kingandy | (no subject)

(no subject)

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20051212.html

It's couched in comedy, but Willis makes a decent point, and one I had cause to ponder for myself as I watched the movie. What, exactly, makes The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe more acceptable to the hardline Christian community than, say, the works of Rowling or Tolkien?

Obviously, Potter has that whole thing about "encouraging" kids to dabble with "real magic". (Yeah, the actual magic in Potter is nonsense, but the argument is that kids will start researching the real-world analogues that Rowling obviously based it on, and start believing in good and harmless magic that can be used with no consequences when really all magic comes from the Devil and is evil, and so on and so forth.) But laying aside the part where we know Narnia is allegorical, what exactly makes it allegorical?

Let's take Lion by itself, because the later books are much more explicit in their exposition. (Though perhaps that can be used as a pro-Christian point in itself - Lion lulls you into a false sense of fantasy, then Dawn Treader slaps you in the face with lamb imagery, and before you know it you're in the land of Christian Doctrine. More on that later.) In this book, you have children entering a fantasy world, consorting with various supernatural beasts, taking arms and drawing blood to defend people they just met and learning that death isn't such a bad thing after all. Oh, and even making use of the magical items handed out by a certain pagan winter deity. And everybody worships a lion. The only thing vaguely Christian about this book, in and of itself, is the one scene with a sacrifice-resurrection trope that enables you to say "And that's a bit like Jesus, isn't it?"

Alright, a lot like Jesus. But one could say the same about Neo.

Perhaps it's the religious leanings of the author that makes the fantasy, magic and supernatural elements of the story acceptable? Apparently not, since Tolkien was a "strongly committed Catholic." And, indeed, in many ways the teachings actually propounded in the later (particularly last) Narnia books are perhaps at odds with the mainstream dogma. It was from the Last Battle that I first got the notion of one God by many names, and of your intent mattering more than in whose name you declare it. That it's possible to do evil in the name of good, and even good in the name of evil. Admittedly that's my personal interpretation - the intended one, perhaps, being that it's possible to do God's work in the name of Allah, or that Muslims inadvertently worship Satan, or something. But that's what I got out of it.

I had written more on the subject but I lost the text and can't remember any of it. Still, we need a conclusion, otherwise what's the point? So, in conclusion: There's nothing inherently good or evil about any work of fiction. People should be nice to one another. And Aslan kicks ass.

RELATED: NARNIA TOYS

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The thing I noticed most aobut the film wasn't the Christian imagery, but the way they'd cast Peter to look just like a young Prince William...

I felt dirty.

I believe the film was partially funded from various Christian Right groups in the states. Possibly as they understood the series (I'm sure there will be more) to be religiously sound. Besides it not like it would be the first time religious types have been hypocritical.

You mentioned as much, which is largely what got me thinking about it. I think at the end of the day they support it as a good Christian story because they've been told that it is. There are certain aspects of the story that make it easier than some to segue into evangelism, and naturally there's a lot of pre-existing literature about to support this tactic and suggestions on how to go about it, but it's not actually a religious tract in and of itself. (Last Battle aside.)

I think its more blatantly obvious in The Magicians Nephew (from what I can recall). If they are planning on making a whole series (safe assumption) the judgement could be the message will get out in the end. Even though TLTWATW doesn't explicitly mention Aslan = God the ~~crucifixion~~ sacrifice of Aslan must resonate pretty deeply.

It could be that Harry Potter's thought crime is being rather vague about where all these "magic" powers come from. Even Buffy has the concept of "The Powers that Be" although I'm pretty sure it has been condemned as evil by the Christian Right. In TLTWATW is pretty explicit that spring is returning because Aslan is back.

I think at the end of the day they support it as a good Christian story because they've been told that it is

but wait surely religious people don't just believe anything a vicar/priest/rabi/cleric/nutter with a hook for a hand tells them?????

I don't really see how it is more religiously sound than say LOTR because at the end of the day it is a bunch of kids going and helping a rebelion and overthrowing someone simply because they don't think that it is right for them to be in charge.....Oh wait NOW I see why christians don't mind it

But... Isn't THE CHURCH the thing in charge...?

When kids IRL try to rebel against that... The shit hitteth the fanneth!

(Obviously the CHURCH is not the thing in charge in TLTWATW or in any of the films being discussed but in the realm of "people who say which films are good and which are evil" they are the thing that tells everyone what to do and what they should be watching)

well it is just bizarre.. I agree with the principle that christians don't mind it cause they have been told not to

Actually I wasn't thinking of mindless obedience to orders from on high as much as 'Common Knowledge' of the type that gets passed around in pamphlets. The church as a whole may or may not have a policy regarding these books, I don't know.

yes I just like to insult people blindly believeing what priests say

It is a story of clear cut morality. It has at it's heart 4 children, one of whom gives in to the temptations offered by evil and betrays his friend. That betrayal of the children of Adam leads Aslan to his self sacrifice and to his ultimate resurrection. Those who believe in him and follow him are led to the promised land of his kingdom made anew :-)

Change children for hobbits, Aslan to Gandalf ... ;)

Gandalf's sacrifice is down to a mistake on the part of Pippin and even that is debatable. The Orcs of Moria could have been woken by any action of the Nine, and Gandalf faced the Balrog because he was the only person in the Nine powerful enough to do so.

Aslan's sacrifice is enacted because he chooses to save a traitor - depsite all his power, Aslan uses none of it to save Edmund's (?) life - only his willingness "to lay down his life for his friends."

And, more importantly - Edmund is spiritually revitalised by Aslan's sacrifice. In LoTR, there is no such spiritual componant to Gandalf's resurrection to anyone except Gandalf.

Aslan knows theres a rules loophole on the whole resurrection thing (at least as explained in the film) which means he knows he's coming back.

So a bit like Constantine's self sacrifice in the film then? Aslan's such a fraud :-P

Constantine's was a bit more of a gamble. He was basically playing a hunch that happened to play out ... he could easily have ended up in the Bad Place.

So Constatine took more of a leap of faith than Aslan?

That's a real shame.

I'm pretty sure (but haven't read the book in ages) that there's no such knowledge in the book. However, I reserve the right to be wrong.

Aslan is indeed fully aware of the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time.

But then, so was Christ. That doesn't make dying any easier.

But its not like there are that many morally ambiguous characters in Harry Potter. You know who is evil and who is good right the way through. It will be interesting to see how the final confrontation is handled and if some higher power saves Harry because he has done the right thing or he defeats Voldermort by his own means.

Oh, he'll probably be saved by a plot device that was mentioned offhand in an early scene and immediately ignored.

No morally ambiguous characters in Harry Potter? Even Harry is morally ambiguous, breaking rules and laws continually in order to do what he thinks is right - that is what they see and that is what going to upset fundamentlaist christians everywhere. The Witch is clearly evil in TLTWATW, where as the wizards/sorcerers use the power for their own ends, despite it's non-divine nature.....

I should point out that it's not my opinion, merely arguing devil's advocate so to speak.

"breaking rules and laws continually in order to do what he thinks is right"

Wizarding Laws but not God's own law. Harry's actions are trying to oppose the evil of Voldermort - I can't recall a time he's selfishly used his powers that hasn't caused him grief.

"...not my opinion, merely arguing devil's advocate"

This is of course understood ;-)

Ah, but thats's the point. Witchcraft is evil in itself.....

In the Narnia stuff there is no mass evil sorcery....

I'm not sure if its in the book, but in the film Mr Tumnus' sound and light show with the pipe could be considered magik?

I think the light show is artistic license - ISTR it was a drug and soothing music in the book. Still, it's not exactly being used for good, is it?

He put rophynol in her tea. Dirty faun.

Well, my grandmother is one of the XTREME religious fundamentalists around here, and she supports both Narnia and Lord of the Rings. She believes that Harry Potter is evil just because it focuses on magic; her feelings about the magic in Narnia and LotR is that they don't actually use magic to defeat the bad guys... In Narnia, it is sacrifice and battling evil forces that use magic, defeating them without actually using magic...

In LotR, there is Gandalf's sacrifice and "resurrection," a king, and the final defeat is through destroying the evil object, not through using any magic.

I read, once, that Lord of the Rings received the same reception as Harry Potter when it was first released. Now you can go to a Christian book store (this I've seen with my own eyes) and find "Finding the Lord in Lord of the Rings" next to a book about the Devil in Harry Potter.

... next to another box that tells you all about Finding God in Harry Potter.

Main objection to Harry Potter - uses the terms 'witches' and 'wizards' in positive light, kids want to find out what real witches get up to, so look on the internet and find a coven and join up (oh and the fact that Harry constantly disobeys those in charge of him, but always ends up winning the day - not a good role model).

Main positive about Harry Potter - teaches about sacrificial love.

Generally I don't think *real* witchcraft is a good idea, but I'm not really convinced that Harry Potter is that much of a route into it...

Regarding Harry's attitude towards authority, there could be a case made that he disregards the establishment but always heeds the word of his own personal saviour, Dumbledore.

although there are a number of places that he ignores Dumbledore's clear instructions (IIRC) and this is all brushed under the carpet as if it was the right thing to do (and being a story, it is always possible for the author to engineer circumstances so that ignoring authority turns out to be the right thing to do).

Oh well, it's just another (minor) addition to the general encouragement for kids to lie, disobey authority and generally assume that 'they know best' (which for most kids, isn't always the case)... anyway not really my rant - just passing on someone else's rant, really.

I'm not actually sure on the Harry & Dumbledore thing. It may be possible to draw a distinction between Dumbledore as Authority ("Children should avoid the third floor unless they wish to experience a grisly death") vs Dumbledore as Mentor ("Three turns should do it, Ms Granger...") - notable because Dumbledore as Mentor quite often ignores or contradicts Dumbledore as Authority. Particularly note I haven't read past book 3 at this point, he may wilfully disobey Dumbledore at a later date.

It's also, perthaps, important to look at the four houses and their supposed principles. Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw are, I don't know, knowledge and wisdom or whatever, I don't know. But the point of Gryffindor is to do WHAT IS RIGHT, no matter the cost to oneself (including getting in trouble with the authorities), while Slytherin's bag is doing WHATEVER IT TAKES no matter the cost to others, for whatever goal you choose. (It's sort of Ends vs Means - Gryffindor concentrates on reaching a good End, while Slytherin doesn't care what your ends are must encourages you to use whatever Means you like. The best of this appears to be embodied by Snape, who uses whatever Means are necessary to reach a good End, as evidenced by his willingness to risk Harry to find the traitor, but the worst of them use evil Means to further their own selfish agenda.)

There's more I could say about the whole of Potter being in fact about Voldemort's downfall by his own wicked hand (if he hadn't been out to murder Harry at birth he probably would have won), but this is not about Potter, it's about Narnia. :)

ps, Alison wants to know if you're interested in coming over for New Year's Eve.

Or, you know, you could just raise your children to know that BOOKS AND TV ARE NOT REAL AND THAT'S WHY IT'S FANTASY SO DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY AND DON'T LIGHT FARTS BECAUSE BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD DO IT AND OMG I NEED TO ACTUALLY SPEAK TO MY CHILDREN HOLY SHIT WHATEVER CAN I DO IT INTERFERES WITH MY LIFE WHICH THEY ARE ONLY STATUS SYMBOLS FOR.....
ok I'm out of breath, rant over.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only