing, is not associated with moral goodness
Well, it depends on who you talk to. A black racist who hated whites might feel differently. In any case, why should the colour of one's skin be associated with moral character at all?
Besides, do Lewis's critics watch *their* linguistic habits, in case *they* should be collared for sins against the sensibilities of future generations ?
I am not criticising Lewis for outdatedness, but for holding various beliefs which I find distasteful. If others, whether of this generation or of those civilised souls who will still be reading me in a hundred years' time, find my own beliefs distasteful, that is up to them. Why should other people's opinions of me affect my right to express an opinion of Lewis?
all Calormenes are not alike
I know; hence the words A young Calormene soldier is eventually admitted to eternal life along with the heroes, presumably by the usual Christian expedient of renouncing his entire culture and previous life.
Commenting by HaloScan
