CS Lewis and Enid Blyton

P

Princess Frances

Active member
It's interesting to compare how Lewis and Blyton are often criticized today for supposed "sins" in their writing. The black villain Jo-Jo- in The Island of Adventure and the vague and stereotypical depiction of "Africa" in The Secret Mountain in Blyton's case and the depiction of Calormen being a supposed attack on Middle Easterners and Islam in Lewis's case.

Both Lewis and Blyton were born Victorians and had Edwardian upbringings.
 
Petty snipers like Phillip Pullman accuse Mister Lewis of racism because they are trying to MAKE HIM BE LESS than he really is. But they can fool only those who consent to be fooled.

To dispell the LIE that Lewis' use of the Calormenes was "racist," ALL you have to do is read "Prince Caspian." Mister Lewis invented Telmarine villains BEFORE he ever invented Calormene villains; and the Telmarines were unmistakably of WHITE EUROPEAN racial stock. So he DID NOT create any evil dark-skinned human characters until AFTER he had created evil human characters who were ethnically LIKE HIMSELF.

(I confess that I know nothing about Enid Blyton.)
 
Calormen was clearly CS Lewis's effort at being *non* racist, since he had an "Arab" heroine and also made the theological point that sincere worship of a god was worship of God (Aslan) whether the god actually was the true God or not (i.e. Muslims are going to heaven too.)

It's not terribly progressive for today (to say the least) but the intention was clearly very liberal for the time.
 
Note, however, that Emeth's virtue was his own virtue; it was NO THANKS TO Tash himself. Tash remained an evil false god, and had no part in Aslan's Country. Emeth, and anyone like him, would be admitted to Aslan's country because, while kept in ignorance by no fault of theirs, they really wanted something better than what Tash REALLY was like.
 
He also.paints racism as foolish and idiotic in The Last Battle. I think Horse and his Boy and other aspects of the Calormene is more due to ignorance leading to a problematic portrayal then him holding racist attitudes.
 
Both Lewis and Blyton have fallen foul of modern hypersensitivity about race. It seems we are not allowed to have black villains anymore; all non white characters must be saints devoid of human failings.

What's striking though is the difference in intensity of the dislike. Blyton may be disparaged as a writer and accused of racism and sexism, but she doesn't attract the the degree of hatred that Lewis seems to. I'm sure this is because it's primarily Lewis' beliefs that occasion the outrage. Critics like Pullman and Toynbee are really motivated by a pathological hatred of Christianity
 
For all he was flawed, as is any human, CS Lewis used Experiment House in the Silver Chair to state several decades before the rest of the world that bullying is NOT character development for the person being bullied. Compare with Blyton who uses her self-insert character in Malory Towers to justify bullying unpopular students into conforming to the norms.
@Copperfox
 
Frances, I'm glad you revived this thread. The defense of Mister Lewis which I contributed to this discussion three years ago will soon get re-used.

My newest Writing Club offering, a "Spaceballs" takeoff, includes all sorts of sci-fi and fantasy references, including a bit of anime. (For the record, Sailor Pluto is the best and most likeable of the Sailor Scouts.) In the course of my rambling narrative, I will depict someone making that false accusation of bigotry against Lewis, and I will use my same rebuttal to refute the liar.
 
I’m glad Beating a child for daring to not obey you is something no longer expected of parent.
Child abuse is horrible.
take what happened to Judith Eva Barsi.
E45202AE-6894-4692-B027-EF15E64E7195.jpeg
 
A whole lot of people who imagine themselves qualified to judge Mister Lewis have NEVER (1) fought on the front lines of a war, as he did, nor (2) given even one tenth as much money to the needy as he did.
 
The Enid Blyton copyright holders have this on the official site:

"we work to ensure that there are no offensive terms in the books, while retaining the original language as far as is possible. This enables a very wide international audience of children to enjoy the books, while also understanding that they were written and set in the past."

They've not only removed anything possibly "ist" or "phobic", but they've also removed parts where laws have changed as to what is allowable for young children to do (in the original editions the Secret Seven kids purchase their own fireworks) and the've decimalised the money - though why can't children be allowed to understand money was once different?
 
Yes, I find it absurd when the old money is 'converted' as obviously the purchasing power of (for example) 2/- was greater in 1930 than 10p today. If necessary, one could have a short intro with metric and decimal conversions, but that would still be insufficient for explaining purchasing power. Not so bad when an original author, such as Anthony Buckeridge, agrees to revise the books (though unnecessary), but when another author does it after the original writer has died, that's another matter, even if the estate heirs have agreed. And things which are now verboten should be kept in as that was the original content of the books. Why reissue if you're going to tamper with them?

Round about 1970 when a lot of this was getting into gear, our Mum worked in a local library and said how such books were not only withdrawn, but destroyed, despite their being public property. If a member of the public had done something, they would have been in hot water* or even in the soup*...

*Terms used in the early Twentieth Century meaning to be 'in trouble' or similar...
 
@Copperfox

As i said. the problem is that they are NOT just changing terminology but making judgement calls as to content.

My own personal feeling when someone calls Mister Lewis an "Islamophobe" or claims he uses the Calomenes as a stand-in for Arabs is this:

331798347_1135376287060746_7039737647913116921_n.jpg
 
Though not worshiping the God of the Bible (denying the true importance of Isaac and Jacob, and FOR SURE denying the Deity of Jesus), Muslims ARE monotheists. As I recall, the Calormenes did not believe Tash to be THE ONLY god in existence.
 
I'm not sure how widely reported it's been in other countries, but here in the UK this past week there's been a huge controversy about revisions to Roald Dahl's books. The censors have removed everything they consider 'problematic' such as the adjective fat (replaced by huge) and sometimes even the words boy or girl. There has been enormous criticism of the decision and now they have announced they will still publish the original texts along with the revised ones.
I'm sceptical about how many of the originals will still be published but it's good there's been so much pushback against this. Of course they've altered Blyton's books in the same way but Dahl is much more highly regarded by the literary establishment. Perhaps this will make them think twice before trying to edit Narnia, which I'm sure the censors have in their sights.
 
Back
Top