|
have not seen the film or read the book, though I hope to do both at
some point. I have blogged about the book/film a few times though, and
those entries are here, for now. Scroll down to read them in
chronological order.
December
7, 2005
The Chronicles of
Narnia is opening this weekend, and we may see it just to have
something to leave the house for. Neither Malaya or I have read the
book(s), and the
allegedly heavy-handed Christian symbolism in the story is
discouraging us, but it's full of magical wars and talking animals and
such, so how bad can it be? Even though you know from the first second
that the adorably-plucky band of children will triumph in the end? There
are a
bunch of new film clips from this film as well, none of which I have
seen or will see.
Reviews are pretty good too, with 16/20
positive on RT, thus far.
December
10, 2005
Narnia Mythology and Christianity
I don't have a lot to add to
this post, since Kevin Drum basically gave the reaction I would have
myself, but I thought it was interesting enough to recap and link to.
The subject is the Christian elements in C. S. Lewis' fantasy series,
and their intended purpose. Here's what Drum quotes as an "explanation
from George Sayer, CS Lewis's pupil, friend, and biographer:"
It is possible to extract from the Narnia
stories a system of theology very like the Christian....But the author
almost certainly did not want his readers to notice the resemblance of
the Narnian theology to the Christian story. His idea, as he once
explained to me, was to make it easier for children to accept
Christianity when they met it later in life. He hoped that they would
be vaguely reminded of the somewhat similar stories that they had read
and enjoyed years before. "I am aiming at a sort of pre-baptism
of the child's imagination."
This brings up two issues.
1) Would this work? Wouldn't hearing stories
similar to the ones in the Bible, but staring English children instead
of Cain and Abel, or a talking lion instead of Jesus Christ, make kids
think the Bibibal versions are just more stories, rather than literal
truths?
2) If CS Lewis doesn't want people to take his work for an
immediate parallel to Christian mythology, how are his depictions of
magic and fantasy and sorcery any different than something like Harry
Potter, a series that the Fundies are constantly up in arms about? What
if J. K. Rowling threw in some sort of, "Harry dies and is
resurrected to defeat the Satanic Voldemort" in book 7, and then
said her whole series was just a primer to Christian thought and belief?
Would her work suddenly become Christian and acceptable to the people
who are currently boycotting and protesting it, just like CS Lewis'
apparently is?
The comments thread of
the quoted post is an interesting one, as various
readers attempt to answer Kevin Drum's questions. There are lots of
different answers though, and while each is necessarily true to their
authors, seldom do any actually agree with each other. People say Narnia
is all an allegory and meant as a teaching tool and not to be taken
literally, just like Dante's Inferno, or Milton's Paradise
Lost, or
other famous Christian works.
My thought, and it's a cynical one, is that Lewis might be right, though
I don't think his work is effective at its goal, or necessary. People
love magic and mystery and invent it constantly. No one has to work hard
to make little kids to believe in the monster in their closet, or Santa
Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, or Baby Jesus. Kids come out completely blank and
gullible, and only learn cynicism over time. And yeah, brainwashing is best begun at an early
age, and the sooner you get kids believing something, they harder
they'll have to work to throw off those beliefs later. Just ask any
"recovering Catholic."
(I don't think Lewis' actual "they'll like Narnia and then be
accepting to Christianity later on" makes much sense either --
after all, how many kids don't get indoctrinated into their
family's religion at the earliest age possible? It's not like people
raise their kids in secular fashion, and then present them with a
logical argument as to why they should believe in religion X once
they're 10.)
People like to believe in things that aren't there and that can't be
proven, whether it's faith, or loving someone bad for you, or rooting
for a sports team that always loses, or thinking your
hood/city/state/country is the best just because you happen to have been
born and/or raised there. (I compared
those three in an article some years ago.) And if they get started
on this early, with Narnia or anything else, it probably helps them keep
going on it throughout their lives, once they move on to one religion or
another. So Lewis was right, in that believing in fantasy prepares
children to continue believing in fantasy, but I think he was wrong in
thinking his Christian-themed fantasy had any special effect. It's not
like Christian (and other religious) belief floundered for the hundreds
and thousands of years before he wrote Narnia.
I'm less serious about my question on Harry Potter. At this point I
think the Fundies who don't like HP are never going to like it, no
matter what the author did in the seventh book, or any possible books
after that. She could turn the entire thing into a blatant good vs. evil
story, with Jesus and Satan metaphors galore, and the Fundies would
still object and want it banned -- the first six books, at least. Why
they've decided the magic in HP's world is so different and so bad
compared to the magic in Narnia (or every other fantasy series ever
written) is a good question though, and not one I think anyone could
answer logically. I'm cynical, so here's my answer. In a nutshell, it's
all about popularity. HP sells more than any book series ever, and it
gets headlines, so boycotting it and calling it evil gets headlines and
attention for the boycotters.
|
