Was the Frolic inappropriate?

PrinceOfTheWest

PrinceOfTheWest

Knight of the Stone Table
Royal Guard
Emeritus
In Prince Caspian, the liberation of Narnia from the Telmarines is accompanied by a gay frolic let by Aslan and accompanied by Bacchus, Silenus, and the Maenads. Some find this delightful and refreshing, others find it inexplicable, and yet others think it another example of the pastiche writing that so annoyed Lewis' friend J.R.R. Tolkien. What do you think?
 
I think humour, rest, rejoicing and celebration are gifts of God just like determination, faith, sacrifice and heroism.

When God sends men into battle to fight, bleed and perhaps die, he understands that they need to express the joy of living as well.

Look at the Wedding at Cana. Jesus turned water into wine. Water is certainly a practical form of refreshment, and if Jesus was some sort of somber, humourless "Git er done" fellow who frowned upon all forms of rejoicing and celebration, I imagine he would have made a point of that.

Remember, as much work as God tells us we have to do, he still ORDERED us to take off one day a week to rest.
 
Well, it seemed to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the topics raised in another thread was whether Aslan Himself would take part in the frolic, or hold Himself aloof and leave the frolicking to His creatures.

My take on this is that He'd happily frolic with His creatures, indeed, He would lead the frolicking (as Lewis has Him do.) Why wouldn't He? After all, He's the author of all joy and the fountain of all celebration. His presence was the very cause of the rejoicing - why would He not rejoice and play along with everyone else?
 
Perhaps the term JOYFUL frolic might be more appropriate in a 21st century discussion thread. ;)
 
EveningStar said:
Perhaps the term JOYFUL frolic might be more appropriate in a 21st century discussion thread.* ;)
Click to expand...

It was certianly Joyful if it was nothing else. :D

I wish they'd put the 'Frolic' in the movie, it would have been better than some things in it... and besides they need happy things to happen too. ;)

And I've always liked the part in the book when it happens... happy people! :)
 
Last edited:
EveningStar said:
Perhaps the term JOYFUL frolic might be more appropriate in a 21st century discussion thread. ;)
Click to expand...
I was making a counterstrike to try to reclaim a perfectly good English word that has been co-opted by people with an agenda. I know I'm dating myself, but I am a student of Lewis and an Old Western Man, so I shall use the term as it has always been understood, not as it has been corrupted.

I would contend that in the classic use of the term, "gay" was precisely what that frolic was.

So there. :p
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
I was making a counterstrike to try to reclaim a perfectly good English word that has been co-opted by people with an agenda. I know I'm dating myself, but I am a student of Lewis and an Old Western Man, so I shall use the term as it has always been understood, not as it has been corrupted.

I would contend that in the classic use of the term, "gay" was precisely what that frolic was.

So there. :p
Click to expand...

Are we promptly deciding gay means joyful then?;)

I personally have no problem with the word I was just wondering.:)
 
Well, in the old(er) days, "gay" meant joyful or happy; but sadly, in modern times has been used, as POTW has said, by people with an agenda.

I don't think the frolic was inappropriate. I've never thought of that. I saw it as being a thing where they could have fun and be carefree. Some people may see it as inappropriate because of the mention of Bacchus and his wild girls, including all the mentions of wine. (but in Jesus' day, it was little more than grape juice).
 
The classical meaning of "gay" is joyful, upbeat, delighted, and exciting. In an exchange like this:

"Did you and Mark have fun at the fair last evening?"

"Mother, we had a positively gay time last evening!"
​
would indicate that the experience was more than simply fun or interesting. That's what the term meant until it was co-opted by A Certain Group in the late 1970's for their own purposes. Those of us who are old enough (or wear enough stripes) remember when they term was untainted by overtones.
 
Satyrs, Nymphs and Bacchus all represent the idea of pleasures that can take our mind off our duties and pursuit of righteousness. And yet we speak of Heaven being a place of absolute and undiluted joy. It's not the joy that's bad, it's a life out of balance that's bad.

Bacchus and his wild bunch did not spend all day partying. They should not be seen as elves in some fairy story that live in little houses in the wood with no visible source of income singing "Hi ho the derry oh, with a hey nonnie nonnie and a ho ho ho!" They were, in fact, immortals with the mission to bring relief of suffering and loneliness to the oppressed and downtrodden. They went about blessing the celebrations and simple rustic joys of the poor so that their lives may be rich in meaning and fulfilment without mansion, yachts and stacks of gold coins.

We have trouble as Christians dealing with so-called demigods. These folk, like our concept of archangels and cherubim were powerful beings entrusted with the power to do things outside the usual order of nature. There is nothing in the Chronicles of Narnia to indicate the blasphemous idea that Bacchus was in the same class as Jehovah, only smaller. Nor was there any indication that his powers were endemic rather than coming from God the Father, much as the ordinary human disciples of Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons. Like Santa Claus, their appearance in Chronicles was as mythical beings behind whose legend was an element of truth where Narnia is concerned. And like Santa Claus there was no harm intended.
 
My question to any who ask whether Aslan should have participated in a frolic that was intended to restore the old order in Narnia is: What about Palm Sunday? Jesus is the only reason that the riotous events of Palm Sunday happened.

The frolic was a perfect break in the fighting; it shows that Lucy and Susan are not being idle while their brothers are off fighting in the war, they are about Aslan's business (why did the movie have show Lucy sitting around in the room of the stone table while the boys and Susan were off fighting).
 
It all comes down to this. Does God want people to be happy? Sometimes we portray faith as "Be extremely miserable in your self denial and when you die God will give you chocolates and wine." Which is, of course, rot. Heaven is how we should live. The sin in this world prevents it, but we still pray what JESUS HIMSELF told us to pray...that God's kingdom comes and his will is done here exactly as it's done in Heaven. Heaven is not a reward, it's a restoration. Just as recovery is not a reward for being sick but a restoration to one's original state of health.
 
EveningStar said:
I think humour, rest, rejoicing and celebration are gifts of God just like determination, faith, sacrifice and heroism.
Click to expand...
Totally agree!
Mozart the Meerkitten said:
It was certianly Joyful if it was nothing else. :D

I wish they'd put the 'Frolic' in the movie, it would have been better than some things in it...
Click to expand...
completely agree!
EveningStar said:
We have trouble as Christians dealing with so-called demigods. These folk, like our concept of archangels and cherubim were powerful beings entrusted with the power to do things outside the usual order of nature. There is nothing in the Chronicles of Narnia to indicate the blasphemous idea that Bacchus was in the same class as Jehovah, only smaller. Nor was there any indication that his powers were endemic rather than coming from God the Father, much as the ordinary human disciples of Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons. Like Santa Claus, their appearance in Chronicles was as mythical beings behind whose legend was an element of truth where Narnia is concerned. And like Santa Claus there was no harm intended.
Click to expand...
Yup, you got it.
~Lava~ said:
My question to any who ask whether Aslan should have participated in a frolic that was intended to restore the old order in Narnia is: What about Palm Sunday? Jesus is the only reason that the riotous events of Palm Sunday happened.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with you.

Everyone said what I wanted to say or would have said if I were smarter. My brother listens to some crazy Christian radio show that says CSL never was a Christian, and part of their proof is stuff like this in CON, the demi-gods and mythical stuff. It's just so small minded and silly!
 
I think about the trial of Oscar Wilde. He was convicted of immoral dealings with a youth. One of the prime bits of evidence against him was a fictional novel he wrote about a man whose face remained young and innocent whilst his portrait aged and soured. Even though at the front of the novel was a disclaimer that the characters were fictional and he didn't necessarily agree with what they did and why. Even though at the end of the novel Dorian Gray destroyed the portrait at cost of his own life and in dying begged God to forgive him...and was forgiven.

Now Wilde was guilty. He admitted as much later on, especially in his tretise "De Profundis". BUT that would be like convicting me of theft because Loki Sharptooth in my Byron on Wells stories stole silverware from the Moon and Hare Inn. That was a gross miscarriage of justice.
 
~Lava~ said:
(why did the movie have show Lucy sitting around in the room of the stone table while the boys and Susan were off fighting).
Click to expand...

*snickers* that question has an answer found in comentary at least if you refer to The Castle Raid. Castle Raid why Lucy wasn't there: Georgie Henly the girl who plays her they said had curfiu so she wasn't aloud to participate in Night stuff.:D:p

But yeah she and Susan should have been with Aslan I think.;)
 
~Lava~ said:
The frolic was a perfect break in the fighting; it shows that Lucy and Susan are not being idle while their brothers are off fighting in the war, they are about Aslan's business
Click to expand...
Actually, the frolic was going on while the men are fighting. Remember Peter's comment that Aslan would do things in His time, not theirs, but would expect them to be busy about His work. That's when they arranged the single combat, etc.

I think the point of the frolic is more subtle and more profound than just something to give the girls something to do. For one thing, it was the restoration of the heart of Narnia. That which was not of Narnia was driven away (e.g. the nasty boys) or undone (e.g. the cruel muleteer). That which was of Narnia, such as the oppressed donkey or little Gwendolen, were liberated. The frolic released more power than Caspian's army did, and ultimately achieved that which tipped the balance: the awakening of the trees.

Everyone was being obedient to Aslan's command: the boys and Trumpkin going into the How and dealing with what they found there, the girls staying with Aslan. But the center of power was where the frivolity was. As Scriptures say, "The joy of the Lord shall be your strength." Those frolicking with Aslan were rejoicing with Him, and therefore strengthened by Him. While the Telmarine army was facing the rebels, their country was being stripped from them behind their backs.
 
This is the day this is the day that the Lord has made that the Lord has made and we will rejoyce we will rejoyce and be glad in it and be glad in it!

Does that sum up the frolic? Because if it doesn't I don't know what will.:D
 
The frolic was "out of place" you could say. It was strange, random, and bizarre. Sure, it could "represent joyful feelings and happiness," but to me it really topped off the weirdest pile of junk I've ever seen.

I'm surprised no one here felt it was bizarre or strange in any way. :rolleyes: That's my argument. Thank the Lord it wasn't included. People would've left their seats in the theater. You people have got to think about those who haven't read the book, and those unfamiliar would think (probably in these exact words), "What the hell is this?"
 
That seems to. I'm also reminded of that little bit, almost a passing mention, in The Return of the King, when Gandalf and Pippin are in their room in Minas Tirith, about to be besieged by the hosts of Mordor. Pippin has just been interrogated by Denethor and caught between him and Gandalf, and is feeling grim and depressed. Then he looks at Gandalf and catches a glimpse of all the laughter that lay within him, enough to set a whole kingdom laughing if it were to burst forth. That's the kind of joy we're talking about.
 
Back
Top