|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 7, 2005 0:32:35 GMT -5
I did my master's thesis on the writings of C.S. Lewis.
He was very adamant that the Narnia books weren't allegories. He viewed most allegories as condescending and insulting to the readers. His intent with Narnia was to create a fantasy world that had its own stories. He intended the stories to have similarities to our world, but he resisted the idea that Aslan=Jesus. He maintained that Aslan=Aslan, it just so happened that he had a lot in common with Jesus.
However, most of the fiction he wrote was a vehicle to sneak the theological arguments from his non-fiction into people's ideas. For example, his famous "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" argument from "Mere Christianity" shows up in the Professor's dialogue at the beginning of "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe". So while it's not intended to be merely an allegory, his fiction is still loaded with his theology. His view of myth was that the best myths proved the true stories true, sort of like a literary ontological argument.
In fact, the impetus for the Narnia and LOTR books was a conversation between Lewis and Tolkien about the lack of supernaturalism in children's education. They agreed that without fostering the imagination with stories of other lands, belief in (what they considered) real supernatural things like heaven or miracles would become increasingly rare. So they challenged each other to write some. Tolkien thought Lewis's works were too childish and patronizing and their friendship suffered. To Lewis, if kids could get emotionally involved with Aslan's sacrifice for Edmund and subsequent resurrection, then the Jesus story would be more believable.
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Dec 7, 2005 0:44:47 GMT -5
I've been saying that for years. I'm not surprised that such people as Lewis and Tolkien sad such things.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 7, 2005 0:46:01 GMT -5
He was very adamant that the Narnia books weren't allegories. He viewed most allegories as condescending and insulting to the readers. Care to qualify that comment in relation to the _The Allegory of Love_? And not picking, but just wondering: if Lewis thought that allegory was patronizing, then isn't using the Edmund story to make Jesus' ressurection more palatable just as patronizing? It's just indirect allegory in that interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 7, 2005 2:06:53 GMT -5
He viewed allegory in terms of something like "Pligrim's Progress". Where everything in the story exists only to represent something in the real world. He viewed Narnia as its own place that had its own mythology. Sometimes it had similarities to the stories in "our world", but not always. He actually wrote what he considered to be an allegory of his conversion called "The Pilgrim's Regress". But he viewed the Narnia & Space Trilogy works as mythological fantasy. "The Allegory of Love" was an acedemic work of literary criticism that dealt with medieval allegorical poems. He used the poems to explain how the concept of love has changed over the centuries. Even then, he viewed allegory as being different than myth. It's a confusing difference to me, but if I grasp his arguments, he thought that myth was a self-contained story that elicited imagination and narrative power so that we would see truth and value in our world. Whereas allegories are constructs intended to define our experiences. He didn't see allegories as having no value, but that they were too concrete and not very broad. Here's a good link that briefly summarizes how Lewis (and Chesterton) viewed the power of myth as a sort of literary ontological argument. Another good source is Lewis's essay "Myth Became Fact". www.rzim.org/publications/slicetran.php?sliceid=423
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Dec 9, 2005 23:27:01 GMT -5
I did my master's thesis on the writings of C.S. Lewis. He was very adamant that the Narnia books weren't allegories. He viewed most allegories as condescending and insulting to the readers. I thought that was Tolkien, and it was Lewis who used allegories - Tolkien's works reflected his beliefs without being allegorical but, especially in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis's series use allegory to make their point. But I didn't do a thesis on it, so take that with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 10, 2005 3:20:48 GMT -5
You're right that Tolkien didn't view his works as allegories, either. Lewis's world was far simpler and built more on existing fantasy myths (like fauns, satyrs, minotaurs, etc) than a world with invented creatures like hobbits with detailed history and languages. As a result, Lewis's allusions were more obvious, but Tolkien had his fair share of religious symbolism (i.e. the ring=sin).
However, both maintained that their worlds were not intended to be allegorical, but were intended to be fictional fantasies that open the mind up to the possibility of supernaturalism in "our world".
More specifically, if "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" were an allegory to the Christian story, it would be a pretty poor one. It breaks down in numerous places; for example, Aslan only dies in the place of the traitor, not the other children (or every Narnian). As an allegory, you could conclude that Jesus only died for Judas.
No, Narnia was essentially designed to be a place for Lewis to put his philosophy about Christianity (and the world in general) into kids' stories, but not to explicitly retell the Christian story with animals. That the stories stand on their own is impressive. That much of the lasting power of the stories comes from his philosophy and theology proves that he was on to something.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 10, 2005 3:23:00 GMT -5
So I saw it this afternoon. I'll post a review in the "So I Just Finished Watching 2" thread.
Yes, I liked it.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Dec 10, 2005 13:34:24 GMT -5
You make some good points about Lewis's books. I'll probably watch the movie in a week or so when I get home from school, so we'll see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by elireburg on Dec 12, 2005 12:47:25 GMT -5
too much hype,....
|
|
|
Post by NerdGroupie on Dec 12, 2005 13:10:13 GMT -5
This is the second board that has had a thead about it that has turned into a religious thing. I never read the books, so I guess I don't get that. I just want to say I dug it, even if it was crazy long.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 12, 2005 16:56:48 GMT -5
This coming from a Madonna fan? And Nerdie, it was only 2 hours. That's pretty normal these days. Now "King Kong" looks like it'll be too long.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 12, 2005 23:56:11 GMT -5
Give me an example of something, ANYTHING, that doesn't have hype, and I'll show you a movie made by some kid in his backyard. And even then...
|
|
|
Post by NerdGroupie on Dec 15, 2005 14:08:34 GMT -5
This coming from a Madonna fan? And Nerdie, it was only 2 hours. That's pretty normal these days. Now "King Kong" looks like it'll be too long. Nearly two and a half! Just seemed really, really long to me. (and I own both parts of Kill Bill and view them as one!)
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 16, 2005 13:59:54 GMT -5
Mr. A, it's been awhile since I read much about the Inklings, but I can't remember: did Tolkien and Lewis ever get at odds over the Catholic/Anglican thing? I can't recall.
I'm interested b/c I'm putting together a course for next year on the origins of English heroism. I'll be doing a lot of Medieval/Ren stuff, but I'm going to end with Lewis and Tolkien. I just want to get some of the context right.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 16, 2005 14:15:47 GMT -5
Not really. Tolkien didn't write much about his faith, whereas Lewis wrote volumes about his. So the most we have to go on is how Lewis's beliefs compared to Catholicism.
Lewis was Anglican, which is more akin to Catholicism than most Protestant denominations. For example, they both held to the doctrines of trans-substantiation* and paedo-baptism**, and Lewis had a modified view of Purgatory***; three doctrines that Anglicans accept, but most Protestants reject.
Most of the arguments Lewis & Tolkien had was regarding their writing. Lewis admired Tolkien's detail, but thought he went a little mad. Tolkien liked Lewis's non-fiction, but thought his novels were sell-outs and lacked scholarship.
*the idea that the bread and wine in communion (the Eucharist) literally, physically become the body and blood of Christ when the priest blesses them.
**the idea that baptizing infants imparts salvation to them.
***see also Lewis's "The Great Divorce".
|
|