JKR vs C.S. Lewis [Insanely LONG]

[Aberforth's Goat]

No: HPFGUIDX 25906

Steve muttered,
> But I don't think she's a writer on par with C.S. Lewis or Natalie Babbitt
and that's okay.

Tabouli argued (bracing herself),
> However, I'd also argue that Narnia sits fairly safely in the middle
childhood department,
> with a pretty, desexualized world, minimal character development, simple
dualist moral
> messages a la Christian ideology, and fairly uncomplicated, discrete
borrowings from
> mythology and folklore (Father Christmas, fauns, dryads, etc.).  Indeed, I
read somewhere
> that Tolkien disapproved violently of this last: he thought that a good
writer should create a
> completely unique world and creatures without nabbing things haphazardly
from other
> places! <snip>

Before I say anything, one huge caveat: Narnia is complete, the Potterverse
is only 4/7ths of the way done. The way Jo handles the last three books
could well change not only our judgment of the series as a whole but also
change our interpretation of the first four. So this is all speculation ...

Anyway, I counted six issues in your email: (1) sexuality, (2) character
development, (3) moral/philosophical significance, (4) literary dependence,
(5) cultural relevance, (6) plot. I'd like to venture a few thoughts on
each, plus (7) gender issues and (8) style:

(1) Sexuality. Point taken. Sexual attraction is in the main plot of
Hogwarts, though, whereas the romantic bits in Narnia are tacked onto the
end. (Shasta and Aravis end up falling in love and getting married, but only
in the epilogue. Digory and Polly also grow up and get married, though not
to each other. After the Dawn Treader's voyage is complete, Caspian
reportedly stops by the star's island to sail home with his daughter. Etc.)
Then again, CSL was writing about younger children than Jo. I've never
worked out the Pensieves' ages (one could, based on the Peter's beginning
boarding school in Prince Caspian), but it's my feeling that CSL's
protagonists are below 14 - the age at which hormones take the limelight in
Hogwarts. Still, Jo's books are more interesting from this point of view.

(2) Character development. Here I disagree. True, Jo has spent waaay longer
with her main characters than CSL did - the Narnia tales have four
overlapping but distinct sets of protagonists. But that has to do with their
basic intent: The *Chronicles* of Narnia, chronicle the entire history of a
universe; Jo has devoted about twice as many words (already) to a period of
four years.

If we take these basic differences into account, I think it would be a
stretch to say that Jo has developed her bunch more than Lewis developed
his.

We're currently more than a thousand pages into the series and have yet to
see a character really *change.* In CSL's books moral development and change
is all over the place. Eustace, Edmund, and Susan are all examples of
radical change; but all his books are, among other things, explorations of
growth and character development. Of course, this change and development
takes place within the parameters of an explicitly redemptive world view;
people who don't agree with Lewis' world view may understandably find his
sort of change simplistic and unpleasantly moralistic.

My burning question is what Jo will do with her characters - particularly
the Dursleys, Ron and Draco - over the next three books. Will she let some
them really develop and change or will she just keep them trundling along
the rails she started them on? I'm voting for the former, because I think
Rowling's too great a story teller to stock her world with one dimensional
people.

(3) Moral/Philosophical significance. I wouldn't say Narnia's moral messages
are simplistic. Simple, yes: CSL believed that morality is a simple and
intuitive thing, and that many of our moral conundrums result from ignoring
what we really know. Again, that's CSL's ethical system (and pretty
challenging one, too) - you can take it or leave it. (I do some of both.)
But I don't think you can say that his characters don't struggle with moral
issues, nor that their struggles are portrayed simplistically. In this area,
Jo seems to be less interested in moral analysis (as in, was Harry wrong to
have lied to Dumbledore?) and more interested in telling a good story.

Also: one thing many readers may not notice about Narnia is the originality
and influence of its theological contribution. Lewis was a classical
Christian, but he wasn't just toeing the party line. (In fact, he was
arguably the century's most original conservative theologian - assuming that
isn't an oxymoron). The Narnian tales have certainly had a more significant
effect on the way I understand the world than any single theology book I can
think of. (Of course, people coming from a different background are unlikely
to see this originality and very likely to see the things they dislike about
CSL's worldview.)

I don't see Jo at all in same light - which is natural since she is not a
theologian nor even a philosopher. She's coming at her stories from a
different background and with a different agenda. I think she's more
interested in the people than the issues, which certainly isn't bad. But I
don't think she'll be giving Sartre or Tillich a run for his money.

(4) Literary dependence. I honestly don't get that one. Alan Jacobs says the
same thing in his article, claiming that Rowling is more mythopoeic than
CSL. I'll grant that Jo has a bigger passion for details of her universe
than CSL had for Narnia. That's true.

But I'd say they both give a uniquely creative twist to an extant tradition,
and are both dependent and mythopoeic at the same time. I'd say that CSL's
intertextuality is more conscious than Jo's - but though he dredges up an
unholy brew of dryads, pirates, and Father Christmases, he has the creative
power to makes them part of *his* story, *his* world, *his* language. On the
other hand, I don't see how Jo's world - which is in essence a funhouse
mirror image of our own - is essentially less derivative. It just uses a
different source. I think they're both acts of genius, and they both take my
breath away.

(5) Cultural relevance. I'm not in a position to comment intelligently on
CSL's use of 40s/50s contemporary culture. However, one thing seems
important here: The way Jo constructs the wizarding world in parallel to our
own demands a close observation of contemporary trends. Narnia didn't need
that, since it is derived more from medieval and classical sources. To my
tastes, neither is better; they're just different.

(6) Plot. Jo wins the mysterious twist prize, hands down. Mystery just
wasn't CSL's thing; his hero GK Chesterton and his pal Dorothy Sayers were
both in the whodunit business but CSL never got close. Then again, he wasn't
trying to. But that cloak and dagger-ness gives the Potterverse a verve
Narnia doesn't have. I like it.

However, what CSL's plots do boast is inevitability. The plot of each books
pushes its way through to an exciting conclusion that makes sense. (That's
my intuitive judgment. Then again, I've never seen the Narnia books
subjected to the intensity of the nitpicking we've given GoF!) Anyway, up to
GoF the Potter books had that too - but GoF swerves a bit. It's not quite
clear why Voldy chooses such a weird way to gang up on Harry; there's no
explaining why Crouch Jr. gets himself killed by haranguing Harry - and the
whole polyjuice trick seems just a wee bit contrived. According to my
tastes, Jo looses some plot points on GoF.

(7) Style. Jo's funnier than CSL. In fact, as far as my tastes go, Jo's
funnier than anybody on the planet. I love CSL's style - his nonfiction
prose is amazing - but he just doesn't have Jo's vitality. Then again, CSL's
prose is more balanced and measured. If nothing else, he kept all his books
to the same length. But I'd still take Jo's jokes over CSL's balance,
measure and discipline any day.

(8) Gender. Jo wins. Jo's taken flack for Harry's gender, but Hermione's
still a huge success. As for CSL ... in my opinion, Aravis is the only
Narnia girl worth the paper she's written on. Neither Lucy, Susan, Polly,
nor Jill do it for me. Flat, sweet, conventional, predictable and
occasionally catty (except for Lucy, who's always sappy). Well, I'm tired,
so maybe I'm exaggerating, but I almost think CSL *deserved* to spent most
his life a bachelor for creating those Narnia girls. (Orul in Till We Have
Faces *is* a stunning woman, though not exactly sympathetic.)

Anyway, that's my take. And anyone who has actually read this far is even
crazier than I am!

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been
bravery...."