Prince Caspian and The Lord of the Rings (spoilers)
johan.g...@gmail.com
wood that both come alive (roughly) to attack an enemy force. PC was
published in 1951, and LotR in 1954 and '55. Since the authors knew
each other, was one of them cribbing off the other, or were they
perhaps borrowing from some common source?
Johan Larson
Dorothy J Heydt
If either of them was borrowing from the other, it would've been
Lewis from Tolkien. Lewis was rather easily influenced; whereas
he said of Tolkien, "You might as well try to influence a
Bandersnatch!"
"Common source" is likelier, but the source was what Tolkien
called "the Story Pot," the entire corpus of myth, legend,
folklore, and fiction that has been both input and output to
European story-telling for the last several millennia. If you
haven't read Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-Stories," do.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Kurt Busiek
Neither, really.
In THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, the river rises in a magically-induced
wave to sweep away the Riders, but it's not anything native to the
river, it's Elrond and Gandalf's magic. As I recall, Gandalf added
the illusory horses.
In PRINCE CASPIAN, there is a river-god, but he's confined to the
riverbed, chained by the structures of men (i.e., the bridge). He
doesn't rise and destroy it, Bacchus pulls the bridge apart with
vines.
Tolkien was probably thinking of the legends of water-horses, kelpies
and the like. Lewis was just working with nature spirits.
The reason the river-god rises and destroys the bridge himself in the
PRINCE CASPIAN movie is likely because the producers and director seem
to have adopted, as an overriding principle, "be reasonably faithful
to the source material, but if it's ever possible to make it look like
the Lord of the Rings movies, do it."
So Lewis and Tolkien weren't doing anything particularly similar, but
the director of the PRINCE CASPIAN movie was almost certainly
emulating Peter Jackson's approach to the Bruinen Ford sequence.
kdb
Sea Wasp
Actually, I suspect it was the simpler principle of "We're not
showing the Bacchus sequence because it'd be more distracting and
confusing for moviegoers, but we still have to wreck the bridge
because it works with the current plotline, so why not just have the
river god be able to do the work, with Aslan awakening him just like
he does the trees?"
I was ASTONISHED at this movie.
What little bits I'd seen had made me believe that they'd changed far
too much and probably wrecked the essence of the story. Instead, they
changed basically what they HAD to, adjusted for those changes, and
aside from a couple minor points did a virtually perfect adaptation.
I'm now looking very much forward to the Dawn Treader movie.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Konrad Gaertner
For the forest, I'm sure both were familiar with Shakespeare's
"Macbeth".
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
> > So Lewis and Tolkien weren't doing anything particularly similar, but
> > the director of the PRINCE CASPIAN movie was almost certainly
> > emulating Peter Jackson's approach to the Bruinen Ford sequence.
>
> Actually, I suspect it was the simpler principle of "We're not
> showing the Bacchus sequence because it'd be more distracting and
> confusing for moviegoers, but we still have to wreck the bridge
> because it works with the current plotline, so why not just have the
> river god be able to do the work, with Aslan awakening him just like
> he does the trees?"
>
> I was ASTONISHED at this movie.
I enjoyed it quite a bit, myself. While I do think they're trying to
Jackson up the visuals when possible, I don't see that as a bad thing.
> What little bits I'd seen had made me believe that they'd changed far
> too much and probably wrecked the essence of the story. Instead, they
> changed basically what they HAD to, adjusted for those changes, and
> aside from a couple minor points did a virtually perfect adaptation.
They added the whole Assault on Castle Miraz in the middle (though
even that is suggested in the book, even if we never see it come to
pass), which I thought was a fine addition. The plot to PRINCE
CASPIAN is very, very simple, and unlike most books, which need to be
compressed to fit into a movie's running time, it needed to be opened
up here and there, and I thought they did it well.
> I'm now looking very much forward to the Dawn Treader movie.
Me too. And I'm resentful that it'll take so long to get to THE HORSE
AND HIS BOY and THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW. I want to see them now!
kdb
johan.g...@gmail.com
> I was ASTONISHED at this movie.
>
> What little bits I'd seen had made me believe that they'd changed far
> too much and probably wrecked the essence of the story. Instead, they
> changed basically what they HAD to, adjusted for those changes, and
> aside from a couple minor points did a virtually perfect adaptation.
It seemed to me that the first movie was very specific to
Christianity, in that it retold the story of Jesus in the guise of a
fairy-tale. But this second one was much less specifically Christian,
focusing on a broader point about faith in God -- and the need for his
assistance -- even when he doesn't choose to make himself obvious. Did
the movie perhaps remove some Christ-specific elements that were
present in the book?
Johan Larson
Sea Wasp
> On May 18, 2:24 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>>>So Lewis and Tolkien weren't doing anything particularly similar, but
>>>the director of the PRINCE CASPIAN movie was almost certainly
>>>emulating Peter Jackson's approach to the Bruinen Ford sequence.
>>
>> Actually, I suspect it was the simpler principle of "We're not
>>showing the Bacchus sequence because it'd be more distracting and
>>confusing for moviegoers, but we still have to wreck the bridge
>>because it works with the current plotline, so why not just have the
>>river god be able to do the work, with Aslan awakening him just like
>>he does the trees?"
>>
>> I was ASTONISHED at this movie.
>
>
> I enjoyed it quite a bit, myself. While I do think they're trying to
> Jackson up the visuals when possible, I don't see that as a bad thing.
>
I just wouldn't use the term "Jackson". If you insist on applying any
name to it, either "Lucas" or "Spielberg" would be more appropriate.
Jackson didn't invent the spectacle.
>
>> What little bits I'd seen had made me believe that they'd changed far
>>too much and probably wrecked the essence of the story. Instead, they
>>changed basically what they HAD to, adjusted for those changes, and
>>aside from a couple minor points did a virtually perfect adaptation.
>
>
> They added the whole Assault on Castle Miraz in the middle (though
> even that is suggested in the book, even if we never see it come to
> pass), which I thought was a fine addition. The plot to PRINCE
> CASPIAN is very, very simple, and unlike most books, which need to be
> compressed to fit into a movie's running time, it needed to be opened
> up here and there, and I thought they did it well.\
Actually, they DID have to cut stuff -- and did, very well. The whole
"Meet Trumpkin and make their way to meet Caspian" rather DRAGS if you
envision it as part of a movie, and they compressed it to its essence.
Similarly, the introduction of Caspian, Doctor Cornelius, etc., would
take a LONG time in movie terms; instead, they got across Caspian's
basic situation in about four minutes and moved from there. WELL done.
The only part I DIDN'T like was how pissy Peter was in competition
with Caspian. While I can see that a little of that makes sense, I
think they went too far in making him a modern teenager-type with
Angsty Issues, which wasn't proper for Peter at all.
The "summon the White Lady" bit, OTOH, was very well done and the
added imagery worked well without changing the essential story (I was
afraid they'd have her actually come back)
There were a couple of slightly rough "cut" areas that make me
suspect that there will actually be a fairly well extended version on
DVD. Especially the section with Lucy and Aslan in their first
meeting, when Lucy's supposed to go back and drag the others with her.
>
>
>> I'm now looking very much forward to the Dawn Treader movie.
>
>
> Me too. And I'm resentful that it'll take so long to get to THE HORSE
> AND HIS BOY and THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW. I want to see them now!
They're following the main thrust of narrative first, which makes
sense. "The Horse and His Boy" is really the odd man out, as it's the
only one that doesn't focus on some Son of Adam or Daughter of Eve
entering these other worlds.
Kurt Busiek
> johan.g.lar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Both Prince Caspian and The Lord of the Rings feature a river and a
> > wood that both come alive (roughly) to attack an enemy force. PC was
> > published in 1951, and LotR in 1954 and '55. Since the authors knew
> > each other, was one of them cribbing off the other, or were they
> > perhaps borrowing from some common source?
>
> For the forest, I'm sure both were familiar with Shakespeare's
> "Macbeth".
Tolkien suspected the Ents were inspired by his disappointment in the
Birnam Wood scene.
And a hostile stand of trees had been seen in THE WIZARD OF OZ, to
boot.
But trees that walk and/or talk are part of animistic legends found in
many folklores.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> I just wouldn't use the term "Jackson".
You don't have to, of course.
> If you insist on applying any
> name to it, either "Lucas" or "Spielberg" would be more appropriate.
> Jackson didn't invent the spectacle.
And if all I were referring to was visual spectacle, I wouldn't even
tag it to Lucas or Spielberg. But I think they're heavily influenced
by the LORD OF THE RINGS movies (and not just influenced, but using a
lot of the same FX technicians and craftsmen), and they consider it a
commercial plus to look like those movies. I think the success of
LOTR is what got the Narnia movies greenlit in the first place, and
they want a deliberately-similar visual appeal.
> There were a couple of slightly rough "cut" areas that make me
> suspect that there will actually be a fairly well extended version on
> DVD. Especially the section with Lucy and Aslan in their first
> meeting, when Lucy's supposed to go back and drag the others with her.
When Peter and Susan say they won't be coming back, they seem to refer
back to a scene that wasn't shown, so I suspect we'll see that, too.
> >> I'm now looking very much forward to the Dawn Treader movie.
>
> > Me too. And I'm resentful that it'll take so long to get to THE HORSE
> > AND HIS BOY and THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW. I want to see them now!
>
> They're following the main thrust of narrative first, which makes
> sense. "The Horse and His Boy" is really the odd man out, as it's the
> only one that doesn't focus on some Son of Adam or Daughter of Eve
> entering these other worlds.
As I understand it, they're filming the books in order -- or in what
gets called, these days, "publication order." So we get DAWN TREADER
next, then SILVER CHAIR.
I'm all for that. I just really, really like HORSE and NEPHEW, and I
want to see them now (along with DAWN TREADER -- Wardrobe, Treader,
Horse and Nephew are my favorites). Not to the point that I'd want
them to skip over anything, though. I'm just impatient for all of it
but THE LAST BATTLE.
And given how well they opened up PRINCE CASPIAN, I have hopes that
I'll like the LAST BATTLE movie more than the book...
kdb
Rich Horton
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> They're following the main thrust of narrative first, which makes
>sense. "The Horse and His Boy" is really the odd man out, as it's the
>only one that doesn't focus on some Son of Adam or Daughter of Eve
>entering these other worlds.
It's also my favorite, perhaps for that reason.
They'll have to change the description of the Calormenes, of course,
to avoid offending contemporary sensibilities.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I was a bit disappointed. I've never read the Narnia books. I understand
that they are allegory, but I think that regardless, the front-story needs
to stand on its own. I'm sure there was some allegorical explanation
for the backstory of the events between TLTW&TW & PC, but here's how it
played out as front-story:
For some reason (Aslan?) the Brit-kids are seized by a sudden madness at
the end of the first movie and abandon being kings and queens on the spur
of the moment, with no heirs or succession planning to go back being
minors in reasonably poor circumstances.
Immediately thereafter, the Telmarines (sp?) invade and perpetrate a
genocide on the native Narnians. Aslan declines to intervene then, or at
any point in the next 1000 years.
The Brit-kids are called back and all their efforts are pretty useless until
such time as they meet Aslan, and he does what he could have done at any time,
avoiding centuries of slaughter. And then they decide to go back to being
bullied kids *again*..
As I say, I'm sure there are sound reasons this makes good Christian Allegory,
but as front-story, it didn't work for me. Was it handled any differently
in the actual book?
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Gene
news:Ti2Yj.76472$%15.6...@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
> I was a bit disappointed. I've never read the Narnia books.
I understand
> that they are allegory,
You understand incorrectly.
Brenda Clough
>
> As I say, I'm sure there are sound reasons this makes good Christian Allegory,
> but as front-story, it didn't work for me. Was it handled any differently
> in the actual book?
>
>
The actual explanation given in the books is that time in Narnia
runs at a different rate than it does here. Perfectly sensible,
since when you travel from our earth to Narnia you are actually
hopping from one entire universe to another. (In other words,
no amount of rocket ship travel would get you to Narnia.)
From the writer's point of view, if Lewis's goal was to have
one set of human children see the entirety of Narnia's existence
from creation to demise, then he needed some gimmick to allow
this. Since it would be unreasonable to extend their lives, to
put Narnia on fast-forward, with a couple pauses here and there
for a novel, is a good way to address the issue. In THE LAST
BATTLE one of the human visitors says, "I was present at
Narnia's creation. I never thought I would be at its end."
This lends the entire thing a great unity, and also serves one
of Lewis's larger goals: to make an aspect of God more
understandable. Perhaps to the Divine view an entire universe's
existence, from the Big Bang to the heat-death, are a morning's
viewing.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction:
"A Mighty Fortress"
http://www.helixsf.com/archives/Jul07/index.htm
Kurt Busiek
> I was a bit disappointed. I've never read the Narnia books. I understand
> that they are allegory, but I think that regardless, the front-story needs
> to stand on its own. I'm sure there was some allegorical explanation
> for the backstory of the events between TLTW&TW & PC, but here's how it
> played out as front-story:
They're heavily Christian-themed, but not actually allegory. The
distinction is pretty much definitional, though.
> As I say, I'm sure there are sound reasons this makes good Christian Allegory,
> but as front-story, it didn't work for me. Was it handled any differently
> in the actual book?
I'd have to reread it to check the details, but not in the larger
sweep of things.
There might have been something in there about the Narnians getting
complacent in their prosperity, and coming to think of Aslan as a
myth. Aslan doesn't return until people start having faith.
So the reason he doesn't just come back and set all to rights is that
he's a god, not a superhero. He'll help those who have faith, not
just those who suffer.
I'm sure there are more positive ways to put it, but that's the gist.
kdb
Konrad Gaertner
>
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
> news:Ti2Yj.76472$%15.6...@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>
> > that they are allegory,
>
> You understand incorrectly.
Is it for the annual allegory debate?
Sea Wasp
I don't see why. If anything, they're almost close to topical
villains now.
Changing them would lose the point. What are you going to do, make
them Nazis?
William December Starr
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
> There might have been something in there about the Narnians
> getting complacent in their prosperity, and coming to think of
> Aslan as a myth. Aslan doesn't return until people start having
> faith.
>
> So the reason he doesn't just come back and set all to rights is
> that he's a god, not a superhero. He'll help those who have
> faith, not just those who suffer.
If so, what an asshole.
Was it ever stated that Narnia ran under a "when you die you get
judged and rewarded or punished accordingly" rule-set, so that we
might think that all those poor shmucks that Aslan couldn't be
bothered to help out in their first lives at least got some sort of
compensatory treatment in their second?
(Yes, I've read the books. Long time ago, though, and honestly I
wasn't that impressed.)
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Sea Wasp
Um, no.
Both in the book and the movie, they are seized not by madness, but
by a feeling that there's something important and tantalizingly
familiar about the lamp-post and its circumstances. They follow that,
WITH NO IDEA THEY ARE ABOUT TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE WORLD (and thus no
need to concern themselves with heirs, succession planning, etc.). By
the time they realize what's going on -- they're home.
>
> Immediately thereafter, the Telmarines (sp?) invade and perpetrate a
> genocide on the native Narnians. Aslan declines to intervene then, or at
> any point in the next 1000 years.
That's not quite the way it plays out in the books. It's a few
centuries before the Telmarines take over, as I recall it.
>
> The Brit-kids are called back and all their efforts are pretty useless until
> such time as they meet Aslan, and he does what he could have done at any time,
> avoiding centuries of slaughter. And then they decide to go back to being
> bullied kids *again*..
THEY don't decide this. As Aslan explains, they HAVE to go back.
Narnia is a place they can visit, a place they can learn some things
in, but not a place they can stay. ASLAN decides this.
And as both movies make pretty clear, when Aslan makes a decision,
you don't have much say in the matter.
>
> As I say, I'm sure there are sound reasons this makes good Christian Allegory,
> but as front-story, it didn't work for me. Was it handled any differently
> in the actual book?
To some extent.
Aslan cannot act directly except in a pretty limited set of
circumstances. Oh, he has the POWER to act any time he wants, but as
he says to Lucy at one point in Dawn Treader "Do you think that I
would not abide by my own rules?".
The actions and choices of certain types have to be made by Sons of
Adam and Daughters of Eve (i.e., people from our world, or descended
of people from our world). Why that particular link exists isn't
really explained until The Magician's Nephew. But the actions of those
humans still have to be taken in the context of Aslan and Narnia as a
whole, which means that acting purely on your own, without
consideration of Aslan's intent or actions, will lead to disaster.
This is a VERY Christian point of view -- and explains why Narnia
falls when the Telmarines arrive, and why they can't recover until (A)
Caspian escapes and resolves to free Old Narnia for the sake of doing
what is right, not just to save his skin, and (B)the Four Kings and
Queens return AND accept -- and follow -- the guidance of Aslan
correctly. In the Bible, Man was given dominion over all creatures;
this conversely implies that the Beasts of Narnia have to get human
beings on their side in order to win a battle against other human
interlopers.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <7cca2df4-0b13-42d8-a364-0da30f7e9...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> said:
>
> > There might have been something in there about the Narnians
> > getting complacent in their prosperity, and coming to think of
> > Aslan as a myth. Aslan doesn't return until people start having
> > faith.
>
> > So the reason he doesn't just come back and set all to rights is
> > that he's a god, not a superhero. He'll help those who have
> > faith, not just those who suffer.
>
> If so, what an asshole.
Depends on the context, I'd say. It's an asshole thing to do if you
expect him to be a superhero.
In religion, the idea that gods only help the faithful isn't uncommon.
> Was it ever stated that Narnia ran under a "when you die you get
> judged and rewarded or punished accordingly" rule-set, so that we
> might think that all those poor shmucks that Aslan couldn't be
> bothered to help out in their first lives at least got some sort of
> compensatory treatment in their second?
I'd have to reread them to check the details, as noted before. But it
certainly comes up in THE LAST BATTLE. Obstreperously so.
kdb
Sea Wasp
> On May 18, 3:21 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>There were a couple of slightly rough "cut" areas that make me
>>suspect that there will actually be a fairly well extended version on
>>DVD. Especially the section with Lucy and Aslan in their first
>>meeting, when Lucy's supposed to go back and drag the others with her.
>
>
> When Peter and Susan say they won't be coming back, they seem to refer
> back to a scene that wasn't shown, so I suspect we'll see that, too.
Maybe, but that would be an addition. We don't see/hear that
discussion in the book; we find it out second-hand, just like in the
movie.
>
>
>>>> I'm now looking very much forward to the Dawn Treader movie.
>>>
>>>Me too. And I'm resentful that it'll take so long to get to THE HORSE
>>>AND HIS BOY and THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW. I want to see them now!
>>
>> They're following the main thrust of narrative first, which makes
>>sense. "The Horse and His Boy" is really the odd man out, as it's the
>>only one that doesn't focus on some Son of Adam or Daughter of Eve
>>entering these other worlds.
>
>
> As I understand it, they're filming the books in order -- or in what
> gets called, these days, "publication order." So we get DAWN TREADER
> next, then SILVER CHAIR.
Which is also the main thrust of narrative for the series. Everything
through the Last Battle is in fact part of a pretty much unbroken
chain: 4 Pevensies in LWW and PC, then Edmund, Lucy, and Eustace in
DT, then Eustace and Jill in both SC and LB. The Magician's Nephew
tells a story of beginnings but has minimal chance for real spectacle
unless they do some SERIOUS rewrites. With the current team I could
possibly believe that they could find a way to rewrite it and give it
spectacle without ruining it, but it'd be a hard row to hoe. The Horse
and His Boy is completely different; the Pevensies make an appearance,
but aren't even at that point aware they're from another world, and
have only minor influence on the plot, while most plot drivers are
purely Narnia native.
> And given how well they opened up PRINCE CASPIAN, I have hopes that
> I'll like the LAST BATTLE movie more than the book...
It's possible, though that one will again need some rewriting if they
want to keep the "spectacle" bit working. It's a great book, but it
definitely leaves something to be desired in the Great Final Clash area.
Dorothy J Heydt
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Gene wrote:
>>
>> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
>> news:Ti2Yj.76472$%15.6...@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>
>> > I've never read the Narnia books. I understand
>> > that they are allegory,
>>
>> You understand incorrectly.
>
>Is it for the annual allegory debate?
Meh. Why don't we debate the order in which to read the Lensman
series instead, just to clear the air?
Gene
news:K139w...@no.such.domain:
> Meh. Why don't we debate the order in which to read the
Lensman
> series instead, just to clear the air?
Why not break new ground and debate whether Lensman is
allegory?
Dorothy J Heydt
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>Was it ever stated that Narnia ran under a "when you die you get
>judged and rewarded or punished accordingly" rule-set, so that we
>might think that all those poor shmucks that Aslan couldn't be
>bothered to help out in their first lives at least got some sort of
>compensatory treatment in their second?
Yes, as a matter of fact. In _The Last Battle_ Aslan is standing
in the doorway between Heaven and dying Narnia. All manner of
creatures, human and other, come running up to the door. Each
one has a moment to look into the eyes of Aslan and either love
him or hate him. The former run past him through the door into
Heaven. The latter turn aside and run away into darkness. This
is a quick illustration of a concept that theologians call the
Particular Vision, in which each soul at its end is given a
glimpse of God and an opportunity to go with him or away from
him. This, as you can see, gives a last opportunity for those
who have never had an opportunity to hear ther Gospel, or have
been convinced by skeptics that it's all fairy tales. Trouble
is, the theologians have never come to an agreement over whether
it happens or not.
Also, in the same book there's a young Calormene. I must explain
that the god of the Calormenes, Tash, is a demon, but they don't
realize it. This young Calormene is very devout, wants to do
good works to in the service of. He dies and finds himself in Heaven,
and when he has *his* Particular Vision he is terrified, because
he realizes at once that Aslan is the Genuine Good Guy and here
he is having followed Tash all his life. But Aslan reassures him
that good deeds done in Tash's name accrue to one's merit with
Aslan, and evil deeds done in Aslan's name are rejected.
johan.g...@gmail.com
> djhe...@no.such.domain (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote innews:K139w...@no.such.domain:
>
>
>
> > Meh. Why don't we debate the order in which to read the
> Lensman
> > series instead, just to clear the air?
>
> Why not break new ground and debate whether Lensman is
> allegory?
How about whether allegory is fascist?
Johan Larson
Rich Horton
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>Rich Horton wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 18:21:18 -0400, Sea Wasp
>> <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> They're following the main thrust of narrative first, which makes
>>>sense. "The Horse and His Boy" is really the odd man out, as it's the
>>>only one that doesn't focus on some Son of Adam or Daughter of Eve
>>>entering these other worlds.
>>
>>
>> It's also my favorite, perhaps for that reason.
>>
>> They'll have to change the description of the Calormenes, of course,
>> to avoid offending contemporary sensibilities.
>
> I don't see why. If anything, they're almost close to topical
>villains now.
>
Yes, but a) the description is cliched to the point of offensiveness,
and b) rather than being topical villains, there is a reluctance to
make that group villains these days.
> Changing them would lose the point. What are you going to do, make
>them Nazis?
Well, that's a problem, isn't it? The best option might be to make
them some fictional religious group, or perhaps an extinct or nearly
extinct group. (Mithraists, maybe?) But yes, that would blunt the
point of the book.
Brenda Clough
I would do quite the opposite. Make them extremely
Arabian-Nights-y, to the point where it is obvious that they
have no connection to any current nation or culture.
Brenda Clough
Perhaps the time is ripe for the creation of the RASF Flame War
Calendar, a mate to the famous SFWA Flame War Calendar.
W. Citoan
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> > Why not break new ground and debate whether Lensman is
> > allegory?
>
> Perhaps the time is ripe for the creation of the RASF Flame War
> Calendar, a mate to the famous SFWA Flame War Calendar.
I believe we tried that once. Predictably, it broke into a flame war
over the ordering...
- W. Citoan
--
An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.
-- Simon Camerson
David DeLaney
>djh...@no.such.domain (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> series instead, just to clear the air?
>
>Why not break new ground and debate whether Lensman is allegory?
Of course it is. Scintillating, coruscating, seven-sector nine-decimal-place
allegory.
Dave "... or am I getting that confused with crocodiction?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>> For some reason (Aslan?) the Brit-kids are seized by a sudden madness at
>> the end of the first movie and abandon being kings and queens on the spur
>> of the moment, with no heirs or succession planning to go back being
>> minors in reasonably poor circumstances.
>
>by a feeling that there's something important and tantalizingly
>familiar about the lamp-post and its circumstances. They follow that,
>WITH NO IDEA THEY ARE ABOUT TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE WORLD (and thus no
>need to concern themselves with heirs, succession planning, etc.). By
>the time they realize what's going on -- they're home.
And, though it's not gone over quite as much in the first movie as in the first
book, it's been a few _decades_ that they've been Kings and Queens together
in Narnia before this happens ... the remembrance of how they got there in the
first place is a thing of their childhood, half-forgotten and overwritten by
all the Experiences they've had ruling the land for so long. It's barely
possible one of them might have recalled the significance of the lamp-post
before getting far enough past it to be back in the wardrobe again ... but
remember that only Lucy had actually ever gone _back_ before, and the rest of
them scoffed at her when she first told them about it. So I'd think it likely
that for three of them they really wouldn't have had a chance to realize "hey,
this might end our tenure here"...
>But the actions of those
>humans still have to be taken in the context of Aslan and Narnia as a
>whole, which means that acting purely on your own, without
>consideration of Aslan's intent or actions, will lead to disaster.
Which, in a sense, is a theme explored further in The Silver Chair...
Dave "UNDER ME" DeLaney
Dorothy J Heydt
Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Rich Horton wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 18:21:18 -0400, Sea Wasp
>>> <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> They're following the main thrust of narrative first, which makes
>>>> sense. "The Horse and His Boy" is really the odd man out, as it's the
>>>> only one that doesn't focus on some Son of Adam or Daughter of Eve
>>>> entering these other worlds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's also my favorite, perhaps for that reason.
>>>
>>> They'll have to change the description of the Calormenes, of course,
>>> to avoid offending contemporary sensibilities.
>>
>> I don't see why. If anything, they're almost close to topical
>> villains now.
>>
>> Changing them would lose the point. What are you going to do, make
>> them Nazis?
>
>I would do quite the opposite. Make them extremely
>Arabian-Nights-y, to the point where it is obvious that they
>have no connection to any current nation or culture.
They're fairly that way now. And, IIRC, they are polytheists,
worshipping not only Tash but Zardeenah, Lady of the Night and of
Maidens, and arguably the equivalent of an entire pre-Christian,
pre-Islamic Near Eastern pantheon. If I were directing the
series, that's certainly how I would work it.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, I phrased it badly, but I meant that some outside influence took them
back to the lamp-post. That's the way it appeared to me anyway, and I took
it to be Aslan's work, given that the big-bad had been long defeated at
that point.
Gene
news:slrng31ot...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
> Dave "... or am I getting that confused with crocodiction?"
DeLaney
I deny the crocodiction and defy the crocodictators.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:9d60edf4-e5b2-44e0...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.c
om:
> Both Prince Caspian and The Lord of the Rings feature a river
> and a wood that both come alive (roughly) to attack an enemy
> force. PC was published in 1951, and LotR in 1954 and '55. Since
> the authors knew each other, was one of them cribbing off the
> other, or were they perhaps borrowing from some common source?
>
"The trees are alive" is hardly a new idea.
Tommie Kratman will, of course, reply to this, because he can't stop
himself. That's what makes him my bitch.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:eff9b94b-ef8d-4f26...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 18, 1:26 pm, johan.g.lar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Both Prince Caspian and The Lord of the Rings feature a river
>> and a wood that both come alive (roughly) to attack an enemy
>> force. PC was published in 1951, and LotR in 1954 and '55.
>> Since the authors knew each other, was one of them cribbing off
>> the other, or were they perhaps borrowing from some common
>> source?
>
> Neither, really.
>
> In THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, the river rises in a
> magically-induced wave to sweep away the Riders, but it's not
> anything native to the river, it's Elrond and Gandalf's magic.
> As I recall, Gandalf added the illusory horses.
>
> In PRINCE CASPIAN, there is a river-god, but he's confined to
> the riverbed, chained by the structures of men (i.e., the
> bridge). He doesn't rise and destroy it, Bacchus pulls the
> bridge apart with vines.
>
> Tolkien was probably thinking of the legends of water-horses,
> kelpies and the like. Lewis was just working with nature
> spirits.
>
> The reason the river-god rises and destroys the bridge himself
> in the PRINCE CASPIAN movie is likely because the producers and
> director seem to have adopted, as an overriding principle, "be
> reasonably faithful to the source material, but if it's ever
> possible to make it look like the Lord of the Rings movies, do
> it."
>
> So Lewis and Tolkien weren't doing anything particularly
> similar, but the director of the PRINCE CASPIAN movie was almost
> certainly emulating Peter Jackson's approach to the Bruinen Ford
> sequence.
>
That's be a more convincing argument if there's be horses in the
water.
That was, however, the most strikingly D&D moment in the movie:
Trapped at a river's edge, between a horde of heavily armed
monstrous beasties, and a little girl with a dagger. Which is more
dangerous? I'll go fight the army. It's *got* to be less dangerous.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
com:
> On May 18, 3:21 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com>
> wrote:
>> I just wouldn't use the term "Jackson".
>
> You don't have to, of course.
>
>> If you insist on applying any
>> name to it, either "Lucas" or "Spielberg" would be more
>> appropriate. Jackson didn't invent the spectacle.
>
> And if all I were referring to was visual spectacle, I wouldn't
> even tag it to Lucas or Spielberg. But I think they're heavily
> influenced by the LORD OF THE RINGS movies (and not just
> influenced, but using a lot of the same FX technicians and
> craftsmen), and they consider it a commercial plus to look like
> those movies. I think the success of LOTR is what got the
> Narnia movies greenlit in the first place, and they want a
> deliberately-similar visual appeal.
I think you're seeing a *lot* more similiarity than most people
see.
>
>> There were a couple of slightly rough "cut" areas that make me
>> suspect that there will actually be a fairly well extended
>> version on DVD. Especially the section with Lucy and Aslan in
>> their first meeting, when Lucy's supposed to go back and drag
>> the others with her.
>
> When Peter and Susan say they won't be coming back, they seem to
> refer back to a scene that wasn't shown, so I suspect we'll see
> that, too.
Let's hope.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:Ti2Yj.76472$%15.6...@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
> In article
> <f4808115-2cd1-4c52...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.co
> m>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On May 18, 2:24 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com>
>>wrote:
>>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>> > So Lewis and Tolkien weren't doing anything particularly
>>> > similar, but the director of the PRINCE CASPIAN movie was
>>> > almost certainly emulating Peter Jackson's approach to the
>>> > Bruinen Ford sequence.
>>>
> Immediately thereafter, the Telmarines (sp?) invade and
> perpetrate a genocide on the native Narnians. Aslan declines to
> intervene then, or at any point in the next 1000 years.
>
> The Brit-kids are called back and all their efforts are pretty
> useless until such time as they meet Aslan, and he does what he
> could have done at any time, avoiding centuries of slaughter.
> And then they decide to go back to being bullied kids *again*..
>
> As I say, I'm sure there are sound reasons this makes good
> Christian Allegory, but as front-story, it didn't work for me.
> Was it handled any differently in the actual book?
>
As with much great literature, it isn't about the events, it's
about the people. And if that doesn't explain it to you, I doubt
any effort ever will.
David DeLaney
>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
>
>I deny the crocodiction and defy the crocodictators.
I, for one, WELCOME our new crocodictatorial overlords.
Dave "river of dreamhorses" DeLaney
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:Xns9AA2B06C4EA7Fge...@207.115.17.102:
I say Tolkein ripped off Gary Gygax when he wrote that Lord of the
Rings crap.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:g0qg2n$lqk$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> In article
> <7cca2df4-0b13-42d8...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> >, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
>
>> There might have been something in there about the Narnians
>> getting complacent in their prosperity, and coming to think of
>> Aslan as a myth. Aslan doesn't return until people start
>> having faith.
>>
>> So the reason he doesn't just come back and set all to rights
>> is that he's a god, not a superhero. He'll help those who have
>> faith, not just those who suffer.
>
> If so, what an asshole.
How can you be a good person if you never have to do anything for
yourself? Would you consider your parents to be good parents if
they never let you learn how to take care of yourself?
>
> Was it ever stated that Narnia ran under a "when you die you get
> judged and rewarded or punished accordingly" rule-set, so that
> we might think that all those poor shmucks that Aslan couldn't
> be bothered to help out in their first lives at least got some
> sort of compensatory treatment in their second?
More along the lines of "When you die you pass judgement on
yourself based on how you lived your life." I'm thinking of the bad
guy characters who literally could not see Aslan or paradise when
they were right in front of them. This is, BTW, traditional
Christian theology (not often observed these days).
>
> (Yes, I've read the books. Long time ago, though, and honestly
> I wasn't that impressed.)
>
Certainly not for everyone.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:26ab2b5d-d814-4d8c...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.
com:
> On May 18, 5:24 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com>
> wrote:
>> I was ASTONISHED at this movie.
>>
>> What little bits I'd seen had made me believe that
>> they'd changed far
>> too much and probably wrecked the essence of the story.
>> Instead, they changed basically what they HAD to, adjusted for
>> those changes, and aside from a couple minor points did a
>> virtually perfect adaptation.
>
> It seemed to me that the first movie was very specific to
> Christianity, in that it retold the story of Jesus in the guise
> of a fairy-tale. But this second one was much less specifically
> Christian, focusing on a broader point about faith in God -- and
> the need for his assistance -- even when he doesn't choose to
> make himself obvious. Did the movie perhaps remove some
> Christ-specific elements that were present in the book?
>
Not really, no. Lewis wasn't writing explicitly Christian stuff,
after all.
Herr Oberst
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote innews:eff9b94b-ef8d-4f26...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.c
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, puhleeze, Terrie. You wouldn't go fight an army or anything
else. You're a coward, boy.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
to me, because you *cannot* stop yourself. You are my bitch.
*Forever*. And you *know* it, and *love* it.
Herr Oberst <nrv...@aol.com> wrote in
news:73b32622-1ad5-4d4c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.
com:
> On May 19, 1:16�am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote
>> innews:eff9b94b-ef8d-4f26-b89a-3f1ddca
> 53...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.c
Christopher Adams
>
> Not really, no. Lewis wasn't writing explicitly Christian stuff,
> after all.
I can't really agree - the climax of "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is
pretty difficult to read in any generically religious or spiritual sense. If
one were even to accept that Lewis were capable of writing something
"generically" religious.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
Dorothy J Heydt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Trapped at a river's edge, between a horde of heavily armed
>monstrous beasties, and a little girl with a dagger. Which is more
>dangerous? I'll go fight the army. It's *got* to be less dangerous.
Sounds more like the audition scene in _Men in Black_, in which
the cop ignores the monsters and shoots the little girl with the
physics textbook, because she's the dangerous one.
Sea Wasp
> In article <7cca2df4-0b13-42d8...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
>
>
>>There might have been something in there about the Narnians
>>getting complacent in their prosperity, and coming to think of
>>Aslan as a myth. Aslan doesn't return until people start having
>>faith.
>>
>>So the reason he doesn't just come back and set all to rights is
>>that he's a god, not a superhero. He'll help those who have
>>faith, not just those who suffer.
>
>
> If so, what an asshole.
>
This is not an uncommon perception of gods of all stripes.
> Was it ever stated that Narnia ran under a "when you die you get
> judged and rewarded or punished accordingly" rule-set, so that we
> might think that all those poor shmucks that Aslan couldn't be
> bothered to help out in their first lives at least got some sort of
> compensatory treatment in their second?
It's strongly implied in several of the books, and outright stated in
The Last Battle. IIRC, one of the quotes is "No good thing is ever
lost forever, not in My country." That is, it's not just people, but
any good individual or good work.
It's also outright stated that it doesn't matter if you SAY you
believe in Aslan. "Those who do good in the name of Tash, are truly
doing My work; those who do Evil in my name, belong to Tash." or
something along those lines.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp
> In article <4830C11B...@tx.rr.com>,
> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Gene wrote:
>>
>>>t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
>>>news:Ti2Yj.76472$%15.6...@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>that they are allegory,
>>>
>>
>>Is it for the annual allegory debate?
>
>
> Meh. Why don't we debate the order in which to read the Lensman
> series instead, just to clear the air?
Any order that appeals to you. Even a mind of very moderate ability
can Visualize that it is not merely possible, but NECESSARY, that
there be individuals who may read the Chronicles of Civilization in
any possible order. There are even those unfortunates for whom it is
not possible to truly grasp the import, scope, and vision of those
Chronicles.
Sea Wasp
They're Arabian Knights-style Persian villains. I'm sure it could be
done. Sort of bad-guy versions of the guardian sect (the name escapes
me at the moment) in the recent Mummy movies.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>But the actions of those
>>humans still have to be taken in the context of Aslan and Narnia as a
>>whole, which means that acting purely on your own, without
>>consideration of Aslan's intent or actions, will lead to disaster.
>
>
> Which, in a sense, is a theme explored further in The Silver Chair...
This one also is an illustration of how Aslan really does try to make
things work out despite human fallibility, while still playing by his
rules.
Sea Wasp
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>>Not really, no. Lewis wasn't writing explicitly Christian stuff,
>>after all.
>
>
> I can't really agree -
Well, of course not. This is Terry Austin. He's trolling here.
> the climax of "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is
> pretty difficult to read in any generically religious or spiritual sense.
If you're aware of Christian mythology and such, yes. I certainly
didn't make any Christian connections when I first read it, or LWW, or
any of the others.
>If
> one were even to accept that Lewis were capable of writing something
> "generically" religious.
>
I'm sure he was CAPABLE of it, but I doubt he wanted to, and in fact
was very deliberately writing Christian-themed material in the Narnia
chronicles.
Kevin
> Ted Nolan wrote:
>> Immediately thereafter, the Telmarines (sp?) invade and perpetrate a
>> genocide on the native Narnians. Aslan declines to intervene then, or at
>> any point in the next 1000 years.
> That's not quite the way it plays out in the books. It's a few
> centuries before the Telmarines take over, as I recall it.
The books seem pretty vague about the chronology, but that was also
my impression. It sounds like _all_ the Telmarine kings up until Miraz
were named Caspian, which would give ten generations from the time of the
Telmarine invasion.
It's pretty strange that the movie changed this point.
Kevin Nelson
Dorothy J Heydt
Spelt Magi, pronounced medj-EYE. Supposedly the descendants of
the personal guard of Seti I, and if you can believe that I've
got a bridge to show you.
The whole point of the Calormenes is that they are devil
worshipers. though they mostly don't realize it.
William December Starr
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> said:
>>
>>> So the reason he doesn't just come back and set all to rights is
>>> that he's a god, not a superhero. He'll help those who have
>>> faith, not just those who suffer.
>>
>> If so, what an asshole.
>
> Depends on the context, I'd say. It's an asshole thing to do if
> you expect him to be a superhero.
>
> In religion, the idea that gods only help the faithful isn't
> uncommon.
An important point, I think, is whether the god in question is *the*
god, the creator of all. If he is, then I feel that he has a duty to
_all_ the self-aware beings whose existense he is responsible for,
not just the ones that (a) are capable of understanding what it is
that he wants them to do, (b) actually get the message, and (c)
choose to do it.
>> Was it ever stated that Narnia ran under a "when you die you get
>> judged and rewarded or punished accordingly" rule-set, so that we
>> might think that all those poor shmucks that Aslan couldn't be
>> bothered to help out in their first lives at least got some sort
>> of compensatory treatment in their second?
>
> I'd have to reread them to check the details, as noted before.
> But it certainly comes up in THE LAST BATTLE. Obstreperously so.
That I remembered. I was wondering whether it applied to everybody
who ever lived there, and not just the ones who were alive when
Aslan decided to shut the show down.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
peterw...@hotmail.com
>
> And, though it's not gone over quite as much in the first movie as in the first
> book, it's been a few _decades_ that they've been Kings and Queens together
> in Narnia before this happens ... the remembrance of how they got there in the
> first place is a thing of their childhood, half-forgotten and overwritten by
> all the Experiences they've had ruling the land for so long. It's barely
> possible one of them might have recalled the significance of the lamp-post
> before getting far enough past it to be back in the wardrobe again ... but
> remember that only Lucy had actually ever gone _back_ before, and the rest of
> them scoffed at her when she first told them about it. So I'd think it likely
> that for three of them they really wouldn't have had a chance to realize "hey,
> this might end our tenure here"...
>
book.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Kurt Busiek
> > In religion, the idea that gods only help the faithful isn't
> > uncommon.
>
> An important point, I think, is whether the god in question is *the*
> god, the creator of all. If he is, then I feel that he has a duty to
> _all_ the self-aware beings whose existense he is responsible for,
> not just the ones that (a) are capable of understanding what it is
> that he wants them to do, (b) actually get the message, and (c)
> choose to do it.
Then from my perspective, it sounds like you think he should be a
superhero.
In our observable history, religions built around creator-of-all gods
don't generally work in that way, with the god responsible for keeping
his people from being invaded or killed or enslaved. The long history
of the Jews comes to mind.
Gods seem to be generally there to make people straighten up and fly
right, not to guard the borders so the people don't have to.
kdb
Dorothy J Heydt
Well, consider the young Calormene, whose name I can't recall.
He died before the final shut-down. He didn't come in through
the door ion the last rush. But his experience was essentially
the same. He encountered Aslan, loved him, and was accepted by
him.
It's a recurring theme in Lewis's work that it's not so much what
you've *done* that counts, as how what you've done has shaped
you. We spend our entire lives turning ourselves into the kind
of person who will (eventually, maybe with some more work
required) fit into Heaven; or into the kind of person who won't:
and for the latter, to be the kind of person he is, is Hell, no
flames necessary.
You might, if this doesn't make sense, take a look at Lewis's
_The Great Divorce_, which deals with this subject and is short,
shorter than a Narnia book.
Gene
news:483168A6...@sgeObviousinc.com:
>> Meh. Why don't we debate the order in which to read the
Lensman
>> series instead, just to clear the air?
>
> Any order that appeals to you. Even a mind of very
moderate ability
> can Visualize that it is not merely possible, but NECESSARY,
that
> there be individuals who may read the Chronicles of
Civilization in
> any possible order.
I read Children of the Lens first. Anyone else?
Gene
>>If
>> one were even to accept that Lewis were capable of writing
something
>> "generically" religious.
>>
>
> I'm sure he was CAPABLE of it, but I doubt he wanted to,
and in fact
> was very deliberately writing Christian-themed material in
the Narnia
> chronicles.
Till We Have Faces is generic.
Thomas Lindgren
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
> In article <f4808115-2cd1-4c52...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
...
> Immediately thereafter, the Telmarines (sp?) invade and perpetrate a
> genocide on the native Narnians. Aslan declines to intervene then, or at
> any point in the next 1000 years.
>
> ... (Aslan) does what he could have done at any time,
> avoiding centuries of slaughter. ...
>
> As I say, I'm sure there are sound reasons this makes good Christian Allegory,
> but as front-story, it didn't work for me. Was it handled any differently
> in the actual book?
I think those brit kids served as the allegorical flock of lionesses.
Once they have actually made the kill, the male hurries in to feed,
roaring impressively.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
John Schilling
wrote:
>In article <06cf6371-5de2-4fb5...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
>> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>> Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> said:
>>>> So the reason he doesn't just come back and set all to rights is
>>>> that he's a god, not a superhero. He'll help those who have
>>>> faith, not just those who suffer.
>>> If so, what an asshole.
>> Depends on the context, I'd say. It's an asshole thing to do if
>> you expect him to be a superhero.
>> In religion, the idea that gods only help the faithful isn't
>> uncommon.
>An important point, I think, is whether the god in question is *the*
>god, the creator of all. If he is, then I feel that he has a duty to
>_all_ the self-aware beings whose existense he is responsible for,
>not just the ones that (a) are capable of understanding what it is
>that he wants them to do, (b) actually get the message, and (c)
>choose to do it.
Is that duty not satisfied when He provides them with Eternal Life
in the Happily Ever After Place? It's one thing to question the
entrance requirements for Heaven, but if it's clear that everyone
who should get in is getting in (and I think Lewis tries to show
that), it seems kind of silly to quibble about who does or does
not undergo an infinitesimal bit of suffering beforehand.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.S...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Dorothy J Heydt
Particularly when he himself suffered, on a far from
infinitesimal scale, on our behalf.
David DeLaney
<thinks>
Oh duh. Of course, my fault. ...And Lucy picked up on it, and then Edmund
denied it flat-out to Peter and Susan, cuz he was being an evil little
barstid of a young boy at that point.
Don't know how motivated he'd have been to remember that incident after a
few decades of being Reformed ... but the oddest things from one's childhood
can bubble up at random times, I guess. So maybe my point's not very strong.
Dave
johan.g...@gmail.com
> I think those brit kids served as the allegorical flock of lionesses.
> Once they have actually made the kill, the male hurries in to feed,
> roaring impressively.
How's that? The kids and Narnians tried three rather clever schemes
against the Telmarines (infiltrating the castle, holding the duel, and
undermining the battlefield), and all of them failed. Without Aslan's
help, they would have lost.
Johan Larson
Sea Wasp
I first read "Second-Stage Lensmen", then went to "Triplanetary" once
I found the rest of the series a few years later.
Andrew Wheeler
> Brenda Clough wrote:
> >
> > Gene wrote:
> >
> > > Why not break new ground and debate whether Lensman is
> > > allegory?
> >
> > Perhaps the time is ripe for the creation of the RASF Flame War
> > Calendar, a mate to the famous SFWA Flame War Calendar.
>
> I believe we tried that once. Predictably, it broke into a flame war
> over the ordering...
I'm saying out of it this time, since no one followed my calendar back
in 2003.
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_frm/thread/fc
d2ab1bc6f10362/fa74fa369d95b9dd?hl=en&lnk=st&q=rec.arts.sf.written+%22an
drew+Wheeler%22+flame+war+calendar#fa74fa369d95b9dd>
--
Andrew Wheeler
Christopher Adams
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> They're Arabian Knights-style Persian villains. I'm sure it could be
>> done. Sort of bad-guy versions of the guardian sect (the name escapes
>> me at the moment) in the recent Mummy movies.
>
> Spelt Magi, pronounced medj-EYE.
Actually, in the film, they're the Medjai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medjay
William December Starr
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> said:
> Is that duty not satisfied when He provides them with Eternal Life
> in the Happily Ever After Place? It's one thing to question the
> entrance requirements for Heaven, but if it's clear that everyone
> who should get in is getting in (and I think Lewis tries to show
> that), it seems kind of silly to quibble about who does or does
> not undergo an infinitesimal bit of suffering beforehand.
I don't see it that way at all. Infinitesimal or not, it's still
greater than zero, and I don't think anything excuses that. Not
anything that I've ever heard proposed, anyway.
It's the _real_ Original Sin: Creating beings which can experience
anguish, and then failing to protect them from same.
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>> the climax of "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is
>> pretty difficult to read in any generically religious or spiritual
>> sense.
>
> If you're aware of Christian mythology and such, yes. I certainly
> didn't make any Christian connections when I first read it, or LWW, or
> any of the others.
I thought it was pretty obvious, despite having literally zero religious
education beyond an Illustrated Children's Bible.
Which I treated as a mythological storybook like my other illustrated
mythological storybooks. ;)
>> If one were even to accept that Lewis were capable of writing something
>> "generically" religious.
>
> I'm sure he was CAPABLE of it
I express my doubts because he was a man of his time and place.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:gX8Yj.2382$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>> Not really, no. Lewis wasn't writing explicitly Christian
>> stuff, after all.
>
> I can't really agree - the climax of "The Voyage of the Dawn
> Treader" is pretty difficult to read in any generically
> religious or spiritual sense. If one were even to accept that
> Lewis were capable of writing something "generically" religious.
>
Well, I'm happy for you. If you can get the point of it without
knowing any Christian mythology - and people do, all the time - I
would submit that you're a dumbass.
Tommie Kratman will, of course, reply to this, because he can't stop
himself. That's what makes him my bitch.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
@no.such.domain:
> In article <Xns9AA2E28C83D...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Trapped at a river's edge, between a horde of heavily armed
>>monstrous beasties, and a little girl with a dagger. Which is more
>>dangerous? I'll go fight the army. It's *got* to be less dangerous.
>
> Sounds more like the audition scene in _Men in Black_, in which
> the cop ignores the monsters and shoots the little girl with the
> physics textbook, because she's the dangerous one.
>
You have a point. Especially when you consider the little girl is
*smiling* the whole time. But then, MiB was a very D&Dish movie.
Brenda Clough
At least in the book, Prince Caspian is the tenth of that name.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction:
"A Mighty Fortress"
http://www.helixsf.com/archives/Jul07/index.htm
Dorothy J Heydt
I read them in internal chronological order, beginning with
Triplanetary, in the mid-sixties when Pyramid had just reprinted
them and a friend of mine had bought them all.
But Wasp is right; it's necessary to have read them all several
times and have the whole series outlined in one's head.
Mike Schilling
>
> But Wasp is right; it's necessary to have read them all several
> times and have the whole series outlined in one's head.
In the same sense that it's necessary to be able to name the 1927
Yankees starting lineup.
Ann Burlingham
> An important point, I think, is whether the god in question is *the*
> god, the creator of all. If he is, then I feel that he has a duty to
> _all_ the self-aware beings whose existense he is responsible for,
> not just the ones that (a) are capable of understanding what it is
> that he wants them to do, (b) actually get the message, and (c)
> choose to do it.
Funny you should mention this - I just came across a copy of _The last
battle_ in my house and browsed through it. Aslan explicitly tells a
Calormene that, although he thinks he has been worshipping another
god, anyone who did good things in the name of their god was actually
worshipping Aslan, while anyone claiming to worship Aslan while doing
bad things was actually giving the devil his due.
Conveeenient....
--
What use was it having all that money if you could never sit still
or just watch your cattle eating grass?
- Alexander McCall Smith, _The No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency_
Ann Burlingham
> Don't know how motivated he'd have been to remember that incident
> after a few decades of being Reformed ... but the oddest things from
> one's childhood can bubble up at random times, I guess. So maybe my
> point's not very strong.
No, it's a fine point. Childhood is another country. They've lived so
long in Narnia, thinking there's no way back, they're different people
as adults, I'd say.
Kevin
> Kevin wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's not quite the way it plays out in the books. It's a few
>>>centuries before the Telmarines take over, as I recall it.
>>
>>
>> The books seem pretty vague about the chronology, but that was also
>> my impression. It sounds like _all_ the Telmarine kings up until Miraz
>> were named Caspian, which would give ten generations from the time of the
>> Telmarine invasion.
>> It's pretty strange that the movie changed this point.
> At least in the book, Prince Caspian is the tenth of that name.
He is in the movie as well. The question is whether there were prior
Telmarine kings _not_ named Caspian.
Kevin Nelson
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
>
>
>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:
>
>> An important point, I think, is whether the god in question is *the*
>> god, the creator of all. If he is, then I feel that he has a duty to
>> _all_ the self-aware beings whose existense he is responsible for,
>> not just the ones that (a) are capable of understanding what it is
>> that he wants them to do, (b) actually get the message, and (c)
>> choose to do it.
>
>Funny you should mention this - I just came across a copy of _The last
>battle_ in my house and browsed through it. Aslan explicitly tells a
>Calormene that, although he thinks he has been worshipping another
>god, anyone who did good things in the name of their god was actually
>worshipping Aslan, while anyone claiming to worship Aslan while doing
>bad things was actually giving the devil his due.
>
>Conveeenient....
>
This also sounds like "salvation through works", which I thought was more
Catholic than Protestant, and I assumed, perhaps wrongly that Lewis was
COE.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Robert A. Woodward
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
_Gray Lensman_ first. Didn't read the others until several years
later. IIRC, I read _First Lensman_ last.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Christopher Adams
>
> This also sounds like "salvation through works", which I thought was
> more Catholic than Protestant, and I assumed, perhaps wrongly that
> Lewis was COE.
Lewis was, as I understand it, of a fairly High Church Anglican persuasion,
one disappointing step away from Catholicism in Tolkien's eyes, and so he
wouldn't share the stereotypical Continental (or Scottish) Protestant's
horror of salvation through works.
Sea Wasp
No, because there's no reason (unless you're a baseball player or
owner) that it's necessary to know ANY baseball starting lineup.
(also, are the 1927 Yankees one of the most influential teams in
baseball, with players and coaches today still saying that that team
is the reason they play baseball, and are their games still being
re-played today?)
Knowing the Lensman series, on the other hand, is a necessary
component of the knowledge of any member of Civilization!
Mike Schilling
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>>> But Wasp is right; it's necessary to have read them all several
>>> times and have the whole series outlined in one's head.
>>
>>
>> In the same sense that it's necessary to be able to name the 1927
>> Yankees starting lineup.
>>
>>
>
> No, because there's no reason (unless you're a baseball player or
> owner) that it's necessary to know ANY baseball starting lineup.
> (also, are the 1927 Yankees one of the most influential teams in
> baseball, with players and coaches today still saying that that team
> is the reason they play baseball, and are their games still being
> re-played today?)
They are the consensus choice for the best team ever. Ruth is both
the greatest and the most influential player in the history of
baseball, and Gehrig is baseball's great tragic hero.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <48335719...@sgeObviousinc.com>,
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>> Joseph Nebus wrote:
>>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> writes:
>>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>> But Wasp is right; it's necessary to have read them all several
>>>>>> times and have the whole series outlined in one's head.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the same sense that it's necessary to be able to name the 1927
>>>>> Yankees starting lineup.
>>>
>>>> No, because there's no reason (unless you're a baseball player or
>>>> owner) that it's necessary to know ANY baseball starting lineup.
>>>> (also, are the 1927 Yankees one of the most influential teams in
>>>> baseball, with players and coaches today still saying that that team
>>>> is the reason they play baseball, and are their games still being
>>>> re-played today?)
>>>
>>> You do understand you're talking about The 1927 Yankees, don't
>>> you?
>> Um, yes, as that's what's mentioned up above. Whether there is any
>> significance to that particular team is, as may be deduced, the question.
>
> Apparently, *to those who care about baseball,* that was a
> noteworthy team. Context is all. Whose opinion is being sought?
> There are those who care fervently about baseball and couldn't
> care less about the Lensman. It takes all kinds.
Which means, of course, that you agree with him -- it's necessary to
know the Lensmen books inside out and backwards in the same sense that
it's necessary to be able to name the '27 Yankees lineup.
I'm an SF reader and a baseball fan, and can't do either, so I agree
with him too. It's equally necessary.
kdb
David Johnston
<tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <Xns9AA4C453AA82Age...@207.115.33.102>,
>Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1sLYj.56$3N4...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> And there are many of who, on reading the Lensmen books,
>>think "That's
>>> it? That's what all the fuss is about? Not exactly the
>>Foundation
>>> series, is it?"
>>
>>I prefer it. But then, I prefer Tolkien to Mieville, so my
>>taste is suspect. Smith was well to the right of Asimov, so I
>>guess we can take it as given that Foundation is really better.
>>
>
>Was Smith that far to the "right" of Asimov? It's been a long time
>since I read the Lens books, but his "Civilization" kind of seems
>like the New-Deal-goes-to-war. I also seem to recall a lot of
>government involvement in the economy.
Um...no. Actually one of Civilisation's "problems" was that the huge
tax base of the government combined with nothing to spend it on now
that the war was winding down meant that they had an embarassment of
riches.
Derek Lyons
>In article <Xns9AA4E4B5A806Dge...@207.115.33.102>,
>Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>
>>In First Lensman, there is a political campaign between thinly
>>disguised Republicans and Democrats, with the Republicans the
>>good guys and Democrats the bad guys.
>
>Would you care to expand that? I see that campaign as a fairly
>black-and-white case of honest Patrolmen versus corrupt Big Money,
>and would tend to match the latter, not the former, with the
>Republicans. What features cause you to identify the good guys
>with the GOP?
Remember that the political parties in First Lensman will be thinly
disquised versions of the political parties then-and-there... Today's
stereotypes need not apply.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
David Johnston
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote in
>> news:4832B0AB...@sgeObviousinc.com:
>
>>>
>>> Knowing the Lensman series, on the other hand, is a
>>> necessary
>>>component of the knowledge of any member of Civilization!
>>>
>>
>> You need to know the Lensman series to play the board game?
>>
>
> There's a Civilization board game? I know the computer game.
Sid Meier's Civilisation was apparently inspired by the board game
(which even got it's own computer game).
>
> (And THERE would be a vastly improved version. Sid Meier's
>Civilization, incorporating developments like Lewistons, Bergenholms,
>primary beams, negaspheres...)
You could do it in Civilisation Two with a slight modification to the
Master of Orion scenario.
Dorothy J Heydt
*sigh*
Okay, let me clarify. It is necessary to have the whole History
of Civilization laid out, at least sketchily, in one's head if
one wants to appreciate the scope of Arisia's umpteen-billion-
year plan. Which I do. Ands it is necessary to know about the
1927 Yankees if one wants to understand the development of
twentieth-century baseball. Which I don't.
Dorothy J Heydt
>>
>> Well, yeah, darned near.
>>>
>>> Tommie Kratman will, of course, reply to this, because he can't
>>> stop himself. That's what makes him my bitch.
>>
>> seen the guy either rely to you, nor post at all. Who is he and
>> why do you expect him to reply to you?
>
>
>Kratman signs himself "Herr Oberst". Someone using that name has been
>paying Terry way too much attention; whether it's actually Kratman or
>not is debatable.
Oh, that one. Thank you, that's clear enough.
Kurt Busiek
Right. Which means you agree with him.
The qualifier you're citing -- "if one wants to understand/appreciate"
-- is the same in both cases.
That you care about the one thing and don't about the other doesn't
alter that. It's what your particular desires being to the table that
affects it, not anything about the knowledge or lack thereof itself.
The "in the same sense" doesn't mean "you, Dorothy J. Heydt, need to
know both things," it actually means "nobody actually needs to know
either, but given appropriate contexts, they may want to."
kdb
Gene
news:wLRYf8BL...@tqbase-adsl.demon.co.uk:
> There's also a complete lack of Yellow Peril/Wily
Indians/Noble Red
> Man/Degenerate Negroes text of any kind, which is noteworthy
considering
> the time of origin of the stories.
He had a Japanese character seeking revenge in Galactic Patrol,
for what that is worth. Also, a noble oriental servant in
Skylark.
Dorothy J Heydt
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@no.such.domain (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <Xns9AA4E4B5A806Dge...@207.115.33.102>,
>>Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>In First Lensman, there is a political campaign between thinly
>>>disguised Republicans and Democrats, with the Republicans the
>>>good guys and Democrats the bad guys.
>>
>>Would you care to expand that? I see that campaign as a fairly
>>black-and-white case of honest Patrolmen versus corrupt Big Money,
>>and would tend to match the latter, not the former, with the
>>Republicans. What features cause you to identify the good guys
>>with the GOP?
>
>Remember that the political parties in First Lensman will be thinly
>disquised versions of the political parties then-and-there... Today's
>stereotypes need not apply.
Well? Then-and-there, the policies of the Democrats were
(approximately) the policies of Roosevelt, whom other rich people
(who were chiefly Republicans) considered a traitor to his class.
Mike Schilling
I can't either. Ruth, Combes and Meusel in the outfield, Gehrig and
Tony Lazzeri [1] at first and second, but that's all.
1. Who, like most of the early Italian greats, came from the west
coast. I don't know why that's true, given how many more Italians
there were in the northeast.
Mike Schilling
> Um...no. Actually one of Civilisation's "problems" was that the
> huge
> tax base of the government combined with nothing to spend it on now
> that the war was winding down meant that they had an embarassment
> of
> riches.
Silly asses. Cut taxes way back (especially on the top earners) and
start a new war. It's worked for us.
Gene
news:K181L...@no.such.domain:
> What features cause you to identify the good guys
> with the GOP?
The rhetoric of the bad guys:
Kinnison mimicked savagely the demagogue's round and purple
tones as he went on: 'Since they had no mandate from the pee-
pul to trade their birthright for a mess of pottage that
nefarious and underhanded treaty is, a prima vista and ipso
facto and a priori, completely and necessarily and positively
null and void. People of Earth, arise! Arise! Rise in your
might and throw off this stultifying and degrading, this
paralyzing yoke of the Monied Powers-throw out this
dictatorial, autocratic, wealth-directed, illegal, monstrous
Council of so-called Lensmen! Rise in your might at the polls!
Elect a Council of your own choosing-not of Lensmen, but of
ordinary folks like you and me. Throw off this hellish yoke, I
say!'-and here he begins to positively froth at the mouth-'so
that government of the people, by the people, and for the
people shall not perish from the Earth!'
...
"Democracy? Bah! What does 'Rod the Rock' Kinnison-the hardest,
most vicious tyrant, the most relentless and pitiless martinet
ever known to any Armed Force in the long history of our world-
know of democracy? Nothing! He understands only force. All who
oppose him in anything, however small, or who seek to reason
with him, die without record or trace; and if he is not
arrested, tried, and executed, all such will continue,
tracelessly and without any pretense of trial, to die.
"But at bottom, even though he is not intelligent enough to
realize it, he is merely one more in the long parade of tools
of ruthless and predatory wealth, the MONIED POWERS. They, my
friends, never sleep; they have only one God, one tenet, one
creed-the almighty CREDIT. That is what they are after, and
note how craftily, how stealthily, they have done and are doing
their grabbing."
Gene
news:Xns9AA566F4CF03Cge...@207.115.17.102:
> in Galactic Patrol,
Triplanetary.
Gene
> 1. Who, like most of the early Italian greats, came from the
west
> coast. I don't know why that's true, given how many more
Italians
> there were in the northeast.
Ever heard of the Bank of Italy? Later it became the Bank of
America. Lots of Italians on the west coast.
Mike Schilling
And lots more on the east, but they didn't seem to play ball the way
Lazzeri, Dolph Camilli, Ernie Lombardi, and the DiMaggios (all from
the Bay Area) did.
Anthony Nance
Here's what I cobbled together to add to the above, all good
players (except **), Italian-American, and all born before 1950
(I think). The eye-opener to me is the concentration in the
Bay Area. Wow.
More West Coast:
SF - Crosetti, Mossi, Fregosi
Berkeley - Billy Martin**
Seattle - Santo
East Coast:
Philly - Campanella
Other Pa - Furillo, Tito Francona
NY - Colavito, Rizzuto, Torre, Pepitone, Branca, Petrocelli
Niagara Falls - Maglie
Mass - Conigliaro, Raschi
Neither:
St Louis - Berra, Garagiola**
Cleveland - Bando
Tony
Gene
$cnh$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
> Here's what I cobbled together to add to the above, all good
> players (except **), Italian-American, and all born before
1950
> (I think). The eye-opener to me is the concentration in the
> Bay Area. Wow.
That's not surprising, as that's in large measure where the
Italians came.
Dorothy J Heydt
I In Triplanetary, Gray Roger has a small group of corrupt
Tellurians with various base motives. I think that's where the
Japanese seeking revenge comes in.. And someone who's in it for
the money and somebody else who collects women. If my wrist
weren't aching so (had surgery Monday) I'd dig the book out and
look it up. They're all briefly-encountered stock pulp villains
anyway.