Just watched Narnia (Possible spoilers)

[Jonas Grumby]

Jesus never fights a demon.

Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39

 

[Flyspeck23]

I do not question the entire literary establishment's right to apply allegory to literature. I question the idea that author's intent is irrelevant (or less-relevant than a reader's) and that a critic or any other reader knows more about said intent than the author. I question the idea that the "entire establishment" believing something makes it true (this one is obviously false). I question the idea that all interpretations are equally valid.

It's a long way from "the author's intent isn't the only thing that matters" to "all interpretations are equally valid", because they aren't. If somebody argued that Narnia was an allegory for mud wrestling, that person would have a hard time to get others to agree.

Without knowing the author's intent, the long discussion and alternate interpretations are all you have, and I find it great fun to debate and consider such things with my friends, fellow students, and teachers. However, the point stands that if the author was trying to say something, and you don't get it, one of you has failed, and whatever different thing you got is not the real message of the book. It's just like Ozymandias, IMO; a mistranslation of...Ramses II, right? And Ozymandias is a fine name and one I particularly like, but it's not the right name. It was misinterpreted.

Nobody would argue that you can read Christian alegory into Narnia if that's what you want. But whether the author said this was his intent or not doesn't matter, really.

What this boils down to is a definition of what's literature. I wonder... if literature can be compared to the translation of a name, why do authors write narrative books featuring a more or less obscured version of their intent? Why don't they just say what they have to say?

And what exactly was Lewis' intent? Did he want to demonstrate that Jesus, while being a peacful guy most of the time, can be a true lion when faced with great evil? Or did he want to demonstrate that there's always a time and place for mud wrestling? Or what?

EDIT: It might be worth noting that a great deal of my scorn for some of these ideas is from an article I had to write about in my first year of college. The author of the article was writing about a story, the name of which I don't recall, which was about a family who met an escaped criminal who ended up killing them all. At the end of the story, the grandmother says something about the killer being her own son; the author of the story later stated that this encounter started the killer towards eventual salvation. The writer of the article was openly scornful of the author's statements about her story, and claimed that what the author said happened after the story didn't, and basically that the author was an ignoramus who didn't know what she was writing. It really made me angry, and I think that my view of the "establishment's" practice is to some degree tainted by my association of it with fools like that and their idiotic scorn for authors.

Who in this thread made you think they have an "idiotic scorn for authors"?

 

[WayneLigon]

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting a thread on the merits of literary criticism. As for that, I paraphrase: "Those who cannot write, teach."

I loved the movie, completely. I've read all the books (and it was some years afterwards that someone explained the Christian allegory thing - I never noticed it, and really it still seems a big push. Kind of like people who see Jesus in refrigerator mold) though - oddly - after the first one I couldn't tell you one single thing about them. I should go back and read the series again.

The actors were all very good, especially little Lucy. She was completely beleivable to me, and watching Peter realize what an ass he'd been.. wonderful.

EW is on crack. The special effects were wonderful, and if they can see 'seams' then they're just looking for something to blab meaninglessly about. Somehow I doubt that ILM would have bad shots like that. I remember back when Jaws had come out and the director had both live sharks and the famous mechanical shark - he said inevitably reviewers would point to shots of live sharks and say 'look at how fake that looks'. Really, it's just looking for a thing to complain about.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Have you consulted the entire literary establishment on this? I doubt it. Academic issues, like political issues, tend to have multiple camps.

A very good point. Claiming that any "establishment" is fully behind you is really stretching credibility unless it's something that has been proven as fact (such as "the sky is blue"), as acedemics are constantly disagreeing with each others' theories and opinions. If by some weird twist of fate I were able to go on national TV and say "Star Wars is the most important movie of the 20th century, and the entire cinematic establishment is behind me on this one", I'd probably get a few phone calls from film professors and movie industry professionals who agree, and a lot from ones who disagreed and were annoyed that I presumed to speak for them.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Who in this thread made you think they have an "idiotic scorn for authors"?

Nobody, I was talking about the author of the article I was talking about I'm just saying that his foolishness poisoned the school of thought he was coming from for me, and recognizing that it might have skewed my perspective.

 

[Storm Raven]

Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39

Let me rephrase. Jesus does not fight a demon as part of the passion.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

(and it was some years afterwards that someone explained the Christian allegory thing - I never noticed it, and really it still seems a big push. Kind of like people who see Jesus in refrigerator mold)

I dunno. A good being who does not deserve punishment voluntarily takes the place of one who has screwed up. He is humiliated, beated and executed. He comes back from the dead and his sacrifice frees an entire world and destroys the power of evil, not to mention bringing life whereever he goes. And you think christian allegory in this case is comparable to a christian rorshac result....

Did you notice any similarities between West Side Story and Romeo & Juliette? Cause some wacky folks try to push a comparison there too...

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Did you notice any similarities between West Side Story and Romeo & Juliette? Cause some wacky folks try to push a comparison there too...

Yeah, I see you on the allegory thing, but that West Side idea is just ridiculous. Bah, humans are too good at seeing what they want to see.

 

[WanderingMonster]

Did you notice any similarities between West Side Story and Romeo & Juliette? Cause some wacky folks try to push a comparison there too...

OMG!!! I thought I was the only one!

 

[Storm Raven]

I loved the movie, completely. I've read all the books (and it was some years afterwards that someone explained the Christian allegory thing - I never noticed it, and really it still seems a big push. Kind of like people who see Jesus in refrigerator mold) though - oddly - after the first one I couldn't tell you one single thing about them. I should go back and read the series again.

Given that the symbolism practially beats you about the head and shoulders in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe this is an almost amazing statement.

Edmund, the sinner whose life is forfeit to evil is redeemed by Aslan, the son of the Emperor-Over-The-Sea who made Narnia. Aslan, though without sin himself, willingly sacrifices himself to redeem Edmund, and is abused, humilated, and ritualistically killed on the stone table. He conquers death, breaks the stone table, and returns, to be found by two women, and then frees those bound by evil, and defeats the devil incarnate.

You cannot really get more obvious without inserting "mankind" for "Edmund", "Jesus" for "Aslan", "cross" for "stone table", and "Satan" for "White Witch".