Re: Digest Number 81
> Regardless of which characters you were thinking of, there are still allNo one has mentioned Bachus yet! If there is to be any discussion of sexuality
> the many female characters, some more anthropomorphic than others, who
> participate in the Romp in Prince Caspian, which I think is the most sexual
> happening in all the books. I also still don't see what's so particularly
> sexual about the characters that you've mentioned,
in Narnia, certainly his presence in the "romp" must be remembered. So too his
"wild girls." Susan says she wouldn't feel safe with Bacchus and all his wild
girls if Aslan were not with them (end of chapter 11). Is this revealing of
her thoughts on sexuality; and what role does Aslan play, all of a sudden?
Hmmm, the plot thickens.
Personally, I agree with the view that Lewis did not include such
interpretations when he wrote the stories. It is just the nature of our
society to look through such a glass when we read. Does that mean that
sexuality is therefore not present? Not necessarily. But I suppose that all
depends on what sort of "critical eye-wear" we have on when we interpret. A
deconstructionist could have a field day with Lewis and Tolkien, and completely
tell a different tale about the authors than what we enlightened fans know of
their characters. But this remains a critical debate. When the dust cloud
settles, we still have good stories. If sexuality contributes to them being
the way they are, then good. If not, well then the debate has been diverting.
I think that in the case of Lewis and Tolkien, the sexuality of the characters
in their stories is an issue that can be debated in good humour. Although I
can just imagine Tolkien listening in on this debate, and calling every last
one of us a bunch of bandersnatches.