15980Re: [mythsoc] Defense of Narnia against Pullman
- Dec 8, 2005-----Original Message-----
From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
Sent: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:31:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Defense of Narnia against Pullman
<<I no longer have the original article, but I recall that the Pullman
statement I was responding to cited the New Testament as saying the highest
value was love and declared that love was totally absent from Narnia.
Thus, Pullman referring to Christian scripture in the course of his
criticism of Lewis.>>
Well, but this is only referring to scripture in the most general way. An average non-Christian who has never read the Bible could easily have that same broad impression of the contents of the New Testament. It doesn't necessitate a detailed knowledge of the text or any engagement with it.
<< All the good characters love
Aslan. Does Pullman think that a) that's sexual; b) if not sexual, bad; c)
that non-sexual love is not a justified use of the word "love"? If A or B,
he's a sick little puppy; if C, he's flying in the face of every English
translation of Jesus that I've ever heard of. That's the question I'm
trying to ask: is it A, B, or C, and if none of the above, what am I missing?>>
As you say, I don't think he's read the books carefully. It looks like he dislikes them too much to have retained any detailed knowledge of them. I also suspect that he interprets the exclusion of Susan as a lack of "love" [in this case, meaning kindness or charity rather than Eros alonet "lack of love" is still fundamentally tied to rejection of Eros] on the part
part of Lewis himself, and on that basis sees the whole work as fundamentally lacking in "love". Of course, he seems to believe that Susan is damned, which Lewis explicitly denied.
The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>