Pullman rips on LOTR, others

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Of course all writers have a worldview. But the amount of didacticism with which they present it varies considerably. I was responding to Pullman's claim that he wasn't sermonising, which is blatantly untrue.

I fact, in an interview done long before he had to worry about boxoffice, he expressly said his purpose in writing HDM was to 'undermine Christianity.' Now he has every right to do so if he wants: but please don't turn around later and fib about it.


On to Susan Pevensey and her nylons: I rather suspect that if someone had pointed out to Lewis pre-pub that that line could be interpreted the way Pullman (and others) have, he would quickly have amended it. He was trying to say that Susan had become enamoured of the trivial, the 'things of this world;' and had moreover confused them with being 'adult' whereas Narnia was 'childish.' Both Jack and Tollers really, really resented that sort of thinking; and unfortunately Lewis was enough of an Edwardian bachelor-chauvanist to associate 'trivial' + 'young woman' with a sort of Seventeen magazine caricature. He could just as well have said 'records and parties' or 'soap operas' or, if he were really aggressive, 'political theory and macroeconomics.' Rather like Jane at the beginning of That Hideous Strength.

Lord of the Rings has [a worldview]--one that puts off some readers because it offers a 'sanitised' version of class social structure.

However LR isn't about 'class social structure.' Aragorn or for that matter the Shire's squirearchs aren't engaged in stamping out democracy or an anarcho-syndicalist movement or whatever: whereas HDM is specifically at its core about resisting the evil Church and ultimately killing God and overthrowing the Heavenly dictatorship.

[Lalwendë]

If you don't grasp what Pullman is about, if you're still hooked on the notion that he hates God, you'd not go far wrong than to look at the lyrics of the first two verses of John Lennon's Imagine (read them if you prefer, if you're like me you'd prefer not to listen - heresy! I prefer George Harrison and Macca... ). I'll say it yet again, Pullman isn't anti-God, he is anti-Religion.

Of course, like I've already said, he knows there is a massive market out there of people who don't like fantasy and view things like Lewis and Tolkien through narrowed eyes, and what is he doing? He's opening his big mouth and being controversial. It sells. If you stray from the path of his Big Statements, you find a gentle, thoughtful and modest man. The deep, deep irony of course is that his big mouth is in good company as Lewis and Tolkien themselves were all-mouth-and-no-trousers when it came to stirring the wooden spoon and making grand statements. Masters of hyperbole one and all.

Still, if you want to let it put you off reading something truly meaty then so be it. It's your loss, not Pullman's. There's enough people out there willing to give him a shot.

I'm really not inclined to give Lewis very much rope however. Not only is Narnia a deadly dull series of books, confusing and childish in the extreme, it's packed full of stuff I find dodgy and the old excuses just do not wash I am afraid.

What he said about Susan is this:

The books don't tell us what happened to Susan. She is left alive in this world at the end, having by then turned into a rather silly, conceited young woman.

So he clearly wouldn't have altered what he said about Susan had one of us "do-gooding feminists" raised a hand of caution, it was intended that she end up like that. The important word he used was 'conceited' - so the excuse trotted out that it was about her materialism doesn't work. Conceit hasn't got anything to do with materialism, it is about self-regard, which Susan as an attractive young woman, clearly has lots of; Lewis sets it up plainly that she was immoral to grow self-confident and assured of her own sexual attractiveness. Contrast that with the full-figured beauty of women like Arwen and Luthien, even of Rosie, in Tolkien's work.

Other distasteful rubbish is in those books too. He rails against comprehensive education, makes fun of non-smokers, vegetarians and teetotallers - what a cheap shot! He comes across like the reactionary Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail once you sit and look at what he was saying. Saying he was a product of his age is no excuse either. So was Tolkien but he doesn't come across as some curmudgeon who despises anyone who doesn't live exactly as he does!

The most amusing thing of all of course is all this rubbish Lewis came up with to explain his allegories. Well I'm one of millions who failed to be taken in by his method of recruiting as I failed to see the analogies and still fail to see most of them - I'd need a Masters in Theology to do so. But I don't fail to see some of his more odious Little Englander attitudes now I look with an adult pair of eyes. Perhaps that's his message? That if you are critical of Little Englanders then you're just like Susan...

Sorry, but as a woman, and as a product of comprehensive education, I find Lewis odious at times and having had 37 years of it, I'm not in the slightest inclined to listen to excuses. If he'd just written about his talking Lions and Beavers and just left it at that his work might have been a lot more charming, but then he had to say nasty things and make nasty allusions...bring on the inflated bladder!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Lal:

You write as if I haven't read HDM. I have. And I realize that Pullman is (or can be) a pleasant tweedy sort who calls himself a 'cultural Anglican' and enjoys singing Christmas carols- but who also doesn't find anything unseemly in publicly slagging off other writers, whether he really means it or no.

None of that alters the fact that in Vol III his storytelling collapses under the weight of his preaching: and however much he wanted his finale to evoke Blake and Milton, to me at least it's more like Act III of Faust as retold by William Burroughs. So it's disingenous of him to disclaim sermonising when he so plainly is. At least Lewis, love him or hate him, never denied writing Christian apologias.

The important word he used was 'conceited' - so the excuse trotted out that it was about her materialism doesn't work. Conceit hasn't got anything to do with materialism, it is about self-regard, which Susan as an attractive young woman, clearly has lots of; Lewis sets it up plainly that she was immoral to grow self-confident and assured of her own sexual attractiveness.

There you're really, really reaching. One can be conceited about one's looks- but also about one's intelligence, wealth, athletic prowess, social status..... If Lewis were fixated on the physical he could have used, say, 'vain.' Nor would I equate 'self-confidence' with 'conceit.' The one is an excess of the other, which is perjorated and rightly so. By trying to force a feminist narrative of sexuality and female submission onto this (like your snark about 'keeping her head properly covered') you really make yourself sound like those old Freudian critics to whom a cigar was never just a cigar.

All Lewis was saying was that Susan had become self-absorbed, prideful, and obsessed with the 'things of this world' (by which is not meant the material, but rather the evanescent)- and thereby forgot and so lost Narnia. This is hardly radical or reactionary: even atheists will acknowledge that humility and selflessness are virtues.


(NB: Eustace's school was not a Comprehensive, which IIRC didn't exist in the early 50's, but a non-state 'experimental' school.)

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

(NB: Eustace's school was not a Comprehensive, which IIRC didn't exist in the early 50's, but a non-state 'experimental' school.)

Made me wonder about Waldorf Education/Steiner schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_schools, & whether CSL was having a bit of a dig at Barfield....

[Folwren]

Lal, you really miss the point of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. You shouldn't carry on so about something you obviously don't understand. You only make yourself appear foolish and snobbish. I know better than to think that you really are foolish, but if I didn't, I'm afraid I'd have to think very poorly of you after that last post...

You'll notice I don't go on for pages about how awful Pullman's writing and beliefs are.

-- Folwren

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Lal, you really miss the point of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. You shouldn't carry on so about something you obviously don't understand. You only make yourself appear foolish and snobbish. I know better than to think that you really are foolish, but if I didn't, I'm afraid I'd have to think very poorly of you after that last post...

You'll notice I don't go on for pages about how awful Pullman's writing and beliefs are.

-- Folwren

Sorry Folwren, but I do have to say this is very peculiar. I do happen not to like Narnia nor Lewis (though the film and TV adaptations have been immensely enjoyable and Shadowlands has me in bits). I first picked up Narnia 23 years ago and have struggled to find enjoyment in them ever since. Yes there are nice things in them and nice passages, but they simply do not work as good literature for me, and for much of those past 23 years I have been examining why they do not work.

You're quite free to go on about how awful Pullman is, as many have done on this thread (and indeed as davem does at home) as I am quite adult enough to discuss this coherently with anyone and not think poorly of them merely for their taste in books.

If you think I have an issue with Christian writers then I must ask why I enjoy John Masefield so much...

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Would we really be making such a fuss about Narnia if it was one of the male characters who had become interested in lipstick nylons and party invitations... Erm... Actually, we probably would come to think of it...

You can look at this issue in any way you want and draw whatever conclusions you wish and the stories themselves don't change an awful lot over all. Weather or not you enjoy them is another matter entirely. The question 'did you understand it?' does not always equal 'did you enjoy it?' I didn't, and still don't fully, understand The Last Battle, but found it an interesting read and did actually like it.

I think nowadays it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a fantasy without having such interpretations and themes planted on it, some of which the writer may never have had in mind. I think Lewis said something along these lines in something or other. Narnia comes into a lot of criticism for the villains wearing turbans and how that makes it all racist. But I'm not sure. It may be a case of needing a villain and the seeds in the past (namely in The Horse and his Boy) have suggested one such people who could be called upon to play the roll. But I'm no mind reader and cannot say for sure and would probably have to give Narnia a proper reread at some point to give a full account.

In terms of Pullman he set out to have his villains as representing a certain group, namely the religious establishement. I think this is where he comes into his criticism. By saying it outright he loses the subtlety that he could have had by leaving it ambiguous and open to interpretation. But then again, he probably didn't want it to be open to interpretation.

I think this is why we are still talking about Tolkien. He rarely, if ever, gives concrete 'this = that' analogies for anything. There are sometimes rough outlines, (his comment on what the function of each race was in a BBC interview springs to mind) but he says this in a glib fashion that suggests 'well it could be anything.' And so it can run away with you. Pullman obviously wants his message to dominate the reader's attention. This is by no means a bad thing if you agree with him or not. Beginning the book with the 'This person is wrong and everything he says is a lie' stance is not going to give you an enjoyable read in most cases.

Yes I am comfortable on this fence.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

There you're really, really reaching. One can be conceited about one's looks- but also about one's intelligence, wealth, athletic prowess, social status..... If Lewis were fixated on the physical he could have used, say, 'vain.' Nor would I equate 'self-confidence' with 'conceit.' The one is an excess of the other, which is perjorated and rightly so. By trying to force a feminist narrative of sexuality and female submission onto this (like your snark about 'keeping her head properly covered') you really make yourself sound like those old Freudian critics to whom a cigar was never just a cigar.

All Lewis was saying was that Susan had become self-absorbed, prideful, and obsessed with the 'things of this world' (by which is not meant the material, but rather the evanescent)- and thereby forgot and so lost Narnia. This is hardly radical or reactionary: even atheists will acknowledge that humility and selflessness are virtues.

Come on, it's really pushing it for an excuse when talking about a character who is said to be interested in 'lipstick, nylons and party invitations' - all shorthand for a young woman who is plainly interested in attracting men! If Lewis had been criticising conceit about intelligence he might have had a go at her Beatnik beret and clutch of shiny paperbacks by Sartre and Proust.

I wouldn't dare say you or any of us here would equate self-confidence with conceit, but Lewis plainly did. And I'm afraid that if someone makes a very odd and arresting comment about the nature of womanhood then it is an inevitability that women will wish to comment upon that. And we have every right to do so.

None of that alters the fact that in Vol III his storytelling collapses under the weight of his preaching: and however much he wanted his finale to evoke Blake and Milton, to me at least it's more like Act III of Faust as retold by William Burroughs. So it's disingenous of him to disclaim sermonising when he so plainly is. At least Lewis, love him or hate him, never denied writing Christian apologias.

Preaching or imagining? I'd say it rather collapses under his ambition and the whole weight of story comes down upon him here. This is something I've noticed in a lot of the best fantasy, that towards the finale the writer struggles, and sometimes just about 'loses' it. Tolkien did it, you can tell by the high falutin' language and the headlong rush of the narrative; Peake did it, with the sparse and weird third volume of Gormenghast; Rowling does it in the final volume of Potter which is seriously intense. Pullman does it too - he even loses his main protagonist somewhere along the way. What all of them have in common is that they have said things along the lines of they were 'trying to find out what happened'.

In the melee of Pullman's third book I rather found that the 'sermonising' was lost! There was so much in there that it's incredibly hard to find exactly what he is on about.

Where Pullman differs in essence to Lewis is that he does not deny that he has an agenda in there somewhere. We know some of what he's about. But not so with Lewis with his mumbo-jumbo about creating myths to lead people to something or other, which just doesn't work - and I am so not alone in thinking that!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Come on, it's really pushing it for an excuse when talking about a character who is said to be interested in 'lipstick, nylons and party invitations' - all shorthand for a young woman who is plainly interested in attracting men!

Or rather shorthand for a Paris Hilton, a Britney Spears or an Anna Nicole Smith. Surely you're not asserting in some uber-Pagliesque way that bimbohood is the new postmodern feminism, are you?

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Or rather shorthand for a Paris Hilton, a Britney Spears or an Anna Nicole Smith. Surely you're not asserting in some uber-Pagliesque way that bimbohood is the new postmodern feminism, are you?

"She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up."

It seems Susan's 'sin' was wanting to be a 'grown-up' - which is not necessarily the same as becoming an adult. Its not that she's interested in 'nylons and lipstick and invitations.', its that she's interested in nothing except 'nylons and lipstick and invitations.' - ie not in Narnia, Aslan, or anything else beyond those superficialities.

Of course, Lewis left Susan's ultimate fate a mystery. In a letter to one 'Martin' he wrote:

“The books don’t tell us what happened to Susan. She is left alive in this world at the end, having by then turned into a rather silly, conceited young woman. But there is plenty of time for her to mend, and perhaps she will get into Aslan’s country in the end – in her own way.”

Susan's fate has interested other writers - from a Wikipedia article on Narnia:

Fantasy author Neil Gaiman wrote the 2004 short story "The Problem of Susan", in which an elderly woman, Professor Hastings, is depicted dealing with the grief and trauma of her entire family dying in a train crash. The woman's first name is not revealed, but she mentions her brother "Ed", and it is strongly implied that this is Susan Pevensie as an elderly woman. In the story Gaiman presents, in fictional form, a critique of Lewis' treatment of Susan.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Or rather shorthand for a Paris Hilton, a Britney Spears or an Anna Nicole Smith. Surely you're not asserting in some uber-Pagliesque way that bimbohood is the new postmodern feminism, are you?

Yes many people (well, women, men are after all only interested in intellectual pursuits aren't they? ) do have little interest in anything other than clothes and make-up and socialising. But the point Lewis makes is odious. There is nothing wrong in women (let's stick to it) being interested in these things, in fact it's perfectly ordinary and always has been - and I find it quite insulting that because I'm overly fond of handbags and enjoy reading about fashion in Grazia, some old professor in his dusty tweed suit thinks I'm at best 'silly' and at worst 'immoral'.

Had Lewis said that Susan had grown interested in little else than jackboots, knives and guns then he may have had a moral point to make, but there is nothing wrong in the harmless pursuit of the trappings of adult womanhood - I'm afraid that he did not see that such things as clothes and make-up are enjoyed by about 99% of women and there is absolutely no harm in that, even if their insistence that getting their lippie just so before going for a night out does make you half an hour late and give you something to moan about at length when you meet your pals in the pub.

I'm reminded of the saying 'typical man'.

It's rather as if someone has just spent ages and ages creating this beautiful (but quite twee) painting and then has got in a temper towards the end and dropped a blot of red paint on it.

Whatever, all the lengthy essays in the world to explain away this inkblot by Lewis only serve to make the excuses even more tortured. Why not just be done and say "Sorry, Miss, the dog ate my homework." I'd rather leave it that Lewis just didn't know what to do with a character he didn't like any more so he decided to write her out in a most unpleasant and dissmissive way, because the alternative, that she was in some way immoral just for doing what girls do, is quite disturbing and says a whole lot more about Lewis and his Victor Meldrew-ish attitude towards young women than it does about such young women.

Let's contrast the attitude of Lewis with that of Tolkien who cast no moral judgements on his own 'silly women' who clearly took huge pleasure in such trivialities as dancing and embroidery - in fact their indulging in 'silly' girlish things became heroic - Arwen's 'silly' embroidery was taken into battle in the form of Aragorn's inspiring standard; Luthien's 'silly' dancing managed to attract the love interest of Beren and we know the rest...

Tolkien was a man who knew a little more of what women were about, because he'd loved one from a young age and had a clutch of children with said woman; what's more he had even more contact with women in his professional life - due to being a married man he was permitted to be personal tutor to female students. He lived in a wider world than Lewis and you can tell by how he writes about his women. Sure, they're not the modern women that Pullman and Rowling write so wonderfully about (don't get me started on how Lyra and Hermione are marvellous...) but they aren't cloistered either. They do bad things, trivial things, and heroic things, but what's more, there's not a lot that the Tolkien fan must find excuses for...

Now excuse me while I go and put my face on.

[davem]

Now I'm wondering about Pullman's attitude to relationships - in HDM he has Lyra & Will get together & then immediately splits them up forever, & in an adaptation of one of his Sally Lockhart stories by the BBC over Christmas he has Sally get together with her lover, who immediately afterward gets killed in a fire! Does PP have a problem with his characters being together? Happily ever after doesn't seem to appeal to him...

[Lyta_Underhill]

This is something I've noticed in a lot of the best fantasy, that towards the finale the writer struggles, and sometimes just about 'loses' it. Tolkien did it, you can tell by the high falutin' language and the headlong rush of the narrative; Peake did it, with the sparse and weird third volume of Gormenghast; Rowling does it in the final volume of Potter which is seriously intense. Pullman does it too - he even loses his main protagonist somewhere along the way. What all of them have in common is that they have said things along the lines of they were 'trying to find out what happened'.

At the risk of lagging and taking off on an aside, I might address something that made me think in Lal's quoted post here: the inclusion of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast "trilogy." I think this body of work is wrongly labeled thus, since Titus Alone is so very different from the other two preceding volumes and Gormenghast itself is conspicuously absent, as is the main (and most interesting) antagonist, Steerpike. Also, Peake was himself "fallen off" into the ravages of Parkinson's disease, which rendered him unable to finish his third volume definitively and coherently. The work we see is edited into shape by his wife, Maeve, and seems to reflect confusion of mind at work. Alas for Mervyn Peake, whose work I greatly admire!

The inclusion of Peake also put me in mind of the subversive mindset embodied by Pullman's Lyra Belacqua. While we are dazzled in Titus Groan and Gormenghast by the machinations of the careful villain Steerpike, we also see the development of Titus, himself a subversive character and original thinker. He is drawn to the Wild Girl, drawn away from the ages-old tradition represented by Gormenghast itself, drawn away from the rock of unchanging thought that, in Peake's case, seems to have represented the monarchy of Britain, but underneath this is also a hint that it might have included the "rock" of the established church as well. The clue comes in his ancillary work "Boy in Darkness," wherein the young Titus gets lost in the forest and meets archetypal animal characters who hold him captive. One, the Lamb, seems to represent acquiescence, a laying down before that which "is and always has been," an acceptance of his place as heir and the mindset that is required for him to become part of the unending "stones" of Gormenghast. Titus has what it takes to break away from tradition and to think for himself. We see that Steerpike, although he is clever and uses his vast knowledge to his advantage, is limited in this capacity, and he cannot think beyond the tradition and "stones" of Gormenghast. Titus goes beyond, and I think Peake wanted to explore this "beyond" in Titus Alone, but, alas, he himself went beyond before he could bring it to clarity for us readers.

In a sense, I get the hint that Pullman wishes to do this by the device of laying bare the veneer of the Church and the false gods it has raised to be the projections of its self-serving policy. This is an agenda, certainly, and it is rarely done perfectly; I don't think Pullman did it in a way that could separated his secondary world from the primary world he is criticising. But I admire someone who can illustrate this concept in a believable way, even if it does fall short of perfection.

I think the reason I raise Tolkien above all these authors--Pullman, Lewis, Peake and the rest--is that he evokes a delicate and fragile realm that cannot be directly looked into--Faerie comes alive in that "corner of the eye," "edge of the forest" way that keeps Samwise forever looking for Elves in the Shire in his early days. Tolkien may have his own "agenda," but he is not stuffing down anyone's throat. His world, in my opinion, is the finest for his light touch upon it. For all its "high-falutin'" language in Return of the King, the very richness of Middle Earth transcends these imperfections. I guess maybe this post should be "why Tolkien is my favorite author," eh? I am not even going to get into the Lewis thing right now!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Thank you Lyta. This is a point which Tolkien, as so often, expressed felicitously; "the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

I can't really concur in "towards the finale the writer struggles, and sometimes just about 'loses' it. Tolkien did it, you can tell by the high falutin' language and the headlong rush of the narrative". If by 'finale' you mean the denoument, from coronation to Scouring and Havens, it's quite the reverse of headlong: almost too drawn-out. If you mean the Fall of Sauron, again we get the latter part of Book V and the whole Passion of Frodo Baggins setting it up. And I think that Tolkien's skill with "high-falutin' language" demonstrably increased with practice, from hit-or-miss in Book I (the Goldberry passages are excruciating) to the masterful exchange between Eowyn and the Witch-king, and Denethor's speeches of near-Shakespearean subtlety and grandeur.

Nor- and this is key- does Tolkien's many-headed finale ever become confused or lose clarity. Titus Alone and, to a lesser extent AS (and all the Dune books after the first) by contrast induce a massive ***??? on first (and often subsequent) reading.

[davem]

Its a long time since I read TLB, but I have to admit that when I heard of Susan's fate I didn't feel that Lewis was attacking either feminism or 'shallow' women, I just felt very sad that she had missed out. Maybe that was Lewis intention - that his readers would feel that way & not make the same choice she did. Susan 'grows up' & consigns Narnia to the Nursery - exactly the attitude Tolkien condemns in OFS. Some people do make that choice & surely it would have been dishonest if Lewis hadn't acknowledged that via one of his characters - &, as the letter I quoted shows, he never stated that Susan had lost her chance of entering Aslan's country, & left open the possibility that she could find her own way there one day.

Don't know how different this is from Boromir's fate - he misses out on his chance of coming through the war & living in peace & happiness through pride, but we see that as a tragedy. Surely Lewis has the right to 'sacrifice' one of his characters to bring home to his readers the danger of what he considered a 'sin', while leaving open the possibility of her salvation?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

On to Susan Pevensey and her nylons: I rather suspect that if someone had pointed out to Lewis pre-pub that that line could be interpreted the way Pullman (and others) have, he would quickly have amended it. He was trying to say that Susan had become enamoured of the trivial, the 'things of this world;' and had moreover confused them with being 'adult' whereas Narnia was 'childish.' Both Jack and Tollers really, really resented that sort of thinking; and unfortunately Lewis was enough of an Edwardian bachelor-chauvanist to associate 'trivial' + 'young woman' with a sort of Seventeen magazine caricature. He could just as well have said 'records and parties' or 'soap operas' or, if he were really aggressive, 'political theory and macroeconomics.' Rather like Jane at the beginning of That Hideous Strength.

Just have to ask this question here: what is the point/purpose in the narrative of having one of the children fall away from Narnia? And in the particular manner of the falling away?

If Lewis thought he was preparing minds to accept a greater story later when they came to it in adolescence, what was he doing in having one of the girls 'stray'? Why were the falling aways of the boys earlier forgiveable but not Susan's? And why is it so closely associated with , as our inestimable Lal has pointed out, things that suggest sexual coming of age? Is he preparing for readers to believe all the historically received notions of Eve being the greater sinner, and of women being morally inferior and culpable for the fall, being the more deceived? Really, was he preconditioning girls to believing that they must cover their heads in church out of their responsibility for Eve's sin? And submit to the "churching" ceremony to cleanse themselves after childbirth before they can return to public church services?

What kind of preconditioning was he about with Susan? It's got nothing to do with promoting humility and selflessness as virtues--if that's what Lewis was into, why didn't he run counter to traditional cultrual orthodoxy and demonstrate those traits in a male?

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

However LR isn't about 'class social structure.'

Precisely. And its view of an idyllic social organization without any strife, where there is clearly private ownership of property rather than communal ownership, provides the kind of silence which speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by Folwen

Lal, you really miss the point of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. You shouldn't carry on so about something you obviously don't understand. You only make yourself appear foolish and snobbish. I know better than to think that you really are foolish, but if I didn't, I'm afraid I'd have to think very poorly of you after that last post...

Rather than dissing Lal for saying things you think are wrong, why don't you tell us what you think is the point of Lewis' Narnia? Let's keep to the books rather than to each other, shall we?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thank you for that good reminder to us all, Bêthberry. It's clear that this issue won't be resolved unanimously, so it's very important to let each person express personal opinions without judging them. Please state your opinion clearly and give your reasons; whether others are convinced is beyond your influence.

[piosenniel]

I'll just throw these into the mix:

Here's the link to the short story previously referred to by davem - Neil Gaiman's *The Problem of Susan*.

And here's a link to an interesting essay & discussion of The Problem of Susan on a LiveJournal site.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just have to ask this question here: what is the point/purpose in the narrative of having one of the children fall away from Narnia? And in the particular manner of the falling away? If Lewis thought he was preparing minds to accept a greater story later when they came to it in adolescence, what was he doing in having one of the girls 'stray'? Why were the falling aways of the boys earlier forgiveable but not Susan's?

Given that the Last Battle is of course an allegory or at least an analogy of the Christian Judgment Day, it would have been, well, dishonest for Lewis not to cover the Goats as wll as the Sheep. More specifically Lewis, who was always interested in individual faith and action as they relate to salvation (see Screwtape) was making a point which is key in Lewisian theology: that indifference is often more fatal than defiant Miltonesque sin. Satan is no atheist! Edmund certainly committed a very bad act: but it was forgivable because *everything* is forgivable- provided one wants to be forgiven. Susan had simply ceased to care.

Why Susan? Well, it had to be somebody, and Susan was really the extra one. Peter (name no accident) was the High King/Viceroy/Vicar/ Pope of Aslanism. Lucy was always the Good One, the one whose belief was purest. Edmund- well, it would have blown the point of Vol 1 if he's condemned anyway in the end. That leaves Susan, the least interesting Pevensey anyway.

Is he preparing for readers to believe all the historically received notions of Eve being the greater sinner, and of women being morally inferior and culpable for the fall, being the more deceived? Really, was he preconditioning girls to believing that they must cover their heads in church out of their responsibility for Eve's sin? And submit to the "churching" ceremony to cleanse themselves after childbirth before they can return to public church services?

Is this a deliberate strawman? Are you accusing Lewis of believing or advocating such snakehandler nonsense?

Precisely. And its view of an idyllic social organization without any strife, where there is clearly private ownership of property rather than communal ownership, provides the kind of silence which speaks volumes.

I'd like to think you're not trolling here, but I equally wouldn't want to think you're serious.

In the first place, the Shire is intended to be Home: comfortable, familiar, a little childish, even if JRRT can't help a few puckish jabs at bourgeois mentality. (Strife, if without bloodshed, clearly does take place, from Frodo's mushroom-raids to the the Bilbo/S-B feud to the very existence of lawyers.) A great statewide commune would have been as alien as Carter's Mars, and required a great deal of explanation and delving into political economy that Tolkien plainly had no interest in doing. No 'Warwickshire village about the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee' was remotely Communard!

In the second place, the notion that 'strife' is an inevitable result of private property and can be avoided only by communal ownership is a Marxist notion which not only would have been rejected by Tolkien, but also by the overwhelming majority of rational human beings. Why should he bother to be anything but silent about a fringe theory held only by a handful of people on the looney Left? The rest of us live in a world of property ownership. Again, as I posted monts ago: Tolkien wasn't writing a political novel.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

BTW, piosenniel, thanks for the livejournal link, which includes this very apt passage (I had forgotten it):

"Grown-up, indeed," said the Lady Polly. "I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race onto the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and stop there as long as she can."

And the very comparable quote from the short-story The Shoddy Lands:

...all her clothes and bath salts and two-piece swimsuits and indeed the voluptuousness of her every look and gesture, had not, and never had had, the meaning which every man would read, and was intended to read, into them. They were a huge overture to an opera in which she had no interest at all; a coronation procession with no queen at the centre of it; gestures, gestures about nothing.

About says it all.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Given that the Last Battle is of course an allegory or at least an allegory of the Christian Judgment Day, it would have been, well, dishonest for Lewis not to cover the Goats as wll as the Sheep. More specifically Lewis, who was always interested in individual faith and action as they relate to salvation (see Screwtape) was making a point which is key in Lewisian theology: that indifference is often more fatal than defiant Miltonesque sin. Satan is no atheist! Edmund certainly committed a very bad act: but it was forgivable because *everything* is forgivable- provided one wants to be forgiven. Susan had simply ceased to care.

Well, of course if we are going to have an allegory of the Christian Judgement Day, we should expect the relative proportions to be slightly different. Aren't there supposed to be more goats than sheep?

Originally Posted by Mr. Quickli

Why Susan? Well, it had to be somebody, and Susan was really the extra one. Peter (name no accident) was the High King/Viceroy/Vicar/ Pope of Aslanism. Lucy was always the Good One, the one whose belief was purest. Edmund- well, it would have blown the point of Vol 1 if he's condemned anyway in the end. That leaves Susan, the least interesting Pevensey anyway.

What an intriguing trinity you postulate: Peter/ Edmund/ Lucy. But who says that the moral/spiritual worth of a human being is determined by "interest", by charm, charisma, readerly appetite?

Fact still remains that in traditional Christianity, the Fall is the female's fault and so Lewis is perpetuating that moral vision of the female's failing. Just read a few Medieval Churchmen to get a flavour of the virulent excoriation of women that is part of social history of the faith. Lewis is by no means as misogynist as the Church Fathers but he unfortunately uses traditional notions of culpability to express his idea of falling away from faith.

Originally Posted by berry

Is he preparing for readers to believe all the historically received notions of Eve being the greater sinner, and of women being morally inferior and culpable for the fall, being the more deceived? Really, was he preconditioning girls to believing that they must cover their heads in church out of their responsibility for Eve's sin? And submit to the "churching" ceremony to cleanse themselves after childbirth before they can return to public church services?

Originally Posted by Mr. Wicki

Is this a deliberate strawman? Are you accusing Lewis of believing or advocating such snakehandler nonsense?

No. Yes. If you have a philosophy/theology that develops a schism between mind and body, between spiritual and material, then it's going to be a problem handling the very material question of procreation, especially if you have a story so dependent upon virgin birth. (Wasn't it you who asked about Danae's golden showers on a thread recently?)

Originally Posted by Mr. Quickli

However LR isn't about 'class social structure.'

Originally Posted by Bb

Precisely. And its view of an idyllic social organization without any strife, where there is clearly private ownership of property rather than communal ownership, provides the kind of silence which speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by WCH

I'd like to think you're not trolling here, but I equally wouldn't want to think you're serious.

In the first place, the Shire is intended to be Home: comfortable, familiar, a little childish, even if JRRT can't help a few puckish jabs at bourgeois mentality. (Strife, if without bloodshed, clearly does take place, from Frodo's mushroom-raids to the the Bilbo/S-B feud to the very existence of lawyers.) A great statewide commune would have been as alien as Carter's Mars, and required a great deal of explanation and delving into political economy that Tolkien plainly had no interest in doing. No 'Warwickshire village about the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee' was remotely Communard!

In the second place, the notion that 'strife' is an inevitable result of private property and can be avoided only by communal ownership is a Marxist notion which not only would have been rejected by Tolkien, but also by the overwhelming majority of rational human beings. Why should he bother to be anything but silent about a fringe theory held only by a handful of people on the looney Left? The rest of us live in a world of property ownership. Again, as I posted monts ago: Tolkien wasn't writing a political novel.

You're right, he wasn't. But that still does not mean readers cannot discuss his choice to write an a-political story, particularly since he uses the theme of regained kingship but avoids some of the concommitant situations of monarchies. And, actually, I wasn't thinking at all about Marxist theory, but thinking about pre-agrarian or early agrarian cultures, or even Viking culture--Rohan?--when I was thinking about communal ownership, trying to 'place' just where Tolkien imagined the Shire in terms of human development. In Victorian times a man could not vote unless he owned property of a certain value--not sure what the laws were in Edwardian times--and given real estate in Old Blighty at the time that stipulation certainly caused some strife in terms of a lack of political power.

But even if we take The Shire as Home, which you very interestingly and imaginatively suggest, Tolkien's assumption--or is it yours?-- that Home is always so comfortable is . . . a political statement about that form of domestic organisation. And, if you are going to argue that The Shire is Home, then that tantalizingly suggests the Ring story is almost an allegory about not wanting to grow up, Frodo wanting to save the Shire and all. Was he a kind of Peter Pan, wanting to preserve that comfortable childhood, and when he found he couldn't, he just . . . was the opposite of Susan/Wendy.

I have no idea where I'm going with this, as it's late and I've been continually interrupted. . . . Thanks, pio, for those links. They must, alas, remain unread until after this last holiday weekend. I certainly hope that does not make me sound as frivolous as Susan.