posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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! :-(
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
posted
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."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
