"Nothing like reading.."

nothing-nothing-nothing..

if there are small children in your family- take an hour every week to read a chapter or two of a classic outloud to them. priceless enjoyment for all.

Mortal:
excellent comment.

There were some moments of the movies (LOTR) where the director's embellishments were probably not called for (ie, the soldiers of Faramir's army being "thugs" that beat Gollum around a bit) but overall, the movies were spectacular, and in fact I find myself eager to see the movie, hear the score by Howard Shore (which was, I believe, perfect) and enjoy it again and again.

Nothing like reading, but the movies are fairly good in their own right!

I sympathize with the posters who have avoided the movie versions of The Lord of the Rings or the first Narnia movie. I, too, have gone out of my way to not see them - I even make a habit of looking away when an advertisement for them is playing at a theater or on TV. There is just no substitute for the images your own mind can create when reading a favorite book. I am minded of a passage from Wordsworth's "Prelude", where he describes the devastating impact the actual sight of Mount Blanc in the French Alps had on him:

That day we first
Beheld the summit of Mount Blanc, and grieved
To have a soulless image on the eye
Which had usurped upon a living thought
That never more could be.

"Why is there no reference nor mention of the adult fiction by Lewis, 'Out of a Silent Planet','Perelandra', 'That Hideous Strength'?"

I read and enjoyed this trilogy as a child.

My personal CS Lewis fiction favorites are:

Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold

(Nothing is yet in its true form.)

and

The Great Divorce

(There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done.")

("Milton was right…" The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." There is always something they insist on keeping even at the price of misery…)

In order for something to be good allegory, one needs at least a hint of a connection between the original story and the reworking. I enjoy these fantasy stories, but as "Christian allegory" they are a bust. They attempt to teach bourgeois British Victorian social values and make abstracted references to modern church theology, not to get across the simple values or story of the New Testament. It only seems to matter to the extent that Lewis thought (disingenuous denial equals admission) he was doing Christian allegory...

John, I've read the "space trilogy" by CS Lewis and found them to be really very fun.

I think they are not talked about much, perhaps his least-known works but really worth the read. Glad you brought them up.

Our copies are dog-eared and just about to fall apart for wear.

Sorry, just saw Hope's addendum:

"All I meant to say about the Telmarine philosophy was that it denied the existence of anything beyond the natural world."

..and this led to their brutality?

Saw the movie last weekend--a delight!

Fun to watch as pure fiction.

"Caspian, born heir to the throne of Telmarine oppressors, must discard the humanist, existentialist history he was taught ..."

Humanism as oppressive Telmarines? Sorry, didn't see that in the move nor in the books. This sentence is a very sorry representation of humanism in my view.

I'm with MRobber. I enjoyed the film, until the end. I liked the underdogs fighting ingeniously aspect but the Deus Ex Machina ending was a drag. And as for asking for help, I think that would be successful IF the children asked for help for a key element of their plan, as opposed to Aslan simply coming in and defeating the enemy single-handedly. (Also, water dude=lame).

Why is there no reference nor mention of the adult fiction by Lewis, 'Out of a Silent Planet','Perelandra', 'That Hideous Strength'?

Aslan is a symbol for Christ but the transparency isn't completely clear until the last page of the the last book - where the change takes place - but you are never told exactly what that change is. Of course Alsan dies for the traitorous act of Edmund in book 1 and then comes back to life again but book 7 is the most obviously christocentric - life after death. The images are so vivid so exhilerating - I certainly hope they make that into a movie as well. Book 6 is a wonderful story that can stand all on its own as can book 4. Book 3 the Voyage of the Dawn Treader has both Lucy, Edmund, a new character named Eustace and Caspian.
Great stories, great fantasy - great values and then there is CS Lewis's space trilogy - marvelous science fiction.

The Narnia movies are not going to convert children into rapid, speaking-in-tongues, fundamentalist christians, so don't waste your time worrying about it. While the parallels are there, they are extremely subtle; more so than the books themselves.

Yes, several of the plans of the children all go to hell in a handbasket. But not until after they have some good successes. It's just that Murphy's Law has a way of screwing up any plan. What were those sayings? "The best laid plans of mice and men oft gang a gley" or "No plan lasts beyond the first contact with the enemy."

The cavalry arrives in the end to save the day, led by Aslan. Wouldn't be much of a story if everyone died. While the message there that the only true salvation is through complete surrender to the will of Aslan is a bit heavy, I thought it was fairly well done.

To BPH:

The film does not portray the children as needing both to be independent and submissive - their only victory without Aslan's help, despite all their ingenuity, is Peter's duel of the Talmarine king. And let's face it, even that didn't go all that well as his second in command betrayed them anyway. They fight with bravery, yet only Aslan gets them anywhere.

And it is not just their individual faculties - they work as a group, just as all people do. you wrote:

"By humbly acknowledging that you cannot do it all by yourself, and then asking for help, you allow someone to make up the difference for what you, as an individual, lack."

That's a great moral, and certainly a thing that should be taught to children. However the, children when finally asking for help, don't just ask "someone" as in a person on their level. They get help from a Deus Ex Machina, a Jesus in lion robes. He doesn't fill in individual skills or abilities that the children lack - all he does is roars and the day is won. The children, for all their ingenuity, accomplish nothing for themselves. They just submit, and hey presto, Aslan takes care of all their woes in about 10 minutes.

Having the humility to ask for help is all well and good, but the problem is in where the film tells you to ask for help from. Unfortunately, Deus Ex Machina's don't exist in the real world.

For me the problem is Susan, who winds up among the lost for reasons that really ought to strike us all as trivial. As I see it, Lewis shared the underlying misogyny (not to mention the heretical Manicheanism) of the Church as institution. This becomes increasingly clear as you go further in the series. Only the first book really manages to hold the focus on the joyful suggestion that death can 'work in reverse'-- a wonderful fantasy, expressing something very powerful that we wish for in vain here in the real world. Sadly, the Manichean urge to present evil as a separate and independent power is already there, distorting the theology because it's indispensable to any kind of moral narrative.

Thanks for the clarification, Hope, and also for taking the time to read the comments. So many of the bloggers here don't seem to bother. Humanism is so often misinterpreted by the religious and it's one of my pet peeves. Apologies for sounding unduly harsh.

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't want to interrupt the discussion, but I do want to amend my wording in the post above. All I meant to say about the Telmarine philosophy was that it denied the existence of anything beyond the natural world. I should have used the word "naturalism" in place of "humanism," which in my perspective is not necessarily a bad philosophy if held in balance. I hope this helps; I'm sorry for the careless wording.

"So to win the day, what's needed is not independent thinking, but to submit to Jesus, or in this world, Aslan. A rather stupid moral in a childrens' film."

To win the day, there needs to be both independent thinking and submission. Instead of viewing the world as black and white, consider that both can and must coeexist. To successfully solve problems, we must apply intellect, logic, reason, and all of the faculties which lend themselves to time-tested, proven, scientific progression. I'm a firm advocate of these methodologies. We must also work hard and expend effort to strive for solutions.

Sometimes all that we can do, by ourselves, just isn't enough, though. Fact of life.

While all of these individual faculties are necessary, they are not sufficient. By humbly acknowledging that you cannot do it all by yourself, and then asking for help, you allow someone to make up the difference for what you, as an individual, lack. It's not weakness, it's not abandoning your independence, it's allowing something larger than you to have a place in your life.

That's not at all a "stupid moral". It's a hard lesson that not many people are willing to learn because of arrogance and egotism. If children can learn it, perhaps they will grow into adults who retain it and make the world a better place to live in. Isn't that what we all hope for?

Kurt, thanks for the Asimov anecdote. That's hilarious.

I'm in the midst of reading my second Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle collaboration in a row (reading "Lucifer's Hammer" and just finished "The Gripping Hand") and it's becoming pretty obvious that Pournelle likes to cast the rich and powerful as the heroes that save the day for the lesser classes. It's not diminishing my enjoyment of the book. In fact now that I'm seeing it it adds another layer of amusement and entertainment, even though the view isn't my own at all.

I was well versed in the controversy about the first Narnia film when I saw it, and the Aslan as Jesus thing was pretty obvious, but only because I was looking for it, and even then it didn't keep me from enjoying the movie. Besides, it's not like the Jesus archetype was original to begin with. It was standard mythological fare long before the Bible was written.

Heck, I'd probably find even the movie versions of the Left Behind books entertaining, but probably not in the way the authors intended.

Chip: :It's only adults who'll really notice the allegory anyway so non-believers who shun the books or movies because they think it's subliminally going to turn their kids into Christians are just being reactionary and a bit silly."

Me: I agree, recognizing allegory is never been one of my strong suits, I am usually to caught up in the tale to think about any other meaning. And of course, you can give anything a different meaning from what it's author or builder intended.

Asimov was once confronted by a woman who proceeded to explain the meaning of one of his stories. He told her that her interpretation was not what he had intended. "How do you know what you intended," she retorted, "you're just the author."

Additionally, giving ordinary things magical or mystical meanings is something the psyc community discourages these days. It a sign of a blurring betwen reality and imagination. Just as if you listen to a song and thought, "Gosh that really applies to me." Or looked at a "Stop" sign and thought, I have to stop smoking.

While you may have these problems, the writer of the song and the sign maker did not intend them to send you messages. Unless the message is so clear as to be a challenge to action, "War is over if you want it, war is over now," then you can take it as an exhortation.

Otherwise reading or listening or seeing something that sends a message is likely to be missed these days, unless you are mentallly ill or study shakespeare who delt with allgories all the time.

JZHESS writes "Well, I can see how some would get upset, identifying humanism with oppression. People who espouse humanism tend to think of it as a liberation from oppressive superstition. Magic is generally regarded as superstition. How many oppressive regimes have been led by humanists, exactly?"

I also found the author's dismissal of humanism worthy of a groan and an eye roll, but that's her interpretation. I imagine the anti-humanist claptrap is only the projection of her own bias and not an obvious element of the film itself, and if it is, not one that a young viewer would pick up on? But yeah, it never fails to astound me how the religiously indoctrinated have such a bizarrely skewed view of humanism - as if faith in human ability and a belief in human equality are bad things.

Chip: :It's only adults who'll really notice the allegory anyway so non-believers who shun the books or movies because they think it's subliminally going to turn their kids into Christians are just being reactionary and a bit silly."

Me: I agree, recognizing allegory is never been one of my strong suits, I am usually to caught up in the tale to think about any other meaning. And of course, you can give anything a different meaning from what it's author or builder intended.

Asimov was once confronted by a woman who proceeded to explain the meaning of one of his stories. He told her that her interpretation was not what he had intended. "How do you know what you intended," she retorted, "you're just the author."

Additionally, giving ordinary things magical or mystical meanings is something the psyc community discourages these days. It a sign of a blurring betwen reality and imagination. Just as if you listen to a song and thought, "Gosh that really applies to me." Or looked at a "Stop" sign and thought, I have to stop smoking.

While you may have these problems, the writer of the song and the sign maker did not intend them to send you messages. Unless the message is so clear as to be a challenge to action, "War is over if you want it, war is over now," then you can take it as an exhortation.

Otherwise reading or listening or seeing something that sends a message is likely to be missed these days, unless you are mentallly ill or study shakespeare who delt with allgories all the time.

"Caspian, born heir to the throne of Telmarine oppressors, must discard the humanist, existentialist history he was taught since childhood and embrace the existence of Magic, a very real inner life beyond what he knows, and an overarching supernatural containing both good and evil powers."

Well, I can see how some would get upset, identifying humanism with oppression. People who espouse humanism tend to think of it as a liberation from oppressive superstition. Magic is generally regarded as superstition. How many oppressive regimes have been led by humanists, exactly?

And if I recall Sartre's message in No Exit, it was more or less that we make our own hells - hardly and endorsement of oppression.

First of all, I would like to say that the film was rather enjoyable, unlike its predecessor. Just as the Pevensie children matured, so did the film, and the darker, more consequential plot was much more enjoyable.

This does not, however, alleviate a number of problems I have with it, and also this poster's view of it.

The title of the blog was "Allegations of Allegory". Hope points out that Lewis did not like the allegorical interpretation of his books, yet he wrote:

'Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.'"

This is an allowance for the allegorical interpretation in itself, albeit a loose one. Few allegories fit their subject matter perfectly anyway.

However it is not the allegory that bothers me - this is Narnia after all, and it is therefore inescapable. The thing that bothers me in this film (and also the book, I suppose, though the plots are different) is the Deus Ex Machina aspect that Dana Stevens points out. It is a narrative cop-out, but it isn't so much that which annoys me. The thing that gets me is, as Hope puts it, the

"experience of discovering the Son of God and the growing pains of learning to love and trust Him."

aspect of it. Why does this bother me? Well, as opposed to the previous film, the kids were full of initiative and independence in this one. They are presented with challenges, and try to independently find solutions. Unfortunately, this does not go well for them at all. Their situation goes from bad to worse, and their best, and rather ingenius efforts all fail.

Then, in utmost desperation, they send Lucy out to find Aslan. Which proves to be very easy. She rides into the forest, and hey presto, he's there. Then within ten minutes, the enemy is defeated. The ultimate Deus Ex Machina.

So to win the day, what's needed is not independent thinking, but to submit to Jesus, or in this world, Aslan. A rather stupid moral in a childrens' film.

That is the aspect that bothers me - submission rather than indepence and free thought.

Anyone else?

I'm an atheist but the obvious Christian allegory in the C.S. Lewis books doesn't bother me. I haven't seen the new movie but I enjoyed the first. It's only adults who'll really notice the allegory anyway so non-believers who shun the books or movies because they think it's subliminally going to turn their kids into Christians are just being reactionary and a bit silly. I read the books as a kid and never picked up on the allegory. It was just a great fantasy adventure as far as I was concerned.

By the same token, I absolutely adored the Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series of books, which like the Narnia books carry some religious allegory that adults may pick up on but that will sail right over the heads of young readers. The church in those books represents an authoritarian regime that stifles free inquiry. Many Christians shunned the books for that reason, which is every bit as silly as some people's reactions to Narnia.

Unfortunately the movie version of the first book, The Golden Compass, wasn't so good. It was visually beautiful and fun to watch, but the story was just too complex with too many characters to condense into two hours. I do hope they make the second two books into films though. Religious folks who aren't sure whether or not to let their kids read the series should read it themselves first. Like Harry Potter it's a series that adults can love as much as their kids.

it's not the religious allegory I minded, it was the video game style violence!

I am making a concerted effort to stay away from the Narnia movies. I finally got sucked into the Lord of the Rings with the last movie, and although all are excellent, they don't have the warmth of the books and the actors and CGI effects have largely replaced the creations of my imagination, the dark and the light, the silly and the sober, the majestic and the humble... well, you get the idea. The Narnia in my mind and soul is going to stay that way, or grow in the way best suited to my experience. I won't make the same mistake as before.