Narnia

[vaneramos]

Let me start by explaining I’m jaded about C.S. Lewis. As the child, I was unaware of his Christian references. Narnia inspired much of my early creative writing. In fact the seven lost lords from Voyage of the Dawn Treader became central characters in my imagination. Later, during my evangelical sojourn, Lewis’s work assumed deeper meaning. But nowadays, I agree with Phillip Pullman’s estimation of it as Christian propaganda.

But most classic Western art was. To discount it as such is naive.

This masterpiece of children’s literature was due for contemporary cinematic treatment. The movie neither embellishes nor waters down the Christian allegory, although witches and other pagan elements of the evil army were replaced with dangerous mythological beasts. A good-versus-evil dualism was unavoidable, although the elaborate glorification of war, Hollywood style, seemed unconscionable.

It gave a picturesque, generally faithful retelling of the adventure. The child actors were outstanding. One magical aspect was witnessing Lucy’s character, a small, terrified child in our world, evolve into a valiant human in Narnia.

Mid-way the plot departed trivially from the original. Some silly Hollywood sensationalism ensued. But cheesiness was inevitable with this fantastic, somewhat inconsistent tale. Overall it was worthy of Lewis’s original.

Comments

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

i never read those books until i was in my early 30s, so i have no childhood memories of them, and aside from the Lion etc. (which i read once to each son), i've only read the series through one time.

now, the LOTR i've read and reread many times. it's simply a different thing, though i'm not up to saying quite why.

do you mean the movie changed the line-up of the witch's allies? that's interesting.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Yes, if the Witch's army had been recreated precisely, it could have been seen as anti-Wicca, anti-pagan. I believe they made an effort to avoid that. It's unnecessary really, considering there were pagan creatures on the side of both evil and good in Narnia. As it turns out, Aslan's army is heavily weighted with them: fauns, centaurs, tree spirits and so forth.

I read an interesting commentary on the comparison between Narnia and Middle-Earth in National Geographic news, which you might be able to find in a search of the site. Tolkien and Lewis were good friends, but Tolkien was highly critical of Lewis's fantasy world. He felt a fantasy mythology should draw entirely from one real-world mythology in order to be coherent and convincing. Tolkien drew entirely from Norse mythology. He also took pains to create a world that was realistic according to principles of goegraphy, meteorology, linguistics and so on. Besides, the history of Middle-Earth is highly organic and realistic. Lewis wasn't nearly as careful, Narnia embodies a mythological hodgepodge, and its history is based on fables and moral lessons rather than human nature. This isn't wrong, just more simplistic.

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

oh say, that's very to the point, about tolkien and his creation. i think you're right that narnia is more simplistic. middle earth is very much its own place, without the obvious parallel to christianity that's all over narnia. thanks for this! i'll see if i can find the commentary.

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

found it! great. :)

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Here's the link in case you had any trouble:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_narnia_lewis.html

[rsc.livejournal.com]

The Christian underpinnings of Middle-Earth become much more apparent if one slogs through all the volumes of History of Middle-Earth (which I don't necessarily recommend doing), where it seems to me that the more he thought about The Silmarillion the more "Christian" it got.

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

i never read any of what i considered supplementary material. it just didn't appeal to me, all the elvish backstory and so on. it was the earthiness of the hobbits that appealed to me, probably, and i'm rather more of a fan of sam gamgee than is entirely healthy!

[rsc.livejournal.com]

Tolkien drew entirely from Norse mythology.

Well, yes and no. Tolkien basically developed his own mythology, and he, too drew on various sources.

He also took pains to create a world that was realistic according to principles of geography,...,linguistics...

Especially linguistics. He invented the Elvish languages before any of the rest of it.

Lewis wasn't nearly as careful

Or perhaps he wasn't as obsessed.

I read -- actually started out by having read to me -- The Lion, the With, and the Wardrobe when I was in fifth grade. I followed that by reading the beginning of Prince Caspian but never finished it, and I never got back to Lewis as an adult, so I don't really know how I'd feel about it now. At the age of 11, I of course missed the Christian symbolism. (I didn't get any of Tolkien's Christian symbolism at the age of 19, either, for that matter, although admittedly it's rather more subtle.)

[rsc.livejournal.com]

A good-versus-evil dualism was unavoidable, although the elaborate glorification of war, Hollywood style, seemed unconscionable.

The same claims could be made about Tolkien (the books and the movies).

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Yes, I had the same problem with some of the violence in LOTR, and indeed the force of evil was absolute. However the ambiguity of Tolkien's protagonists (and some antagonists) renders them more credible and human. It's also noteworthy that in Middle Earth things don't necessarily work out perfectly for the "good guys," that even the strongest and most beautiful things can die or fade, some worthy things are lost and not all endings are happy.

[rsc.livejournal.com]

Oh, absolutely. As I said in another comment, I don't really know the Narnia books, but from everything I've read they're nowhere near as nuanced as Tolkien's stuff.