From the (right-wing) "National Review Online":
"One of the unfairest demands adults make of children’s literature is that it conform to their particular religious or political notions of worthiness, and the new film projects of C. S. Lewis’s Narnia novels and Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy — not to mention that boxed sets of both books will be hard to avoid this holiday shopping season — has fueled the long-simmering feud between fans of each fantasy series."
Boxes of Wonder
C. S. Lewis and Philip Pullman still offer rich adventure.
One of the unfairest demands adults make of children’s literature is that it conform to their particular religious or political notions of worthiness, and the new film projects of C. S. Lewis’s Narnia novels and Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy — not to mention that boxed sets of both books will be hard to avoid this holiday shopping season — has fueled the long-simmering feud between fans of each fantasy series."
For those unfamiliar with the stories, C. S. Lewis’s Narnia is a magical country in a parallel universe created and ruled by a Christ-like lion deity named Aslan. Various English schoolchildren find themselves transported to Narnia by magical means; the wardrobe of the first book, for instance, leads to an snowy enchanted forest, which an evil White Witch has made “always winter and never Christmas.” (Disney and Walden Media have recently released a special extended DVD version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for just a few weeks.)
The Narnia series is generally called Christian allegory, but that’s simplistic as well as somewhat misleading. Lewis, whose theological writing for adults made him one the 20th-century’s great Christian apologists, coined the word “supposal” to describe his fantasy world — suppose the Son of God appeared as the King of Beasts in a land of talking animals? And suppose that humans, with all their sins, entered this world? What then?
To call the stories allegory also gives no hint of why readers return to them many times, as I have over the years, even past childhood, long after the page-turning adventures hold no more surprises. Lewis was a master stylist, and his children’s series are marked by the same dryly witty prose, comic characters and shrewd insight into the human condition that distinguish The Screwtape Letters and his other books for adults. Yet Narnia has its enemies, and since the first film’s premiere, they have been out in force.
Chief among them is the British fantasy writer Philip Pullman, whose popular and page-turning His Dark Materials trilogy was conceived as an atheistic answer to Lewis’s vision. Pullman, as the Washington Post reminded readers last year, sees Lewis’s magical world as “a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice.” (This strikes me as jaw-droppingly wrong, but more about that in a minute.) Riveting as Pullman’s trilogy is — the film adaptation of the first book, The Golden Compass, should reach theaters next year — it is philosophically incoherent, especially compared to the tightly argued Narnia series.
Pullman’s child heroine Lyra, for instance, endangers everyone around her by her insisting on an expedition to a miserable, shadowy underworld just “to say sorry” to a dead friend. Compellingly eerie (in a Twilight Zone-like way) as these passages are, the also seem rather ridiculous. The fight between good and evil in the Dark Materials books is basically between followers of Lyra’s father, Lord Asriel, a selfish egomaniac who’s only slightly less odious than Lyra’s mother, the wicked Mrs. Coulter.
It’s funny to think of Pullman calling Lewis racist, considering the “darkie”-like “Gyptians” in the Dark Materials books. It’s beyond funny to think of him accusing Lewis of “reactionary prejudice,” since Pullman, not Lewis, seems tied to a stuffy and outdated elitism. Human characters in the Dark Materials trilogy all have “daemons,” totem-like animals that express their inner souls. But their inner souls seem bound by the inelastic old English class system — Pullman notes in passing that servants’ daemons are always dogs.
Like Narnia, Pullman’s imagined universe involves a lot of comings and goings between parallel worlds — but in this cosmos God is not so much absent as a weak and exhausted Chronos-like character, suggesting a religious vision that is essentially pagan (or anti-theist) instead of atheistic. This seems not so much defiant as simply unevolved and simplistic. Perhaps Pullman’s quarrel, as he’s said in interviews, is really with monotheism. But in any case it’s not very convincing.
The big reveal in the Pullman series is a former nun’s loss of faith: A character named Mary Malone tells Lyra and her friend Will that flirting with a man in a café reminded her how much she enjoyed kissing a boy when she was 12 (about Lyra and Will’s age, as it happens). This makes Mary understand that the Christian religion is nothing more than “a very powerful and convincing mistake.” Maybe so, but while realizing you like boys seems a very powerful and convincing reason to no longer be a nun, readers may wonder what it has to do with believing in God or not.
Pullman’s a rip-roaring storyteller in the grand tradition of British fantasy-adventure writers Jules Verne and H. G. Wells and H. Rider Haggard, but his characters seem mostly wheeled out of a dusty prop closet; his “Texan” balloon pilot Lee Scoresby, for instance, is no more like a real Texan than Tiger Lily in Peter Pan is like a real Indian. Lewis’s fantasy characters, on the other hand, always have some dryly comical human trait that remind even the youngest readers of real people. Lewis is constantly accused of sexism, but consider his description of a couple of girls in The Horse and His Boy, the fifth novel in the Narnia series: Aravis, a girl escaping a forced marriage in an autocratic land south of Narnia called Calormen, runs into an old aquaintance who seems to be something of a Maureen Dowd in miniature: “The fuss she made over choosing the dresses nearly drove Aravis mad,” Lewis writes. “She remembered now that Lasaraleen had always been like that, interested in clothes and parties and gossip. Aravis had always been more interested in bows and arrows and horses and dogs and swimming. You will guess that each thought the other silly.”
Lewis’s vision of the world is essentially humane, with his keen eye for all the subtle forms of human vanity — whether expressed by a talking horse or a charlatan magaician. “I don’t quite hold with chariots or the kind of horses who draw chariots,” says the pompous Bree, the horse in The Horse and His Boy. And The Magician’s Nephew ends with Uncle Andrew, the selfish magician of the title, safely back in London after being terrorized by the evil White Witch of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in her previous incarnation.
For the rest of his life, Lewis writes, Uncle Andrew tells the story to anyone who would listen, but his version is a sort of celebrity encounter with himself as the hero: “‘A devilish temper she had,’ he would say, ‘But she was a dem fine woman, sir, a dem fine woman.’”
I’ve read the Narnia series repeatedly over the years because of passages like that. But leaving religion entirely out of it, I can’t imagine reading the Pullman books again. This doesn’t mean I wasn’t glued to them when I discovered the series a few years ago, but while Pullman’s imagined worlds are powerfully eerie, his characters are flat, humorless and generally annoying. Maybe in a generation or two Pullman will prove to be as enduring as Lewis, but I doubt it. Until then, though, I envy the child who hasn’t read either series yet, and receives a boxed set of both for the holidays.
— Catherine Seipp is a writer in California who publishes the weblog Cathy's World. She is an NRO contributor.
[© 22/12/06, National Review Online]
10 comments - Add yours
#1
"his characters are flat, humorless and generally annoying. "
LOL, this person must have read the wrong books!!! oh, well…
everyone has an opinion
# December 23, 2006 00:02 by daemon_hadevir
#2 Sounds like someone is a bit biased.
Seeing as I read every Narnia book also and loved them when I read them at the time, I have the ability to comment on this and basically say that everything written in this article is crap.
I like Narnia, but after growing up and reading many books I find that Narnia is not very distinguished. To me, it’s the average fantasy story. We’ve seen it all before. In fact it is practically THE ORIGINAL fantasy story. It has cookie cutter stories, with the evil witch, the castles, and the good against evil concept. I'm not saying they’re bad. They are GREAT books. But they lack uniqueness and imagination, something of which His Dark Materials has plenty of. When you read it you can tell Pullman felt this story was really important. You can tell this was what he wanted to write; after all it contains some of his own views. He did not write these books to cater to Christians, or in fact any religious people. I think it’s time for these people to move past that. But, again they do not have the maturity or the capability to do so. And then the writer of this article goes on to say that the 'His Dark Materials’ trilogy is ‘philosophically incoherent' using the example that Lyra endangers the lives of everyone JUST to say sorry to her friend. Shall we examine this? Yes we shall. First off, Lyra felt like she betrayed her friend, which ultimately led to his death. Maybe you don't think a good friend's death is important or significant? Maybe you wouldn't like to say sorry if you felt like you had betrayed him? Who knows. In the books, in fact, it happens that Lyra DID have the chance to do so. In general, there are some things in life that you just know you have to do. For Lyra this was one of those things, and since she had the opportunity to brave danger to speak with her friend one last time, she did so. Maybe you are one of those ignorant people who don't understand life, or human nature, and all of the various things pertaining to your example. I for one do understand that if I was in Lyra's situation I would most definitely do what she did. Not to mention, she was only endangering Will's life and her own. In fact, she did not choose to start this entire adventure from the beginning at Jordan College. She was thrust into it because of self-righteous people, such as Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter, who are indeed a few of the villains in the story anyway (maybe more so Mrs. Coulter). Maybe you don't understand the story that much, but you also say that the battle of good versus evil is between Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter. Pullman never once says Asriel is good. He says LYRA is good. And if you can remember, Lyra is with neither her father nor her mother. She may do some things that go along with Lord Asriel's 'beliefs' but Pullman focuses on how Lyra is good and how she is the epitome of what it is to be human, something that is really emphasized in the final chapters of Amber Spyglass, with Mary Malone. Not to mention the author of this article says that Pullman's argument with monotheism is not very convincing. However, I don't think that was Pullman's aim. I’m not bashing Christians or anyone religious here because I happen to be religious, but it seems to me that most religious people are the ones who feel the need to convince everyone, to argue against other beliefs, to MAKE everyone believe. If you believe your religion is the one true religion wholeheartedly then stop trying to convince people and focus on yourself and your spiritual journey. I mean, what is with the need to convince everyone? Pullman’s mindset was not to convince everyone. I think he could care less about that. I don’t think Pullman wrote this book to be controversial. I think he wrote a freakin' story with very real characters that contain SOME of what he believes. And what he believes is impossible to sum up in this story, you would need to talk to him yourself. Anyway, I don’t think Pullman’s quarrel is with being religious at all, but is with some of the things the Church imposes on people. The example of Mary Malone as a nun is a good example of this. Putting yourself into solitude never to marry, never to have a boyfriend; that, in my opinion, is ludicrous. To deny something that is human nature? Why do you have to 'wait' before marriage (if you know what I mean)? Why can't you do those things and still be religious? Next, i cannot deny that Pullman has made those comments about C.S. Lewis's series being racist, but you turn around and say that Pullman is in fact racist because he includes the characters known as Gyptians? So tell me, when someone writes a story about Harriet Tubman, for example, and an offensive term is thrown in her direction in the book (yes we all know the word I’m talking about), is the author prejudiced and racist? No, they are merely telling the story! Pullman is drawing on his knowledge that, in the past (and now), people have the remarkable stupidity to be prejudiced against others, and so, to create a realistic world, he made the Gyptians. And then the author says that Pullman seems to be stuck in the past, specifically the old English time-period, because of his description of servant’s daemons as dogs. Well yes, that is the point. Excellent, you do understand something! This is in fact a DIFFERENT world than ours, if you for some reason were not aware. Pullman’s setting, in my mind, is one of a world that seems to be transitioning from ‘old English’ to a more modern time-period. So portraying the daemons as dogs makes perfect sense. My final point is that the author of this article seems to imply or come out and say that the characters are a bit bland in Pullman’s trilogy. Honestly this is a comment that is so biased and so out there, that I have nothing to say. Your perceptions leave me speechless. All I can say is that, in fact, the characters are probably some of the most realistic I have ever encountered in literature. Anyway…
Both series are great. If you want to read a completely unrealistic story (something of which isn't necessarily bad, look at Harry Potter, that's my second favorite series!) with fantastical beasts, and swords, and the like then read Narnia. If you want a little more realistic approach, yet, remaining fantasy at the same time, then read His Dark Materials. Sorry that this is so long! I know that the author said that he/she still enjoyed His Dark Materials, but I am sick of this series being misrepresented, not to mention, the extreme amount of biased opinion in the article that spurred me to write this. I hope people still read it, and respond if you want! Happy Holidays!
# December 23, 2006 01:09 by ROKYPA
#3
well i found the Naria books rather boring the first two were ok but the rest were very wordy. I grew up havingthem read to me about a thousand times. But HDM was easyer to read and i liked them more but it is sort of anti religious so i gues he has a point but having fewed about them is not right. You should just enjoy them and not get opsessed with it.
# December 23, 2006 01:45 by missy
#4 Ridiculous
This person obviously didn't read the book closely. Apologizing to Roger wasn't the only reason Will and Lyra and the Gallivespians went down to the underworld. Servant's daemons (don't know how to type that letter) aren't ALWAYS dogs. They probably took this as an insulting thing but it's only because dogs are loyal and obedient. The way Pullman is accused of being a hypocrite for racism because of putting the Gyptian characters in the book is just ridiculous.
Mary didn't stop being a nun because of a boy. It was because of her own personal reasons and beliefs. Obviously this person didn't include that because that would have made things look rational.
I don't see what is so great about the character Uncle Andrew calling his godmother a dem fine woman. Is that supposed to disprove that C. S. Lewis was a sexist? Uncle Andrew was clearly a bit of a villin since he was willing to help the White Witch and as the writer said herself "selfish". He also believed his godmother to be part fairy. A child can see he was an unreliable source.
I am currently reading the Chronicles of Narnia and do enjoy them though not nearly as much as I do His Dark Materials. I won't stop reading Narnia because I love HDM at the same time. Though I hate to compare the two since really they are NOT (regardless of what this idiotic writer says) supposed to have any connection, if you ask me, the characters of His Dark Materials have way more depth than those of Narnia and the story does as well. All around, I like it more. Also, The Horse and His Boy is the third book of the series, not the fifth, which just goes to show how much this writer knows even about the books she is defending.
# December 23, 2006 02:36 by Miss Bear
#5
*C. S. Lewis MAY have been a sexist. Not was. Sorry about that.
# December 23, 2006 02:38 by Miss Bear
#6 ROKYPA
I did still read your comment and it spoke better than mine! =] Happy Holidays to you too.
# December 23, 2006 02:47 by Miss Bear
#7
Well, seeing as I have managed to enjoy both series, I would like to call this person very, very opinionated. These types of peoples' opinions generally hold less value, as I think this was also partly for the shock factor- of which there was plenty.
# December 23, 2006 04:02 by Miss_Parker
#8
I wrote a very long, very eloquent e-mail to this person discussing her criticisms of HDM and taking them apart point by point. Then I clicked "send" and my !@(%*)$*@#ing internet crashed, and I totally lost the letter. Now I have no heart to start over. But trust me, it was very eloquent and comprehensive lol. ARGH.
# December 23, 2006 14:31 by JParry
#9
"Pullman notes in passing that servants’ daemons are always dogs."<br> There are a few chickens. And a nurse isn't a servant, yet she has a poodle daemon (I think). <br> The author of this essay is a little biased. I think she takes the whole debate between Lewis and Pullman a little too seriously; maybe she was paid to do it, but still. Pullman never said anything about the Authority being bad, but rather how the church views the Authority. Narnia—LWW, yes, was practically a retelling of Jesus's story—but the character has as many layers as Pullman. Characters flat? Annoying? I suppose this author never wanted to scamper on the roofs or go on Arctic adventures...I can take her views on Lewis and Pullman, but not anything on the characters that drive the story that we all love.
# December 23, 2006 18:55 by Asha
#10
What a ridiculous article!
# December 29, 2006 16:00 by Frits