Was the Frolic inappropriate?

Try reading Lewis' That Hideous Strength and Perelandra for a more careful unpacking of this theme. The idea is precisely what the Magister says: the "gods" - i.e. great spiritual beings - were created by God and are perfectly submitted to Him. Only in the diseased and damaged imaginations of sinful humans have we projected onto them our own immorality, and worshiped them because they were greater than us. They would not have it so.

Meanwhile...

*throws grapes at Eveningstar*

Interloper! How dare you frolic and be joyful when there is so much to be glum and dour about? How dare you dance around Aslan as if He'd liberated you, and join hands with your fellow ex-prisoners to make total fools of yourselves? Have you no dignity, no self-respect? If you don't cut it out, I'm going to put you on that donkey and take you into exile among the Marsh-wiggles to teach you to take a properly serious view of things! (And a badger on a donkey is quite a foolish sight, I assure you!)
 
Yeh, I mean a good example to back up POTW's point is the river God at the end of PC. He's submissive to Aslan as well.
 
I don't believe it was inappropriate,i think it was because the Narnia films get good views from the christian society. If they were putting something like that (bachuss however you spell it and the ladies) the christian society would be mad and wouldn't give good ratings. Also it would put the rating higher. From watching Shrek 2 i would say andrew adamson's vulgar sense of humor(Seeing as he already changed enough,of the movie he'd probably change that part too!) would volt Prince Caspian to a non-kid friendly movie,(don't watch the commentary either,Ben says something raunchy)
So it was better left out. I do think they should've left in the part where he meets all the narnian's and when the parts in the beginning when he's still little. Those were cute!
Also the origins of bachus are Pagan and a bit adult. It wouldn't be right to put them into a kids movie. And evening star,prince of the west,stop fighting. Even though your pitiful little argument made me laugh,(and about the taters and cotton) don't fight.
 
Last edited:
I think , having freshly read this book, that it was necessary.

I hear about the greatness of God a lot in my role. But to me, to be great, you must be at peace. You must be content.

Remember, God looked at the world and saw that it was good.

If I am to believe in God, I contend that the only God worth believing in is one who feels free enough and joyful enough to romp through his creation with wild abandon.
 
EveningStar said:
I will go out on a limb here. Narnia had the real Bauchus whilst Ancient Greece had a false one, the same way we have the real God of righteousness whilst Ancient Greece had false gods that dallied with buxom farmers' daughters.

There is a scale of reality in force, one mentioned by the Professor at the end of LWW. The Neoplatonic scale by which there is the class (model) and the instance (copy). Things on Earth are slightly weaker instances of the original classes, things in Narnia are closer to the original, more sincere and less tainted by sin and corruption.

By my analogy, beauty on Earth is like a VHS tape made from broadcast TV of a movie, "Modified to fit your screen", blurry and riddled with commercials. Beauty in Narnia during the trials is like DVD. Beauty in Narnia during the Golden Age is like Blu-Ray. Beauty in Heaven is meeting the actors and watching them perform for you, then having them write you into the plot.
Click to expand...
I get what you mean, i think.

But i hope you don't mind me going further about it. I'm surrounded by people who keep telling me other things. Bachus was an ancient Greek god, and he was not such a nice one in their stories, with not such a high moral. So far i agree with them. And then people say: Lewis put him in his story, he put in a false god in a story, and the false god is supposed to be accepted by Aslan, who represents the real God. So Narnia is basically saying that all the ancient gods were good and are accepted by God. The ancient gods were worshipped by people, but they are not the real god, therefore, the ancient gods are demons, and should not be worshipped. They are occult, and they can get an influence in your life, you cannot worship the true God, and those other gods. Aslan and Bachus can never be on the same side, since they are per definition contradictory.

Again, this is NOT my opinion. But i get this thrown at me so many times when i say i like Narnia. And i just find it very hard to answer it. So i'm wondering: how do you all answer it, and how would i make people understand it. 'cause it gives me doubts as well. And basically all the information people have comes from the heavenisopen article i posted in my last post, which is very negative about Narnia. And i just don't know how to reply to that either. It keeps saying that since Narnia has magic, it's occult, and therefore, if you're a christian you can never read/watch Narnia.

Some help? :eek:
 
Scattered thoughts in no particular order:

Well, I'd start by reminding them that Lewis didn't just put the Roman god of wine into Narnia; he put in Bacchus-the-Narnian-god. All symbolism aside, Narnian Bacchus isn't a false god; he's just as real as the other demigods Aslan put in Narnia in the beginning--the river gods, for instance. I think it's stretching to take from that that Lewis thinks Bacchus was real in our world; does he feel the same way about dryads?

I think I remember reading something about how Lewis felt that the older gods were sort of, like, baby gods? Like, people worshiped them 'cause they hadn't gotten to the level of worshiping the Christian god. That might be what they mean, but even so, within the Narnian world Bacchus is firmly under Aslan and there's absolutely no evidence he's worshiped at all (nor that he's nice--Susan and Lucy remark on how they'd never want to be with him without Aslan). So I think you'd have to reach to say that Lewis is arguing y'all should go out and worship Zeus.

Finally, I also wonder--do these people expect that they'll agree with Lewis's portrayal of Aslan on every point? Aslan isn't Jesus; he's Lewis's idea of what Jesus would have been had he been a lion in Narnia. There's a lot of debate in Christian theology even within denominations; can they really expect that his high Anglican views are going to be the same as everyone else's? Part of reading is reading critically and saying "No, I don't think that this is right--this was the wrong choice for the character to make, the author made a mistake in endorsing this view, this is a silly cliche and I'm sick of it." And that's a really important skill to learn early, because authors are people and people make mistakes. So even if Lewis is endorsing this view (and I really don't think he is), I think that's okay. The narration and always-right characters say a lot of things I disagree with within Narnia, but that doesn't mean he changes my mind. It just means I get to say "Was it right for X to do Y and Lewis to allow the narration to endorse this as the right thing? Hm, I don't think so. Fail, Lewis!" and move on with my life. Unless they're planning on using Narnia as a set of rules to live life by that should be fine.

And it should be noted this happens with every book, but specifically also with books with a god-type character whose pronouncements/actions are taken as Always Right. The narration might seem to agree that God caused X to do Y, or that God wanted Z to do such-and-such, or whatever. In those cases you know what the author thought was the right choice (as opposed to stories where, say, twelve characters have different opinions and there's no clear answer about which the author thinks is right or wants you to think is right) and what s/he thinks you should think is right, and sometimes you're going to disagree. That's okay. You should disagree. Sometimes it's even better that way so you can think about it and discuss it.
 
Wow, good thoughts, guys!

Pardine: great insight and I agree completely. It was God who made the butterflies and the mad growth of jungles and instilled in men a sense of frolic and humor that not even sin could stamp out. All the bitter consequences of sin are a passing thing, and what will be restored will be something like the frolic.

Animus, great insight as well - the Bacchus of the Romp was the Narnian Bacchus, unpolluted by depraved human imagination. And, as Narnia had no fall as Earth did, I imagine he was the Bacchus that Bacchus was intended to be. And you also make an important point that Lewis was writing a story, not postulating a thesis, and what he says shouldn't be pressed further than he intended.

lieke, I don't know what to suggest other than be firm in your own understanding of what Narnia is about. Just because people who haven't read or understood it choose to superimpose their ignorance on the situation doesn't mean you should be confused. You know who runs Narnia, just as Lewis' Bacchus does.
 
Lewis, a thing to remember, was also someone who believed in the long term salvation. He said that England was in such disrepair spiritually that it might be necessary to make them good pagans, first, and then good Christians.

I don't believe Lewis was a pantheist. I think he was the opposite. I think he believed that all religions pointed their way into Christianity.

That all gods pointed to One True God.

So that's why I can see Bachus in there. And I can even see Lewis having believed in a Bachus here. He believed that when people prayed at the shrine of Apollo, they were .. well, here's his quote:


"I had some ado to prevent Joy and myself from relapsing into Paganism in Attica! At Daphni it was hard not to pray to Apollo the Healer. But somehow one didn't feel it would have been very wrong - would have only been addressing Christ sub specie Apollinis." -CS Lewis

So his inclusion of other gods , by no doubt, would include this world too. Mere Christianity is littered with suggestions of this.

In short, no. Romp good. Frolic good.

Because as much as people talk about all the ills and evils of this world.. I think that misses the point.

This world is awesome. This world is wonderful. This world is spectacular, and beautiful, and joyful, and resiliant. It CAN and SHOULD be a happy world.
 
Our problem is "self denial". We are surrounded by fallen man in a world tainted with sin. We're in the midst of an emergency and so we spend a lot of our time putting out fires and binding up wounds. We make a mistake to confuse the suffering in this corrupted world with what God intended for us. We were meant to have joy, and the lack of joy only adds to our woes. It's easy to become so puritanical that we think the joy itself is the problem, but that is an error in our logic.
 
I agree with a lot of the above comments.

In terms of the frolic's appropriateness, I think at the time it was more appropriate than it would be had it been written today. Not because anything in the nature of it has changed, but because of society's view.

Everything these days is viewed with suspicion, and no writer would include such a chapter simply because of the way it could be viewed. It's almost certainly the reason it was left out of the film.

Back then, however, there was no problem, and the themes of joy and all the above that people have been saying were what would have been taken out of it. The question of its acceptability is really just a reflection on our society!
 
waterhogboy said:
Everything these days is viewed with suspicion... The question of its acceptability is really just a reflection on our society!
Click to expand...

Ahhh wonderful. As a Calormen, I know little of your world but from the snippets I glean it would appear that over time your society is slowly ascending towards a summit of civilization comparable to ours.

Joy of course is an inappropriate emotion and one should always treat it with the suspicion and derision it deserves.

That such behaviour is suitable in Narnia but is discarded in your world demonstrates that you are moving in the right direction!:eek:
 
Tarkaan said:
That such behaviour is suitable in Narnia but is discarded in your world demonstrates that you are moving in the right direction!
Click to expand...
Ugh! That we should get such a compliment from such a source ... truly the Bible says "better are wounds from a friend than kisses from an enemy."
 
inkspot said:
Ugh! That we should get such a compliment from such a source ... truly the Bible says "better are wounds from a friend than kisses from an enemy."
Click to expand...

Oh most resplendent mod, the lash of your derision is most humbly received by one who speaketh out of turn.

Has not one of the poets said that a noble friend is the best gift and a noble enemy the next best?
 
inkspot said:
Ugh! That we should get such a compliment from such a source ... truly the Bible says "better are wounds from a friend than kisses from an enemy."
Click to expand...
...weren't such Proverbs nulled by Jesus when he said, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you..." ?

in that case wounds from a friend would be a terrible thing, while kisses from an enemy are wonderful. we don't go by the "eye for an eye" scriptures in the OT anymore...
 
Oh most sapient Tarkaan, again you grace us with your presence and bestow upon us the blessing of your wisdom! How sagely the poets have written that the fruit of the melon tree sates the fool but for a moment, while the wise feast upon the fruit of wisdom to the end of their days!

How correct your observation that this "frolic" - that is to say, this indulgent and frivolous waste of time, this idle and irresponsible pursuit of "joy" and "celebration" - is indeed the sign of a primitive and barbaric land. What kind of leader is this Aslan, that He tolerates such undignified and unproductive activity? He cannot have much power over his subjects to put up with that manner of behaviour.

Now, in a more civilized and orderly land, such as Calormen or our land, such pursuits would be swiftly put to an end. If the activity is not productive, it should not be done at all. Everyone should attend to their duties with utmost dispatch and diligence. Once all responsibilities are discharged, then perhaps some time for leisure - diligent study of the poets, perhaps, or discourse upon better ways of performing one's tasks. Not of this dancing about and running. We have specialized slaves for those activities; those who do not know how to perform them should not try at all.

So, my good Tarkaan, with such thoughts we may yet persuade the barbarians to abandon these irresponsible notions such as "freedom" and "wonder", that they may better embrace the more productive and practical realities of life, such as the duty they owe their betters and the weighty responsibilities they bear.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
in a more civilized and orderly land, such as Calormen or our land, such pursuits would be swiftly put to an end.
Click to expand...

May the sublime perfume of onions and garlic ever grace your nostrils Oh most wondrous and mighty Prince Of The West. May your wise words long continue to tumble like a plenitude of priceless gems and carbuncles from the horn of riches and may the shining blade of your discernment confound and crush all who oppose you.

It has long been my wish to adopt certain advanced philosophies from your world to further strengthen the iron hand of the Tisroc's rule (may it last for ever). Such notions as political correctness, the opposite of which must surely be political incorrectness can be used to our ends, if I could but fully plumb the depths and layers of sophistication to be found therein.

Yes, there is much to be learned from your world.

Frolic Ha! Why weren't they working? No wonder their economy is in such a poor state. I have heard that even Turkish delight, bananas, figs and so forth are in short supply there. A fact I'm sure we will use to our advantage at some point.
 
I liked the frolic.

The poets are usually wrong! They write with their feelings, not their brains.
 
Back
Top