Queens may fight - Girls may not 1940's vs 2000's

[Parthian King]

For those unfamiliar with the commentators critical of Lewis and Narnia that slideyfoot mentions, permit me to provide a little information:

Like the Harry Potter books, the His Dark Materials books have been at the heart of controversy, especially with certain Christian groups. It is claimed by some that he actively pursues an anti-Christian agenda. Proponents of this view point to the critical articles he wrote regarding C. S. Lewis' series The Chronicles of Narnia (which Pullman denounces as propaganda), and the usually negative portrayal of the "Church" in His Dark Materials.

The following excerpt from an article in Christianity Today, a review of a recent biography of Lewis, that sustains the previous comment and also provides quotes on Narnia by Philip Hensher.

Despite these flaws, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C. S. Lewis is a worthy addition to Lewisian biography. In addition to the strengths already cited, Jacobs' final chapter is a spirited exposé of the wooly-headed, specious, and mean-spirited attacks on Lewis by Philip Hensher ("Let us drop C. S. Lewis and his ghastly, priggish, half-witted, money-making drivel about Narnia down the nearest deep hole, as soon as conveniently possible") and Philip Pullman (regarding Narnia: "Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-coloured people are better than dark-coloured people; and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it"). As Jacobs deftly notes, it is not Lewis' limitation as a literary craftsman that irks Hensher and Pullman: "It is his insistence that people are immortal. It is Lewis's holding to—and more, emphasizing—the Christian promise of eternal life that makes Hensher accuse him of 'doctrinaire bullying' and Pullman accuse him of believing that 'death is better than life.'"

The above excerpt not only enlightens us on the nature of these men’s thinking, but also helps us to see some of the sources that help form slideyfoot’s thinking itself. Information on the final writer, Polly Toynbee, is below.

A proud atheist, Toynbee is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society.

In 2003, she was nominated as "Most Islamophobic Journalist of the Year" by the Islamic Human Rights Commission for her criticisms of Islamic culture. The title eventually went to the right-wing journalist – and her former Guardian colleague – Melanie Phillips, who is now at The Daily Mail.

In an article for The Guardian (December 5, 2005) on the Chronicles of Narnia in the context of the new Disney film, Narnia: The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, she claimed that "Children won't get the Christian subtext, but unbelievers should keep a sickbag handy during Disney's new epic." Toynbee's negative view of Christianity was evident; she described Aslan (the Lion, a Christ-like figure) as "an emblem for everything an atheist objects to in religion. His divine presence is a way to avoid humans taking responsibility for everything here and now on earth." For Toynbee:

"[o]f all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart. ...When the poor boy comes back down with the sacred lion's breath upon him he is transformed unrecognisably into a Stepford brother, well and truly purged."

In light of the ideology that these people espouse, which is extreme by nearly anyone’s standards (however popular some of their works of fiction or columns might be), I stand by my previous comment that a very limited few hold to these views that you, slideyfoot, put forward as trends that the Narnia movie makers should hearken to. They are trends of course, but they are hardly new, even if they are modern (i.e., a reflection of modernism), and they are favorites of secular academes who live in a world of their own even as they try to darken the faith-filled world of others.

I repeat, Lewis would not only consider himself a strong voice against their points of view, he would consider it the highest of compliments to be insulted by them. If I were to be about nearly any activity at all (whether reading, writing, or movie-making) that garnered praise from such people, I would be sincerely worried about my inner condition as a Christian and indeed as a human being.

 

[slideyfoot]

...helps us to see some of the sources that help form slideyfoot’s thinking itself.

Heh - not quite fair on your part. I never said these critics represented my views, merely that they did not agree with yours; note, I termed them "commentators who would go further in their criticism". Simply because there are aspects of Narnia I dislike, I do not hold the wholly hostile position of the three individuals above. As you pointed out, the views in question are at the extreme end of critical - I would argue that the purely Christian perspective is at the other end of the spectrum, with my views more towards the middle.

Of course, the discussion is rather moot until we see one of the books put onto the screen in its original format; the reaction would then either prove my point or yours (to lesser or greater degrees). I could happily quote numerous newspaper articles to you detailing other critics who take issue with what they interpret as bigotry in Narnia, but I get the impression you might not count them as sufficiently representative. Let me know; I'll hold off on searching for now.


Oh - and please share your views in the new morality thread I started, linked in my previous post. I'd be interested to see your response.

 

[Parthian King]

slideyfoot, I should have been more precise in my comment about their thinking as a source for yours. For one, "source" is a big word in such discussions, and perhaps it is too strong. It also lacked precision, so I yield to your concern for fairness. To be more specific, I refer to the comment by Pullman that "boys are better than girls" in Narnia, a point you have made though not precisely with that verbage. Since you have discussed this point at length with others there is no need for me to weigh Pullman's comments in the light of his other, er, "observations."

On the other hand, I would beg a fairness issue as well: I am relieved that you do not subscribe to the thinking of these people on all points, and I'll take your word for it that (aside from the comment on the sexes) that you are reasonable enough the consider the rest of it the swill that it clearly is. Not only are these people far more bigoted than Lewis could ever rightly be accused of being, they are intellectually vacuous since they have no understanding (let alone appreciation) of the worldview they assess. However, if we follow the thread back only a few posts, we'll see that it was you who brought them up in an effort to demonstrate the broader appeal of your position. Your most recent response might cause one to think that I had set up some sort of false syllogism (i.e., slideyfoot is a critic of Lewis; Toynbee is a critic of Lewis; ergo, slideyfoot thinks like Toynbee). If I had not done some footwork, would you have revealed how these people really think for the benefit of those who may have otherwise been under the impression that these critics were mainstream? Since you quoted them, I had no choice but assume that you thought like them and considered them legitimate. Now you qualify again, which leads us back to where we were about the limited nature of the concerns over the "palatability" of Narnia in either literary or cinematic forms, and at this point I continue to stand, respectfully unconvinced of your argument that anything at all should be tweaked. Had you not distanced yourself from the three you mentioned, I should have been even more cemented in it.

As for Christianity being at a "far end" when it comes to perspectives on Narnia, I would appeal to a basic rule (perhaps the most basic rule) of hermeneutics: A literary work must be interpreted in the spirit in which it was written. Christianity is a faith that is lived out in the shadow of the cross. Don't you wonder why so many Christians (note the avatars and signatures of many in this forum) identify with the guilty but redeemed Edmund? Doesn't it make more rational sense that they would exclusively identify with either Peter or one of the girls, who were not betrayers? Sure, some do at one level, but upon interview all Christians see themselves in Edmund (there have been threads to this effect). Simply put, those who are not Christians will see the story in a light different than the one in which Lewis (who clearly sees himself in Edmund) wrote it; they interpret as outsiders. It is no wonder that Toynbee finds Edmund--for us most beloved--the most repugnant. On this issue there is no "scale." As the Swiss scholar Adolf Schlatter (don't bother to search, I'll say outright he was a fervent Christian) said, there is no neutral, objective stand here, as the Christian message touches each hearer at the deepest part of there own personal interest. Christian interpretation of Narnia is seeing it as Lewis intended--it is smack dab on target, not at some extreme.

As for the abundance of critics, I of course know they're out there. The issue is not the "numbers game," which of course the Christian position would win anyway because of so many Narnia fans out there, but the solidity of the critique. One is reminded of Nazi overtures to Tolkien concerning The Hobbit. They apparently considered Tolkien's worldview as "fascist friendly," and wanted to publish a German edition, but first had to make sure Tolkien was Aryan. If he weren't living and this had happened, surely critics would have vilified Tolkien as a fascist bigot ever since. Fortunately for us, he responded that no, he was not Iranian, but more to the point, he (sadly) could not claim any Jewish blood. For Tolkien, nothing was more repugnant than Naziism, and any parallels they saw were superficial; he would not have them drafted into the Wehrmacht. The Nazis dropped the issue. I am little concerned that secularists find a fervent Christian to be a bigot. We've been called atheistic, cannibalistic, incestuous, secretive, misanthropists--not to mention fools--from the very beginning. Why should things change now? The teachers of Eustace and Jill's Experiment House have merely gotten new jobs as literary critics...

To an extent I agree with you about the relative mootness of the point when it comes to later movies. But considering that a comment as minor as the gifts of Father Christmas has elicited such discussion over the first movie (an issue not at all moot since we discuss a work already done), there is certainly plenty to lay on the table as far as differences in worldview.

This has been an open discussion between the two of us concerning one rather narrow aspect. I appreciate your invitation to the morality thread, and as much as I would like to get involved, travel will impede me for nearly ten days, which is an eternity on a forum. I wish you well.

 

[Gryphon]

Not entirely true - Lucy states that she thinks 'she could be brave enough', indicating willingness to fight for herself. However, as Susan and Lucy are characters in a book, they can speak only through the author, and reflect his opinions rather than those of their living counterparts (i.e., instead of two girls, the words come from a middle aged male with views of his own about women, which continue to be a matter for debate).

he also replied "Im sure you could." indicating that he knows she's willing to fight. Note that she's slightly frightened when she says this seeming a bit unsure. She doesnt even really know if she can fight herself.

 

[inkspot]

To resurrect this old thread ... it occurred to me, on my travels, as I was thinking about Narnia and modern womanhood, and Slideyfoot's thoughts here ... that maybe Slideyfoot is the one whose views are a little bit sexist? He demeans Lucy and Susan's roles as useless, describes them as dead weight -- it's almost as if Slidey thinks women are no use unless they are in the thick of battle or in the middle of whatever important thing is happening for society.

(I know you don't feel this way, Slidey, because you obviously already have a great tenderness for the daughters you hope to have some day!)

But in your descriptions of how useless Su and Lu were in LWW, you seem to be implying that unless a woman is making her mark somewhere outside home and hearth, then she is a burden to society (dead weight like Susan on the lion's back!)

Isn't that a wee bit sexist in itself? I think Lewis saw women as somehow set apart and beyond the reach of all the grasping and struggling men have to do in order to earn a living and protect their families ... Those were the mundane tasks entrusted to men because they were best suited for them, while women had the glorified task of bringing the next generation into the world and rearing tomorrow's leaders. In his view, women would be taking a step backward to put themselves on the battle field; they would be rejecting the highest calling for a lesser one ...

It seems to me most sexist of all to imply that a woman who finds her joy -- and her purpose -- in being the mother of the future is somehow a dead weight on those around her.

 

[PrinceOfTheWest]

That's the irony of modern feminism, ink. By implying that roles such as mother, wife, homemaker, etc. are of less value than roles like investment banker or bureaucrat, what they're really doing is exaulting the masculine and devaluing the feminine - and the ersatz masculine, at that!

For a serious treatment of this topic, pick up a copy of Flight from Woman by psychologist Karl Stern. He discusses how Western culture has been devaluing not just women, but the female aspects of existence for centuries now. It's gotten to the point where if someone even states that there is such a thing as a "feminine" point of anything, they begin stamping and shouting. It's simply the exaltation of the masculine.

 

[inkspot]

Yes, well, that's it, isn't it? It's as if someone wants women to reject their best destiny in favor of a lesser one ... And it's not that they can't be good bread-winners, great bread-winners ... but that men can't be good mothers, can't be mothers at all. It's a sad point of view, really.

 

[Christine Marie]

Seeing women get brutally killed in battle is something that would be very disturbing to a lot of people, ESPECIALLY in Lewis's days. Men were taught to defend and protect women; this was mentioned in 'The Last Battle' when Tirian was concerned for Jill's safety.
So I don't think as it as sexism, more like being a gentlemen and not wanting women to be injured/killed

Then again both Lucy and Jill faught in battles, but as archers since it's very difficult for most women to sword fight with a man who is much stronger then her

 

[Christine Marie]

That's the irony of modern feminism, ink. By implying that roles such as mother, wife, homemaker, etc. are of less value than roles like investment banker or bureaucrat, what they're really doing is exaulting the masculine and devaluing the feminine - and the ersatz masculine, at that!

For a serious treatment of this topic, pick up a copy of Flight from Woman by psychologist Karl Stern. He discusses how Western culture has been devaluing not just women, but the female aspects of existence for centuries now. It's gotten to the point where if someone even states that there is such a thing as a "feminine" point of anything, they begin stamping and shouting. It's simply the exaltation of the masculine.

Excellent point.
Most women were very content with their roles until feminist beat it into our heads that "femininity=bad masculinity=good". Male dominant roles were put on a pedestal that didn't exist and female roles were, and still are, treated like the bottom of the pyramid.

 

[LadyEm]

In the Chronicles of Narnia, it seems that CS Lewis has made a certain point of a certain theme. Girls are not supposed to fight, as Lucy is told on several occasions - but Queens can.
As a girl, Lucy wants to fight on a few occasions, but Aslan tells her no - most specifically in Prince Caspian.
In the Horse and His Boy - Lucy went along to war quite a lot as Queen we find out, and in the end of this book, leads the Narnian army out from Cair Paravel to meet the Calormene army.
Susan on the other hand, it says, though she rode with the archers to battle in her younger years, grew tired of it when she were older (being Queen Susan the Gentle) and retired to Cair Paravel.
In the movie it looks like the girls are going to be apart of their share of fighting. What was CS Lewis trying to say in his theme that girls don't fight, but boys do, and they can only do so if they are Queens?
And what do you think changing this aspect does to the story itself? Do you think it's merely to do with the society context where Lewis lived?
(Just to say, I've always been a great proponent of girls fighting with swords - my questions are purely for discussion, but I want to know the answer to this because I can't help but notice the change in the movies as opposed to the books).

 

[SlpNarniaQueen]

I think they could fight as Queens because they had the AUTHORITY too. It would be logical for a Queen to go to war.

I do think that it was just a time period thing. C.S. Lewis lived in a time when women were just getting their rights to work like men did and not just be ladies of the house. It was the first time women took a step up in society to take the place of the men who were sent oversees, and I think it was just a veiw that he had grown up with, that girls don't fight and guys do.

 

[~Lava~]

Another thing to consider is that Lucy was little more than 9-10 years old, a battle field is not the place for a girl that age, She was unprepared to fight the evil creatures of the first book, and the adult men of the next one because she was so small. I think that this more than anything is why Aslan did not have her fight.

 

[NarnianofGryffindor]

I agree with Lava. That's the only logical explanation I can see.

 

[micoorda]

Queens may Fight, even the kings needs help sometimes

 

[Gwendolyn]

Another thing to consider is that Lucy was little more than 9-10 years old, a battle field is not the place for a girl that age, She was unprepared to fight the evil creatures of the first book, and the adult men of the next one because she was so small. I think that this more than anything is why Aslan did not have her fight.

But in LWW "Santa Clause" said that neither of the girls would be in the battle, and that's what happened. And neither of them were in the battle in Prince Caspian. Aslan told them to stay with him. Throughout all of the books Lewis has favored boys as far as battles. In 'Silver Chair', when the witch takes on her snake form and starts wrapping herself around Rilian, Scrubb and Puddleglum come with swords to help him. This is what Lewis writes about Jill. "Jill had very wisely sat down and said to herself 'I hope I don't faint or blub or do anything idiotic'".
Another thing, notice how when girls do participate in battles they are always archers. In TLB Jill was an archer, and HAHB Lucy was an archer, in VOTDT Lucy went on the fighting top with the other archers.
This is of course what I remember from the top of my head, but I have always sensed this slight favor toward the males. When the High Kings and Queens are remember, they usually say "the high kings" of old. What about the Queens? BUT...
Aslan appears to Lucy and Jill, and they have to lead the others in the group. There is this beautiful connection in between Aslan and Lucy which I think no other king or queen has. And Lucy is not a male! I'm not saying that Aslan has favorites, he just appears to Lucy the most. Edmund points this out in VOTDT. So...like I said. As far as battles go, boys are favored.

 

[~Lava~]

Susan was not much of a fighter from the get-go. With Susan, she did not wish to fight. Susan was little more than a preteen herself in LWW, and Aslan had other things for the girls to do in PC. Remember, Aslan told Lucy that had she gone with him alone, it would have turned out okay in the end.

 

[lieke]

Susan was little more than a preteen herself in LWW,

Edmund is younger than Susan, and he did go to fight. That makes me think that it isn't entirely an age thing. For a part maybe. I do think that it has a lot to do with, as already pointed out, the differences between man and woman in the time when Lewis lived.

 

[Into the Wardrobe]

I think a lot of it had to do with tradition. Some of it may have had to do with the fact that Aslan had other plans for the girls. He had other jobs for them and knew the boys could handle it. He had the girls collecting reinforcements each time. They would rally the people on their side to come and help in LWW and PC. Aslan kept them with him. Women weren't equipped for battle more often than not apart from archery. Often times I'd think that if they went to battle with swords most wouldn't have lasted. Those things are heavy and if a little lady were to fight a large man they'd be toast. It's pretty simple. A lot of things then were based on chivalry which people today know very little about. Honor in today's society is looked at as expendable or extremely relative. There's nothing honorable about sending a young lady on a probable suicide mission with a sword. Standing back and helping as an archer is fine...it's still helping, but back a bit where it's safer.

Pertaining to the movies, Susan hacking away with a sword was a compromise that Doug made. Yes, it's highly out of character for her to be fighting with a sword and her ever winning against a man would be highly unbelievable to me...but that's how the filmmakers wanted it and that's how it was made. The movies aren't gonna be 100% faithful to the books. Concessions need to be made here and there...it's just sad when they change the spirit of the character. Since Susan doesn't come back till HHB and isn't seen in LB...it's hard for people who just see the films and don't read the books to understand why she got the name of "Susan the Gentle."

 

[~Lava~]

There are fundemental differences between the devlopmental stages of Males and the stages girls go through, Edmund was probably a lot stronger than Su. even if Susan was older they were still close enough in age that Ed was challenging her authority in the beginning of the book LWW. I agree with Into the Wardrobe though. It just would not make sense for an honorable person of any time (even the present) to send pre-teenage girls into battles against grownups and huge evil things. Remember, Peter did not wish for Reep to go out against the Telmarines either.

 

[inkspot]

iMerge with an older thread on this subject. If you don't want to go back and read the voluminous posts, here is my take on part of the "girls can't fight" thing ...

As for why the girls are romping with Aslan while the boys are fighting: if you are a Christ follower, ask yourself whether you would rather be engaged in the ongoing, brutal battle of good vs. evil or experiencing ultimate joy in the presence of the Savior. Susan and Lucy know that because Aslan is alive, all will be as it should be -- there is no reason for them to rush back to the battle when he has invited them to remain in his presence.

Father Christmas doesn't tell the girls, "You can't fight in a battle." He tells them he does not mean for them to: his best hope is that things will never get so bad that they will be forced to fight.