Philip Pullman attacks CS Lewis
andrew osmond
carried an article by Philip Pullman (of Golden Compass aka Northern
Lights fame) attacking CS Lewis. The article was called 'The Dark Side
of Narnia,' and was written to tie in with the upcoming centenary of
Lewis' birth.
I haven't get time to type the article at present - I might get round to
it if enough people are interested - but personally I thought it was
very lame. Most of the brickbats were familiar (the Narnia books are
sexist, racist, misanthropic etc), many relying on readings of the books
which seemed dubious or plain wrong. The overall impression was more of
nitpicks than a devastating critique. Not exactly up to the level of
Edmund Wilson's famous diatribe versus Tolkien.
PS: I did write a letter to the Guardian, picking some holes of my own
in Pullman's piece. Don't think it's been accepted - rather bigger news
stories at the moment! - but it might turn up in the next few days.
--
andrew osmond
bson...@my-dejanews.com
preferences.
Clearly, in comparing Pullman and C.S. Lewis, one feels Lewis comes out far
ahead in the "heart" category...
Brad Sondahl
In article <ZV34RFAi...@ozma.demon.co.uk>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Fergus-Moore
Levenwolf
Philip Pullman wrote an article called :The Dark Side of Narnia for the London
Guardian
> If you do type the article, please secure copyright permission first...
>
>
No need to type they have it online
http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/10/1/24747.html
read it for yourselves
Brian
Brian Bozanich
MFA Youth Theatre
University of Hawaii at Manoa
"Theatre is the one unified art." Leven Tynwald
Derek Janssen
>
> Philip Pullman wrote an article called :The Dark Side of Narnia for the London
> Guardian
>
...And then decide.
(I've felt like an outcast for years for having no desire whatsoever to
read Philip Pullman--I hope this ranks as some slight vindication.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
D. Gascoyne
kettle black. I have some admiration for his work, but there's a lot that
doesn't bear up to close scrutiny. Most of his criticism is aimed at easy
marks (the "Susan" question has been debated here). Not to condone Lewis'
sexism and racism, but don't we have to place the books in their social and
political context? J.R.R. Tolkien, bless his heart (and, I think, a far
superior writer to Lewis), can't stand up to detailed analysis by the
politically correct. As for someone like Enid Blyton, well, I shudder to
think. That doesn't detract from the hours, cumulative years, of collective
pleasure those authors have given readers. If there are elements that don't
wear well after 50 years, well, parents and teachers can raise interesting
questions for discussion.
- Debbie
KimFore
Derek Janssen wrote:
>(I've felt like an outcast for years for having no desire whatsoever to
>read Philip Pullman--I hope this ranks as some slight vindication.)
Other than the Sally Lockhart trilogy, which I liked, I've had no desire to
read any of his books since I'm not a fan of dark fantasy (although maybe
that's not the same reason that Derek doesn't want to read him). I always feel
like there must be something strange about me when I see post after post raving
about his fantasy books. To add to it, I don't like the Narnia books either.
Is anybody else out there NOT a fan of the Narnia books--or the Pullman
fantasies--and willing to stand up (or rather, type) and admit it? Anybody?
PLEEEEEEEZE??
Kim
Judi Smith
apparently disparage regularly?
hmmmm.
as for the "pompous" comment earlier in this thread: spoken like a true
non-writer. :) next time you work hard on something, and sell it to a
publication, i hope someone "just" types it in to some newsgroup on the
net and it gets sent around the universe without your permission or
knowledge, let alone payment. ;)
sheesh! on a BOOK group, we get this kind of ridiculous statement???!?!
Derek Janssen (dja...@ultranet.com) wrote:
: Levenwolf wrote:
: >
: > Philip Pullman wrote an article called :The Dark Side of Narnia for the London
: > Guardian
: >
: > http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/10/1/24747.html
: >
: > read it for yourselves
: ...And then decide.
: (I've felt like an outcast for years for having no desire whatsoever to
: read Philip Pullman--I hope this ranks as some slight vindication.)
: Derek Janssen
: dja...@ultranet.com
--
judi smith "if it's love," she said, "then we're going to
jsm...@bc.seflin.org have to think about the consequences."
she can't stop shaking and i
would you catch me if was falling? can't stop touching her and..
kiss me if i was leaving? -- anna begins
hold me cause i'm lonely without you?
-- round here
Derek Janssen
(Which would imply that *I* was not the one to post the Guardian
article--
Learn to spot those little attribution differences between ">", ">:" and
">:>" in the future, and this will keep discussions free from needless
confusion)
> : > Philip Pullman wrote an article called :The Dark Side of Narnia for the London
> : > Guardian
> : >
> : > http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/10/1/24747.html
> : >
> : > read it for yourselves
>
> : ...And then decide.
>
> : (I've felt like an outcast for years for having no desire whatsoever to
> : read Philip Pullman--I hope this ranks as some slight vindication.)
>
> vindication for not wanting to read firsthand the work of a person you
> apparently disparage regularly?
No, vindication in finding out after three years that I was not the only
person on the planet to consider Pullman an overrated (IMHO) author, by
learning that he might indeed be a pompous, pretentious ass in his spare
time as well...Certainly damaging evidence. ; )
Even so, publishing an article would not be the way I personally would
normally go about it [too roundabout]--
I sense some confusion of attribution on someone's part here.
> as for the "pompous" comment earlier in this thread: spoken like a true
> non-writer. :) next time you work hard on something, and sell it to a
> publication, i hope someone "just" types it in to some newsgroup on the
> net and it gets sent around the universe without your permission or
> knowledge, let alone payment. ;)
...Gosh, what COULD Levenwolf have been thinking?? [see above]
Except of course, that linking a link to the Guardian's own site, under
their own house rules of distributing their own copyrighted intellectual
property online freely or for pay, is the more accepted form of making
published news articles available to a newsgroup.
(Which would be rather in keeping with a NEWSgroup's nominal purpose.)
> sheesh! on a BOOK group, we get this kind of ridiculous statement???!?!
Yes, we do. They're called discussions.
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
andrew osmond
points. For those who've read the piece at
http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/10/1/24747.html
(thanks Brian),
my own letter to the paper (not published) went something like this:
Dear Sir,
Philip Pullman's hyperbolic attack on CS Lewis ('The Dark Side of
Narnia,' G2, October 1st) is disappointingly thin. Contra Pullan's
piece, I've seldom met a Narnia 'devotee' who doesn't concede that the
Narnia books can be cruel, clumsy and sexist - points which could also
be made against a huge range of childrens' media, from Blyton to Disney.
But Pullman's complaints are misplaced. The whole point of Susan's fate,
as Lewis makes clear, is that she *doesn't* grow up, stopping in
arrested adolescence. The charge of Lewis' 'impertinent' use of the
Crucifixion is strange, given Pullman's own NORTHERN LIGHTS [the British
title for THE GOLDEN COMPASS] culminates in a Genesis pastiche. Finally,
if Pullman really thinks Lewis hated 'darkies,' he must have forgotten
the character of Emeth in THE LAST BATTLE.
Yours sincerely,
I'm the first to admit these points aren't watertight - e.g. there still
may be misogynist undertones to the Susan case - but I thought Pullman's
article begged too many questions and I wanted to present the other
side. Comments welcome, though I imagine these issues have been debated
intensely here.
P.S. Pullman quotes approvingly from the US critic John Goldthwaite,
author of THE NATURAL HISTORY OF MAKE-BELIEVE, which I'm afraid I
haven't read. All I've seen of Goldthwaite are a few quoted, ranting
soundbites against Lewis, attacking his 'unashamed racism', 'snide
misogyny,''contempt for democracy, 'smug chauvinism' and 'his
travestying of Christ in a supposedly Christian fable.' He concludes
'the word evil comes to mind.' (As do the words, 'pisspoor, hectoring
criticism' to mine.) Anyway. just wanted to know if he has anything more
substantial to say, or if this strident tone is representative. If the
latter, then I don't think I'll search out his book.
P.P.S. Re the posts by Judi and Fergus: sorry, I'll bear the copyright
issues more in mind next time. I thought printing the article would be
OK as (a) it's a newspaper piece, very ephemeral, and something many
people would miss unless Pullman expanded it into a published essay - I
hope he does - and (b) most of the people on this group are not from
Britain and wouldn't have access to the paper in the first place. I must
also admit I belong to newsgroups and MLs where reproducing
paper/magazine articles is common practice. If people want to e-mail me
privately with their views on the 'etiquette' and practical consequences
of this kind of 'piracy' (is that the right word?), please do.
--
andrew osmond
Glenn P.,
> To add to it, I don't like the Narnia books either. Is anybody else out
> there NOT a fan of the Narnia books -- or the Pullman fantasies -- and
> willing to stand up (or rather, type) and admit it? Anybody? PLEEEEEEEZE??
You have not found any such person in me -- I *adore* the Narnia series --
but I do not grudge you your dislike. I am, however, curious as to WHY you
dislike them. Can you shed any light on this?
--_____ "...We'll die if we have to, but not one second *earlier*
{~._.~} than we have to. Everyone has to die someday; there's no
_( Y )_ escaping that, but *quitting* isn't compulsory."
(:_~*~_:) -- "Lucky Starr And The Oceans Of Venus",
(_)-(_) "Glenn P.," ...By: Isaac Asimov (1954).
--------- <c128...@GTI.Net>
bson...@my-dejanews.com
andrew osmond <and...@ozma.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As the chap who started this thread, I pretty much agree with Debbie's
Snip I think most people when reading the Narnia books are aware of strong
prejudices on Lewi's part on some of the stated subject areas. For me the
important issue is that the series offers hope in an alliteral context.
Pullman's writing seems to lack that. I read the Sally Lockheart books, and
was considerably bothered when Sally's photographer lover gets burned to
death in a fire immediately after making love to Sally. Firstly the
lovemaking seems inappropriate for the age group most likely to be
interested. And second the meaningless death of him seemed an emotional
tweaking on the author's part, of the sort Pullman accused Lewis of doing,
but lacked any spiritual consolation. Pullman may write more politically
correct, but heart is lacking in his stories... Brad Sondahl
http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl
Levenwolf
>...Gosh, what COULD Levenwolf have been thinking?? [see above]
>
I just posted the link so people could read it for themselves. The editorial
portion of the post is NOT mine nor is the idea of "sending around the world"
I just thought that if the group read the article the debate could be an
informed one, rather than one based on hearsay
KimFore
>> To add to it, I don't like the Narnia books either. Is anybody else out
>> there NOT a fan of the Narnia books -- or the Pullman fantasies -- and
>> willing to stand up (or rather, type) and admit it? Anybody? PLEEEEEEEZE??
>
>You have not found any such person in me -- I *adore* the Narnia series --
>but I do not grudge you your dislike. I am, however, curious as to WHY you
>dislike them. Can you shed any light on this?
I just don't enjoy that kind of pure fantasy, I guess. Similarly, I don't like
the Oz books either. I like fantasy when it's superimposed on the "real" world,
such as Susan Cooper's "Dark is Rising" series (true to form, though, I didn't
like Silver on the Tree as much as the others--too much time spent in "unreal"
places like the castle where the king was trapped by his own despair, etc.). I
just wish I knew of other people who feel the same way. I can't be the *only*
one!?
Kim in California, whose boss thinks she's working...
HPrill
>I just posted the link so people could read it for themselves. The editorial
>portion of the post is NOT mine nor is the idea of "sending around the world"
>
any need to argue about whether typing in the article was OK.
Bruce N. Hietbrink
>
Most of his criticism is aimed at easy
> marks (the "Susan" question has been debated here).
Pullman wrote:
"In other words, Susan, like Cinderella, is undergoing a transition
from one phase of her life to another. Lewis didn't approve of that."
Not particularly wanting to repeat the debate, but I did find it
interesting that this was his sticking point, given his apparent
approval of _Screwtape_ ("The psychology in The Screwtape Letters is
subtle and acute.". The Susan's apostasy passage in _Last Battle_
essentially says the same thing in children's language that
Screwtape says to adults.
Bruce Hietbrink
Ernest Sjogren
>
<snip>
>Other than the Sally Lockhart trilogy, which I liked, I've had no desire to
>read any of his books since I'm not a fan of dark fantasy (although maybe
>that's not the same reason that Derek doesn't want to read him). I always feel
>like there must be something strange about me when I see post after post raving
>about his fantasy books. To add to it, I don't like the Narnia books either.
>Is anybody else out there NOT a fan of the Narnia books--or the Pullman
>fantasies--and willing to stand up (or rather, type) and admit it? Anybody?
>PLEEEEEEEZE??
>
>Kim
>
Say "Pretty Please With Sugar On Top"!
I'm batting .500 for you, Kim. I _really_ liked _Northern
Lights/Golden Compass_ and _The Subtle Knife_, which are the only
books I've read by Pullman. They are among the ten or so most
enjoyable books I've read in the past few years. I wish they'd been
around when I was reading to my kids.
As far as Narnia is concerned: I've never cared for the books. I
read _The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe_ (or whatever), found it
to be rather icky-poo, and did not read any of the others. I read it
as an adult (at my wife's urging). Probably the books would have
pleased me quite a bit if I had read them at age eight or nine, as
that is still a rather treacly age, and, indeed, my children enjoyed
hearing them when my wife read them aloud. We still have a map of
Narnia hanging on our kitchen wall, drawn by the younger boy for a
school project -- done with a lot of care, and (believe me) he wasn't
much of one for school projects!
Now, although I haven't read it for years, I admire much of Lewis'
writing for adults. His writing style impresses me no end. But,
Narnia? Nope.
-- Ernie Sjogren
Steffan O'Sullivan
>kim...@aol.com (KimFore) wrote:
><snip>
>>Is anybody else out there NOT a fan of the Narnia books--or the Pullman
>>fantasies--and willing to stand up (or rather, type) and admit it? Anybody?
>>PLEEEEEEEZE??
>
>Lights/Golden Compass_ and _The Subtle Knife_, which are the only
>books I've read by Pullman. They are among the ten or so most
>enjoyable books I've read in the past few years. I wish they'd been
>around when I was reading to my kids.
>
>As far as Narnia is concerned: I've never cared for the books.
And I'm batting close to the other .500 for you, Kim. While I like the
Narnia books very much, even after several rereadings, I don't care for
Pullman's fantasies. The Sally Lockhart series showed a LOT of
potential - at first (and I still love The Ruby in the Smoke). By the
second book, though, I was disgusted with his cruelty to his
characters, and the third book of that series and then the Tin Princess
only confirmed that I would *not* want to be a character in a Pullman
novel. I also find, after many years of reading, that if I wouldn't
want to be in a novel, I don't enjoy them.
I suspect, having read the Guardian article by Pullman, that he's an
ex-Christian who threw the Baby out with the bathwater, and can't
forgive anyone still Christian anything. I personally find Lewis a bit
sappy at times, but forgive him that for the very fine moments in his
books. I find I can't forgive Pullman for the very cruel moments in
his books, though - crueler than anything Lewis did even to Susan.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan |
s...@vnet.net | "The path is made by walking on it."
Chapel Hill, NC |
www.io.com/~sos | -Chuang Tzu
nancy g.
> next time you work hard on something, and sell it to a
> publication, i hope someone "just" types it in to some newsgroup on the
> net and it gets sent around the universe without your permission or
> knowledge, let alone payment. ;)
Umm ... unless I've missed something in this thread, nobody did any
such thing. Quite the contrary ... somebody posted a *link* to the
site where the article is on line. That is exactly the way this type
of article is *supposed* to be referenced. The Guardian had the article
up on their site, and "Levenwolf" gave us the URL.
Where is the problem?
> sheesh! on a BOOK group, we get this kind of ridiculous statement???!?!
Like I say, I might have missed something ... but I don't know
what this refers to.
D. Gascoyne
- Debbie
KimFore wrote:
Derek Janssen wrote:
>(I've felt like an outcast for years for having no desire whatsoever to
>read Philip Pullman--I hope this ranks as some slight vindication.)
Other than the Sally Lockhart trilogy, which I liked, I've had no desire to
read any of his books since I'm not a fan of dark fantasy (although maybe
that's not the same reason that Derek doesn't want to read him). I always feel
like there must be something strange about me when I see post after post raving
about his fantasy books. To add to it, I don't like the Narnia books either.
Is anybody else out there NOT a fan of the Narnia books--or the Pullman
fantasies--and willing to stand up (or rather, type) and admit it? Anybody?
PLEEEEEEEZE??
Kim
Deborah Stevenson
>Judi Smith wrote:
>> next time you work hard on something, and sell it to a
>> publication, i hope someone "just" types it in to some newsgroup on the
>> net and it gets sent around the universe without your permission or
>> knowledge, let alone payment. ;)
>Umm ... unless I've missed something in this thread, nobody did any
>such thing. Quite the contrary ... somebody posted a *link* to the
>site where the article is on line. That is exactly the way this type
>of article is *supposed* to be referenced. The Guardian had the article
>up on their site, and "Levenwolf" gave us the URL.
Yep. But typing it in was also mentioned, and somebody (appropriately,
IMHO) suggested that copyright permission was a good idea before
reproduction. Then somebody else called that suggestion "pompous"
on the grounds that otherwise he wouldn't see the article (don't see why
that person couldn't go to the website, but never mind). And so it rages
on.
As it happens, I've admired the Pullman fantasy but not loved it with with
the full-souled passion some of my colleagues have. And I've heard of at
least one good librarian who says her junior-high fantasy fans start Golden
Compass and never get through it. Are any of the people posting their
affection for it kids? Or is this a largely adult-driven phenomenon, do
folks think?
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Judi Smith
it was allegory at all, as a child, and you say you didn't either. once i
realized it (actually i had to be told; i'm slow that way), i was
fascinated by all the little bits that could be considered allegorical,
and read the books with ...a *different* enjoyment, but still.....
i just don't know if it can legitimately be called "heavy handed" when
the intended audience doesn't GET that from it.
just a thought.
Judi Smith
INSIST i had you and the person who wanted to type in a newspaper article
confused.
i did not.
perhaps my post confused you.
as i explained in email.
i'm so very sorry you can't understand that i was referring to your
refusal to read something you "dislike" in the first paragraph, and then,
AFTER THE SPACE, and following the clause in which i referred to "the
comment about pompousness earlier in the thread" i went on to discuss a
DIFFERENT PERSON'S POST.
your overbearing smugness is duly noted :) having never, that i know of,
been the DO of same (after having seen it in action for lo these many
years), i must say it's an interesting feeling, to be unjustly and
oh-so-smugly corrected for something i didn't even think, let
alone say :)
Derek Janssen (dja...@ultranet.com) wrote:
: Judi Smith wrote:
: >
: > Derek Janssen (dja...@ultranet.com) wrote:
: > : Levenwolf wrote:
: ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
: (Which would imply that *I* was not the one to post the Guardian
: article--
: Learn to spot those little attribution differences between ">", ">:" and
: ">:>" in the future, and this will keep discussions free from needless
: confusion)
: > : > Philip Pullman wrote an article called :The Dark Side of Narnia for the London
: > : > Guardian
: > : >
: > : > http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/10/1/24747.html
: > : >
: > : > read it for yourselves
: >
: > : ...And then decide.
: >
: > : (I've felt like an outcast for years for having no desire whatsoever to
: > : read Philip Pullman--I hope this ranks as some slight vindication.)
: >
: > vindication for not wanting to read firsthand the work of a person you
: > apparently disparage regularly?
: No, vindication in finding out after three years that I was not the only
: person on the planet to consider Pullman an overrated (IMHO) author, by
: learning that he might indeed be a pompous, pretentious ass in his spare
: time as well...Certainly damaging evidence. ; )
: Even so, publishing an article would not be the way I personally would
: normally go about it [too roundabout]--
: I sense some confusion of attribution on someone's part here.
: > as for the "pompous" comment earlier in this thread: spoken like a true
: > non-writer. :) next time you work hard on something, and sell it to a
: > publication, i hope someone "just" types it in to some newsgroup on the
: > net and it gets sent around the universe without your permission or
: > knowledge, let alone payment. ;)
: ...Gosh, what COULD Levenwolf have been thinking?? [see above]
: Except of course, that linking a link to the Guardian's own site, under
: their own house rules of distributing their own copyrighted intellectual
: property online freely or for pay, is the more accepted form of making
: published news articles available to a newsgroup.
: (Which would be rather in keeping with a NEWSgroup's nominal purpose.)
: > sheesh! on a BOOK group, we get this kind of ridiculous statement???!?!
: Yes, we do. They're called discussions.
: Derek Janssen
: dja...@ultranet.com
--
TruPrice
Well, I'll risk being _really_ unpopular here and point out that all the >>>'s
and >.>'s are the cause of many heated misunderstandings on the net and cause
me to lose interest in a discussion rapidly. What is wrong with quotation
marks and verbal attributions for each passage? I suppose this >>> typography
came from the time when the net was primarily the province of scholars. Weren't
they expected to attribute selected passages to colleagues by name as well as
>> pattern?
Suzanne
---
Suzanne & Truman Price - Monmouth, Oregon
Children's Literature & Picture Books
Deborah Stevenson
writes:
>Well, I'll risk being _really_ unpopular here and point out that all the >>>'s
>and >.>'s are the cause of many heated misunderstandings on the net and cause
>me to lose interest in a discussion rapidly. What is wrong with quotation
>marks and verbal attributions for each passage? I suppose this >>> typography
>came from the time when the net was primarily the province of scholars. Weren't
>they expected to attribute selected passages to colleagues by name as well as
>>> pattern?
It wasn't really the province of scholars per se (started with the
military, after all) but there was more standardization of attribution
format. I think if citation lines are intact, comments are nested
properly, and editing is done judiciously, the >>> are fairly clear, but
no system is going to be proof against a finger on the Send key that
moves too fast :-).
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Ernest Sjogren
<snip>
>As it happens, I've admired the Pullman fantasy but not loved it with with
>the full-souled passion some of my colleagues have. And I've heard of at
>least one good librarian who says her junior-high fantasy fans start Golden
>Compass and never get through it. Are any of the people posting their
>affection for it kids? Or is this a largely adult-driven phenomenon, do
>folks think?
>
Deborah,
That's an interesting question. I know no children who have read it
in part or all the way through, but nowadays I know few children, and
fewer children who read, so I'm not one who can say.
The book is classed as an adult book in the local public library.
-- Ernie Sjogren
D. Gascoyne
to my post, but I'm interested in your comments anyway. That's a good point,
but in my case I think the lack of recognition was due to ignorance of the
source (at age eight or so when my mum first read TLWW out loud to me, and I
was not a Sunday-school goer). Maybe "heavy-handed" is a bit strong, but,
when the penny did drop, I felt like "Duuh ... how could I have missed
_that!!"
- Debbie
Judi Smith wrote:
> i'm interested in the use of the term "heavy handed" -- i didn't realize
> it was allegory at all, as a child, and you say you didn't either. once i
> realized it (actually i had to be told; i'm slow that way), i was
> fascinated by all the little bits that could be considered allegorical,
> and read the books with ...a *different* enjoyment, but still.....
> i just don't know if it can legitimately be called "heavy handed" when
> the intended audience doesn't GET that from it.
> just a thought.
>
TruPrice
Re: Golden Compass. It's been foolproof for us as a book to recommend. I know
about 10 children (5th-6th gr.) who have gobbled it up to the end. I liked it a
lot in spots but didn't stay immersed in it all the way through. The end seemed
to be leading into the kind of high fantasy I don't care for much, so I didn't
read the Subtle Knife (but the kids all did). Suzanne
TalaMorgan
>
>i'm interested in the use of the term "heavy handed" -- i didn't realize
>it was allegory at all, as a child, and you say you didn't either. once i
>realized it (actually i had to be told; i'm slow that way), i was
>fascinated by all the little bits that could be considered allegorical,
>and read the books with ...a *different* enjoyment, but still.....
>i just don't know if it can legitimately be called "heavy handed" when
>the intended audience doesn't GET that from it.
>just a thought.
I have to agree with you. I read the series as a child, and loved it for the
story. Once I was told that it was allegorical, I enjoyed it even more on
reading it as an adult. I am an atheist, but still found the allusions to
Christian religion fascinating, and I enjoyed flexing my unused religious
muscle in figuring out what was being alluded to. I have read the Narnia
series three times now, and although I agree that there are times that Lewis
seems to be taking the easy way out, I feel that the fine moments he has in the
series far outweigh the things that seem a bit weak.
Tala
Ernest Sjogren
>
>Re: Golden Compass. It's been foolproof for us as a book to recommend. I know
>about 10 children (5th-6th gr.) who have gobbled it up to the end. I liked it a
>lot in spots but didn't stay immersed in it all the way through. The end seemed
>to be leading into the kind of high fantasy I don't care for much, so I didn't
>read the Subtle Knife (but the kids all did). Suzanne
>---
Suzanne, I enjoyed Subtle Knife more than the first book, FWIW. You
might give it a try. To put it baldly: I like it when an author is
willing to sacrifice favorite characters. Among other things. Of
course, part of the reason for my preference may be that the main
character in the second book was a boy (something you would think I
should have outgrown by my age that I haven't :)).
-- Ernie Sjogren
Dana Siegel
(KimFore) wrote:
> >> To add to it, I don't like the Narnia books either. Is anybody else out
> >> there NOT a fan of the Narnia books -- or the Pullman fantasies -- and
> >> willing to stand up (or rather, type) and admit it? Anybody? PLEEEEEEEZE??
> >
> >You have not found any such person in me -- I *adore* the Narnia series --
> >but I do not grudge you your dislike. I am, however, curious as to WHY you
> >dislike them. Can you shed any light on this?
>
> I just don't enjoy that kind of pure fantasy, I guess. Similarly, I don't like
> the Oz books either. I like fantasy when it's superimposed on the "real"
world,
> such as Susan Cooper's "Dark is Rising" series (true to form, though, I didn't
> like Silver on the Tree as much as the others--too much time spent in "unreal"
> places like the castle where the king was trapped by his own despair,
etc.). I
> just wish I knew of other people who feel the same way. I can't be the *only*
> one!?
> Kim in California, whose boss thinks she's working...
Put me down in the NOT a Fan of Narnia column. I'm Jewish and was very
offended by the very heavy Christian overtones of the Narnia books. I
liked the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (when I read it an a teenager,
many, many years ago) however I read the first of the Narnia books, and
never read another, and won't read another.
I plan to talk to my 6 year old daughter about the books in a few years,
and tell her why I didn't like them.
I think the books are fine and I know lots of people who have liked them,
but most of those people were Christian, and wouldn't understand my
complaints.
Dana Siegel
Margaret R. Dean
Dana Siegel <Dana....@zhora.com> wrote:
>
>Put me down in the NOT a Fan of Narnia column. I'm Jewish and was very
>offended by the very heavy Christian overtones of the Narnia books. I
>liked the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (when I read it an a teenager,
>many, many years ago) however I read the first of the Narnia books, and
>never read another, and won't read another.
>
>I plan to talk to my 6 year old daughter about the books in a few years,
>and tell her why I didn't like them.
>
>I think the books are fine and I know lots of people who have liked them,
>but most of those people were Christian, and wouldn't understand my
>complaints.
Is "offended" really the word you want? I can understand not =liking= a
book that is based on an ideology or religion you don't agree with, but
being actively =offended= is like saying, "How =dare= anyone publish a
book based on an ideology I don't agree with!"
And I don't agree with that. :)
--Margaret Dean
<marg...@access.digex.net>
KimFore
>>Put me down in the NOT a Fan of Narnia column. I'm Jewish and was very
>>offended by the very heavy Christian overtones of the Narnia books.
[SNIP]
>>I think the books are fine and I know lots of people who have liked them,
>>but most of those people were Christian, and wouldn't understand my
>>complaints.
>
>Is "offended" really the word you want? I can understand not =liking= a
>book that is based on an ideology or religion you don't agree with, but
>being actively =offended= is like saying, "How =dare= anyone publish a
>book based on an ideology I don't agree with!"
>
I didn't get that impression from what she said. I have found myself "offended"
by books for various reasons, and wouldn't hesitate to say so, but I certainly
don't think of it as "how dare anyone publish a book....etc." I don't think
the original poster implied that, either. Actually, what I saw in the replying
post was "how dare you be offended by a book!"
TalaMorgan
>book that is based on an ideology or religion you don't agree with, but
>being actively =offended= is like saying, "How =dare= anyone publish a
>book based on an ideology I don't agree with!"
>
>
Hell, I am an atheist, and against a lot of organized religion, but I still
loved the Narnia books. I don't consider Lewis being "heavy-handed" with the
allegory at all, and believe me, I'm the type of person who sometimes can't
help looking for things to dislike!
Tala
Marianne Jablon
>Hell, I am an atheist, and against a lot of organized religion, but I still
>loved the Narnia books. I don't consider Lewis being "heavy-handed" with the
>allegory at all, and believe me, I'm the type of person who sometimes can't
>help looking for things to dislike!
Same story (re atheism) here. I loved the Narnia books, but was
appalled when a friend pointed out the Christian allegory (we were in
high school at the time). I later reconciled myself to the idea by
realizing that if people get out of religion the pleasure I get out of
the Narnia books, maybe I can understand why they're religious. ;)
In a recent interview, Joan Aiken also stated that she didn't care for
Lewis's Narnia books (even though her children did). I didn't read
Pullman's original article, but perhaps some of this has to do with
what age the books are discovered. I believe Aiken said she didn't
read them till she was an adult. I on the other hand discovered them
at age 8 and was thoroughly enchanted.
Marianne
Neile Graham
>Same story (re atheism) here. I loved the Narnia books, but was
>appalled when a friend pointed out the Christian allegory (we were in
>high school at the time). I later reconciled myself to the idea by
>realizing that if people get out of religion the pleasure I get out of
>the Narnia books, maybe I can understand why they're religious. ;)
As an agnostic who has suffered great disllusionment about the "christian"
behaviour of many "Christians", at first the idea of the allegory in the
Narnia books appalled me, then I realized that I read a lot of stories
involving retellings of myths and stories and there was no reason to be
more appalled at C.S. Lewis than other authors. I still like the stories
he tells, Christian allegory or not.
--Neile, belatedly joining the conversation
--
......................................................................
............................ Neile Graham ............................
br...@serv.net / ne...@sff.net.........http://www.sff.net/people/neile
The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music .... http://www.smoe.org/ectoguide