So I read the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

[Eleas]

In the book she never knew about the fine print as it was put there before she came on the scene and Aslan never bothered to tell her. Makes Aslan come off as a jerk but what else is new?

Either way, it's stupid writing. It's as if the movie is saying "remember to read your Bible, kids".

'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' is perhaps the only book I've read that felt the need to have an additional deus ex machina in it on top of the Judeochristian God.

It's brilliant writing. No, really.

[Simon_Jester]

I never liked this as a kid, or that other book series... what the hell was it... something about time... Ah! A Wrinkle in Time. They gave us these books to read but I never cared for them and could just never get into them at all. I had my grandfather's copies of the LotR trilogy and The Hobbit though, which I devoured even though half of it made no sense (and probably doesn't now either, sooo much exposition).

So yeah, I don't know. For some kids it's a fun trip into a fantasy realm that excites their youthful imaginations with talking lions and evil monsters, but I think a combination of unhappy strangeness and religious overtones made it unpalatable for me and it just made me feel uncomfortable.

Was the Wrinkle in Time book the one where the girl finds that the enemy is a giant brain and she literally defeats it with love? That was such stupid vomit-inducing bullshit. Evil = pure rational thought!

I do not remember getting that message out of the book. I mean, the giant brain was actively mind controlling everyone on the planet to do ridiculous zombie crap, so I figured it was a villain for that reason, not for being a giant brain.

In the book she never knew about the fine print as it was put there before she came on the scene and Aslan never bothered to tell her. Makes Aslan come off as a jerk but what else is new?

Either way, it's stupid writing. It's as if the movie is saying "remember to read your Bible, kids".

'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' is perhaps the only book I've read that felt the need to have an additional deus ex machina in it on top of the Judeochristian God.
It's brilliant writing. No, really.

It seems to me that the 'gotcha' clause is part of the "Judeochristian God" thing, not a separate thing coming in from out of left field to save the day. There's sort of a "Ha! Omniscience, bitch! We saw this coming and came up with a way to screw you over in your moment of triumph!" overtone.

[Darth Wong]

Was the Wrinkle in Time book the one where the girl finds that the enemy is a giant brain and she literally defeats it with love? That was such stupid vomit-inducing bullshit. Evil = pure rational thought!

I do not remember getting that message out of the book. I mean, the giant brain was actively mind controlling everyone on the planet to do ridiculous zombie crap, so I figured it was a villain for that reason, not for being a giant brain.

Of course the book doesn't say it that way, but the suggestion is that a being of pure rational thought would naturally do evil things. Not to mention the whole "everything happens for a good reason" cliche.

[Eleas]

'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' is perhaps the only book I've read that felt the need to have an additional deus ex machina in it on top of the Judeochristian God.
It's brilliant writing. No, really.

It seems to me that the 'gotcha' clause is part of the "Judeochristian God" thing, not a separate thing coming in from out of left field to save the day. There's sort of a "Ha! Omniscience, bitch! We saw this coming and came up with a way to screw you over in your moment of triumph!" overtone.

Yes, in that sense you're right. My point was that his abuse of deus ex machinae was so innate to his writing style that even his literal JHV substitute (endowed with the same qualities, in-universe and in the author's head, as God) couldn't effect it alone. Aslan does step in a lot, and frequently at random, to save the day. But he couldn't leave it alone at that. He needed more instances of hackneyed insta-win.

That, folks, is the hallmark of an author who may know how to narrate, but can't tell a story.

[Ted C]

As for Narnia, I saw the movie and thought it was the dumbest ending ever, when it turned out that the big villain lost because she forgot to read the fine print on her magic spell. I've heard this is faithful to the book, which makes me think that the book must also be incredibly stupid. And from the sounds of it, preachy too.

Oh, it's definitely faithful to the book: Aslan wins because the witch's knowledge goes back to the beginning of the world, but HIS knowledge goes back to BEFORE the beginning of the world.

It IS a lot of preachy crap, which is painfully obvious if you read it as an adult.

[hongi]

The prose flows easily, which doesn't make it a struggle

Yes, I should have mentioned that. There's nothing worse than a kid's book that is stilted, but Lewis is a pretty good writer.

[montypython]

As for Narnia, I saw the movie and thought it was the dumbest ending ever, when it turned out that the big villain lost because she forgot to read the fine print on her magic spell. I've heard this is faithful to the book, which makes me think that the book must also be incredibly stupid. And from the sounds of it, preachy too.

Oh, it's definitely faithful to the book: Aslan wins because the witch's knowledge goes back to the beginning of the world, but HIS knowledge goes back to BEFORE the beginning of the world.

It IS a lot of preachy crap, which is painfully obvious if you read it as an adult.

In a way, that reminds me of some fantasy anime logic too...

[Styphon]

I never liked this as a kid, or that other book series... what the hell was it... something about time... Ah! A Wrinkle in Time. They gave us these books to read but I never cared for them and could just never get into them at all. I had my grandfather's copies of the LotR trilogy and The Hobbit though, which I devoured even though half of it made no sense (and probably doesn't now either, sooo much exposition).

So yeah, I don't know. For some kids it's a fun trip into a fantasy realm that excites their youthful imaginations with talking lions and evil monsters, but I think a combination of unhappy strangeness and religious overtones made it unpalatable for me and it just made me feel uncomfortable.

Was the Wrinkle in Time book the one where the girl finds that the enemy is a giant brain and she literally defeats it with love? That was such stupid vomit-inducing bullshit. Evil = pure rational thought!

As for Narnia, I saw the movie and thought it was the dumbest ending ever, when it turned out that the big villain lost because she forgot to read the fine print on her magic spell. I've heard this is faithful to the book, which makes me think that the book must also be incredibly stupid. And from the sounds of it, preachy too.

The thing that got me about A Wrinkle in Time was that there were so many times where some otherwordly character went "oh, human language is incapable of expressing x," and I couldn't help but think it was some of the most incredibly lazy writing I'd ever seen in a "classic".

[The_Saint]

The worst thing I've found of the recent movies is that the BBC did a much better version (albeit with a substantial amount more cheese on an infinitely smaller budget) 21 years ago...

I never had a problem with the religious overtones, I read it at an age when I still believed in Dragons but didn't understand religion (turns out I got most of the books when I was 6 according to Mum). Due to my parents being opened minded to the point of "if he wants a religion he can go find it on his own" all the connotations in TLWW were too subtle for me to notice when I read the books initially. When I grew up I cared less about the subtext and the series was committed to memory as a favourite childhood memory.. I'd read it to my kids at bedtime.

[Patrick Degan]

As for Narnia, I saw the movie and thought it was the dumbest ending ever, when it turned out that the big villain lost because she forgot to read the fine print on her magic spell. I've heard this is faithful to the book, which makes me think that the book must also be incredibly stupid. And from the sounds of it, preachy too.

Oh, it's definitely faithful to the book: Aslan wins because the witch's knowledge goes back to the beginning of the world, but HIS knowledge goes back to BEFORE the beginning of the world.

Essentially, the Witch loses because she makes the same mistake most Americans do blindly signing any service contract or insurance policy. She should have had her lawyer look over the parchment before casting the first syllable of the spell.

[Ted C]

Essentially, the Witch loses because she makes the same mistake most Americans do blindly signing any service contract or insurance policy. She should have had her lawyer look over the parchment before casting the first syllable of the spell.

But her attorney wouldn't have had access to those pre-world-history documents, either. It was a convenient deus ex machina that the White Witch couldn't possibly have known about.

[LadyTevar]

As per "The Magician's Nephew", the Witch came into Narnia at the point where Aslan was already singing it into existence. I always assumed that "The Rules" were in place between Aslan and His Father Beyond the Sea before Aslan was given permission to start singing. It does not specifically state this... yet everything else native to Narnia forms only from Aslan's song. (Only 5 things come from "Outside" Narnia. The Witch, the Cabby, his Wife, their Horse, and the Lamp-Post. The Witch runs and hides from Aslan for a time. The Cabby and his Wife become the first King and Queen of Narnia. The Horse is the first Pegasus.)

[Worlds Spanner]

I read all seven books in a row, for the first time, when I heard they were making a movie.

I thought the writing was not spectacular, but it flowed fairly easily, and the stories were simple but engaging. Very much like Harry Potter, actually. Both are series that I've read all of exactly once, that I was happy to keep reading to see what happened, but that I wouldn't really want to reread. Though I do think Lewis' prose is superior to Rowling's, despite being somewhat old-fashioned.

I also thought that Lewis kept the allegory reasonably subtle. I've spent some time in Christian communities and those folks love to talk about how great Lewis was, but I found as I read that if I focused on the idea "this is Christian writing" I could see it, but if I just enjoyed the story as a story it was easy to ignore.

On that note, one word about the famous(ly bad) "Lord, liar, or lunatic" argument. I think it's actually fairly decent advice in the story (as a matter of managing family relationships), that if a truthful sibling says something crazy you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt. Transposed to the New Testament, the argument ignores a lot of confounding variables.

Just found a really fun article re: the appropriate use of the trilemma in the context of Narnia: http://corthodoxy.wordpress.com/2009/07 ... -trilemma/

[Serafine666]

Was the Wrinkle in Time book the one where the girl finds that the enemy is a giant brain and she literally defeats it with love? That was such stupid vomit-inducing bullshit. Evil = pure rational thought!

Makes me sort of glad I looked at the picture on the front, read the back, and put it back on the bookshelf. Then again... the teacher decided that "The Last of the Great Wangdoodles" was an appropriate substitute. Reading that book was sort of like an acid trip, as I recall...

As for Narnia, I saw the movie and thought it was the dumbest ending ever, when it turned out that the big villain lost because she forgot to read the fine print on her magic spell. I've heard this is faithful to the book, which makes me think that the book must also be incredibly stupid. And from the sounds of it, preachy too.

Oddly enough, the only two books in the series that didn't offend my sense of good literature were "The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe" and "Prince Caspian". Coincidentally, they were also the only two books with an actual and clearly-defined antagonist I've never much understood whatever level of allegory is in both books because it could be ignored, something that definitely recommends the pair. The other five books are presently gathering dust somewhere because "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" did brain damage from sheer vapidity, "The Horse and His Boy" was confusing, "The Last Battle" dragged on agonizingly, "The Silver Chair" made me wish cruel and horrific fates upon the main characters, and "The Magician's Nephew" was only worth it if you read the last 1/3.

Ironically enough, C.S. Lewis was clearly a very good writer and talented with spinning interesting allegory to describe his view of Christianity; "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters" are really quite good. And the quirk of yelling the last lines of his lectures while walking out the door and down the hall so the students couldn't bother him makes me forgive him a few of his errors.

[Lusankya]

As per "The Magician's Nephew", the Witch came into Narnia at the point where Aslan was already singing it into existence. I always assumed that "The Rules" were in place between Aslan and His Father Beyond the Sea before Aslan was given permission to start singing. It does not specifically state this... yet everything else native to Narnia forms only from Aslan's song. (Only 5 things come from "Outside" Narnia. The Witch, the Cabby, his Wife, their Horse, and the Lamp-Post. The Witch runs and hides from Aslan for a time. The Cabby and his Wife become the first King and Queen of Narnia. The Horse is the first Pegasus.)

I actually like to think that the cabby and everyone else sing that rule into existence when they sing that sing together when they first arrive in Narnia. I find that if I think about it that way, then there's a plot reason for the Christian element. It also seems like the kind of thing that the Witch would know about, but overlook, which means that the rules-lawyering in The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe is actually due to her oversight and not just Aslan going "neener, neener", which is better dramatically, I think.

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

It's been a long time since I've had the book read me in third grade, but when I saw the movie, my reaction was "why are the Narnians trusting these Terran children to fight in battle for them and rule them as monarchs"? I don't buy the idea of children with no education in either military or governmental matters fighting in a battle and ruling a country competently.

[Edi]

I read the Narnia books when I was a kid, but only liked The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Prince Caspian and The Horse and His Boy. And even then there were some things I disliked in the way deus ex machina was used in some places, even if I didn't know what it was then. I didn't recognize all of them as allegory to Christianity, but some things. Later it's easy to see a lot of those references I didn't know then.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's been a long time since I've had the book read me in third grade, but when I saw the movie, my reaction was "why are the Narnians trusting these Terran children to fight in battle for them and rule them as monarchs"? I don't buy the idea of children with no education in either military or governmental matters fighting in a battle and ruling a country competently.

Why did the Narnians accept it? Because Prophecy and Aslan (aka Jesus) told them to. It was part of their religious beliefs.

How the children were able to do the job I'm not sure, but Aslan did give Peter some quick lessons in battle tactics in the book, and they basically had more experienced Narnians to act as their guides for most of the story. Also, I doubt the leaders of their neighbors were much better. The only major hostile power was Callormen, which doesn't really come off as a paragon of good government. The children at least had a 20th Century education. Besides, the reasons Callormen didn't invade were explored in The Horse and His Boy (superstition, a big dessert in between, Narnia had a good navy).

[Samuel]

Also, I doubt the leaders of their neighbors were much better. The only major hostile power was Callormen, which doesn't really come off as a paragon of good government.

There were also the giants to the North, an independent kingdom to the West and merfolk to the East who had their own nation.

However, the Narnian government doesn't seem too large- I think their primary purpose is to deal with their neighbors and insure Narnia enjoys peace. The fact that God Aslan has given you the right to rule and will insure that in your time of need he will send support and his direct aid probably helps keep the leadership mostly decent.

[The Romulan Republic]

There were also the giants to the North, an independent kingdom to the West and merfolk to the East who had their own nation.

Note that I said "only major hostile power." To the best of my knowledge, the Mermen were friendly, and I'm not aware of any western kingdom in this time frame. Some centuries later you'd have Telmar (where Caspian's people came from), which actually did succeed in invading Narnia, but I don't know if it was settled yet at this point. There's certainly no mention of it in either of the books set in this time frame that I can recall. That leaves Archenland or whatever its called to the south, also an ally, and some islands to the East who's relationship with Narnia I'm not entirely sure of. I think in this time period it was friendly.

Their are the giants, true, and maybe I underestimated the threat they represented, but they never struck me as a threat to the survival of Narnia. Giants are repeatedly stated to be not too bright for one thing.