1. Bainespal says:

    Even a thing as simple as a tent for shelter may incidentally reflect God’s tabernacle. After all, God as Creator has arranged for a real world in which clothing, tents, dwellings and so on, may transcendently echo truths about shelter or His tabernacling. But conceding this and being open to such incidental reflections is far different from saying, as this writer says, “this equals that,” with such certainty.

    As a wannabe reviewer, being able to identify incidental reflections that may highlight interesting aspects of the work — while not wrongfully asserting “this equals that” — is the objective that I’m striving to learn. I know that in the past I’ve wrongfully been too assertive of meanings that may have only been “incidental reflections.”
     
    I think it’s good to keep in mind that incidental reflections are not necessarily irrelevant, but it’s so easy to take them too far!

  2. Kirsty says:

    It may be accidental reverse “chronological snobbery” (to borrow Lewis’s term) to suggest that “1940s children” were always better-behaved or less sinful than modern children.

    I agree – and it does not help children if we imply that ‘old-fashioned’ is somehow ‘better’ or ‘more Christian’ – that’s really going to encourage them to become Christians, isn’t it?   (Not to say that there weren’t some things that really were more moral in the past. But there were also things that were more immoral)
     
    Interestingly, though, C.S. Lewis does this himself when he says in The Magician’s Nephew that boys had ‘do not steal’ hammered into their heads more at that time than modern (i.e. 1950s) children.

    • Interestingly, though, C.S. Lewis does this himself when he says in The Magician’s Nephew that boys had ‘do not steal’ hammered into their heads more at that time than modern (i.e. 1950s) children.

      I’d agree that morality was taught more in the past than they were today, and that this is almost always true. What hasn’t changed, though, is human nature. This writer seems to think that children in the past quite naturally behaved more recently, and with next-to-no “bickering,” than children today.

      Narnia fans have criticized some about the children’s in-film interactions, though. Peter’s regression in Prince Caspian brings the most criticism. However, I think the main objection there is not that he’s being impolite, or brash, or any of that, but that the “Narnian air,” the sense of responsibility and joy that Peter should have had even on this side of the Wardrobe, was completely gone.

      • Kirsty says:

        Good point (about being taught and human nature).
         
        And it’s not as if C.S. Lewis’s children are bicker-free anyway. E.g. in Prince Caspian: “It’s extraordinary that girls don’t seem to be able to carry a map in their heads,” “That’s because our heads have something in them.”  or in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: “That’s the worst of boys – they’re all such swaggering, bulling idiots.”

  3. Fred Warren says:

    They truly take joy in Narnia, but somehow believe only “allegories” justify that love.

    It’s an attitude akin to “political correctness,” in which we feel the need to sanctify everything we enjoy according to some arbitrary standard determined by those whose opinions we care about. “Yes, I eat meat, but it’s raised humanely on family farms, so I’m still a good person.” “Yes, I read (or write) fantasy stories, but they have a clear salvation message, so I’m still a real Christian.” Unlike those other people.

    I see this happening a lot with popular culture, when something emerges that many people are enjoying. Everybody has a lot of fun for a couple of weeks, then the two sets of books inevitably come out: one filled with hand-wringing about how this thing is evil and must be shunned by Christians, the other revealing how this thing is the best illustration of the Gospel since the Gospel, so it’s okay for Christians to like it.

    But conceding this and being open to such incidental reflections is far different from saying, as this writer says, “this equals that,” with such certainty.

    Agreed, and it’s important to remember that the reader can bring as much or more to the story as the author. Where the author sees a random sprinkling of stars, we may connect those tiny dots into pictures and infer the Creator’s design encompassing it all. It enriches the story for us, intentionally or not, and that’s a good thing.

    Believing we can get into the author’s head and know what he meant to do, without direct evidence, is presumptuous at best, and misleading at worst, especially when we’re trying to justify our affection (or distaste) for this or that author or story in our own eyes or the eyes of our peers.

    • It’s an attitude akin to “political correctness,”

      Ah, I had not even thought of that, Fred. Perhaps we/I should explore that further.

      “Yes, I read (or write) fantasy stories, but they have a clear salvation message, so I’m still a real Christian.” Unlike those other people.

      I’m unsure why this surprises me, yet I’m forced to conclude it’s true: this is an attitude of self-righteousness. Already I’d been forced to say such an approach is “not humble” or is even “arrogant.” Self-righteousness sneaks into us — or really, out of our sinful hearts! — in very creative ways!

What do you think?