Re: Mimesis of Hate -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:40:04 04/29/08 Tue
Author: Katelyn R.
Subject: Re: Mimesis of Hate
In reply to: Shannon 's message, "Mimesis of Hate" on 10:56:16 04/27/08 Sun

I am not really familiar with Pullman so I can�t say how much he takes from Lewis. I find it interesting that he considers himself anti-Lewis (at least when it comes to the Narnia books), and he takes so much from them. In fact, he makes a conscious effort in some way to mimic Lewis and then change certain aspects as if correcting him. So, Lewis is his model but instead of looking at Lewis for what he should be doing he looks at him for what he should not do. I do not think Pullman is probably as different from Lewis as he would like to think. Pullman mimics the magic, etc. but leaves out the more religious symbols. Pullman is an atheist, and Lewis a devout Christian. This alone would be one of the main issues between the two; Pullman does not like all of Lewis� religious symbolism. It doesn�t sound like Pullman really is �anti-Lewis� (especially if his novels have the same magic/mystery/adventure qualities of Lewis); he is more �anti-Christian�. Has anyone actually read any of Pullman�s work and can compare it to Lewis?

Here is part of an interview with Pullman where he talks specifically about Lewis and his Narnia books (http://www.surefish.co.uk/culture/features/pullman_interview.htm)

You've been very vocal in your criticism of C.S. Lewis and his Narnia books.

There's a distinction between the things Lewis says as a critic, which are very acute and full of sense and full of intelligent and sometimes subtle judgements � much of which I agree with � and the things he said when was possessed by the imp of telling a story, especially in his children's fiction.
Narnia has always seemed to me to be marked by a hatred of the physical world. When I bring this up, people say, oh no, what nonsense! He loved his beer, loved laughter and smoking a pipe, and the companionship of his friends and so on.
And so he might have done. But that didn't prevent perhaps his unconscious mind from saying something quite different in the form of a story. I'm by no means alone in attacking Lewis on these grounds.

You're not alone in attacking Lewis but you are really vehement in your criticism. You've called his books 'detestable'. Why do you feel so strongly about them?

Because the things he's being cruel to are things I value very highly. The crux of it all comes, as many people have found, with the point near the end of the Last Battle (in the Narnia books) when Susan is excluded from the stable.
The stable obviously represents salvation. They're going to heaven, they're going to be saved. But Susan isn't allowed into the stable, and the reason given is that she's growing up. She's become far too interested in lipstick, nylons and invitations. One character says rather primly: 'She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown up.'
This seems to me on the part of Lewis to reveal very weird unconscious feelings about sexuality. Here's a child whose body is changing and who's naturally responding as everyone has ever done since the history of the world to the changes that are taking place in one's body and one's feelings. She's doing what everyone has to do in order to grow up.
Maybe one day she'll grow past the invitations and the lipstick and the nylons. But my point is that it's an inevitable, important, valuable and cherishable stage that we go through. This what I'm getting at in my story. To welcome and celebrate this passage, rather than to turn from it in fear and loathing.
That's what I find particularly objectionable in Lewis � and also the fact that he kills the children at the end. Now here are these children who have gone through great adventures and learned wonderful things and would therefore be in a position to do great things to help other people.
But they're taken away. He doesn't let them. For the sake of taking them off to a perpetual school holiday or something, he kills them all in a train crash. I think that's ghastly. It's a horrible message.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]