quote:Calling someone shallow and barring them from heaven for it is pretty bad.
The follower of Tash made it. All sorts of people of middling morality made it. But Susan, because she was working on the social thing, didn't. That sucks.
Who is of middling morality? Puzzle the donkey's the only one that comes to mind. And he repented.
Emeth (the Calormene) made uber-Narnia because he was willing to die for the truth, and because he accepted it when confronted.
Again, Susan wasn't just 'working on the social thing;' it was all she thought about. That is what took Aslan's place in her heart, and why she is not a friend to Narnia any longer.
I like to stay with the text given, too. Funny how we have drawn such different conclusions. . .
[ August 09, 2005, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I agree with Katie. I don't think I could enjoy them the same now knowing that the whole series is essentially an allegorical biblical tale.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are so, so many things to learn about and be perfected in - there's no way in this life to ever be completely finished.
And that is why I think it will be a long time after death for most of us when we will receive our final judgement. The length of time is tailored to the individual, and there seems to be *some* scriptural evidence (though not a lot) to suggest that the more "finishing" a person needs, the more time they get.
I don't know if it is exactly how it works, but I like the idea.
We are told that the more "intelligence" we attain to in this life (intelligence I suppose meaning anything that makes us more like God) the more advantage we have in the next life. I assume that simply means the further along we will be on our own timeline for personal progression.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, and I think a work of art should stand on its own.
But that doesn't work with allegory. With allegory, where the author is specifically trying to make a point, I think you do take into account the author's beliefs and perceptions if you're trying to determine what he meant. One doesn't interpret Pilgrim's Progress without taking into account Bunyan's reformed beliefs.
Now, if it's only about what it means to you, then interpret it the way you want, but what I've seen in this thread is people arguing what Lewis meant. And if we're arguing what Lewis meant by his treatment of Susan, then we need to take into account his personal beliefs, as illustrated in his other writings. As Dag and mph have both pointed out, in other works he's not harped on vanity as a major sin, so I doubt seriously he was saying vanity bars one from heaven.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Narnia series is much more compelling to me, now that I know that it is partly allegorical, Jon Boy. . .
For example, when Aslan 'skins' Eustace-as-Dragon in 'Dawn Treader'. . . totally struck me between the eyes, and is still one of my favorite scenes from all literature.
Didn't really pick up on it when I was a kid.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:One doesn't interpret Pilgrim's Progress without taking into account Bunyan's reformed beliefs.
I do take Pilgrim's Progress on its own, which is why I don't think it is a very good book.
Literature shouldn't need footnotes. That's why I like The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock ten thousand times more than The Wasteland.
-----
I love art that means something. I just think it should work on all levels. For me, Narnia works on the story level but not the allegorical level. Pilgrim's Progress may work on the allegorical level, but I was so annoyed with the story level I didn't bother. Great religious art both conveys a deeper meaning and is delightful aesthetically.
Eliot said that true poetry can be felt before it is understood. I think he was saying something like the same thing (which is ironic considering he wrote The Wasteland).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, here's Neil Gaiman's take on what Rowling was quoted as saying in that article:
quote:I read the Time article and thought it was astonishingly badly written and worse researched. The bit that puzzled me the most was that I remembered interviews with Ms. Rowling where she loved the Narnia books (it was a few seconds of Googling to find a 1998 Telegraph interview where she says, "Even now, if I was in a room with one of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.") as opposed to the Time version of 'Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn't even read all of C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot. There's something about Lewis' sentimentality about children that gets on her nerves.'
quote:For example, when Aslan 'skins' Eustace-as-Dragon in 'Dawn Treader'. . . totally struck me between the eyes, and is still one of my favorite scenes from all literature.
Didn't really pick up on it when I was a kid.
That scene was really well done. Eustace had to decide to follow Aslan on his own, then try on his own several times to remove the skin, then Aslan had to do it.
And it hurt, but it was still good. There's so much in that passage.
It's also important to realize that Lewis's beliefs - both those specific to his denomination and those he called "Mere Christianity", essentially the areas where mainline Protestants and Catholics are in greatest agreement - and LDS beliefs differ greatly.
Even though Lewis wrote much that many theologians from many denominations disagree with, those differences are orders of magnitude less than what exists between his beliefs and LDS beliefs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>It's also important to realize that Lewis's beliefs . . . and LDS beliefs differ greatly.
:shrug:
You may be right. I haven't done extensive research into Lewis' beliefs beyond the Narnia series. I take what truth I find and go with it, and leave what I don't believe behind me.
posted
That a large part of the reason Kat thinks it doesn't work as allegory could very well be that she doesn't believe all (and likely doesn't know at least some) of the beliefs being allegorized.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it that so many people in this thread must attribute ignorance to the people who have an opinion differing from their own? This is the second time.
It is possible for someone to be intelligent, a good person, fully informed, and still disagree with you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not attributing anything to ignorance, Kat. Did you see the word "likely" in the parenthetical part? I'd be willing to bet a lot of money it's true just on the basis of your differing religious background. But it doesn't matter to my larger point, one you yourself alluded to earlier.
But you have admitted that you've interpreted the story without taking into account many of his beliefs that are more clearly expressed elsewhere. You also flat out don't believe a significantly large portion of what he's allegorizing.
And you said, "Maybe that's why The Last Battle is irritating me - I disagree with Lewis' theology. "
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you are wrong when you say adding "likely" means you are not attributing my differing opinion to ignorance.
You're gonna have to face it - I have read lots of Lewis, I love the books, and I think he wrote Susan badly. Please stop implying that I must be either sad or ignorant.
Added: *twinkle* I don't Lewis would appreciate that kind of defense.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>You also flat out don't believe a significantly large portion of what he's allegorizing.
What does Kat not believe about the Narnia allegory? Has she said something that I've missed in this discussion that leads you to this conclusion, Dagonee?
Kat, can you specify which parts of Lewis' theology that you disagree with?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does Kat not believe about the Narnia allegory? Has she said something that I've missed in this discussion that leads you to this conclusion, Dagonee?
Original Sin. Purgatory.
Two fairly large ones off the top of my head.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, I don't think Dagonee is saying what you're saying he is. All I saw was, "Maybe Kat doesn't like it because she doesn't believe in the allegory being taught." I don't think he's insulting your intelligence or character or implying that you're sad or ignorant.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is the talking about me part that I dislike. (He did say "sad.")
*grin* I prefer my posts and opinions to be taken on their own, without speculation about the author.
Speculating about a writer's motives is shaky at best, even when it's a fellow poster, much less a dead writer. With few exceptions, we learn more about the person speculating than the object.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:C.S. Lewis is commonly held to have believed in Purgatory, but Douglas Gresham took strong exception to this. Gresham said it is invalid for Walter Hooper to build this case based on Lewis's letters to Sister Penelope, a friend in the Anglican Community of St. Mary. In these letters, stated Gresham, Lewis was satirizing purgatory, not affirming it. My own read of Lewis, particularly in The Great Divorce and Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, is that he did indeed believe in a form of Purgatory.
Three presenters, all converts to Roman Catholicism, raised a few evangelical eyebrows by refashioning Lewis into the image of Roman Catholicism. Thomas Howard, Peter Kreeft and Walter Hooper portrayed Lewis as "a spy for Rome". Hooper's commemorative address at the Oxford Royal Mail launch of the Lewis stamp was devoted largely to a defence of purgatory. At his seminar, Douglas Gresham took great exception to this, disagreeing strongly with all interpretations which put Lewis into a Roman Catholic camp--or any other. Lewis, he said, was the champion of mere Christianity, i.e., core Christian beliefs, not any particular denomination, although he was a loyal member of the Church of England.
posted
I still don't think Susan was "barred from Heaven/Narnia" for forever. She was still *alive* in the "real world" at the end of the Last Battle. Everyone else was dead. She didn't join in the support for Narnia at its crucial hour, but that is not the same thing as being barred for eternity, for crying out loud.
AJ
And as I said before.... don't you think having to attend a funeral of 5 of your closest family members would cause a slight examination of priorities from nylons and lipstick?
I really don't think that CS Lewis was giving up on her, though he needed that character there to make a point, that even though you might not see all the people you loved and wanted to see in Heaven, eternity will still be a happy occasion overall.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Dag did not call kat sad.
He said "If X about her, then that's sad."
Splitting hairs.
A headline screaming SEX, CORRUPTION, AND SUICIDE MAY COME FROM WHITE HOUSE is still a bad headline, despite the "may."
I just seriously don't like threads turning into speculation about me. I'll share my opinion, but that means it is my opinion I'd like to be examined, not my character or my brain. Those are not up for discussion.
--------
I think whether or not Susan will be coming to Narnia later is debatable. As a kid, when I didn't know about the allegory, it was clear to me that Susan had lost the magic and was gone for good. That sucked, but they were lucky to be part of Narnia at all, and if those are the rules of Narnia, those are the rules. She'll be fine, in her own world.
When it's taken as an allegory, that's spectacularly harsh, so a different reading could be made.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When your stated reason for not answering a question is that the answer won't change my mind, you don't get a lot of say in what I think about that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can think whatever you like. You can only post about what I said, not what you think I am.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm serious, Dag. I hate that. I hate putting my opinion out there and then the opinion being ignored and my own self coming under discussion. If there isn't enough there to attack, then you can ignore it or whatever, but turn the discussion around to what I may or may not know or what I may or may not be. I hate it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Yes, you did. You attributed my opinion to your guesses about what I might have read about Lewis. That counts as turning to discussion towards me. Not even mentioning the "that is sad" comment.
Let's stick to Lewis, okay? Not our guesses about other people's connections to Lewis.
------
Lewis wrote the Narnia books before he married Joy. Anyone else think there is an element of "and then a miracle occurs" in both the marriages of Shasta and Aravis and Prince Caspian and the star daughter? Was that intended? If so, why didn't Lewis include the messier part?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Let's hear for the Reader Response theory of literary criticism.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
