Chronicles of Narnia

aca said:

Also, Mr. Tumnus was a fucking pedo.

Haha, I totally thought he was gonna try something on the girl.

aca said:

Also, Mr. Tumnus was a fucking pedo.

DaJuice said:

Haha, I totally thought he was gonna try something on the girl.

I think that says more about you guys than Mr Tumnus. :P Sign of the times.

I actually know the guy slightly (the actor, not the fawn BTW). He shared a flat with my friend's sister. Pretty sure he didn't try and play Tumnus as a paedo.

Enjay said:

I think that says more about you guys than Mr Tumnus. :P Sign of the times.

I actually know the guy slightly (the actor, not the fawn BTW). He shared a flat with my friend's sister. Pretty sure he didn't try and play Tumnus as a paedo.

Are you kidding me? He's a creepy fuck.

aca said:

Are you kidding me? He's a creepy fuck.

He's a fawn. How do you know they're not supposed to come over like creepy fucks? ;)

,

Meh, it was OK. Somewhat true to the book, which means not much happens. The talking animals were amazing though. I expected some lame shit from that. The child actors were terrible, the little girl being the best. It never made me feel immersed into the atmosphere or story. But even though they weren't immersive, the CG and other visuals made it worth seeing. Honestly, though, I think the best thing in the whole movie was "My name's Philip".
As for the christian aspects, yea it's more evident in Narnia, but Lord of the Rings had more christian insight and morality than the old and new testaments combined. C.S. Lewis was a die-hard athiest himself once, and good friends with Tolkien, who was a die-hard catholic. Some who knew him say he converted to kiss Tolkien's ass, others say because he was afraid of dying. I think it's a bit of both.
Hating christianity as a religion is a sign of ignorance. Though I stand sure when I say the mythos are indeed mythos, christianity at least puts forth interesting and respectable philosophical points, wether you agree with them or not. Religion only has as much power (edit: over you) as you believe it does, simple as that.
The church, on the other hand, can suck my dick.

OFFTOPIC
Harry Potter is terrible. If you want to read fantasy, read something that is written more from the heart and less for the publishing company. Highly recommendeds are "A Game of Thrones", and its sequels, by George RR Martin. "The Odyssey" and "The Illiad" by Homer are simply breathtaking. Actually read "Lord of the Rings", it beats the movies by a lot, and while you're at it check out the "Silmarillion". Also look into the Farseer trilogy and the Riftwar saga.

Morris said:

As for the christian aspects, yea it's more evident in Narnia...

I think the fuss over the "Christian aspects" of it is just so much ass. I mean, how many stories have there been over the Millennia where someone makes the ultimate sacrifice and survives as a result? Are we to get into a hissy fit over each one of them?

Harry Potter is terrible.

Harry Potter isn't terrible. I'll agree that some of it is a bit laboured and intentionally aimed at a mass audience, and if I have to read another chapter with an interminable Quidditch match I may just go postal, but they are generally a good, no-brainer, read - especially for their target audience.

"The Odyssey" and "The Illiad" by Homer are simply breathtaking.

Well of course they are. People have agreed on that for thousands of years. They are not for Harry Potter's target audience though.

Actually read "Lord of the Rings", it beats the movies by a lot, and while you're at it check out the "Silmarillion".

I find Tolkien's style laboured and mechanical. To me he writes not as a master craftsman, a man who can make the language rise up off the page, dance for you, play music and paint vivid pictures all in one, he is a technician. A man who knows the language, the mechanics of the language, inside out. He writes with technical cleverness and because of that I find that, even with a fantastic (in more ways than one) story like LotR there is a dryness to it. "The Silmarillion" - well, I don't personally know anyone who enjoys reading that. What a dull journal that is. Again, the reason for that is its style. I might even go as far as to describe it as terrible. ;)

Enjay said:

I think the fuss over the "Christian aspects" of it is just so much ass. I mean, how many stories have there been over the Millennia where someone makes the ultimate sacrifice and survives as a result? Are we to get into a hissy fit over each one of them?

Yea, I hope my post made it clear that the hissy fits are useless and, generally, out of ignorance. And moreso, almost everyone who does it openly enjoys things that are a direct result of "white-light" religion. FFS, Doom is loosely based on jewish/christian beliefs.

Harry Potter isn't terrible. I'll agree that some of it is a bit laboured and intentionally aimed at a mass audience, and if I have to read another chapter with an interminable Quidditch match I may just go postal, but they are generally a good, no-brainer, read - especially for their target audience.

Fair enough, but for good fast-paced, no-brainer, all ages fantasy, I'd still recommend Terry Brook's "Shanarra" series, "Dragonlance" books that are (co)written by either Margaret Weis and/or Tracy Hickman, and of course, almost everything by R.A. Salvatore.
Then again, this is 100% speculative.

Well of course they are. People have agreed on that for thousands of years. They are not for Harry Potter's target audience though.

There are preteen/young adult accessible versions (at least of the Odyssey) that do the story a good amount of justice, though. I read one of the Odyssey in, I think, 4th or 5th grade, and thought it was spectacular. I think it's safe to say that it's what sparked my interested in epics.
Fair enough though, it is a different crowd being marketed to.

I find Tolkien's style laboured and mechanical. To me he writes not as a master craftsman, a man who can make the language rise up off the page, dance for you, play music and paint vivid pictures all in one, he is a technician. A man who knows the language, the mechanics of the language, inside out. He writes with technical cleverness and because of that I find that, even with a fantastic (in more ways than one) story like LotR there is a dryness to it. "The Silmarillion" - well, I don't personally know anyone who enjoys reading that. What a dull journal that is. Again, the reason for that is its style. I might even go as far as to describe it as terrible. ;)

Again, a speculative argument. Honestly, I could tell you I've personally been to Middle-Earth and have seen the whole story of the Third Age with my own eyes. Then again though, I read the trilogy before I had any real responsibilities, so clearing my mind and focusing wasn't much of a difficulty. Yes, looking back recently through some pages in LOTR, his style in here is mechanical, but the immersive world generated as a direct effect of this is hard to par. Even though I prefer to read the style of other authors a bit more, the experience still isn't as awe-inspiring.
I didn't read "Silmarillion" as a priority. I kept it on my bed stand and read a part of it whenever I didn't feel like reading whatever books I had prioritized at the time. For the most part, it's a collection of "historical" short stories (for lack of a better description), and the writing is much more large-scale and less heavy as it is in LOTR. I personally thought it was a lovely read, and haven't talked to anyone who has actually read it and said differently.

Can't really disagree with any of that (well, it's all opinion anyway - so it would be foolish to do so). Actually, it doesn't sound like our ultimate views on the various things being discussed are as far apart as perhaps it initially seemed.

I remember the TV series from years ago...

Ralphis said:

I hope you're joking.

If you're serious, why don't we ban just about 95% of literature written within the past few hundred years.

You seem to be pretty dumbasstic.

He's got a point though, a lot of films and TV series these days are propaganda-based. This example is invalid since it's based on a set of classic novels, but these days there's a lot of shows where the storylines are based on events that are actually happening but are being put on TV to make us think they're made-up.

Indeed, Enjay.

The Ultimate DooMer said:

...a lot of films and TV series these days are propaganda-based... ...these days there's a lot of shows where the storylines are based on events that are actually happening but are being put on TV to make us think they're made-up...

I don't watch TV, so please explain.
Claiming media "propaganda" for christianity and hebrew inspired spirituality is understandable, but also realize that's the main market for them. Why would they make sitcoms which embrace the morals and virtues of Norse mythology when neo-vikingism isn't exactly an internationally accepted religion, etc. There are movies and books that come out all the time that have athiestic, new-agist, and pagan morals and beliefs, but they're not abundant due to the fact that the market for them is very very small.

But I have no clue what you mean when you say "storylines are based on events that are actually happening but are being put on TV to make us think they're made-up...". I don't watch TV at all, so that may be my ignorance, but what are they putting on TV, how do you know it's happening, and how do you know about it?

I've read Silmarillion before LOTR and I've always liked it better than the trilogy. Even though some of the stories are just loosely connected they add a lot of depth to the world Tolkien created. I also find Silmarillion to be a much more interesting depiction of the fight between good and evil just because of the scale of the events described in it.

I guess the fact that a lot of my friends who are fans of fantasy literature find the LOTR trilogy hard to read proves Enjay's point about Tolkien's style of writing. It doesn't bother me, but, heh, the last time I've read it was before Fellowship hit the screens, so maybe it does ;).

Andrzej Sapkowski has written some of the best books I have ever read, but I'm sure any translations of them would end up lossy.

Edit: Oh ya, Harry Potter is terrible, and crap too.

Enjay said:

I find Tolkien's style laboured and mechanical. To me he writes not as a master craftsman, a man who can make the language rise up off the page, dance for you, play music and paint vivid pictures all in one, he is a technician. A man who knows the language, the mechanics of the language, inside out. He writes with technical cleverness and because of that I find that, even with a fantastic (in more ways than one) story like LotR there is a dryness to it.

That perfectly sums up my impression of the books. Great story but the style of writing put me off.

Enjay said:
I find Tolkien's style laboured and mechanical. To me he writes not as a master craftsman, a man who can make the language rise up off the page, dance for you, play music and paint vivid pictures all in one, he is a technician. A man who knows the language, the mechanics of the language, inside out. He writes with technical cleverness and because of that I find that, even with a fantastic (in more ways than one) story like LotR there is a dryness to it. "The Silmarillion" - well, I don't personally know anyone who enjoys reading that. What a dull journal that is. Again, the reason for that is its style. I might even go as far as to describe it as terrible. ;)

I wouldn't put it like that; maybe even somewhat on the contrary. He's unskilled and tries to put forth a "vision" but fails to do it effectively in the literary sense. His writing did serve its purpose as inspiration for writing popular fiction, media, and games, but his writing is rather lackluster overall and can be boring. He knew how to analyze language, how to think of relations language could bring in its development (thus the kind of "historical" tales he wrote) but was not really good with the pen in the practical sense. A chronicler, but not a writer.

I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you on how his language plays, but there are many authors who "write with technical cleverness" and though they can be obtuse to some readers due to their subtlety or their elaboration, their writing shows particular skills that I'd say Tolkien's does not really display.

Morris said:
And moreso, almost everyone who does it openly enjoys things that are a direct result of "white-light" religion. FFS, Doom is loosely based on jewish/christian beliefs.

Not to defend those who complain because I think it's pointless in this case; if this movie didn't have evident Christian elements, it's be a pretty odd and probably bad adaptation, given C.S.Lewis wrote a pretty clear Christian allegory. But that's not the same thing: DOOM isn't a like that at all; it uses elements that come from multiple sources, focusing on popular ones. The "Hell" in DOOM is parodic, and Hell is not a christian invention (if anything, in literature it's Homer's and Virgil's fault), and during christian times most writings about hell were quite apocryphal anyway.

Fair enough, but for good fast-paced, no-brainer, all ages fantasy, I'd still recommend Terry Brook's "Shanarra" series, "Dragonlance" books that are (co)written by either Margaret Weis and/or Tracy Hickman, and of course, almost everything by R.A. Salvatore.
Then again, this is 100% speculative.

All that can be replaced by Lord Dunsany, for example, who didn't write no-brainers (because it's great writing for adults too), but his prose is very good and I don't see how it cannot suit children, particularly his shorter stories, and by all means teens or young adults. Young adults can also read stuff like Leiber, Le Guin, Moorcock, and even Robert E. Howard.

Enjay said:

He writes with technical cleverness and because of that I find that, even with a fantastic (in more ways than one) story like LotR there is a dryness to it. "The Silmarillion" - well, I don't personally know anyone who enjoys reading that. What a dull journal that is. Again, the reason for that is its style. I might even go as far as to describe it as terrible. ;)

a man who defends harry potter and pisses on Tolkien? Sorry, sir, but that is wrong on so many levels.

A man who wrote himself and entire universe, worked on it till his dying day, created cycles and mythology within his own mythology. You choose harry potter over that?

If you are going to go into target audiences, then Tolkien's target audience all died a few years ago. No doubt they could read and appreciate The Lord of the Rings, because they weren't retarded.

myk said:

He's unskilled and tries to put forth a "vision" but fails to do it effectively in the literary sense.

I think as a university English language professor (at some of England's top universities) and a researcher into and inventor of many languages he was certainly skilled in the technical mechanics of the language, or at least the knowledge of it. He was unskilled as far as the craft of attractive writing was concerned. Perhaps unskilled is too strong. I stand by my estimation that he is not a craftsman. He knew that 2+2=4 but, too often, did not know how to make that a beautiful thing.

mallis said:

a man who defends harry potter and pisses on Tolkien? Sorry, sir, but that is wrong on so many levels.

I defended the Potter novels because it was wrong, IMO, to call them terrible. In fact, it is a marvellous success - perfectly achieving what it sets out to do and be: an easily accessible, entertaining set of books primarily aimed at children. I personally can take them or leave them. Sure, I've read them and seen the movies and found them acceptable, fairly entertaining reads. But I thought book2 was a pointless rehash of book1 and book 6 is nothing more than a laying of foundations for 7. They are certainly not on my list of great books to take to a desert island with me.

Tolkien - I stand absolutely by what I said: I called LotR a "fantastic story". That's hardly "pissing" on it. It's great. I love it. It is truly impressive. I also said it was mechanically written by someone who was not a craftsman. I stand by that too. From a writing style POV, I don't give a rat's ass that he wrote himself an entire universe, worked on it 'til his dying day, created cycles and mythology within his own mythology. It's all true. It made it a better, more logical, more complete story. It didn't make him a more skilled craftsman. He had an amazing imagination and he shared his fantastical world with us. He knew it inside out and could therefore speak authoritatively and logically about it. However, all too often, his palette was missing a few colours when he came to paint it. He told the story but all to often it was just a bit dry and mechanical; a bit grey. I don't mean in a "Wow, thanks Tolkien, you let me fill in the blanks with my imagination and now things are so much more vivid" way either. All IMO, of course.

You choose harry potter over that?

Show me where I said that. I defended one because I thought it was being unfairly maligned. I "pissed" on the other because I think the skill of the writer is unjustly lauded. The two are not being compared. Both are being misrepresented IMO. I was attempting to redress that, according to how I feel about them, as separate and independent things.

I defended HP because I do not believe it is "terrible". I "pissed" on Tolkien for the reasons stated above. At no point did I compare them (other than, perhaps, to call The Silmarillion "terrible" - an implied comparison from using the word previously used to describe Potter, but for different reasons).

For the record. LotR has to be one of the best (series of) Novels I have read - from a story point of view. The depth and imagination and completeness in them is truly awe inspiring (and I don't mean in a totally shit modern, meaningless "awesome, you rock" way). Potter, with its borrowed themes and settings and its incomplete, illogical, impractical world doesn't come close. But Potter isn't terrible and Tolkien isn't the best writer there has ever been (as is often implied) - even if, perhaps, he wrote on of the best books ever written.

Tolkien's target audience all died a few years ago. No doubt they could read and appreciate The Lord of the Rings, because they weren't retarded.

Are you implying that I'm a retard there? Whatever, your statement is just arse. Tolkien's target audience all died a few years ago? Who are (or were, according to you) Tolkien's target audience then? My bet would be imaginative people of any age who enjoy a good read and want to be immersed in a fantastical world. Is there no-one alive like that anymore? The Hobbit is unashamedly a children's book. Are there no children anymore? For the record, my daughter read it when she was 8 and loved it. She's now 12 and still dips into it. Guess what, it was published in 1937. My daughter wasn't alive then (obviously) but it's still within living memory - so children who were alive in 1937 are still alive. My mother for one. What's more, regardless of the elapsed time, I'd say my daughter is probably exactly typical of the Hobbit's intended audience. RotK was first published in 1955. There are plenty of people who visit here who were alive when that happened. You said that he worked on his stuff up until his death. His death was in 1973. I am old enough to remember that. Anyway, if the books are that good, they should be timeless. Remember the Odyssey and the Illiad?

I'm sure tolkien was writing for the people of his day, most of whom are dead. The fact that it is still being read more than half a centaury later is testament to how damn good the book is. We are not the target audience. We are just happy collatoral damage.

I'm shocked that people here are calling the prose inside LOTR mechanical. I'm interested to hear what your opinion on Shakespeare is? Does he suck because his prose is stuck in the 15th centaury and doesn't speak to the yoof of today?

I'm saying that Tolkien invented a genre. Without him there would be no harry potter and JK rowling would probably still suck ass. Whatever his failings as a writer, being a 'technician' of the language is not one of them.

mallis said:

I'm saying that Tolkien invented a genre.

Not true, at all. LOTR was inspired by the old and new testaments, Beowulf, Arthurian legend, countless fairytales, and the mythos of just about every culture and religion. There were people writing a genre called fantasy before him, LOTR was just the most in-depth story for the times, which made it more accessible and interesting to the general public.

myk said:

...focusing on popular ones. The "Hell" in DOOM is parodic, and Hell is not a christian invention.

Indeed it's not a christian invention, I never said it was. However, Hebrew-based religions are the only religions that use goats and horns as a symbolism of evil (most religions use them for manhood or nature). Cyberdemon. (Baron of)Hell(Knight). Lost soul? Cacodemon? Although the pentacle and pentagram (which appear throughout the game repeatedly) have been used by various religions as a symbol of nature, spiritual inspiration, and more popularly as a warding sigil against "mean spirits", the christian church adopted it as the official symbol of satan during the Roman imperialism, and it appears repeatedly. I think the upside down crosses speak for themselves.
I could be wrong in this, but I'm pretty sure Hebrew religions are the only ones where "hell" is a place where it's denizens can become demonic apparations hellbent, by nature, on wreaking havoc upon the mortal land. In Norse mythology, you went to "hel" (hmm, similar?) if you didn't please Odin, or another god that could talk him into allowing you into Valhalla. Valhalla was, GENERALLY, reserved for great warriors, so that sent a lot of people to "hel". They represented zombies, but if I recall, giant crabs were the only "demonic" being that came from it's bowels. It was a place of fire and brimstone, but it's denizens were ruled by (forgot her name), and were her dormant slaves until Loki fooled her into letting him summon them to war, promising her and them the rich soils of Midgard (the mortal land). Or so is the prophecy for ragnarock, the end of the world, which was never fulfilled.
If I recall, everyone kept healthy human form in hades. It was just an island you went to when you died. There was a cramped pit of fire and brimstone where "evil" people were imprisoned, but other than that it was just a gloomy little island in the south. In order to get back mortality and set foot on mortal lands, someone who was dead would have to beat a mortal in a board game called Styx, not much unlike chess. They then could switch places with the mortal. Hardly mutated hordes swarming through a jumpgate and killing everything that moves.
As you said, it's a pointless argument, but I feel it's safe to say that the "hell" used in Doom is based on the hebrew interpretation more than anything else. I know it's parodic, but parodies are based on what they're parodizing.

Lord Dunsany, for example, who didn't write no-brainers (because it's great writing for adults too), but his prose is very good and I don't see how it cannot suit children, particularly his shorter stories, and by all means teens or young adults. Young adults can also read stuff like Leiber, Le Guin, Moorcock, and even Robert E. Howard.

Indeed. I only mentioned the authors you quoted me for because the debate those examples were for was "no-brainers". I'd also say adults can enjoy all the authors I listed, as I know they do. "No-brainer" doesn't mean that it doesn't paint interesting characters, vivid emotions, immersive atmosphere, and breathtaking scenery. It just means the plot is something like "Here's the good guys. Here's the bad guys. Here's what the good guys need to beat the bad guys. They're on their quest now to beat the bad guys. Here's the tragedy aspect. Here's the romance aspect. Plot twist. Quest quest quest. Plot twist. Action Action Action. Bad guy's dead/banished/imprisoned. Celebration. The end."

Fredrik said:

I am reminded of Gimli the Ent.

Doctor Arturo!

I saw John Rhys-Davies in a pantomime this Christmas. He's a great actor.

mallis said:
I'm saying that Tolkien invented a genre.

I'd say he created certain fantasy stereotypes that are quite widespread nowadays; most people think the same things when we mention elves, dwarves and orcs nowadays. He also contributed heavily to the concept of "mapping out worlds" (but he wasn't alone.) Both these things made their way to RPGs and from there to all sorts of popular entertaiment and designs.

myk said:

I'd say he created certain fantasy stereotypes...

Developed, rather. Dwarves and orcs already had their places in mythologies. So did elves, but as a whole they're not simply drawn from any specific mythos or culture.
Don't get me wrong, his world-building is fantastic, but the elements everyone praises it for aren't that big of a deal. He took entities from all over the place and mashed them together logically.
What is amazing is the stories and histories and the way he mashed said entities together as the big picture.
Though he did, doubtless, teach people (by "teach people", I mean pioneer) how to make much more vivid and alive worlds (edit: in fiction literature).
And do forgive me, I'm really not as critical as I seem.

edit #2: OK, you said "fantasy stereotypes", which means there's nothing to argue. Yes, he did, and this post is worthless. For some reason I read it as you were saying he created them. My apologies.

Many good points being made here...

1. Though I am an atheist, I see nothing wrong with the Christian symbolism in the Narnia books. The only thing that really disturbs me is how he basicaly calls Muslims a bunch of bloodthirsty savages in the books.

2. One thing I didn't like in the movie is that in the books, Lewis made it perfectly clear that Narnain horses, centaurs, and unicorns (in The Horse and His Boy, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle respectively) abhor being ridden except in emergencies and will absolutely NEVER willingly accept being bridled (the only exception is the flying horse from The Magician's Nephew). However, we see Peter and Edmund using a unicorn and a Narnian horse as mounts. Oh well.

3. I never really liked how LotR was written. It kind of seems like Tolkien was too focused on making his book accurate to his world while sacrificing well-flowing prose. The Hobbit, on the other hand, was a very brilliant book.

Tolkien didn't invent fantasy, but if it wasn't for him there would be no Dungeons and Dragons or anything based off that, nor would the works of C.S. Lewis (who Tolkien made a born-again Christian) be as they are. So there would probably be fantasy, but it would be much different (and perhaps the annoying dwarf and elf archetypes would be eliminated).

4. As for fantasy reccomendations, first of all I reccomend R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt series (begining either with the Dark Elf trilogy or the Icewind Dale trilogy) and his Cleric Quintet. Salvatore isn't the best writer (it sounds like he describing the events of a movie and his combat scenes are a bit over-detailed), but he's REALLY good at making characters you can get attatched to. I love the characters of Entreri and Jarlaxle. They were originaly villains, and now they've got their own trilogy in the works (first book at least is already out).

The Dragonlance Chonicles by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman aregreat too. The Chronicles trilogy seems to draw off of Lord of the Rings a lot, but it remains its own unique story. My only real problem with them is that the characters are a little too emo, but so were the characters in LotR I guess. Both Dragonlance and Salvatore's books are based off D&D, but that doesn't detriment them too much.

Also, I reccomend the Book of Three series by Lloyd Alexander. They're pretty easy reading, and are based off of Celtic mythology which differentiates them from most fantasy. I realy need to get them and read them in order, because I read them totally out of order and there's one book I never even read. :P

mallis said:

I'm shocked that people here are calling the prose inside LOTR mechanical.

Well, it's not a particularly uncommon opinion about Tolkien's writing. I'm almost shocked that you're shocked. ;)

I'm interested to hear what your opinion on Shakespeare is? Does he suck because his prose is stuck in the 15th centaury and doesn't speak to the yoof of today?

I think you're misrepresenting my argument. At no point did I say an author needs to speak to the yoof of today. I do agree that is possibly one of Rowling's strengths, but it is also possibly one that will reduce the longevity of her work. We'll see.

In fact, it was me who was arguing that Tolkien still speaks to people of all ages - both in years and era. Obviously Tolkien would be writing with the audience of his day in mind but I still suspect his target was imaginative people who want to immerse themselves in a fantastical world. I believe that type of audience is far less era specific and I also believe there are still plenty of people who fit into that category today, even though their use of language and their life experiences may be different to that of Tolkien.

Anyway, are most of the people of Tolkein's day really dead? I suspect the audience has always been young-ish. With RotK being published 50 years ago, that would make a lot of them not even 70 yet. What would "Tolkien's day" have been anyway? Is it fair to say any book has a bit of life in it? 5, maybe 10 years? So, some of the people of "the day" and who read it young as a new-ish book won't have even hit 40 yet. The book was only 9 years old when I was born. I think I'm still alive. 50 years ago really isn't that long. The use of language hasn't changed that much in the last 50 years. We're still speaking about a living memory time scale for a significant number of the population.

You mention Shakespeare; now in the almost 400 years since his death, the language has changed significantly. Nothing he experienced is living memory stuff. His world was a different place. Does he talk to the yoof of today? Only if they are prepared to listen, but they can because the subjects of his work as still the various facets of humanity. It's much harder work to listen though, you have to work at it, but if you do listen, if you pick up the subtle nuances, follow the loops and laughs within his logic and dance with the tune the words play you, then you will be appreciating a craftsman at work. I myself have only recently gained a good appreciation of him in the last 10 years or so. It has been quite a revalation - and one I did not expect. Also, to be picky, with him being born in 1564 and dying in 1616 he can't really be stuck in the 15th century as he was at least 64 years too late. ;)

Danarchy said:

Many good points being made here...

1. Though I am an atheist, I see nothing wrong with the Christian symbolism in the Narnia books. The only thing that really disturbs me is how he basicaly calls Muslims a bunch of bloodthirsty savages in the books.

2. One thing I didn't like in the movie is that in the books, Lewis made it perfectly clear that Narnain horses, centaurs, and unicorns (in The Horse and His Boy, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle respectively) abhor being ridden except in emergencies and will absolutely NEVER willingly accept being bridled (the only exception is the flying horse from The Magician's Nephew). However, we see Peter and Edmund using a unicorn and a Narnian horse as mounts. Oh well.

Creative license indeed. And I don't think C.S. Lewis was going out of his way to portray the Muslims as savages so much as to show the world that that is the way that Christians see them. C.S. Lewis was a pretty fair guy, and Narnia was not just The Bible for Kids; it was also a criticism of The Church of England.

Went and saw it today. Very faithful to the book. It's funny, I was half expecting Lion Jesus to whip out a lightsaber on the ice witch, whom reminded me of the Borg Queen. Go figure. All in all it was pretty well done, and Tumnus WAS a bit creepy in the beginning.

I hate people that say someone is a pedo just becouse they were trying to be friendly. that only makes them perverts themselves.

I read somewhere that the first scene with Tumnus, where he is in the snow with his parcels and umbrella, was the image that CS Lewis had stuck in his brain since he was a kid and the one that inspired him to write the Narnia stuff.