C.S. Lewis?

[Sora33]

Anyone here like C.S. Lewis?

[Soulhunter-X]

I course i like it, I already finish reading 4 of them, Prince Caspian, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Horse and his Boy and The Silver Chair.

[Dragon]

I can't really comment. When I read the Lion the witch and the wardrobe years ago I did enjoy it although they are all on my shelf to read so that I can at least comment on the subject properly.

Dragon

[Nyx Raven]

...I have read The Magicians Nephew, and the Lion the witch and hte wardrobe, and am currently reading The boy and his horse, since its in order and well it's good but sooo long to read! lol.

[Thorn]

never liked him and never will start to

[Sensi Hawso]

I've never liked The Chronicles of Narnia, they just never appealed to me. Much like the Just So stories, which is a shame because I really like Rudyard Kipling.

[Thorn]

what it has to do with Kipling?

[Sensi Hawso]

It reminded me of other books I never really enjoyed and didn't understand why they were so loved, enter "Just So Stories" by Rudyard Kipling.

[Thorn]

oh yes, sorry, now i understand

i never liked levis and narnia cause... i was too old when i tried to read em. Maybe if i were a little kid, a really little one, i'd like 'em, but well... a magical world entered by the wardrobe? Come on.

[Dunky]

I think he's an awfully unskilled writer. Reread Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe now and you'll scoff at all his n.B.s and bracketed notes.

But the world he created was rather wonderful, biblical parallels or no.

[Sensi Hawso]

I started reading them as a kid and was put off anyway, then again I was probably reading Rauld Daul at the same time and severe shift in the style of narration between the two authors probably messed with my infant mind.

[Thorn]

heheh... i always though robinson kruzoe was a way lot male than any narnia stuff, and still i'd preffer to get on with robinson or even stevenson's pirates writings than with lewis

[DrBernie]

i read lion, witch, wardrobe in year 3 and i liked it, but i haven't read any others since. i think i'll just watch the movies, since they seem to follow the books pretty well.

[Nicola]

Can't stand the preaching git. The whole Chronicles of Narnia is so fake, didactic and repulsive. I hate his ideals and his beliefs. So, the lion is basically God, and you have to do whatever he says. You can't make your own decisions. And oh, he doesn't want Susie in his new world because she likes lip stick. And also, making little boys into warriors is super cool, and telling girls to fuck off and have them faint in trees because they are not strong is also super duper cool.

Fuck off, Lewis.

[Dunky]

I think what a lot of people forget about Susan, is that all the other characters died, and she got to live.

[Nicola]

I think the point is, the end of the books was 'Judgement Day', and everyone that Aslan thought was cool would go into this new world (Heaven) and everyone else would be left behind (Limbo).

[Dunky]

Yeah that might have been what the author had in mind, but let's go a bit post-structuralist on his ass. I'm interpretingit as all the other characters and the whole world of Narnia ceasing to exist, but Susan is reprieved. I mean, the rest of the Pevensies die in a train crash. They are dead. Gone. Rotting.

Perhaps Susan is rewarded.
Perhaps for embracing modernity? For thriving at adult life and leaving childhood foolishness behind? Why not.

[Nicola]

But that destroys my point of Lewis being a fundamental arsehole. Work with me here, Dunk!

[Dunky]

I think he's an arsehole because of his sidebracket notes in Wardrobe. [pretentious voice](I needn't bother describe their feast to you, suffice to say it was better than anything you've eaten.)[/pretentious voice] kind of thing.

What a wanker.

[Nicola]

I hate it when he does that. He says stuff like 'This is adult talk, no need for you to know of it' etc. Totally agree.

With you. Not him.

[DrBernie]

meh, just don't go into the deeper meaning of books and enjoy the ride :)

[Nicola]

What deeper meaning? He's not exactly subtle!

[Thorn]

there's deeper meaning in everything, you peasant. You just don't get the High Art so keep your lips shut!

;*

[DrBernie]

ok i guess what i meant was don't relate it to our world at all, forget about religion and the like and accept that its a fantasy world with rules and facts completely different to ours.

[Azador]

Well, I can see that 90% of the people who read these completely missed the entire point of the series.

I for one loved these books as a child and still love them today. They are/were original, entertaining and captivating.

As far as the comments about how he treated the female characters, remember the time frame that he wrote them. The 40s/50s were not exactly keen on the ideas of feminism and equality that our society holds today and as such it would have been natural to treat the two genders very differently.

As far as them not being written well, I can see where the comments are coming from and it is true that his narration can be a little difficult but at the same time the unique aspects of how he writes are what draws the reader in. He created his own style for that series that is so far never been emulated in literature as far as I know.

As far as the "It's a kids story" mentality, read them closer. There are many subtleties and underlying themes that are just as relevant to capture as an adult.

As far as the not-so-subtle religious parallels, Lewis didn't write them to make a point in that way at all. He said himself that they are what they are not matter which way you take them. It's true that many stories/characters were probably inspired by biblical stories but it wasn't meant as a huge analogy that pointed at you and said "Be a christian or you will die and go to Hell!"

I'm now out of time and breath so I'll leave you to ponder on my points. Oh, and he wrote a heck of a lot more that the Narnia series, just to let you know.

[Sensi Hawso]

Your valid points aside I still can't stand C.S. Lewis. His narration bores me and as far as a unique imagination goes his isn't something to be marvelled at in my opinion.
I am turned off any of his works from the first, I just cant stick hos style of writing so that kind of argues against your "captivating" argument".

[Vilagen]

There are definitely heavy Christian overtunes in pretty anything he writes, which is probably why I have enjoyed his stuff. At the same time though, it has caused many people to either have a love or hate opinion about him and his works. Influences aside though, I personally do think that he was a very talented writer and had a unique way of narrating. I plan to read through his space trilogy novels during the summer.

[Nicola]

Azador, how has anyone 'missed' the point? You didn't elaborate.

The point you bring about feminism is actually inversed. YES, feminism was NOT popular, therefore, his writing of women is a reinforcement of where they belong; to put them back in their place. I cannot appreciate what he did there, since all he did was add to hundreds of other mediums of the media that told women to get back in the kitchen and serve men. Considering women AND men were writing novels where women had different roles as early as the mid nineteenth century, I don't see why I should take the time frame into any consideration. You say it would only be 'natural' for Lewis to write in this way; where is the merit in simply following the crowd, instead of speaking up against it? I just don't find your point on this aspect convincing at all.

My issue is that his writing reinforces the aspects of society that was trying to be clinged onto, though it was going out of the window. As a feminist myself, I can't possibly appreciate his represenation of women, and I certainly don't appreciate his opposition in such an influential series. The time slot in what it was written is no excuse whatsoever, in fact, feminism was becoming increasingly political, and people chose whether feminism was a good or bad thing. Lewis chose bad, and for that, fuck him. It's people like him that have made 'feminism' such a dirty word these days, when it is a valid, relevant and a just cause.

Hopefully I'm not being judged right now as I write this to be some kind of bald, lesbian, bra burning, man-hater. Such is the connotation of 'feminism' these days. :rolleyes:

As to what the writers intend to say is not the issue. I'm sure he was not thinking as he wrote Narnia 'I'll show children that they better believe in God, or else!' I'm sure he just wrote his beliefs down, and his ideals. But it is the audience that matters here, and the messages that the audience take out. If people do not agree with his messages, which I completely do not, then I think we have every right to criticise it and dislike it.

His writing style is also very snobby and condenscending. I hate the fact that he says, on a frequent basis 'But you don't need to know what they were talking about,' etc. The whole Narnia series just rubs me up the wrong way. That doesn't mean I "missed" the point, it means I got the point very clearly, I just didn't like it.

As far as them not being written well, I can see where the comments are coming from and it is true that his narration can be a little difficult but at the same time the unique aspects of how he writes are what draws the reader in. He created his own style for that series that is so far never been emulated in literature as far as I know.
That is just your opinion. I didn't find him 'drawing' me in. :confused: As to his 'unique' style, every writer has their own voice, it kind of goes with the job. Even Dan Brown has his own voice, as shit sounding as it is.

[DrBernie]

That is just your opinion. I didn't find him 'drawing' me in. :confused: As to his 'unique' style, every writer has their own voice, it kind of goes with the job. Even Dan Brown has his own voice, as shit sounding as it is.

I have to agree with this. The only thing that allowed me to keep reading was the short chapters where i could read 10 pages every night and finish it without getting extremely bored.

[Azador]

Azador, how has anyone 'missed' the point? You didn't elaborate.

The point you bring about feminism is actually inversed. YES, feminism was NOT popular, therefore, his writing of women is a reinforcement of where they belong; to put them back in their place. I cannot appreciate what he did there, since all he did was add to hundreds of other mediums of the media that told women to get back in the kitchen and serve men. Considering women AND men were writing novels where women had different roles as early as the mid nineteenth century, I don't see why I should take the time frame into any consideration. You say it would only be 'natural' for Lewis to write in this way; where is the merit in simply following the crowd, instead of speaking up against it? I just don't find your point on this aspect convincing at all.

My issue is that his writing reinforces the aspects of society that was trying to be clinged onto, though it was going out of the window. As a feminist myself, I can't possibly appreciate his represenation of women, and I certainly don't appreciate his opposition in such an influential series. The time slot in what it was written is no excuse whatsoever, in fact, feminism was becoming increasingly political, and people chose whether feminism was a good or bad thing. Lewis chose bad, and for that, fuck him. It's people like him that have made 'feminism' such a dirty word these days, when it is a valid, relevant and a just cause.

Hopefully I'm not being judged right now as I write this to be some kind of bald, lesbian, bra burning, man-hater. Such is the connotation of 'feminism' these days. :rolleyes:

As to what the writers intend to say is not the issue. I'm sure he was not thinking as he wrote Narnia 'I'll show children that they better believe in God, or else!' I'm sure he just wrote his beliefs down, and his ideals. But it is the audience that matters here, and the messages that the audience take out. If people do not agree with his messages, which I completely do not, then I think we have every right to criticise it and dislike it.

His writing style is also very snobby and condenscending. I hate the fact that he says, on a frequent basis 'But you don't need to know what they were talking about,' etc. The whole Narnia series just rubs me up the wrong way. That doesn't mean I "missed" the point, it means I got the point very clearly, I just didn't like it.


That is just your opinion. I didn't find him 'drawing' me in. :confused: As to his 'unique' style, every writer has their own voice, it kind of goes with the job. Even Dan Brown has his own voice, as shit sounding as it is.

Well put, well put.

I'm not saying that I agree with his ideas of feminism either, all I'm saying is that he was a very conservative man and I don't think he was nearly as condescending as you say about women either. He wasn't indignant about them, just old fashioned. It wasn't an outright attack on women at all. After all, Lucy's character was essentially the most important factor in at least two of the novels or more.

About his style, yes, it is a matter of opinion and like I said, I see where these comments come from. I guess his writing is the kind you either love or hate but are never indifferent about. I never really minded about the way he moves from subject to subject in the way you said, I just accepted it as moving the story along.

I agree that you have the right to dislike the message you get out of the books but what you need to realize is that there is more than one message. Beneath his themes of biblical stories there are themes of courage, belief in yourself, knowing where you need to go even if others try to hold you back, and much more. You have to read them as stories and not just as analogies, then, you will appreciate them differently. Not to say that you have to like them of course, but you may at least have a slightly different opinion of them.

I'm actually really enjoying this discussion. How about everyone else?

[Nicola]

Azador, like I said, I do not believe that Lewis set out to attack anyone with this novel, I think he just told a story and his ideals came through. I just don't agree with his ideals.

The problem with Narnia, that, despite what you say, the Christian analogy is overbearingly present. The themes of 'courage, belief in yourself, knowing where you need to go even if other try to hold you back' are presented in a heavily Christian way. The children have to do as Aslan (God) says, they don't really have their own path of discovery to follow - it's laid out for them and they just have to go down it.

What you say is true, though. There are themes that promote goodwill, and this is, indeed (if practiced properly) is what Christianity does. But his characters are just card board cut outs. They are not relateable. There is nothing real in the Narnia books.

Do not think that I cannot do more than one reading of a novel, but there are very few positive aspects to the Narnia series. I appreciate that may be fun for children, and some people find his style pleasing and accessible, but none of this appeals to me.

Reading a book straight without reading deeper into it is sadly not an option for me. I just completed a degree in English Literature. :( During my three year course, the Narnia books were set texts, so they have been given the over analytical treatment of a Literature student. Hence my interpretation! :XD: But I will say that I was certainly not alone in my opinion. The lecturer repeated the same sentiments back to me, as did the vast majority of the students in the seminars. The series does have the disadvantage of being extremely dated, but it is up to the talents of the author to create a universal story, I do not think that Lewis achieved this.

Yes, I'm enjoying the discussion! They are so few and inbetween here and it's all I ever want to discuss in the first place. :)

[Azador]

I see where you are coming from. It's true that his characters can be kind of bland and are not overly easy to relate to. I don't really agree with your comments on how they must do as Aslan says though. It's true that they choose to do as he says, but not out of fear, out of love. Aslan is not a tyrannical controlling dictator who sets out the lives of every character but rather a guiding hand to show them the right path, they must choose whether or not to follow it. The thing about this series is simply that they do. And the characters all serve a different purpose in each story. In The Magicians Nephew, Digory serves as the manipulated character pulled between the voice of reason (Polly) and the voice of deception (Jadis or Uncle Andrew) which we can all relate to. In The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Edmund serves as the betrayer who turns over his family into the hands of evil, and I'm sure we all have betrayed something or someone in some way or another. In Prince Caspian, Caspian himself goes on a journey through himself to find what is the right path to take for his kingdom; we've all had to make equally monumental choices in our own lives. I could go on, but I'm actually tiring myself out.

The characters are not all bland though. Although not realistic, many characters are colourful, cheerful, and bring a light sense of humor into the stories, although sometimes, I'll admit, in a slightly sarcastic or condescending way. That's one of the things I love about the character of Reepicheep (who I am super excited to see in the movie coming out next week!)

I also see where you're coming from in the analytical comments. Although I'm only in grade 11 I am in English B 30 and I do love to analyze stories, themes, novels, poetry, and whatnot. I'm really not sure what to do after next year but something in Literature is definitely on the table.

We should start more discussions like this.

[DrBernie]

There's one reason I liked the movie more than the book and it seemed to develop characters more than the book did :P
When i was reading the book, it felt like it sped through everything without even a pause for some character development.

It just seemed too rushed to me.