**Comparing Narnia and LotR** - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Firefoot · 01-12-2006, 03:39 PM

All your opinions here have made me really excited to see the movie again... once it comes to the cheap theatre here in town, whenever that is...

Quote:

and couldn't BELIEVE that Susan wasn't allowed back into Narnia because she was interested in lipstick and invitations, and is dismissed as always trying to be too grown up. If Narnia is supposed to signify heaven, I guess that most of us are destined for hell, then, because that shift in interests happens to most people. So that and the anti-feminism in the books may have ruined the movie for me.

A couple of people have mentioned this now, I believe, and I find it interesting how many people this bothers. I have always taken it a different way, that Susan was not excluded because she was interested only in lipstick and invitations, but because she could no longer believe in Narnia. Perhaps it is put in a bad way, but I don't think that the emphasis is meant to be where it has been put. Susan's problem isn't that she has new interests, but that her new interests exclude the old.

To use a rather unlikely scenario as a comparison, it would be rather like Frodo saying to Sam after the WotR, "Oh, you actually still think about the Ring and Elves and those old stories?" If he didn't care, why would he be allowed to go to the Undying Lands?

davem · 01-12-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefoot

If he didn't care, why would he be allowed to go to the Undying Lands?

Or able to?

Durelin · 01-12-2006, 05:38 PM

I've always preferred looking at Narnia as encompassing innocence (rather than being 'heaven,' whatever exactly that is), the childlike wonder we have when we enter the world, newly created. And about how we lose that innocence. So saying that Sarah could not return to Narnian because she became interested in 'lipstick and invitations' I think is more of a reference to her losing her childlike interest as she becomes more focused on the 'real world' and its materialistic nature, than any other one. Or, perhaps it is her that she has entered a state of complacency when it comes to the actual nature of the world, and simply lives out her daily life based on more 'trivial' things, which could very well be just about anything we humans busy ourselves with on earth, when we consider the larger picture.

Of course, in using the word 'innocence' I risk so much equivocation that I was reluctant to post.

The other quick point I'd like to make is simply that I believe allegory in itself is only dislikable so long as you read too much of what the author has to say about his/her story, and don't simply enjoy what you'd like to think about it.

-Durelin

davem · 01-15-2006, 07:12 AM

For those who haven't seen the movie yet:

http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dyna...hronicles.html

Just thought you should all be aware of what you're letting yourself in for if you go & see this dangerous movie

Lalwendë · 01-15-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

For those who haven't seen the movie yet:

http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dyna...hronicles.html

Just thought you should all be aware of what you're letting yourself in for if you go & see this dangerous movie

Ah, but according to the same writer, LotR is also evil: "The Lord of the Rings trilogy comes from the pits of hell and is a clever instructional course in witchcraft disguised as fantasy and entertainment."

Estelyn Telcontar · 01-15-2006, 10:35 AM

If those two articles were satires, they'd be brilliant. As they are apparently meant to be serious, I can only hope that people reading them will be discerning. I have seldom seen such a threadbare collection of arguments. It also seems to me that this author belongs to those persons who give God's opponent(s) more honour than he/they deserve. The only thing we can do about this kind of "journalism" is to ignore it; the test of time will show what it's worth.

Anguirel · 01-17-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

For those who haven't seen the movie yet:

http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dyna...hronicles.html

Just thought you should all be aware of what you're letting yourself in for if you go & see this dangerous movie

Interesting to compare with ranting of this type (and with the more serious and widely accepted persecution of the Harry Potter series) is this comment about the Morte D'Arthur of Malory by the Puritan preacher Nathaniel Baxter (c.1550-1635)-

"This prophane and frivolous book...details the horrible acts of those whoremasters, Lancelot du Lake, Tristram de Lionesse, Gareth of Orkney, Merlin, the lady of the Lake, with the vile and stinking story of the Sangreal..."

Particularly remarkable is the description of the Lady of the Lake as a "whoremaster", and of the Grail Quest story, a pious, spiritual tale elaborated by Church propagandists, as "vile and stinking."

It seems people like Nathaniel Baxter and Pastor I'm-A-Former-Witch-And-Books-Are-The-Work-Of-Satan have always existed. The same emotions shine through-violently suppressed interest in the works they condemn, prurience, and lack of any understanding or knowledge of their target texts whatsoever...

Frodo Baggins · 01-28-2006, 10:24 AM

Oh Valesse, you are such a pest at times (thespians can be SO annoying)!

Thinlomion: They were not chasing the stag (who I am certain was a talking stag) to kill it. It was said if you caught the stag it would give you wishes. I assume that after you got your wishes you let the stag free.

Kuruharan said it before I could, Narnia wins hans down as the least stupid plot derivations. I have seen many movies adapted from books and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is by far the most faithful. I say we have dear Douglas Gresham to thank for that.

There were a few derivations but they did not detract that much. My friend Puddleglum and I agree that the white witch did not look right. Her face should have been whiter and her hair black.

The stone table whas what I had the biggest problem with, it looked just not right. To stonehengey not tabley enough. That and the tree people. I thought they were supposed to look more like people and not like blossoms blowing around.

Mr. Tumnus was already a stone when Edmund got there. (I think Edmund saw him did he not?) But Tumnus has always been one of my favourite characters so I liked seeing more of him. And James McCavoy makes an adoreable Faun anyway. (and no that was not a fangirly statement)

I know the children being chased by the witch on the way to Aslan was not in line with the book but it was kind of cool when they thought they were being chased but it turned out to be Father Christmas. I was so caught up in the movie that I had completely forgotten about Father Christmas (even though I had finished the book that morning) and really thought he was the witch until Mr. Beaver said "It's not her!" and then I went "Oh yeah! Of course"!

The humour in the film certainly seemed more natural, less forced than LOTR. Like when Father Christmas says "I have been driving reindeer longer than she has." (Ok that was a paraphrase) Or the Centaur says to Peter "Numbers do not win a battle." and Peter says "No, but I bet they help." The Edmund/Philip excange was priceless.

I'm not that familiar with Liam Neeson, but my mom likes him a lot. I actually thought he was a pretty good voice for Aslan. When Aslan roared I wanted to fall on my knees and cry out "Aslan! Aslan!". It is so moving when he gives himself in Edmund's place. I cried then. And I cried at the coronation too.

As for the battle.....Oh...my....goodness!!! It was so amazing! I won't call it better than LOTR but certainly it had more detail. It was probably one of the best battle scenes I have seen. Certainly it was more optomistic than those of LOTR but as stated before, the people in Narnia had nowhere to go but up while Middle earth was going downhill fast.

There was certainly as much if not more showings of relationships in Narnia, but that may come with the main characters being siblings, although Lucy and Mr. Tumnus become quite close. Being a girl who likes stories where bad guys get their heads handed to them, I still like to see good guys (and girls) in said stories having relationships with each other (comes with being a girl). I am glad there was no unnecessary romance secenes involving rebellious dryads and overprotective fathers.

In all, I just love both Narnia and LOTR, for the same and different reasons. Were I asked to chosse which was better, I don't think I could.

HerenIstarion · 01-31-2006, 06:02 AM

Just a tidbit - I've got the impression that Professor and Polly and the rest of them thought that Susan would not be allowed into Aslan's Kingdom. They've had good grounds to think so, but for two points: 1. She did not die with the rest of them in the railway accident, so there was still time for her to change. 2. Throughout the books, Aslan always answers questions about others that 'nobody is told anybody's story but their own'. Susan as she was than and there, maybe, but there is no knowing what may have happened/will happen later

01-15-2006, 07:12 AM	#4
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	For those who haven't seen the movie yet: http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dyna...hronicles.html Just thought you should all be aware of what you're letting yourself in for if you go & see this dangerous movie __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

01-15-2006, 10:35 AM	#6
Estelyn Telcontar Princess of Skwerlz Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles) Posts: 7,500	If those two articles were satires, they'd be brilliant. As they are apparently meant to be serious, I can only hope that people reading them will be discerning. I have seldom seen such a threadbare collection of arguments. It also seems to me that this author belongs to those persons who give God's opponent(s) more honour than he/they deserve. The only thing we can do about this kind of "journalism" is to ignore it; the test of time will show what it's worth. __________________ 'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'

01-28-2006, 10:24 AM	#8
Frodo Baggins Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bag-End, Under-Hill, Hobbiton-across-the Water Posts: 606	Oh Valesse, you are such a pest at times (thespians can be SO annoying)! Thinlomion: They were not chasing the stag (who I am certain was a talking stag) to kill it. It was said if you caught the stag it would give you wishes. I assume that after you got your wishes you let the stag free. Kuruharan said it before I could, Narnia wins hans down as the least stupid plot derivations. I have seen many movies adapted from books and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is by far the most faithful. I say we have dear Douglas Gresham to thank for that. There were a few derivations but they did not detract that much. My friend Puddleglum and I agree that the white witch did not look right. Her face should have been whiter and her hair black. The stone table whas what I had the biggest problem with, it looked just not right. To stonehengey not tabley enough. That and the tree people. I thought they were supposed to look more like people and not like blossoms blowing around. Mr. Tumnus was already a stone when Edmund got there. (I think Edmund saw him did he not?) But Tumnus has always been one of my favourite characters so I liked seeing more of him. And James McCavoy makes an adoreable Faun anyway. (and no that was not a fangirly statement) I know the children being chased by the witch on the way to Aslan was not in line with the book but it was kind of cool when they thought they were being chased but it turned out to be Father Christmas. I was so caught up in the movie that I had completely forgotten about Father Christmas (even though I had finished the book that morning) and really thought he was the witch until Mr. Beaver said "It's not her!" and then I went "Oh yeah! Of course"! The humour in the film certainly seemed more natural, less forced than LOTR. Like when Father Christmas says "I have been driving reindeer longer than she has." (Ok that was a paraphrase) Or the Centaur says to Peter "Numbers do not win a battle." and Peter says "No, but I bet they help." The Edmund/Philip excange was priceless. I'm not that familiar with Liam Neeson, but my mom likes him a lot. I actually thought he was a pretty good voice for Aslan. When Aslan roared I wanted to fall on my knees and cry out "Aslan! Aslan!". It is so moving when he gives himself in Edmund's place. I cried then. And I cried at the coronation too. As for the battle.....Oh...my....goodness!!! It was so amazing! I won't call it better than LOTR but certainly it had more detail. It was probably one of the best battle scenes I have seen. Certainly it was more optomistic than those of LOTR but as stated before, the people in Narnia had nowhere to go but up while Middle earth was going downhill fast. There was certainly as much if not more showings of relationships in Narnia, but that may come with the main characters being siblings, although Lucy and Mr. Tumnus become quite close. Being a girl who likes stories where bad guys get their heads handed to them, I still like to see good guys (and girls) in said stories having relationships with each other (comes with being a girl). I am glad there was no unnecessary romance secenes involving rebellious dryads and overprotective fathers. In all, I just love both Narnia and LOTR, for the same and different reasons. Were I asked to chosse which was better, I don't think I could. __________________ "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game."

01-31-2006, 06:02 AM	#9
HerenIstarion Deadnight Chanter Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 4,244	Susan question Just a tidbit - I've got the impression that Professor and Polly and the rest of them thought that Susan would not be allowed into Aslan's Kingdom. They've had good grounds to think so, but for two points: 1. She did not die with the rest of them in the railway accident, so there was still time for her to change. 2. Throughout the books, Aslan always answers questions about others that 'nobody is told anybody's story but their own'. Susan as she was than and there, maybe, but there is no knowing what may have happened/will happen later __________________ Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time!

01-12-2006, 05:38 PM	#3
Durelin Estelo dagnir, Melo ring Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,063	I've always preferred looking at Narnia as encompassing innocence (rather than being 'heaven,' whatever exactly that is), the childlike wonder we have when we enter the world, newly created. And about how we lose that innocence. So saying that Sarah could not return to Narnian because she became interested in 'lipstick and invitations' I think is more of a reference to her losing her childlike interest as she becomes more focused on the 'real world' and its materialistic nature, than any other one. Or, perhaps it is her that she has entered a state of complacency when it comes to the actual nature of the world, and simply lives out her daily life based on more 'trivial' things, which could very well be just about anything we humans busy ourselves with on earth, when we consider the larger picture. Of course, in using the word 'innocence' I risk so much equivocation that I was reluctant to post. The other quick point I'd like to make is simply that I believe allegory in itself is only dislikable so long as you read too much of what the author has to say about his/her story, and don't simply enjoy what you'd like to think about it. -Durelin