A Brief Interlude to Hammer on Narnia and Narniology

My online friend Mike Morrell allows me to review books for him every once in a while, and although he's a Christian, he allows me to say what I want, which is to say, he still sends me books when I say mean things. Last week he sent me an ebook titled THE LION, THE MOUSE AND THE DAWN TREADER: Spiritual Lessons from C.S. Lewis's Narnia, by Carl McColman. As an undergrad, I was privileged to take an entire semester of C.S. Lewis with one of the finest profs ever to teach: Mark Harris. We read all of Narnia and a few of his other books, including the utterly awful Mere Christianity. Of all the books we read, two of the Narnia Chronicles stood out: The Magician's Nephew and Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I remember saying in class that Dawn Treader is not a children's book, and I still believe that. It's the darkest of the series, and it's certainly the most personal account of Lewis's demons available, short of his letters. Additionally, Lewis uses the stars to wage his decades long fight against materialism and reductionism, so it's also the most philosophical of the series. All that to say, when Mike offered the book, I was happy to agree to review it. Silly me.

The initial premise, which is quickly abandoned, is that we ought to read these fantasy books like a child. McColman then proceeds to read it like a mystic, which I think is almost exactly opposite of how a child reads a book. This is a fine endeavor, of course, and anyone is free to find all sorts of allegorical messages in any of the Narnia Chronicles. (Lewis clearly lied when he said Narnia was not an allegory. Um, gee, then who is Aslan supposed to be?) However, it's been my experience as a teacher and professor that most young people don't know to look for allegorical referents in a fantasy story. I'm also not sure of two other things: how does one "read like a child" and what is to be gained from reading like a child? It's just silly, unless he means read to enjoy the story, but if that's the point, why go into 90 pages of metaphysical speculation about prayer, meditation, solitude, relationship, etc.

It's apparent at this point that those words now induce a near apoplectic state in me, not because they represent a reality that I hate, but because they represent the most disingenuous use of language. These words are only defined by using other equally nebulous concepts; therefore, spirituality becomes relationship with Something Divine. You'd think a relationship actually involved two people talking to each other--at a minimum--not me trying to feel "god's love" in prayer.

More annoying than using words that have no certain definition, though, is the cavalier way mystics make assertions about things no one knows dick about. For example:

Just as relationship with God is the source of love in our lives, so alienation from God sooner or later leads to fear, or panic, or existential dread.

I'm tempted to write "horse shit" but I won't. I'll just say the statement is goofy. How do we know it's the "source of love" in our lives? I happen to think that my wife is one source of love, and I could name a dozen people who I believe love me (please note I did not say "know," as such things can't actually be known). And do you know why I believe that? Well, it's because we have an actual relationship, which is to say we talk to each other, hang out, drink wine, watch a game, share a life. Those of you who believe you and Jesus do the same thing, great. Invite me next time you're sitting down to a meal with him physically present in the room, and I'll attach more credence to your assertion. As it is, you can say or believe anything you want, and who's the wiser? We can't verify it.

The second clause is worse than the first. "...sooner or later leads to...." simply means even if I'm not right about your spiritual state yet, just you wait. I will be eventually. It's hedging bets and never really affirming anything other than an assertion that can't possibly be grounded in reality. I've been "alienated" from god for years now, and I lack any of the three angst-y things he promises. In fact, I've said repeatedly that death is far preferable to eternal life. No existential dread here. Here's the beauty of metaphysics though. He could easily say I'm not alienated from god yet, because god hasn't given up on me, he holds the world together, we have no experience of it until the eschaton, etc., etc. All equally possibly true and equally possibly false. All they lack is verifiability. How lovely.

The book is chock full of simplistic assertions like this, and like "sin causes alienation." We are exhorted to resist evil, both personal and systemic, an idea I wholeheartedly endorse. How do we do that, you may wonder. Well, just get started is the exhortation. Sigh. The book reads like a rough outline for an actual book. C.S. Lewis fans will probably enjoy it, and you mystics out there will find tons of "helpful" information on how to vivisect Lewis's best story for the sake of the "mystical" life. You will be told to rid yourself of sins that hinder relationship, like a bad swearing habit. Deep sigh. Really. Swearing is a sin? It actually gets better in the final two chapters. McColman offers observations that seem consistent with what Lewis was doing, and he abandons his trite dictums on mystical practice (mercifully). I've long wondered why Lewis holds such sway with evangelicals, and I think it has something to do with them believing that he "smarts" Christianity up a bit, gives it some credibility with academicians and atheists and skeptics, but I greatly prefer the evangelical fascination to the mystics getting hold of him. One only wonders what they could do with That Hideous Strength?

Comments

[Joe Kendrick]

Is his book on the movie version of the Dawn Treader or the book?

Also, quick note on Lewis since I'm a big fan of the Dawn Treader and Aslan fascinates me. He wrote in an essay that Aslan wasn't allegorical but an actual incarnation of Jesus. I found that to be very interesting.

[Joe Kendrick]

Nevermind...that's what happens when you scan.

[cheek]

Wow.

That statement is just completely unfounded in anything, and in fact, it is demonstrably false. For example, when considering instances of love, one would have to take the love of mother for new baby as one paradigm case. However, unless G-d is oxytocin, then we have a pretty clear case of love in which the source is not divine but biochemical.

Again I say wow.

[Leighton]

I thought it was Tolkien who said Lord of the Rings is not an allegory; I seem to recall Lewis being very open about Aslan being Jesus.

I mostly agree with Tolkien. LotR may be everywhere dense with Christian symbolism, but it doesn't qualify as an allegory since there's no single Christ figure. You have your choice of Aragorn who spends decades running from his destiny, Gandalf who dies and comes back to life but only because the God-figure says "Dude, you're not done yet, get back down there," and Frodo, who selflessly carries the burdens of the world but renounces his quest at the last minute.

Anyway, sorry to sidetrack with another series entirely; I just happen to like it a lot more than anything Lewis wrote.

[Greg Horton]

Leighton and Joe, Lewis thought of Narnia as an alternative world, probably a kind of Faerie, so Joe it makes perfect sense that Aslan would be another incarnation of Jesus. Theologically at least, it wouldn't matter what form the Eternal Son came in, so long as He was Trinity2. It's likely that "lied" is an overstatement, but I find it hard to believe that Lewis never intended an allegorical reading of some of the elements, as if the Emperor Across the Sea wasn't actually Trinity1, or let's just say it, God the Father. He was obsessed with otherworlds, and his scifi trilogy (really only two are scifi; the third is clearly Arthurian fantasy) plays with the idea of otherworlds as innocent, fallen and unredeemed, or fallen and redeemed.

[matt mikalatos]

Hey Greg (and everybody), have you read Til We Have Faces? It's my favorite Lewis and I'd be interested in your thoughts. It doesn't seem to get any attention in Christian circles (probably because of all the gods) but I think it's his best work.

[Greg Horton]

Matt, without exaggeration, I think I've read everything, so yes. And I do think it's top 3 or 5, depending on my mood. Most Christians I meet don't know what to do with Classicism, but it was, of course, one of Lewis's preferred areas. What I liked about the work, even more than the writing, is it's an oblique approach to what I would later learn is virtue ethics. Lewis was probably riffing on Aristotle with the idea of practicing to become virtuous, but it is, obviously, also a Christian concept, now mostly lost, called discipleship. I always loved the mask/face metaphor in this piece.

[matt mikalatos]

Also, as I recall the whole "Aslan is not allegorical" came from Lewis's letters, and the definition he was using there was pretty narrow... I believe he was, in fact, comparing Aslan to the giant Despair from Bunyan, and making the point that to him there was a difference from a character being "pure idea" like Despair and an embodied/fictional/historical person in a story. His major distinction was between taking a "fact" (i.e. despair can capture people) into a character/event and making a "what if?" scenario: "What if Christ incarnated in Faerie?"

I suppose that he would have to admit to Narnia being allegorical on some level, once the definition became broad enough.

[MyQuest]

You and I should discuss the sci fi trilogy sometime. I read it last year and thought it awful. And being such a fan of Narnia, I think it has tainted even that for me.