Parthian King said:
Finally, I find this concern about public outrage to be an odd one in the light of Hollywood's track record. Since when have movie makers been concerned about outrage?
It's not really a
concern about public outrage, in the case of film adaptation, but genuinely one of interest. I personally don't see how
The Last Battle could fail to be offensive if it was translated in its present form to the screen - the implications of racism, intended or not, are too easily made. I may be wrong; we'll see, if and when the film emerges.
I agree, Hollywood doesn't care in the slightest about outrage, as long as it translates into profit. The purpose of cinema - for those who finance the films - is generally to make money; there are a few, usually independently funded directors who prefer art, but even they can't function unless they have an income.
The adaptation of
The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe took out the lines which have been in question on this thread, presumably because, like elements of
The Last Battle, they could have been interpreted as bigoted. It was an easy cut to make. However, there is rather more in
The Last Battle that would need to be modified to achieve the same effect. Hence my interest, and feeling it would be difficult if the studio wanted to retain the plot, dialogue and imagery of the book.
Inkspot said:
You're absolutely sure Lewis is sexist for suggesting girls not fight in battle, despite the fact that you now perfectly understand his motives for it and the classicist philosophy which he espoused.
I don't perfectly understand it; PotW indicated that there was a reason, and not having done the reading yet, I'm taking that point on board. Until I
have done that reading (if I get the chance and have the inclination), it is merely a caveat on my previous opinion - i.e., it looks rather sexist to me,
but others state that there are the following reasons which go some way towards explaining Lewis' position.
Inkspot said:
You're not sure there's anything wrong with a system that keeps women not only from fighting in battles, but from showing their skin in public, leaving their homes without a male of their family beside them, driving a car or attending school.
If that is indeed the case, then the limited judgement I made would be my response. The problem is, I don't know that this is the case, as you didn't specify the country in question. I'm assuming you meant Iran, but that would be an assumption on my part. If you did, then not having lived in Iran, I would find it difficult to be certain of the facts, but could make the limited judgement I made earlier...yet this would only based on limited, perhaps even an incorrect, interpretation of the information I have available to me. You are asking for my opinion on a legal and social situation for which I do not have a factual source to base my response upon.
As I mentioned, I could provide you with conjecture, but I don't think it would be a very satisfactory answer; I would simply be applying my previous paradigm to the statement you made. If thats the response you would like, then I repeat - I feel women (or whichever group, having done no harm to anyone else, finds itself in such a situation) are oppressed by any system which limits their ability to make choices. Given my opinions stated earlier, these systems are not ones which I would support.
If I read a novel about the oppression of Iranian women, that would be different. I could then analyse the text, read biographies of the author to try and discern their motivation, and look at the historical circumstances surrounding the book's production. Similarly, if I merely want to make a judgement on the Narnia books from a textual standpoint, commenting purely on narrative, I would take the same route. Had I studied a module in children's literature on one of my degrees, then I would have approached the books from a literary perspective, not a theological one; however, I may have gleaned theological information from the literary criticism available.
If I wished to take a wholly theological view, this would require the relevant secondary material, which may provide more complex reasons behind the text. This is what PotW suggests in opposition to the points I made earlier, and it is a valid argument; for many (despite the protestations of the author, apparently - but itself is a point of debate), Narnia is not merely a narrative, but a work of Christian allegory, and therefore requires different disciplinary approaches. Not having had a chance to read those texts, I do not at present know if they would modify my perspective; PotW, among others, indicate that they would.
Gryphon said:
so its ok to underestimate age but not sex?
I am working on the assumption that Edmund and Lucy are not just 'young', but pre-pubescent, perhaps not yet 10 years old. In a battle in which they only had melee weapons, and in which their opposition were literally monstrous in size and presumably experienced in battle, I would judge that larger, more mature and better equipped individuals would perform better, if only to a limited degree without aid. In terms of assistance, Susan has a magic bow which 'rarely misses' - Lucy's dagger appears to be merely a dagger, as no magical properties are mentioned. Edmund similarly does not have the luxury of enchanted weaponry, having been absent when they were bestowed. If we remove weapons from the equation, then that leaves physical size and martial skill. No mention has been made in
The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe of the children possessing any particular aptitude at combat, which leaves only size. With the addition of magical weapons, the choice would seem obvious. Susan would quite clearly have been an asset, firing unerring arrows into the enemy along with the other archers - indeed, as she does in the film (at least letting loose one shaft, which is better than nothing).
Small children
can be effective in combat, but generally not with melee weapons. For example, if you taught a child how to fire a gun (as sadly they have done in various 20th century wars), they would become dangerous. If you gave that child a knife, they would be dangerous to a much lesser degree. They would also be less dangerous than a larger individual armed with that same knife, who would have greater strength with which to utilise it. As I've said before, I'm no expert in battle or military history - it doesn't seem too likely, but perhaps there are examples of an untrained individual comparable to a 9 or 10 year old from the mid-twentieth century defeating enormous opponents in battle armed with only short-range weapons.
Of course, I'm being very specific here, focusing on the one book. In later books, there
is an indication of skill, and it is based upon the children 'regaining' the abilities they possessed as Narnian adults. Therefore I can understand the circumstances which lead to Edmund portrayed as a skilled swordsman in
Prince Caspian. His defeat of three ogres in the previous book has no such justification.
)
