Are the Calormenes metaphorical?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Opposite in intent, perhaps, as Aslan makes clear in His talk with Emeth in Battle, bu t not opposite in nature or power. If Tash is a demon, and I think you're right on that, he would be a created being, albeit one in rebellion. Aslan is uncreated and all-powerful, and as such no other being can be compared with Him.

 

[slideyfoot]

It seems to me the answer is much simpler, and has already been mentioned earlier in this thread.

To repeat what I said in elsewhere on the forum, I think The Horse and His Boy is quite clearly modelled upon One Thousand and One Arabian Nights, a Persian collection (the source isn't completely clear; the 'Thousand Stories' or Hazâr Afsâna, has been suggested as one possibility. However, what is certain is that they are Persian, perhaps including elements of Indian and Arabic story telling as well. Its original title is The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, Kitāb 'Alf Layla wa-Layla in Arabic, Hazâr-o Yak Šab in Persian).

Not only the setting, but also the style of The Horse and His Boy is remniscent of the Persian precursor. For example, this little snippet could have come straight out of one of the tales:

Sometimes if Arheesh was there Shasta would say, "O my Father, what is there beyond that hill?" And then if the fisherman was in a bad temper he would box Shasta's ears and tell him to attend to his work. Or if he was in a peacable mood he would say, "O my son, do not allow your mind to be distracted by idle questions. For one of the poets has said, 'Application to business is the root of prosperity, but those who ask questions that do not concern them are steering the ship of folly towards the rock of indigence'."

The fisherman theme recurs throughout the original tales, but of course those are not what Lewis would have been familiar with. More likely he would remember translations and selections from his youth (remember he was born 1898, living in a house lined with books), such as various that are available on Project Gutenberg - that of Andrew Lang (1844-1912), John Payne (1850-1894) and perhaps the best known, Sir Richard F. Burton (1821-1890). Aside from Project Gutenberg, this is another good site containing translations of the tales, and for further info there is always Wikipedia.

To take an example of a man in Arheesh's occupation, there is the famous story of the Fisherman and the Genie, which starts like this (in Payne's translation):

There was once a poor fisherman, who was getting on in years and had a wife and three children; and it was his custom every day to cast his net four times and no more. One day he went out at the hour of noon and repaired to the sea-shore, where he set down his basket and tucked up his skirts and plunging into the sea, cast his net and waited till it had settled down in the water. Then he gathered the cords in his hand and found it heavy and pulled at it, but could not bring it up. So he carried the end of the cords ashore and drove in a stake, to which he made them fast. Then he stripped and diving round the net, tugged at it till he brought it ashore. Whereat he rejoiced and landing, put on his clothes; but when he came to examine the net, he found in it a dead ass; and the net was torn. When he saw this, he was vexed and said: 'There is no power and no virtue save in God the Most High, the Supreme! This is indeed strange luck!' And he repeated the following verses...

The "O, my son" business is another indicator; to take another section from Payne:

..."O my son, I mean to give one to thy brother Zoulmekan and the other to thy sister Nuzhet ez Zeman." When Sherkan heard that he had a brother (for up to that time he had only known of his sister) he turned to his father and said to him, "O King, hast thou a son other than myself?" "Yes," answered Omar, "and he is now six years old." And he told him that his name was Zoulmekan and that he and Nuzhet ez Zeman were twins, born at a birth. This news was grievous to Sherkan, but he hid his chagrin...

..."O captain, I see nothing to right and left save sky and water, but ahead I see something looming afar off in the midst of the sea, now black and now white." When the captain heard the look-out's words, he cast his turban on the deck and plucked out his beard and buffeted his face and said, "O King, we are all dead men, not one of us can be saved." We all wept for his weeping and I said to him, "O captain, tell us what it is the look-out saw." "O my lord," answered he, "know that we lost our way on the night of the storm and since then we have gone astray one-and-twenty days and there is no wind to bring us back to our true course...

Then there is the depiction of the people. You'll see plenty of turbans:

Then he set his turban on top of the cane and tied a girdle round the middle of the effigy and planted it in the place where he used to say his prayers...The Khalif was pleased and said, 'O Kerim, put off thy clothes.' So he put off a gown of coarse woollen stuff, patched in a hundred places and full of disgusting vermin, and a turban that had not been unwound for three years, but to which he had sewn every rag he came across...

Along with scenes like this:

So he turned back and mounted and drew his scimitar; then he gave his horse the spur and he started off with him, like an arrow from a bow, whilst he brandished his naked blade and cried out, "God is Most Great!"

You'll also find plenty of Viziers:

...the elder king yearned after his brother and commanded his Vizier to repair to the latter's court and bring him to his own capital. The Vizier replied, "I hear and obey," and set out at once and journeyed till he reached King Shahzeman's court in safety...

One thing you won't find is polytheism. From what I've read, the Thousand and One Nights, under all its various names, remains an Islamic text. There is mention of a 'devil', but it appears to be in a similar context to the Christian - I haven't found any demons, but then I'm doing a basic search in Word.

Furthermore, at the time Lewis was born, 'orientalism' would still have been a major influence on how people like Lewis might have thought of the mysterious 'East'. For example, this is the kind of thing painter Rudolf Ernst (1854-1932) was producing:

So, to conclude that mountain of quotes, my opinion is that the Calormenes are simply Lewis' version of the 'other', to provide Narnia with an antagonistic force. If your main characters are white-skinned, rather European-looking individuals, then the obvious counterpoint (for someone who hadn't travelled much and had memories of orientalism flitting about his head) is found in the exotic East. I don't think he intended them to be equated with Muslims, at least not in any direct sense. For me, The Horse and His Boy is basically The One Thousand and One Nights lands in Narnia, trailing stylistic fragments from its source.

Of course, it would be an incredibly bad idea to put the Calormenes into a film as they are in the books - todays climate is very different to the 1950s, and I can't see how dark, bearded men wearing turbans, living in a desert, wielding scimitars and worshipping a different god could not cause offence, no matter how innocent Lewis' original intentions may or may not have been. The allegorical implications of The Last Battle don't help much either, as that could very easily be interpreted as a conflict between two faiths - I can't think of a worse time to bring up that kind of theme in a cinematic format (Kingdom of Heaven had to be very, very careful).

 

[idji]

I know the Calormenes are Ottoman Turks

I lived in Turkey for 2 years.
'aslan' is simply the Turkish word for lion.
http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/dict.php3?lang=1&word=lion&direction=1
I have read "The magician's nephew"="Büyücünün Yeğeni" in Turkish. Aslan is called "Liyon" in the Turkish version.
"Tash" is simply the Turkish word for "stone".
http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/dict.php3?lang=1&word=stone&direction=1
So Jack is simply saying that Tash is a false god.
"Turkish delight" is the obvious first reference to the Turks.

'narnia' is not a Turkish word, for those who are wondering and there is no place with that name there.

 

[slideyfoot]

I am Turkish, and I would argue that the Calormenes are based on Persians by way of the book mentioned above, rather than Ottoman Turks, as discussed in another thread.

Two Turkish words and some lokum does not convince me, though it is of course a possibility. Having said that, I'd be interested to know if Lewis really was aware of the phonetic similarity between taş and Tash, or if that is merely a coincidence (not to mention he could probably have been rather more specific than 'stone'). From the brief bit of biographical reading I've done, I haven't seen much evidence that Lewis had knowledge of Turkish (indeed, he didn't even travel until much later in life, and then only on a typical British holiday, IIRC), but perhaps he had more than I realised.

 

[Saruman]

Of course, it would be an incredibly bad idea to put the Calormenes into a film as they are in the books - todays climate is very different to the 1950s, and I can't see how dark, bearded men wearing turbans, living in a desert, wielding scimitars and worshipping a different god could not cause offence, no matter how innocent Lewis' original intentions may or may not have been. The allegorical implications of The Last Battle don't help much either, as that could very easily be interpreted as a conflict between two faiths - I can't think of a worse time to bring up that kind of theme in a cinematic format (Kingdom of Heaven had to be very, very careful).

I'm about to go on a slight tangent, so bear with me.

I think it would be an incredibly wonderful idea to make a film that presents the Calormenes exactly as C. S. Lewis intended them to be. However, to say that it would not be a good idea because it might "offend" very deeply grieves me, for it somehow conveys to me the thought that C. S. Lewis' ideas, thoughts and views should be filtered simply to evade the offense of another person whose beliefs do not fall in line with his, or who might feel slurred or spurned because of them. Such notions, I must concede, are the outcome of the adoption of liberal ideologies and thinking in societies today and they show a dangerous constriction of freedoms that are naturally every man's to hold and to enjoy.

Would it be better to show the Calormenes as white men wearing the traditional garb and speaking the traditional tongue of Vikings? Perhaps that may help to avoid the offense of others, though it now offends another group of people who never viewed or pictured the Calormenes as Vikings, because the author intended them to see a different picture coupled with different views and thoughts.

I do apologize if I may sound so harsh, but truly, I find the whole notion you present above to be a little pathetic. If one is going to make a film about C. S. Lewis' books, then he very well ought to stay on track with the original book, else he has created a new story of his own just to suit the every whim and want of every society.

As a side note, I think Andrew Adamson did a very excellent job in bringing LWW to the big screen, even if it was slightly "toned down." He nevertheless stuck to the book and to the clear message it presents. Oh goodness, that has offended many, many people! Why are we watching such things that others don't want to watch? Heaven and earth, have we in this "modern" day and age become so shallow? If Adamson is going to continue with the Chronicles, I think he should present the Calormenes exactly as Lewis created and intended them to be.

The allegorical implications of The Last Battle don't help much either, as that could very easily be interpreted as a conflict between two faiths

So this should automatically prevent film-makers from creating a film as its author very well may have intended? If it offends, it offends. Those who do not like it just don't have to watch it, but that shouldn't suddenly deny others the right to see, think and believe in like manner.

Enough said on that. My tangent is over.

 

[slideyfoot]

Very much the point which Parthian King made over in the 'father christmas' thread.

I do apologize if I may sound so harsh, but truly, I find the whole notion you present above to be a little pathetic. If one is going to make a film about C. S. Lewis' books, then he very well ought to stay on track with the original book, else he has created a new story of his own just to suit the every whim and want of every society.

No need to apologize, though its always refreshing to find a forum where disagreements can be made politely.

If a major studio can adapt The Last Battle without delivering an enormous affront to Islamic groups, then I'd love to see it. I wouldn't call the desire to avoid insulting a large percentage of the world's population a 'whim', but a rather sensible perspective for a film studio to hold, particularly if they want to turn a profit. As the Narnia films are very clearly 'blockbusters', in the sense that a major studio is releasing them with serious money behind it, I doubt we'll see a direct adaptation of The Last Battle in the cinema. The Passion of the Christ managed it because a wealthy Christian fundamentalist stumped up a significant amount of cash himself; the film was successful, but certainly angered a lot of people, in particular the Jewish community. An accurate adaptation of The Last Battle would be equally if not more offensive to the Islamic community as The Passion of the Christ was to the Jewish.

Its not impossible that Disney would risk widespread outrage - after all, The Passion of the Christ made money - but I think its unlikely. Nevertheless, I would be interested to see what choices a studio might make in adapting The Last Battle - I'm not a Muslim, so it wouldn't personally offend me either way, although I would be disappointed if a studio felt the Islamic audience was irrelevant. Like The Passion of the Christ, it would certainly produce a lot of free publicity.

 

[PrinceOfTheWest]

If a major studio can adapt The Last Battle without delivering an enormous affront to Islamic groups, then I'd love to see it. I wouldn't call the desire to avoid insulting a large percentage of the world's population a 'whim', but a rather sensible perspective for a film studio to hold, particularly if they want to turn a profit.

This presumes that the group in question chooses not to be insulted. Interestingly, some of the most vigorous critics of the Ottoman Empire were the Wahabi Muslims, so if the Calormenes are seen as "Ottoman-ish", I don't see why any devout Muslims should take offense - unless they wish to.

The Passion of the Christ managed it because a wealthy Christian fundamentalist stumped up a significant amount of cash himself

slideyfoot, you've been soaking yourself too much in the Western media. Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic, which is worlds from fundamentalism. Only shallow people like Western journalists who don't do their homework confuse the two.

the film was successful, but certainly angered a lot of people, in particular the Jewish community. An accurate adaptation of The Last Battle would be equally if not more offensive to the Islamic community as The Passion of the Christ was to the Jewish.

Again, you're being selective as to who you read. Just because a few loudmouth hotheads at the ADL issue press releases does not mean that "the Jewish community" was offended by Passion. Many orthodox Jewish sources hailed the message of the movie (see www.jewishworldreview.com) - which is, at the simplest level, about the injustice behind the crushing of a noble, devout man by a corrupt theocracy. Furthermore, the much-threatened anti-Semetic backlash never materialized.

Really, slidey - I expect better of you. A little serious research next time before you go throwing around terms you don't understand, perhaps?

 

[slideyfoot]

Getting onto a different topic as usual, but...

Interesting - going by the media I've read, The Passion of the Christ was seen by many as a piece of anti-semitism.

For example, it had trouble being shown in Israel, with only a small percentage of cinemas willing to take it on:

...An art house cinema in Israel will show The Passion of the Christ after commercial distributors in the Jewish state refused to handle it....Mel Gibson's blockbuster has been accused of being anti-Semitic.

Israeli distributors turned it down because of the controversy and concern they would not recoup their investment...

Others blamed it for anti-semitic violence:

...A report by a Jewish advocacy group has cited Mel Gibson's controversial The Passion of the Christ as the cause of a sharp rise in the number of anti-semitic attacks in Canada last year...

Further Jewish opinion:

...Last year, Gibson was accused by some quarters of producing an anti-Semitic aberration.

Vermes was one of the first people to see it in the UK. The professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford University is best known for his work on the historical figure of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. His reaction to The Passion was unequivocal.

"I absolutely hated it, " he recalls. "It was gratuitously violent and gory, completely distorting the Gospel account. Without added words you can twist things simply by altering images. For instance, in the Gospels, they say that the Jewish priestly leaders were pretty tough on Jesus: that's one thing. To be showing them enjoying it is a different thing."

Or this syndicated story by Jeffrey Weiss (who appears to be attempting an objective approach):

...Before and after the movie's release, on Ash Wednesday, some expressed concern that it was anti-Semitic in how it portrayed the role of Jews in Jesus' Crucifixion. But no watchdog organization has reported any attacks on Jews or Jewish institutions as a result of the movie.

Jewish leaders, however, say they've heard from parents who claim their children were taunted as "Christ-killers" by schoolmates. A poll by the Pew Research Center indicated that Americans who'd seen the movie were twice as likely as those who had not to hold Jews responsible for Jesus' death.

And some foreign newspapers, particularly in the Arab world, used the release of "The Passion" as an excuse to attack Judaism and Israel.

No doubt you could produce some opinions to the contrary. Depends entirely which sources you count as most reliable.

 

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Indeed. The BBC? The Guardian? "Anti-semitic incidents" including a phone call and a statement by a televison preacher? Come now. Anti-semitism is a serious problem, but it's wellspring is not orthodox Christians, but rather secular nationalists like those in France and Germany. Kind of like the Hindus in the Indian subcontinent who are persecuting Christians in the name of ethnic purity - when some of those Christians have been there since before Europe was Christian.

 

[EveningStar]

With a certain amount of liberty (not anarchy, liberty) in the costuming department, development of a distinctive accent and culture, the perception of the Calormenes as Arab could certainly be downplayed.

Let's take a stroll over to Star Trek. If you watched the classic Trek, clearly the Klingons were Mongol warriors whose customs and methods were very like Genghis Khan...fight ruthlessly but keep your sense of honor.

In the later cinematic films the alien aspects of Klingons were emphasized. Brow ridges, odd uniforms, their own language with its distinctive gutteral sounds. They weren't oriental at all, but they were clearly Klingons.

My suggestion is that the book The Last Battle is like Kang fighting Captain Kirk, but the movie could easily be Be'Tor fighting Picard. I just hope the line "He's dead, Jim!" doesn't pop up.

 

[slideyfoot]

You stated the Jewish community wasn't offended by the film. According to certain sources, a significant proportion would dispute that - the fact mainstream Israeli distributors refused to show the film would seem to strongly indicate this (if we take Israel to be at all representative of the Jewish community).

At least one UK academic of Jewish studies categorically states that he "absolutely hated it", because it was "gratuitously violent and gory, completely distorting the Gospel account", and in his opinion, showed Jews revelling in brutality towards Jesus Christ.

A third source cites the film as responsible for anti-semitic attacks, while another remarks on the film resulting in children suffering verbal abuse and further attacks on Judaism and Israel in various newspapers.

But like I said, I'm sure you have other sources you could show that present a contradictory opinion, or perhaps you doubt the veracity of the news source, of indeed the subjects of those stories?

The point is, films like The Passion of the Christ can cause serious offence to large communities, and according to certain news sources, both verbal and physical assault. It seems to me that a comparable situation would ensue if The Last Battle was released into the cinema if it did not receive similar modification as in Adamson's take on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

However, I'm not putting this perspective forward because I believe that films should be censored if they happen to offend people; plenty of films and books I enjoy are no doubt offensive to many groups. For example, a lot of Christians took offence at His Dark Materials, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was some angry Christian reaction when the films get released (considering something as innocuous as Harry Potter caused a hostile reaction in some quarters). After all, there is already the precedent of complaints from the clergy when the stage play came out.

The problem with the presentation of what could be interpreted as Muslims, or by extension Arabs, Persians and indeed Turks, in The Last Battle is that this is not merely a religious grouping, but racial. Religion can be criticised on the basis that it is ultimately a choice made by the individual; for example, you could query attitudes to contraception in certain denominations of Christianity, or attitudes to women in Islam; there are arguments on both sides that could be made, but the acceptance of religious ideology is ultimately a choice. While you can choose your religion, you cannot choose your race. You can criticise someone for deciding that they should follow the tenets of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or a political body like the Labour Party, the Conservatives, Republicans etc, but you can't sensibly criticise someone for have dark skin or almond-shaped eyes. They have no choice in the matter.



As I've said this many times now, what I'm mainly interested in is how a major studio would bring what I see as an unpalatable text to the big screen. Would they modify (for example, in the manner Chakal suggests) so as not to cause offence? Would they simply follow the source with no regard to the consequences? There are numerous possibilities; I'm intrigued as to which will be chosen.

 

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I guess the thing that keeps mystifying me is why slideyfoot is worried about anybody offending anyone. As a self-professed materialist atheist, the only moral code he acknowledges is that nobody should do anybody else "harm" (though he's unclear on why even that should matter). That a person or group is offended has nothing to do with their being harmed. Heck, I can sit in a room all alone and work myself into a state of high dudgeon over slights real or imagined, but that doesn't mean I've been harmed.

In essense, slideyfoot is saying that Walden should not make something like Horse and His Boy or Last Battle as written, lest it offend a group of people. But any time you say "should" or "shouldn't", you're appealing to a moral code. Even based on his moral code (and he offers no reason why anyone should do that), "offense" falls far short of "harm". Besides, why should Mel Gibson, Walden Media, C.S. Lewis, or anyone else care about what slidey or anyone else thinks? And it's no good saying something like, "Gibson should care in order to be consistent with his own beliefs", since then you have to explain why consistency is something that should apply to all men.

Without a moral code to which to appeal, all this is just expression of personal preference - and nobody can say anyone else's personal preference is "better" than another's.

 

[EveningStar]

Prince of the West, behave yourself young man...

Even the most materialistic of people prefers not to have a plane crashed into their skyscraper during business hours. At least that's how I read Slidey's letter. Offended as in "Death to the Crusaders of decadance."

Or am I mistaken?

 

[slideyfoot]

Prince, as you keep bringing up this point about morality (although to be fair, I keep taking the bait ), have you read anything by Alonzo Fyfe? Not that I particularly agree or disagree with what he says (I haven't read enough to make a judgement), but his arguments about morality from an atheist perspective might interest you.

 

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I will take a look at them, though I have done research into the grounds for morality from an atheist perspective, particularly the arguments of Bertrand Russell and John Stuart Mill, whose viewpoints neatly cover and summarize pretty much all the bases. However, the issue is not JSM or BR or this guy's theoretical basis for atheistic morality, but slideyfoot's.

With respect, with your posts about potentially "offensive" film projects, you are the one who keeps bringing up morality. What I am trying to do is get you to provide some basis whereby you can justify saying that anyone else should or should not do anything at all. The best you've been able to do to this point is state a personal opposition to harming anyone. You have not been able to establish why anyone else should share your views on that or any other topic. Yet when you imply, for instance, that it is somehow wrong, or at least discourteous, to criticize people on the basis of their race (four posts back) - well, that is an appeal to a moral standard.

So I guess what I'm trying to do is get a consistent answer. On one hand you imply that your basis for morality is a personal choice inapplicable to anyone else - like a taste for scotch or opera. But the tenor of your posts imply that you understand that there's a standard out there that other people - and particularly the religious ones, it seems - fall short of. Which is it?

 

[Midnight Rider]

Their weaponry and clothes too.

I think that by writing about one Calormene's entrance into the new Narnia, Lewis might be advocating that even Muslims (those who are good and love their God) can gain entrance to Heaven.

Incorrect. I think Jack[don't tell anyone i'm calling Lewis that!] did NOT mean it like that.

 

[inkspot]

Incorrect. I think Jack[don't tell anyone i'm calling Lewis that!] did NOT mean it like that.

I call him Jack alla time -- he likes it. Welcome to the discussion, Tootsila!

Why do you think the example of Emeth does not imply that goood people who sincerely serve the wrong god might in heaven get the opportunity to choose Jesus, or to realize it was Jesus they would have served, had they known Him.

Slidey and PoTW -- did I miss something? Has Slidey defined his moral code as "do no harm"? I was not aware of that ... But I've been offline for several days. If that is indeed the case, I am with PoTW and curious as to how we define harm and on what basis we are to know that causing harm is wrong? Lewis says curing a cancerous tumor may save a man's life, but it certainly means death for the cancer ... in some cases harm may be unavoidable in pursuit of the greater good?

 

[slideyfoot]

Slidey and PoTW -- did I miss something? Has Slidey defined his moral code as "do no harm"? I was not aware of that ..

Neither was I.

I've mentioned it as a very simplistic premise with a whole bunch of caveats, the main one being that I fully understand 'harm' is an extremely tricky concept to define in this context, and earlier provided examples.

You have not been able to establish why anyone else should share your views on that or any other topic.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to share my views; as I mentioned, I doubt very much anyone's opinion on as personal a topic as your 'moral code' has ever been changed by what they read on an internet forum. I'd be rather worried if it had.

But the tenor of your posts imply that you understand that there's a standard out there that other people - and particularly the religious ones, it seems - fall short of. Which is it?

Not an implication I want to make, so I apologise if thats how my posts read. Of course, as an atheist, there are various aspects of religious doctrine I dislike, but thats a different issue.

To reiterate what I've been saying about 'offence'; at no point have I meant to state that The Last Battle should not be adapted to film. I am simply pointing out that I personally feel it would be difficult to do so without causing offence - thats not quite the same as saying it shouldn't be adapted because it would cause offence. Chakal's suggestion (using an apt Star Trek analogy) that they could simply modify the Calormenes so as to remove any overt relation to Arabs, Persians, Turks, or in a broader sense, Muslims, would seem to be a sensible one.

 

[unleavened]

Why do you think the example of Emeth does not imply that goood people who sincerely serve the wrong god might in heaven get the opportunity to choose Jesus, or to realize it was Jesus they would have served, had they known Him.

I think you are right. Lewis did imply that they would have the opportunity to choose (providing they had not refused the truth on earth). However, I don't think as sf was saying that if you faithfully serve whatever god on earth you can automaticly be let into heaven. There still has to be that choice. I believe, in order for this senario to be possible, the person would have to abandon any other religion they held on earth. And as I said if they'd refused the truth before they either wouldn't accept the second time or they might not even have that chance.

 

[inkspot]

That's true, UL. But it brings us to the weird question: do we choose Jesus at all, or has He already chosen us before the world began? Some Scriptures imply that we who are believers were already chosen to be so and could not refuse the call. That being the case, perhaps those of other faiths who recognize Christ in the afterlife will be similarly unable to refuse Him?

or is this just the same way of saying what you already said: those who would never surrender their false faith on earth will be unable to do so even when faced with the truth in the afterlife?

I'm so confused ...