Power to the People

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by lmp

...

Well, I have to say that I think there is an interesting difference between Catholic aesthetics and protestant aesthetics. And I wonder if this difference is borne out in the art of the two men. Which, I quickly state, to me is not the same thing as sussing out their personal beliefs.

Originally Posted by lmp

By mirroring reality well, as opposed to writing more of a fairy tale (LWW)? I'm brought back to the 'truism' that Tolkien is writing about death whereas Lewis is writing about a chosen nation, as it were.

You know, one of these days I am going to accidentally call you imp.

The whole issue of applying "divine kingship" to feudal or renaissance Europe is, to me, a fascinating story of the appropriation of cultural values to very different social contexts. Nomadic desert tribes versus English barons. It seems to me that death is a much more of hobbits, elves, dwarves and men. Aslan might give "sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve" dominion over the other races, but Tolkien, I think, might have allowed Mr. Tumnus a greater power over his own fate. Therein I think lies what to me might be the ultimate issue here. Is the difference between Tolkien's work and Lewis' work one of artistic hierarchy or competence?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...but Tolkien, I think, might have allowed Mr. Tumnus a greater power over his own fate. Therein I think lies what to me might be the ultimate issue here. Is the difference between Tolkien's work and Lewis' work one of artistic hierarchy or competence?

Allow me to distract (or, perhaps, move forward) from the main discussion, since this little quote from your last post, Bêthberry, seems very interesting to me, in the light of the currently active thread regarding "That Which is Fate to All Things Else".

Here is another place where things differ. Although we have prophecies in Narnia, we never have FATE, and even these prophecies are not, apparently, infalliable, since there is a very grave fear in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that the White Witch will be able to prevent the prophecies from becoming true.

In Middle-Earth, on the other hand, we have very clear statements regarding the presence of Fate. Now, it is true that there is very great debate as to the interaction of this Fate with Free Will (for that, I direct you to the aforementioned and other various threads), but that Fate exists in Middle-Earth is taken as a given by pretty much everyone here.

As I've noted, though, there is no such Fate in Narnia. For which reason I find your statement that Tolkien would have allowed Mr. Tumnus greater control over his own destiny to be highly interesting. If I may imagine Gandalf talking to Lucy, I can imagine him saying something like this:

Gandalf: "You were meant to come into Narnia, and Mr. Tumnus was meant to meet you."

But, as presented in the Chronicles, Mr. Tumnus isn't so much MEANT to meet Lucy as he is simply the first Narnian to do so.

Now, I'm not sure if I know where I'm going with all this. One could easily make a case that Narnia is very much a world where Fate figures in, I do not deny that. But the contrast between Tolkien's outright declaration of Fate as contrasted by Lewis' avoidance of any such statement is interesting...

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

My interest lies in the attitude towards power and authority which the texts portray, rather than the author's personal beliefs

Then let us return to them.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

There is no religion, but there are divinities. Aragorn's right to the kingship is ultimately derived from the right of kingship given to Elros by the Valar. And it is noteworthy that this right is renewed by the presence of Gandalf - an emissary of the Valar - at Aragorn's coronation; indeed it is Gandalf who literally crowns him.

This is very interesting. As well as the Kingdom of Gondor, there are others to consider. Rohan's king was acknowledged by the King of Gondor (and land given to them) and thus indirectly from the Valar. The same applies to the Hobbits; they too were originally granted land by Kings of the Realms in Exile. We seem to see a theme of Kingship being handed down, in grades, from Eru himself.

What about the Kings of the Eldar? Were their leaders leaders before they awoke? Were they preplanned to be kings of their Houses? The Dwarven kings were appointed by Aule, and thus indirectly by Eru. Does this hold for the Elven race too?

Now, I know I'm digging myself into a hole here. Dale was not lead by a divinely appointed ruler, nor Mirkwood, to give some few examples. But these seem to be more minor and distant kingdoms.

Finally, I am too pressed for time to check, but I believe King Bard of Dale had some sort of right to the throne in the Hobbit. To what extent was this, or does it seem to be, divine?

There we go. Many questions, and no answers.

[Aiwendil]

What about the Kings of the Eldar? Were their leaders leaders before they awoke?

Well, the first three Kings of the Eldar (Ingwe, Finwe, and Elwe) were the ambassadors that visited Aman; it seems likely, to me at least, that their rule was thus based on a Valarin right. It is perhaps notable that these three became the kings rather than 'Imin', 'Tata', and 'Enel' (though we know nothing about the fates of those first Elves).

In any case, once the kingships of the Vanyar, Noldor, and Teleri were set up in Aman, the Valar clearly 'recognized' these rulers as legitimate.

Note also (though it may be obvious) that Men - or at least the Edain - had no kings in the first age; their rulers were first 'chieftains' and then, when taken on as subjects by the Elves, 'lords'. So Elros is the first rightful king among Men.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As I've noted, though, there is no such Fate in Narnia. For which reason I find your statement that Tolkien would have allowed Mr. Tumnus greater control over his own destiny to be highly interesting. If I may imagine Gandalf talking to Lucy, I can imagine him saying something like this:

Gandalf: "You were meant to come into Narnia, and Mr. Tumnus was meant to meet you."

But, as presented in the Chronicles, Mr. Tumnus isn't so much MEANT to meet Lucy as he is simply the first Narnian to do so.

Now, I'm not sure if I know where I'm going with all this. One could easily make a case that Narnia is very much a world where Fate figures in, I do not deny that. But the contrast between Tolkien's outright declaration of Fate as contrasted by Lewis' avoidance of any such statement is interesting...

Let me play the narratologist that some here--looks over her shoulder in case Fordim is around--claim me to be. What kind of creature could Lucy have first met Narnia? I mean, what kind of creature that would have enabled the story to develop, would have given the reader the necessary bits of plot expectation, etc. etc? Doesn't the story require, on some level, a meeting between Lucy and a Narnian who can explain some of the land and context to her and to readers? We we have a creature who at first contemplates a terrible act of kidnap and who then repents of the thought, never actually fulfilling the deed. I think Mr. Tunmus' role is pretty much set by those parameters. Now, this might be narrative fate or Authorial omnipotence, but it does suggest that Mr. Tumnus had a certain role to play. Maybe not bearing a ring, but certainly bearing some plot. And after this supply of plot development is accomplished, there is little moral development allowed to Mr. Tumnus, despite his moral decision to release Lucy rather than deliver her up to the White Witch. Although I suppose that he does get his comeuppance for the thoughts he had. I simply think Tolkien would have done more with that kind of characterisation and not used it merely as a plot device.

This probably isn't the Fate you meant though

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Doesn't the story require, on some level, a meeting between Lucy and a Narnian who can explain some of the land and context to her and to readers? We we have a creature who at first contemplates a terrible act of kidnap and who then repents of the thought, never actually fulfilling the deed. I think Mr. Tunmus' role is pretty much set by those parameters. Now, this might be narrative fate or Authorial omnipotence, but it does suggest that Mr. Tumnus had a certain role to play. Maybe not bearing a ring, but certainly bearing some plot.

*Fordim looms over Bethberry's shoulder and nods in complete agreement*

Interesting conversation here about the role of Fate in M-E and Narnia. First, I don't see Fate as operative in either but Providence (the difference being that Fate is the world directed toward a determined end, with Providence being the world directed toward a determined GOOD end). Second, I see really little difference between them in this regard. To my view, Aslan is very much a Gandalf-figure: one who knows more than everyone else, but who is still capable of being surprised. Just as Eru is guiding things in M-E, so too is the Emperor across the Sea guiding things in Narnia.

In fact, I would suggest that it's a lot more clear that the Emperor is in charge of things in Narnia than Eru in M-E (at least LotR M-E) insofar as it is explicitly the fulfillment of the Emperor's Law that allows Aslan to come back to life and save the day!

[davem]

In fact, I would suggest that it's a lot more clear that the Emperor is in charge of things in Narnia than Eru in M-E (at least LotR M-E) insofar as it is explicitly the fulfillment of the Emperor's Law that allows Aslan to come back to life and save the day!

I always felt that Aslan cheated the White Witch. He knew that he would be resurrected (& says as much to Lucy & Susan). If we compare that to Gandalf's sacrifice of himself in Moria, its clear he had no idea that he would be 'sent back'. Clearly this is 'against the rules', in that the decision to send him back takes place 'beyond thought & time' (ie beyond the Circles of the World).

This is another intervention by Eru in the story, & is the most direct reference to an 'external' power (the Valar are, rather, an 'internal' power, as they are bound within the Circles of the World by their choice to enter into it). So, we don't have 'fate' as such in either world. Its rather that Aslan is in control of events as he knows the rules by which Narnia operates (the 'Deep Magic'). In M-e terminology he is a 'Master' of the Secret Fire, while Gandalf is a 'Servant' of it. Aslan is, effectively the 'Emperor' incarnate & uses the Rules. Gandalf has no idea he will be 'sent back', so in that sense his sacrifice is 'purer'. All he knows is that he will 'die'.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I always felt that Aslan cheated the White Witch.

Of course he didn't. He allowed her to believe that by killing him she would win. It was her own imperfect knowledge of the Emperor's law that led her into this error. In fact Aslan fulfils to the letter the terms of their agreement, and dies in Edmund's place: it is only Jadis's expectations that are cheated, which is, of course, Lewis's point.

It was a fairly common theme in early-medieval Christian literature to see Christ's sacrifice and resurrection in just such a light: in The Dream of the Rood he is portrayed as a much more active figure than we are used to seeing, actively mounting the cross apparently unaided. The purpose of this heroic act is unambiguously the defeat of Satan, since in the medieval reckoning of events, the crucifixion was immediately followed by the harrowing of Hell. Given Aslan's role as an allegory of Christ and Lewis's own knowledge of medieval literature, it seems hardly surprising that he should portray this as he did. Good does not, of course, cheat evil; rather evil is deceived by its own ignorance and reliance on temporal power.

To compare Aslan with Gandalf is dangerous, given that the latter is definitely not an allegory of Christ. Gandalf's knowledge is explicitly and intentionally restricted; he is not privy to the thoughts of the Creator, and must take a leap of faith (with some help from a fiery whip). Aslan, like Christ, knowingly sacrifices himself to fulfil a bargain and to save those deserving of punishment, which is an entirely different order of sacrifice. I would argue that since these two characters have entirely different roles, both in the narrative and in their respective cosmologies, their sacrifices cannot really be compared.

Personally my gravest reservation about C.S. Lewis is his insistence on using rather blunt allegories to force a certain point of view on his audience. I gather from some of Tolkien's correspondance that he was concerned with the theological orthodoxy of his friend's writing, but he was also deeply troubled by his own, despite his careful avoidance of allegorical correspondance between his characters and his own religion. I agree that it is more like Tolkien to show a martyrdom than the Passion, but I think that we're on extremely dangerous ground if we try to suggest that the former is superior to the latter.

[davem]

Well, it was a personal opinion. She may have been ignorant of the Rules, but its still a bit like me accepting a challenge to a fight which my opponent intends to be limited to fists & on equal terms – winner takes all - when I have a gun in my belt which I haven't mentioned & which I fully intend to pull & use. My opponent might not have known I had the gun, so technically I may be in the right (& certainly it would be his fault for issuing such a hasty challenge) but I think most people would think I was cheating if I shot him as he stood there in his boxing gloves on the other side of the ring.

On the other hand, I accept that Aslan only agreed to be killed, & the question of whether resurrection was allowed seems never to have been discussed.

Mind you, I always felt Superman was a cheat in the same way too.

And I wasn't really comparing Gandalf with Aslan, just the differences in their deaths.