Pullman rips on LOTR, others

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

You're dicing with death there, you'll have half the female Downs membership going "Tch"

Though to be serious, this argument about the link between fashion and power can actually be seen in history. I know not many historians are interested in what styles of frock the lasses wore and when (being that guns and swords and planes and stuff are more interesting - including to me) but there is a clear correlation between styles of dress and attitudes towards women. To take a recent example, the later 1940s saw a return to fitted, corsetted, and impractical styles just as women went back to their kitchen sinks to clear the factory jobs for returning men from war. But I shall not bore you with any more lecturing as that's getting right off the point

I don't see the correlation. I see a general atmosphere of conservatism that leads women to dress conservatively, and to carry out a certain traditional role while the men resume their old jobs.

Modern fashion has nothing to do with power. Most fashion designers are either women or gay men: where's their motivation to keep women from looking powerful?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I don't see the correlation. I see a general atmosphere of conservatism that leads women to dress conservatively, and to carry out a certain traditional role while the men resume their old jobs.

Modern fashion has nothing to do with power. Most fashion designers are either women or gay men: where's their motivation to keep women from looking powerful?

You're wrong, thus proving fashion is indeed a ladies' thing

Originally Posted by Bb

The difficulty lies in how very, very far Lewis falls from the concept and understanding of spirituality which can be found in other writers and other people of more enlarged grace, hope, and charity.

Yes. Lewis instead gave us a kind of begrudging grace, and a strictly rationed hope. This is why Tolkien stomps all over Lewis as he just didn't bring that stuff into it - you get the sense that even Gollum got something in the end.

[Folwren]

Tolkien may have been correct about a lot of things, but if he 'stomps all over Lewis' (I know you meant Lewis' writings and I took it as such), then he was not correct in that opinion.

Look. So far as I am concerned, I actually admire Lewis more than any other author that I have ever read, and that includes Tolkien. All this argument about whether or not his protrayal of Susan and what it meant is right or wrong or stupid or whatever is very, very shallow, and doesn't really belong here on the Barrow Downs. People - you're better than this. I believe that all of you who are putting Lewis down because of this issue are smarter than you're making yourself look right now.

If you want a true look at what Lewis believed, read his other books - Mere Christianity, The Great Divorce, Miracles, The Screwtape Letters (those are probably the most pertitent to this conversation), even Till We Have Faces...

[Lalwendë]

I've nothing wrong with Lewis being a bit sexist etc. As I've said, many other writers also have their PC failings but it doesn't stop me liking them if I find their writing good. However, I get a little fed up with the apologies for Lewis which don't wash and would find discussion of him and his work much more interesting if people did not blindly leap to the defence.

Note I'm not the only one who thinks this, many greater minds than mine share this opinion, including Betjeman, who personally knew the man rather too well. And as we're here to discuss books (I'm quite sure Lewis was as nice as anyone, long as you weren't cluttering up the snug of the Bird and Baby with a WI meeting :P), then my disappointment with Narnia is also shared with none other than one Professor Tolkien. I don't care how smart or not I'm making myself look when I share such good company

[Folwren]

Lal, if this should be taken to PM, that's fine. But how on earth is Lewis sexist? And what other 'etc' stuff are you hinting at?

And I have not been apologizing for Lewis. He doesn't need apologizing for. I might have to explain for him, but in no way will it be an apology.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Yes. Lewis instead gave us a kind of begrudging grace, and a strictly rationed hope. This is why Tolkien stomps all over Lewis as he just didn't bring that stuff into it - you get the sense that even Gollum got something in the end.

That's a fascinating comparison, Lal, between Susan and Gollem. One of Tolkien's great achievements in LotR is, I think, his depiction of pity--the word itself is currently unfashionable, although the behaviour is not--especially for Gollem. Gandalf's talk with Frodo early in Bag End colours so much of the moral vision of Middle-earth. Even the ends of Saruman and Grima ring true morally--nothing contrived there, but a logical acting out of the impulses and consequences which the entire story unfolds. It isn't petty or narrow minded or self-complacent.

Really, when I think of Lewis and Susan, I can't help thinking of Brocklehurst in Jane Eyre at the charity school for orphans forcing the teachers to cut off the girl's hair because it was naturally curly and thus a symptom of the terrible vanity girls fall prey to.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

That's a fascinating comparison, Lal, between Susan and Gollem. One of Tolkien's great achievements in LotR is, I think, his depiction of pity--the word itself is currently unfashionable, although the behaviour is not--especially for Gollem. Gandalf's talk with Frodo early in Bag End colours so much of the moral vision of Middle-earth. Even the ends of Saruman and Grima ring true morally--nothing contrived there, but a logical acting out of the impulses and consequences which the entire story unfolds. It isn't petty or narrow minded or self-complacent.

Really, when I think of Lewis and Susan, I can't help thinking of Brocklehurst in Jane Eyre at the charity school for orphans forcing the teachers to cut off the girl's hair because it was naturally curly and thus a symptom of the terrible vanity girls fall prey to.

Tolkien also gives out a far more powerful message of growth. Wrapped up in the narrative motif of the journey or quest is also the inherent idea that this is more then merely moving across a map with a job to do, it is also an interior journey in which all the characters grow and grow up. The growing up is in a literal sense for Merry and Pippin who grow taller and also become responsible adults instead of remaining as two slightly aristocratic fun-loving boys. It is in a spiritual sense for Frodo and for Gollum in two very different ways, but with both receiving pity (and perfect, satisfying endings consistent with their characters) at the end of their suffering. It is also in a metaphorical sense for Sam who develops social aspirations after seeing a world beyond taters.

In not dealing with the issue of growth Lewis missed a trick. Instead what his message does is tell us that growth is not the answer, that stasis is in fact preferable. Susan does indeed 'grow' but is punished for it. She doesn't stand a chance. Aside from that, it's also a cop-out. She is not given the satisfactory and consistent endings that all of Tolkien's 'bad guys' are and you get the sense that Lewis simply stopped caring about her once he got to the thorny question of what he was going to do with a normal young woman. It gives the impression that he didn't think about what he was going to do with her, that he just took some Tippex to her character.

And I think this is why both make and female readers find this so odd, so unsatisfying and why it ruins Narnia for so many to see a much-loved character dealt with so dismissively. Neil Gaiman called it infuriating and this is one of the reasons behind his story "The Problem Of Susan" - he hoped to write something equally as irritating and inconclusive.

Nice analogy in Jane Eyre there too. I'm also reminded of the girl in The Magdalen Sisters who is shipped off to a life of torment in the laundries just for being pretty.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Folwren -

Hold yer horses! I think you need to be careful here.

Over the years, I have read all the titles by Lewis you listed as well as a host of biographies, studies etc, most of them sympathetic. I wouldn't have done all this reading unless I felt I was getting something from it. But while I have learned many things from Lewis, and can see beautiful thoughts and ideas, there are aspects of his writing that I am still not comfortable with.

One of those "uncomfortable points" is Lewis's handling of Susan. So much has been said on this that I will not add anything except one personal note. I can remember curling up with the stories long, long ago and was troubled as I read what happened to Susan. But as I said before, it is not just Susan. I also have trouble with certain aspects of Jane Tudor in Hideous Strength as well as the archetypal villians in Narnia. Lewis's Narnia villains come in three varieties: supernatural creatures like Tash, political states like Calormen, and three witches: the White Witch, the Green Lady, and Empress Jade (a reworking of the White Witch but so changed as to be a different character).

There are no comparable wizard figures in Narnia. When Lewis wanted to embody evil in a single human "personna", he chose the symbol of a seductive female character. These are not realistic women but mythic figures that embody beauty and evil. These two factors are inevitably linked. The greater the beauty, the greater the evil. Lewis does show positive female characters in Narnia and other works but he downplays or negates their physical beauty. His best character of all---his most complex depiction of a woman--was Orual who was said to be so ugly that no one could look at her. There are passages throughout Lewis's books and his letters that show a similar ambivalence about female beauty. He is both intrigued and distrustful of it. I am as far from being a fashion plate as you can imagine. Still, it saddens me that Lewis had such difficulty appreciating the female form and figure or in acknowledging that physical beauty and goodness can be linked. His writings show no comparable problem depicting men who are brave, virile, great warriors, etc, which of course are characteristics frequently ascribed to the male gender both in fantasy and real life.

This discussion does relate to Tolkien because his own writings are a contrast to Lewis in this respect. Galadriel, Luthien, Arwen, Eowyn....Tolkien's writings have many mature and beautiful women who were good to the essence, yet capable of exercising a spell over the men near them. Just witness Gimli and Galadriel, or Frodo and Goldberry. (Whoops! I almost typed Bethberry...)

There are also legitimate reasons why Tolkien was not personally enthusiastic about Narnia. There is a wonderful article that came out in a recent issue of Mythlore that discusses this question. It's the best piece of writing I've encountered on this topic. When I'd finished it, I had a better view of how and why Tolkien felt uncomfortable with Narnia and also how this may have contributed to the strains in their friendship. This article discusses the Letters to Malcolm and the Narnia chronicles (in light of a reference in the Letters where Tolkien himself links the two). The author shows how the Narnia chronicles embody many views that Tolkien as a Catholic simply could not accept. The things is quite long -- 12 pages of text, 6 of sources and detailed notes, but definitely worth the read: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n21130448/pg_1

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Lewis's Narnia villains come in three varieties: supernatural creatures like Tash, political states like Calormen, and three witches: the White Witch, the Green Lady, and Empress Jade (a reworking of the White Witch but so changed as to be a different character).

Funny...I must have read a different version of Perelandra...I only remember Lewis saying positive things about the Green Lady.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Gwathagor,

There are two Green Ladies....

I was specifically referring to Narnia Villains here. In The Silver Chair, the witch-like Lady of the Green Kirtle is first described in connection with the evil serpent who kills the queen of Narnia, King Caspian’s bride, Ramadu’s daughter, and Prince Rillian’s mother. Green is traditionally the color of jealousy and seduction. The Lady is greedy for power, and she is an overt seductress.

But the Green Lady of Perelandra proves my point again. She is pre-fall and thus immune from the stigma that the rest of us poor women bear (and which Lewis found so hard to deal with). As such, she is the safest female character of all. Lewis "sanitizes" his women in various ways. He may make his characters older, put them in animal form, give them a supernatural aura that removes them from being human, simply de-emphasize their physical attributes, or, in this particular case, place them before the fall. When Susan becomes too dangerous, she is removed.

Ok, ok...I'm exaggerating, but there is some truth in this.

[Folwren]

Oh man. I just lost a whole long post.

I don't have time to say everything over again, so I'll try to be brief:

Child, Lewis may have had beautiful, female villians, but I recall beautiful female heroines, too - Psyche in Till We Have Faces and Ramendu's Daughter in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Also, Lucy is not described as ugly, or not pretty. She's a normal girl. However, Lucy, out of all of her siblings had the most faith in Aslan. If Lewis were sexist (a fierce glance in Lal's direction) why would he have made his most faithrul, upright character a girl in Narnia?

I was going to correct Gwathagor's mistake, but I see you already have.

I would like to make an illustration...of what Lewis meant with his 'handling' of Susan.

When I was younger, Lucy's age in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, I played with qutie a few girls. We ran around outside in the woods and field and played and pretended and did all sorts of fun stuff like that.
And then a time came when I didn't see some of these girls for a while...about four or five years, probably. When I saw some of them again at a wedding shower, the first thing I noticed was how much they had changed, and the second how little I knew them. I had not changed much...I was still playing in the woods, getting dirty, and playing out silly little pretend stories...at the wedding shower, I wore no make-up and I had on a simple, modest cotton dress. In comparison, these girls were wearing make-up (painted to perfection), tight jeans or tight, short skirts with nylons (I don't think that's how it's spelled), and snazy shirts. The gap, which had been so narrow before, was chasm wide between me and those girls now - and mostly because of the way they dressed and spoke. Their ideals had left the simple, down to earth character - the type that could let them play out in the woods and play - and flown upwards to catch the attention of the boys and society.

That's what happened to me, and I think that Lewis was making Susan into one of those girls that I used to know. He wasn't punishing her...nor was Aslan. Susan was punishing herself.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

You're wrong, thus proving fashion is indeed a ladies' thing

Along with gross oversimplification, conspiratorial delusions, and mistaking collateral effects for deliberate ones. No wonder Old Navy and the gay men of Hollywood have coalesced over this plan to keep you ladies from gaining any meaningful influence.