Elizabeth Culmer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
edenfalling) wrote2009-04-30 01:52 am
edenfalling) wrote2009-04-30 01:52 am
[Fic] "Heart's Desire" -- Chronicles of Narnia
Jadis in the garden: separation from God is only a punishment if you believe in him.
[ETA: The AO3 crosspost and the ff.net crosspost are now up.]
---------------------------------------------
Heart's Desire
---------------------------------------------
"Come in by the gold gates or not at all," the garden's maker had written. And truly, there was no need to turn aside, walk a quarter-circle around the hilltop, and clamber over the wall, but Jadis was the Queen of Charn and she bowed to no one.
She would have the apple on her own terms, as she had earned everything else in her life.
The fruit was sharp and almost painfully sweet, with a metallic tang underneath that expanded to bitter and salt in the aftertaste. The juice was shockingly dark for such a fair-fleshed fruit. Jadis licked the red-brown stain from her hand and laughed.
Pure theatrics: the apple bled. Was that supposed to induce guilt or shame?
The Lion had made this world, she acknowledged, but she had been here at the making; her magic was thus woven deep into its earth and air, inseparable from its very fabric of being. Until this world died, the Lion must adjust his plans to account for her. And even after, she could continue -- if that simpering fool had learned to travel between the planes, surely so could she! And she would learn to cross directly, without the crutch of that horrible, drowning place between the worlds.
A breeze stirred the garden, swirling petals and scent from the tree. Jadis sneezed, and then nearly gagged on the rotting sweetness of the silvery perfume. Stumbling, she turned aside, holding her arms across her face as if to block the very air from attacking her.
The air stilled. The scent dissipated.
Jadis lowered her arms and clenched her free hand, seething. So. The Lion had fashioned a trap for those who defied him and ate the fruit unbidden. But even he could not stop the apple from performing its function; already she could feel new strength coursing through her blood and bones like a river of ice, scouring away her mortality.
She had forever, now. She had new magic to master, a new world to conquer, a new foe to destroy. If the Lion thought that a mere tree would defeat her or that length of days would lead her to despair, he was a fool, as her sister had been.
Jadis ran her tongue across her teeth, savoring the iron tang of immortality, and took another bite.
---------------------------------------------
Inspired by the 4/27/09![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
15_minute_fic word #108: hungry
---------------------------------------------
Near the end of The Magician's Nephew Aslan tells Digory and Polly that Jadis "has won her heart's desire; she has unwearying strength and endless days like a goddess. But length of days with an evil heart is only length of misery and already she begins to know it. All get what they want: they do not always like it."
I never believed him. First, people do not always get what they want; anyone who claims otherwise is engaging in sophistry or wishful thinking. Secondly, the sense I got of Jadis in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was emphatically not of a woman mired in despair. Jadis is too practical to give in to despair or wallow in depressive introspection, and I am not at all sure she's even capable of misery; her emotional repertoire seems limited to anger, frustration, fear, hatred, pride, triumph, (self-)satisfaction, and sometimes a pure joy in skill and motion. Possibly also greed or covetousness, but I think even her ambition is more a surety that everything already does belong to her, and she just has to make people acknowledge that truth.
Jadis is evil, no two ways about it. She's selfish, cruel, and probably sociopathic -- other people are not real to her except as tools or obstacles. But length of days with an evil heart is only miserable if you know and care about your relative moral standing. If you don't -- and Jadis doesn't -- then length of days gives you time for everything you find pleasurable, like magic and conquest and fighting.
So with all due respect, I must disagree with Aslan (and therefore, more relevantly, with C. S. Lewis). :-)
---------------
NOTICE! There is an extensive discussion in the comments on the Livejournal version of this post, which happened after I imported my journal to Dreamwidth. I think it is worth checking out.
[ETA: The AO3 crosspost and the ff.net crosspost are now up.]
---------------------------------------------
Heart's Desire
---------------------------------------------
"Come in by the gold gates or not at all," the garden's maker had written. And truly, there was no need to turn aside, walk a quarter-circle around the hilltop, and clamber over the wall, but Jadis was the Queen of Charn and she bowed to no one.
She would have the apple on her own terms, as she had earned everything else in her life.
The fruit was sharp and almost painfully sweet, with a metallic tang underneath that expanded to bitter and salt in the aftertaste. The juice was shockingly dark for such a fair-fleshed fruit. Jadis licked the red-brown stain from her hand and laughed.
Pure theatrics: the apple bled. Was that supposed to induce guilt or shame?
The Lion had made this world, she acknowledged, but she had been here at the making; her magic was thus woven deep into its earth and air, inseparable from its very fabric of being. Until this world died, the Lion must adjust his plans to account for her. And even after, she could continue -- if that simpering fool had learned to travel between the planes, surely so could she! And she would learn to cross directly, without the crutch of that horrible, drowning place between the worlds.
A breeze stirred the garden, swirling petals and scent from the tree. Jadis sneezed, and then nearly gagged on the rotting sweetness of the silvery perfume. Stumbling, she turned aside, holding her arms across her face as if to block the very air from attacking her.
The air stilled. The scent dissipated.
Jadis lowered her arms and clenched her free hand, seething. So. The Lion had fashioned a trap for those who defied him and ate the fruit unbidden. But even he could not stop the apple from performing its function; already she could feel new strength coursing through her blood and bones like a river of ice, scouring away her mortality.
She had forever, now. She had new magic to master, a new world to conquer, a new foe to destroy. If the Lion thought that a mere tree would defeat her or that length of days would lead her to despair, he was a fool, as her sister had been.
Jadis ran her tongue across her teeth, savoring the iron tang of immortality, and took another bite.
---------------------------------------------
Inspired by the 4/27/09
15_minute_fic word #108: hungry---------------------------------------------
Near the end of The Magician's Nephew Aslan tells Digory and Polly that Jadis "has won her heart's desire; she has unwearying strength and endless days like a goddess. But length of days with an evil heart is only length of misery and already she begins to know it. All get what they want: they do not always like it."
I never believed him. First, people do not always get what they want; anyone who claims otherwise is engaging in sophistry or wishful thinking. Secondly, the sense I got of Jadis in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was emphatically not of a woman mired in despair. Jadis is too practical to give in to despair or wallow in depressive introspection, and I am not at all sure she's even capable of misery; her emotional repertoire seems limited to anger, frustration, fear, hatred, pride, triumph, (self-)satisfaction, and sometimes a pure joy in skill and motion. Possibly also greed or covetousness, but I think even her ambition is more a surety that everything already does belong to her, and she just has to make people acknowledge that truth.
Jadis is evil, no two ways about it. She's selfish, cruel, and probably sociopathic -- other people are not real to her except as tools or obstacles. But length of days with an evil heart is only miserable if you know and care about your relative moral standing. If you don't -- and Jadis doesn't -- then length of days gives you time for everything you find pleasurable, like magic and conquest and fighting.
So with all due respect, I must disagree with Aslan (and therefore, more relevantly, with C. S. Lewis). :-)
---------------
NOTICE! There is an extensive discussion in the comments on the Livejournal version of this post, which happened after I imported my journal to Dreamwidth. I think it is worth checking out.
Re: REALLY long comment, part 1
First, I'm not saying that I cannot currently see the parallels Lewis presumably meant to draw between Aslan and Jesus. I am saying that it is not necessary to see them in order for Narnia to work as a story, nor is it necessary to see those parallels in order for Narnia to impart ethical lessons. I am also saying that it is perfectly possible to miss the links Lewis inserts and to enjoy the books as pure fantasy or even as an exploration of a fictional pagan religion... and, in fact, I consider that to be a greater artistic achievement than if it were not possible to miss them, and if the books could not be read intelligibly without holding the Aslan=Jesus idea in one's mind. As I see it, a truly great work of literature works on multiple levels and has many possible interpretations, and I consider it a great strength of Narnia (and a significant factor in its popularity and survival) that it can be read in ways that Lewis did not intend and might even have been horrified by.
I am also not attempting to make claims about what the majority of Christians believe when I talk about how I first read the books, and I apologize if my words came off that way. Anything I say there refers to my understanding of Christianity as a child and a pre-teen, which was, naturally, an outsider's half-informed perspective. (I don't claim to be vastly better informed even now, though I have, at least, read more, and so am more aware of my ignorance. *grin*)
I have failed to clearly communicate my point about my assumption that Aslan's equivalent in our world was a pagan god. I am not saying that there is such a god. What I meant is that, because I was reading the books with the assumption that Aslan was a god along the lines of ancient Greek gods (though with ethics more agreeable to modern Western civilization), I naturally jumped to the assumption that his identity in our world would be a pagan god in an ancient pantheon... but I never assumed that this hypothetical god really existed, because I considered Aslan entirely fictional, and I considered the Pevensies' England fictional as well (by virtue of its presence in a fantasy novel and its magical links to other worlds). So it doesn't matter that there most likely is not any such god who parallels Aslan more closely than Jesus, because the existence or non-existence of such a god is beside the point.
Also, please remember that I am not Christian and I was considering Aslan as a pagan deity rather than the singular Christian deity. Therefore, when I assumed that the Calormene gods were real, I assumed that, being gods, they were exactly the same type of being as Aslan and that he was simply stronger -- not that he was a 'true' god and they were somehow a different type of being. (Rather than God and a fallen angel, think of, say, Zeus and Proteus -- Zeus is much stronger and has greater authority, but they are both gods.) Therefore, their existence would subvert the exact Christian parallels, because it would preclude Aslan having Christ's (in Christian theology) status as a uniquely holy being.
More tomorrow!
Re: REALLY long comment, part 1
I think where we fell of the track was the difference between reading and writing. I believe that everyone has a right to their own interpretation of what they're reading, particularly if they're reading for enjoyment. I know I missed most of the Christian symbolism the first time I read Narnia, and I was raised in a very Christian home. And, like I mentioned, even Christians have problems with Narnia, including Lewis's best friend, Tolkien, because of the way they read it.
When writing in a fandom, though, I tend to be harder on the purist angle. I know not everyone agrees with me that author intent matters, but to me it's important to get into the author/creator's mind in order to write a fic that is coherent within that world, no matter what the fic writer's own beliefs are. If I were to write in the Northern Lights fandom (and I don't, I petered out after the first book), I would have to take Pullman's consideration when creating that world in mind when writing in it. I couldn't have the faux!Catholic church represent anything other than what Pullman sees as a corrupt church in our own world, despite the fact that I disagree with him vastly. But to do otherwise would be un-canon. I could create a splinter group within the church which worked for good, but I could not change the foundation of it.
I think my problem with understanding your relation of Aslan as a pagan deity stems from long years studying Greek, Roman, and Norse myths, combined with my understanding of them being 'real' in the sense that there were spiritual entities that took those 'forms' and were worshiped by many. There are certainly levels of power within pantheons, but none of them had the absolute power that Aslan seems to have over the other deities in Narnia. Zeus/Jupiter was only king because he overthrew his father (who overthrew his father), and was always wary of being overthrown himself (hence swallowing Metis and marrying Thetis off to Peleus). I saw the Zeus/father-god figure in Narnia as more along the lines of Tash: the most powerful god in the pantheon, but not all-powerful. After all, Zeus was subject to fate (hence he couldn't save his son Sarpedon), while the majority of the Norse pantheon actually die (and stay dead. Well, except Baldur, but some scholars think he might have been influenced by the Christian monks who actually wrote the myths down). Aslan just never fit my image of the pagan gods I've studied since I was a little kid.
But, again, that comes from our different experiences. I was raised a Christian, and have an intense interest in ancient myths, which influenced me to view things a certain way which others might not see the same. Which is why it's interesting to hear how you see things differently. I look forward to hearing more!
on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 1
You don't seem to care much for LB, so I won't go into it except to say that I see Lucy's statement about the stable as a continuation/knowledge of Christianity as an outcome of her search for Aslan in our world which began in VODT.
My basic problem with TLB is that in order to see it as an emotionally satisfying and ethically acceptable ending, you must agree to some tacit assumptions that I cannot agree to: namely that this particular crisis is self-evidently insoluble in a way that previous crises weren't; that senseless, random death (as opposed to, say, death in service of a cause) can be seen as a happy or even desirable ending (or is somehow not senseless and random); and that it is good and admirable for Aslan to call down the end of all things, divide all souls into the saved and the damned, and go home without a qualm. I realize that it's a relatively faithful dramatization of the Apocalypse mythology, and that if you believe in a literal heaven and God's plan and so on, it may not come off as senselessly, arbitrarily cruel. But because I do not share those beliefs, even if I can intellectually see that the book is a coherent treatise about humanity's powerlessness without God, and a vivid dramatization of John's revelation, my emotional reaction is visceral disgust and betrayal, because my ethical framework is shaped by the assumption of randomness rather than the assumption of a divine plan.
If Lewis had included even as much as three sentences in which someone explained that Narnia was growing old and had reached the end of its appointed time, or that the lack of community that makes it difficult for Tirian, Jill, and Eustace to rally support is a sign of the coming end, I might have been more reconciled to the end of the world. As it is, Roonwit's tale of calamity in the stars did not make me think 'end of the world' but made me think 'great crisis' -- and all the previous great crises had been solved.
The basic Christian idea of humanity is that we have become 'bent': we view ourselves as gods and want to be left alone to worship ourselves and our pleasures, to put it one way. Those who do not, through grace, love God would not want to be anywhere near him .... It would be unjust for God to force people who don't want to be anywhere near him to stand in his presence for eternity. It would be cruel. So God gives them what they want: to be away from him, to live their own lives without his presence. And, like the dwarfs in LB, they'll live exactly how they expect to live.
Maybe so. That is not, however, the impression I got from TLB. The dwarfs are left alone to believe what they want; I can accept that. However, the great sorting of souls does not simply leave those who don't love Aslan alone. Instead of coming into the stable and being allowed to ignore Aslan's presence, the Talking Beasts cease to be Talking Beasts which always felt, to me, as if Aslan were taking away all chance of them ever regretting that choice and choosing anew -- taking away their minds and selves and, if we're talking religion, their very souls. Which is horrifically unjust and cruel. (It's also discriminatory, since he doesn't turn the humans who reject him into mindless beasts. That always bothered me.) Furthermore, all those who fear and hate Aslan do not simply refuse to enter the stable. They swerve off into Aslan's shadow, which has a terribly ominous feel; either they are immediately transported to hell, or they remain in Narnia and die in ice shortly thereafter, or they are unmade as the Talking Beasts have been un-souled.
I think the implication of finality bothers me most: the idea that you get only one choice, and must abide by it for the rest of eternity, as if you will never learn or change but will be fixed from that moment onward. Lewis implies (by saying that the children never saw the damned again) that hell is forever. That is a denial of life and free will, and I find it ethically unacceptable.
Re: on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 1
My basic problem with TLB is that in order to see it as an emotionally satisfying and ethically acceptable ending, you must agree to some tacit assumptions that I cannot agree to: namely that this particular crisis is self-evidently insoluble in a way that previous crises weren't... and that it is good and admirable for Aslan to call down the end of all things, divide all souls into the saved and the damned, and go home without a qualm.
I had always taken the crisis as one they were expecting to solve in some way. I believe there's talk, after the Calormenes take over Narnia, that Tirian and the others would rescue the Narnians near the stable and wage a guerilla war such as happened in Prince Caspian. Basically those Narnians at the stable were the only hope for the continuation of Narnia. And once Narnia fell completely, the world fell: because Aslan originally created the world for Narnians, with humans kinda sneaking in here and then. And, really, all that is good about that world doesn't really die, but is experienced as it 'should have been' had evil not entered into the world.
the great sorting of souls does not simply leave those who don't love Aslan alone. Instead of coming into the stable and being allowed to ignore Aslan's presence, the Talking Beasts cease to be Talking Beasts which always felt, to me, as if Aslan were taking away...their very souls...Furthermore, all those who fear and hate Aslan...swerve off into Aslan's shadow, which has a terribly ominous feel; either they are immediately transported to hell, or they remain in Narnia and die in ice shortly thereafter, or they are unmade as the Talking Beasts have been un-souled.
I can see where you're coming from here. But I don't see how the swerving of the creatures into the shadow deviates from what I said previously. They all came and looked into Aslan's face. Than they made a choice, to either stay with Aslan or go into the shadow. It was their choice, Aslan did not force them to go either way. As for the 'dumbing' of the Talking Animals...I'm not sure where to go with that, actually. There's no Christian theology that I know of that indicates anything of the sort happening at the end times. Possibly Lewis was postulating that, since Talking Animals were created differently from humans, their end would be different as well. Perhaps it was even meant as a kindness: instead of letting them go into the shadow, they can live eternally as regular beasts. Perhaps that's what they wanted. I agree, it's hard to take sometimes, though. I'm the first to admit, Lewis isn't perfect.
I think the implication of finality bothers me most: the idea that you get only one choice, and must abide by it for the rest of eternity, as if you will never learn or change but will be fixed from that moment onward. Lewis implies...that hell is forever. That is a denial of life and free will, and I find it ethically unacceptable.
I do not see how a final choice denies free will and life. People freely choice to spend eternity away from God. I think it highly unlikely that people will change their minds once they reach eternity. Of course, that's due to my perception of hell. To me, hell is a place where people are allowed to be their sinful selves, without the light of God that sometimes pierces the darkness of this world. Lewis' The Great Divorce shows this idea, actually, though I warn you it's a hard read and I don't understand about a third of it. Actually, the Great Divorce is interesting in that it postulates that people are given a chance to 'visit' heaven from hell and that some, very few, choose to stay: Lewis implies that, to those who choose heaven their time in hell was Purgatory. I don't have solid views on the existence of purgatory, but it seems a plausible explanation.
Plus, honestly, would you truly like a fluid eternity? It would just be an extension of this life and would cause heart-break and darkness. I would find an unsettled eternity unbearable, always wondering who might change their mind. It's hard enough in this world. A fixed eternity allows for joy.
on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 2
I don't think it's ever said that they have any power other than what Aslan allows them. On the other hand, it's never said that they don't have independent power, nor that Aslan has absolute power over them. It's true that Bacchus, Silenus, and the river god defer to Aslan, but that can be seen as respect for a more powerful deity just as easily as it can been seen as respect for someone who grants them their power. In the absence of hard evidence, both interpretations are valid.
I think my problem with understanding your relation of Aslan as a pagan deity stems from long years studying Greek, Roman, and Norse myths, combined with my understanding of them being 'real' in the sense that there were spiritual entities that took those 'forms' and were worshiped by many .... I saw the Zeus/father-god figure in Narnia as more along the lines of Tash: the most powerful god in the pantheon, but not all-powerful. After all, Zeus was subject to fate (hence he couldn't save his son Sarpedon), while the majority of the Norse pantheon actually die (and stay dead) .... Aslan just never fit my image of the pagan gods I've studied since I was a little kid.
Interesting! The idea of a deterministic plan for the universe is totally alien to my understanding of the world, so it never occurred to me as an issue. In any case, if there is such a thing as fate, I can't think of any action Aslan takes that breaks any such foretold events. In fact, the only foretellings I recall are the prophecy about four thrones at Cair Paravel and the defeat of the White Witch (fulfilled), the auspicious meeting of stars in PC (justified), and the inauspicious stars in TLB (also justified).
Also, my reading of LWW is that if Jadis had managed to kill Aslan in some other fashion, he would have stayed dead; he was only resurrected because his sacrifice met the terms of the Deeper Magic. So despite his power, I never saw Aslan as inherently indestructible. In fact, I figured that if he hadn't been resurrected, while he might have still been alive in other worlds (as Caspian was able to be alive in England for five minutes though he was dead in Narnia) he would have been either barred from Narnia altogether or reduced to a ghost. If you work from the assumption that Aslan is Christ, a lack of a physical body might not have reduced his power, but if you don't start from that assumption, you're left with a dead god, just like what happens to the Norse pantheon at Ragnarok.
-----
Aslan's deference to the Emperor still fits with Christianity. The Trinity is a complicated thing to go into, but I'll try as best I can. In the Trinity, Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, and yet three and separate. In the Bible, Christ defers to God's command: he doesn't want to be crucified, but he says "Your will be done". It's part of what makes him fully human as well as fully God. I can't really explain it better: of course, Christian theologians have been arguing about specifics for donkey's years, so I can hardly do it justice. I will say that I thought the triple succession of "Myselfs" in HHB when Shasta is alone with Aslan points to a Trinitarian idea, though.
So far as I can tell -- and I admit my knowledge on this subject is shallow -- every way to rationalize the essential nonsensicality of the Trinity has been declared a heresy; the only correct way to see it is to say that yes, it makes no sense, but it's beyond our comprehension and we must take it on faith. This, I confess, I flat-out can't do. From a Christian perspective, that's a failure on my part. From my perspective, that just means I have a different approach to religion. *shrug* You are probably right that Lewis meant the three 'Myselfs' as a nod to the Trinity. That had never occurred to me; I simply thought Aslan was expressing different parts of his personality, which is not a totally dissimilar idea, but which does not require one to see him as three separate people.
Re: on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 2
Yup, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. =D
if there is such a thing as fate, I can't think of any action Aslan takes that breaks any such foretold events.
And here we would get into the argument of who controls fate. In Zeus's case, he was subject to the Fates. Aslan, though, as Creator is also the creator of 'fate', so to speak. Therefore, it isn't so much that he is subject to what fate has determined, but that he created fate to determine such a thing happening. Of course, I'm not a complete determinist myself. I believe God/Christ wills for certain things to happen, but that we as humans determine how we reach those points. Bad explanation, I know. Believe me, this is yet another debate that hasn't been solved, even within the Christian community.
Also, my reading of LWW is that if Jadis had managed to kill Aslan in some other fashion, he would have stayed dead; he was only resurrected because his sacrifice met the terms of the Deeper Magic. So despite his power, I never saw Aslan as inherently indestructible.
Interesting. I always read it as Aslan was only able to be killed because he allowed himself to be killed. The White Witch was always portrayed as afraid of Aslan, and I felt that it was only his submission to Death that allowed the Witch to kill him.
So far as I can tell -- and I admit my knowledge on this subject is shallow -- every way to rationalize the essential nonsensicality of the Trinity has been declared a heresy; the only correct way to see it is to say that yes, it makes no sense, but it's beyond our comprehension and we must take it on faith. This, I confess, I flat-out can't do. From a Christian perspective, that's a failure on my part. From my perspective, that just means I have a different approach to religion.
I don't think it's a failure. I have a hard time taking things just on faith as well. But, if you think about it, we take a lot of things on faith in life. I have absolutely no idea how gravity works, despite years of schooling, but I have faith that it'll keep me on the ground and that it equals 9.8 m/s^2, because people smarter than me have it figured out. Faith in the trinity is having faith that God (who's a lot smarter than me) has it figured out.
And I don't think every way of explaining the Trinity has been declared a heresy, though it depends on who's saying which theory is a heresy. Probably everything in the history of the world has been declared a heresy by someone at sometime. But each denomination, I believe, has at least some sort of understanding on the Trinity, and Catholics and Orthodoxs have probably the fullest explanations (not that I can explain, or understand, some of it. That would involve more research than I have time to do during finals week).
on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 3
The thing is, I don't see any need to go that route, because as I have been saying, the books work without that supposition. If a book works when read under more than one set of assumptions, then each of those interpretations is just as valid as the other, no matter which one the author intended to write.
-----
I can't help you with feeling as if you are falsely proselytizing if you write Aslan as Christ. The thing is, many if not most of Aslan's attributes are Christ's: if you write Aslan as Aslan, and stay true to canon, you fall into that trap regardless because, just as many people read Aslan in CoN as Christ, they'll read your story and, if Aslan is written like Aslan, they'll see it in your fic as well.
And I am okay with that! Just as I can interpret Lewis's books without considering Aslan an analogue of Jesus, other people can interpret any portrayal of Aslan that I write as if he is Jesus, whether that's what I was thinking as I wrote or not. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest otherwise. *grin* I just can't write with that interpretation held in my mind.
-----
I think I mentioned it somewhere else, but since the Narnian world is not our world, the incarnation and the passion would be different: that's what Lewis is saying. It's not a one-to-one correlation because there worlds don't correlate one-to-one. And, as I mentioned, Lewis didn't start out intending to write Aslan as Christ: it just happened over time, so his characterization of Aslan in LWW was a little off.
And I think that lack of strict one-to-one correlation is what allows the books to be read as if there is no correlation at all. The parallels are there if you approach the books from a certain point of view, but they vanish or twist if your initial point of view is different.
I do wonder, actually, if the 'variant' characterization of Aslan in LWW might be one reason Lewis eventually said the books should be read in internal chronological order. Because if your first impression of Aslan is from LWW, you're much more likely to miss the Christian underpinnings than if you first meet him creating a world and a garden that has a Tree of Life. *grin* (I still think publication order is best, regardless of what that does to people's view of the religious subtext in the series, because LWW stands alone much better than MN, and is much more likely to lure people into reading further.)
-----
If I were to write in the Northern Lights fandom (and I don't, I petered out after the first book), I would have to take Pullman's consideration when creating that world in mind when writing in it. I couldn't have the faux!Catholic church represent anything other than what Pullman sees as a corrupt church in our own world, despite the fact that I disagree with him vastly. But to do otherwise would be un-canon. I could create a splinter group within the church which worked for good, but I could not change the foundation of it.
I don't blame you for petering out; the first book is by far the most boring of the three. And while Pullman is in some ways more technically skilled than Lewis (there are fewer holes in his world-building and his characters are more rounded), he's much less successful at subordinating his ideology to his story. I can read Narnia as pagan if I want too; Lewis left that space for interpretation in his books. I cannot read His Dark Materials as anything other than an attack on organized religion in general and the Catholic church in particular. And that annoys me, because while I am not Christian, I am religious and an active member of my local Unitarian Universalist congregation, and I dislike it when people focus only on the failings and flaws of organized religion and disregard all its virtues and benefits.
(I do love the ending, though, because Pullman doesn't cheat. He obeys the rules he set up at the beginning, and the resulting bittersweet ache is more attractive to me than any loophole-produced happy ending could be.)
Re: on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 3
I guess it boils down to the fact that an Aslan written in fanfic should, in theory, be written as a character with attributes almost identical to Christ's, but that you, as an author, don't have to write Aslan with Christ in mind, just the attributes. That makes sense.
And I think that lack of strict one-to-one correlation is what allows the books to be read as if there is no correlation at all. The parallels are there if you approach the books from a certain point of view, but they vanish or twist if your initial point of view is different.
Valid point, and I think Lewis would agree. Tolkien would certainly agree, as he was none too fond of strict allegory.
I do wonder, actually, if the 'variant' characterization of Aslan in LWW might be one reason Lewis eventually said the books should be read in internal chronological order. Because if your first impression of Aslan is from LWW, you're much more likely to miss the Christian underpinnings than if you first meet him creating a world and a garden that has a Tree of Life. *grin* (I still think publication order is best, regardless of what that does to people's view of the religious subtext in the series, because LWW stands alone much better than MN, and is much more likely to lure people into reading further.)
Though I usually cringe at any mention of reading the series in chronological order first (I'm a member of the 2456317 club) you may have a point. I'm also under the impression that Lewis intended to go back and rewrite the earlier books with the later books in mind, but died before he could, which might have led to a different characterization of Aslan in LWW.
And while Pullman is in some ways more technically skilled than Lewis (there are fewer holes in his world-building and his characters are more rounded), he's much less successful at subordinating his ideology to his story.
That's what I understand, from what I've heard. It sounds like he just ran off the road with it at the end. And I truly dislike it when people have such a narrow focus of institutions and history. Yes, the church did bad things. Guess what, it's made of people and people do bad things. As my pastor says, a church is a hospital for the sick, not a museum of saints. But the church has also done a whole lot of good over the years, too.
on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 4
When writing in a fandom, though, I tend to be harder on the purist angle. I know not everyone agrees with me that author intent matters, but to me it's important to get into the author/creator's mind in order to write a fic that is coherent within that world, no matter what the fic writer's own beliefs are.
Ah. Actually, you did not completely misunderstand me. I was talking about writing as well as reading.
I agree that implicit or thematic canon is in some ways more important than explicit canon -- in other words, there's a difference between a story that portrays Aslan as manipulative and evil and a story that asks what might have happened if Edmund, not Lucy, had entered Narnia first and met Mr. Tumnus. The first would bother me a lot, though I could probably tamp down my discomfort while reading if it were well enough written otherwise. The second could be either fascinating or awful, depending on how it was written, but it wouldn't induce an automatic 'but that's wrong!' reaction the way the first story would. So I definitely know what you mean about writing a story that works within the canon guidelines.
However, while I am reluctant to disregard thematic canon, I often find myself writing stories that challenge or reinterpret it, particularly when I find a theme morally unjustifiable, when an author has written an internal contradiction into a series (like J. K. Rowling, who shows the evils of prejudice and then proceeds to tar 99% of Slytherins as worthless scum even after the Sorting Hat says all four houses must work together), or when I think an author has missed the implications of a particular theme or element of his or her world-building. I do this because I care about themes. They are the part of a story that can change the way a person sees the world, and therefore they are the part I react to most strongly and devote the most thought to reconciling.
I think that if an interpretation of canon is valid for reading, it is also valid for writing. Fanfiction is a conversation with canon and with other fans, and while it's important to be respectful of the basic ideas that start the conversation, it's also useful to prod at the boundaries and see if the conversation can be led down new paths and into new areas. Fanfiction can be a way to work out problems a writer has with the canon of a series, and to share those problems and potential solutions with other people. It's a response to canon, not just an imitation of canon.
So I choose to think of Aslan as a deity of love and justice who is completely independent of Jesus and the Trinity... and to either ignore or very heavily handwave most of TLB. I also choose to see Aslan either as a character or as the focus of someone's belief, but so far not both at the same time (because of my cognitive dissonance problem).
And I suspect that at some point I will write one or more stories to explore my ethical problems with TLB, because I think that is a conversation worth having, and it's often easier for me to think in stories than in essays. I think I can, actually, manage to make most of the events of TLB palatable enough for me to swallow, but I'd have to do a lot of delicate tap-dancing over Lewis's phrasing of certain sentences and mentally embroider the edges of the story with various justifications Lewis does not bother to provide. (I still can't get past the removal of the Talking Beasts' wits, though. There is no justification I can see for that, and I suspect I will end up writing a story to either express my outrage over that, or try to reconcile that evil to the idea of Aslan as a loving and just god.)
Re: on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 4
Agreed, thematic canon is more important than explicit. All fanfiction messes with explicit canon by its very nature. I'll even allow for dark canon, where a character is inverted in order to explore responses (I wrote a fic once where Peter hates Edmund, based off of his rather stiff and flat character in the LWW book. I was playing with the inversion of a character, but stated it upfront and that I didn't agree with the characterization at all. It was still one of my least liked fics.). I would have a harder time with an inversion of Aslan's character, because I don't see room for an inversion. The flatness of Peter's character allowed me to speculate, but Aslan was more fleshed out and very much shown as a loving, good character.
So I choose to think of Aslan as a deity of love and justice who is completely independent of Jesus and the Trinity... and to either ignore or very heavily handwave most of TLB...I think I can, actually, manage to make most of the events of TLB palatable enough for me to swallow, but I'd have to do a lot of delicate tap-dancing over Lewis's phrasing of certain sentences and mentally embroider the edges of the story with various justifications Lewis does not bother to provide.
I think that's perfectly valid. Though I would be hesitant about something that ignored TLB if it took place during or after. Tweaking it a bit, like you suggest, would be fine, but ignoring it would be unwise, I think, as long as it fits in with the other six books.
it's often easier for me to think in stories than in essays.
Agreed a thousand times! I can't tell you the number of fics I've written either to explain a thought I had, or that ended up unconsciously explaining something that I hadn't thought about before writing it! And I think writing fanfiction helps us understand and think about the source material more than just writing an essay about it, because you have to think closely about the characters, in particular.
on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 5
Mmm. I do agree that many important things are difficult to fully understand or put into practice, especially since every single absolute principle I have ever thought of becomes untenable when taken to extremes. But the thing is, I am a very religious person. I just have a different approach from you.
I believe that there are no spiritual powers and no spiritual realm. I believe there is no life after death; this world and this life are the only ones we ever get, so we have to do our best here and now. I believe we are part of this earth and this universe; when we die, our bodies return to the world from which they came, and maybe one day, billions of years from now, fragments of the earth will become part of a new star; we are all connected to each other in the mystery of existence. I believe that good is whatever helps another person, that sin is whatever harms another person, and that we should ask other people whether they've been hurt or helped instead of assuming we can judge for them. I believe that community is sacred, that learning is sacred, that there are infinite paths to wisdom and love, and that everything that leads to greater community and understanding is holy.
Those beliefs can, of course, be abused, just as Christian beliefs can be abused and turned to hatred instead of the love Jesus preached. No religion is perfect. But I believe in a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and I believe that questions are sacred while answers are dangerous and not to be lightly accepted.
Unitarian Universalism is a religion based on values rather than beliefs; we do not ever use any form of creedal test, and therefore every UU tends to have slightly different beliefs and practices. In terms of my beliefs, I am a secular humanist agnostic with vague leanings toward Buddhist philosophy and earth-centric pantheism (i.e., a belief that the whole world is sacred). I say I am agnostic rather than atheist because atheism seems, to me, to focus on the lack of a deity, whereas I think the existence or non-existence of deities is utterly irrelevant. The point is to have reverence and respect for the universe and to live in such a way as to help people rather than harm them. I would consider those two goals the heart of my religion even if a god appeared to me in flame and trumpets, because any god who didn't put those two goals at the heart of his or her instructions would not be worthy of worship.
(From what I understand, those are some of the main goals Christ told his followers to pursue. Which is why I can read stories that portray Aslan as Jesus, even through the cognitive dissonance, because unless they're specifically dealing with the Apocalypse, I usually agree with the values on which they're based. *grin*)
Re: on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 5
I find that an interesting philosophy, if rather sad from my own belief. I see so much misery in this world and can only yearn for the next where everything will be made right. Even a person who lives a good, happy life goes through misery and troubles at some point, does bad things. I also don't understand how this idea reconciles with your disgust over the loss of the Talking Animals' 'souls' in TLB, since you do not seem to believe in a spiritual world from which a soul comes. Or perhaps, you have a different definition of soul?
I believe that good is whatever helps another person, that sin is whatever harms another person, and that we should ask other people whether they've been hurt or helped instead of assuming we can judge for them. I believe that community is sacred, that learning is sacred, that there are infinite paths to wisdom and love, and that everything that leads to greater community and understanding is holy.
While it does make sense that good is whatever helps someone, can't it get confusing? What is your definition of 'help'? Help them be happy? What is happiness, then? What if, in helping someone, you hurt someone else? And I agree that working for a better community and understanding between people is a good thing, but do you truly think it is possible in this world? And what is your definition of holy? (I'm not being facetious with these questions, I truly want to know and understand).
Those beliefs can, of course, be abused, just as Christian beliefs can be abused and turned to hatred instead of the love Jesus preached.
Oh, most definitely. Which is why I like to believe that there will be an eternity where we can fully understand and be able to do as Christ instructed us to do, which isn't possible in this world. Even the best person in this world does something bad at least once, and probably thinks or contemplates evil more than they admit.
I believe that questions are sacred while answers are dangerous and not to be lightly accepted.
This confuses me. How are questions sacred (and what is your definition of sacred)? And how can questions be good and answers be bad? What is the use of questions without answers?
The point is to have reverence and respect for the universe and to live in such a way as to help people rather than harm them.
Those are very good values, can't dispute that. I just wonder what your basis for that is? Is there some basic truth behind why you believe that respecting the universe and helping people is a good thing. Again, it's an honest question. I am curious to understand your belief system. And please, feel free to ask me about my own faith if you want to know. I welcome any questions/problems you might have about my faith, because it makes me examine it more thoroughly and forces me to ask myself why I believe what I do.
Re: on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 5
I accept the existence of immortal souls within Lewis's fictional world, and am therefore outraged because of the ethical implications of the removal of such souls. I am also outraged because even without speculating about souls, changing Talking Beasts into dumb animals removes their minds and memories and thus their selves, whether such a self is embodied in a soul or simply encoded in electrochemical potentials and neural links in a brain. And if that isn't murder, it's awfully close.
I define a soul as 1) an eternal, nonmaterial essence that is a person's true and best self, which is a generic religious concept that I do not believe has any objective validity; 2) a useful metaphor for describing a person's core traits and memories, the things that make her herself rather than any of the other billions of people who ever have lived or ever will live; 3) a somewhat less useful metaphor for an ethical or aesthetic sense; or 4) a generic fantasy concept based on the religious concept I don't believe in, but which I will accept as part of the other objectively unreal (i.e., magical) elements of a story, within the context of that story and for the duration of my bringing that story to life in my mind.
Re: on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 5
I would have to say that my definition of a soul is close to the Catholic catechism: "In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. " And I also believe that spirit and body are intertwined so intimately that we are not complete without both being in perfect concert with God's plan. In this life the soul and body conflict with each other due to sin, at death they are separated, and at the final judgement the body is raised, perfected, and reunited with the soul to make a complete person again.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing what else you have to say!