CS Lewis and Enid Blyton

Copperfox said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are correct! Honestly, Tash bares more of a resemblance to Horus, who had served as the God of War in some dynasties, and Shiva the Hindu god of destruction with the multiple arms. Considering Tash appears in The Last Battle, I doubt any resemblance is far from accidental.
 
In my story "Southward the Tigers," I imagined that the proto-Calormenes came from real-world Kazakhstan, and Tash converted them FROM Islam to worshiping him.
 
I can see it. Personally considering how they say "may he live forever" in reference to the Tisroc, I'd assume some level of influence on the Calormen culture came from either ancient Egypt or Babylon considering that was a common entreaty to the pharaoh of Egypt or the King of Babylon, or the King of Persia, with the former believing believed to be the son of their chief deity Amon Ra, much like the Tisroc being the son of Tash.
Which yes, while Middle-eastern, neither the cultures of Ancient Egypt, Babylonia, or Persia were in the least bit "Muslim".

Now, bringing it back on topic, one major difference between Lewis, and Blyton is the fact that Lewis grants a bit more egency to his child protagonists then Blyton, or Nesbit did. Chief among them is that in Lewis' works the kids are often given weapons to defend themselves, whereas for Bylton, Nesbit, and I'd even add into my reckoning, Lewis Carroll, JM Berrie, and L. Frank Baum, the children just seemed to amble about their adventures with no means of protection against danger. Peter has a sword and shield, Lucy a dagger, and Susan a bow and arrow.
 
Storytellers have a variety of reasons for making their protagonists vulnerable.

In many episodes of "Doctor Who," neither the Doctor nor any of his companions of the moment HAD ANY ABILITY to defeat, or even survive a direct encounter with, whatever monster they were up against. They only survived because they had the plot-armor good luck to be somewhere else when the monster was killing minor characters. Staying alive by merciful dumb luck, the Doctor would then have the time to invent something which COULD defeat the monster. In this case, the B.B.C. people wanted to promote pacifism; so for at least half of their stories, they designed plots to let the Doctor triumph without using any direct force.
 
most of the cogs in Hitler's murder machinery were ordinary people not monsters. They went home each night and were hugged by their little young daughter in her dress and clutching her teddy bear... that's part of why a lot of people don't want to face that part of it.

torturers in today's China, Burma and Hun Sen's Cambodia etc. are also ordinary people doing their job. The banality of evil is far scarier than any Freddy Krueger.

It's why William March's fictional creation Rhoda Penmark is so powerful, as, aside from murdering people, she's a perfectly normal obedient and respectful young lady of the mid 1950s.
 
Back
Top