I finally bought Smackdown vs Raw 2006. It's a lot of fun. And by that I mean awesome. I especailly like the season story mode. Although the annaouncers declaring that everything is the greatest ever over and over again is a tad annoying. And by tad I mean very.
I think that the review was more compelling that the actual short story. I'm sure that Gaiman had a point that was much more subtle than the one blantant one he clearly made, but whatever it is, it eludes me. Gaiman doles out clarity with startling but sparse inconsistancy.
Perhaps Gaiman wrote somewhere else about "The Problem of Susan," and the reviewer is correct as to Gaiman's intent. Based on the text alone, I am inclined to disagree.
I think the reviewer has a greater axe to grind than Gaiman.
Gaiman (it seems to me) wrote a neat interpretation, a riff on what Susan might have gone through after the end of the story. A bit like Gregory MacGuire's Wicked and other works that develop stories based on what non-central characters might have to say ont he matter.
I don't think the short necessarily is pissing on Lewis at all. I think, if anything, it might be poking at a certain type of Lewis literary interpretation. There have always been folks who read Narnia more allegorically than it was written, based not on what Lewis intended (or at least as well as we can guess from his own words), but the fact that he wrote Christian works such as Mere Christianity and the sci-fi trilogy whose name escapes me.
Narnia has themes that map well onto Christianity, and that's hardly surprising, considering the author's known spiritual proclivities. But I think the folks who complain that Lewis was force-feeding Christianity are reading their own ideas into his work.
I've read quite a lot of Lewis, including some interviews with his family. I think calling him C.S. "how much Christian allegory can I pack into this one" Lewis is entirley missing the mark.
I think it's a much more natural read to believe that Susan wasn't left behind because she was a sinner, but because she had lost the ability to dream into fantasy. That's an interpretation I feel more closely fits the mythos and the morality of the books, and of Uncle Clive himself.
Such opinions are certainly their right, but their complaints read like someone complaining that Rorschack Ink Blot #17 should be censored because it is pornographic.
Ah, yes. I read those quite a long while ago. Fascinating to at the time: using the mode of science fiction to develop interesting and difficult theological questions.
Gaiman talks a little about the short story in this interview (http://rollick.livejournal.com/423627.html). It's mostly about Mirrormask, but the Susan story is brought up toward the end.
He mentions, there, that J.K. Rowling apparently talked about "The Problem of Susan" in an interview with Time, which made me very curious, but alas, not enough to pay for a subscription to Time just to read it.
Not really sure how much that adds to my understanding, though...
It's interesting. I suppose I shall have to dig up the last book and re-read that last bit -- It is distinctly possible that I am merely fairly confident in my ignroance.
Gaiman is certainly not the first person to criticize Lewis on this point, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,726739,00.html he's just done it creatively.
"he had first read the Narnia books when he was a teacher. He added: 'I realised that what he was up to was propaganda in the cause of the religion he believed in.'"
I suspect these two facts are linked. I wonder if he (Pullman) is confused when his own critics make similar claims about his books (which I like just as much as Lewis's)?
I need to track down the rebuttal I found of the whole Susan thing which points out, among other things, that she was not sent to hell. She just did not go to Heaven right then with the rest.
It's hard to say... I remember reading a lot of essays and articles when I was writing a final essay on faith and religion in Pullman and Lewis. Pullman definitely criticizes conventional christian religious practices, but Pullman was a lot less subtle than Lewis was (and yes, I do believe Lewis was being subtle in his portrayal of the christian and the pagan).
Most children won't really be caught up in the religious criticism, but adults would have to really be avoiding the issue to not acknowledge it's there in Pullman's works. I think Pullman would have to be in denial if he were to deny that the criticism is in his work.
Yeah, I had an issue with that when I originally read the books but I was a kid, so I rationalized it with the too old to go back to Neverland idea. Later, when I was more aware of the potential moralizing, I just decided I didn't agree.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
OT
Date: 2006-02-21 11:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-21 11:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-21 11:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 12:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 03:08 am (UTC)I think the reviewer has a greater axe to grind than Gaiman.
Gaiman (it seems to me) wrote a neat interpretation, a riff on what Susan might have gone through after the end of the story. A bit like Gregory MacGuire's Wicked and other works that develop stories based on what non-central characters might have to say ont he matter.
I don't think the short necessarily is pissing on Lewis at all. I think, if anything, it might be poking at a certain type of Lewis literary interpretation. There have always been folks who read Narnia more allegorically than it was written, based not on what Lewis intended (or at least as well as we can guess from his own words), but the fact that he wrote Christian works such as Mere Christianity and the sci-fi trilogy whose name escapes me.
Narnia has themes that map well onto Christianity, and that's hardly surprising, considering the author's known spiritual proclivities. But I think the folks who complain that Lewis was force-feeding Christianity are reading their own ideas into his work.
I've read quite a lot of Lewis, including some interviews with his family. I think calling him C.S. "how much Christian allegory can I pack into this one" Lewis is entirley missing the mark.
I think it's a much more natural read to believe that Susan wasn't left behind because she was a sinner, but because she had lost the ability to dream into fantasy. That's an interpretation I feel more closely fits the mythos and the morality of the books, and of Uncle Clive himself.
Such opinions are certainly their right, but their complaints read like someone complaining that Rorschack Ink Blot #17 should be censored because it is pornographic.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 05:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 01:07 pm (UTC)Read a bit naive to me, as I recall.
If you're curious...
Date: 2006-02-22 11:09 am (UTC)He mentions, there, that J.K. Rowling apparently talked about "The Problem of Susan" in an interview with Time, which made me very curious, but alas, not enough to pay for a subscription to Time just to read it.
Re: If you're curious...
Date: 2006-02-22 01:12 pm (UTC)Not really sure how much that adds to my understanding, though...
It's interesting. I suppose I shall have to dig up the last book and re-read that last bit -- It is distinctly possible that I am merely fairly confident in my ignroance.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 05:29 am (UTC)he's just done it creatively.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 01:21 pm (UTC)"he had first read the Narnia books when he was a teacher. He added: 'I realised that what he was up to was propaganda in the cause of the religion he believed in.'"
I suspect these two facts are linked. I wonder if he (Pullman) is confused when his own critics make similar claims about his books (which I like just as much as Lewis's)?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 01:23 pm (UTC)That reading still baffles me. I shall try to find a copy somewhere and review it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 01:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 02:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 03:13 pm (UTC)Pullman definitely criticizes conventional christian religious practices, but Pullman was a lot less subtle than Lewis was (and yes, I do believe Lewis was being subtle in his portrayal of the christian and the pagan).
Most children won't really be caught up in the religious criticism, but adults would have to really be avoiding the issue to not acknowledge it's there in Pullman's works. I think Pullman would have to be in denial if he were to deny that the criticism is in his work.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 03:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-22 05:57 am (UTC)