C. S. Lewis - Narnia, etc.

[Courtenay]

The film of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was on earlier today on BBC1 at 3.15 pm. I'm sure they'll follow it with the others in due course.

Not at all a fan of the films myself - to me they totally lost the spirit of the books - but they are excellent pieces of cinema in themselves, and I certainly understand why many people love them. I do prefer them to the old animated movie of The Lion that has the White Witch looking like some kind of maniacal pervert and Aslan looking like one of the robot lions from Voltron with a '70s hairdo!! (Yes, I know there are others here who have fond memories of that version; I have tried earnestly to like it, but just can't. But we all have our own tastes, and no-one's are right or wrong, just different.)

I wouldn't mind checking out the upcoming BBC documentary on Lewis that Anita referred us to! I only hope it will be fair and balanced and not just some mean-spirited exposé of controversies in Lewis's life (of which there were a few). The title does sound uncomfortably like they're looking for sensationalism, but having not yet seen it, I can't judge.

[Moonraker]

Prince Caspian is on today.

[Paul Austin]

Sensationalism puts bums on seats - or eyes in front of TV sets - a fair and balanced account does not, sadly.

[Deej]

I think the problem with a lot of film adaptations based on books is that it's very difficult to tell a long story in the space of 90/120 minutes.

The Chronicles of Narnia films do miss a lot out from the original books but if they explained every little detail, it would be a very long, drawn-out and dare I say, boring watch.

I too prefer the modern The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. film.

[Courtenay]

For me, Deej, it wasn't missing out things from the books, but adding things, that put me off. The modern film version of The Lion, while brilliantly done from a film-maker's standpoint, includes a whole lot of extra scenes and characters and incidents that weren't in the book - in many cases, high-adrenaline chase scenes and fight scenes that were presumably put in to make the plot more exciting and dramatic. And it is an exciting film, but as I said, for me it completely loses the gentle, understated, homely charm of the original story. Again, though, we all have our own tastes, and I can understand if some viewers prefer the film to the book.

[Anita Bensoussane]

There's a documentary on BBC4 at 9 PM on Tuesday 30th December. It's called Narnia's Lost Poet: The Secret Lives and Loves of C. S. Lewis.

I only hope it will be fair and balanced and not just some mean-spirited exposé of controversies in Lewis's life (of which there were a few). The title does sound uncomfortably like they're looking for sensationalism, but having not yet seen it, I can't judge.

I watched the programme today on BBC iplayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... f-cs-lewis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not at all sensationalised - it's very matter-of-fact and is presented by A. N. Wilson, whose biography of C. S. Lewis I read years ago. Nothing new in it for me, but I enjoyed the run-through of Lewis's life.

[Daisy]

I watched this last night and like you Anita, didn't learn anything new about Lewis but the film clips of various events in his life were interesting to see. I am glad I saw it.

[Paul Austin]

What irritates me is just how small the world of Narnia is. Small and petty.

In Narnia, the time from the creation of the world in The Magician's Nephew to the Apocalypse in The Last Battle is a bit over two thousand years. Just two thousand years. It's barely anything! Compared to our universe's age it's barely a blip. Even by creationists' standards it's only about a third as long as they think our world exists.

In our universe, space stretches out into infinity. There are countless star systems, with planets, moons, breathtaking phenomena, and quite possibly infinite varieties of life. In Narnia... there is one world. One flat world, with a dome sky, and the stars above are just glowy people. But it's totes special because the animals talk.

In our world, the human race can learn and grow and develop, raise our standard of living, increase our understanding of the world around us, and at least have a chance of making our own decisions for ourselves. In Narnia, it's wall-to-wall absolute monarchies anointed by Lion!Jesus, technology never really changes, and the culture is so anti-development that even bridges are considered to be terrible.

[Anita Bensoussane]

C. S. Lewis had a love of Anglo-Saxon and Medieval history and literature, with its kingdoms and fiefdoms, so it's not surprising that that passion shines through in his creation of Narnia. And it wouldn't suit Narnia to become too technological - it's a land of green valleys, rugged mountains and graceful architecture, attractive to the eye.

[Courtenay]

Well, Paul, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but if you don't like the Narnia books, don't forget, you're under no obligation to read them.

[pete9012S]

To give Paul his due,he does have an active interest in an incredibly diverse and discerning range of subjects.
He is obviously an extremely well read and intelligent man and his opinion on Narnia has no doubt been formulated after extensive personal research and investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paul_Benjamin_Austin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Austin]

I've actually written my own stories about magic and transformation,
Thank you Pete. I'm glad you keep an eye on my Wikipedia user page.

[Courtenay]

I'm sorry for my rather blunt reply earlier, which was a bit uncalled for - I've toned it down. I don't like to post anything that's not in keeping with the friendly spirit of these forums, but sometimes I fire off too fast...

I certainly agree that Narnia isn't the most sophisticated or complex of imaginary worlds ever invented, but it was the product of one particular author's own ideas, beliefs, tastes and objectives - as are all fictional places - and that's what it reflects. In Lewis's case, as a devoted lay Christian writer, he was simply using an invented world as the vehicle for presenting his take on Christian themes to children without being too preachy or "churchy". He certainly wasn't attempting to create a world with anything like the scale and scope of, say, Tolkien's Middle-earth, which the latter author spent decades inventing largely for his own enjoyment. Although the two sagas are both in the fantasy genre (and I loved both as a child and still do), they're written in very different styles and for different audiences and purposes, that's all.

To hark back to an earlier topic for a moment, I remember mentioning I'd bought the pattern for a cross stitch design of Lucy meeting Mr Tumnus. As of a few weeks ago, I've finally started work on it! Very much enjoying it, too.

[Paul Austin]

That was a point raised on Narniaweb - that when it came to worldbuilding, Lewis is not in Tolkien's league.

[Courtenay]

when it came to worldbuilding, Lewis is not in Tolkien's league.

Indeed. I'd venture to say that very, very few authors are or ever have been - especially when you consider not only over a dozen books' worth of Middle-earth history spanning several thousand years (much of which was never published until after Tolkien's death), but two fully worked-out Elvish languages, with their own writing system, plus fragments of several other invented languages! I honestly can't think of another author whose output is anywhere near comparable.