Hello! I see that many people are coming to this spot to read the Michael Nelson article about Narnia that I’ve linked to below. Please feel free to look around the rest of the blog; though I began this blog only to save articles that interested me (as a form of e-newspaper clipping), I’ve begun commenting on many of the topics that the articles I cite discuss. These topics include the following: mythology, popular culture, films and books(like Tolkien’s books, Harry Potter, Narnia, Star Wars, and Philip Pullman’s books), fandom, some politics, and some religion. These are all things that I’m studying in graduate school today, so I’d love to hear your thoughts on these topics as well as your thoughts on my thoughts! Thanks for coming and enjoy the article!
The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Chronicle Review
12/2/2005
For the Love of Narnia
By MICHAEL NELSON
The strategy for marketing the movie The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which will open across the country on December 9, resembles nothing so much as the strategy used to re-elect George W. Bush as president in 2004: Pursue mainstream voters, er, viewers in widely broadcast ads that stress martial valor and family values, and target Christian evangelicals with overtly religious appeals church by church, radio station by radio station.
It’s a strategy that appears to be working, at least so far. While Newsweek, which was given an exclusive look at the rough cut of the movie, says that Lion is “only as Christian as you want it to be,” Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, describes it as a “tool that many may find effective in communicating the message of Jesus to those who may not respond to other presentations.”
But it’s not a strategy that Philip Pullman will allow to succeed without a fight. Pullman is the author of His Dark Materials, a three-volume children’s book series that has won popular and critical acclaim rivaling that of the half-century-old, seven-book The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, of which The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is the first volume. In articles, interviews, and speeches, Pullman has described The Chronicles not just as “propaganda in the cause of the religion [Lewis] believed in,” but also as guilty of advancing views such as, “Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-colored people are better than dark-colored people; and so on.” And those are just Pullman’s G-rated charges. He also has blasted The Chronicles in public forums as “one of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read,” “propaganda in the service of a life-hating ideology,” “blatantly racist,” “monumentally disparaging of girls and women,” and marked by a “sadomasochistic relish for violence.”
If Pullman is right, not only should mainstream moviegoers stay away from Lion, so should evangelical Christians. “The highest virtue, we have on the authority of the New Testament itself,” the avowedly atheistic Pullman said in a recent interview about the movie, “is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books.”
But is Pullman right?
The question is worth considering because Pullman is no lightweight. To be sure, he lacks some of Lewis’s scholarly credentials: “firsts” (first-class degrees) in three fields at the University of Oxford, a distinguished faculty career in English literature at Oxford and (briefly) at Cambridge that lasted from 1924 almost until his death in 1963, and magisterial critical works on medieval romance, 16th-century English poetry, Milton’s Paradise Lost, and other subjects. But Pullman did earn a degree at Oxford and taught at several schools in the city until he became a full-time children’s book author in the mid-1980s.
One of the books in Pullman’s His Dark Materials series won the 2001 Whitbread Award both for best children’s book and for best book of any kind published in England the previous year — the only time the main prize has ever been awarded to a work for children. Pullman wrote the series, he says, because “I really wanted to do … Paradise Lost in 1,200 pages. … It’s the story of the Fall which is the story of how what some would call sin, but I would call consciousness, comes to us.” Over the course of three volumes, Pullman wanted to celebrate, as he thinks John Milton does, our first ancestors’ decision to rebel against God by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Lewis’s motives for writing The Chronicles were more complex. Did he, as Pullman charges, intend them to be “propaganda for the religion he believed in”?
In a sense, he did. Lewis had converted from atheism to Christianity in the early 1930s and, like Paul, Augustine, and other famous converts before him, became an outspoken defender of the faith. What made Lewis different from his sainted predecessors was the variety of literary forms in which he advanced his views. In the decade beginning in 1938, Lewis published several works of Christian apologetics, three science-fiction novels with Christian themes, an imagined account of a journey into the Christian afterlife, and a tongue-in-cheek book of letters from a devil named Screwtape to his agent on earth. He undertook Lion in 1948, partly as a way of posing and answering for children the question, “Supposing that there really was a world like Narnia, and supposing it had (like our world) gone wrong, and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours), what might have happened?”
Lewis’s approach in The Chronicles was deeply rooted in his own experience. A crucial element in his conversion was a long conversation with J.R.R. Tolkien in which Lewis became persuaded that the many and, to him, deeply moving ancient myths in which a god dies and is reborn to save his people had “really happened” when Jesus was crucified and resurrected, placing Christianity squarely at the intersection of myth and history. Lewis had an enormous regard for pagan myths, both for their marvelous stories and for the truths about origins, aspirations, and purpose he found embedded in them. In writing The Chronicles, in which the divine lion Aslan is slain to save a treacherous child and then triumphantly resurrected, Lewis was trying to write a myth of his own that had all the excitement and truth of other myths, including the Christian one.
Many children seem to have read The Chronicles as Laura Winner, in Slate, remembers herself and her friends doing, as simply “a riveting tale.” Some children — the books have sold more than 95 million copies, after all — presumably have experienced, in Lewis’s phrase, the “pre-baptism of the child’s imagination” that Lewis hoped and Pullman fears would someday open their ears to the Christian story. But where’s the offense in that? For Pullman, it seems, Lewis’s offense was merely to love what Pullman hates.
Certainly there is nothing remotely as tendentious in The Chronicles as Pullman’s attacks in His Dark Materials against Christianity. “For all its history,” a benevolent witch tells Lyra Belacqua and Will Parry, the young protagonists of the series, the Church “has tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. … That’s what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.” As for God, a rebellious angel later tells the children, “God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty … was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves … [who] told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie.” In one of the last scenes of the trilogy, the children watch God die. “Demented and powerless,” Pullman writes, “the aged being could only weep and mumble in fear and pain and misery.” Every Christian character in the series is rotten to the core, and none of them bothers to pretend otherwise. “The Christian religion,” one of Pullman’s main characters blandly explains, “is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all.” Oh.
What about Pullman’s other charges against The Chronicles?
Sexism. No charge seems more likely to be true — Lewis, after all, spent nearly all of his life in a midcentury Oxbridge that was notoriously dismissive of women — and yet none is easier to refute. The best human character in Lion is a girl, Lucy Pevensie, and the worst is her brother Edmund. The same can be said of the book’s talking animals, of whom Mrs. Beaver (a model of levelheadedness in Lion’s most dangerous moment) is the best and the male wolf Maugrim the worst. Lucy (“the little girl who was my heroine” in the novel, according to Lewis) is smart, brave, inquisitive, and open to new experience. “Lucy proved a good leader,” the narrator tells us, and at the end she is crowned a queen as “Lucy the Valiant.” She’s also tender, a quality that’s on fullest display when she and her older sister Susan keep vigil with the about-to-be-slain Aslan, then return after he’s executed to tend to his corpse.
Lucy isn’t the only strong and appealing heroine in The Chronicles. In The Silver Chair and The Last Battle, Jill Pole is consistently courageous, compassionate, and self-sufficient, and in The Magician’s Nephew, Polly Plummer is a model of intelligence, good judgment, acute perception, and adventurousness. Aravis, the heroine of The Horse and His Boy, boldly escapes her father’s house to avoid an arranged marriage with a repulsive older man, shows great resourcefulness in crossing the desert, and eventually saves Narnia by foiling a surprise attack. Lewis juxtaposes Aravis with Lasaraleen, a girl her own age who is shallow, vain, obsessed with clothes, and willing to marry anyone who is rich.
Lewis’s message to girls is clear: Don’t let men stuff you into a trivial, man-pleasing mold. So is his message to boys: Don’t grow up to be one of those men. Disparaging remarks about girls sometimes appear in The Chronicles — Edmund, for example, says at one point that Lucy is acting “just like a girl” — but the characters who make them are almost always unattractive.
Pullman makes much of the fact that in The Last Battle, the final volume of The Chronicles, Peter Pevensie judges his sister Susan to be “no longer a friend of Narnia,” and Jill Pole says it’s because “she’s interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She was always a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up.” To Pullman, this means that Lewis didn’t want Susan to “underg[o] a transition from one phase of her life to another. Lewis didn’t approve of that. He didn’t like women in general, or sexuality at all.”
In truth, Lewis was portraying Susan making the same mistake he had made as a boy: throwing out the good of childhood with the bad for lack of understanding what it really means to grow up. When he turned 10, Lewis once wrote, he “would have been ashamed” if he had been found reading fairy stories. “Now that I am 50 I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness.”
Racism. The humans in Narnia are light-skinned; the humans in Narnia’s enemy, Calormen, are dark-skinned. Ergo, Pullman charges, Lewis thinks “light-colored people are better than dark-colored people.”
But does he? The worst character in The Chronicles, after all, is not the Black Witch (there is no such character) but the White Witch, and two of the books’ young heroes — Aravis in The Horse and His Boy, and Emeth, in The Last Battle — are dark-skinned Calormenes. That’s a narrow defense of Lewis, but not a trivial one.
A broader defense, and one that’s truer to a work of imagination, is to think of all the rational beings in The Chronicles as, in a sense, races, and to see how Lewis treats them. Tolkien chastised Lewis severely for including characters from different mythological traditions in the same story: fauns, naiads, centaurs, satyrs, and the wine god Bacchus from the Greek and Roman myths; giants and dwarfs from Norse mythology; and even Father Christmas from Christian folklore. But for Lewis one of the chief delights of writing The Chronicles was to imagine a happily inclusive world in which rational beings of widely varying kinds could live together, work together, and, when necessary, fight side by side for the good.
Violence. Good sometimes triumphs over evil in The Chronicles through duels and battles — Lewis was no pacifist. But neither was he a war lover. Lewis had fought in the trenches of the Western Front in World War I and been tempered by the experience to regard violence as, at best, a sometimes necessary evil. He knew, in a way that Pullman — who riddles His Dark Materials with scenes of murder and torture as well as of battle — does not, what violence entails.
Lewis’s account in Lion of Peter Pevensie’s duel with the evil Maugrim reflects this understanding — there’s nothing romantic about it. “Peter did not feel very brave; he felt he was going to be sick,” Lewis writes. “Then came a horrible, confused moment like something in a nightmare. He was tugging and pulling and the Wolf seemed neither alive nor dead, and its bared teeth knocked against his forehead, and everything was blood and heat and hair.” Even in victory, “He felt tired all over.”
Children who read or see Lion will not be encountering their first act of literary or cinematic violence, to say the least. What they may encounter, however, is their first unglamorous act of violence, the first to make them doubt that killing, even when it has to be done, is something to celebrate.
“Death is better than life.” In the final scene of The Chronicles’ final book, Aslan tells Lucy and her brothers that they are dead — or, as Lewis puts it, that their life in the “Shadowlands” of this world has ended and that the “real story” of their eternal, heavenly existence has begun. Pullman’s revulsion at this scene is unbounded — he calls it “one of the most vile moments in the whole of children’s literature.” But as John Gough, himself a professed nonbeliever, has argued, far from saying, “Death is better than life,” Lewis’s theme is, “Heaven is better than life.”
“No Christian writers of the 20th century,” notes the Wheaton College (Ill.) literature professor Alan Jacobs in his new biography, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis, “have emphasized immortality more than Lewis did.” Famously, he once argued that any individual is more important than any nation because nations, no matter how powerful, have finite existences, and individuals, no matter how powerless, live forever. One can disagree with Lewis’s opinion, but is it fair to condemn him simply for expressing it?
Ironically, Pullman also celebrates death in His Dark Materials, and far less convincingly. He has his characters, including Will’s father, rejoice at the prospect of decomposing into particles in order to return, stripped of all consciousness and identity, to nature, thus “becoming part of the earth and the dew and the night breeze.”
Lovelessness. Of all Pullman’s charges against Lion and The Chronicles, the one that he has chosen to emphasize during the lead-up to the movie — namely, that Lewis’s books are loveless — is the least persuasive of all. Love between brothers and sisters, between friends of the same and of different sexes, between husbands and wives, between old and young, and between humans and animals pervade every book in the series. Sometimes, in Narnia as in real life, these loves are tested in ways that require patience, forbearance, sacrifice, and forgiveness. It’s good for children to know that.
In a scene in Lion in which Lucy plays with Aslan, Lewis writes, “whether it was more like playing with a thunderstorm or playing with a kitten Lucy could never make up her mind.” No love is more wonderfully imagined in The Chronicles than the love displayed by the great lion. In Aslan, Lewis shows that, perhaps in reality or perhaps only in imagination, majesty and tenderness can coexist in the same being.
It’s good for children to know that too.
Michael Nelson, a former editor of The Washington Monthly, is a professor of political science at Rhodes College.
Gino said,
January 7, 2007 at 4:58 am
A very well-crafted rebuttal to the claims staked by Pullman. Specifically, the response to Pullman’s claim that Narnia was “loveless” was very true and necessary. The children’s conviction to save their brother, despite his selfish behavior, is a clear representation of the presence of love.
Walter Driedger said,
February 3, 2007 at 10:01 pm
When I compare Mr. Pullman’s charges against reality, the psychological concept of transference comes strongly to mind. Everything he charges against Lewis is absolutely true — about himself.
Michael said,
February 6, 2007 at 11:47 pm
While this essay makes a good response to Pullman’s article, one point remains. Each is his own opnion. Nothing else. Also you must take into account on what Pullman is talking about. He is NOT talking about Lewis’s mistakes to what he does on his own. He is talking about using Christianity, and a false sense of it, to further your own novel. It is irrelevent whether or not Pullman himself writes about murder, or sexism, for he is not the one that claims to fight against it. Nor is Pullman running around killing people and beating woman. Just an author portraying his views. I myself like both, His Dark Materials and the Chronicles of Narnia, and I can see this point from both sides of the spectrum. Literature should be enjoyed by everyone, and that is what makes it so powerfull and wonderfull. Even if attacked by other authors, the novel should stand if its readers believe in its virtues and morals inside of it.
Gino said,
February 17, 2007 at 12:48 am
Michael,
When Pullman picks out what he sees as problems with Lewis’ novel, he picks them out because he does believe these “problems” are non-existent in his own novels. Why would he pick out problems in another series if they existed in his own? As Lewis’ books are written to promote his own religion, as many religious or philosophical people tend to do for their religion, so are Pullman’s books writted to promote his own set of ideals. Both use metaphorical language and symbolism to add subtly to their writing, so if Pullman accuses Lewis of hiding his beliefs in appealing symbols, he is being hypocritical.
I also have read both series and enjoy both of them, however, it is hypocritical of Pullman to suggest that Lewis was trying to spread propaganda about Christianity when Pullman is doing the same about Atheism. They both have their views and are expressing them freely, as they should, in a way that puts their point of view in the limelight.
It is most likely not irrelevant, though, that Pullman writes about murder or sexism because he accused Lewis of writing about violence, something he deemed as innappropriate for children’s books. Pullman’s books are far from being non-violent, particularly when a polar bear devours the dead body of his deceased friend. Regardless of the fact that this act was supposed to be one of respect, it is undeniably gory. The only way this point could be viewed as irrelevant is if you take into consideration that he did say his books weren’t necessarily for children. However, I find that very difficult to believe given the subject matter, particularly The Golden Compass. All in all, I just believe that this point should not be seen as irrelevant, but based on opinion.
I’m not sure what Pullman running around killing people and beating women has to do with anything. . .
I do believe that many people will continue to enjoy both series, and fans of the respective series will undoubtedly stand by their favorite as they are both philosophically powerful.
Anna McMillan said,
September 4, 2007 at 12:03 am
I loved the Narnia series as a child- whatever Pullman says about clumsy plotting, it was good enough for me- until I was eleven or twelve, and learned the meaning of the words ‘pacifist’ and ‘vegetarian’. As you know, the recurrent, and inially very unsympathetic character Eustace is described as both these things, before his conversion in “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader”, and because of the derogatory way they are mentioned, I actually confused ‘pacifist’ with ‘fascist’ and considered Eustace worthy of disdain on that count, until I finally asked my father what it meant…
I reread the series then and there, essentially in the hope of redeeming it to myself, as even at that age it was obvious that giving a ‘bad’ character particular beliefs means that the author is condemning them. As a result, in a fit of pre-teenage puritanism, I threw them all out. C S Lewis is an author with an ideology to put across, and not only is he mysogynist (in the sense of hating women, not girls), and religiously intolerant, just as Pullman states, but he also promotes an absurdly archaic class hierarchy- most explicitly in that every one of the characters who has authority, gains it by birth; the contest between democracy and feudalism is made explicit in the victory of Prince Caspian over Governor Gumpas in ‘Voyage of the Dawn Treader’. The Calormine religion is clearly an ugly parody of Hinduism (and to a lesser extent, Islam).
Having said that, once my fury at C S L had cooled- it was also fueled by a an indignation at learning I had read a religious parable without it having been made obvious to me – I missed the books. They have a charming romanticism, great and economical characterisation, very inventive. What I’d learned by them was tolerance- not willingly, necessarily, but because if you’re going to read anything written before we, at least in theory, accepted that we’re all equal by birthright, you’re going to miss out on 95% of all the stories laid down for us- and the Narnia stories are good ones, even though he does send Susan to hell at the last moment. We & our kids can handle C S Lewis’s prejudices, just as we can the brutality of fairy tales.
Matt said,
September 19, 2007 at 1:53 am
There has been much said about Pullman’s criticism of Lewis’ choice to represent Susan as “no longer a friend of Narina.” I want to clarify the context. (If you are not a Christian, please read this and have patience with the Biblical reference.)
One of the most famous of Jesus’ parables is the Parable of the Sower found in Luke 8:4-8. In this parable, or fictional story representing a real concept, Jesus describes a farmer who casts seed out in order to grow a crop. The seed lands on four different types of soil and different results happen. The first is hard soil, so hard that the seed doesn’t penetrate and the birds eat it before it can germinate. The second is rocky soil that allows the seed to grow, but perish under the hot sun. The third is the soil in which the seed grows but is choked by the weeds that also spring up. The fourth falls on good soil that the seed flourishes in and the resulting plant grows and seeds new plants.
He does explain this parable a little later in the chapter. The paraphrase is this: The hard soil is a person who has hardened themselves from hearing the Gospel message and rejects the “seed” of the gospel. The rocky soil is a person who hears and believes in Jesus but when hard times come he or she loses his or her faith. The third is the person who believes but becomes distracted by the material and loses sight of God by focusing on material pleasures and worldly pursuits. The fourth is the person who hears, believes and perseveres to the point of sharing his or her faith with others.
Susan clearly falls into the category of the third soil in which the weeds of materialism choke her faith. Lewis implies that she loses her faith, or maybe just forgets it, and therefore is no longer a friend of Narnia. Friends keep in touch with friends and have fellowship with them. Susan no longer keeps in touch with or has fellowship with Aslan, even in her heart. She broke the friendship.
Matt said,
September 19, 2007 at 1:57 am
There has been much said about Pullman’s criticism of Lewis’ choice to represent Susan as “no longer a friend of Narina.” I want to clarify the context. (If you are not a Christian, please read this and have patience with the Biblical reference.)
One of the most famous of Jesus’ parables is the Parable of the Sower found in Luke 8:4-8. In this parable, or fictional story representing a real concept, Jesus describes a farmer who casts seed out in order to grow a crop. The seed lands on four different types of soil and different results happen. The first is hard soil, so hard that the seed doesn’t penetrate and the birds eat it before it can germinate. The second is rocky soil that allows the seed to grow, but perish under the hot sun. The third is the soil in which the seed grows but is choked by the weeds that also spring up. The fourth falls on good soil that the seed flourishes in and the resulting plant grows and seeds new plants.
He does explain this parable a little later in the chapter. The paraphrase is this: The hard soil is a person who has hardened themselves from hearing the Gospel message and rejects the “seed” of the gospel. The rocky soil is a person who hears and believes in Jesus but when hard times come he or she loses his or her faith. The third is the person who believes but becomes distracted by the material and loses sight of God by focusing on material pleasures and worldly pursuits. The fourth is the person who hears, believes and perseveres to the point of sharing his or her faith with others.
Susan clearly falls into the category of the third soil in which the weeds of materialism choke her faith. Lewis implies that she loses her faith, or maybe just forgets it, and therefore is no longer a friend of Narnia. Friends keep in touch with friends and have fellowship with them. Susan no longer keeps in touch with or has fellowship with Aslan, even in her heart. She broke the friendship.
I want to be quite clear that I do not believe that all material things are bad. What is bad is when material things distract a person from his or her relationship with God. They can overwhelm a person and the material is tangible, while God is not, and so can consume a person’s heart. Materialism can lead to jealousy and jealousy to all sorts of destructive behavior be it theft, anger, malice, or just plain selfishness. Lewis displays quite plainly how materialism can damage a person’s relationship with God through the story of Susan. Susan, however, has not yet died so she still has the opportunity to renew that relationship with Aslan and once again become a friend of Narnia.
Pullman is reckless in his assertion that Lewis condemns Susan because Lewis leaves the door to redemption open. The door he makes quite clear exists through Aslan’s redemption of Edmund in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Nemo said,
October 11, 2007 at 5:55 am
I love Lewis for his books brought magic into my childhood. I like Pullman too but do not agree with him on everything. I have heard many people criticize C.S. Lewis so I am glad you defended him. He was just a man telling us what he believed in. Surely he cannot be blamed for that? And Love…Love is in every chapter of the Chronicles.
Gino said,
October 17, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I would like to second, and add to, what Matt said about Lewis ‘leaving the door open’ concerning redemption for Susan. Anna made a comment about saying Lewis sent Susan to hell, but that isn’t true. As Matt said, it isn’t written what happens to Susan…it just says that she was caught up in materialism, like many people are, and lost sight of what’s important. I think that Lewis is not picking on Susan, but choosing her as a symbol of what can happen to any human, or more specifically, any one of us, when we get absorbed in things that we believe will make us happy, but don’t. I believe Lewis did this on purpose to show that Susan, like us, always has a chance for redemption, just like us. Susan is very important in this case, because the hope for her is the same hope for us. This is also not rare in Lewis’ books, because as Matt said Edmund is forgiven for his betrayal of his brothers and sisters.
One last thing, Anna said that she believed Lewis to be a misogynist. I disagree here as well. There are many strong female characters in Lewis’ books: Aravis, Lucy, and Jill. It is Lucy who discovers Narnia, after all. Lewis himself admitted he is a bit sexist in his book “Mere Christianity”, but far from being a misogynist.
Gino said,
October 18, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I would also like to make one more comment, to Anna’s response.
Anna, did you read the article above, to which these comments are supposed to have stemmed from? I question if you did because the article makes a very well-crafted rebuttal to many of the claims against Narnia that you have made, particularly Lewis’ being a misogynist. If you did read it, I would have at least expected to find a reason why you disagree with the author’s points, as it would seem more productive than continually discussing topics already seemingly solved. I really recommend reading it because it may help you come to a different conclusion than you seem to have reached about Lewis’ books, which you seem to be very fond of.
Elliott said,
October 27, 2007 at 9:24 am
Pullman’s main point of contention seems to be rooted in his belief that… the Church “has tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. … That’s what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.”
To this, I pose a question. This is by no means intended to be sarcastic, but an honest question to encourage critical thinking.
If the most important thing in life is to be able to do what brings you pleasure, and be able to express yourself and your beliefs, feelings, and desires in a manner that is appropriate to you despite what an established oranization (such as, but not limited to, the church) believes, then why is it wrong, or as Pullman puts it “ugly and poisonous” for Lewis to have written what he has?
Even if Lewis’ beliefs in the God of Christianity are untrue (meaning that God does not actually exist), all Lewis is doing is expressing himself, and doing something that has obviously brought him and many other people pleasure,a sense of security, and many other things that are positive in their eyes. To my knowledge, the Narnia books have not directly (or indirectly for that matter) caused society to fall, or chaos to ensue throughout the world.
Again, these are just honest questions…Why is it ok for Pullman to expess his beliefs, but it is not ok for Lewis? And, if Pullman is objecting to Lewis (and Christianity/religion) in general on the basis of his own enlightened moral code, from where does he get this code, how does he know it is the “right” way, and on what (whose) authority is he morally judging the beliefs of others?
I’m sorry if this seems a bit heavy. All I really want to know is that if I’m an athiest, there is no God, and therefore no intrinsic, inherent standard by which right and wrong, good and evil can be judged, where then do recieve the right to tell someone else they are wrong? Especially when all they’ve really done is write a childrens book reflecting his own views…in the exact same way that I have?
Shannon Hernandez said,
October 28, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I find it interesting that Pullman’s grandfather was a clergyman. According to Wikipedia, Pullman lived with him for some time. I wonder what occurred during that time which would lead him to be so veminantely opposed to organized religion? Ironically, I feel as though he subconciously believes in a God of somesort. Although I have not read his books, I have read his reviews & interviews. How is it he can place a character called God, & try to influence others to eliminate God from their minds, when the basis of his books support Gods existince & request others to revolt against him? I have read interviews & articles where his comments lead me to believe… (although he’ll claim otherwise), that it’s not that he doesn’t believe in God, but rather he just hates him. Which brings us full circle to his childhood. If he doesn’t believe in God then why does God seem to be everywhere in his life?
George Redpath said,
October 29, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Please read the novels of an author you are making criticisms about, rather than simply secondary sources. Especially when undergoing ad hominem attacks.
Personally, Pullman’s claim of aiming to retell Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ is one of the most significant aspects of HDM. The ‘justifying the ways of god to men’ aspect. Concordantly, as with Milton, it seems Pullman takes issue with the archaic church of old, where it becomes more about establishment and power rather than spirituality and faith.
One also needs to consider each author’s corpus of work. Pullman has not dedicated his entire literary career in promoting the atheist aesthetic and bringing down the hallowed halls of faith, that is simply one of the main conceits of HDM. Read the ‘Sally Lockhart’ series for confirmation of this. Lewis however, seemed to have dedicated his entire literary career on allegory.
I do agree that a lot of Pullman’s claims appear to illustrate him as an illogical and slightly contradictory polemicist, and that to attack one bestseller about the themes of their books is to suggest you believe the themes of your own bestseller to be more correct, but what are you going to do. One supposes his beef with Lewis lies in the fact that it’s children’s literature, and teaches them allegory before they’ve had the chance to become open-minded, free-thinking individuals where they can evaluate faiths and ideologies relatively objectively, and from there choose a spiritual path if they so desire it.
Jonathan said,
October 30, 2007 at 11:49 am
Lewis wrote a prose parallel to the story of his faith. He wasn’t trying to teach doctrine, but open up hearts to it with a good story. It isn’t scripture, and can’t be read as Truth. Maybe that is all Pullman means to say.
Pullman wrote a story about two kids that explore the very makeup of existence. What people find as anti-religious sentiment is merely repulsion of the idea that things are this way because some person said so. Truth needs a stronger base than gossip does.
I love both series and feel that if you can get meaning out of both, you’re probably on the right track.
Shannon said,
October 30, 2007 at 12:44 pm
George, I greatly appreciate your comments & agree one should read the author’s book before criticizing. However, my criticisms were not against his work at all. I believe everyone has a right to express themselves creatively regardless of whether or not I agree with their material. I also understand that “he has not dedicated his entire literary career in promoting the atheist aesthetic and bringing down the hallowed halls of faith”.
My comments were directed at the logic of Pullman’s approach towards addressing his issues with Lewis. I was attracted to the discussion of politics, symbolism, philosophy, & psychology which has been expressed throughout the blog. I directed my comments towards the article which this blog is founded on, not Phillip Pullman’s work.
I have to say that the comments made by Elliot clearly & eloquently express my own opinion. I am attracted to the “critical thinking” he encourages.
Although a passionate Christian, I feel both stories can apply to any organized religion or personal value system.
Is it not possible for an atheist to sacrifice such as a symbolic savior would? Can an atheist be spiritual & connect to the Earth in which he lives, as well as the soul he will depart from at death? I understand Lewis had a deep agenda & his writings can be internalized to great depths, but I believe that people, (including children), will only absorb what their hearts desire. I like to give children credit. Their purity & innocence allows them to find what is good. All on their own. They question, inquire & grow regardless of what roll we play. Yes we can manipulate & mold, but ultimately they find themselves. If adults were as powerful as we give them credit for then all Christian children would grow up to be Christians & all Atheist children likewise. But yet it doesn’t seem to work that way does it? If adults were entirely to blame for the outcome of children, then why aren’t we sending parents to jail every time a crime is committed? I am not excusing adults of the responsibility for their children’s choices.
I would like to think as a parent & a free agent, Phillip Pullman would see past Lewis’s motives & embrace his talent. I feel that all things positive & noteworthy are of value in this society regardless of its origin. As Elliot expressed, “To my knowledge, the Narnia books have not directly (or indirectly for that matter) caused society to fall, or chaos to ensue throughout the world”.
I agree, with George’s comments of regarding Pullman’s beef with Lewis. I recognize that is a fear for many, & most obviously for Pullman. Again this leads me to ask? If Pullman was exposed to organized religion at a young age & still maintains his own beliefs& ideals; isn’t it possible for other children to develop on their own as well? This probably sounds totally naive, but I say yes.
Abe said,
November 7, 2007 at 11:17 am
I hadn’t really heard about the Golden Compass until today. Sure, I’d seen the book cover when I worked at a book store a few years ago, but it was just another book. I came across a movie trailer online and thought it might be worth checking out. Interestingly- my first impression was that somehow it visually reminded me of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe movie. The idea of the daemons seems really cool. I even took the quiz that told me what daemon i have. According to this personality test of sorts, I am a mouse who is “modest, sociable, inquisitive, shy, and humble” If I could be boiled down to only a handful of words, these would accurately reflect me.
I did a search to see if it was based on a book- and that eventually led me here. I read the Chronicles of Narnia in 1st or 2nd grade and really enjoyed them. Years later I learned the parallel between Aslan and Christ and the strong Christian theme in the series. I grew up in a Christian, but not dogmatic household. I realize this may sound odd- even to some theists, but my spiritual connection with God was very strong before I could speak. I am very anti-ritualistic and dislike dogma and corruption in organized religion. So that is where I’m coming from.
The rebuttal is well written and makes sense. Others on this thread have already highlighted the good points and made their own good points as well. What astounds me is many atheists’ obsession with God. I have a long time friend who is atheist and I have nothing against him. We disagree, but I still respect him and though I wish he would see it ‘my way’ (or, as I see it, simply the ‘way’)- it is counterproductive to waste my energy on a debate that would go nowhere. I find it disappointing- to say the least – that Pullman would waste his time and energy writing books and essays making a case against something he doesn’t believe exists (God) by attacking a flawed institution his equals and peers (the human race, hence by definition flawed) believe in by using similar ‘propaganda’ to spread his views. Lewis has as much right to propagandize as Pullman. For Pullman to imply (or did he explicitly say?) that children should not read the books is hypocritical within the context of the argument.
Jason said,
November 7, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Personally, I think that Pullman has no right to criticize C.S. Lewis for using propaganda, when in his novel, according to many sources, God dies. I myself have not read the His Dark Materials books, and I have no intention to as they are classified as children’s novels. But as far as Pullman accusing Lewis of not including the aspect of love in his novels, he’s grasping at straws….
In the Chronicles of Narnia Aslan gives his life for Edmund so that Edmund may live, if that is not love, then nobody has ever loved in this lifetime. I agree with what Nemo said, love is in every page of the Chronicles
In my opinion, Pullman’s books and beliefs will die out in a few years, and the Chronicles will not
Rich said,
November 19, 2007 at 12:37 pm
To Jason,
First, while yes His Dark Materials are classified as childrens books, they are in no way too short or too simplistic. They are deep and enriching, as well as contreversial. I agree with Pullman’s claims of there being a lack of love in The Chronicles. Aslan gave his life for Edmund, true, but he gave his life for Edmund because it was his duty, or his purpose, just as many would say was Jesus’ own purpose. If it was an act of love, it was more so an act of belief. Also, Pullman’s books have already been around for more than a decade, and will continue to be around as The Chronicles opposite. His beliefs will not die, because they are they same as millions of atheists including myself. His beliefs are not only his, but many others.
Dean said,
November 22, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Hello Rich:
You said, “Aslan gave his life for Edmund, true, but he gave his life for Edmund because it was his duty, or his purpose, just as many would say was Jesus’ own purpose.”
Doing one’s duty is not the ultimate expression of love for Christians. It CAN be an act of love, to be sure, but in inself, doing one’s duty really is not a measure of love; rather, it’s a measure of obedience. The ultimate expression can be found in the Gospel of John: “No one has greater love than this – that one lays down his life for his friends.” (15:13, Net Bible; Bible.org).
The Apostle Paul expands on this in the Book of Romans, saying, in effect, that God’s love was expressed not to those who are “worthy” (since no one is worthy), but on those who were NOT worthy; thus making the love expressed in the Sacrifice mean that much more. (See Romans 5:6-8).
Having said that, I agree with you regarding the logevity of atheist ideas/philosophy. They have been around for a very long time, even though there is plenty of evidence that they should be discarded. The difference, however, is the kind of impact atheism will have on society as opposed to Judeo/Christian ideas (ideas such as “Love your neighbor” and “Do unto others as you would have done to you”). And from my understanding of early to mid-20th century world history, atheism (the foundation of all forms of socialism) has been a force for death and destruction unkike ANY in recorded history, all in the name of the state and the “greater good”.
Now, before you or other atheists start protesting that last statement, read it again, for I have chosen my words very carefully. I’m NOT saying that atheists themselves are the cause (the agents, in some cases, to be sure, but not the cause). Rather, it’s the philosophy itself. For example, the state (made up of men) is “god” for the atheist and there is no higher appeal an individual can make other than the state. Thus, laws are passed and the state does what it believes to be in the interest of the “greater good”. An instance of this can be seen in modern Germany’s law(s) against homeschooling.
Judeo/Christian philosophy, would respond, “Not so! There is yet an higher appeal and that is to God.” This can be seen by the founding fathers of the U.S., that proclaimed that rights descend from God (the Creator).
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence). By definition, atheists cannot accept this statement as true, and thus the state is set up as as an alternate “god”, with the majority of the people (depending on the form of government) deciding on what is right and wrong, good and evil.
Ok, this is much longer than I wanted it to be, but I can’t end without a quote worth…well…quoting.
“The commands of God must outweigh all authority and example of men.”
Jerome (ca. 347 – September 30, 420)
Dean said,
November 22, 2007 at 3:40 pm
The author of the above article wrote:
““For all its history,” a benevolent witch tells Lyra Belacqua and Will Parry, the young protagonists of the series, the Church “has tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. … That’s what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.” ”
It is quite bizarre that so many atheists, such as Pullman, misunderstand, and thus misrepresent, what Judeo/Christian theology teaches about “natual impluse[s]“, namely sex. Sex, in itself, is neither good nor bad. Rather, it’s the context which makes it good/bad. For example, sex between a husband and wife is morally “good”. Sex between a man and an eight year old girl is NOT good.
If sex is a “natural impulse”, Pullman could not argue that sex with a minor is bad without providing additional reasons. But he doesn’t do that. He suggests, throught the witch, in almost an ex-cathedra manner, as it were (no pun intended), that natural impulses should NOT be “controll[ed], destroy[ed], [or] obliterate[d].” Natural impulses cannot be destroyed or obliterated so to suggest that as a posibility is moronic. On the other hand, they can, and SHOULD BE controlled. For, either you control them or they will control you; and no rational person (as atheists like to think of themselves) would want to be controlled by one’s impulses.
God’s first command to Adam was a science project (i.e., name the animals). God’s first command to Adam AND Eve was “start having sex” (a paraphrase of “be fruitful and multiply”). Therefore, sex in the proper context is not only desireable, it is a Divine imperative.
Before Pullman decides to critisize other points of view, it would be wise to first understand them. Of course, if he did, it would weaken his other arguments. Thus, his misunderstanding betrays his arguments as atheistic ramblings and are easily seen to be the tripe that they are; or, at worst, nonsense.
Natasha Acevedo said,
November 28, 2007 at 8:27 am
I just don’t understand who in the name of freedom, critize, ridicule and undermine does that do not believe the same way they do. How a writer like Pullman, who have done great writing can indistinticly critizes the work of a writer who died so many years ago, without viewing the sociological realities of his time. I believe that to be irresponsible. We want to tell people they are free, but only if they think like us. Isn’t that the problem with some churches history, the same institutions Mr. Pullman talks so badly about. Sometimes people just do the same things the critized. In Mr. Pullman’s homepage, and I quote he says: ” I think it’s perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it,…” Mr. Pullman, please do, and I want details for example, the bees and their perfection relation to feeding out of flowers?
Jennie said,
December 5, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I agree with Natasha, why does Philip Pullman see an anti-christian message as free speech and a christian one so wrong. I am an athiest who has read the narnia books many many times and have been really put off Pullman by hearing him whine on about Lewis and Tolkien. Narnia and Lord of the Rings have followed me my whole life and I reread them constantly but I take from them what I want. As someone who was not brought up going to church the christian message was completely lost on me until later in life. I have been exposed to plenty of literature/tv/people etc and have over the years formed my own opinions on how the world works. If I wrote a childrens fantasy some day, which I hope one day I will, I believe it would be very difficult for me not to write the book in such away that reflects my own concepts of good and bad, truth and lies, and even my own social paradigm (has Pullman no sympathy with someone writing a long time ago when the majority views were very different from now!!) etc. This is what Lewis has done, what Tolkien did and what Pullman himself has done. Moreover although I greatly enjoyed the books, I feel they owe a great literary debt to Narnia. Would Pullman have been able to write them without Lewis? I don’t see this as a criticism in its own right, I think much good literature references past literature, however I feel Pullman owes Lewis and Tolkien and others who have gone before him a debt which he should be able to acknowledge.
I also don’t understand why he cares so much – I day get over it and enjoy tales of hiding in wardrobes, with Fawns and Beavers and voyages and all the other things which
In short, make Narnia some of my favourite books.
Bill the Cat said,
December 5, 2007 at 4:42 pm
#22 said, “I also don’t understand why he cares so much.” I think it’s plainly because he hates religion in general and Christianity in particular. So much so that it obscures his judgment, as the above article makes clear. Pullman misrepresents the Chronicles to such an extent that it reminds me of the John Heywood (ca 1546; based on Jerimiah 5:21) quote: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
Marc said,
December 7, 2007 at 9:21 am
I don’t understand Pullman…at all. He has said, “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” I guess that is his life’s goal. Dude just hates religion, especially Christianity. Maybe he’ll have an epiphany one day. I’ve been looking for comparisions of Narnia and His Dark Materials, so I’m very glad to have found this site.
Allan said,
December 7, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I love Narnia
Jason said,
December 8, 2007 at 10:33 am
One thing that I would like to point out is that in Narnia Aslan, is a lion, though a metaphor for God, to numerous children Aslan is a magical lion. In Pullman’s series, God is God. And the attacks on faith, are exactly attacks on God.
Bill the Cat said,
December 9, 2007 at 3:13 pm
#26, Technically, Aslan is God-the-Son. In the Chronicles, he is said to be the son of the emperor from across the sea (or something like that).
MrEddy said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Christians should stick to dogmatism and give up such idiotic attempts to modernize this dead ass religion. Chronicles are just a bible update with pagan myths used in a sick way to indoctrinate kids. Its pathetic.
Lewis is abusing pagan understructure of western imagination in order to give a boost to the corpse of Judeo-Christian religions.
Jason said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm
#28.Yes… because Christianity has died. >_>
Christ died, but we all know that story hopefully.
#27. It’s been a while since I read these books.. ugh.. 11 years ago… wow I am old… But still Aslan is a metaphor for Jesus, as in being a lion as opposed to being named Jesus and being an 33 year old man.
While Pullman names the antagonist God, and in the end he’s an old man.
Allan said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Oh we have a copy catter here. Mr Eddy your assertion has already been refuted a lot of times. If you are referring to “The Christ Conspiracy” of Acharya S. Bob Price, an atheist scholar called her book “sophomoric.” He also commented that her book is “a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney.”
Derel said,
December 12, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Please stop quoting the Bible. It says many things in one area and then the opposite in another. It’s not difficult to find quotes that back your arguments.
“I agree with Natasha, why does Philip Pullman see an anti-christian message as free speech and a christian one so wrong.” ~Someone above
Stop reading incorrectly. Pullman states that he dislikes the books because they use Christianity to sell his books and everything, but yet he does things in it that are very much against the bible. That is his problem with the ‘Christian message’ Lewis is giving.
Ian said,
December 18, 2007 at 8:02 pm
C.S. Lewis is a brilliant man. Please do try to read his book “Mere Christianity”. You will see his mind and heart protecting what he loves most, God, with eloquence, wit and tact.
Francis said,
December 20, 2007 at 12:34 am
No matter what everyone says, I love Narnia. haha.
Naomi said,
December 21, 2007 at 1:19 am
I find it fascinating that after reading Pullman’s claims in regards to Narnia, most of his complaints seem to be more of a reflection of his own work then the Chronicles of Narnia. For a writer he seems quite dense when it comes to understanding another writer’s work, especially keeping in mind that thousands of children across the world have been able to recognize the basic values of love and friendship in the Narnia series, which have somehow evaded him. His comments seemed more stemmed from bitterness and jealousy then realistic concern. Anyone who has read Narnia in the way that C.S. Lewis clearly intended it to be understood can recognize those qualities, and allow it to affect them for the rest of their lives in a postive manner; despite the prejudice that some might create when it is successful ‘despite’ it being Christian.
Allan said,
December 24, 2007 at 4:01 pm
No matter what everyone says, I love Narnia. haha.
~~~~~~~~~
same here man!:)
Amy Wilson said,
December 26, 2007 at 9:02 am
While I have read ‘The Chronicles Of Narnia’ more times then I can count, I have not read ‘His Dark Materials’. (I have enjoyed his other novels. I also just saw the film but that did not really show me how or why Pullman chose to tell the story of Lyra.) Thus I shall focus on Pullman’s essay, the one above and of course the Narnia novels.
‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ holds a place in my heart, in particular ‘The Horse And His Boy’. As well as my close relatives being practicing Catholics or Protestants, at the end of the day I am not a Christian. Which does suggest children have the ability to think for themselves, an issue brought up in both essays and the comments i.e. Shannon. There are numerous other examples of this. One instance being that two children can read the Narnia novels and have very different reactions.
One of the other main points was whether or not these novels are propaganda. Of course if one is aware of Lewis’ personal beliefs then it is pretty obvious what ‘The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe’ is an allegory for. Yet a writer’s beliefs affecting his work are present in all fiction if one knows what to look for. In this case it just so happens Lewis is a Christian. Since he did not display by inflicting pain on others or himself, then can be no reason preventing him from choosing to believe in Christ.
Pullman’s point ‘the facts are becoming less important than the legend [Lewis], and the legend, as we know, is what gets printed.’ has not really been discussed by Nelson. Lewis place as a literary legend was being disputed in Pullman’s essay and ‘The Chronicles Of Narnia’ was being used to illustrate this. Perhaps what Lewis’ place in both literature and wider culture is worth examining a little more closely and from different perspectives?
There have been several comments made about both Pullman’s childhood and his personal state of mind i.e. he hates Narnia because he is jealous of CS Lewis and speculation concerning his grandfather being a clergyman. While interesting, disagreeing with a man outside the realms of philosophy and without primary sources does not really validate an opinion.
Neil Gaiman’s short story ‘The Problem of Susan’ from ‘Fragile Things’ is far better then any thought on the subject then I could articulate for anyone thinking about her.
While I could waffle on more, this is a rather long comment already (no doubt peppered with typos I do apologise for). All because like so many others I just love Narnia regardless of its flaws! While I have read ‘The Chronicles Of Narnia’ more times then I can count, I have not read ‘His Dark Materials’. (I have enjoyed his other novels. I also just saw the film but that did not really show me how or why Pullman chose to tell the story of Lyra.) Thus I shall focus on Pullman’s essay, the one above and of course the Narnia novels.
‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ holds a place in my heart, in particular ‘The Horse And His Boy’. As well as my close relatives being practicing Catholics or Protestants, at the end of the day I am not a Christian. Which does suggest children have the ability to think for themselves, an issue brought up in both essays and the comments i.e. Shannon. There are numerous other examples of this. One instance being that two children can read the Narnia novels and have very different reactions.
One of the other main points was whether or not these novels are propaganda. Of course if one is aware of Lewis’ personal beliefs then it is pretty obvious what ‘The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe’ is an allegory for. Yet a writer’s beliefs affecting his work are present in all fiction if one knows what to look for. In this case it just so happens Lewis is a Christian. Since he did not display by inflicting pain on others or himself, then can be no reason preventing him from choosing to believe in Christ.
Pullman’s point ‘the facts are becoming less important than the legend [Lewis], and the legend, as we know, is what gets printed.’ has not really been discussed by Nelson. Lewis place as a literary legend was being disputed in Pullman’s essay and ‘The Chronicles Of Narnia’ was being used to illustrate this. Perhaps Lewis as a literary figure and how justified this is, would be worth examining a little more closely and from different perspectives?
There have been several comments made about both Pullman’s childhood and his personal state of mind i.e. he hates Narnia because he is jealous of CS Lewis and speculation concerning his grandfather being a clergyman. While interesting, disagreeing with a man outside the realms of philosophy and without primary sources does not really validate an opinion.
Neil Gaiman’s short story ‘The Problem of Susan’ from ‘Fragile Things’ is far better then any thought on the subject then I could articulate for anyone thinking about her.
While I could waffle on more, this is a rather long comment already (no doubt peppered with typos I do apologise for). All because like so many others I just love Narnia regardless of its flaws!
Amy said,
February 5, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I wasn’t going to post a reply to this thread until I read Jason assert that he would not read His Dark Materials because “they are children’s books.” Of all the claims from both sides about poisonous and narrowminded views, this is by far the worst. By dismissing children’s literature merely because it is children’s literature, you are closing yourself off from some of the most profound and universal stories and reading experiences.
While I’m here, I may as well throw in my two cents on the debate at hand: I adore the Narnia books, they will always be my fondest memories of childhood reading/being read to. I briefly felt betrayed and didn’t want anything to do with them when I eventually became aware of all the religious content, but now I often re-read them. To me, this shows that the religious aspects are just one layer to the story, and the importance you place on them entirely depends on your receptiveness – or opposite – to religious ideas at any given time you read them.
I also love Pullman’s work. At this stage in my life I am ideologically more aligned to His Dark Materials than Narnia, although I still consider the Narnian tales better examples of story-telling. While I obviously disagree with Pullman’s virulent hatred of Lewis, and his assertion that there is no love to be found within his work, I do agree with many of his contentions. Primarily, accusations of racism and sexism (although how much of these are a result of cultural context at the time C.S. Lewis was writing is another question). There is a very benevolent version of colonialism at play in Narnia – at least when the plucky British are the colonial leaders. Things can only be truly right in Narnia when the citizens are ruled by Sons of Adam (and occasionally Daughters of Eve) from another country. Unless those rulers happen to come from the South Seas instead of Britain, of course. And while it is easy to cite examples of individual Calormenes who are upstanding and noble, they are quite obviously presented as exceptional to the rest of their race – Shasta is in fact from Archenland, Aravis is the opposite of everything her society expects her to be, and Emeth finds out – silly him! – that the diety he has been serving and seeking all his life is Aslan not Tash, as Tash – the god of the Calormenes – is roughly the equivalent of the Christian devil. Many racists like the individual members of another race that they know personally well enough, but still hold prejudices against the race as a group. I would not assert that Lewis himself was racist, but the books certainly demonstrate this tendency – Calormenes as a group are far nastier than the far-skinned, fair-haired Narnians.
The claims of sexism are trickier, and require some nuance to accept. Once again, people cite individual examples of heroines as evidence that Lewis is not sexist – Lucy being the most common example. Lucy is indeed a heroine, but she is a passive, markedly feminine one. Her role is as a healer and nurturer (strongly symbolised in her magic cordial), and as the most faithful follower of Aslan. Indeed, she is a lovely character and these traits enable her to play key roles in triumphs throughout the books she plays a part in, but she represents the feminine ideal that Susan is punished for failing to live up to. At the other extreme, females who take active roles are characterised as being like boys – Arivis is a tomboy who contrasts to the ridiculous femininity of Lasaraleen, while in the same tale the adult Susan is said to be “not like Lucy, you know, who’s as good as a man, or at any rate as good as a boy. Queen Susan is more like an ordinary grown-up lady.” It’s his approach to “ordinary grown-up ladies” that earn Lewis the charge of sexism. Powerful, mature women tend to be evil and manipulative.
Jill is, to me, the stand-out female character of the Chronicles – and interstingly, she is a product of that repellant (to Lewis) institution that is the modern co-eductational school.
TAJ said,
December 28, 2008 at 4:55 am
I JUST CANT STOP WHACHING YOU FILMS AND ALSO MY ROOM IS FULL OF NARNIA POSTER