The Chronicles of Narnia

[Wrath of the Swarm]

And you can read more about Pullman's incorrect accusations here.

I don't find that site to be particularly credible either, particularly as they claim Narnia was "destroyed when its dying sun exploded".

The only possible excuse for this kind of error would be that the author of the piece hadn't read the story in a very long time. Even then it would require a lengthy period of atonement.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Pullman sounds like an ignorant, anti-Christian bigot.

Just my opinion, of course.

But regardless, he's clearly wrong about Narnia and Lewis' beliefs. Susan definitely does not go to hell. In Christian theology, not immediately ascending into heaven does not equal going to hell. Anyone with even a minimal understanding of Christianity can tell you this.

And you can read more about Pullman's incorrect accusations here.

I like the Narnia books, and I also liked Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy. An authors personal views and statements really don't sway me one way or another, I am confident enough in my own beliefs to ignore what people say and what is said about different viewpoints and books. Books can be read on their own merits without outside influences.
Let's not turn this thread into another pissing contest over the merits of Pullman's beliefs. The thread was about Narnia, lets try to keep it there.

 

[CrusaderX]

Let's not turn this thread into another pissing contest over the merits of Pullman's beliefs. The thread was about Narnia, lets try to keep it there.

Absolutely. But when a post is made that introduces claims that Narnia (and CS Lewis) is bigoted, racist, and mysoginistic, then claims that refute such accusations simply provide balance.

But hey, if you want to disallow both types of claims in this thread, that's fine with me. I posted to provide a little balance to an unjust accusation in the spirit of fairness, nothing more.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Absolutely. But when a post is made that introduces claims that Narnia (and CS Lewis) is bigoted, racist, and mysoginistic, then claims that refute such accusations simply provide balance.

But hey, if you want to disallow both types of claims in this thread, that's fine with me. I posted to provide a little balance to an unjust accusation in the spirit of fairness, nothing more.

I wasn't specifically singling you out, your post happened to be the last one before I posted so I quoted it. I just found it disappointing that the thread was starting to turn sour by the 7th post.

 

[nikolai]

I wasn't specifically singling you out, your post happened to be the last one before I posted so I quoted it. I just found it disappointing that the thread was starting to turn sour by the 7th post.

You're refering to my post. I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning the subtext, in the context of the original question. My post was possibly more informative for the questioner than a single sentence "Yes, I liked it". And surely, since he asked, "did you enjoy them?" saying "No I didn't" is legitimate?

You're right that it would have been wiser not to bring Pullman into it, since that automatically seems to kick off a flame war. Just mentioning him is like a red rag to a bull. That was a mistake. Sorry.

Putting the Christianity to one side, there's the much more worrying complaint that the books are overtly racist. Nobody's denied this so far, and even Easterbrook seems to accept it's true.

 

[Storm Raven]

Putting the Christianity to one side, there's the much more worrying complaint that the books are overtly racist. Nobody's denied this so far, and even Easterbrook seems to accept it's true.

The basis for this complaint seems to be that the Calormenes appear in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, A Horse and His Boy, and The Last Battle as putative villains, and that they are portrayed similarly to the turks of the Ottoman Empire. On this basis, the claim is fairly weak. In A Horse and His Boy, for example, some Calormenes (such as the one who takes the protagonist in as an infant) are decidedly non-villainous, and the ones that are, are so pretty much for the same reasons the Ottoman Turks were historically seen as villainous: they want to conquer other lands.

And while many of the Calormenes who appear in the book are seduced by Tash (the more or less Satan figure in the books), so are several other characters from other races, such as men of Narnia, men of Archenland and so on. Basically, you have to want to find racism in the Narnia books for it to be present, and then, it is only wisps of evidence that supports it. The more common villains in the books are figures like evil giants (The Silver Chair), scheming evil Narnians (Caspian's uncle in Prince Caspian), the children themselves (Edmund in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Eustace in Voyage of the Dawn Treader), or otherworldly witches (the White Witch in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the Emerald Witch in The Silver Chair, or the giant witch in The Magician's Nephew).

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Lewis wasn't racist in the technical sense: "Middle Eastern" is not a race, and in any case he shows no signs of considering people to be inferior because of the structure of their bodies. However, many aspects of Calormene culture are portrayed as barbaric, evil, and unpleasant. Since this was a common attitude towards unfamiliar customs, we might excuse this on Lewis' part. (The reoccurring observation that Calormenes put oil on the bread instead of butter is clearly intended to make them seem both exotic and unfamiliar, causing familiarity to become a good thing.)

He does seem to imply that Islam is not only wrong, but delusionally worships demons.

 

[Mark Chance]

Lewis is a wonderful writer. I've read a huge hunk of his work, and I've enjoyed, more or less, every bit of it. I was especially pleased with That Hideous Strength, but that isn't Narnia.

However, many aspects of Calormene culture are portrayed as barbaric, evil, and unpleasant. Since this was a common attitude towards unfamiliar customs, we might excuse this on Lewis' part.

And, of course, no one nowadays is the least bit prone to belittle things they don't understand or demonize those they disagree with. How much more enlightened are we today than yesterday.

Did that come across as sarcastic enough?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, I think you needed to be a bit more heavy-handed.

Lewis did seem to subscribe to the notion that all religions other than Christianity and Judaism were inspired by evil powers seeking to delude and enslave mankind. The Chronicles don't bring this idea up often, but they do.

The Doctor Doolittle books are, by today's standards, painfully racist. They're still amusing reads, but uncomfortable ones. Lewis' works are slowly falling into this category.

Oh, and I loathe his adult fantasy/science fiction.

 

[Mark Chance]

Lewis did seem to subscribe to the notion that all religions other than Christianity and Judaism were inspired by evil powers seeking to delude and enslave mankind.

I don't see how anyone can reach that conclusion if they've honestly studied his theological works. Lewis was certainly Christian, and he certainly believed Christianity was the most true system of belief, but he was hardly unable to admit that there is a great deal of good to be found in almost all systems of belief.

And I know what you mean about his science fiction. It took me a while to get with the program, so to speak, with his space trilogy. They were quite quirky, but I stuck to it and finally, I guess, "got it." (I had similar difficulties with G. K. Chesterton.) I doubt I'll ever read them again, but I seldom read a book more than once, so that's not much of a criticism from me.

The Doctor Doolittle books are, by today's standards, painfully racist. They're still amusing reads, but uncomfortable ones. Lewis' works are slowly falling into this category.

No argument about Doolittle, but emphasis added for a reason. It can often be cogently argued that today's standards are painfully hypersensitive. I'm often amazed that anyone bothers writing comedy any more.

With Lewis I think the increasing "obscurity" of his work has less to do with him, and more to do with us. Lewis lived and wrote in a milieu that has disappeared, and has largely faded from common memory. Increasingly, I think, his works will be more difficult to read not because Lewis was [insert least favorite -ist], but because the historical context within which he wrote is so unfamiliar to so many people. For example, his The Abolition of Man is horribly dated.