Okay, it’s time to post on Narnia here on All About Children’s Books. I know, I know, I’m late, as usual. What can I say? I’m the last born in my family, last kid to be picked at softball, last Scrooge bah-humbugging on Brenda Coulter’s blog, and the last to blog on Narnia.
I wasn’t going to blog on Narnia at all, but I just keep getting hit with this same theme over and over: preaching in children’s books. Now Lewis is getting blasted for what he preached in The Chronicles of Narnia.
Last week I posted about Philip Pullman who said he’s not in the message business. Rather, he says, he’s in the “once upon a time” business.
Yeah. So this week I read an article in The New Yorker that tells us what Pullman means when he says he’s in the “once upon a time” business:
We learn from Macbeths fate that killing is horrible for the killer as well as victim, he said, before reading a passage from Emma, by Jane Austen, in which the heroine is mortified when Mr. Knightley reproaches her for mocking poor, garrulous Miss Bates. The scene, Pullman said, shows that we can learn whats good and whats bad, whats generous and unselfish, whats cruel and mean, from fiction; there is no need to consult scripture. As Pullman once put it in a newspaper column, Thou shalt not might reach the head, but it takes Once upon a time to reach the heart.
Of course the person writing the “once upon the time” must consult something to determine what’s good and bad, what’s generous and unselfish, what’s cruel and mean–either scripture, or his own imagination–before he puts those thoughts into fiction so as to teach the reader. But Philip Pullman’s point is that “once upon a time” teaches more powerfully than, “Thou shalt not.” And he may be right about that.
So what does all this have to do with Narnia?
While Pullman thinks it’s fine for him to be in the “once upon a time” teaching the heart business, he’d like to deny that right to others.
He has this to say about CS Lewis and the messages implanted in The Chronicles of Narnia. (Thanks to Tracy the reasonable atheist for calling this to my attention.) Pullman claims the Narnia books are “stories of racism and thinly veiled religious propaganda that will corrupt children rather than inspiring them.”
He goes on to say:
“It’s not the presence of Christian doctrine I object to so much as the absence of Christian virtue. The highest virtue, we have on the authority of the New Testament itself, is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books.
“[The Narnia books contain] a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice; but of love, of Christian charity, [there is] not a trace.”
What vile accusations he makes against Lewis. What strong and unloving accusations!
What does Philip Pullman even know about Christian charity?
The worst thing about this, though, is that this kind of accusation spreads like crude oil spilling from the cracked hull of a tanker. I have read so many repetitions of the accusation that Lewis was a misogynist and a racist that I feel coated in the sludge. Just because the man is dead does not mean we should besmirch his character this way. I’ve read almost everything Lewis has written and I never picked up on any misogyny or racism. Does that mean it’s not there? No. But it would be good if the accusers could show it instead of merely repeating the accusations.
So far I’ve heard complaints that the Calormenes look like Arabs and that Susan lost her place in Narnia. And people think this makes Lewis a misogynic racist? Or is there more to it? I’d love to hear the reasons for the accusations so I could examine them and either agree with them or answer them.
As for Pullman’s accusation that there is no Christian charity in Narnia, it seems too silly to even need an answer. And yet we must answer it because so many are ignorant of Scriptures these days and they just follow along with the latest blather, not knowing any better.
The height of Christian charity is the sacrificial death of Christ for the sake of sinners. That defines Christian charity. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
The truth is that the Narnia books are full of love–real sacrificial love. Love that forgives the errant brother, that fights for the oppressed, that lays down its life for friend, that converts the soul of the enemy, that heals the dying, and brings the dead back to life. How is it possible to miss the great love that travels through those novels? So many of the characters show a sacrificial love.
Did Pullman not see this? Because I know he’s not stupid, I can’t help but suspect he’s allowed his hatred of Christianity to cloud his vision.
Mr. Tumnus repents of his initial intent and covers Lucy’s presence in Narnia. The Beavers risk their lives to help the children. They in turn remain in Narnia to help Mr. Tumnus. That’s just 3 examples of thinking of others at the risk of life that I thought of on the spur of the moment. Certainly that is love.
I wonder what Pullman’s definition could be.
But as you indicate, there is a serious atheist blindness when it comes to Christians and Christian values. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Pullman and his ilk marching up and down outside an abortion clinic with “Save the whales” signs. There is a tragic disconnect with what is and what ought to be.
Becky
Becky’s examples of love in the book are good. How about some pro-female examples? Lucy is obviously the one with true faith who has to spread that to others. This is true throughout LWW, Prince Caspian, and Dawn Treader. Without her, Narnia would have been lost.
For anti-racism, Puddleglum is a tremendous example of a hero from a strange race. The human children couldn’t understand his pessimism and other habits, which parallels the misunderstandings between races and cultures in our world, yet Lewis makes him one of the greatest heroes in the series.
By the way, you’re not the last to blog on Narnia. I’m still holding off. But that’s no surprise. My entries are so infrequent and narrowly focused, my topics are few. I think I will eventually mention the series (and the movie) as the classic example of what some of us are trying to do.
By the way, I read the discussion on the teacher and exposing the Santa Claus myth. I completely agree with you. I was amazed at the poor logic of the others, how they seemed to make a parallel with teaching against Christianity. That parallel is simply wrong. With Santa Claus, the parents know they’re teaching a lie.
I just don’t get it. Don’t ever lie to children. There’s no need. If there’s something you don’t want them to know, just tell them you’re not going to tell them.
With the hating women thing, I think the onus is on the accusers. What did Lewis ever do against women? The white witch was a representative of Satan, not women. Mrs. Beaver might be a better illustration of what he thought of women. Even the housekeeper, as I recall– Mrs. McCready, who they were afraid of–proves out to be a friend, I think.
Fact is, there aren’t a lot of women in Narnia. But there weren’t a lot in LofR either.
BTW, in Til We Have Faces he wrote in first person, from a woman’s POV. Was really, really good.
I just don’t see the hatred.
And the racist thing. That others see parallels between the Calormen and some actual race of people says more about the critics than it does about Lewis. He was writing fantasy. His characters came from his reading and his imagination. As Sally has pointed out elsewhere, if Lewis really wanted to portray an enemy that would get people’s blood boiling back in the early 1950′s, he would have given them a German accent and made them blond-haired, blue-eyed.
Becky