![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThe good (plotwise but not morally)
When I first read Narnia, I was unsurprisingly enchanted by much of it. And many things that I might now quibble with, I accepted unquestioningly as obviously part of the conceit.
For instance, there are very prominent problems with using the divine right of kings as a major plot point. But because it's presented right up front as a saviour prophecy and generally adhered to consistently throughout the series, I don't find it to be a plot problem. That's how the world works. And I think it's perfectly consistent once you understand faerie tales, just a bad model for running a real-life country.
In fact, I find it very freaking tedious when someone has a problem with a book, and goes through the book line by line pointing out everything that flows from that premise and rebutting each individually as if the premise didn't exist. That can be very amusing, if you want to underline how ridiculous the premise is. And can be very instructive, if you want to explain why the premise is bad. But often I just find it tedious: yes, you found the flaw already, yes, maybe the author ALWAYS makes that flaw, maybe they have the same flaw in real life, but you don't get more cookies for spotting it again and again and again.
Sorry, that was a somewhat undirected rant, but I don't seem to be able to explain what it is that I find annoying, so I keep coming back to it.
The bad (plotting)
However, other premises made no sense and I basically glossed over them while feeling a bit cheated.
So, the White Witch is the emperor's hangman, eh? Was this explained in the Magician's Nephew? What happened to traitors after Aslan killed her?
But it seemed to make no sense. This was never mentioned before it was relevant, so seemed to come entirely out of left field. In another book, it might have been set up in advance, with a legend of some other famous traitor who was given the witch, or examples of contemporaries who'd betrayed someone and then been enslaved by the witch, or something, so we know what Edmund's in for, so we can cheer Aslan for suggesting a way out of it.
But as it is, the plot was basically:
Pevensies: Yay, we rescued Edmund!
Aslan: Uh, sort of. Unfortunately, we have to hand him over to the white witch to be killed after all.
Pevensies: WHAT?
Aslan: Uh, well, ok, no we don't.
Pevensies: What was all that about?
Aslan: Say thank you!
I was still reeling at how arbitrary Aslan's sacrifice was when it was negated.
However, I assume this is some sort of Satan allegory? Probably a sophisticated one I don't really get, given C. S. Lewis' knowledge of theology. In which case it does make sense, it's just not set up in the book.
The ugly (plotting)
And then we have the concept of the deep magic generally. Which is just the same as the bad plotting, in that it seems to have been arbitrarily introduced when it was necessary for the plot (even if Lewis actually planned it all along), except that knowing about Christianity doesn't seem to make it make sense.
Except that, while I think it was horrible plotting, it does sort of make sense to me in retrospect. I think it's an analogue to something like fate, it's just so arbitrary and contrary to our expectations that we often have difficulty seeing it that way.
That is, I think it's trying to say that this "Aslan has to play by the same rules as the White Witch" is just how the universe works, because of fate, or because morality influences what's physically possible without the world collapsing, etc. It's not because the emperor set it up that way: it's because it's the only way the emperor could have set it up.
I think that's a bad basis for a religion in real life, because in real life, I don't think you're guaranteed a good outcome "in the end" by following your fate. But I think that's perfectly fine as fiction. I think you can have good fiction with a 'moral message' that you don't agree with.
I think the problem with it is that it's totally out of the blue, not that it's inherently stupid because it doesn't make sense according to the (lack of) universal morality in this world. (Although I think it does depend how fantastic the book is: the more it pretends to be realistic, the more I find it a problem if it uses absurd moral premises without justification. I think real-world stories about stalking=true-love are worse than faerie-stories about it.)
When I first read Narnia, I was unsurprisingly enchanted by much of it. And many things that I might now quibble with, I accepted unquestioningly as obviously part of the conceit.
For instance, there are very prominent problems with using the divine right of kings as a major plot point. But because it's presented right up front as a saviour prophecy and generally adhered to consistently throughout the series, I don't find it to be a plot problem. That's how the world works. And I think it's perfectly consistent once you understand faerie tales, just a bad model for running a real-life country.
In fact, I find it very freaking tedious when someone has a problem with a book, and goes through the book line by line pointing out everything that flows from that premise and rebutting each individually as if the premise didn't exist. That can be very amusing, if you want to underline how ridiculous the premise is. And can be very instructive, if you want to explain why the premise is bad. But often I just find it tedious: yes, you found the flaw already, yes, maybe the author ALWAYS makes that flaw, maybe they have the same flaw in real life, but you don't get more cookies for spotting it again and again and again.
Sorry, that was a somewhat undirected rant, but I don't seem to be able to explain what it is that I find annoying, so I keep coming back to it.
The bad (plotting)
However, other premises made no sense and I basically glossed over them while feeling a bit cheated.
So, the White Witch is the emperor's hangman, eh? Was this explained in the Magician's Nephew? What happened to traitors after Aslan killed her?
But it seemed to make no sense. This was never mentioned before it was relevant, so seemed to come entirely out of left field. In another book, it might have been set up in advance, with a legend of some other famous traitor who was given the witch, or examples of contemporaries who'd betrayed someone and then been enslaved by the witch, or something, so we know what Edmund's in for, so we can cheer Aslan for suggesting a way out of it.
But as it is, the plot was basically:
Pevensies: Yay, we rescued Edmund!
Aslan: Uh, sort of. Unfortunately, we have to hand him over to the white witch to be killed after all.
Pevensies: WHAT?
Aslan: Uh, well, ok, no we don't.
Pevensies: What was all that about?
Aslan: Say thank you!
I was still reeling at how arbitrary Aslan's sacrifice was when it was negated.
However, I assume this is some sort of Satan allegory? Probably a sophisticated one I don't really get, given C. S. Lewis' knowledge of theology. In which case it does make sense, it's just not set up in the book.
The ugly (plotting)
And then we have the concept of the deep magic generally. Which is just the same as the bad plotting, in that it seems to have been arbitrarily introduced when it was necessary for the plot (even if Lewis actually planned it all along), except that knowing about Christianity doesn't seem to make it make sense.
Except that, while I think it was horrible plotting, it does sort of make sense to me in retrospect. I think it's an analogue to something like fate, it's just so arbitrary and contrary to our expectations that we often have difficulty seeing it that way.
That is, I think it's trying to say that this "Aslan has to play by the same rules as the White Witch" is just how the universe works, because of fate, or because morality influences what's physically possible without the world collapsing, etc. It's not because the emperor set it up that way: it's because it's the only way the emperor could have set it up.
I think that's a bad basis for a religion in real life, because in real life, I don't think you're guaranteed a good outcome "in the end" by following your fate. But I think that's perfectly fine as fiction. I think you can have good fiction with a 'moral message' that you don't agree with.
I think the problem with it is that it's totally out of the blue, not that it's inherently stupid because it doesn't make sense according to the (lack of) universal morality in this world. (Although I think it does depend how fantastic the book is: the more it pretends to be realistic, the more I find it a problem if it uses absurd moral premises without justification. I think real-world stories about stalking=true-love are worse than faerie-stories about it.)
no subject
Date: 2012-09-19 07:49 pm (UTC)I suspect that the deep magic might be making some theological point but I have only grasped dimly what it might be ... I have come across the idea in other Christian writing that 'because living in relationship with God through Christ is the way that mankind is intended to live this is in some way making/enabling one to live more 'in tune' with the Universe'. However, I have no idea whether there is some seriously well-thought-out academic theology behind that, or whether it just sounds kind of nice.
I agree that the point I think he is trying to make is that this is the only way the emperor could have set up the world, or at least that the way that this is set up is somehow fundamentally built into the whole world and for anything to be otherwise would destroy everything. And I think it should have been set up better from a novel point of view whilst at the same time feeling that the way it's only hinted at is part of the allegory.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-20 11:50 am (UTC)That's a really interesting point. I didn't really get that from the book, but I think that is what it's supposed to be like. But the version in Narnia seems more weird to me than what people suggest are the "only way it could be" in real life, so it didn't help me as an analogy :)