posted
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>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was my immmediate thought, Scott. I can't think of anything in Pullman's trilogy to compare with <see spoiler above>.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That he's human and has possibly let his own prejudices get in the way of seeing things the way they are?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmph. Just because I like his books doesn't mean he gets to rank on my beloved Narnia. I liked them first. Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are books meant for young children. What's more, they were intentionally allegorical. Eros would have been horribly inappropriate.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ....
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
</edit>
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
