I don't buy any of it and Lewis was a propagandist. Firstly, if you believe in Jesus you don't need to symbolize him or what he said because he was the most important being ever. If you desire to write a book about Martin Luther King chances are you will describe him as he looked, and not as a machine gun. It wouldn't be considered respectful to warp what MLK said because you have to quote him. At the time Lewis was writing Britain was a massive world power totally opposed to everything Jesus said, and the lion was a royal symbol, so melding Jesus and a lion is a way to give Britian religious credibility, when in fact it was involved in oppression. That's propaganda, which is a fancy word for covering sinister intentions with a fun action, comdey story, etc. Also, Jesus instructed people to ignore evil, walk the extra mile with evil, to influence and make friends, and to give more than is demanded by evil people. He did not tell people to fight evil, that's Old Testament stuff. The OT is great for inventing reasons to wage war and feel great about it, and Lewis stories are all about getting kids to think that way. I suppose all of that is deep, but it's not speculative, which is what I think is deep.
I'm ok with absolute evil characters in regular fantasy books, but Lewis is supposed to be Christian. I admire the sermon on the mount speech Jesus gave because it just can't be beat for humanistic ethics which is what I try to live by, so I may not be religious, but I'm not so stubborn and can't salute Jesus. Anyway, Jesus would not kill anyone, nor would he suggest it, in fact there's a scene where the soldiers come for him, I think Peter rips the ear off one, and Jesus heals the guy's ear, and they've come to kill him. You don't have to slog through the whole Bible to have a clear picture what Jesus was about. Thus, if you're writing a fantasy novel to promote Christian values you'd have to have a situation like the novel I mentioned The Player of Games, where the characters convert the badguys with their clever personalities, not swords. And, the "bad guys" would have to be painted as good inside rather than pure evil.
The Bible symbolism is clear throughout Narnia - it starts with the creation, Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is the atonement and revelations is the Last Battle. Following the straight and narrow path in the Silver Chair etc Even the lamp-post lighting the way into Narnia. The lion is also the lamb in places. The Pilgrims Regress and Problem with Pain provide some interesting insights in Lewis' mind set. He wasn't always a Christian he had patches of atheism amongst other flirtations. Narnia is more Biblical than Christian
Elves: I find this subject very interesting. In the novel I'm publishing on my blog there are evles. But, the whole world is a kind of Truman Show made for the casual amusement of very powerful AI. But anyway, I researched elves just to get some cool details. It turns out that in Nordic countries the really, really believed in elves and even traced human-elf people who were supposed to be ancient rulers and whatnot. What they meant by that I have no idea. They also believed that etheral beings "of light" wandered around and helped people and that became the Gandalf wizard idea. I'm one to believe that there's a grain of truth in everything and I'd love to knoew what they were describing back then.
Elves also had a dark side in Nordic mythology faerie folk in older mythology are not often portrayed as good, even when they are it usually brings heartbreak on humans - not sure if they weren't the origins of the mara people as well (the origin of the word nightmare, sort of otherwordly scary people)
Well, the New Testament is the completion of the Bible, and Jesus had the last word on all issues. So, if he says "don't kill people" then you're doing him an injustice, on a cosmic scale, to right a book in his name filled with violence and killing. Only a cynical propagandist would do such a thing. Just to keep the discussion on track: I'm pointing out the difference between deep speculative fiction and a lesson/propaganda hitting you over the head.
...Perhaps you should go back and read what I said about it as well. Mckk is right in saying the Lion IS symbol of Jesus, though a less used one within the bible. And as Aslan represented more than just Jesus in a different world, combining features of the OT God and the Holy Spirit, to use a lamb would have diminished quite a few features of who Jesus and God is in Christian belief- God almighty, powerful king, etc. A lion is a better symbol of strength and kingship when it is brought before the reader than a lamb. Also, C.S. Lewis was a writer. If you had read what he said about the process, you would know that the story started with a image of a Faun besides the Lamp Post, and that Aslan was a character who took on a life of his own. Also, considering that C.S. Lewis also overlapped Jesus with the Pagan Eros in Till We Have Faces, and God with Aphrodite (something he found acceptable thanks to his belief about all beliefs and myths reflecting the truth of the Scripture.), I highly doubt that it would bother him overmuch to re-represent Christ in the way of Aslan. Not to mention, plopping down a very planet earthly and historically entrenched character like Jesus in the world of Narnia would have been awkward at best.... And how is speculating about the state of the human soul, spirituality, what our mission is within the world, and what good and evil truly is NOT deep? Also, Christians tend to believe in the OT as well, and considering Christ did flip over all the tables of the money lenders and such in the temple, it is obvious that there were lines even Jesus drew... Places where the God of the OT and Jesus met. Afterall, you are supposed to obey authority... up to the point of when authority contradicts the word of God, then you follow the word of God. So, Christians take the whole of scripture into context, as they believe the whole of it to be true. Not just what Jesus said, because he fulfilled what the old testament said. "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Also, Christians are still human and still will project their own cultural beliefs and traditions on God, no matter how much we try otherwise. Cultural bias, ain't it a kick. To say that one person must be a propagandist just because their view of how the scriptures and Jesus act is not yours, or perhaps not even the correct view, is not taking into account the biased nature of the human mind.
Yes, I recall the nightmare origin now that you mention it. What I find interesting is people claiming they were related to elves. I guess it was a political thing, like I'm part superman, fear me.
Its a good story and a childrens book, CS Lewis may not have been Christian for his entire writing and concieving of it, he was first and foremost an intellectual - only in very modern times have childrens stories become sanitised. Most have been scary frightening etc throughout history. I mean actually take three little pigs, I told it to my daughter complete with bone crunching as we played the wolf eating the pigs and then same as the third little pig turned the wolf into soup. Apparently that version wasn't acceptable at nursery lol All YA fiction is doing is returning to how children's fiction was told in the past. Containing a healthy dose of what was going on in the real world. I mean think as basic as the rhymes Ring a Ring a Roses about the plague, or Oranges and Lemons about executions in London or Humpty Dumpty which was probably a canon.
neither was he for some of his writings, Steerpike lol A lot of his writings like God in Dock, Great Divorce,Problem with Pain, Pilgrims Regress are about his own battles on the subject.
Sadly, the Ring Around the Roses one is a myth. I was dissapointed when I heard that. But man, the little match girl. Wow. After reading that I was shocked, and I was 13! And that was a little kids story? Certainly is interesting how parenting techniques have changed. Personally, I miss it. I feel like a lot of the more modern children's books are TOO saccharine sweet. Especially when compared with even the stuff I read as a kid: Ronia the Robbers Daughter, The Giver was a kids book when I was little, Johnny Tremain was also a kids book... Heck, we had books about orphans making it on their own out in the real world! Parents who had died! Over-controlling aunts! It seems like most of the J Fic stuff now has kids with a sibling and two wonderful parents, and the kids have to find a way on their own but have a nice happy home to go back to at the end of it. ...I miss the darker stuff. It didn't treat kids with kiddy gloves. Which goes back to the meaning debate... I wonder how much dark, meaning filled stuff you could work into a J fic nowadays and still get published? ...Oh, wait! Neil Gaimon! Dude is there to save the day. I need to read his graveyard book... Which is one of the reasons I love his works. I feel like he is really struggling through stuff and giving us a story, rather than doing what a lot of religious fiction does and just repeats the same old platitudes you hear a million times over. Oh, and for the sake of revealing my own biases (since others have stated their own beliefs.) I am a Christian, but the kind of Christian who is getting a tattoo of Coyote the trickster on their back come graduation. XD C.S. influenced me greatly in some areas, including my love of world myths and seeing the connection of faith, and his character Emeth directly impacted my belief that not just Christians get into heaven. So that is why I studied up on him, I have quite the background on C.S. Lewis. XD
Admittedly it is uncertain. It may not be the reason it is considered not to be is the late appearance of the explanation but the English version seems to refer to illness of some description - as we sneeze before falling down. The rest of the world varies lol Wouldn't have put it past the English to tweak it to mean that We don't know when the rhyme began. EDIT: Oddly Narnia is why I am not strictly Christian it influenced the Buddhist/Pagan side of my beliefs. I love the tree spirits and I was greatly influenced by the scenes in the Last Battle with the Dwarves in the stable and the Emeth scenes as well. Along with the idea that love was the magic that resurrected Christ and all the animal spirits.
Ok well I think that Lasagna is a symbol of Martin Luther King, but wait, maybe I just made that up! I think I did because MLK never said to look at Lasagna and think of him when you're seeing it. Just the same, Jesus never said to look at any animal and think of him, that because he was a guy so the symbol of him---is him. And, if I believe MLK was a real person then I don't have to right to project any of my beliefs on him. It would be cool if he was also race car driver and could drink the most beer at of anyone in North America, and was an expert at speaking Chinese while having the most gumballs in his mouth, but it would likely be considered wrong for me to write that. Maybe a hundred years from now someone will write a novel about MLK and Richard Nixon as secret crime fighting time travelers, but it's not happening today. That's because he's taken very seriously and you can't get away with diluting him as a public figure.
Seriously? Santa tells kids that the time toys is over and gives them giant sharpened lengths of metal to hack people to death with painfully? If that's not heavy handed, what is?
I loved violent stories as a kid and still do. I think that learning about bad things in a safe way is great for kids as opposed to insulating children and keeping them stupid. In my career I've met hundreds of people who have viciously abused and killed innocent kids, and believe it's vital that a kid be able to spot a sinister person and know what to do. I'm no Lewis for his anti-Christian message, which I believe is propaganda for violence. If you're going to be Christian, then be one, don't pretend and use it as an excuse for your goals. It's worse than just lying through story telling. Sticking with the topic, it's my belief that Lewis style work is not deep.
That's not heavy-handed in and of itself. It becomes heavy-handed, in my view, when the author makes much more direct statements that remove the message from the story and direct it to the reader in a clumsy manner. I don't think kids reading Lewis are, by and large, taking away the message you are suggesting.
... Revelation 5:5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” ^Talking about Jesus specifically. And, Isaiah 31:4 4 This is what the LORD says to me: “As a lion growls, a great lion over its prey— and though a whole band of shepherds is called together against it, it is not frightened by their shouts or disturbed by their clamor— so the LORD Almighty will come down to do battle on Mount Zion and on its heights. OT, however, wait! There's more! Hosea 11:10 10 They will follow the LORD; he will roar like a lion. When he roars, his children will come trembling from the west. And finally- Amos 3:8 8 The lion has roared— who will not fear? The Sovereign LORD has spoken— who can but prophesy? So unlike your analogy, it is well established to use imagery for God and Jesus. At least in the Bible, and that is the basis of the christian belief. ...except, we do. It's subconscious. Everyone does it, without knowing. We think we are getting the truest picture, but in fact it is shifted because our view is finite. You seem to believe humans have the ability to be non-biased participants able to make objective conjectures about the world around them. Which is fallacy at it's core. I am a white, female, middle class christian girl. Although I am able to transcend some of my view point, I still very much grew up that way and a lot of what I know is informed by that view point. It is the same for everyone: just differing perspectives. It's not necessarily bad either. Because of this I can concentrate and have a more intimate knowledge of some issues that I can then write on and seek to better. Also, there are more well established, detailed historical accounts of MLK as a mortal human being who was the head of a ideal. Jesus Christ is not only a 'mortal' figure, he is a immortal one. He also is heavily spiritual, and has a variety of teachings that concentrate more on the overarching spirit of things then specific law. Also, considering that U2 did the song 'with or without you' which compares MLK with Jesus, I believe there is associationa and metaphor and imagery attached to MLK. And I really don't see how a lion is as lame as lasagna... though I suppose a decent metaphor could be used. I mean, there are some pretty interesting metaphors out there. And heck, all this is getting away from the point. The point: You seem to insist in your argument even though it is littered with leaps in logic. How is a symbol of Lasagna for MLK anyway similar to the well-established biblical imagery of Jesus as the Lion of Judah? You dismiss his work because his view point is not what you think it should be, which is fine. Just don't try to argue that his stuff is not philosophical or religious primarily when I have provided numerous examples and there are numerous essays and dissertations and non-fiction books out there that say otherwise.
Why not? I mean you can't just say "I don't think arms dealer Santa isn't heavy handed" and that's it. How could kids not get a "European Crusader" message from Lewis? To all: I'm really enjoying this site! It's a lot of fun talking about these issues with you guys.
That is a genuine problem, but it is a problem not a done deal. If somebody is shooting kids and teachers in a high school, do you want the SWAT team sent in to stop him to say "well, good and evil are relative; he's probably doing the right thing according to his own morality" and leave him be? The trouble is that both extremes are grotesque, which leaves us fumbling towards some sort of middle ground, with no clear lines delineating the "right" position. In the Narnia books it wasn't some distant "god" commanding the heroes, it was a physically present being who claimed to be the rightful ruler of the land. Now, you might reasonably question that claim, but at the time Lewis was writing WWII was fresh in a lot of minds and most people would have had no problem with the idea that the sovereignties of the allies were legitimate and it was proper to fight the axis powers to maintain those sovereignties, following the orders of their leaders.
I thought it was Father Christmas and not Santa ? Father Christmas had nothing to do with toys or for that matter gifts - he wasn't for children and until 1930 didn't wear red on a regular basis. Santa was a very new concept in 1950 and had only been red suited entirely for 20 years. Not as if Lewis grew up with him.
But here is the thing: Doesn't EVERY writer do that? EVERY writer is presenting their view point. Just because a person doesn't believe in anything doesn't mean they are unbiased, they bring that viewpoint into their stories. Think about it: Aren't the existentialists just as 'heavy handed' when they go on about how the world is meaningless? Wouldn't that be trying to indoctrinate people into believing this? If you are going to apply it to one persons point of view, then you need to apply it to all. Everyone shares their point of view when they write, even when they don't mean to. The thing that readers need to do is seek to understand what the writer is trying to say, and judge whether or not this viewpoint coincides with theirs.
It's the same principle. Plus, both figures are largely based on Saint Nick. He was a real person living in Turkey who secretly gave money to save poor people from doom. It's a great story, so check it out. His first act was to save three sisters from becoming hookers! Awesomeness.
I see your point but it's a bit relativistic. I believe there's a big difference between purposeful propaganda and personal propaganda. Propaganda: I once saw a Nazi film portraying Polish people (I'm part) as these brutish monstermen who would come to your house and rape you. I doubt the filmmakers actually believed that. Instead they used the power of film, acting, and the terror of rape to besmirch the character of an entire people, who didn't have a history of that type of behavior. So, it's a sinister lie wrapped in an attractive and thrilling package. It's done on purpose to make the viewer want to kill people. Personal Propaganda: If someone thinks XYZ is a great idea and decides to write a book about it, yes it's propaganda, but it's not sinsiter because it lacks intent. Crimes are seen like that because the question is asked whether the person meant to do what they did. If Lewis really believed that Jesus promoted killing then he was just an innocent fool lacking reading comprehension. But I find that very hard to believe. He was cynically thinking of Britian first, and not the god he probably didn't believe in.
err no Father Christmas is not entirely based on St Nick. He has other origins - closer to the Ghost of Christmas Present in Dickens Christmas Carol. Not to mention when he first came about and visited he would have worn a sword.
