Does Lewis Imply that Eustace is Mormon?

[mtdman]

Of all the things you could conclude about Eustace's parents, why settle with "they're Mormon"? I think Orthodox Jews also wear special underwear. He could have been talking about thermal underwear. I had a professor one time who only wore 100% organic and unprocessed clothes, including underwear. Plus, Lewis also writes that Eustance's parents are vegetarians... but Mormons aren't even encouraged to be vegetarians. His parents seem odd, but not Mormon.

And if you're still not convinced:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=810

As I posted earlier:

Just kinda added up to me. No smoking, drinking, and the undies. But that's just my opinion.

And I have a faimiliarity with Mormons, not orthodox jews. Besides which, I don't believe a word Gresham says about Lewis. That's the man who wanted to create new Narnia stories and leave out the Christian subtext, in order to capitolize on the popularity of children's fantasy brought about by the Harry Potter books. Gresham seems to have ulterior motivations, imo.

And, I could be wrong. Which is why I asked.

 

[onlymystory]

I don't think it was about a religion as trying to explain why eustace didn't have any imagination or manners. I thought Lewis was more trying to imply that the scrubbs are a very prim and proper and stuckup sort of family who are forever seeing the speck of dust in someone else's eye rather than the plank in their own. And when he wrote this there were a lot more people who smoked a pipe, enjoyed a nice glass of wine or a good scotch and there weren't nearly as many vegetarians. people who didn't do that would seem a bit odd, and I think that's where Lewis was going. That and that they are depriving their child of an actual childhood.

 

[Kitanna]

I just started to reread Dawn Treader and the opening page always strikes me.

I thought Lewis was more trying to imply that the scrubbs are a very prim and proper and stuckup sort of family who are forever seeing the speck of dust in someone else's eye rather than the plank in their own. And when he wrote this there were a lot more people who smoked a pipe, enjoyed a nice glass of wine or a good scotch and there weren't nearly as many vegetarians. people who didn't do that would seem a bit odd, and I think that's where Lewis was going. That and that they are depriving their child of an actual childhood.

I have to agree with this. I feel that Lewis was setting up Eustace's character as, well, an adult in a child's body. His parents are described as "very up-to-date and advanced people" and it seems Lewis is using that in a negative way. And it all comes out in Eustace's character in the first few chapters. He teases Lucy and Edmund for their fanstasies, he has "never read the proper books", he is always using facts from our world that have no bearing in Narnia, and so on.

As onlymystory said his parents were depriving him of childhood. I don't think they were made to be Mormon's, but they were just getting into trends that sprang up.

 

[newworld_56]

I just started to reread Dawn Treader and the opening page always strikes me.

I have to agree with this. I feel that Lewis was setting up Eustace's character as, well, an adult in a child's body. His parents are described as "very up-to-date and advanced people" and it seems Lewis is using that in a negative way. And it all comes out in Eustace's character in the first few chapters. He teases Lucy and Edmund for their fanstasies, he has "never read the proper books", he is always using facts from our world that have no bearing in Narnia, and so on.

As onlymystory said his parents were depriving him of childhood. I don't think they were made to be Mormon's, but they were just getting into trends that sprang up.

yes, this is what i thought too.

i am currently reading the voyage of the dawn treader also, by the way. =)

 

[newworld_56]

I just bought the Pocket Companion to Narnia, and this is what it says:

"These six traits- nonconformist, vegetarian, teetotaler, nonsnoker, wearer of "a special kind of unerclothes," and feminist - would classify her as her [Alberta] and her husband [Harold] and son [Eustace] not as Latter-day Saints but as members of one of the many back-to-nature groups of the early to mid-twentieth century."

*shrug* Maybe that helps .. ?

 

[WolfsBane]

He wouldn't be very Christian attacking other religions...LOL Besides which I remember quite clearly in "The Last Battle" there's that one soldier of Calormen who was devoutly a worshipper of that monster *can't remember* sorry Tashban? Dunno...anyways, Aslan appears and tells him all those things you did in his name that were good were done as in my name or something like that (in the middle of Silver Chair sorry...I'll be back when I have reread it with a better argument ).

I don't think he was attacking anyone, or any religion if that was his view. *shrugs*

 

[Parthian King]

Well, I don't think Lewis was even addressing Mormonism is his descriptuion of Eustace and his parents.

But as for "attacking other religions" and how "Christian" that is, we'd better be careful there. John the Baptist's entire ministry was based upon the inadequacy of the religion of his day ("You brood of vipers!"). Jesus broadsided Pharisaic religion pretty well (see Matthew 23). The entire book of Galatians in the New Testament (for example) is a brutal attck upon a form of "Judaized" Christianity ("I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!" --Galatians 5:12; New Revised Standard Version). And I wonder how a devout Hindu would take Paul's assertion that all food sacrificed to idols is really sacrificed to demons (if that isn't a critique of another religion, please tell me what is). Will we say that John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, and even Jesus were "less than Christian"?

The issue is not preserving a postmodern sense of pluralism, or even the decorum of civility (however we might define that, being children of the bloodiest century the planet has ever seen), but rather speaking the truth in love. True love, in fact, always speaks the truth, and cares not very much about religion at all: The issue is Jesus, and serving Him as He would be served. A close examination of Lewis, I think, will find that he holds this view.

 

[inkspot]

But Lewis was sneaky, too, and soft-hearted. From "Grace in the Arts" website, an essay by James Townsend, entitled, "C. S. LEWIS’S THEOLOGY: SOMEWHERE BETWEEN RANSOM AND REEPICHEEP":

Lewis said: "I couldn’t believe that 999 religions were completely false and the remaining one true." Similarly he stated: "We are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected."

 

[Parthian King]

Absolutely so, Inkspot. But there is a critical difference between another religion or religions containing elements of the Truth (and yet still ultimately falling short of salvific truth, and therefore failing), and the full truth of Christ. Paul never would have argued that the Judaizers that had corrupted the Galatians were all wrong. They were right on many points. In fact, that was part of the problem: They appeared real, but were in the end false, and as such mortally dangerous.

God has put eternity in the hearts of men (Eccle 3:11), and Paul himself speaks of the "natural revelation" by which all people--apart from the full "special revelation" of Christ--have a limited knowledge of God (Romans 1, Acts 17, among other places). But this appeal to natural revelation and the limited (though sometimes nevertheless remarkable) knowledge that peoples have of the Divine is always meant to be that glimmer that leads to the greater light. The two are not in competition, but rather complementary. Perhaps this is why paul had no problem quoting Greek philosophers in his teachings (Aratus, Menander, Euripides).

So I have no problem saying that a measure of truth may be found reflected in the teachings of other religions. Humankind, after all, is made in the image of God. But the full expression is found in Christ, and His cross. And at the point that Truth contradicts the imperfect, limited confessions found elsewhere, conflicts will occur. The most soft-hearted thing we can do is speak the truth in love, directly and tactfully, and point people to Jesus--even if it might offend.

 

[WolfsBane]

But as for "attacking other religions" and how "Christian" that is, we'd better be careful there.

What I meant was I don't think C.S. Lewis would be attacking another religion as wrong, especially if it was unprovoked...he wasn't writing a defense of his religion, he was writing something for children...about religion.

...that a measure of truth may be found reflected in the teachings of other religions.

That's kind of what I'm saying actually. I don't think Lewis was attacking anyone, however subtly. Unprovoked, why? It isn't very Christian to go around picking fights is what I meant to say. Which is why I don't think that Eustace was Mormon or any other religion for that matter.

If anything, I think it's pretty obvious he was attacking the lack of religion and belief. In Eustace's school they'd never mention "Adam & Eve" if his parents (or Pole's for that matter) where any kind of Christian religion I'm sure they would have known about them, but Lewis makes a point of stating they had never heard of that.

I don't think Lewis was attacking any religion.

 

[Faun 3.0]

Well the born again thing represents baptism and all that

 

[Deeper_Wonderment]

As I am rereading through the books in preparation for the movie, I am on VDT now. As I read the first page of the book, it suddenly dawned on me that as Lewis is describing Eustace's parents, that they are Mormon. He describes them as "... non-smokers and tee-totalers and wore a special kind of underclothes." Which could be used to imply that they were Mormon.

That being said, with as bratty as Eustace is, and how he has to be "born again" by Aslan when he's a dragon, is there a subtle commentary by Lewis here?

Mormons have special underwear? I hadn't heard that one before.

As for the whole "baptism" thing, I think Lewis was probably making Eustace's encounter with Aslan a parallel of that. But then again, even if Eustace wasn't Mormon, he'd need to be baptised. Most churches in the Christian faith can at least agree on the importance of that.

 

[i love skandar]

Wow that is really interesting. i never thought about it like that before...

Andrea

 

[pavender]

I never thought Eustace was a Mormon either, just that his parents were trendy people.

But I also never knew that Mormons wear a special kind of underwear and now I'm really curious...who wants to explain for me???

 

[Parthian King]

Some of this may be found in the thread on Mormonism, but a simpler way is a simple google search. This link might help too.

 

[lionessofgod]

Wow, I never thought of that before. I never knew that he may be Mormon. That's a very weird possibility, too bad Lewis isn't here to tell us if it's true or not.

 

[sailndwntrder]

I never thought Eustace was a Mormon either, just that his parents were trendy people.

i think thats more what lewis meant by his description. although its possible, i never considered that they could be mormon although that would imply that eustace would be mormon too and would probably have somewhat of an understanding of the bible (even if it is interpreted differently than christianity) and although i do not agree with all of their religion i have found that mormons are usually not bratty.

i read somewhere that lewis used to smoke a lot (considering that when he wrote these people did not know how bad it is for you) so he just viewed non-smokers as trendy people. so that's just how i have always thought of it. that makes sense too in the sense that people that often follow trends (only for the sake of following the crowd) tend to be snotty.

interesting take on the part though.

 

[Parthian King]

I think it highly doubtful that Lewis was referring to Mormonism in his description of the pre-Narnia Eustace and his parents. A closer understanding would be the type of school Eustace and Jill Pole were attending at the beginning of Silver Chair--"advanced" and priggish, but not doctrinally specific like the Mormons.

 

[fea~mar~vanwa~tyalieva]

I always thought that the Scrubbs are just following modern trends...
sorry stupid question: what 'special underwear' are they supposed to wear??
I'm asking (LOL) because I've always wondered! hehe

 

[slideyfoot]

Interesting thread. I don't see the Mormon link at all; in fact, I think Lewis was implying that the Scrubbs family were atheists, as part of their 'modern' (negative connotations for Lewis) living. Lewis would probably have seen this lack of religious belief as part of their 'faddist' nature, which explains the underwear:

"... At the time there was a fad for string underwear, it was crocheted out of quite coarse cotton thread and was in a net form. It did feel rather weird to wear but it was very warm... Harold and Alberta were simply faddists."

The 'faddist' angle would seem a reasonable conclusion to draw from the following paragraph:

There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it. His parents called him Eustace Clarence and masters called him Scrubb. I can't tell you how his friends spoke to him, for he had none. He didn't call his Father and Mother "Father" and "Mother", but Harold and Alberta. They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and tee-totallers and wore a special kind of underclothes...

Additionally, Eustace is a materialist, which lends credence to the idea that he was probably an atheist (pretty much confirmed later on - see The Silver Chair quotes below). He prefers fact to fiction, proof to imagination:

...Eustace Clarence liked animals, especially beetles, if they were dead and pinned on a card. He liked books if they were books of information and had picutres of grain elevators or of fat foreign children doing exercises in model schools.

Lewis took this further. He might have seen families like the Scrubbs as anti-traditionalist, 'faddist', taking up with 'modern' ideas he disapproved of. He reserves particular contempt for Eustace's school, the significantly named 'Experiment House'. He has some very dated views on education, believing that corporal punishment was an important element of school life, and also finding the idea that girls and boys could possibly learn anything in a mixed environment ridiculous:

...at each word he gave Eustace a blow with the side of his rapier, which was thin, fine dwarf-tempered steel and as supple and effective as a birch rod. Eustace (of course) was at a school where they didn't have corporal punishment, so the sensation was quite new to him...

...I shall say as little as possible about Jill's school, which is not a pleasant subject. It was "Co-educational," a school for both boys and girls, what used to be called a "mixed" school; some said it was not nearly so mixed as the minds of the people who ran it.

Finally, Lewis casts his 'Experiment House' as a secular institution:

"I'm not," said Eustace. "I swear I'm not. I swear by - by everything."

(When I was at school one would have said, "I swear by the Bible." But Bibles were not encouraged at Experiment House.)...

..."Son of Adam and Daughter of Eve, hey?" said the Dwarf. But people at Experiment House haven't heard of Adam and Eve, so Jill and Eustace couldn't answer this...

This would presumably be yet another aspect of Experiment House's foolishly 'modern' ideas. Lewis implies that ideally, a school should segregrate genders, beat children when they were disobedient, and indoctrinate them with Christian texts. In the context of a man born in 1898, this is an unsurprising perspective; it sounds horrendous to me, but then I was born 83 years later.