C.S. Lewis

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adamhovey1988 said:
Just curious and this does relate to the topic is there anyone that writes today that could be called a modern Lewis or Chesterton?
Click to expand...
The “issue” is that those gentlemen had a certain cultural flavor when writing and we can place them in time by that. I don’t think anyone modern can be put in the same place on the shelf simply because of that… but I do like some writers in a similar way, though they tend to be much more “specialized” in one area instead of writing a broad range. Ravi Zacharias comes to mind, but of course he would to one of my ilk. But, again, even to me there is no “comparison” nor is one necessarily needed.
 
Without, I hope, being too provocative, it seems to me that similar to the Lewis of Narnia would be the Pullman of Dark Materials,
 
commenter said:
Lewis said he intensely disliked the experience of writing SCREWTAPE LETTERS, clearly one of his most important, to readers. I suspect he much more enjoyed the writing of TILL WE HAVE FACES. I think it is his effort at writing a mythic story, if that is the right term. I almost had the sense in reading it, that it was something he wanted to get done, before his time was up, regardless of how many copies it sold. If he had written it earlier, before he had a bankable name as author, he might have found it hard to find a publisher.
Click to expand...
Dust, grit, thirst and itch. A sort of spiritual cramp. Not fun. Glad he did it, though.

FACES is a mythic story in the sense that one written on Balder, in Lewis’ youth, might have been. And it is also a “mythic story”, in the sense of mythopoeia, the making of myth, as he and Tolkien came to understand it: the reconciliation between fact and story, the insight that Tolkien and Dyson got him to see in the night of the famous conversation in 1931. All his fiction (roughly) since PILGRIMS REGRESS was in that sense, mythic (see his “Myth Became Fact”, in GOD IN THE DOCK, or a really outstanding chapter in MacGrath’s THE INTELLECTUAL WORLD OF C. S. LEWIS, “The Concept of Myth in Lewis’ Thought”). So, FACES is doubly mythic.

It might be my fault, and it’s been years since I looked at it, maybe should give it another go. But it was not a success with the general public, though receiving plaudits from some of the critics. If Green and Hooper are correct in what they said of it, in their bio, it was the “nearest approach to failure since DYMER”. And DYMER shows that even a non-entity, under a pen name, can get something in print.

Still, it pleased him, and a few years after it, he and Joy took that trip to Greece. Maybe to look for the Fox.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Without, I hope, being too provocative, it seems to me that similar to the Lewis of Narnia would be the Pullman of Dark Materials,
Click to expand...
From what I know of Pullman’s books (which admittedly comes from reviews and not the books themselves) that seems like quite a stretch.
 
Peter_J said:
From what I know of Pullman’s books (which admittedly comes from reviews and not the books themselves) that seems like quite a stretch.
Click to expand...
Well, not at all similar in terms of point of view, of course, but in terms of adventure stories for the young to clothe among other things a view of religion, and very well written, they are not dissimilar. The point of view, of course, as GKC says, is mirrored.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Well, not at all similar in terms of point of view, of course, but in terms of adventure stories for the young to clothe among other things a view of religion, and very well written, they are not dissimilar. The point of view, of course, as GKC says, is mirrored.
Click to expand...
Lewis was, in a sense (the bete noir sense), Pullman’s inspiration.

Quite a disappointment. I bought the first of his books, and got an ARC of the 2nd, before realizing from whence they and he came.
 
The other similarity is that I didn’t enjoy Materials any more than I enjoyed Narnia. 🙂
 
GKC said:
Well, that counts, then. I actually thought the writing and some aspects of the idea were well done.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree – and the same with Narnia, of course. My distaste for both was … well, just a matter of personal taste. I can quite understand the appeal: I showered my daughter with all the Chronicles and she devoured them with delight.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Oh, I agree – and the same with Narnia, of course. My distaste for both was … well, just a matter of personal taste. I can quite understand the appeal: I showered my daughter with all the Chronicles and she devoured them with delight.
Click to expand...
I salute you.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Thank you but unnecessary: a bow and a scrape will do. 🙂
Click to expand...
I beg consideration. Not only is the saute a form I have practiced for many years (20 for pay),

my joints protest the bowing and scraping motions. Also the climbing stairs ones.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Without, I hope, being too provocative, it seems to me that similar to the Lewis of Narnia would be the Pullman of Dark Materials,
Click to expand...
Sure. Lewis remains a giant among men, just as Pullman is the Aulacopris maximus among dung beetles.

Narnia and the Dark Materials both featured children on whimsical adventures with obvious allegorical references. That’s about as far as the comparisons can go. Everything else that may seem similar, as GKC said, can only be seen through a mirror – and a perverted one at that.

Narina was the happy labor of a Joyful Christian; the Materials were the envious work of a bitter, angry humanist (A Scoundrel, even?). Narnia was the artful tying-together of imagination and words; the Materials were, by the author’s own admission, the simple and cold arithmetic of a novel – the theft of storytelling at its worst. Narnia was conceived as morality wrapped in fantasy; the Materials were, in the author’s words, “stark realism.” The author of Narnia is undoubtedly in paradise; the author of the Materials is in dire need of prayer – he’s no Tash, to be sure, but he’s about as good and useful as Shift.

It’s an ugly place on the other side of the mirror.
 
steido01 said:
Sure. Lewis remains a giant among men, just as Pullman is the Aulacopris maximus among dung beetles.

Narnia and the Dark Materials both featured children on whimsical adventures with obvious allegorical references. That’s about as far as the comparisons can go. Everything else that may seem similar, as GKC said, can only be seen through a mirror – and a perverted one at that.

Narina was the happy labor of a Joyful Christian; the Materials were the envious work of a bitter, angry humanist (A Scoundrel, even?). Narnia was the artful tying-together of imagination and words; the Materials were, by the author’s own admission, the simple and cold arithmetic of a novel – the theft of storytelling at its worst. Narnia was conceived as morality wrapped in fantasy; the Materials were, in the author’s words, “stark realism.” The author of Narnia is undoubtedly in paradise; the author of the Materials is in dire need of prayer – he’s no Tash, to be sure, but he’s about as good and useful as Shift.

It’s an ugly place on the other side of the mirror.
Click to expand...
People have such strong opinions on this and do you know what? I love it
 
steido01 said:
Sure. Lewis remains a giant among men, just as Pullman is the Aulacopris maximus among dung beetles.

Narnia and the Dark Materials both featured children on whimsical adventures with obvious allegorical references. That’s about as far as the comparisons can go. Everything else that may seem similar, as GKC said, can only be seen through a mirror – and a perverted one at that.

Narina was the happy labor of a Joyful Christian; the Materials were the envious work of a bitter, angry humanist (A Scoundrel, even?). Narnia was the artful tying-together of imagination and words; the Materials were, by the author’s own admission, the simple and cold arithmetic of a novel – the theft of storytelling at its worst. Narnia was conceived as morality wrapped in fantasy; the Materials were, in the author’s words, “stark realism.” The author of Narnia is undoubtedly in paradise; the author of the Materials is in dire need of prayer – he’s no Tash, to be sure, but he’s about as good and useful as Shift.

It’s an ugly place on the other side of the mirror.
Click to expand...
I think we were discussing the books, not the authors. Some of the finest writers have been less than pleasant. I would certainly leave the pub rather than share a beer with Lord Byron, for instance.

But it is best not to overdo the bile in judging others. Isn’t there a text about that?
 
Picky_Picky said:
I think we were discussing the books, not the authors. Some of the finest writers have been less than pleasant. I would certainly leave the pub rather than share a beer with Lord Byron, for instance.

But it is best not to overdo the bile in judging others. Isn’t there a text about that?
Click to expand...
But Byron could write such great poems about dimples and pimples.

I’ll stand by my criticism. When discussing a work, I think the writer’s state of mind is important. Same reason why Atlas Shrugged is a terrible book, even though I’d find myself begrudgingly agreeing with some of what Galt blabbered on about. When an author sets out to deliberately speak ill of others and pass it off as a novel (or, worse, a children’s novel!), that’s fair game when discussing its merits. A middling writer is able to disguise any such hatred, and a better one needn’t write with hatred at all. Pullman didn’t even try: Church bad. Nature good. Man God. Story recycled. Pullman boring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top