View Single Post

Default 

December 11th, 2007, 16:31
Originally Posted by zima98 View Post
2) In my life I read a lot of books, which authors' philosophy I didn't agree with and still loved those books. It's nice intelectual stimulation . I think it's a shame to miss great book because you don't agree with author vison of world. It's a matter of curiosity and willing to explore. And maybe willing to discuss.
Same here (Robert A. Heinlein, Orson Scott Card, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Maksim Gorkii, to name a few off the top of my head). The thing is, these authors use their literature as a vehicle for their ideas either to challenge the reader on equal terms (Heinlein, Gorkii) or simply to express them (Card, Tolkien), whereas in the Narnia series CSL is talking down to his public — he's not leaving any room for disagreement or discourse; instead, he's creating an elaborate fiction expressly designed to sneak in his ideas into receptive minds "under the radar" as it were.

And no, "but it's children's fiction" isn't an acceptable excuse. Several authors manage not to talk down to their public even if their public is children, and even if they treat difficult subjects. Examples: most of Astrid Lindgren, most of Tove Jansson, The Amazing Maurice And His Educated Rodents, Wee Free Men, and A Hat Full Of Sky by Terry Pratchett (although IMO he stumbled badly in Wintersmith in this very respect).

Incidentally, I enjoyed CSL's Silent Planet trilogy much more than Narnia, precisely because there he's talking to the reader as an equal rather than talking down to him, even if it does get a bit didactic and rather transparently allegorical at times ("Ransom" indeed.)

Oh, and CSL was Anglican, not Catholic (much to his one-time friend Tolkien's chagrin).
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540