(no subject)
Dec. 12th, 2005 10:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kingandyhttp://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
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
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 12:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 12:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 12:58 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 01:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 02:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 03:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 02:43 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 03:10 pm (UTC)But then, so was Christ. That doesn't make dying any easier.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 12:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 12:36 pm (UTC)I should point out that it's not my opinion, merely arguing devil's advocate so to speak.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 12:55 pm (UTC)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 ;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 12:58 pm (UTC)In the Narnia stuff there is no mass evil sorcery....
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 03:16 pm (UTC)