I actually hate this book. I can't say that often.
All of the worst elements of Christian media (not just literature) are present in this ...moreI actually hate this book. I can't say that often.
All of the worst elements of Christian media (not just literature) are present in this book. Lewis rejects religious pluralism, bases antagonists on rampant xenophobia, and falls once more into the trap of allowing Aslan to take over the story, even though the beginning was so good because of the marked absence of Aslan.
At first I thought that the Calormenes and their god Tash were definitely Lewis's idea of Muslims and Islam. They're dark skinned and wear turbans, and Tash is referred to as being the same as Aslan. I was thinking that Lewis, the bookish individual he was, made an informed but hateful decision to target them. But according to my professor (somewhat of a scholar on Lewis and Tolkien), Lewis was simply ignorant. He grouped people from other places into a mysterious "other," and Tash is likely Lewis's impression of some African god. So if ever Lewis did hear from someone that Islam and Christianity were worshipping the same god, his reaction would have been...well, it's plain in the book.
This leads into the issue of pluralism. Some people mistakenly think, based upon Aslan's conversation with the good Calormene Emeth, that Lewis was a pluralist. I was confused on this point too, because of Aslan's earlier words to Lucy that he is known by many names. But in fact Lewis was an inclusivist. While this means that the Calormenes are not all doomed to go to hell because they didn't believe in Aslan, it does mean that Aslan is the one and only god, even if others also believe in a one and only god. The implication is that the Calormenes and non-Christians are believing in a lie, or at best a partial truth. I, personally, am not a big fan of declaring most of the human race wrong about their religious beliefs.
I don't care that this viewpoint is in a children's book, because I think kids should be able to make their own decisions about what they read. It's true for Lewis, so it's in his book. Doesn't mean I have to let it slide from my review, because for me this shift in Lewis's writing from "I" spiritual language to "you" preaching language is the second worst thing about this book. Other books were far more effective for showing Lewis's spirituality in positive personal ways. This one says that he's right and everyone else is wrong. It's very off-putting.
Like I said above, inclusivism was the second worst thing about the book, a mild annoyance with Lewis. The first was the fact that the story fizzled away to nothing once Aslan showed up. Again.
The first half of the book really wasn't bad, even with the racism. Lewis knows how to write a good story. The immediate conflict stirred up by Shift was interesting, and the quest of King Tirian, Eustace, and Jill to stop it presented deep psychological issues and plotlines to explore. Because Aslan wasn't there, the characters had to find their own answers, drawing on him for guidance only. But all this is tossed out the window by Chapter 13 as the characters are once again, like in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, relegated to the role of watching Aslan save the day (or in this case, destroy the world). As usual, the ideas Lewis puts forth are beautiful: things bigger on the inside than the outside and the Platonist view of the nature of the world come to mind. But the characters are essentially standing there watching. They are not active protagonists. The conflict ends with the roar of a lion and nothing carries the reader forward except for Lewis's ideas and descriptions.
It's frustrating because Lewis is a better writer than this. The Silver Chair and Voyage of the Dawn Treader were effective because characters’ actions illuminated Lewis’s ideas through unique plots, whereas here he rehashes scripture as if the characters are sitting and reading the Bible. It's bad storytelling. It's boring. Christian literature does not have to be boring. I would say that previous books by Lewis are examples of great Christian literature, where Aslan is powerful and meaningful both to the characters and to the reader.
I thought that Lewis's lazy use of Aslan was a one-time thing in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I thought I was watching him get better over time at using all his characters effectively. That's what makes this book very, very disappointing for me--I thought he realized how heavy-handed he'd been in the first book and found better ways of showing his faith and telling stories at the same time. I guess not.
Maybe I'm being a silly English major, but I think story is more important to a book than the viewpoints contained within it. Nail the story, hit something universal, and you'll touch even those diametrically opposed to everything you believe. Use the pages of a book to shout your opinions, and you'll resonate only with those who already agree with you. (less)
Overall, a good children's book. Wish I'd read it when I was little.
This probably isn't a popular opinion, but I believe the Christian aspe...moreOverall, a good children's book. Wish I'd read it when I was little.
This probably isn't a popular opinion, but I believe the Christian aspects of the book are the only drawbacks. But not because it's Christian--in fact, it could have been quite well done as a Christian book--it's the effect Aslan has on the characters. The instant the driving force of the story shifted from Lucy to Aslan, the book tanked, simply because the kids ceased to be active protagonists. The goal of saving Mr. Tumnus disappeared, and the book felt a bit adrift. I sort of wish Aslan had been more like Jesus in Ben Hur--distant and extremely effective for it.
Until that point when Aslan took over, the book was very good. Classic elements of fairy tales shine through, and it's an enjoyable read. (less)
Loading...
