488Re: Digest Number 83
- Jul 26 10:13 AMDonander Evre [ninzian@...] wrote:
> I stand by my previous statements: I think the Narnia books areWell, we've had both positions put forward -- but all lacking any
> brilliant. I find the portrayal of active women with sexual signifiers
> (if you will) personally ... not offensive, but disappointing.
corroborative evidence. However, the 'Narnia is not sexual' position would
have a hard time putting forth evidence to prove the negative hypothesis, so I
think it's time to put forward the evidence from Narnia that proves that the
characters have sexual signifiers. Otherwsie we have a lot of assertions
without any actual texts to support those assertions. And it is, of course,
the duty of the other side to consider those texts and show how they don't
work in the way asserted.
That is, of course, if folks are willing. We *could* go back to whining about
the new LOTR movie, instead <g>.
(wondering if Jim Carey as Gollum would actually be an improvement at this
Matthew Winslow mwinslow@... http://x-real.firinn.org/
"I want to overhear passionate arguments about what we are and what we are
doing and what we ought to do. I want to feel that art is an utterance made
in good faith by one human being to another. I want to believe there are
geniuses scheming to astonish the rest of us, just for the pleasure of it.
I miss civilization, and I want it back."
Currently reading: The King of Elfland's Daughter by Lord Dunsany
- << Previous post in topic