Here's a UPI newsstory containing comments by Philip Pullman (His Dark Materials) about the upcoming Narnia movie.
I enjoyed Pullman's trilogy, although I felt uncomfortable with the religious aspects. But for him to be criticizing Lewis for the absence of love in his books seems ludicrous to me. To me, love is significantly more visible in Lewis' books than in Pullman's.
And I'm really looking forward to the movie.
<edit> That's Narnia the fantasy world, not Narnia the hatrack poster </edit>
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wonder why Pullman holds this position? Saying that the books are devoid of love is fine, as long as we understand what he means by 'love.'
I see the books as being rather full of love-- *SPOILERS*
Aslan sacrificing himself in Edmund's place, for example.
But maybe we're talking about two different things.
EDIT: It's worth noting that Pullman has been sour on Narnia for a long time.
[ October 17, 2005, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
That was my immmediate thought, Scott. I can't think of anything in Pullman's trilogy to compare with <see spoiler above>.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Presumably, he objects to the absence of what is euphemistically called "romantic love" these days; or in other words, sex. Most people can't tell the difference between the two, or at least think that love always goes with sex. It's sad and pathetic, but that's the way it is.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Or, just as likely, he just said that because he likes bashing Christianity. Everyone knows that if you want to bash Christians, you don't need to say anything that is verifiable or has anything to do with reality. Just say bad things, and people will believe it.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
quote:Originally posted by digging_hoIes: Presumably, he objects to the absence of what is euphemistically called "romantic love" these days; or in other words, sex. Most people can't tell the difference between the two, or at least think that love always goes with sex. It's sad and pathetic, but that's the way it is.
It's a little disconcerting that Pullman can't tell the difference. What does that say about his ability to understand the nuances of human character?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That he's human and has possibly let his own prejudices get in the way of seeing things the way they are?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:The highest virtue, we have on the authority of the New Testament itself, is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books."
Ummm....has he read them?
There are many examples of love in the books. Maybe what we have here is a fundamental disagreement on what he defines as "love." If he is talking about sex, then sure, he might have a point. But the type of love that is mentioned in the New Testament certainly can't be reduced to sex. "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
Last I checked, that quote was from the New Testament. John chapter 15, to be exact.
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
Hmph. Just because I like his books doesn't mean he gets to rank on my beloved Narnia. I liked them first. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Before this conversation goes too far, I think digging_holes 'Presumably' presumes too much.
I don't think that there is any evidence at all that when Pullman says 'love' in the BBC article, he means romantic love.
I think that what we have here is a differentiation of defintion.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Differences of definition... As far as I can tell, that's pretty much what I was saying. But when trying to understand why someone would make a statement that is so far removed from reality, we have little more to go on than guesses. I gave two guesses, and I think they are equally likely.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You wouldn't have to define romantic love as sex to say there's not much of it in The Chronicles.
I mean, I love the books, but eros is conspicuously absent.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
They are books meant for young children. What's more, they were intentionally allegorical. Eros would have been horribly inappropriate.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, sex would have been completely inapropriate.
And I'm not saying it's a flaw. I am saying that there's no reason to assume Pullman was talking about sex, even if he meant romantic love.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
See two of my posts ago.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I did -- you gave 2 guesses, 1) Pullman meant sex or 2) he was just ragging on Christianity.
I'm suggesting a third option.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Which is...?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Um...Romantic love without sex?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Romantic love without it being a euphamism for sex.
As in, when four children grow up and rule as adults, might not one or more of them fall in love with someone and get married?
Or might we see an actual conversation between Caspian and his star-lady? He's apparently smitten by her, but they never actually interact.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote:The highest virtue, we have on the authority of the New Testament itself, is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books.
In the light of what he actually said (above quote), I doubt it, but of course it is a guess as good as mine.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I read Pullman's His Dark Materials.
I loved the first book. Loved it. So imaginative. Such vivid characters.
Then...came the second book.
He pretty much drove his message, that Christianity=hypocrisy and evil of the worst kind over and and OVER again until it pretty much took over the book.
The third book was full of so many dry, long lectures about why the Christian concepts of God and Heaven are innately evil (using examples that didn't match my beliefs about either in any way), that I couldn't finish it.
I found out about his opinions on Lewis and Narnia a few years ago. He's been very open in claiming the books are devious and spiteful. Personally I think it's his extremely negative view of the very concept Christianity that's behind these remarks.
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe has some _very_ clear examples of Christ-like love, and only if one blatantly ignores them could one claim it has no examples of it.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Pullman doesn't, to my recollection, have any eros in his books either .... so that argument doesn't strike me as convincing.
What Pullman does have is more complex relationships ... love despite inperfection, like of unattractive characteristics because they are useful.
In the Chronicals the relationships are more pure. Aslan has the love of a God always seeing the best in people, although we dont see pity / forgiveness for The White Which. The one prominent character with more depth is Tumnlus (sp.) and it's only Lucy who can reconcile the range of feelings and the ambiguity of her relationship ... but then she is the 'best' of the humans (IMHO).
So perhaps he is saying that the 'good' characters in the Chronicals are too easy to love and the 'bad' ones too easy to dismiss thus not requiring the reader to extend their definition of 'good' and 'bad' and embrace the moral struggle of humanity. In Pullman's Dark Materials, we have complicated characters who have both good and bad traits together, we get difficult decisions and agonising choices.
Might take on what Pullman might have meant ....
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Those things you pointed out may be true, dkw, but still his quote doesn't make sense. He's talking about love as it's exemplified in the New Testament, and says it's absent in the books.
I honestly don't see how he could say that. If he said "I think romantic love is virtually absent in the Narnia books, I mean we have four children growing up and ruling as kings and queens and yet none of them every married," then I think it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But to say that the books don't exemplify the Christian ideal of love in the New Testament is a different story. That's what he said, and that's what I have a beef with.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The White Witch murdered every living thing on her home planet out of pride. I'm not sure if such a person wants forgiveness.
Though there is a hint of pity when Aslan discusses how eating the Apple of Youth has changed her:
"But length of days with an evil heart is only length of misery...and already she begins to know it."
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Puffy Treat - So interesting to hear such different reactions to the same book.
I found the Pullman books to be deeply pro Christian and Faith but to be ranting against the institution of Churches / Religion and how man but institutionalising / politicising Faiths corrupt their messages.
A real world example would be how Fundamentallist Immams have corrupted the the Koran and used their political / societal influence to bring power to themselves rather than to the glory of Allah.
Interesting to hear how you see it differently. Which parts of the Christian Faith did he rail about in your opinion?
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote: we dont see pity / forgiveness for The White Which.
That's because the White Witch is an allegorical character which represents Satan, and the final battle in the book is an allegory of Jesus defeating Satan.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
PT - Thanks for that reminder ...
Which book was that? If it's in the Magician's Nephew then perhaps interesting to note that this is one of the last (if not the last?) of the series that he wrote and maybe Lewis had grown up sufficiently to embrace more of the complexity? But perhaps it was LWW.
Does the Christian God (your take on it) wait for people to ask for forgiveness? Or does he (like Andrew Wiggin) see their souls so clearly that he can love them anyway despite their (many) imperfections?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Interesting. I'll read the whole series to judge that... But, I am temporarily banned from checking out books from the library. I read about 3 of the books in that series. I do think so far I like HDM a bit better.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Pullman doesn't, to my recollection, have any eros in his books either .... so that argument doesn't strike me as convincing.
SPOILERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What do you call the very ending of the third Pullman book? That was disgusting.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Disgusting? How was it disgusting? It was more sad than disgusting.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Well, I was pretty weirded out by the fact that they were only, what, 14?
And the simplicity of the Narnian Chronicles is part of why I love them so devotedly. And, well, I just love Lewis' prose and world-making.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think it is a fairly accurate description of one of the limitations of those books...I just don't see it as a glaring one like Pullman does. I loved those books for what they are, not for what some disgruntled authors wishes they could have been. Posted by aarand (Member # 8745) on :
Having read both series by both authors, I can honestly say that although I admire Pullman's work, I really don't see what he can possibly be talking about.
Is there a certain austerity in Lewis' work? Of course. This is a product of the times and circumstances in which Lewis grew up up and wrote, just as Pullman's novels and theories are a product of these changing times.
However, to be fair, I imagine there has been some cropping of his full statement for a stronger impact for readers.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
The end of the third book was such a mess that I've tried to wipe it from my mind! IMHO it wasn't true to the first two in any way, so I don't think that eros is a fundamental part of the three books ... it was a (weak) way of ending the trilogy.
Don't get me wrong, I love The Chronicals. And I love the simplicity of the relationships in the books. I found as a child that they worked beautifully and as an adult I enjoy returning to a world of such simple choices and innocence.
I thought this thread was about trying to understand what Pullman might have been saying and why he thinks it. I can understand that to someone else the simplicity of the relationships might appear patronising to children especially in the world as it is today where children grow up so far and the innocentce of childhood is no longer cherished / preserved.
I'm also trying to separate what Pullman was trying to say from whether he is right or wrong. Bearing in mind that he is allowed his opinion. I just want to understand what his opinion is ... given the limited information we have.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>That's because the White Witch is an allegorical character which represents Satan, and the final battle in the book is an allegory of Jesus defeating Satan.<<
No, she isn't. At least not in my understanding of things. Who is it that Aslan defeats in the Last Battle? False prophets and twisted religious leaders-- NOT Jadis or any of her kind.
>>What do you call the very ending of the third Pullman book? That was disgusting.<<
What was disgusting? Maybe you're reading more into the text than what was there. Or maybe I don't remember it as well as I think I do.
I remember that Lyra and Will fell in love. I don't remember the implication of any impropriety.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote: No, she isn't. At least not in my understanding of things. Who is it that Aslan defeats in the Last Battle? False prophets and twisted religious leaders-- NOT Jadis or any of her kind.
Yes, she is. The Last Battle is a different book with a different point, and although set in the same world, Lewis uses different things as allegories. The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe has a self-contained allegory in which Jadis indeed takes on the role of Satan, the Accuser.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know, that sounds like a pretty good desription of the books to me. As far as I can remember, there is some declarative love, almost exclusively concerned with Aslan, who pretty much stands above and apart from things, but there is little to no demonstrative love. You can tease some out by direct allegory to Jesus, but love is not directly shown by any of the characters or by the incomprehensible d.e.m. who is supposed to be the representation of the human incarnation of the loving god.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
So in your opinion, dying for someone else is not a demonstration of love?
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Dying for someone else is not necessarily a demonstration of love (although it can be).
It could be a demonstration of guilt If your action is trying to make someone feel guilty it could be construde as manipulative
In the case of Aslan, we aren't told his intentions, so we don't know if it is a deomonstration of love. By understanding that it is a metaphore of the crusifiction we bring this richness to the story but that is not necessarily what is written.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Not the way Lewis set it up. It only works if you're using the strict allegory to Jesus. Aslan, as a separate character, doesn't demonstrate love by this. It was an incomprehensible action taken by an incomprehensible character for some reason. It wasn't a mother dying to save her child. There seemed to be no real understandable reason for it, other than it had to happen to advance the allegory. He barely dies and there is not really much sacrifice, besides the immediate pain, which, as Aslan is so totally apart and untouchable, I really had no real sympathetic reaction to. Aslan's death bears more in common to a piggie entering into the third life then it does to a human death. Some stuff happens, he becomes Even-More-Super-Jesus, and the entire world that he apparently died out of love for for ends without him doing anything about it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mmm. . .
No, Mr. Squicky, your explanation falls flat in the face of the text.
In the exposition, when we and the children meet Aslan for the first time, they each have different reactions to him-- that's one way we know that Aslan is Good. Because Peter, Susan, and Lucy, the children whose actions have been, thus far, honorable feel buoyed up by Aslan's presence. Edmund, who has been a beast, feels miserable.
Aslan himself gives the reason for going to the stone table in Edmund's place-- that One who was not a traitor could take a traitor's place. There's the reason you're missing.
>>He barely dies and there is not really much sacrifice, besides the immediate pain, which, as Aslan is so totally apart and untouchable
I disagree. The sadness of the girls who witness his death is palpable in the text. It's one of the most touching scenes in all of literature-- Aslan, lonely (and EXPLICITELY so), and heart broken, facing humiliation and death, and the girls commanded to be silent witnesses.
There is no sense of hope or joy in Aslan as he goes to the stone table. There's no sense in the text that this is just a small death. He does not tell the girls anything to give them hope, and in fact, they think that all is lost until they hear the stone table break and see Aslan at the top of the hill.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I remember that Lyra and Will fell in love. I don't remember the implication of any impropriety.
There was an implication of intimacy, although it wasn't made explicit. I felt pretty uncomfortable, but that could have been after effects of the entire last battle.
As for what Pullman meant, it seems pretty clear to me that he has a different definition of love than I do. Here are some examples I can think of that I would call demonstrative love in LWW *SPOILERS AHEAD*:
Lucy's concern for Mr. Tumnus that leads her back to Narnia to make sure he is okay. Lucy's worry about Edmund, even after she knows of his betrayal (aside, Edmund's character is at least a little complicated. Several people here have said Lewis book doesn't depict unlikeable or complicated characters, but I think first Edmund and later Eustace are conflicted characters who are improved by the love of those around them). The Beavers taking care of the children. Aslan's final sacrifice. The mice, breaking Aslan's bonds
I see love as the motivation for all these actions. These characters were demonstrating courage, dedication and sacrifice out of love for one another. To say there's no demonstrative love in the book because the characters don't go around hugging each other (although there is that, too, especially in Lucy's relationship with Tumnus) is to mistake what it means to love, in the NT sense. That sort of love is the love that drives you to do anything for someone else, even risk your own life, as many of the characters do. I don't know what Pullman learned about love in Divinity school at Oxford, but it certainly doesn't appear to be what most people would consider love to be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Beyond that, there are many examples of love in the books.
The Peevensie's love for each other - even Edmund after he's portrayed them.
Trufflehunter and Caspian.
Reepicheep's people's love for him.
Diggory's love for his mother.
Jewel and the King in Last Battle.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I read his words and I just scratch my head. Maybe it is all rational and I'm just dim, but I just don't see it. He seems to me to be willfully misinterpreting significant portions of the Narnia books in order to advance his own ideology.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks, Dag. I was confining myself to LWW just to save space, but obviously there are many, many more examples if we include all seven books.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
yes... how horrific... having hope in an afterlife... what person could possibly want their children to learn that?
or worse yet, enjoying a group of bullies getting their come-uppance... yes absolutely sadistic to want to stop a group of people from enjoying inflicting pain on people... oh wait...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And in The Last Battle, notoriously, there's the turning away of Susan from the Stable (which stands for salvation) because "She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up."
Was Susan at the Stable? That's not how I remember it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, that was a pretty clear article of his, and I don't think it was taken out of context.
Some people calim much of the same about JRRT too, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Personally, I think Pullman has a point that he is not making very well. The Christianity projected in the books is more black and white than the New Testament and Aslan is at time unforgiving / unchristian.
I like both series ... I accept them for their weaknesses and strength.
Remember also that Pullman might also be objecting, to rumours / evidence that Lewis was a pedophile but feel uncomfortable saying it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, that was a pretty clear article of his, and I don't think it was taken out of context.
Some people claim much of the same about JRRT too, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. I have heard many, many people claim that the LOTR was a clear alligory for the wars against Germany, and that JRRT was an elitist, believing that the common folk lack nobility. In fact JRRT said that it was anything but, as he hated pure allegory.
See, you can take anything out of context of the story and make it seem horrible, regardless of the intent of the author, if you want to.
[ October 18, 2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by cosmictheclown (Member # 8257) on :
I think Kwea hit it dead on. It seems like Pullman has some genuine gripes with the Narnia Chronicles--which he's certainly welcome to--but he does seem to take just a few examples and pull them entirely out of context and draw conclusions from them that seem disingenuous to me.
I've loved the Chronicles since I was young and I've been listening to them on CD while at work, and I don't see the "life-hating ideology" of Pullman's claims. I do see Lewis establishing, at least in Narnia, that death is part of life, and rather than allowing the children to suffer death by train accident, Aslan initiates mercy and sweeps them away peacefully.
Boys are NOT better than girls in the Chronicles--I just finished The Magician's Nephew and that just simply isn't true.
The "light colored is better than dark" accusation may have some merit, just due to the times Lewis wrote in and the attitudes toward race that prevailed then (and still exist today). However, bear in mind his most memorable villain was the WHITE witch, and that Calormens took part in the "salvation" that came at the end of The Last Battle.
As for the Susan dilemma, I don't think it was "growing up" that was the problem, or any underlying misogyny on Lewis's part. Rather, I think he was making two points: First, Susan was too fixated on worldly things, on the honors of people rather than her faith--a common religious theme--and second, that not everyone will make it to "salvation," or they may not want to, and the regret that occurs in that case. Maybe there was some subconscious misogyny--I'm not Lewis's analyst, so I can't say--but IMO, there wasn't any intent at striking a blow against sexual maturity in women.
I think Pullman is tilting at windmills, at least based on the examples he offers.
[ October 18, 2005, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: cosmictheclown ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Firebird... one question-- "evidence"?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by firebird: Remember also that Pullman might also be objecting, to rumours / evidence that Lewis was a pedophile but feel uncomfortable saying it.
Yeah, I didn't really understand that sentence at all.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Jim-Me
rumours / evidence = rumours and / or evidence
To clarify what I meant before. I was simply raising the possibility that Pullman may be coloured by rumours and / or evidence that *he* has seen supporting the allegaton that CS Lewis was a pedophile. Pullman has clearly done a lot of research. I haven't seen any evidence, I have heard rumours.
Evidence for these type of allegation is always tricky even in the present. If you follow the evidence in the presnt the Michael Jackson is not guilty ... but that doesn't mean we don't have out suspicions.
Evidence in the past is even harder and further muddied by the fact that many male children writers have had this particular bit of mud thrown at them (Lewis Carol, JM Barrie).
The intention was just to raise another possibility for Pullman's hotility since we are having such trouble finding a rational explanation for Pullman declaring there is no understanding of Christian love in The Chronicals. Perhaps, rather, Pullman is coloured by an internal belief that CS Lewis had no understanding of proper love for children in reality and is trying to show this through critic of CS Lewis's books.
Is that any clearer? If not happy to try again!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Makes sense to me... I thought you aware of some evidence... to my knowledge there is none, and if there was I wanted to educate myself.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Those rumours are always so difficult. Especially as I have heard rumours but not seen any evidence for a number of children's writers. Sometimes, I wonder if the rumours have got mistakenly intertwinned and I don't like the idea of disparaging someone's name, but the comments come from people who are usually well informed on literature.
I've heard allegations against all of the following. (NO EVIDENCE -) Have you also? Not that corroboration is good evidence but it is at least something!
Lewis Carrol - 1898:1898 JM Barrie - 1860:1937 CS Lewis - 1898 - 1963 Roald Dahl - 1916 - 1990
Given that three overlap substancially, I worry that rumours become confused between them! :-(
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I heard the allegations against Barrie when I saw Finding Neverland and did a little background research on him.
Never heard any of the others.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There is some serious evidence that Lewis Carrol had relationships with young girls that would be deemed innapropriate by today's standards.
I suspect any "rumors" that you've heard about CS Lewis were confusing the similar names.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Entirely possible that the names have been confused. I worried about that too.
Posted by aarand (Member # 8745) on :
Don't start up about Tolkien and his depiction of Dark Skinned people!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I always understood the reason of Susan's absence in The Last Battle as her own choice. She didn't want to remember Narnia, or to believe in it, or to take part in that last mission to rescue Tirian. So she wasn't there on the train, and she wasn't in Narnia at all at the end. I never felt it had anything to do with mysogyny or women's sexuality, just a consequence of a character's actions.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I remember an interview with J.K. Rowling where she raised that objection about the whole Susan thing. She said something along the lines of : "Basically Susan doesn't go to heaven because she discovers sex, and I have a big problem with that." My immediate reaction was, "Boy, did she ever miss the point!"
Posted by aarand (Member # 8745) on :
But Susan didn't...
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
*spoilers*
But Susan didn't die in TLB, did she? She wasn't at the train station or in any of the action in that book, really.
I like to think she might have grown out of her immaturity and remembered Narnia post-TLB. But that's just me.
*endspoilers*
I saw a one-man show of CS Lewis on tv a few months ago--it was amazing. Especially the part about his relationship with Joy. Now *that's* a love story worth remembering. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know I've given this some thought and I think the one area that was lacking/bothering me about the lack of love was the four children in LWW. They grow up and rule a kingdom but never marry. Not very realistic.
Then I remembered how the book ended.
Spoilers
* * * * How much sense would it have made for them to leave their husbands/wives and children behind to return to being children? I mean, you can almost say they never really left childhood at all.
Given that, I think it's perfectly appropriate that they never married.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Although, in The Horse And His Boy, we are treated to the wonderfully hilarious (and perilous) situation of Susan being ruthlessly hit on by a very unlikeable and dangerously unstable man, and this while they were still relatively young Kings and Queens.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Things to note about HDM-
The whole theme is about the separation of the body and the soul and considering the body and its desires to be dirty things that need to be tamed. Note the way the Church's authorities authorized cutting away children's daemons so they do not have feelings and act like zombies. Note also the way the Church authorized cutting people so they could not experience pleasure. Pullman is again the concept of sacrificing earthly pleasures for a heaven that may or may not exist. Like the scene (spoilers) with Lyra and the Harpies and how the Harpies were angry after Lyra told a real story of playing in the mud with other children. He seems to feel that while people are alive they should experience as much as possible instead of being like the extreme church people who whip themselves and limit their pleasure and happiness for the other-world which turns out to be a vast wasteland. Also, there is the love between Lyra and Will to consider. It is a very strong sort of love that build up as the two of them went to the underworld together, it grew stronger with all of their experiences, but they didn't understand what they were feeling until dr Malone, the snake told them her story of falling in love and those tender experiences. It has an inexperienced erotic flavour to it because their young love encompasses all of those things.... Only they are not allowed to realize it, and that is the tragedy of that book... I will have to read Narnia because I had no idea about that train wreck thing...
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
On a slight sidenote, some of the comments after the BBC article are rather interesting. One man stated:
quote:I think Mr Pullman not only hasn't the foggiest idea what he's on about, but is using one of the greatest children's literary tales to publicise his own work. What religion and Christianity have to do with what is a work of fantasy and fiction seems to be utterly beyond him. The answer is simple... nothing.
The irony amused me.
As for Pullman's comments, it's been a good long while since I read the Narnia books, but I don't remember them lacking love. But I'd need to reread them to be sure of my opinions.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, where in the CoN does it say that Susan WANTED to be there for the LB?
It doesn't say she NEVER went to heaven...just that she didn't at the same time, and in the same manner, as her siblings.
Considering she didn't act as they did at the time, that isn't suprising.
According to most Christian beliefs, as I know them, the only path to heaven is through Christ....so how is the same concept in Narnia,regarding Aslan, un-Christian? It is very consistant with his beliefs, actually, which were the same beliefs as most Christians of his time, and ours.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Only they are not allowed to realize it, and that is the tragedy of that book...
Let me get this straight....the largest tragedy of his books is two 14 year olds not being able to have sex, finalizing their love?
No wonder the last book disappointed me so much.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
I think maybe Syn meant that they were permanently and irreversibly separated before their love was allowed to fully develop into a deeper and more mature "adult" love - ie, they weren't allowed to grow up and get married and live happily ever after, which would probably have included sex, but would not have been hinged solely upon it because it was based on love and not mere lust.
Or at least, that's how I interpreted the end. Hopefully I'm not just projecting my thoughts onto Syn's post. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They really already had a mature love in a way. More mature than Lyra's parents relationship which was about sex and power more than love. They litteraly went through hell for each other, lost their souls for a while and really struggled for each other. It wasn't just about horniness... They had a close intense connection as they were equals. It was tragic that they were doomed to be separated from each other, but, despite being separated, they still had that connection. My theory is that they find a way back to each other when they grow up somehow...
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
quote:Originally posted by firebird: Does the Christian God (your take on it) wait for people to ask for forgiveness? Or does he (like Andrew Wiggin) see their souls so clearly that he can love them anyway despite their (many) imperfections?
Both, he loves us completely and would forgive you if only asked. He doesn't forgive us right away because he wants us to choose, using the neat little thing he gave us called free will.
P.S. Sorry if this was answered I didn't see it. This is only my humble opinion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>My theory is that they find a way back to each other when they grow up somehow...
Let's hope not. Opening the windows between the worlds lets Spectres in.
Pullman writes fantasy-- that's what it comes down to. His Authority is a fantasy-- no God has ever existed like that.
I enjoyed HDM because I was able to identify the books as fantastical, and not give too much credence to Pullman's propaganda. If God was like the Authority, I'd fight against him too.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They find another way to get to each other... Because the angel said there was a way to do it, but it would take about a life time. Lyra is studying the aletheometer (Sp) and soon she'll find out how her parents died and a way back to Will. Will has a path of his own to find... So I think they get together again somehow.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Because the angel said there was a way to do it, but it would take about a life time.<<
I don't remember this part. Huh. I know that the angels could pass from world to world, though. . .
I thought the part about taking a lifetime was the angel saying how Lyra would have to study for a lifetime in order to read the aletheometer.
quote:They really already had a mature love in a way.
Wait-- I don't care how much you've been through together, if you're fourteen (and I thought Lyra and Will were more along the lines of 11-12-- or at least right on the cusp of puberty), you are not ready for sex.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They weren't really that interested in sex though... Kissing maybe, but sex didn't play a role in it yet... Remember that part in the second book when the witches all knew what had happened between that witch and Lord Asriel and the kids had no idea?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:They weren't really that interested in sex though... Kissing maybe, but sex didn't play a role in it yet...
I agree. But it seemed like you were justifying the viewpoint of someone earlier in this thread that Will and Lyra had had sex-- they were saying it was disgusting, you were saying it was justified.
I must have misinterpreted-- my apologies.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I thought it was implied that they did have sex.
But I don't have a copy of the book available, soI can't check.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I got that impression too, Yozhik. After the final battle in the idyllic world of the benevolent motorcycle animals (that's how I thought of them), they disappear down behind some trees and...(implied sex). Like Scott I thought both were pre-pubescent, so the scene made me feel quite uncomfortable.
Thinking more about Pullman's attack on Narnia, I believe it's more an attack on Lewis' personal philosophy. The books were a convenient way to focus his ire, but weren't particularly appropriate, since he had to shoehorn his arguments into a text that didn't really support it. Lewis (and Tolkien and the other Inklings) were anti-progressives; they desired a return to times of simplicity when the world (to them) made sense. To Pullman, that sort of wishful pastoralism is anathema, because he dislikes the way things were (racism, sexism, etc.) At least, that's how I read his views. So he nitpicks the Narnia books, looking for fodder, finds nothing and has to purposefully misconstrue in order to make his point.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It should be noted that at that time, being a progressive meant a belief in Eugenics and scientifically conditioning people into more peaceful states... that the Brave New World was a Utopia. Lewis's That Hideous Strength stands very nicely alongside 1984 and "Serenity" in making that point and his N.I.C.E. fits right in with Big Brother and The Alliance.
Just so no one gets the wrong idea from the word "anti-progressive". The Progressive elements in Lewis's time (and one could argue that this hasn't changed much) were rather communist... that is to say, from a practical standpoint, totalitarian.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks for the clarification, Jim, although I think the same premises underlie progressivism in our time as in Lewis'.
I think we're all at war, internally, between progress and, what, regress? I attribute it to the need to solve problems under uncertainty. On one hand we want to fix what's wrong; on the other we want to avoid the unintended consequences. Progressives favor quick adoption of new solutions, while Regressives (can someone fix this word problem for me!?) caution that it will (or might) only make things worse.
The adoption of communism and totalitarianism in the 1930s is a symptom of the fundamental premise of Progressivism. They were simply the new solution of the time.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterton - Illustrated London News, 4/19/24
Does that help?
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Perhapse fairer would be:
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to
fix old mistakes with new mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
that's actually really close to another one of his: "The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks, Jim. I wanted to use Conservative, but felt that the term was too much a part of the current US political fabric to be useful. And how could you parse the sentence "we're at war internally between progress and <blank>"? "Conservativism" or "conservation." I'd rather use preservation. But I wouldn't want to label a group as Preservatives. So then they're Preservationists, which is awful. Maybe it's a hopeless task.
BTW, great Chesterton quotes Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
LOL @ Preservatives: the Monosodium Glutamate of our political diet!
If, like me, you love Chesterton quotes, this is your page.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
</edit>
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)