ŷ������

Tolkien hated these books. He didn't like allegory and he considered Narnia pretty ham-fisted.

And he didn't like people reading anything into his books about cosmic warfare or anything else.

"As for any inner meaning or ‘message,�� it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical��. I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." �� J.R.R. Tolkien (Foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings)

Tolkien also fell out with Lewis about Lewis's attempts to shove his apologetics down his throat.

Heh, oh dear, Lewis really became a complete stick in the mud when he converted, didn't he? Unless he was always one.

His book "Surprised by Joy" was written with his academic friends in mind. None of them bought into it. He was known as a bully. In later years, he and Tolkien were estranged.

There are different interpretations, but I think he lost his faith after his wife died.

/review/show...

I have a simpler take on it all, good friend: pride goes before a fall. Happens to us all when we're not paying attention! Suddenly we're so very fragile, like Humpty Dumpty. It smarts then to be attacked. So with Lewis, licking his wounds here!

What's interesting, Fergus, is that Lewis is not as popular in the UK as he has been here. I think it was Malcolm Muggeridge who accused him of "donnish tricks." And a UK exchange student, Christian, at Berkeley, told me "he's just another author." They're not impressed with his rhetoric.

I think Millennials grew up on Narnia, but they're not reading any of his other stuff. They're leaving, which has older believers in a panic.

Good comment, Michael! The New Believers accept a lot of things verbatim, but the tolls of aging will.teach them quite otherwise. The Gospel isn't pretty at ground level!

My all time favourite. Lewis is a genius.

Yes he is! And I apologise, Erin, for my criticisms of this great work. As Auden so justly said in another context, "what he was, he was. What he is fated to become depends on us!"

Fergus wrote: "Yes he is! And I apologise, Erin, for my criticisms of this great work. As Auden so justly said in another context, "what he was, he was. What he is fated to become depends on us!""

He remains controversial to this day, Fergus, so I doubt very much you are alone in your criticisms. And yes, excellent quote. We need to recognize his greatness while accepting his flaws :)

Michael wrote: "What's interesting, Fergus, is that Lewis is not as popular in the UK as he has been here. I think it was Malcolm Muggeridge who accused him of "donnish tricks." And a UK exchange student, Christia..."

This is very true. All my English friends find him dull, outdated and often are bemused at how popular Lewis is across the pond.

You're also right on Narnia: I grew up on it- although I'm on the older side of Millennial, for sure- and loved it as a child. Everything else of his, though, has left me utterly cold and occasionally made me roll my eyes, hard.

There are actually two churches in America that have stained-glassed window images of Lewis. Rather absurd and I think Lewis would have felt mortified if he knew of it. But it rather shows how far we've gone with this silliness. I often wonder who else do they got? Chesterton? Well, Lewis already borrowed heavily from Chesterton. Most of the geniuses, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, et al, are on the other side.

You two guys are great. The right to dissent is more sacred than our churches now, and what a lively bandy of words your dissent creates! And that stained glass is truly the icing on the cake. Thanks for the cheer. As well, Erin, that Auden quote gives me a segue into once again plugging his In Praise of Limestone, a symbolic paean to our cracked and flawed human existence - a personal fave!

Auden's review of The Lord of the Rings....

I guess after all these years, I'm a Tolkien fan, not a Lewis fan. As you know, Fergus, Tolkien was a devout Catholic but he wasn't trying to shove it down anyone's throat.

Michael wrote: "There are actually two churches in America that have stained-glassed window images of Lewis. Rather absurd and I think Lewis would have felt mortified if he knew of it. But it rather shows how far ..."

Yeah, stained glassed windows of Lewis would have horrified him. It is in poor taste and truly disturbing.

Chesterton has fallen by the wayside. I hear Christian apologists mention him very rarely and those who do are the "intellectual" type. I suspect Chesterton is just not that immediately recognizable to the average Evangelical white guy who seems to be the actual target audience of apologetics.

Who I do see mentioned, and a bit surprisingly, is Dostoevsky. William Lane Craig, who may be "the" smart apologist, is immensely fond of dropping Dostoevsky's name as does the not-quite-Christian but mostly so, Petersen.

It's an odd choice as Dostoevsky is not exactly someone whose brand of Christianity has much to do with white Evangelicalism, at all.

But Craigy boy does a wonderful bait-and-switch by presenting the line Ivan from The Brother's Karamazov, "without God all is permitted", as kind of 'gotcha' that proved that if we didn't all buy into Jebus, we'd be off killing people left and right.

If they want to stick to Christian authors of fiction, why not Graham Greene? I am not entirely sure but perhaps he is too Catholic for their tastes?

I mean, why Dostoevsky? Why not Tolstoy's later work that, if anything, slants even more religious?

Wonderful review by Auden, Michael. Really nails it! Sent it to my family and my oldest (chronologically, too!) surviving friend.

Nocturnalux and Michael: love your comments, NL. Using Dostoevsky and Greene as examples of apologists reminds us that the roots of our religion are in our irrefragable angst!

Craig is cherry-picking Dostoevsky. Brothers K is a polyphonic novel. Dostoevsky gives voices to characters with many different outlooks, that I think in part reflect some aspect of Dostoevsky himself.

Ivan raises a theodicy issue, one I would quote if I were on the same stage as Craig, in response to his pious bother. Alyosha.

"But then, what about the children, what shall I do about them? That’s the question I cannot answer. For the hundredth time I repeat �� the questions are endless, but I am only considering the children because in their case what I have to say is incontrovertibly clear. Listen: if everyone has to suffer in order to bring about eternal harmony through that suffering, tell me, please, what have children to do with this? It’s quite incomprehensible that they should have to suffer, that they too should have to pay for someone else’s mill, the means of ensuring someone’s future harmony? I understand the universality of sin, I understand the universality of retribution, but children have no part in this universal sin, and if it’s true that they are stained with the sins of their fathers, then, of course, that’s a truth not of this world, and I don’t understand it. Some cynic may say that the children will grow up and will in time sin themselves, but he didn’t grow up, that eight-year-old torn apart by the dogs...what good can hell do when the children have already been tortured to death? And how can harmony exist if hell exists too? I want forgiveness, I want to embrace everyone, I want an end to suffering. And if the suffering of children is required to make up the total suffering necessary to attain the truth, then I say here and now that no truth is worth such a price."

In another passage....

“By the way, a Bulgarian I met lately in Moscow," Ivan went on, seeming not to hear his brother's words, "told me about the crimes committed by Turks and Circassians in all parts of Bulgaria through fear of a general rising of the Slavs. They burn villages, murder, outrage women and children, they nail their prisoners by the ears to the fences, leave them so till morning, and in the morning they hang them- all sorts of things you can't imagine. People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it.

These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, -too; cutting the unborn child from the mothers womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes. Doing it before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby's face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby's face and blows out its brains.��

Michael wrote: "Craig is cherry-picking Dostoevsky. Brothers K is a polyphonic novel. Dostoevsky give voices to characters with many different outlooks, that I think in part reflect some aspect of Dostoevsky himself."

Yes, absolutely. It amounts to saying, "Shakespeare says", followed by quoting any of his characters.

In Brothers, in particular, the text is indeed built upon a multiplicity of points of view- that is one of the reasons why it is so interesting and has survived and test of time. One can find something new with each reading and thus it never devolves into stultifying propaganda. It is worth mentioning that the Church is criticized, heavily, and the plight of the poor is one of the main thematic strands, all things Craig and his ilk never mention.

Regarding the suffering of children, I am very glad you brought it up because this is yet another point in which Craig's inhumanity shines. I cannot seem to locate the exact quotation- it's probably in one of his many debates and not in written form- but Craig claims that the death of a starving child can be a good thing: it can make us feel compassion and thus make us donate so as to feed children...

It is a gross argument and, in all honesty, disqualifies anyone from having a say on moral issues of any kind.

But what to expect from the man who claimed we should feel sorry for the Israeli soldiers in the bible when they are commanded to kill men, women and children because this must be so traumatizing for the poor soldiers...!

Horrific. And that’s why faith must be founded in an apoplectic angst-ridden rage! Otherwise it is ersatz faith. Dostoevsky Is perfection. We must never forget the bestiality which is our origin.

Wow, Craig can rationalize anything. He's morally twisted.

I've found that these kinds of apologists are highly dishonest and, as you've explained, will go to great lengths to justify evil.

The Yahweh of the Old Testament is a cruel and fickle god. The blame is on Yahweh and his agents of slaughter.

It is exactly these kinds of Evangelical rationalizations that are driving away people with any conscience, including many young people, from these hypocrites.

Thus, I guess we should not be surprised that people like so easily support Trump without a flicker of conscience.

I went through an Evangelical phase, including getting an MA in Biblical Studies, and I encountered a lot of hucksters along the way.

At seminary, we had an apologetics class taught by a professor of philosophy at USC, who was moonlighting as a Christian apologist. He was a very slick guy who never presented anything intellectually convincing about Christianity. He was a huckster.

I did some background on Lane. He has a philosophy degree. One of his tactics, partially documented here, is to summarize the arguments of his debate opponents in a distorted way, so as to make them into straw arguments. He's intellectually dishonest and a huckster. Evangelicalism has a long history of these types, whether they're after your money or your mind, or both.

Michael, I abhor WL Craig and every "intellectual" thing he spouts. I've watched him on YouTube in various debates and you are quite right. "He's intellectually dishonest and a huckster." His claims about the deaths of starving children (which I have either read or seen or both) can make us feel compassion are simply inhumane and make a total mockery of his 'christianity'.
The problem is he is very clever and he loves the limelight afforded him by so-called Christian debates. I haven't read BK, but his reference from the book is absolutely classic WLC!
He is really loathsome because his objectives are to belittle his opponent using inappropriate quotes, misquotes and, needless to say, outright lies.
Give me a Ken Ham any day!

Terence, I'm glad you've joined this discussion because WLC's claims on starving children are so utterly depraved that I can understand someone thinking I'd made them up. It's difficult to actually come to terms with the idea that anyone can think that a child's suffering and untimely death should "profit" anyone.
I am sure I've heard this claim many times before but it's always good to have someone confirm it. I cannot find it in his writings and the debates are so long that it'd be difficult to clip them properly but he most definitely said it.

There is no low WLC will not go to. He also seems to think that animals have no emotions and do not feel pain which is disturbing but not surprising.

What does surprise me is that so many people take the man seriously.

EDIT:
It took some digging, but I found the can of worms:


Here's just a sample, I'll spoiler-tag it because it is gross:
(view spoiler)["So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing." (hide spoiler)]

Nocturnalux wrote: "Terence, ... I am sure I've heard this claim many times before but it's always good to have someone confirm it. I cannot find it in his writings and the debates are so long that it'd be difficult to clip them properly but he most definitely said it.

There is no low WLC will not go to. He also seems to think that animals have no emotions and do not feel pain which is disturbing but not surprising. ..."

Thank you, Nocturnalux, for your comment.

If I have actually read WLC's comment about children, it was almost certainly first-hand or second-hand, or in a comment, etc, on one of the 'atheist' websites, to which I was pretty addicted after I first determined that I was truly an atheist and not just wondering. I haven't recently visited any of my faves from back then because I am no longer in need of the confirmation of my lack of belief. Thus I'd be hard pressed to find an actual quote, but like you, I am dead certain it is true.

However, I do indulge my un-christian(!) loathing of WLC and a couple of others of his ilk by occasionally spending a few hours in the 'YouTube tunnel'. Next time I'm in the tunnel, I'll keep my eyes open for anything that might confirm our suspicions and if I find something, I will certainly forward you a note!
All the best
Terence M

OK, folks - PAX. Try this one on:
"...you don't once pass through religious innocence into the truths of philosophy... any more than you pass through the wonders of childhood into the wisdom of age. Innocence, for the believer, remains the only condition in which intellectual truths can occur, and wonder is the precondition for all wisdom."
Christian Wiman, My Bright Abyss.
Great book, by the way!

Yes, nothing like rationalizing genocide to defend your position.

check out this short presentation by Sam Harris...

Sorry, Michael, but if you are into bear-baiting I'm not game. Kindly desist.

The only thing I'm going to say, and I'm not talking about you, Fergus, is the kind of rank dishonesty we were criticizing above profoundly harms Christian witness. That's the real point.

Read some substantive pieces by Black Evangelicals this week about how they're breaking from White Evangelicals over this very thing.

This does not help....

Then let’s stop it ourselves, by refusing to point the finger at ANYONE. It doesn’t help at all.

S-i-i-g-g-h-h ....

Fergus wrote: "Then let’s stop it ourselves, by refusing to point the finger at ANYONE. It doesn’t help at all."

I beg to differ. Pointing out those who defend inhuman views- and who then seek to impose them on to everyone else- is, if anything, a moral duty.

Craig and his ilk are dangerous. They are dangerous to atheists and, very likely, they are dangerous to you as well.

Be silent and complicit with their horrific views at your own peril.

I, for one, will keep calling out horrific ideas whenever I find them. It is precious little, I cast the slightest of shadows be it online or in real life, but it is something.

Let us not forget: Craig thinks EVERYONE deserves to burn in hell forever. Forever and ever and ever. That's how little he thinks of us who are having this discussion and by extension the entire human population that ever was or will be.

I'm sorry, I can't respect that kind of thinking and will always condemn it.

Thanks, folks! I loved Tolkien's fantasy as I loved Lewis' apologetics, and I'm very glad Tolkien didn't try to change horses in midstream, like Lewis did. 'Nuff said!

Lewis has always been popular with Boomer Episcopalians, but many of us consider ourselves to be spiritual Anglophiles.

I had the pleasure about six months or so ago of reading this book out loud to two separate 90 plus year old ladies who were both hearing it for the very first time. It was a delight!

Thanks to you both for commenting so aptly! Yes, Ann-Marie, I too will always be a spiritual Anglophile. And Bev, what a joy that beautiful experience must have been for you!

what a beautiful review, fergus! i’m going to be on the apolitical side here because i don’t know anything about lewis. in fact, these comments are teaching me new information! i was barely able to watch the movie when i was young, so reading it wasn’t much of an option. my parents thought of it too much of being a “devils work.�� i read this book for the first time in 2018. it’s definitely a classic dreaming series, one i wish i could have escaped to when i was younger. perhaps the magical elements would have prepared me for escapism better. despite the controversy i see lewis has, i’m happy this series is one many consider a favorite since they were young.

What a nice reply, Elena! When Lewis decided to write Narnia, he found in it a relief from the weary world's reductionism. You know, "all or nothing - my way or the highway!" He chose the middle ground of the dreaming life he lived as a child. And here he resurrects that dreaming world, and makes it into a place all of us dreamers can once again inhabit!

Lovely review.

Thanks so much, Chris! The best part was FINISHING the book in order to present a more unbiased and less jaundiced review. I really inhaled the book’s essence this time. And I am halfway through Prince Caspian! I now stand abashed before Lewis�� monumental achievement.

This made me smile something big. No, I did not know you in your youth, yet I can still imagine you wandering through Narnia. Your willingness to take on the armies (then and now) is not so different from the four children in the book who very first begin as children, grow into adults, and then return to childhood anew. Perhaps that's a bit of your story now. I hope you enjoy the rest of the series with sheer enjoyment, too.

Growing up, I always looked forward to summer months because mornings brought messy, unexpected explorations all over the city before afternoons inside cool libraries where my sisters and I could read anything and everything to our hearts' content. Like you, I'm one to finish books, and I trace that habit back to long summer days when my first adventures in the world ended in follow-up adventures in the library. In summer, I truly loved each day and each book and eagerly looked forward to the next. The rest of the year brought responsibility and dutiful follow-through, but summer's adventures were always based on fun discovery.

Thanks, Jan - your comments are wonderful! I myself rarely read between the time I learned how, and the spring of 1957. For it was then that I was housebound with a rotten cold, and I could no longer explore the endless wild fields behind our house with my bro and our friends! Well, my mom sat me down and all that week fed me book after book from her nearby public library. My life changed radically, for unlike Dad, Mom FED my introversion! She knew how to please me.

Have loved these books since I was a child. Used to pray fervently to Aslan to take me away to Narnia!

Thanks for the chuckle, Judith! You made my day.:-)

Beautiful books and a wonderful review, Fergus!��

I loved it! And also Prince Caspian. I'm plodding enjoyably - at the snail's pace they deserve - thru ALL the Narnia works. Get this: for the FIRST TIME in my life! Shame on me.

Great review. As a child, I read and reread this book many times with one of my sisters. Obviously, we knew how it ended but that made no difference. To escape our world and enter that world was all we wanted.