Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian"

25 Comments -

1 – 25 of 25
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As he wrote in Mere Christianity, "the idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause - is one of the great Christian ideas.""

One thing about Lewis is that he cared greatly for aesthetics and imagery but not so much for analysis or facts. This explains his pitiful and contradictory apologetics in Mere Christianity, as well as his fetishism for the image of a brave Christian knight going off to do battle with... whatever.

7/3/08, 10:35 PM

Anonymous testing99 said...

Anonymous, you're not a medievalist.

Therefore, the background, that Medieval Europe was beset by enemies all around, is lacking. From the South, and the East, were the Arabs, and then the Turks and the Mongols. From the North, the Norsemen, pagans all. Europe was beset by enemies, basically the punching bag at will (with Spain occupied and most of Southern France, Southern Italy, and ALL of Sicily). True story -- SICILY was fought over by pagan Norsemen and Muslims and Italians. Yes this is true.

As far as WHY the Golden Compass failed, it's because of Bob Shaye's arrogance in deciding HE could out-Peter Jackson Peter Jackson. "Furious D" at dknowsall.blogspot.com has covered this well, (I'm not him) and you should read what he posted.

Basically, Shaye first tried a lame-ass new age fantasy (the Last Mimzy) then tried Pullman's atheist reply to Narnia. Which tanked big time -- a girl protagonist, who doesn't do anything, with no real Christian themes (in fact, pagan ones) and "God" as the enemy. Most of the time, nothing really happens in the movie. So no wonder it failed for young men looking for adventure (who are the ticket buyers for these movies).

Hollywood doesn't even know it's own business. They're total idiots. Monkeys could run the place better.

7/3/08, 11:52 PM

Anonymous Topiary Utopia said...

Given his penchant for pagan motifs, I wonder why Lewis didn't become a catholic like Tolkien (who played an important part in Lewis' conversion). After all, Catholicism is more "pagan" than either Anglicanism and Protestantism.

Maybe, unlike Tolkien, he was afraid of being Catholic at that time and place.

7/3/08, 11:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lewis wasnt just any old Protestant, he was from Northern Ireland. For him a switch to Rome might have been a step too far.

7/4/08, 2:01 AM

Blogger Steve Sailer said...

That Lewis didn't go all the way to Roman Catholicism has a beneficial aspect on contemporary American evangelism, which tends to be aesthetically anorexic, giving them a guide to the grand traditions of Western civilization.

It's reminiscent of how "The Passion of the Christ" introduced many Evangelicals to the much richer palette of Baroque Catholic imagery.

7/4/08, 3:20 AM

Blogger R J said...

My impression is that despite Lewis's own religious allegiance, something like 95% of those who read his theological works today are themselves Catholic. Is this others' impression also?

7/4/08, 6:24 AM

Blogger Tom Piatak said...

Tolkien, who was instrumental in bringing Lewis back to Christianity from atheism, always felt that it was Lewis' Ulster Protestant background that prevented Lewis from leaving Anglicanism for Catholicism. If Lewis had lived long enough to see women priests and women bishops in the Anglican Communion, my guess is that not even Ulster would have prevented him from swimming the Tiber.

7/4/08, 7:16 AM

Anonymous ben tillman said...

You misspelled Aslan in the last paragraph; "Azlan" is a little too close to "Aztlan" for my liking. However, I like what you have to say generally, and I may actually check this one out in the cinema. Thanks for the interesting review.

7/4/08, 7:30 AM

Anonymous David Davenport said...

... the much richer palette of Baroque Catholic imagery.

A.k.a. idolatry and Mariolatry.

7/4/08, 2:14 PM

Anonymous testing99 said...

CS Lewis was an Anglican. That's pretty "Catholic" ... just without the Pope. The split was over authority, not the form of the liturgy and theology. Henry VIII and all that.

So, his "pagan" traditions, which formed the basis of most European nations, is not surprising.

Steve -- Evangelicals in the US are mostly Baptists, and inherit a direct rejection of the sort of baroque, syncretic approach to Christianity that characterized the Catholic and Anglican Churches. Given social isolation in the Wilderness, like one scene Twain paints in Huckleberry Finn, this is not surprising. American Evangelicals saw the American Wilderness as the "New Jerusalem" for obvious reasons, and this explains much of their philo-Semitism. Since they also would explicitly view themselves as "Jews" in services and sermons.

7/4/08, 2:21 PM

Anonymous David Davenport said...

Steve, when I go to isteve.com, I see on the right side an ad for:

www.InterracialRomance.com

Ads by Goooooogle ( Yes, six o's. )

Google sure does know where to place advertising!

7/4/08, 2:30 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

My impression is that despite Lewis's own religious allegiance, something like 95% of those who read his theological works today are themselves Catholic. Is this others' impression also?

No. Lewis is something like the hidden imam of American evangelicalism and American Mormons quote him so much that he's jokingly referred to as the 13th apostle. 95% of those who read his theological works are Americans.

-Adam Greenwood

7/4/08, 3:55 PM

Anonymous Lucius Vorenus said...

David Davenport: A.k.a. idolatry and Mariolatry.

Beat me to the punch.

testing99: American Evangelicals saw the American Wilderness as the "New Jerusalem" for obvious reasons, and this explains much of their philo-Semitism.

You're not "Spengler", are you?

Maybe "Richard Greene"?

7/4/08, 4:23 PM

Anonymous Saint Middens said...

David Davenport wrote:
A.k.a. idolatry and Mariolatry.

Speaking as a pagan (Buddhist), why do you Christians/Jews/Muslims have a beef with idolatry in the first place? This God you worship must be conceived of differently by each of his worshipers, so how do we distinguish worship of the real God from idol-worship? Maybe the priggish anti-idolators are themselves guilty and should be stoned in accordance with biblical law, or exterminated Dalek-style.

Christianity simply is not consistent with conservative principles. How can you reconcile free will with behavioral genetics? Do you think that the relative poverty in Africa is due to free will? Even if you don't, how do you reconcile the idea of a "loving" God with population differences? The modern-day Christian answer to the dilemma is to engage in Marxist blaming. Contrary to what some say, this is not a modern day heresy. Abandoning conservatism is, in fact, the only way Christians can adapt to modern circumstances.

Creationism, original sin, and free will are lies. The wages of belief in them is death. Even if i am being a bit melodramatic here, I've never seen anything good result from them.

7/4/08, 6:10 PM

Anonymous David Davenport said...

Steve, it's an old observation or mnaybe canard that visual modernism `a la Bauhaus is largely Protestant.

Also read H. L. Mencken's piece from about eighty years ago, "The Sahara of the Beaux Arts" in what Mencken derided as Anglo-Saxon America.

so how do we distinguish worship of the real God from idol-worship?

If God exists, He is not something man-made, that's how we know.

How can you reconcile free will with behavioral genetics?

Calvinist Christians never have believed in free will.

Do you think that the relative poverty in Africa is due to free will?

Predestination.

Even if you don't, how do you reconcile the idea of a "loving" God with population differences?

Calvinist Christians tend to have a rather Old Testament concept of Him, not so lovey-dovey.

Peepul, as the old preacher said, are sinners in the hands of an angry God, loathsome spiders dangling over the bottomless fire.

Fondness for the Old Testament is one reason why Calvinists and Congregationalists liken themselves to the original Children of the Covenant.


Creationism, original sin, and free will are lies. The wages of belief in them is death.

I don't think the Buddha would say that.

7/4/08, 7:01 PM

Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

An excellent review.

St. Middens, each of your questions would require at least a paragraph to answer, and many have been treated at book length. From this I conclude that you don't really want an answer to any of them, you just want to tell people how stupid they are.

testing99, I don't know where you get your information about American evangelicals, but it is not an accurate analysis. It contains interesting fragments, but your conclusions are far afield.

Tolkien and Lewis were among the few of the literary class who considered fantasy important, and thus greatly encouraged each other. Tolkien claimed that LOTR would never have been finished and published with Lewis's pressure and encouragement. Because of this alliance, each quite naturally assumed that they were trying to accomplish the same goals and write the same sort of novel. Tolkien, as Steve notes, thought Lewis's rapidly written works slapdash and lacking depth. Lewis believed Tolkien wasted a brilliant critical career and nearly wasted a literary one by tinkering so endlessly that things never got published.

Yet a retrospective look at their works reveals that they were not attempting the same thing, a fact obscured by their choice of fantasy as a genre and their individual closeness.

7/4/08, 8:42 PM

Anonymous Svigor said...

A.k.a. idolatry and Mariolatry.

One of Catholicism's good points, if you ask me. From a WN POV - strip all that away and all you're left with is Hebrews.

7/5/08, 5:45 AM

Blogger BGC said...

"Adamson gives the Telmarines Spanish accents"

I think it works well; and it is refreshing to see a Hollywood movie where the baddies are *not* upper class English or led by an evil English aristocrat.

Using manic comedian Eddy Izzard for the voice of chivalrous mouse Reepicheep was inspired casting.

7/5/08, 6:50 AM

Blogger Seamus said...

Given his penchant for pagan motifs, I wonder why Lewis didn't become a catholic like Tolkien (who played an important part in Lewis' conversion).

Lewis's student Christoper Derrick wrote a whole book on this subject, "C.S. Lewis and the Church of Rome." IIRC, its conclusion is the same as the one by Tolkien cited above by tom piatak, to the effect that his Ulster background just wouldn't let him take that step. Frankly, I find that rather unsatisfying as an answer, but it's as good a one as we've got.

7/5/08, 12:58 PM

Anonymous Saint Middens said...

david davenport wrote:

If God exists, He is not something man-made, that's how we know.

I don't understand this answer at all.

Peepul, as the old preacher said, are sinners in the hands of an angry God, loathsome spiders dangling over the bottomless fire.

Could it be that you in fact worship Cthuhlu but give him a different name? Another possibility is that Cthulhu is the real God and Yahweh is an idol. Here's a description of the Cthulhu religion:

[At the proper time], the secret priests would take great Cthulhu from His tomb to revive His subjects and resume His rule of earth....Then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom.

Calvinist Christians tend to have a rather Old Testament concept of Him, not so lovey-dovey.

How does this square with the "for god so loved the world ...", bit of the bible?

I recall getting a "black D" in Sunday school which was the lowest grade.

7/5/08, 3:03 PM

Anonymous SFG said...

Cthulhu is a reference to HP Lovecraft, who was so depressed by the absence of God in the universe he decided it was run by malevolent, uncaring tentacled monsters instead (in his horror fiction). Anyone finding out the truth about the universe would go nuts.

Frankly, I kind of agree with him. Except for the tentacled monsters bit, of course.

7/5/08, 4:40 PM

Blogger Joe said...

Knights, including chivalry, came from Persia (they weren't christian).

7/6/08, 1:44 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Knights came from Persia..."

That's the kind of statement that a make a medievalist French major feel the degree was worth it.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Mithraic cult, or other gnostic groups. People often do.
Nowadays the catch words are "illuminati" or Masonic, but when I was studying this stuff it was just "gnostic"--secret knowledge, usually.
The Holy Grail, Merlin, King Persian. However, Knighthood took the form that we know it in Europe, among Europeans. The stories and standards had ancient roots and traditions in Europe. Most of what came from the "east" was embellishment, but to some extent, the idea of going in quest of a perfect ideal was the ancient Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, religion of light and dark, good and evil.

7/6/08, 4:09 PM

Anonymous Blode said...

I do hope Joe will define "knights" for us, as he's using the term. I assume he's not talking about a gent with a big old cross sewn onto the cloth he wears over his armor....

7/7/08, 8:01 PM

Blogger Joe said...

I used the wikipedia entry. I don't know if they ever went on quests (but I wonder how often the European knights did), but they did have chivalry. That's enough for me.

7/9/08, 5:54 PM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL