S
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Come to think of it, it’s really a shame that Lewis didn’t write more novels before becoming Christian. It would make it a lot easier to judge “This author is like an atheist Lewis” claims.
C
commenter
Guest
I can’t think of anyone comparable to CSL or GKC writing today. My closest nomination would be Peter Kreeft.
The problem is that GKC was allowed to write an incredible variety of essays for the secular newspapers of his era. Thus he was able to express and develop his insights, hone his skills, practice on themes he might later develop as books, and build up the large audience for those books; readers he had helped to train their minds. He could write about religion, but far more often he wrote about the world, seen through a mind open to Christianity.
A Christian writing today is generally excluded from the mainstream media. Those who write for Christian media reach far fewer people, and they tend to use their limited time to write about religion. C. S. Lewis wrote that the need in his time was not so much for another little book about religion, but books looking at other things, open to a Christian perspective.
Christians are using the Internet, though far less than we should. It is much more decentralized, more cost effective for the “little guy” than other media. And today, Christianity is, sadly, the little guy.
The problem is that GKC was allowed to write an incredible variety of essays for the secular newspapers of his era. Thus he was able to express and develop his insights, hone his skills, practice on themes he might later develop as books, and build up the large audience for those books; readers he had helped to train their minds. He could write about religion, but far more often he wrote about the world, seen through a mind open to Christianity.
A Christian writing today is generally excluded from the mainstream media. Those who write for Christian media reach far fewer people, and they tend to use their limited time to write about religion. C. S. Lewis wrote that the need in his time was not so much for another little book about religion, but books looking at other things, open to a Christian perspective.
Christians are using the Internet, though far less than we should. It is much more decentralized, more cost effective for the “little guy” than other media. And today, Christianity is, sadly, the little guy.
S
steido01
Guest
And girl. I think the we’ll see more folks like Mollie Hemingway and less writers like those of yesteryear. People don’t have the patience or attention span to read a book, but they’ll catch a headline or three. That means the writers have to change their styles accordingly. We see this at all the successful Christian sites. The good ones, like CAF, Mollie, and First Things will draw people in to read a bit more. The bad ones, like the-site-that-shall-not-be-named, flameout into polemics. The book may not be dead, but authors have evolved in the climate change.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Commenter, that cannot possibly be the case.
P
Peter_J
Guest
That is, in fact, the main name that I was “tempted” to mention earlier.
A lot of people say that his “Snakebite Letters” is very much like “Screwtape Letters”, which baffles me to be honest. I’m not talking about whether it’s good or bad: I just don’t find it to be at all similar.
Of course, I’m speaking here from the point of view of **reading **the book, not going on things like both authors are Christian and both purport to be letters written by a senior tempter, and so on.
Which, in a roundabout way, goes to the question with Pullman. Namely, when people say he’s unlike Lewis, do they merely mean that one is Christian and one is atheist? (I’m not saying the answer is Yes, I’m just saying that that’s a question to be considered.)
S
StarSpear
Guest
I’ve been reading CS Lewis a bit lately myself. I find the way in which he writes in Mere Christianity, The Great Divorce, and the Screwtape Letters to be very approachable, especially for someone like me who is outside of Christianity. And I’ve always been a fan of the Narnia Chronicles. I’m even liking The Pilgrim’s Regress as I read through, even though that isn’t one of his better books.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
That’s really cool I feel like I am liking his tone he talks in a very charitable manner and tells you that you might be wrong about something but he does not do it in a condescending way and I very much appreciate that in a writer.
S
StarSpear
Guest
Yeah, I know what you mean and I appreciate that about his books as well. He writes like someone I’d be happy to sit down and talk to. I like his analogies and the way his passion for the subject comes through in his writing without being pushy.
K
Kliska
Guest
I think of Kreeft as the “Catholic” Ravi, and I too had his name come to mind earlier, but I haven’t read as much Kreeft as I have Ravi Zacharias’ stuff.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
This will almost certainly bore the socks of anyone foolish enough to read it, but I’ll say it, anyway. After much ponderment I think I know why I find both Narnia and Materials distasteful. It is because one cannot quite escape the feeling that the children are being made use of by the authors in a way that the children in Five Children and It, say, or Swallows and Amazons (I show my age) are not – in those books the children are brought to life, given adventures, and allowed their freedom. In Narnia and Materials you feel they are always to be manipulated by their authors. Wouldn’t matter if they were adults – Big Endians, say, or Col Blimp, or Snowball and Napoleon, or Niggle. But they are children, for goodness’ sake. (Not rational, I know).
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not having read the latter books, can you explain? Is it just a matter of having a moral?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t know Ravi. What do you recommend?
G
GKC
Guest
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well, no, more the feeling that, for the author, the moral is more important than the children, if you see what I mean.
To take an example of the approach I find less troublesome, Sam Gamgee certainly illustrates what many officers from WW1 will have learned: that in circumstances of great danger and hardship the ordinary soldier of undistinguished family can behave with the greatest courage and gallantry; that little men can stand tall enough to carry the greatest causes. That may be a moral. But in the book, Sam is a person, free to act as he thinks right. We do not sense that he is more the moral than the man. Does that make any sense?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m not sure. Possibly I don’t remember well enough.
Would this example be like what you’re talking about? books.google.com/books?id=7EK_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&dq=%22+brother+lee+%22+%22pierced+by+a+sword%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiurKHXze3KAhVG6GMKHUz5AqYQuwUIIDAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20brother%20lee%20%22%20%22pierced%20by%20a%20sword%22&f=false
S
steido01
Guest
That’s a generally fair assessment, though it seems to me that Lewis offered a more personal relationship to the characters than did Pullman. With the Materials, there’s no character who has any real agency. They are merely tools he uses (great way to describe it, by the way) to preach his end. I didn’t get quite that same sense from Narnia. Eustace was the first “antagonist” who I ever felt empathy for. You can’t help but (guiltily) relate to Susan’s lack of faith. The Pevensies show growth – even literally as they physically age. Those children are real in the imaginations of so many children in our world.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Oh goodness me, I hope not – that looks awful. Neither Lewis nor Pullman could write as cringe-makingly as that!
Let me try again.
Pilgrim’s Progress, Animal Farm etc are allegories. It is intended that the moral should be prominent, the characterisation less so. Fine.
Other books may be written where the novel stands as a novel, with human characterisation and growth visible, but with a clear moral compass: Pride and Prejudice, Lord of the Rings, The Way We Live Now, Huckleberry Finn. (I would add Swallows and Amazons for anyone who read and remembers).
If one writes a novel which attempts to convince of a religious truth rather than exhibit a moral truth there will be a danger that it will fall somewhere between the allegory and the true novel. It’s a matter of judgement, of course, whether a book does that or not. In my view Narnia tends that way. And for some reason I find any drift towards depicting children simply as symbols distasteful. I accept that may be just an especially weird characteristic of mine.
- Status