'Pre-baptised'

Wow! You have alot of Posts!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem -

This is an enjoyable thread, and I can definitely point to personal things that I felt "prepared me" to accept and love Tolkien.

The part of Middle-earth I first connected with was Tolkien's depiction of trees and the land, the Shire and Lorien especially. LotR became a crash course in appreciating the natural world. All the rest--characters, medieval texts, and the depths of the Legendarium-- only came later.

The reason I could see and appreciate that natural beauty was that I spent a chunk of my time in the sixties protesting environmental issues and rambling in the countryside through the Appalachian Mountains, along the shores of the Great Lakes, and then in south Wales and the West Country of England. When I read Tolkien, I could feel the grass poking up between my toes.

Yet, to be honest, when I first read this thread and saw the word "pre-baptism", part of me reacted the way Bethberry did.....

So, first of all, could there be texts which in fact prepare us not to understand and accept those of Lewis and Tolkien? Is our reading such that we have to be purged of some of our tastes and familiar favourites before we can appreciate Narnia or Middle-earth? What are these texts? Are there truly sins in reading that must be purified?

I've always had this problem with Lewis. It's not just a matter of one thing preparing us for something else. And it goes beyond Bethberry's question of texts (though that is definitely part of it). I've always felt that Lewis is asking us to strip off a chunk of who we are, in effect to purge some of our "modern" tastes in order to comply with his perceptions of what the ideal reader should be. I get less of that sense from Tolkien. He seems to paint with a wider and less dogmatic brush. But even with Tolkien I sometimes catch just a whiff of that.

I remember once reading a passage --- can't say specifically where it came from -- in which Tolkien and Lewis were talking about themselves as the final "true" remnents of "Western Civilization"....the fact that they were two grand old men who approached texts and ideas from a different vantage point than the readers who would come after them and that meant they had a very different way of looking at things. I'm not even talking about Christianity here, though that could be part of it. Rather they were talking about an acceptance and appreciation for "traditional" western culture and having a certain kind of education. At the time, the discussion rubbed me the wrong way a bit and I still have that image in my head when someone talks about somehow "cleansing " us to prepare for something else.

Probably a crazy reaction. I don't know if anyone else has had a response like that.

[davem]

Bethberry:

Lewis was not aiming to teach children Christianity with the Narnia books. He wanted to introduce similar ideas that would make it easier for children to accept Christianity: what he called "a sort of pre-baptism of the child's imagination." (George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C S Lewis)

Article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...slewis_9.shtml

So Lewis seems to have meant something along the lines of 'preparation for baptism'. I'm reminded of something Tolkien said about his stories being aimed at those readers with a 'still undarkened heart' (or something along those lines). 'Purged of the gross' also seems to come into it. Tolkien is writing for those whose hearts are still undarkened, & I suppose those 'surviving' in that state will respond to any glimpse of light they see.

[Lalwendë]

It's not enough these days to just find something beautiful. It all has to have a purpose. It's so utilitarian and depressing.

That's the problem which makes so many people hate Tolkien and fail to appreciate what he created. They feel that what they must read must mean something, that their spare time was not wasted in merely enjoying an adventure. And that's what sticks in my throat about Lewis. His work has fallen prey to the modern need for utilitarianism as it has to have this 'higher purpose'. Ugh. I knew there was something iffy and stilted about his work when I was trying to read it and then I found out what it was and it was like a revelation - of the kind he would not have expected. Steeped in fairy tales as a child, I was well aware of what 'magic' looked and smelled like and it smelled a bit 'off' in Narnia.

But Neil Gaiman says it better:

Originally Posted by Neil Gaiman

For good or ill the religious allegory, such as it was, went entirely over my head, and it was not until I was about twelve that I found myself realising that there were Certain Parallels. Most people get it at the Stone Table; I got it when it suddenly occurred to me that the story of the events that occurred to Saint Paul on the road to Damascus was the dragoning of Eustace Scrubb all over again. I was personally offended: I felt that an author, whom I had trusted, had had a hidden agenda. I had nothing against religion, or religion in fiction -- I had bought (in the school bookshop) and loved The Screwtape Letters, and was already dedicated to G.K. Chesterton. My upset was, I think, that it made less of Narnia for me, it made it less interesting a thing, less interesting a place.

What Tolkien produced was a work of Art, comparable to Ulysses. It's a complex interplay of plot and structure and words, like one huge poem. It mystifies us modern folk who are used to purpose and meaning and definition and all those kinds of restrictive things. We can't just sit back and enjoy the trip. So we have to find some meaning to define it all by, when there isn't one. Even Tolkien himself struggled to assign some kind of 'meaning' to his texts (often I think, influenced by people like Lewis) but from all his contradictory statements its clear that there wasn't one beyond wanting to discover 'what really happened'. It's a story. That's it.

That's the essential joy of Tolkien. You open this book and enter this other world immediately. It doesn't exist to teach you anything, it is just there. Like Tom Bombadil, it just 'is'. That makes you feel as though when we close the book, that world goes on without us, regardless of us, in spite of us. It's real because it's not made for us, it's going to exist without us.

All you need to love Tolkien is an open mind, one that's open to magic and Art and adventure. One that doesn't expect any revelations or lessons. That's what a 'still undarkened heart' is.

[The Might]

Lalwende...I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.
Is this a movie you are talking about...Robin of Sherwood?
If yes, I think I might have seen it, but I'm not so sure.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Might

Lalwende...I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.
Is this a movie you are talking about...Robin of Sherwood?
If yes, I think I might have seen it, but I'm not so sure.

I have found you a linky: Robin of Sherwood

It was on TV in the mid-80s. The first series starred Michael Praed, and later ones Jason Connery as Robin after Praed left to join the cast of Dynasty (the fool). You'll also find Ray Winstone as Will Scarlett! It was a huge hit and remains a huge cult. Written by Richard Carpenter who also did the seminal Catweazle (about an 11th century wizard travelling in time). Clannad did the music. It manages to combine genuine British folklore with adventure and peril, and it can also be really funny (not least looking at all those 80s mullets!). It had a mystical feel to it and had a lot of really scary moments - The Swords of Wayland springs to mind as one of the best, with its scary witches and ancient British mythology.

There are loads of clips on YouTube! And if tempted its often repeated on satellite channels and the DVDs are available. I could watch it over and over.

Robin in this is what a Ranger is to me.

Watch it if you can, it's awesome!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I've always had this problem with Lewis. It's not just a matter of one thing preparing us for something else. And it goes beyond Bethberry's question of texts (though that is definitely part of it). I've always felt that Lewis is asking us to strip off a chunk of who we are, in effect to purge some of our "modern" tastes in order to comply with his perceptions of what the ideal reader should be. I get less of that sense from Tolkien. He seems to paint with a wider and less dogmatic brush. But even with Tolkien I sometimes catch just a whiff of that.

Originally Posted by davem

Quote:
Lewis was not aiming to teach children Christianity with the Narnia books. He wanted to introduce similar ideas that would make it easier for children to accept Christianity: what he called "a sort of pre-baptism of the child's imagination." (George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C S Lewis)

. . . .

So Lewis seems to have meant something along the lines of 'preparation for baptism'. I'm reminded of something Tolkien said about his stories being aimed at those readers with a 'still undarkened heart' (or something along those lines). 'Purged of the gross' also seems to come into it. Tolkien is writing for those whose hearts are still undarkened, & I suppose those 'surviving' in that state will respond to any glimpse of light they see.

Okay, so what I am seeing here is a certain condition or predisposition. You know, this begins to sound suspiciously like predestination of a literary kind.

Augustine, Calvin, Lewis, Tolkien . . . brrrrrr!