Bacchanal

I haven't seen Prince Caspian yet, but since it was the "No. 1 Movie" this weekend, let's revisit what that wonderful little book was about:

Prince Caspian is about beer.

Here is C.S. Lewis elsewhere (in Mere Christianity) in defense of one of his favorite things:

It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotalers; [Islam], not Christianity, is the teetotal religion.

Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons -- marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who use them, he has taken the wrong turning.

Lewis enjoyed meat and the cinema, and he later came to appreciate marriage, but the motivating passion for the passage above has to do with that other thing. Lewis loved his beer and defended it fiercely.

The same point, often expressed with a grumpy impatience, can be found repeatedly throughout Lewis' popular devotional writing. Lewis saw that many Christians -- particularly American Christians -- were trying to take away his beer and he wasn't going to stand for that. In Mere Christianity he refers to such Christians as "a certain type of bad man." In Prince Caspian, Lewis gives these anti-beer Christians another name: "Telmarines."

When the Telmarines came to Narnia, they banished all the wild things -- the talking beasts, the dwarves and centaurs, the dryads and naiads and magical creatures of every sort. Old Narnians have been driven underground, literally. The Pevensies arrive to right that wrong, with the help of Aslan himself.

And lest readers miss the point, Aslan's return and restoration is accompanied at every turn by fat old Bacchus, calling out "Refreshments! Time for refreshments!" It is Bacchus who, at Aslan's bidding, tears down the bridge that symbolizes and enables the rule of the Telmarine King Miraz. And it is old, pagan Bacchus whose wine restores to health the old nurse who had surreptitiously taught a young Caspian about the wild ways of Old Narnia.

I grew up, as Caspian did, among the Telmarines. Lewis' story was, to me, like those tales the old nurse told the young prince -- a secret, forbidden glimpse of something older, wilder and more joyous.

I read all of the Narnia books again and again, with the unwavering approval of my Telmarine teachers at school and Sunday school. By the third or fourth time I read Prince Caspian I began to realize that this approval was due to those teachers not having read this book. It was about them, and I doubt they would have approved if they had understood that.

Comments

[Jim Wetzel]

"And it is old, pagan Bacchus whose wine restores to health the old nurse who had surreptitiously taught a young Caspian about the wild ways of Old Narnia."

I must disagree with your thesis here. Prince Caspian isn't about beer. I really think it's more about wine. I'm sure there's some beer that comes into it somewhere, but I bet there's ten times as much wine. Either by mass or by volume -- your choice.

[SV]

This post makes me happy.

I thought I had read those books so many times that I thought there was nothing I hadn't seen in them, but maybe I read them too young. I remember the part about the old stories coming out after being hidden, but I always thought of it less in terms of that kind of "bad man" and more in terms of silly people who couldn't see what was in front of them.

I totally missed the part about Bacchus, and now I can't believe I missed it. It's wonderful when you find something new of a beloved old friend. Thank you!

[Carl]

There are a lot of things that fundamentalists confuse about Islam and Christianity. Another thing is that in Islam the "Word of God" refers to the Koran, the book written by God Himself. In Christianity, "Word of God" refers to Christ, the Logos begotten of the Father before all ages. Thus, confusing the Bible with the Word of God (as opposed to words inspired by God) is a serious mistake.

Not directly related to the above, but one of the weird things about Mormonism that I dislike is that they do communion with bread and water instead of with wine. Grape juice is already bad enough, but water is awful: 1. It confuses baptism and communion. 2. It loses the symbolism of wine as a man made product that alters the senses. 3. It doesn't look like blood.

[hapax]

I always thought Prince Caspian was about fried sausage. And chocolate.

The movie is... okay, if you do as my son and I did, and repeatedly whisper to yourself "It's NOT Prince Caspian, it's NOT Prince Caspian."
I mean, the battle scenes were pretty, and there were catapults YAY! and we got to watch Queen Susan the Gentle go all kickass with a bow, and I rather like the way the filmmakers treated Edmund, who was always my favorite.

All the Narnia lovers have been grousing most about the Susan-Caspian romance, which, yeah, ewwwww. But it makes sense with the way Caspian suddenly gained about eight years. What did not make sense was turning him into a moody emo-boy with Issues and Attitude. And I could have done without the constant dick-measuring battles between Caspian and Peter.

Personally, what bugged me most, though, was the climactic duel. I mean, I could have taken down either Peter or Miraz. Neither had the slightest idea how to use his shield properly.

Carl, Moravian love-feasts feature good coffee and cardamon buns, which I always rather liked -- well enough to serve them at my wedding.

[Das Lurker]

3. It doesn't look like blood.

That might be the point, but then again, everything I learned from Mormonism I learned from Big Love.

[pharoute]

Having neither read nor see the movie (yet) ixnay on the oilersspay!
Thank you.

[Ursula L]

I wonder how much of the idea of Christianity involving giving up good things comes from it actually involving giving up things, particularly from converts from polytheism.

Frequently, in polytheistic belief, you have your god(s), but if you like another religion's god(s), it is perfectly acceptable to integrate the worship of the new gods in with the worship of your old ones.

But, to be Christian, you have to explicitly reject any other god(s) one may have worshiped, however well those god(s) met your needs, or a subset of your needs. (Specialist gods, rather than one general-purpose god.)

Catholicism got around this, to some extent, by integrating the idea of multiple, specialist gods into the idea of saints for various specialist purposes.

But most Protestant beliefs are quite dependant on having a single Trinitarian concept of god that excludes any alternatives. It's the one and only proper belief, and that type of rigidity doesn't lend itself to broader acceptance of variation in other aspects of life.

[the king in shreds and tatters]

But, to be Christian, you have to explicitly reject any other god(s) one may have worshiped, however well those god(s) met your needs, or a subset of your needs. (Specialist gods, rather than one general-purpose god.)

Well, not really. The conception of those gods, the desire for those gods, you should recognize as something leading you toward the Sublime and Other Captial Letters. This, again, is something Lewis repeated in his writing: that the religions people come to Christianity from aren't bad, per se, just incomplete.

[Arynne]

Actually, the fat old guy on the donkey bellowing "REFRESHMENTS!" is Silenus. Bacchus is the pretty one. ;-)

[smgt]

Thank you thank you thank you Fred. I have a great love of the Narnia books, and that movie made me feel dead inside. Also annoyed, because I had a perfectly good set of Lord of the Rings DVDs at home, and it would have been cheaper to watch them.

But yeah, Lewis is amazing.

[SV]

Now that you've opened my eyes as to what Prince Caspian is actually about, care to take a stab at Voyage of the Dawn Treader? Because while the story of Eustace's comeuppance is always amusing, I can't get over the silly Dufflepuds who were so foolish in wanting independence from the British Empire... I mean, from the rule of the Magician.

[Nenya]

Oh dear. I actually enjoyed Prince Caspian as a movie. It has, admittedly, been forever since I read the book, and the particulars had not stuck in my memory really. I was pretty sure that a few things were different, but enjoyed it a lot as a movie...which makes me feel bad since I'm a book purist when it comes to the Lord of the Rings! (I more or less agree with hapax's favourite and least-favourite parts of the movie, though, with which I console myself. *sighs happily over kickass!Susan*)

[cosmicdancer]

I rather like the way the filmmakers treated Edmund, who was always my favorite.

Someone described this movie as "Lucy and Edmund Save Narnia By Being AWESOME."

Somehow, I can't disagree with that statement. Edmund is a complex character who has to turn to other methods of expressing himself and achieving his goals (and he knows what it's like to Fall, unlike the rest of them), unlike Peter who has a very straightforward role to play, so actors who play Edmund get so much more to work with. And the filmmakers and actors seem to really *get* him in these new versions.

I have always loved the scene where he delivers the message to Miraz and gets all snarky with him. Did not disappoint this time around.

And the part where he finally gets his own back against a certain character, that was my "yay!" moment.

Oh, if only JKR had let Draco have a moment like that. :(

[M Groesbeck]

The sort of Christianity we get from Lewis in Prince Caspian is what I wish he'd carried on with through, say, A Horse and His Boy and (to a somewhat lesser extent) The Last Battle.

[lonespark]

smgt,
The previews and posters have looked waaay too much like Lord of the Rings. I don't like Narnia, but I"m willing to respect it as its own world and story. The images I had from the book don't like anything like what I've seen of the movies.

Gosh, it's so nice for Lewis to give us credit for incompleteness...well, I guess he isn't talking about me anyway, since I left Christianity, and got more gods in the deal. Obviously I'm incorrigible.

[The Cynic Sage]

BEER IS GOOD!

[bad Jim]

Ben Franklin:

"Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy."

[alfgifu]

Now that you've opened my eyes as to what Prince Caspian is actually about, care to take a stab at Voyage of the Dawn Treader? Because while the story of Eustace's comeuppance is always amusing, I can't get over the silly Dufflepuds who were so foolish in wanting independence from the British Empire... I mean, from the rule of the Magician.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a retelling of The Voyage of St Brendan, one of the most influential early monastic texts. One of the things Lewis was doing with Narnia was recreating the early medieval thought-world, which included (for example) plenty of talking creatures, tons of mystic awe and a good dollop of what might be called (from the Christian perspective) holy paganism. The Voyage of St Brendan is the fictional tale of the eponymous saint setting off from Ireland to seek the Paradise of the Saints, a holy place apparently to be found far in the West. On the way he and his little team of thirteen rather gullible monks visit dozens of tiny islands and meet hermits, giants, demons, some odd semi-fallen-angels whose singing is incredibly beautiful, Judas Iscariot sitting on a rock, sea-monsters and Iasconius, the giant fish. No-one really knows quite what the point of the story was - although some people have tried to make it a voyage to America, that seems incredibly unlikely from the way the tale is set up. It was almost certainly deliberate fiction rather than legendary material and may well have been intended to subtly teach young novices the patterns of the church year, at least at first. Then, being a good story, it just got popular and was copied almost everywhere. The tale was certainly read by the Inklings - Tolkien wrote a poem on it.

The Dufflepuds, however, come from the Liber Monstrorum, another early Anglo-Latin text, found in the Beowulf Manuscript. As 'Monopods' they are one of a long list of peculiar races of humans found in distant lands. The physical description is very specific and Lewis followed it closely.

/boring geekiness

[Dahne]

Actually, alfgifu, I find that fascinating. I had no idea. Sounds like an interesting story. Isn't it funny how these fantastic journeys always go west?

[Tonio]

I grew up thinking that Christianity forbade alcohol, because my family came from denominations that seemed to have strong issues about alcohol and about pleasure in general (Presbyterian, Baptist, to a lesser extent Lutheran). It seemed like there was something evil about alcohol itself, or that humans couldn't be trusted not to drink to excess, or that getting intoxicated was inherently sinful. But no one ever explained the attitude.

Oddly enough, when I finally tried alcohol, I never saw what all the fuss was about. It generally tastes bitter unless it's mixed with something very sugary. I've been drunk only twice and both times I was miserable - I became achy and nauseous in an hour, long before any hangover was supposed to kick in. Plus, I don't like anything to interfere with my faculties. Twenty years ago, I would have been shocked to hear any Christian espousing Lewis' noninterference principle, because the ones I knew outside of my family seemed to believe that they knew what was best for everyone.

I know a devoted reader of fantasy who isn't a Christian, and I mentioned that the Narnia series had Christian themes, something I only know secondhand. The reader was surprised to hear this, because the person had never spotted those themes in reading the series.

[julia]

I suspect a lot of our home-grown teetotalling fundamentalists think that he meant Those Other teetotalling fundamentalists.

A glance at the trailer suggests that the film makers thought so too.

[alfgifu]

Thanks, Dahne! If you're interested, there's an online translation of the text here: http://www.lamp.ac.uk/celtic/Nsb.htm

Isn't it funny how these fantastic journeys always go west?

I suspect, in the Anglo-Saxon context, it has something to do with the wide expanse of the Atlantic spreading away into the otherworldly distance. There are tales of voyages to the east, as well, but those tend to be collections of travellers' accounts - many of them surprisingly accurate. Though exotic and strange, the east was more approachable.

I find it really hard to understand how people can miss the typological elements of Narnia. It makes sense if they've grown up without much detailed knowledge of Christianity, I suppose, but I've come across some who miss it despite a Christian background. It's easy to understand, though, why suddenly realising how Christian it is might leave a non-Christian reader feeling cheated.

[Amaryllis]

alfgifu: geekiness? Maybe. Boring? Not.

When my daughter started reading Tolkien and Lewis, her father made her a present of a set of medieval sagas and tales - Arthurian, Norse, Irish - so she could become acquainted with the tradition at the source. She even read some of them.

As for the Dufflepuds, I always interpreted them as a commentary on humanity in general, which tends to get things wrong an awful lot of the time.

[Izzy]

alfgifu: I think it was youth, in my case, and a total lack of religious training. I mean, I recognized that there was *some* kinda Christian knowledge going on there, what with the "Sons of Adam" business, but at seven or eight I just thought it was a cool old-sounding way to refer to humans. (Though now I wonder if it wasn't being non-Christian, in my case, as non-observantly-Christian and thus not having the outside perspective: "Oh, yeah. Adam and Eve. Everyone knows about *that*.")

As far as Aslan himself...well, I'd read LotR before that, I think, and the Jesus figure in that is much subtler, so by the time I read TLTWTW, I was used to the fantasy tradition where really powerful people die and come back: Aslan, Gandalf, Jean Gray...

Didn't read The Last Battle--read a book analyzing the whole series before then, found out the Christian thing, and the end of TLB, and went "Oh, Hell, no." And did spend a while feeling very betrayed: partly because this was my thirteen-year-old anti-Christianity phase, partly because I don't like being preached to, and partly because...dude, they all died . I liked these characters, and all of them died at the end , and this is supposed to be a Good Thing?

It was a bit like End of Evangelion, except with more sympathetic characters so it hurt more.

[Ursula L]

Well, not really. The conception of those gods, the desire for those gods, you should recognize as something leading you toward the Sublime and Other Captial Letters. This, again, is something Lewis repeated in his writing: that the religions people come to Christianity from aren't bad, per se, just incomplete.

That is how it is interpreted from within Christianity.

But from the outside, monotheism can appear quite narrow. One god, one correct way to worship, etc. When you take the "One True Way" mentality, and apply it to your spirituality, and make it the most important part of your life, it isn't too surprising when the idea that there is "One True Way" spreads to other issues.

Even with Lewis - defining the beliefs of others as incomplete, and valid only as pointers towards what he considered the "One True Way" of Christianity, he saw the teetotalling impulse as an improper intrusion of Islamic belief into Christianity - something outside of his "One True Way."

[Keith]

Or as good ol Ben Franklin put it:

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Ben liked his beer too. As did Sam Adams, so I hear. Washington favored Whiskey:

After retiring from the presidency in March 1797, Washington returned to Mount Vernon with a profound sense of relief. He devoted much time to farming and, in that year, constructed a 2,250 square foot (75-by-30 feet, 200 m²) distillery, which was one of the largest in the new republic, housing five copper stills, a boiler and 50 mash tubs, at the site of one of his unprofitable farms. At its peak, two years later, the distillery produced 11,000 gallons of corn and rye whiskey worth $7,500, and fruit brandy.

But also brewed beer.

Of course, the love of beer is part of British culture as after the Littler Ice Age, wine was hard to produce in England.

For most of human history, potable water hard to come by, which made beer not just a fine thing to have on a Sunday afternoon but the only reliable way to drink water free of bacteria.

The Pharaohs paid the laborers who built the pyramids in beer, which was easier and cheaper to produce on a large scale than bread and just as nutritious.

[bellatrys]

Given that Lewis was strongly anti-imperialist, I HIGHLY doubt the Dufflepuds were meant as an allegory of the British Empire.

Given that the Magician is a fallen angel on probation - more tripping I gather than sauntering - it makes much more sense, given the whole book, given the whole series, given the whole author (ie of Out of the Silent Planet) - for it to be a theological allegory, nay? Which may still be disagreed with, but for its own character, not a mistaken political one.

In that light, the Magician is a localized, subordinate deity, and the Dufflepuds in their conviction that he is a prying, micromanaging tyrant out to make their lives miserable represent archetypal Puritans (longstanding stock comic characters in England, q.v. Malvolio) rising in rebellion against what they imagine their island god to be (q.v. Pilgrim's Regress & Great Divorce) when in fact he has his own life, his own concerns, and is only trying to keep them from harming themselves with his limited and mild rules - they're the ones who have made him into an (imagined) Tyrant against whom they must rebel.

Why this job would be a good one to set a remorseful fallen Star (if not the Morning-Star, alas) is left as an excersie for the reader...

[bellatrys]

Another interesting excercise for the reader (given this is by the author of Screwtape) - there is no Devil in Narnia, no overarching Big Bad, just a succession of lesser Bosses and (mostly) lots of ordinary people doing bad things for fun and profit...

[Tonio]

It's easy to understand, though, why suddenly realising how Christian it is might leave a non-Christian reader feeling cheated.

If I was in that situation, I might feel deceived, like the author had an agenda to convert people to his religion and wasn't being upfront about it. It would be different if the author was drawing on Christian themes simply because he saw some storytelling value in them.

I had to look up "typology" to learn the specific theological meaning of the word. Does Christianity teach that foreshadowing is the only meaning or only acceptable interpretation of the OT, or is that stance limited to only some denominations and theologians?

I've never read the Narnia series and I haven't seen the movies either, only because fantasy fiction has never appealed to me. But I enjoy reading Greek and Norse myths, partly because they resemble magic realism.

[Laertes]

"Having neither read nor see the movie (yet) ixnay on the oilersspay!
Thank you."

Sorry, buddy. You've just waded into a comment thread that's about the book and the movie. It's explicitly a spoilers zone, and if you don't want spoilers, don't be here.

[Chris]

@Bellatrys: your point about how there's no Satan/permanent Dark Lord in Narnia reminded me of the San Francisco Chronicle review of "Prince Caspian" that ticked me off. I haven't seen the film yet, so I don't know how accurate the review is, but this bit really riled me:

"The stakes aren't particularly high, either. It's not a battle between absolute evil versus absolute good. Rather it's a battle between ruthless pragmatism versus ineffectual idealism."

How is this a bad thing? Oh no, can't have moral nuance in a fantasy story!

(For the record, I love "Lord of the Rings". Nearly every other "war between absolute good and absolute evil" high fantasy story I've read has felt dull and unimaginative. Tolkien had a reason for positing an absolute evil side; most later writers only do it because Tolkien did. They don't seem to think things *through*.)

The dwarfs at the end of "The Last Battle" as a more serious and tragic version of the similarly self-deluded Dufflepuds, perhaps? I haven't read "Narnia" in a decade, so I don't have enough material to compare the two.

[Laertes]

That last comment was an elaborate typographical error. What I MEANT to type was "This thread is about the book and the movie, so in asking that there be no spoilers, you're probably making unreasonable demands of your comrades. The book, in particular, has been out long enough that any reasonable no-spoilers period expired decades ago."

[Ursula L]

"The stakes aren't particularly high, either. It's not a battle between absolute evil versus absolute good. Rather it's a battle between ruthless pragmatism versus ineffectual idealism."

One wonders if they actually saw the movie. the "ineffectual" idealism won. And they won in a way that allowed those of the "ruthless pragmantist" Tellmarines who liked freedom to join them and live peacefully, rather than being driven out. Which makes it pretty effective, by any standard.

Labeling the winning idealism and freedom as "ineffectual" seems to be a fairly political statement, in light of the current US situation. Authoritarianism, even when it looses and causes disaster, is "pragmatic." Idealism and freedom, even when it wins, bringing peace and prosperity, is "ineffectual." Which goes to the earlier discussion here, in the "California" thread, about liberal victories being treated as losses.

[Tonio]

The book, in particular, has been out long enough that any reasonable no-spoilers period expired decades ago.

Most people know by now that Gollum is really Frodo's father...

[Gary]

" By the third or fourth time I read Prince Caspian I began to realize that this approval was due to those teachers not having read this book."

I think that's certainly clear once you hit The Last Battle. I find it endlessly entertaining that the fundies who believe strictly in being saved-by-magic-spell give their kids a book that has a pseudo-muslim getting to heaven.

[Ursula L]

To continue my thoughts from above:

Also, a political review in that they take the current administrations ideas that their ought to be a great battle between ultimate good and evil for granted as being what is important, the "high" conflict, while dismissing the concerns about authoritarianism versus freedom as being somehow less significant.

[MercuryBlue]

Gary: Not all of them do--but the ones that don't generally forbid it for the same reasons they forbid Harry Potter, that is, magic and humanlike animals. Nothing to do with Whatshisface Calormene, or with the Christian content of either series.

[Izzy]

On spoilers: I am compelled to start a "Rosebud is his SLED!" "Soylent Green is PEOPLE!" posting cascade now.

[McJulie]

I've come across some who miss it despite a Christian background.

Guilty! Except for The Last Battle (which is the only one of the books I didn't care for) I borrowed the Narnia series from my church library and still somehow missed all the Christian allegory.

Personally, I think that just proves Lewis wrote better books than he was actually intending to.

The Narnia books have a moralistic viewpoint, but not an exclusively Christian one -- you know, they're full of moral lessons like, "don't lie" "don't betray your friends" "don't be a jerk." In that respect, they're superior to many books I read as a child, which were full of tedious moral lessons like "listen to your teacher" and "obey your parents."

I have seen the movie and have to add to the general delight over kickass shooting-things-with-her-bow Susan. Also, Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin is awesome.

It's been long enough since I read the book that I didn't feel much urge for comparison -- probably a good thing. I thought its chief sin as a movie was taking forever to get the story moving. I don't know what's wrong with modern adventure movies such that they think long scenes with swelling music and no action are the best way to get me excited about what's going on. And I realize Aslan is a Deus Ex Machina, but I wish the movie had managed -- I dunno, a lighter touch with that or something.

[McJulie]

"The stakes aren't particularly high, either. It's not a battle between absolute evil versus absolute good. Rather it's a battle between ruthless pragmatism versus ineffectual idealism."

Urk! An invading imperialistic force is threatening the native population with complete annihilation and the stakes aren't sufficiently high?

Uh, yeah, sometimes reviewers are morons.

[zzyzx]

"I can't get over the silly Dufflepuds who were so foolish in wanting independence from the British Empire... I mean, from the rule of the Magician."

Wow, I don't know if I'll ever be able to get that out of my head. It's like the spell Lucy read. Then again considering the book has blatant comments that vegetarianism is wrong as are schools that don't physically abuse their students, that war is a wonderful activity that should be engaged in even without a real cause (paraphrasing here from memory but, "Make your ships gleam like the first battle in a war between two noble kings."), and that democracy is inferior to rule by an unelected Lord ("We've had enough of governors here."), there's enough horrible lessons in Dawn Treader that I already find it a difficult, albeit fascinating, read.

It's like Starship Troopers, where I find it fascinating to be in the head of someone who expresses ideas that I thoroughly hate.

[Abelardus]

If memory serves, Fred had hinted at the teetotaler/Telmarine connection in earlier posts. I rather like his take on the story. But I probably won't watch the film until it's out in video stores.

(If memory serves further, Fred had mentioned in an earlier post that in buying a ticket to a "Narnia" film you're filling the pockets of hard-right fundamentalist organizations. I don't want to do that.)

Altogether, I wonder how Calormen will be handled in the next several movies.

And as to St. Brendan's journey into the west -- it doesn't necessarily correlate directly, but there is the Chinese Buddhist adventure story "Journey to the West" where three spirits (led by the Monkey King) guard a monk in his journey to India to retrieve sacred texts for his monastery. I can't help but think there's more than an allegory there about achieving enlightenment.

[jmc]

I grew up thinking that Christianity forbade alcohol,

A neighbor gave my grandparents a bottle of homemade blueberry wine for Christmas. When I visited her grandmother indignantly asked me, "What kind of Christian gives alcohol as a present?" I had trouble keeping a straight face for the rest of the visit.

[Ellen Fremedon]

Alfgifu: It's easy to understand, though, why suddenly realising how Christian it is might leave a non-Christian reader feeling cheated.

*raises hand* My mother told me about the allegory-- I couldn't see it myself; I'd never read any of the Christian myths that Lewis was riffing off of. Once she did, I felt so betrayed that I never read the books again, nor anything else by Lewis. Partly, it was that I had cared about Narnia so much more than Lewis did-- it would have stung to find out that I had invested so much in something he'd meant only as a pretty slipcover for his message, even had the message turned out to be something I agreed with.

But-- I always liked the Last Battle most of all, because Susan was shut out from Narnia, or the new Narnia or whatever it really was, for being preoccupied with lipstick and nylons-- that is, with conformity. With blindly following convention and fashionable ideas.

Like, say, religion.

Finding out that the books were intended to convey a Christian message was like learning that I *was* Susan. And I'd taken so much comfort in thinking about how all the sanctimonious Christian Susans I went to school with would never make it out of my town and into the bigger, brighter world that I *knew* was waiting for *me* somewhere, because they cared more about silly made-up things like God than about *real* things like stories. Learning that Narnia was just one more thing that was open to everyone *but* me-- it still stings, twenty years later.

*relurks*

[JMiller]

If you don't read the book beforehand (I didn't), PC is a far better film than its predecessor -- though the Telmarines generally look Turkish or Moroccan with hints of Basque, because making them look like Crusading Roman Catholics would be... awkward? The casting is very distracting in the "This is the way we teach our children to hate and fear diversity" kind of way.

There are a couple of significant continuity gaps in the film that are inexcusable, ie: "Prince Caspian?" asks Peter in sudden recognition, despite having never heard the name "Caspian" anywhere ever before. The fighting scenes are often better -- though the director of photography couldn't figure out what he/she/it really wanted the style of the film to be -- but it wouldn't take much, and the tactical decisions are still dime-store poor.

But the kids are less insufferably and gawkily British. They spend less of their time doing stupid things that they clearly shouldn't be. *But* they also generally don't actually exercise any of the experience-gained judgment that they should've gained from being kings and queens for however many years in their last outing to Narnia. They're better than they were and plenty satisfactory for their Earth-age, but they're not up to snuff for their cumulative age. Maybe that's just a weakness in Lewis' writing in general; tough to say from here.

Additionally, there's infinitely more blood in the film -- one whole drop of it! (Plus scrapes, abrasions, and generally more convincing deaths and injuries.)

Overall, I'd say that it compares favorably to, oh say, Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith.

[lonespark]

Ellen, wow, that's well said. I know I would have felt that way if I'd really love Narnia. I did love it, just not in the all-consuming way I have always, will always love Middle Earth. As you say, Lewis didn't seem to take his world and characters as seriously as they deserved.

I thought the same way about Susan in TLB. It did seem to be all about conformity vs. really following your heart and soul.

I don't see that the argument holds up that there is any absolute Evil in Middle Earth, either. And Absolute good doesn't plan a foreground role either. Power corrupts, the universe is flawed or imperfect and there's certainly evil, but there's a great deal of real and satisfying ambiguity. I know Tolkien was struggling to write proper Christian magical tales, but the pagan influence leaks through in a satisfying way.

[Niner]

I have a great love of the Narnia books, and that movie made me feel dead inside. Also annoyed, because I had a perfectly good set of Lord of the Rings DVDs at home, and it would have been cheaper to watch them.

That's funny, because another review I read recently had a very similar content. I also read Prince Caspian for the first time earlier this month, and it read very similar to the Lord of the Rings books - the ents/dryads and the water spirit wiping away the enemies/bridge, and the helpful older magician/teacher. It probably wasn't helped by the fact that Tolkien and Lewis were good friends, and the books were written at roughly the same time.

It's not a battle between absolute evil versus absolute good. Rather it's a battle between ruthless pragmatism versus ineffectual idealism.

Was this different in the movie? I don't recall Miraz being particularly pragmatic, either. It's one thing to say "those things are fantasy elements, not real" in our world, but in his own world he was a flat-earther.

One could argue that it was fear-based realism versus hope-based idealism much better. This was best reflected (in the book) when Aslan offered to send the defeated enemy back to their home - and assumed (as is common today) that it was a trick, even though it wasn't. The kids, on the other hand, kept trusting that Aslan would have a plan, he'd know what to do, etc, and he did. That seems to be a pretty clear message of putting faith in Good.

[Mark Z.]

But-- I always liked the Last Battle most of all, because Susan was shut out from Narnia, or the new Narnia or whatever it really was, for being preoccupied with lipstick and nylons

Oh, dear.

And it's not even Thursday yet.

[Raymond Seurat]

“How is this a bad thing? Oh no, can't have moral nuance in a fantasy story!”

I don't think that's what the reviewer is getting at. It's fine to have moral nuance, but you have to make the audience care. A slasher movie where you desperately want the protagonist to just run, run as fast as she can and get away before it's too late - well, that works, despite being less nuanced than a knife in the back. If you can make a movie that's just as riveting, and get some more subtle stuff in there (maybe our protagonist was somehow responsible for loosing the mad axe murderer, and is torn between the urge for self preservation and a feeling that she deserves to die) that's great. But first you must make the audience care enough to pay attention.

In fact that reviewer is lamenting the lack of nuance. They compare this movie to The Golden Compass and say that both strip out so much material to get the story onto film that you're left with nothing but the battle sequences. That's an exaggeration of course, Golden Compass remains a lot closer to the original story than many other adaptations Hollywood has seen fit to distribute, such as V for Vendetta (the reveal for "He'll rue his promiscuity / The rogue who stole my only love" is perfect for the screen and puts the whole story in a different light, but the Wachowski brothers elide it in favor of their own stilted dialog and some nonsense about biological weapons or something). But it's still a damning accusation. You could call a story where some kids travel to a fantasy land and hit people with swords anything you like, Prince Caspian should be a lot more than that, and if this review is anything to go by, it isn't.

[Tom]

"one of the weird things about Mormonism that I dislike is that they do communion with bread and water instead of with wine. Grape juice is already bad enough"

I once went to a church that used WHITE grape juice for communion. Everytime they passed it around, all I could think of was the pus of Christ.