DiscussMormonism.com

As a variation on the grand tradition of posting reviews for Broadway musicals that one has not attended, here are some excerpts from Philip Pullman’s impromptu review of C. S. Lewis’ Narnia books. I haven’t read anything by C. S. Lewis, but I’ve read Pullman’s His Dark Materials, which I enjoyed immensely.

Pullman is one of the UK’s most outspoken atheists and the themes of His Dark Materials are particularly germane to this forum. A series of children’s books, His Dark Materials deals with a second war in Heaven in which angels, humans, and various imaginary creatures (which includes angels, I suppose) rebel against God. Their goal: to abolish the kingdom of Heaven and replace it with a Heavenly republic. Along the way, God is eventually killed, albeit by accident. And yes, these are children’s’ books.

But of course this is all beside the point, because the really interesting part concerns Pullman’s attitudes toward Narnia, which mirror some of what is said in this forum about Mormonism. This from a Dec. 2005 edition of The New Yorker…

When it comes to “The Chronicles of Narnia,” by C. S. Lewis, Pullman’s antipathy is even more pronounced. Although he likes Lewis’s criticism and quotes it surprisingly often, he considers the fantasy series “morally loathsome.” In a 1998 essay for the Guardian, entitled “The Dark Side of Narnia,” he condemned “the misogyny, the racism, the sado-masochistic relish for violence that permeates the whole cycle.” He reviled Lewis for depicting the character Susan Pevensie’s sexual coming of age—suggested by her interest in “nylons and lipstick and invitations”—as grounds for exclusion from paradise. In Pullman’s view, the “Chronicles,” which end with the rest of the family’s ascension to a neo-Platonic version of Narnia after they die in a railway accident, teach that “death is better than life; boys are better than girls . . . and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it.”
. . .
Sexual love, regarded with apprehension in Lewis’s fiction and largely ignored in Tolkien’s, saves the world in “His Dark Materials,” when Lyra’s (the main character) coming of age and falling in love mystically bring about the mending of a perilous cosmological rift. “The idea of keeping childhood alive forever and ever and regretting the passage into adulthood—whether it’s a gentle, rose-tinged regret or a passionate, full-blooded hatred, as it is in Lewis—is simply wrong,” Pullman told me. As a child, Lyra is able to read a complicated divination device, called an alethiometer, with an instinctual ease. As she grows up, she becomes self-conscious and loses that grace, but she’s told that she can regain the skill with years of practice, and eventually become even better at it. “That’s a truer picture of what it’s like to be a human being,” Pullman said. “And a more hopeful one. . . . We are bound to grow up.”
. . .
In person, Pullman isn’t quite as choleric as he sometimes comes across in his newspaper essays. When challenged, he listens carefully and considerately, and occasionally tempers his ire. “The ‘Narnia’ books are a real wrestle with real things,” he conceded. As much as he dislikes the answers Lewis arrives at, he said that he respects “the struggle that he’s undergoing as he searches for the answers. There’s hope for Lewis. Lewis could be redeemed.” Not Tolkien, however: the “Rings” series, he declared, is “just fancy spun candy. There’s no substance to it.”

Allow me to offer a quick refutation of this.

When it comes to “The Chronicles of Narnia,” by C. S. Lewis, Pullman’s antipathy is even more pronounced. Although he likes Lewis’s criticism and quotes it surprisingly often, he considers the fantasy series “morally loathsome.”

Okay, strapped in and ready for the ride?

In a 1998 essay for the Guardian, entitled “The Dark Side of Narnia,” he condemned “the misogyny, the racism, the sado-masochistic relish for violence that permeates the whole cycle.”

Wait.....what?

He reviled Lewis for depicting the character Susan Pevensie’s sexual coming of age—suggested by her interest in “nylons and lipstick and invitations”—as grounds for exclusion from paradise.

No, Susan's fall was in deciding that Narnia (i.e. Christianity) was a game for children and that being adult required putting that behind you. The same thing would have happened if Peter had decided that being an adult with a steady job and a level required you to turn your back on Narnia.

I think Lewis needed one of the Pevensies to fall. Peter couldn't due to his stand-in status for Peter the Apostle and his High King status was needed later. Edmund already had his fall and redemption. Lucy was the most faithful of them all and having her fall away would ruin it for the goddaughter he dedicated the first book to.

Another knock against this is that Susan reached adulthood in Narnia at one point and somehow didn't get expelled.

In Pullman’s view, the “Chronicles,” which end with the rest of the family’s ascension to a neo-Platonic version of Narnia after they die in a railway accident, teach that “death is better than life; boys are better than girls . . . and so on.

Heaven being better then mortal life is hardly drivel to most Christians. As for misogyny, I see no indication that Lucy was somehow inferior when they got there. In the end she gets the last scene in heaven.

There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it.”

Or if you can read it into passages that suggest no such thing.

Sexual love, regarded with apprehension in Lewis’s fiction and largely ignored in Tolkien’s, saves the world in “His Dark Materials,” when Lyra’s (the main character) coming of age and falling in love mystically bring about the mending of a perilous cosmological rift. “The idea of keeping childhood alive forever and ever and regretting the passage into adulthood—whether it’s a gentle, rose-tinged regret or a passionate, full-blooded hatred, as it is in Lewis—is simply wrong,” Pullman told me.

Narnia doesn't make childhood some sacred time to be revelled in forever. The heroes and heroines are children but they don't have any kind of Peter Pan syndrome. Adulthood can start to destroy faith as it did for Susan. Acknowledging that does not mean hating adulthood. Lewis knows this can happen as he lost his faith in a similar way.

As a child, Lyra is able to read a complicated divination device, called an alethiometer, with an instinctual ease. As she grows up, she becomes self-conscious and loses that grace, but she’s told that she can regain the skill with years of practice, and eventually become even better at it. “That’s a truer picture of what it’s like to be a human being,” Pullman said. “And a more hopeful one. . . . We are bound to grow up.”

An admirable sentiment but not in opposition to Narnia.

In person, Pullman isn’t quite as choleric as he sometimes comes across in his newspaper essays. When challenged, he listens carefully and considerately, and occasionally tempers his ire.

Okay.

“The ‘Narnia’ books are a real wrestle with real things,” he conceded. As much as he dislikes the answers Lewis arrives at, he said that he respects “the struggle that he’s undergoing as he searches for the answers. There’s hope for Lewis. Lewis could be redeemed.”

Read the man's own take on how the books came to be. They weren't intended to be a wrestle at first. They came from scenes in his mind of a lion, a girl meeting a faun with an unbrella in the woods, and other images. He was hardly looking for redemption in writing a Christian tale (though it turned into one).

Not Tolkien, however: the “Rings” series, he declared, is “just fancy spun candy. There’s no substance to it.”

Many readers disagree. I join them. What substance was he expecting?

Okay, a few other points on Narnia

Racism: You have three main elements you could try to pin this on.

The first are the men of Telmar. They came from Earth and conquered Narnia until the mythical beasts became almost myths. They were represented as conquering tyrants. But their heir Caspian is the hero and many of the people of Telmar rejoice when the old stories come to life that they cherished. In the end Aslan offers them a way home if they decide they don't like Narnia.

Second are the Calormene from the last book. In the story a clever monkey decides to meld the faith of Aslan with the faith of the Calormene to create a hybrid religion both could embrace. They are the 'bad guys'. But even then Aslan saves the good amongst them.

Finally the idea that the monsters are bad and the good guys are good. The fauns and centaurs and dryads and lions are good. The hags and minotaurs and the like are all evil. I don't have a problem with that.

Sadism: This is tricky. Lewis was in his boyhood a kind of sexual sadist though there is no indication he ever actually beat a girl in what we would now call a BDSM scene. The only moment I can think of where pain is dwelt on for any great length of time is in the death of Aslan which is obviously based on the Passion of Christ. I can't see where one would get the idea that the author was a sadist.

Misogyny: I dealt with Susan already. I don''t see any way to throw misogyny onto the other stories. Lucy is a hero. Jill was a fool on her first trip but no more so then Edmund or Eustace were when they first came. Polly was the one who resisted temptation while Diggory gave in. Cor/Shasta and Aravis have an adventure and neither hogs the spotlight. They also (gasp!) get married after several years and aren't exiled from paradise for becoming adults.

I may have to read Pullman's books so I can compare.

I admit I am always suspicious when a writer bags on more successful works. Often comes across as sour grapes as a kind of defense for the artistic ego. Well, unless you're George R.R. Martin belittling Tolkien in which case it's just arrogance.

Very interesting. Thank you. I may actually have to sit down and read the Narnia books.

I love Pullman's Dark Materials series; it's really quite good and I am disappointed they are not making the other two books into movies. But I think he's a bit out to lunch on this one, and I actually find myself agreeing with The Nehor. (This is indeed a day of miracles and wonders.)

The "Dark Materials" series sounds interesting.

I'll have to see if I can order them on E-book.

I have not read the whole Narnia series...only the first 2. However, from what I read, I agree with with Nehor. I think that Pullman is a little "out to lunch" on his review.

I also highly question anyone who would trash-talk Tolkein's LOTR series. That is like the Holy Grail of books for me...that and Harry Potter! :-)

liz3564 wrote:I also highly question anyone who would trash-talk Tolkein's LOTR series.

I trash-talk that series a lot. Not only did Tolkien totally cop-out on the climactic battle by having the undead army come save the day, but he also paints a picture of the world that I find terribly naïve. Good and evil are too clear-cut and neatly separated, and the "good guys" are always white and delightsome and the "bad guys" are always dark and loathsome. Admittedly, part of my annoyance with the series probably stems from the fact that it spawned an entire genre of books that endlessly replicated the same tired stereotypes and the same absurd moral worldview. I suppose it's not really Tolkien's fault that his imitators were totally unimaginative.

In any event, I much prefer the grayer and more complicated fantasy universe constructed by George R. R. Martin.

In any event, I much prefer the grayer and more complicated fantasy universe constructed by George R. R. Martin.

+10,000

CaliforniaKid wrote:I trash-talk that series a lot. Not only did Tolkien totally cop-out on the climactic battle by having the undead army come save the day, but he also paints a picture of the world that I find terribly naïve.

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 and evil are too clear-cut and neatly separated, and the "good guys" are always white and delightsome and the "bad guys" are always dark and loathsome.

That's part of the charm of the book. 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.

Admittedly, part of my annoyance with the series probably stems from the fact that it spawned an entire genre of books that endlessly replicated the same tired stereotypes and the same absurd moral worldview. I suppose it's not really Tolkien's fault that his imitators were totally unimaginative.

And here is where the imitators generally failed. The Ring was the conflict point of the book. The imitators took the Ring out and tried to use the same worldview without having anything to say.

This sums up the problem with the imitators:

In any event, I much prefer the grayer and more complicated fantasy universe constructed by George R. R. Martin.

I enjoyed the first few books in that series but he seems to be heading to irrelevancy the same way Robert Jordan did towards the end without even putting out books regularly.

The thing I'm annoyed about is Martin's critique of Lord of the Rings

Tolkien made the wrong choice when he brought Gandalf back. Screw Gandalf. He had a great death and the characters should have had to go on without him.

Another quote:

I've been killing characters my entire career, maybe I'm just a bloody minded bastard, I don't know, [but] when my characters are in danger, I want you to be afraid to turn the page (and to do that) you need to show right from the beginning that you're playing for keeps.

This is where I think he comes across as arrogant and ignorant. None of the deaths of any of his characters hit me the way Boromir's did. Gandalf's return was consistent with the mythology of Middle Earth. Every time I read that quote I want to smack Martin over the head with his quasi-resurrection of Catelyn and call him a hypocrite.

CaliforniaKid wrote:I trash-talk that series a lot. Not only did Tolkien totally cop-out on the climactic battle by having the undead army come save the day, but he also paints a picture of the world that I find terribly naïve. Good and evil are too clear-cut and neatly separated, and the "good guys" are always white and delightsome and the "bad guys" are always dark and loathsome. Admittedly, part of my annoyance with the series probably stems from the fact that it spawned an entire genre of books that endlessly replicated the same tired stereotypes and the same absurd moral worldview. I suppose it's not really Tolkien's fault that his imitators were totally unimaginative.

I still love LOTR but I agree that his characters are either very good or very bad, and he clearly shows some of the racist ideas of the day with white being good and black or dark being bad. I can let it go simply because it is presented as fiction, while the Book of Mormon does the same thing, but it tries to present itself as be historically true, and lets face it, the characters are very mundane and even worse with the distinctions between bad and good.

In any event, I much prefer the grayer and more complicated fantasy universe constructed by George R. R. Martin.

Agreed.

I really enjoyed His Dark Materials. I wish I had had the opportunity to read them as a child because books with interesting girl characters were not that easy to find. And Pullman's series accomplished something I thought impossible: I found myself taking pity on god.

I don't think Lewis's Narnia series as objectionable as Pullman does. Yes, the character Susan IS a major disappointment. But that Lucy is treated seriously not only despite her gender but also her age, delightedly me mightily as a child. There are a few other girl characters like Jill and Polly who, unlike Susan, are depicted as fully functioning human beings. And Aravis, in the fifth book, has potential I would liked to have seen more developed. But what of our major villain, Jadis, later the White Witch? Yeah, yeah, you can ramble on about the archetypal witch/temptress/Eve figure of the fairy tale, but how nice it would have been to have had some female on Other Side with her style and class (and boy was this ever made obvious in the film version!)

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

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