Except many have argued that he wasn't promoting killing. What I got the first time I read his books, and what a lot of essayists have to say about his work, is that he promotes standing up and fighting against what is wrong and evil. Look at this in context of WWII. You are not putting it within this very specific and terror filled time, which is where the disconnect is in you perceiving the work as 'kids should kill stuff' is happening. C.S. Lewis wrote the White Witch as brilliant, charismatic, powerful... sounds like someone, right? Though this could be 'all tyrants and murderous dictators ever', I suppose. Essentially, he was speaking from a very specific time and place, where I think he firmly believed if you did not fight against straight up, destructive and selfish evil, than you would be doing the wrong thing. Which is understandable. The Christian belief, within the new testament, also states that you should obey authority, as long as that authority does not directly contradict you acting as the bible commands you to. Not to mention within the bible and word usage there is a difference between killing and murder, and that Jesus says also to listen to the whole of Scripture because it is the true word of God, so we as Christians have to add up everything and figure out things like: Tyrants who go against God's word and kill innocents: What do you do about them? A group of people are sweeping across the nation and destroying a whole other group of people who did nothing to warrant it: What do you do? Your Authority has commanded you to fight in a war, and the bible says to obey authority as God placed them in power for a reason: What do you do? You seem to be trying to boil the entire Christian faith into 'Jesus said not to kill', but even he (as I mentioned before) used physical force to get his message across. There is a lot more to the Christian faith, the Bible, and what Jesus said then that. Heck, the very fact he said 'the whole bible is truth' shows that it is not just Jesus we need to listen to, though he is our prime example.
Wikkipedia has a brief one can't post links here. Father Christmas didn't begin to merge with Santa Claus in the UK until Victorian Era and didn't become complete until 1930s and the Coca Cola ad. EDIT CS Lewis was born in 1898 he was six years older than my grandfather - who did not recognise Santa as we do today.
That validate what I've been saying. WWII was filled with propaganda and even Sherlock Holmes was fighting Nazis. All of that's fine from a nationalistic perspective, but not from a Christian one. Jesus said exactly how to handle enemies and that would be to completely submit, allow the enemy in, and then convert them to you very friendship. If you believe that he's really the god of all creation, you'd follow his wishes. If you don't, but know that some want to follow Jesus, you then make a warped story where Jesus cosigns nationalism, revenge, and mass murder.
I phrased that poorly. C.S. Lewis wrote this AFTER the war was over, thus it was not in context of a war happening and needing to stir up people for it, but of someone who is wrestling through his emotions and trying to reconcile what he has seen, and doing it through a fantasy world such as Narnia. Rather like the parallels between Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and WWII as well. And quick question: Have you actually read the bible? I mean, all of it? I ask this because it isn't nearly as quick and easy as you make it seem, and I ain't never seen Jesus say 'Let your neighbors be murdered while you watch and do nothin'.' He said love thy enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. He said.... in fact, let me look up something really quick. Here we go! Go go quoting power from Biblical studies online! The only time referenced I could find that Jesus says 'thou shalt not kill' is at this point, and he goes on to say how even hating someone can be a crime. Yet he also talks about hating evil, which is getting into the 'hate the sin not the sinner' theology. Christians aren't supposed to act in defense of themselves, to the point of letting a person slap us, abuse us, etc... but this was used in a parable to make use of showing how much we are supposed to bear, and how we are supposed to show love to our aggressors. Especially in terms of matyrdom. Basically, what I am saying (as a christian who has studied the bible, and loves my religion dearly) is this- Christianity is not nearly as clean as people like to think, and it is muddled and messy. We have to interpret everything through ages of language, history, culture, and a thousand other things. C.S. Lewis was a man who believes a common christian belief: you fight against evil. He seems to have meant it both spiritually and in war times. Also, the whole 'lion as a english symbol' was debunked, thus there is no state-imagery associated with Narnia. Heck, the closest is the colormans being like Muslims, but even they are shown to be human and not all evil, which ALSO debunks the propaganda thing. Basically, I have never come across a essay that argues the Chronicles as being propaganda. And I have read a lot of them. If you can point me to one, I would be happy to read it and weigh it against the essays I have read that argue for the spiritual and philosophical themes of narnia. Also, you have said you have not read Lewis's other books. We have said not only are they less 'christiany' then Narnia, but I have pointed out that god is paralleled with Aphrodite and Jesus with Cupid. Yet it isn't straight up, but the are parallels. What am I saying? This shows more of a man who looks into things deeply and shares his view on the world then being a propagandist.
Interesting, but in the story he talks about gifts, toys, and instead gives murder weapons. And, the wiki page mentions that he became a gift giving figure in the Victorian era, so feel safe assuming the Lewis character is the Santa/St. Nick character. Still, I learned some new things there. For whatever reason, I enjoy reading about all the Santa variants across Europe.
He was specific, both he and Tolkein insisted on the term Father Christmas being used. Although he was a gift giving - he still wouldn't have been the same as Santa Claus we know today. I can be sure of that because of my grandparents - they were born 1904 and 1907 - I know their attitude towards him. He wasn't associated with children in the same way.
Certainly, or I wouldn't be talking about it. I've also read the Talmud, The Koran, The Hadiths, The Bhagavad Gita, Zen Philosophy, Taoism, and the Teaching of the Buddha. Some of that has been for work purposes, but mostly because I find religion interesting because I'm extremely non-religious. I my opinion religion is extremely easy to understand mostly because it was written in a very simplistic time period. Also, I was not raised by religious people and so I never had the confusing double talk used to justify the ideas in my mind. Thus, it's extremely easy to see what religion is. As I mentioned, I see Christianity as a very nice and admirable set of humanistic ethics. Jesus breaks it down in no uncertain terms because he was talking to the simplest people in town. A great example is his "don't cast the first stone" story. There was a woman who was an adultress, and people were going to stone her to death, which continues to happen today. He told people that they can't because they're sinners too. They leave, she asked "Now what" and Jesus says, "Don't do it again," and she leaves. That one story could be extrapolated to many situations in life, and to compare to other stories in the Bible. That way you'd know which Bible commands are in accord with Jesus and which aren't. THAT has been wildly ignored, especially by rich people who are very powerful. Side question: Was Lewis writing during the war, then got published after or did he write and publish after? Whatever the case, if the workd was some kind of fantasy justification for mass slaughter, it's pretty sad, and again not deep.
I was using Santa as a catch all term. St. Nick is the major influence, and was an actual Christian who lived in real life. Thus, it makes the most sense that he would have had a greater influence on a supposedly Christian work.
See, I think what I am having trouble with understanding how 'simple' you find it is that though Jesus might have been talking to the simplest people in town, it has since been translated multiple times, we are cultural removed from that time period thus don't know all the different small effects things have, and so on. Since I grew up in church, I know that the original Hebrew language has quite a few different connotations than the english words used that can drastically change a meaning of a verse, and a lot of the cultural stuff that was going on that adds about 2000 leagues of depth more to it. Example: the words 'it is a abomination' when talking about a act in one verse actually means, in the original tongue, 'it is against custom.' Drastically different connotations there. Even the english language has changed a ton since the first translations happened! Which is why 'killing' has changed to 'murder', considering the change in connotations and better original sources to base translations off of. Now, if you happen to be fluent in Hebrew and a history major, I take back my skepticism. ;D And the reason why I asked was due to you not citing any specific examples of Jesus saying things, and saying 'And I think there was something where Peter cut off his ear', which makes it sound a lot more vague, lol. Not to mention whenever I bring up specific verses and examples, you never seem to address them and simply address my smallest point, which I find not as fun to discuss. I like discussing the meat of things! Exchanging ideas! It's why me and my Hindi friend get along so well. Being able to share ideas and theories and takes on things is fun. Also, excuse me to say so, but I think we are operating under different perceptions of Propaganda. I see it as a clearly labled, obvious 'here and this' kinda deal. Example, look up 'Superman is a Jerk' .com. On it it has a great example of propaganda from the 1950's. I would link it, but some of the 1950 comic book covers have what we consider racial slurs now. The guy totally rips on it. So far we have shown the only signs of it that you have cited to mean different things: See Father Christmas and The Lion. Combine that with the only thing Lewis showing as evil as a female faerie-like tyrant (the only similarity being charisma, that a lot of evil characters have, and the tyranny and killing people part) who is not depicted as mustached or explicitly one region or anything like that, then the only 'propaganda' I see is saying 'Kids, fight against tyrants'. Now, if we were to take things as literally as you do with the swords and weapons and war bit, it would be 'kids should take up weapons and fight against evil faeries and monsters and kill them with weapons.' Anyway, we have gotten wildly off topic. Oh, and you never pointed me to a essay dicussing C.S. Lewis and propaganda. Dude, I really want to read it! Seriously, after one debate I studied evolution for a month because a guy made some really good points, and I altered some of my opinions and world view because of it. I like to study these things. @the OP: The very fact that a mass debate of a childrens book over the meaning of it has broken out should tell you that your fine with very deep meaning in things. And heck, The Chronicles of Narnia aren't even as heavy as some other children's lit I have read!
My story is sort of violent but it is intended for teenagers. I'm not sure if it affects the impact on them if they read it. But I would have to agree on someone that you should not underestimate age group.
If Jesus was calling for murder instead of forgiveness then perhaps the poor translations are a miracle! I'm going with Thor. It's a Thorian miracle!!! Side note: What Jesus had to say was first wirtten in Greek from what I understand.
I don't think violence affects kids unless they're having some kind of psychological problem to begin with. As I've mentioned, I believe that kids need to have an intro to violence because we have, at times, and ultra violent world and they need some clues about it. I'm beating the CS Lewis thing to death because of his supposed religious beliefs, not because of violence in general.
length a YA novel is shorter. The characters younger and the sex act can't be quite as graphic as it can be in an adult novel. Also narrative style is usually different. Many Christian denominations claim CS Lewis as their own fact is he was an Anglican. And resolute about that he had investigated and chosen his denomination on a head and heart level. You are arguing from the standpoint of your own beliefs not those of CS Lewis. His treatment of Father Christmas (not entirely Santa Claus still a hybrid of an earlier pagan symbol in the 1950s), is entirely understandable in the context of where he was. With the Children, each was given an item of defence as well as a weapon. Peter with his sword was given a shield imbued with the power of the lion. Susan the horn to call for help with a bow and arrow. Lucy the juice to heal all wounds (except broken tails) with her knife.
Yes, but post after post about how far someone can push the boundary of YA as if they are writing an adult book for teens...it seems utterly pointless. There's a reason there's difference. The more I see people want to make their YA play with adult themes it is fine with me...my story will stick out as way different. Teens are different from adults in more ways than one and no matter what events though go through in their life like an adult...they are still not an adult. Experiences do not an adult make. The mental make up is also in play. I disagree with the need to push and push and make YA similar to Adult novels. It's like little kids wanting to be teenagers too early. They're missing out on why being a kid is so much fun. Same with YA books. They are fun for a reason...they're not adult books.
Where you not reading adult books as a teen ? I'd been reading adult books since I was seven so the difference for me would have been pointless. Found my first bodice ripper at ten. Teenagers are new. Sanitised children's stories are new. Fact is teenagers are preparing for adult life. Children are the responsiblity of their parents - don't want your child reading something ban it.
So what if I read Adult books like Jurassic Park. That wasn't what I was talking about. Reading different books isn't writing. Teenagers can prepare to be Dinosaurs, but preparing isn't IS. If a teen was an adult, then the word TEEN wouldn't exist. Plus Teens lack frontal lobe use. If brain use dictated adults instead of age...a real adult wouldn't exist until the age of 29.
Well, in a sense you misread me, then. Van Kiddo was pointing out C.S. Lewis' warlike take on Christianity which was then justified as being within a fantasy realm of absolute morality, but the post I replied to was one that backed up this view as something to be taken into reality as well, with references to Bible passages that supported the idea of weilding the "sword of God's Will" over the evil followers of Satan... Bloody hell. My point was that such stories, whether from the Bible or from C.S. Lewis, nurtures a world view of "us vs. them" where people think they've got the bloody creator of the universe encouraging their acts of destruction. There's miles between that and following a politician... Politicians are fallible, flawed human beings, and chances are you didn't even vote for them. You'll take what they say with a grain of salt. It's something else when people get brainwashed into thinking they'll get a free ticket to eternal bliss if they go and slaughter some other people who "aren't human, anyway". Your lectures about the history of the Templars and the Catholic church was a waste of effort ... I know full well they were as much a bunch of hypocrites as the rest of the lot. Never the less, average people bought their propaganda so much easier when they feared Hell-fire. I know that if it wasn't for religion, people would use other means to encourage hatred. Religion is just so darned effective to that end, nothing else really measures up.
If you're associating the French Revolution with atrocities, it's worth noting that Louis XVI's forces killed more people in a single massacre before the revolution (one of the triggers for the revolution) than died in The Terror. But the people that Louis's forces killed were peasants, not nobles, so history tends to ignore that.
But why do you think Lewis's work was a fantasy justification for mass slaughter and not, for example, Tolkein's, Moorcock's or Robert E Howard's? Was it wrong for Lewis to write something that it would be ok for anybody else to write simply because he was a noted Christian apologist?
Teen is a number from thirteen to nineteen. Teenagers didn't exist when my dad was one they are a new concept. When my gran was little you went out to work between 12 and 14. Bah Mitzvah at 12 is the celebration of the child becoming an adult. They teach 'adult' books in schools - admittedly Shakespeare is sometimes edited to take the naughty bits out. Fact is if you are not preparing as a child to be an adult you are going to be an ineffective one. Look at classic childrens stories they are hardly easy reading - Heidi - little girl gets left by her aunty with a scary man, then taken by same aunty to live with strange family. Little Women - Beth dies they lose their sister, their father is at war. Tom Sawyer, has some downright terrifying moments in it. Railway Children - their father is in prison. Tom Brown's Schooldays has moments of tragedy. Even Goodbye Mr Chips which I suppose is an early 1900s YA has some difficult issues tackled. The books all deal with issues facing children during those times.
Your definition of "adult" themes is going to be different from someone else's. There is really very little, thematically, that is out of bounds for YA literature. That doesn't mean YA fiction is tackling "adult" themes, it means that your idea of what is an adult theme as opposed to a YA theme is different from that of others. There's not a lot in terms of thematic content that you can explore in an adult novel but not in a YA novel. What themes do you think are "adult?" Sexuality? Drug use? Violence? Abuse? War? Poverty? Rape? Religion? These have all been explored in YA fiction and serve perfectly well as YA themes.
I said a couple of times that it you're claiming to be a Christian and your work has the same claim to fame, then it ought to stick to the core values, at least. I'm pretty sure Moorcock isn't any religion at all, so he can write scripts for porno movies for all I care (I hope he doesn't though). Edit: If you think about it, the effect of taking a nonviolent religion and turning it on its head is pretty sinister, or if it's a mistake, sad. For instance, in the US many Christians back the death penalty for criminals and although I've lived there my whole life, I don't understand where they get this from. Frequently they quote the OT, but how did they miss what Jesus said? My guess is they never read the NT and are just going from TV, movies, and what clergy manipulatively tell them. If childrens' book are helping with this ---- I do not want.
I like Moorcock a lot. Something he had written about Mervyn Peake first made me read the Gormenghast books, which are incredible. I do not agree, however, that a fiction writer's work has to promote the core principles of their personal beliefs, whether religious or otherwise.
