Reactions to LWW
Dec. 11th, 2005 11:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaFirst, to respond to the points i made yesterday.
For most of the book, Peter, Susan, and Lucy are passive.
That may be so in the book, but it doesn't really come across in the movie, maybe because the pace of a movie is very different from the pace of a book. It does not seem so much in the movie as though the four kids are rescued by Aslan and his army. Their role in making the movie move along is much more active than that -- for one thing, their presence enables the Witch to lose her power, and secondly, when they are separated the three actively seek out Aslan in the hopes of helping their wayward brother Edmund.
[H]ere in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right.
Hmm. It never really crossed my mind before how unfortunate it is that so many fantasy novels involve big battles. It might be more interesting if things were resolved in other ways. I like the approach that Neil Gaiman uses in several of his stories of having things build up to a big conflict that never happens because it is diffused in some way. I think that's another reason i like Terry Pratchett, his Discworld novels end in inventive ways too.
But LWW (like LOTR) has a big battle, and of course it is allegorical of the moralistic "battle between good against evil" memeplex that legitimizes the violence-monopoly of the government. Many other fantasy novels -- not to mention D&D style role-playing games -- are essentially echoes of these works and carry on the big themes of clear good guys vs. clear bad guys in battle.
However, we can think of the big battles of LWW and of LOTR as the cultural legacy of World War Two, seeing as how both were written during that time, with an eye to making sense out of the ugly conflict that was ripping humankind to shreds. And i hope we can hold it in that context, and write new memes that underscore the importance of avoiding cataclysmic conflicts. Otherwise, these stories that we treasure will shape a new generation's ideas about the best ways to confront evil (and it is not on a battlefield, literally or allegorically).
A couple of other points.
I have a hard time abiding by the theology of substitution atonement. It makes God's own will less powerful than scripture, which he supposedly wrote; it truncates God to a rubber-stamper, a mere cog in the wheels of cosmic justice. It casts the purpose of those old laws in a bloodthirsty light -- it makes them about justice without mercy, answerable only by shedding the blood of living things. Such a gross and brutal theology may have suited the Romans, who were themselves gross and brutal, but it is so much less elegant and beautiful than even modern secular justice. Furthermore, it casts a pessimistic pall over whatever good works that people do; it tells us that they are essentially worthless in overcoming the stain of evil on humankind.
Substitution atonement plays a role in LWW... but upon later reflection the role it plays seems to be almost downplayed, as if it is not really the central thrust of the plot. It is an aside. I don't recall how it comes across in the book, but the movie at least seems to undermine the centrality of substitution atonement.
Secondly, it had been a long time since i read the book so this realization came as something of a shock, but even then i doubt i would have noticed what comes across in the movie (when the story portrayed visually) very, very strikingly: a bold assertion that humanity is inherently superior to all other creatures. The implications of this trouble me greatly.
You may also enjoy reading![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lady_babalon's many interesting thoughts (spoilers!) about ways in which C.S. Lewis's interpretation of Christianity seems favorable to blending with occult and neopagan themes, and unfavorable to modern Fundamentalist Christianity.
For most of the book, Peter, Susan, and Lucy are passive.
That may be so in the book, but it doesn't really come across in the movie, maybe because the pace of a movie is very different from the pace of a book. It does not seem so much in the movie as though the four kids are rescued by Aslan and his army. Their role in making the movie move along is much more active than that -- for one thing, their presence enables the Witch to lose her power, and secondly, when they are separated the three actively seek out Aslan in the hopes of helping their wayward brother Edmund.
[H]ere in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right.
Hmm. It never really crossed my mind before how unfortunate it is that so many fantasy novels involve big battles. It might be more interesting if things were resolved in other ways. I like the approach that Neil Gaiman uses in several of his stories of having things build up to a big conflict that never happens because it is diffused in some way. I think that's another reason i like Terry Pratchett, his Discworld novels end in inventive ways too.
But LWW (like LOTR) has a big battle, and of course it is allegorical of the moralistic "battle between good against evil" memeplex that legitimizes the violence-monopoly of the government. Many other fantasy novels -- not to mention D&D style role-playing games -- are essentially echoes of these works and carry on the big themes of clear good guys vs. clear bad guys in battle.
However, we can think of the big battles of LWW and of LOTR as the cultural legacy of World War Two, seeing as how both were written during that time, with an eye to making sense out of the ugly conflict that was ripping humankind to shreds. And i hope we can hold it in that context, and write new memes that underscore the importance of avoiding cataclysmic conflicts. Otherwise, these stories that we treasure will shape a new generation's ideas about the best ways to confront evil (and it is not on a battlefield, literally or allegorically).
A couple of other points.
I have a hard time abiding by the theology of substitution atonement. It makes God's own will less powerful than scripture, which he supposedly wrote; it truncates God to a rubber-stamper, a mere cog in the wheels of cosmic justice. It casts the purpose of those old laws in a bloodthirsty light -- it makes them about justice without mercy, answerable only by shedding the blood of living things. Such a gross and brutal theology may have suited the Romans, who were themselves gross and brutal, but it is so much less elegant and beautiful than even modern secular justice. Furthermore, it casts a pessimistic pall over whatever good works that people do; it tells us that they are essentially worthless in overcoming the stain of evil on humankind.
Substitution atonement plays a role in LWW... but upon later reflection the role it plays seems to be almost downplayed, as if it is not really the central thrust of the plot. It is an aside. I don't recall how it comes across in the book, but the movie at least seems to undermine the centrality of substitution atonement.
Secondly, it had been a long time since i read the book so this realization came as something of a shock, but even then i doubt i would have noticed what comes across in the movie (when the story portrayed visually) very, very strikingly: a bold assertion that humanity is inherently superior to all other creatures. The implications of this trouble me greatly.
You may also enjoy reading
lady_babalon's many interesting thoughts (spoilers!) about ways in which C.S. Lewis's interpretation of Christianity seems favorable to blending with occult and neopagan themes, and unfavorable to modern Fundamentalist Christianity.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 05:20 pm (UTC)My main continuity problem with the movie and the book yesterday was - if it were winter for a hundred years, what would the animals and fauns, etc, eat? Nothing would be growing.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 07:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 05:33 pm (UTC)I really appreciated this entire paragraph. You seem to be engaged in an ongoing examination of the way Biblical scripture is formulated and interpreted. Given the immense sociopolitical and cultural influence that Biblical scripture has in the world today, this is an important endeavor.
My focus is slightly different. As we are all capable of entering Christ consciousness, there is no reason we can't write scripture of our own, at least for our own use and guidance. I suspect this would be considered heretical by some, but so be it. What's more important than scripture is Christ consciousness, of which scripture is just a shadow coming after the experience.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 07:42 pm (UTC)If it weren't for that, i'd actually be tempted to leave it alone. But i keep finding myself pulled back to examine and re-examine these issues.
There are those who define their relationship to scripture as one of utter passive receptiveness, viz. "The Bible says so, i believe it, and that's that!" I'd rather promote a more active dialogue with scripture.
What's more important than scripture is Christ consciousness, of which scripture is just a shadow coming after the experience.
I agree wholeheartedly. I'd rather see us produce new scripture, as i see spirit as like a river or fountain (which cannot be captured in a bucket). One of my projects in fact involves conceiving of a new way to express thoughts and feelings, because i think that language itself and the way we use and understand it, is a large part of the reason why we keep coming back to these same mistakes.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 06:29 pm (UTC)I'm interested to hear more about how the movie undermines the centrality of substitution atonement. Maybe I should go see it myself soon. :P
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 07:45 pm (UTC)Indeed. Here's a link to the essay that introduced me to one alternative: Christus Victor
Not everyone will agree with me, i'm sure, that the movie undermines S.A. at all. It's just that in the movie it feels more to me like a ploy than a grand scheme.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 02:55 pm (UTC)Have you read Ishmael or The Story of B, by Daniel Quinn?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 07:55 pm (UTC)Give me your address and I'll send you a copy of each as a Christmas present, k? (: