What is truth?

As we were talking in class on Monday one thing that really caught my attention was that one of the critiques of the Narnia books was that they are just fantasy and therefore can't hold any real meaning for us as readers. I was intrigued by the question that was posed as to what it is that makes something true. Personally I believe that sometimes, as the storyteller, it is easier to go about telling the truth through different means than just outright saying it. You could tell the same story different ways but sometimes the truth is easier to accept when it is coming to you through a different world than when it comes from our own; that the confession of wrongdoing by a faun in Narnia is more widely accepted than that same confession would be if it had been given by a human in England. Lucy, and therefore the reader, can look at Tumnus and tell him that he isn't horrible because of the setting. If the same situation had happened on this side of the wardrobe he couldn't have just sent her home and walked away. I believe that you can't dismiss a story just because of the genre that it falls into. What is fantasy anyway? What is it that makes it so that fantasy isn't the truth? What makes any story true or not? Is it necessary for a story to be believable for it to tell the truth? Sometimes the best way to tell the truth is to go outside of the world we live in and let someone else tell it for you.

Who are the Four Children?

This question has been on my mind for some time and the more I've thought about it, the more this question has transformed into a sort of idea. Disregarding any evidence or facts that propose the characters of Peter, Susan, Edmond, and Lucy are based off actual people from Lewis' life; I wonder if these children are pieces of Lewis himself? And maybe not even simply Lewis, what if these characters are representations of humanity in general? When I look at these four unique characters (Peter--the brave leader, Susan--hesitant and thoughtful, Edmond--misunderstood but redemptive, and Lucy--childlike and innocent), I see insights into human virtues and failings that we all carry within us. Don't we all wish to stand as Peter, courageous and just, a "High King of Narnia"? Or how many of us see the Susan within: when we first enter through that wardrobe into a strange, new world all we can think about is going back? Of course, Lucy and Edmond are probably the easiest to identify with. Lucy, so pure and innocent, always ready to believe in the good of Narnia and Aslan, even when those who are "older and more mature" may not have the good faith to lend their support. Personally, I can relate to Edmond the most. I can't recall how many times I've been swayed by temptation and strayed from the path into the "heart of winter" only to find that what I've been chasing after isn't lasting and only leaves me emptier than when it found me. Even after I've betrayed the trust of others, I find that the grace of God is enough and the sacrifice of Christ frees me from my sin. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't have a definite thought process on this one, but I'd really like to know who are the Two Sons of Adam and Two Daughters of Eve to you? Are they simply characters in a good story, or are they more? Are they representations of biblical values or other moral fibers, or something completely different? I think that one of the best parts of a story is the characters it creates for us to examine and place within our own realms of thinking and invention. Perhaps it's best to keep Peter, Susan, Edmond, and Lucy as simply the Kings and Queens of Narnia, but I'd like to think that Lewis gave us these characters to do more than place them on the thrones at Cair Paravel.

Philip Pullman on C.S. Lewis

Philip Pullman is the author of the His Dark Materials trilogy, of which the first book is The Golden Compass. He has been a very vocal and vehement critic of the Narnia books. As he puts it, "there is no doubt in my mind that it is one of the most ugly and poisonous things I've ever read." You can read one expression of his vituperative critique here. What do you think? Wanna defend Lewis against some of these charges? Or does some of what Pullman says make sense to you?

A beginning...

It's lonely here at the moment, but I expect more and more of you to show up now that I've issued the blog invitations. You all know the minimum expectation for this blog: each of you must compose 8 substantial posts over 16 weeks. But the blog will be whatever we collectively make of it. I hope it becomes a place where you can share your reflections about our readings--and share your reflections about the reflections of others as well.