Why do I keep subjecting myself to Lewis's Christological fantasies? Well, because I have them on my computer; and (recently) I wanted something light--so light that I wouldn't care if I missed any of it. (Usually I have to rewind a bunch when I listen to an audiobook, but since I've already read this one--and because I cordially dislike Lewis's bullyboy theology--this was a very relaxing read, as far as that goes.)

Now, I won't bore you by repeating my thoughts on Lewis's failure of fantasy; suffice to say that I just heard some of the debate between Hitchens and Blair on whether religion can be a force for good in the world, and for all his other odiousnesses, Hitch seems to capture something of my feelings on Lewis's religion as anti-humanist. Or, to put it another way, if Lewis were watching the angel apocalypse movie Legion (in which angel armies come from Heaven to kill all humans), Lewis would be on the side of the angels. Lewis may have a veneer of humanism, but he strikes me as largely anti-human. (That could be why he reminds me at times of Erich von Daniken, with his theories that aliens must've been on the earth because there's no way puny humans could have built Stonehenge, etc.) Hence, when Peter Pevensie comes to Narnia, he's just a boy, but the air of Narnia is rejuvenating, so he seems more like a king--but he's at his most kingly after Aslan breathes on him. Because that's what you really need in the end: the touch of the super-being.

That aside (and that's a lot to put aside), re-reading Prince Caspian did make me think more on Lewis's POV. So, I might dislike how Lewis puts his thumb on the scales, but from his POV, he's merely explaining how things are--for him, the ultimate fact of history is the salvational sacrifice. Which reminds me of a current saying, that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. So how can Lewis and I engage in a dialogue when we disagree about the foundational facts?