Don't forget that Kiran was also the only oompah loompah in the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...

No, that was Deep Roy.

The movie, funded in part by a wealthy Christian religious activist, is awash in Biblical allegory.

I haven't seen the movie, yet, but aren't the books the same? Not funded by a wealthy Christian activist, but written from a pretty intense religious angle. Is the movie simply more overt? When I was little I didn't know enough about Christianity to get the symbolism, but the older I get the more surprising the stories -- especially The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and The Last Battle. [Link]

... aren't the books the same?

Yeah, and I didn't get it when I was a kid either ('Aslan' is rhythmically similar to 'Jesus'). But the movie's resurrection scene and numerous religious lines are unironic and blatant in a '50s kind of way.

It depends on where you see the movie, but here hipsters were just cringing and laughing in the aisles. Jesus symbolism isn't handled well here. At least in Constantine, another movie with Tilda Swinton playing a flawed pale person with supernatural powers, it's overtly a battle between God and Satan.

I haven't seen the movie, yet, but aren't the books the same?

The answer is that it depends. Once you have been told by someone that there is an elephant in the room, you are going to look for the elephanet. The movie appears to be overly religious but the books were not. If you read them as a kid, like many of us did, then you hardly noticed. I never noticed them to be preachy. Slate wrote an excellent article about this.

Judging the Narnia books solely by their Christianity is an impoverished way of reading them. It is a reflection more of our polarized moment—in which a perceived cultural divide has alienated Christians from secular culture and secular readers from anything that smacks of religious leanings—than of the relative aesthetic merits and weaknesses of Lewis' books. Lewis, devout Christian though he might have been, would have been the first to say so—in large part because the litmus-test approach has led us to overlook children's experience of the books. The real genius of Narnia is the way Lewis built, out of a hodgepodge of literary traditions and predecessors, a patchwork world of unconventional characters who understand and instruct children without seeking to domesticate or indoctrinate them. The result is indelible, and anything but strictly allegorical.

After the movie, I overheard much griping outside the theater, in the bathroom line and on the subway.

Woah!! You (a man) were on a line for the bathroom???

The New York audience laughed openly at all the unintentional camp.

the new york part is the key. it has a relative paucity of evangelical christians who might go for this stuff.

p.s. c.s. lewis was, according to some, an anglo-catholic (i.e., high church anglican) by personal profession, though before his atheism he was raised on ulster presbyterianism. so the religious background is a little more nuanced than the religious interpreters, like evangelical american protestants and secularists like adam gopnik would have us believe.

That stinks. I really loved the chronic as a kid.

btw, dwarves are so fucking cool.

That Adam Gopnik guy is funny. [from the newyorker article Razib linked to]

“No cranny of heart or body remained unsatisfied.” That’s a lot of crannies for a middle-aged don to be satisfying.

I meant the Chronicles, not the chronic, obviously... heh heh.

Oh, Manish! You don't like the Wizard of Oz? I used to adore that movie well into adulthood (I've seen it too many times now to watch it again, but do catch bits of it here and there since it's always on). How on earth can you call that movie smarmy?

Anthony Lane, from the New Yorker's stable of critics claims that the Christian allegory is about as easy to find as 'a rhino in a phonebooth'.

I don't like paying $8 for a sermon. I guess I'll pass this one movie up.

Oh, and as for the actual topic of the post? Haven't seen the movie and am unlikely to until it's on television and if it's a rainy afternoon and I haven't got anything better to do. I suspect I'd like the Christian imagery, though, because, although roughly Hindu and sort of agnostic (oh who am I kidding, I don't really think much about religion) I like Christian imagery. I just do. Or, maybe I'd hate the movie. Who knows? I can't tell what I like anymore......

Didn't realize Kiran was a stunt double in one of my favorite action/sci-fi films:

Aliens

my bad on the deep roy/kiran shah mix-up. crummy way to celebrate brown folk if I can't even keep them distinct.

anyway - interesting article on CS Lewis in last month's New Yorker can be read here.

If you read them as a kid, like many of us did, then you hardly noticed.

'Aslan' is rhythmically similar to 'Jesus'

You don't like the Wizard of Oz? I used to adore that movie well into adulthood

Related, on reading books as a kid and not realizing the christian themes. i used to read Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game series, as well as his Tales of Alvin Maker series, and at the time did not know of the mormon themes in them. i loved the books though and didn't mind finding out the themes in them later. both series created lessons on morals and how to deal with people in a just way, reading those books can give you a sense of appreciation for how much in common people can have across cultures

disney is proficient in christian themes..

pinocchio... the whale (jonah and the whale), the conscience, etc... morality, etc.. such biblical imagry/symbolism in that story.. wrote a comparative paper about that some eons ago in college...

k--study break over.. now onto some cancer talk.. cheers...

I was under the impression that the word "Aslan" is Arabic for "Lion" -- not sure if the rhythmic similarity to "Jesus" was deliberate, although for all I know it may well have been.

The Apocalypse analogy in The Last Battle was pretty obvious to me as a child too, although I've read elsewhere that it's supposed to also represent the historical fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims. This is hinted at in the description of the invading army's "cruel curved scimitars" -- and although I can't remember the exact reference (I read it a hell of a long time ago), I'm sure there's some mention of crescent symbols on their flags too.

The movie is aimed at Christian moviegoers. The moviemakers do not care what nonchristians think about the movie. I expect the next post will be a worthless review of Christian music.

Regarding the New Yorker aticle, unfortunately Gopnik did a sloppy job of reporting. I am of the opinion that he played fast and loose with the facts, and mischaracterized several events in Lewis' life.

One of the most glaring discrepancies in the article occurs when he states that C.S. Lewis wrote "A Grief Portrayed" in response to his wife's death. In fact, the correct title is "A Grief Observed".

The review is aimed at desi moviegoers. The reviewer does not care what the movie producers say about the movie. I expect the next comment will be a worthless criticism of desi movie reviews.

Joseph Sobran on Gopnik's attack on CS Lewis

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051122.shtml

I'm not convinced by Sobran. The Narnia tales were amusing in my childhood, but I remember being read the first book in 3rd grade, in Catholic school. I think it's just too transparent that this is Christian propaganda.

Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper, and now Phillip Pullman (who has torn Lewis apart lately) are all more interesting story-tellers. Good v. evil is expectable, but stop hiding behind the medium of children's literature - at least Christian music is clear that it's Christian music.

Tolkien was very devout, even got Lewis the atheist hooked, but he was disturbed by Lewis' direction, and thought his story-telling left a lot to be desired to boot.

The Apocalypse analogy in The Last Battle was pretty obvious to me as a child too, although I've read elsewhere that it's supposed to also represent the historical fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims. This is hinted at in the description of the invading army's "cruel curved scimitars" -- and although I can't remember the exact reference (I read it a hell of a long time ago), I'm sure there's some mention of crescent symbols on their flags too.

Totally possible - like I said, I am no expert on Christian theology or history :) The representations of Muslims/Arabs in the books were pretty racist - the clearest example of this is The Horse and His Boy where the Calormen=Muslims from what we now call the Middle East.

As far as whether or not the books were meant to be Christian propaganda, I don't know, but I think they were definitely written with Christian instruction in mind.

And for Orson Scott Card, who I really enjoy also, the clearest examples of his works on Mormonism are found in The Homecoming series, which is fairly intense. Again, not an expert on Mormonism and can't really back everything up, but it's pretty overt as well.

The trailer for this does look incredibly crappy. And when CGI looks bad in the quick edits of a trailer, I can't even imagine how bad tit must be in the actual film. And unlike the recent spate of naturalistic child actors, Narnia hearkens back to when on-screen kids had super-rosy cheeks, overly glossed red lips and full-on pouty twee preciousness. ech.

I never got into the Narnia books as a kid, and couldn't figure out why. The whole secret wardrobe thing seemed so exciting, but the story just didn't hang together satisfyingly. I was bored and indifferent by the time Alsan died. (he did die, right? I don't even rememer clearly. There was some part that was supposed to be the height of grief, and I couldn't care less.) Maybe I missed something.

I do think that it's a shame Lewis is tossed into the "Christian"side of our modern religious/secular divide. He is defintiely a christian writer, and his beliefs do seep into his writing...but he is of a generation, time, and educational background that offers a more nuanced, intelligent, accepting take than the evangelical wingnuts who've claimed that role today.

Among is clearly religious books, The Screwtape Letters is a series of letters from a master demon in hell, to an apprentice demon on earth. I know that sounds so stupid, but what's weirder is that it's really, (intentionally) quite funny. A neat analysis of morality and how we rationalize our actions woven into an amusing correspondence.

Narnia was the number one movie at the box office. Philip Anschutz has a succesful movie franchise.

Camille, charges of racism are often levelled at C.S. Lewis' writings. Judging from his other writings, I am confident that Lewis never intended to cast Arabs or darker-skinned people as inferior and natural adversaries. In "The Screwtape Letters", Lewis writes that in times of war, a Christian shouldn't be driven to feelings of hate because of a person's nationality. (I remember this because I finished the book last week - thought it was an okay book)

And if C.S. Lewis did indeed want to make all dark skinned people evil, what do we make of the evil witch in "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe"? Surely he would not have named her "The White Witch".

Ack, I meant "charges of racism are always levelled at C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia".

Hmm.. Has anyone here read Lewis' Space trilogy? His other books are also nice:

Mere Christianity
The Screwtape Letters
Miracles
The Weight of Glory
A Grief Observed
The Problem of Pain
The Great Divorce
Till We Have Faces (REALLY good)

I've got most of these in my collection, though I haven't finished reading them all. C.S Lewis is too good of an author to simply judge him on a few of his works, much less Disney's interpretation of them.

I started his Space Trilogy, but haven't finished it. I was mostly uninterested, although he did raise some interesting philosophical questions about time travel. One day I'll finish it, but only because I bought the book.

Most of the other books you mention are Christian philosophical books. Some are quite weighty (e.g. Weight of Glory, Miracles) to the point that I can only read a few pages before needing a quick nap. Nevertheless, "Mere Christianity" and "A Grief Observed" are excellent. They interest me, as a Christian, because they address tough religious questions.

=] Yeah, I loved "A Grief Observed". It revealed a side of his humanity that his other books rarely show.

why are we hating on stanford again?

Manish,
Another day, another desi angle- another anti-christian angle. And the world continues to turn. So what is your point, exactly? You don't like the books because of the Christian allegory? Or you don't like the movie because of it? Isn't this just another opportunity for you to attack anything that has the slightest tinge of Christianity? For anyone wondering, C.S Lewis may have disagreed with a lot of Christians on some doctrinal issues but he is still considered as a man who held on to the most fundamentalist tenets of Christianity. Imagine that? C.S Lewis a fundamentalist..

Last comment- How exactly can you say that the movie is overtly religious and the books are not when the movie is exactly like the books? There was one scene that was different. ONE SCENE. Get over yourself, Mutineers, It's not like you would have spent the eight dollars on something useful anyways.

I swear,

i've avoided this thread and the stupid movie which inspired it b/c Narnia was one of THE most boring, unsatisfying books i EVER wasted 30 minutes on as a child, and i loved reading so much i read up to three books a day. there are only TWO books which i didn't finish, during my entire childhood and this is one of them. and for the record, though my entire existence was surrounded and governed by hard-core christianity, i didn't even SEE that in these damned books. if i had, i might have given them (gag) another shot.

daycruz, i haven't met a malayalee who was raised in a stricter christian family than i was, so please spare me the ridiculous allegation that someone who dislikes narnia is anti-christian. also, this blog which you find "anti-christian" fault with has six founding members: TWO are christian. that's over-representative when compared to south asia itself.

you're usually a really kind guy, but the following sentence had me swearing words you probably wouldn't appreciate:

Get over yourself, Mutineers, It's not like you would have spent the eight dollars on something useful anyways.

that's VERY christian. and mature. "i swear".

C.S Lewis may have disagreed with a lot of Christians on some doctrinal issues but he is still considered as a man who held on to the most fundamentalist tenets of Christianity. Imagine that? C.S Lewis a fundamentalist..

i think minimalist (i.e., 'mere') would be a better term. lewis' ulster protestant background was much closer to 'fundamentalist' as we understand it america than his later in light anglo-catholicism.

Anna, it wasn't the fact that he disliked Narnia that bothered me. It was that he used the excuse of "it was awash in Christianity" to dislike it. From reading Manish's past work and other mutineers, anything that is from a Christian point of view is immediately attacked.

I appreciate you saying that I am usually a kind guy. I hope I am. I just get frustrated when I read things like this.

So, to clarify- I don't think Manish is anti-christian because he dislikes Narnia. I think he is anti-Christian in general and dislikes Narnia because of this. I have to admit that you have provided some good stuff from a Christian point of view.

Oh.. and I stand by my eight dollar comment. I personally couldn't find anything usefull to spend eight dollars on either. Except for this nice prosciutto panini at Bella's Espresso at the Streets of Tanasbourne.

daycruz,

if you had ever been able to come to one of the SF meetups at caffe greco, you would already know that i am a staunch fan of paninis. :D just make mine mozzarella, since it's nthoimbe all year long for me. no better way to waste eight (or in my case six) dollars indeed.

Awww... *tear*

Group hug!

anything that is from a Christian point of view is immediately attacked.

unless it is christian vs. hindutva :) (jk)

Camille, charges of racism are often levelled at C.S. Lewis' writings. Judging from his other writings, I am confident that Lewis never intended to cast Arabs or darker-skinned people as inferior and natural adversaries.

I can't make any arguments about Lewis' larger body of writing, especially b/c the only thing I've read beyond The Chronicles is The Screwtape Letters. That said, whether he had some personal antagonism towards dark-skinned people or not, there are explicitly racist sections in the Narnia series. Perhaps I'm conflating terms - maybe it's not rooted in a sense of skin-color race as much as it is rooted in vilifying Arab-like figures in the text who are presumably Muslims. Maybe it's more religion oriented, maybe it isn't. Maybe he used these characters as bad guys because of the regionality of the story or because, at that time in literature, it was super common to depict "exotic" civilizations as immoral or angelic. There are tons of villains in his stories who aren't non-white (although this is kind of a silly way to look at it since most of the time they're magicians or witches or some kind of fantastic charactrs). All I can say is that reading his works from my contemporary context, some sections are really wack. This wackness is unfortunate, because when little kids read these stories before they're old enough to critically engage with the work, it can fill their brains with stupidity, a la Disney's Aladdin.

Which of course didn't stop me from reading the books. :) I actually really loved this series when I was younger, although I wasn't as passionate about The Lion, The Witch.. and The Last Battle as I was about all the other books in between and before. I don't think this reaction was b/c of some aversion to the Christian symbolism, but more b/c I thought the stories were kind of boring and that Edmund was a twit.

I am confident that Lewis never intended to cast Arabs or darker-skinned people as inferior and natural adversaries.

that seems dumb. most everyone back then had views we would perceive as racist.

Who really cares if it's got christian under/overtones. The one thing religions are awesome at is telling great stories, so here's to another one.

But yeah, as usual I won't be able to enjoy it because i'll be out trying to spot all the racist imagery.

i don't mind racist imagery (mild at least) if it is entertaining. it is pretty clear who the 'black men of harad' are in LoTR. it is pretty clear who the 'sallow men of the east' are in the silmarillion. if you want to see evil white people, read some of ursula k. le guin's work. or _avaryan rising_ from judith tarr.

why are we hating on stanford again?

Because we (and by that I mean the writer) went to Cal ;)

You don't like the books because of the Christian allegory?

I loved 'em and was too young to recognize the theology. My guess is that if I were to read them over, it would still be more subtle in the books, as an archetypical legend, as a literary vehicle, than in the movie, which is pretty overt propaganda.

Or you don't like the movie because of it?

Christ figures are common in film and great when well done. They can even be fun when not well done (Neo in The Matrix.) To me, the mortal sin is artless. This is a badly done religious sermon in the guise of a mainstream fantasy film.

Isn't this just another opportunity for you to attack anything that has the slightest tinge of Christianity?

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between film criticism and theological attack. But I will grant you this: I find Christianity adequately defended in this 80% Christian nation and find it more interesting to write about other South Asian religions. Your (probably justified) sense of grievance as a member of a minority religion in South Asia has little bearing on the reality of Christian representation in the U.S.

How exactly can you say that the movie is overtly religious and the books are not when the movie is exactly like the books?

Didn't.

It was that he used the excuse of "it was awash in Christianity" to dislike it.

Didn't:

The climax is a lame, in-your-face re-enactment of Jesus’ resurrection that had my Jewish theater mates groaning. The New York audience laughed openly at all the unintentional camp.

From reading Manish's past work and other mutineers, anything that is from a Christian point of view is immediately attacked...

Incorrect, please back it up with quotes from non-humor pieces.

I don't think Manish is anti-christian because he dislikes Narnia. I think he is anti-Christian in general and dislikes Narnia because of this.

I dig the free psychoanalysis, but my beef is with religious fundamentalists of all stripes: Christian evangelicals tearing down church-state separation in the U.S., saffronists doing the same in India, Wahhabis doing the same in Saudi Arabia, Buddhists tossing hand grenades in Sri Lanka... I have yet to hear of a religious riot by moderates.

I dig the free psychoanalysis, but my beef is with religious fundamentalists of all stripes: Christian evangelicals tearing down church-state separation in the U.S., saffronists doing the same in India, Wahabbists doing the same in Saudi Arabia, Buddhists tossing hand grenades in Sri Lanka... I have yet to hear of a religious riot by moderates.

That has what to do with what now? So you weren't being Anti-Christian but anti-fundamentalist when you said you disliked Narnia? And yes, only on Sepiamutiny would you find someone equating tearing down the walls of separation between church and state through legislation to Buddhists throwing hand grenades. Yes, only here.

And yes, only on Sepiamutiny would you find someone equating tearing down the walls of separation between church and state through legislation to Buddhists throwing hand grenades. Yes, only here.

-_- It was a statment in proportion to each religion. Christianity preaches "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" and yet evangelical fundamentalists get so rabid over certain laws, screaming "persecution of the saints" at the drop of a hat. (and I say that, being a Christian myself) Buddhists, on the other hand, preach peace and so it's a bit disconcerting seeing monks hurling grenades.

just dropping my christian fundamentalist self in to say that i went prepared to like the movie, like many other christians would have(not all, anna, i wouldn't want to make a sweeping statement), but I was sadly disappointed. The rest will have to go in my review, where i shall pontificate on num nums and centaurs with bollywood sideburns.

I liked the movie. I'd read the book in 3rd grade, and I thought they did a good job of representing it the way I had imagined (in spite of some changes to the story).
The only thing that I felt was blatantly "Christian" was the concept of sacrifice. But so what? That was the author's influence, it still made for a nice story.
I did think they could've taken at least a 1/2 hr out of the movie with better editing though.

"also, this blog which you find "anti-christian" fault with has six founding members: TWO are christian."

That's a laugh. It more accurate to say two are Christian in name only. In my year of reading this site there has never been a post with a Christian point of view. No post had an implicit or explicit reference to the Bible or Church tradition as a source of truth. Vinod is a materialist with libertarian prejudices and Anna is a materialist with feminist prejudices. Razib is at least honest about his beliefs. He rejects the Koran as the source of truth or a source of truth.

chris: it's such an honor to meet and be evaluated by you virtually-- tell me, when did G-d bestow the right to judge how Christian someone is upon you? because surely you must get your orders from above, if you're doing such important work, right? truly, i am not worthy of being discussed by someone with a direct line to heaven!

And, contrary to appearances, Razib doesn't actually post in this blog ;)

So what if Vinod is a Libertarian? Or if Anna's a feminist? Does this go against Biblical teachings? I think not. If you wanna start a theological argument, come over to dippu- I'll gladly comply.

"We wouldn't have a religion if it weren't for a woman. God did not create woman to be inferior to man, and if any man tries to tell you that he did, he's a lying asshole. You are just as good as any man. Maybe better since you're mine."

Top 3 Campy scenes from "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe".

3. When they are hunting the stag doesn't Peter look like the king from the Burger King commercials.

2. At the coronation, Peter is introduced as “Peter the Magnificent” right before he is hit over the head with his Throne from Edmund turned ‘heel’ (think WWF).

3. When Aslan is leaving Cair Paravel, he is walking along the beach…did anyone else think ‘Footprints’. For whatever reason my friend and I found this really funny and were laughing for a good 30 seconds (we even got a shut up from other members of the audience).

Overall the movie was ok…I wouldn’t say that I dislike it, but really made wonder if I had misjudged the books I had read as a kid.

... did anyone else think ‘Footprints’.

So did some reviewers:

... the only part that strikes one too many Christian chords is a 30-second scene that recalls the Footprints parable and that beachy-sunset image so often accompanying it on merchandise. [Link]

"He is defintiely a christian writer, and his beliefs do seep into his writing...but he is of a generation, time, and educational background that offers a more nuanced, intelligent, accepting take than the evangelical wingnuts who've claimed that role today."

Well, put Cicatrix - I agree. Folks who think that Lewis was some kind of former-day evangelical would do well to read An Wilson's biography of the man. I'm not surprised to read about subtle racial overtones in Narnia - after all they're in Tolkien as well.

Chris - have you read Matthew 7:1 lately?

So you weren't being Anti-Christian but anti-fundamentalist when you said you disliked Narnia?

In shorter syllables: anti-this movie.

... only on Sepiamutiny would you find someone equating tearing down the walls of separation between church and state through legislation to Buddhists throwing hand grenades.

Wikipedia:

Another profound bias of such classifications is that it is quite rare to include nominally Christian or Jewish or Buddhist guerrillas in any analysis of those faiths' views of politics, but quite common if it is Islam under discussion—and likely being criticized.

The only thing that I felt was blatantly "Christian" was the concept of sacrifice.

The giant halo behind the resurrection didn't tip you off? The Crusades-like armor? The Judas theme? All the double entendre lines?

not the greatest fan of narnia - but was deeply touched by shadowlands, a biopic on lewis' relationship with gresham. An excerpt from the derivative play ...

Why love if losing hurts so much? I have no answers any more. Only the life I have lived. Twice in that life I've been given the choice; as a boy and as a man. The boy chose safety, man chooses suffering. The pain now is part of the happiness then. That's the deal.

Manish,

To clarify: in my opinion, the Christianity aspect did not overshadow the story except for the 'sacrifice' bit.

Yes, I did notice the rest, but I wasn't looking for the Christianity bits, so it was ok.

CS Lewis flirted with Hinduism before turning to Christianity, he gavce it second place; the first reason is that "paganism" lived unreconstructed besides "philosophy" in Hinduism and second, (curiously) Hinduism has no "historical" faith claim.

But after sorting out what he called the perplexing multiplicity of religions, he concluded that there were only two possible answers: Hinduism or Christianity. Of these two Lewis further stated:

Everything else was either a preparation for, or else ... a vulgarization of, these. Whatever you could find elsewhere you could find better in one of these. But Hinduism seemed to have two disqualifications. For one thing, it appeared to be not so much a moralized and philosophical maturity of paganism as a mere oil‑and‑water coexistence of philosophy side by side with paganism unpurged; the Brahmin meditating in the forest, and, in the village a few miles away, temple prostitution, sati, cruelty, monstrosity.

And secondly, there was no such historical claim as in Christianity. I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion‑those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mythical wealth of the pagan world around them‑was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it

And no person was Eke the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable (ten times more so than Eckermann's Goethe or Lockhart' s Scott), yet also luminous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god‑we are no longer polytheists‑then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact the Word, flesh; God, Man. 24

The final transition for Lewis was almost in place. As he approached his conclusion, a resistance toward Christianity sprang up, almost as strong as his previous resistance toward theism.

Finally one evening, Lewis chose to dine with Tolkien and Dyson at Magdalen. Myth and resurrection were fresh on his mind. As the evening's conversation wore on, Lewis began to more clearly understand both the nature and purpose of Christianity. After dinner they took a stroll up Addison's Walk toward Lewis's room where they stayed and talked until 3:00 a.m., when Tolkien had to leave. Walking around the grounds at Oxford, Lewis and Dyson continued their conversation for another hour.

As part of my grad school research, I found it interesting that neither Tolkien nor Lewis wrote their magnum opuses (opi?) from religious perspectives. Both of them were focused on the idea of creating a pagan mythos, a pre-Christian tradition that they felt the British Isles lacked, unlike say for example, the Greeks or the Germans. If anything, I'd argue that Lewis' work taps into a greater archetype that we find it easy to qualify as "Christian" or not; I do remember in one of his letters to Tolkien (now in Tolkien's son, Chris' possession), he wrote about how he found the attempt to create a world and society untouched by Biblical influence to be stimulating.

It's funny; everyone goes on about the "obvious" theological overtones of LoTR for example, but Tolkien writes (ALL over the place) that he did NOT want anyone to read Christianity into his story; at one point, I think he'd even commented in a letter to his editor that he was slightly frustrated because one climactic resurrection was being hailed as a Christ-like act, even though he'd had The Heliand and Norse myth in mind (Odin hanging from the tree, descending to Hell and returning).

Obviously everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion; I just feel that if you take a step back from the melodrama (and trust me, we queens KNOW our drama), it's not so hard to see the common mythological archetypes that so many works of literature draw upon; betrayal, sacrifice, resurrection. I think those are more humanistic notions than anything else; tying them purely to religion(s) isn't an intelligent way to approach the topic. Admittedly, Lewis came to Christianity through his fascination with myth and the areas where it coincided with his religious bent, but I think that the Narnia books are less about pure religion than about the religious personifications and anthropology that he seemed to find everywhere. It's no accident that scenes of sacrifice and betrayal (and resurrection) weigh so heavily upon people; there's a tradition, both pagan and Christian that informs and strengthens the impact that such tales have.

Discussion of Lewis aside (and I don't think the "racist" part of it is really worth addressing in depth, since it's not uncommon to demonise whoever is different from you, and what better way to do it than starting with the most obvious trait: skin colour, vs. "I'm going to make them evil so everyone can tell, because...because...they'll have purple tongues!" a la myself after sufficient vodka/blackcurrants), I rather enjoyed the movie. Tilda Swinton scared the bejeezus out of me, repeatedly, but more importantly, I felt like despite the Disney-ka-daagh, the film stayed pretty true to the book.

Sin,

i'm not very familiar with Tolkein, but do you know the reason the enemies were from the south and east? i've always thought that refered to the ottoman and moorish presence

Raju,

I'd have to go back and check my notes, but off the top of my head, I believe it was because Tolkien took the majority of his narrative motivation from Finnish and Nordic mythology (The Kalevala and The Poetic Eddas); in those, given how the original cultures were basically geographically north and west-based, enemies would always come from the direction that one was least familiar with (a meta-commentary on several things, not the least of which was dramatic intensity rooted in the tales being largely oral traditions). The West was always where good people would go on dying, the fabled "other" lands, and the North was mysterious but part of the world that the people of those cultures inhabited. If you're really interested, give me a few days and I'll look it up for you. Tolkien actually also based his work on "Le Chanson de Roland" which had huge Ottoman/Moorish elements in it (Saracens and the like), but interestingly enough, the tale effectively equates "The Mohammedans" with Christians, to the extent where even the Muslims have their own (inaccurate) "Holy Trinity" (Apollo, Mohammaed and someone else whose name I can't remember). They're identical to the Christians, just dark and "warped", which is an interesting dramatic ploy.

Speaking of Narnia:
For those of you who don't watch SNL regularly; check this piece out. My bro thinks there's some inspiration drawn from "curry 'n rice girl" from mc vikram and luda.