The Chronicles of Narnia: "Morally Loathsome"

[_The Nehor]

As for racism, well, the Calormenes are pretty hard to stomach. They are stock Orientalist caricatures: swarthy, cruel barbarians worshiping bloody idols.

They are a caricature but one we don't meet anymore. They represent barbarous pagans. I can't see the harm considering we'll never meet them in real life. They're like Johnny Depp as a pirate. I loved those stories as a kid but they were clearly caricatures.

Although I enjoyed the Narnia series as a child, I was not pleased by its allegorical dimension. When Aslan turned out to be Christ, I felt cheated by the heavy-handedness of it. Come on man, children don't enjoy being treated as dupes and imbeciles.

I missed the allegory the first time I read them (think I was 8). I didn't feel cheated. I cried when he died. I jumped for joy when he came back to life. I think I worshipped Aslan before I truly worshipped God.

Even worse was the framing narrative of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: the "obviously silly" beliefs of the Scrubb parents. At age eight or nine I had no idea exactly what kind of political position Lewis was objecting to, I just felt disgusted that he needed to interject his pathetic jokes into the story.

I liked his characterization. I've met people just as messed up in real life and their children are horrible.

I will say, though, that I do find That Hideous Strength to be quite precisely morally loathsome.

How so? I liked it.

[Guest]

-

[_CaliforniaKid]

Actually in the books the undead army doesn't even go to the climactic battle. They frighten off the Corsairs so Aragorn can lead the group the Corsairs were attacking to Minas Tirith. You can blame that flaw on Peter Jackson but not Tolkien.

Good catch. It's been too long since I read the books.

I do remember having other plot issues with the books. They were sort of long and tendentious, for one thing. The undead subplot struck me as a bizarre curveball from left field whether Tolkien used it as a cop-out or not. Tom Bombadil was the same way. I will always hate Tom Bombadil, despite his many apologists.

The Hobbit was by far the best of the series.

That's part of the charm of the book.

For naïve people, maybe. :P Actually, one of the things I find most disturbing about this aspect of Tolkien's book is that so many people take it so seriously. They think that Tolkien's portrayal of a cosmic war between clear-cut Good and Evil is in some sense a true portrayal of the way things really are. And they are just as willing as Tolkien to depict those they disagree with as Evil and Hideous to the core.

What George R. R. Martin's characterizations capture that I think is so powerful is that deep down, nearly everyone thinks they're a good guy. Not only do evildoers refrain from wearing black hats, but in fact "evil" itself is something that's defined differently by different people depending upon their experience. Furthermore, moral choices usually involve tradeoffs between various perceived goods and evils. It's often difficult to know what is the best choice, when you don't know exactly what the consequences will be. Yet people will sometimes fight to the death over these kinds of ambiguous questions, taking their favored option to be an absolute Good.

Tolkien's and Martin's novels are both morality plays, but they're different kinds of morality plays. Tolkien's goal is to inculcate a few clear-cut virtues, such as heroism and selflessness. Martin's goal is to provoke critical reflection about what really constitutes the Good, and how best to pursue it. Both goals are all well and good, I suppose, but in my opinion they can't be allowed to cancel each other out. They have to be held in tension. My problem with Tolkien's approach is that it brutally sacrifices critical moral reflection on the altar of moral exhortation.

I don't think it was naïve. It was a choice the author took to focus on other things. The temptation the Ring represents (power) is the primary moral conflict. The temptation of Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Boromir, Denethor, Faramir, Gandalf, Saruman, Gollum, Elrond, Aragorn, and Galadriel provides the 'gray' areas. Boromir, Denethor, and Saruman fall from it. Frodo fails in his mission at the end while Sam was able to willingly surrender the Ring.

None of those moral struggles are truly "gray" in the sense I'm talking about.

Peace,

-Chris

[_hatersinmyward]

Want some tea?

I have an entire room filled with chocolate truffles.

If you ever need anything, blow on this.

[Guest]

Actually in the books the undead army doesn't even go to the climactic battle. They frighten off the Corsairs so Aragorn can lead the group the Corsairs were attacking to Minas Tirith. You can blame that flaw on Peter Jackson but not Tolkien.

Good catch. It's been too long since I read the books.

I do remember having other plot issues with the books. They were sort of long and tendentious, for one thing. The undead subplot struck me as a bizarre curveball from left field whether Tolkien used it as a cop-out or not. Tom Bombadil was the same way. I will always hate Tom Bombadil, despite his many apologists.

Here, I have to disagree. I love Bombadil.

The Hobbit was by far the best of the series.

Depends on my mood.

That's part of the charm of the book.

For naïve people, maybe. :P

For people who love fantasy maybe. People in Middle Earth are different from people in the real world. That's why Middle Earth is fun to visit. I feel the same way when I pick up "Wind in the Willows" or the "Chronicles of Prydain" and many other books. That they don't portray every human characteristic is not dishonesty.

Actually, one of the things I find most disturbing about this aspect of Tolkien's book is that so many people take it so seriously. They think that Tolkien's portrayal of a cosmic war between clear-cut Good and Evil is in some sense a true portrayal of the way things really are. And they are just as willing as Tolkien to depict those they disagree with as Evil and Hideous to the core.

I believe in a cosmic war between good and evil. It is often even clear-cut. However the orcs I have to mercilessly slaughter are the ones in my nature. People who want to villify on that level will find the scriptures and even our hymnbook ("every stroke disarms a foeman; every step we conquering go") more dangerous then "The Lord of the Rings". I still find I prefer that these books were written even if they can be weapons in the hands of the wicked.

What George R. R. Martin's characterizations capture that I think is so powerful is that deep down, nearly everyone thinks they're a good guy. Not only do evildoers refrain from wearing black hats, but in fact "evil" itself is something that's defined differently by different people depending upon their experience. Furthermore, moral choices usually involve tradeoffs between various perceived goods and evils. It's often difficult to know what is the best choice, when you don't know exactly what the consequences will be. Yet people will sometimes fight to the death over these kinds of ambiguous questions, taking their favored option to be an absolute Good.

Tolkien's and Martin's novels are both morality plays, but they're different kinds of morality plays. Tolkien's goal is to inculcate a few clear-cut virtues, such as heroism and selflessness. Martin's goal is to provoke critical reflection about what really constitutes the Good, and how best to pursue it. Both goals are all well and good, I suppose, but in my opinion they can't be allowed to cancel each other out. They have to be held in tension. My problem with Tolkien's approach is that it brutally sacrifices critical moral reflection on the altar of moral exhortation.

And I would argue that my problem with that idea is that it too often sacrifices real morality on the altar of relativism.

I imagine much of this comes from our worldviews though. I believe there is an ultimate good (God) and a debased evil independent of any relativism. Thus Tolkien speaks to me. Yes, there are gray areas and choices that are difficult due to ignorance or weakness or a host of other factors. Tolkien is a fantasy escape to a world where these are muted to show this dualism in sharper focus.

Given the choice I'd rather visit Middle Earth rather then Westeros.

I don't think it was naïve. It was a choice the author took to focus on other things. The temptation the Ring represents (power) is the primary moral conflict. The temptation of Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Boromir, Denethor, Faramir, Gandalf, Saruman, Gollum, Elrond, Aragorn, and Galadriel provides the 'gray' areas. Boromir, Denethor, and Saruman fall from it. Frodo fails in his mission at the end while Sam was able to willingly surrender the Ring.

None of those moral struggles are truly "gray" in the sense I'm talking about.

Aren't they? The quest to destroy the Ring was foolhardy. There were lesser evils and less dangerous paths the Free Peoples of Middle Earth could have chosen.

Also, did Martin really need to describe in so much detail all the young girl with Mongol chief sex scenes?

[_The Nehor]

This sums up the problem with the imitators:




It also sums up the fictional scriptures and religion Joseph Smith produced, for example:

Not fictional or even claiming to be fictional so different rules apply. Nice try at a cheap shot though.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Tyrian the dwarf rules! That said, Song of Ice and Fire has gotten waaaay too long. I pretty much skimmed my way through Dance with Dragons, pausing only to read the parts that dealt with Tryian or Arya (sp?).

In 2004, Niel Gaiman wrote a short story entitled The Problem of Susan. (SPOILER ALERT--don’t read on if you plan to read the story.) The Problem with Susan ends with Aslan devouring the remaining Pevensies, after which he copulates violently with the White Witch. Many of the plot points are drawn from Pullman’s New Yorker interview. Not one of Gaiman’s better short works, but it’s notable for, if nothing else, its super-high grossness factor.

The thing I enjoyed the most about His Dark Materials was how incredibly likable many of the main characters were. Will, Lyra, Mary Malone, Lee Scoresby--these are people I would've wanted for friends in real life. The same is true for the characters in Pullman's other series, the Sally Lockhart books.

The first of the Sally Lockhart books, The Ruby in the Smoke, also has one of my favorite beginnings:

On a cold, fretful afternoon in early October in 1872, a hansom cab drew up outside the offices of Lockhart and Selby, Shipping Agents, in the financial heart of London, and a young girl got out and paid the driver.

She was a person of sixteen or so—alone and uncommonly pretty. She was slender and pale, and dressed in mourning, with a black bonnet under which she tucked back a strayng twist of blond hair that the wind had teased loose. She had unusually dark brown eyes for one so fair. Her name was Sally Lockhart; and within fifteen minutes, she was going to kill a man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_lockhart

[_moksha]

Morally loathsome.

That's an objection you might hear at Church concerning health care for all, rather than the Narnia books. This makes atheists sound like a variation of Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter.

I enjoyed all these fantasy stories. It is comforting that we can take from them the points of wisdom we can use and reserve the rest for some future ruminations.

by the way, I am really impressed with Nehor's in-depth knowledge of these stories both here and at The Cafeteria.