Aslan weeps for Harriet Miers.

I think Jonah Goldberg had a good take on King Kong - they go to an island where they find a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and everyone's excited about the giant monkey?

OK, let's be honest- That last line just about made me want to grab the K-Y and prepare for a rectal insertion.

What were you thinking?

Giant Ape vs. Mystical Lion? What a great idea for a combined sequel a la Alien vs. Predator!

Kong vs. Aslan: Clash of the Kings

Did Kong really die when he fell from the Empire State Building? Or did he travel through the force of magic to the mysterious Land of Narnia? The misunderstood Kong finds himself fighting for love and acceptance in the land of talking animals and their Christlike beast-king, Aslan. Kong finds a soulmate once again in the beautiful Queen Susan. But Aslan stands in his way!

Will beauty once again kill the beast? Will the Deeper Magic prevail?

Watch the action Christmas 2006

[PS I've patented the above story.]

What the hell, why not? Kong will win because he has big hairy ape balls, and Aslan is just a big cat - aka moon cup wearing pussy. Aslan gets the latest copy of Cat Fancy and loses all self esteem. And who took the pussy down? A woman.

Andy the squirrel,

You're right... I was trying to say something less, well, teh ghey. I think both are smart movies to have made and both will be crowd pleasers.

I didn't mean to go all Gene Shalitt on everyone.

I'm going to delete that.

DELETED LINE referred to by Andy the Squirrel, above:

"Old-fashioned storytelling -- the stuff that dreams are made of -- seems to be back in style."

Good Lord. That's the gayest thing I've ever written in my life.

Hopefully it will attract less attention here in the comments.

I mean, that's my own personal "Chancing a spring awakening."

I'm wondering how many of the Narnia reviewers were rating based on the religious angle (pro and con) of the story. You might have a few that will give a great review to a mediocre movie because they agree with Aslan as Christ symobolism, but you might get even more that would trash a good movie for the same reason.

The New York Times review (and find your own damn link) was explicitly down on the Christian angle. 'Too high a Jeesiosity quotient', I believe they said.

DBS: Ross Douthat has a nice blog entry on that point:

It was inevitable, I suppose, that the release of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe would prompt the highbrow media to issue a flurry of bulletins detailing how right-thinking people are to approach the matter of C.S. Lewis and his disquetingly entertaining Christian fantasy
... But it's Adam Gopnik's New Yorker essay that best embodies what I imagine to be the highbrow conventional wisdom - that Lewis was a great writer, and Narnia a great achievement, in spite of the author's sadly narrow-minded religiosity

I had no end of fun in pointing out to various lefty friends how much Christian allegory and Christian imagery the Lord of the Rings movies held; this is even more explicitly true of the Narnia books (and presumably the movie). Tolkien always played a bit coy when asked about the Christian elements in his Rings novels, but C. S. Lewis was quite up front about it.

I find it somewhat gratifying that some of the biggest movie events of the last generation are based on works of high moral seriousness -- it gives me hope for the future generation.

And King Kong.... Well, hell, that's about a cute chick and a giant fucking ape and New York City! What's not to love?

Ah, militant secularism.

These same critics have no problem with messages in other movies being crammed down our throats, but throw a fit over Christian imagery in a movie based on a kid story.

Could Polly of the Guardian be any more wrong? First of all the guy's name was Norman Vincent Peale, not Peel. And I don't believe for ONE SECOND that he ever said any such thing to his "wealthy congregation."

Her warped view of Christianity is in her own mind.

The Christian allegory in LOTR must be pretty subtle. I have to say LOTR is fairly remarkable for being one of the few fantasy worlds in which there is not a single reference to God, or gods, or any religion of any kind, or any priests whatsoever.

I'm not denying it's not there in a sarcastic way, though it may seem that way. I'm just saying-- well, it's pretty damn subtle if it's there.

I mean, no one even makes oaths to God or to any god. Even Conan would occasionally give lip-service to Crom.

And I don't really see any redemption/grace/original sin/etc. angles there.

The world seems to have a Devil but no named god.

And King Kong.... Well, hell, that's about a cute chick and a giant fucking ape and New York City!

Weak, Monty. The plot of KK is one of the very best Hollywood's ever come up with. It's brilliant on every level.

Just because it's not the greatest story ever told doesn't mean it's not a great story.

I think there's Christian imagery in LOTR, but not really allegory. The resurrection of Gandalf, the way Gandalf 'heals' Theoden, etc.

They are really more thematic than anything else, but they do exist after a fashion.

Something else interesting about the Rings and Narnia books: they were both written by Englishmen in a 20th century England that was already rushing away from the Christian faith in droves. (I've always thought that Lewis' Space Trilogy was sort of a attempt to graft his fantasist/moralist viewpoint onto a sort-of sci-fi structure, with imperfect results.) And here we have a typical leftist british bird in Toynbee saying that Lewis is the perfect American Christian.

Pullman's His Dark Materials books aren't bad, but are really pale imitations of both Tolkien and Lewis -- but the same can be said of Stephen Donaldson, David Eddings, Mercedes Lackey, et. al. They are simply drawing from the well sunk by Tolkien and Lewis. But what these later writers miss is the element of morality (specifically, the notions of sacrifice and perseverance against overwhelming odds) that is so prevalent in Rings and Narnia.

Of modern English writers, only Robert Holdstock seems to have any of the same sensibility (and is ten times the writer Pullman is, in the bargain). His Mythago Wood is a superb counterpoint to the Narnia books.

I vaguely remember reading these books when I was a kid, all this talk about the allegorical side makes me want to reread them.

If you ever want to hear crazy lefty conspiracy anti-american/republican/religion rants...just go to the message boards at I-M-D-B. they find a way to bash just about any movie, and there's droves of them there. I'm sure they're all over this one.

"I mean, no one even makes oaths to God or to any god."

The name of Elbereth Gilthoniel (a goddess) is invoked by Frodo several times in the books.

Loose shit, ace. You loose 1,000 experience points.

I assumed that names like that just referred to Elves.

I guess in Tolkein, the elves are pretty much the gods. Or the angels, at least.

Monty,

Excellent overview of where Tolkien and Lewis and their work came from and those that followed.

"The Christian allegory in LOTR must be pretty subtle. I have to say LOTR is fairly remarkable for being one of the few fantasy worlds in which there is not a single reference to God, or gods, or any religion of any kind, or any priests whatsoever."

A cynical athiest might remark that in a world where Gods actually exist, religion and priests would be superfulous.

Just because it's not the greatest story ever told doesn't mean it's not a great story.

Allah, they knew not what they did.

brak:

The thing about the Narnia books is that the allegory is there to be found, but Lewis serves his story: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe are stories first and foremost, and meant to be enjoyed as such. They are not meant to be read didactically.

And as far as no god or gods being mentioned in Rings: who is Sauron if not Satan? He never takes physical form, his nature is wholly evil, and his effect on people is mostly via deception and falsehood rather than by direct action. And who is Aragorn but (figuratively) the Messiah? Gandalf has always been a tough one to figure out if you are reading Rings through a Christian lens: perhaps he can be read as the archangel Michael, the warrior angel with the flaming sword. It's not that much of a reach, when you think of it.

I'm watching Fellowship of the Ring on TNT right now.

I keep trying to get into the LOTR flicks, but they're just so ... gay.

Not as gay as referring to old-fashioned storytelling as "the stuff that dreams are made of," but pretty fucking gay nonetheless.

Ace is right on about atheist evangelists.

I just don't understand what they get so upset about. Faith, in and of itself, cannot be forced on anyone, so they cannot fear that.

And what is scary about the whole "we are all sinners and God loves us anyway, with the added bonus of giving us peace" thing?

Love, forgiveness, compassion. Scary things indeed.

Another interesting thing about Narnia and Rings (and a strong argument for their being Christian allegory): the obsession with trinities. Both Lewis and Tolkien were very aware of the mystical power of the Trinity, and you can see it in some of the themes of their books.

You also have great powers in opposition, with no neutral ground between -- the battle is between good and evil, and there is no question as to which is which. Theirs are unapologetically Manichaean universes.

And lastly, you have repeated lessons that sacrifice is often necessary to defeat Evil; that valor and heroism can often come to nothing against a determined enemy; that a good fight against hopeless odds can still be a moral and spiritual victory.

So it's no surprise that these concepts strike modern leftists as somewhat old-fashioned. The relativist revolution never impinged much on either Tolkien or Lewis.

Well, Monty and Allah,

What you have there are certainly two very different views of LOTR...Heh.

Tolkien was pretty adamant that there was no allegory in LOTR. He thought allegory was trite. That said, later in life, Tolkien admitted that Gandalf was an angel.

Interesting quote from Lewis was that when he entered into his professorship, he said that he was told to never trust a papist or a philologist, and Tolkien was both.

In the LOTR the direct theological references are very sparse. But in Tolkien's work as a whole they are assuredly not.

You really have to read the Silmarillion. There you will find among other things Tolkien's creation myth. In a very interesting parallel, Tolkien's and Lewis's creation myths both involve a universe being sung into existence.

In the Silmarillion and other works you will also discover all the angels and devils.

For example,

[spoiler alert!]

The "wizards" Gandalf and Saruman (as well as Radagast, whose is in the LOTR book but not the movie) are properly Istari, immortal beings who are basically the equivalent of what we would here call angels. Yes, Gandalf is literally an angel. Immortal spirits who can clothe themselves in bodily form and who are emissaries of the Deity. In Saruman's case, we witness his Fall.

Similarly, Sauron is also a more severely Fallen angel, one we would clearly call a demon or devil. Sauron is not quite Lucifer or Satan. He is properly the successor of Lucifer. Lucifer would be Morkoth, who appears in the Silmarillion. Sauron is of an order of being more powerful than Gandalf.

When the Istari took bodily form they lost some of their powers and memories of being an Angel. But when Gandalf's mortal form was slain in battle with the Balrog, his immortal spirit did not perish and he was sent back as an emmisary from God again, this time with more power and knowledge of his purpose.

The Balrog is also a demon/fallen angel equivalent. Etc. There really is a very pseudo-Catholic demonology found in the Silmarillion, as well creation stories, etc. You even catch a tiny glimpse of the Creator, "the One". God has a name: Eru Illuvatar, translated "One, the All-Father".

One very interesting theological aspect of Tolkien's work is that only Men (humans and hobbits) have souls and can be saved and go to Heaven. Elves do not have souls...they have immortal spirits but can never qualify for entry into Heaven. Salvation is reserved for humans, and requires their bodily death first. Elves go "West"...but Men go to a realm unknown to all who live.

Tolkien is just as religious as Lewis, but in a VERY different way.

What DO they teach in the schools these days?

I recall reading that Tolkein intended for LOTR to be just a fantasy story. A lot of critics wanted to make the story into a commentary on the issues of the day -- with the Ring representing the atomic bomb, or some such thing -- and Tolkein kept insisting that it really was just about Elves and shit, and, no, Mordor was not the Soviet Union.

That being said, there are some elements of the story that reflect his personal attitudes, especially his fondness for the agrarian lifestyle that was disappearing from Britain. The Shire is Tolkein's perfect community, and it has to be industrialization at the end of the story. Not coincidentally, that's probably the weakest part of the story.

The Christian allegory in the Narnia books is pretty obvious. I knew a guy that actually taught Sunday school lessons using the novels.

Re: the plot hole in Kong, IIRC, you see two dinosaurs: a T. Rex and a pterodactyl. Kong kills them both. So maybe it was simply a matter of the crew not wanting to haul two rotting dino-carcasses back with them on the ship.

Or yeah, maybe it's a giant plot hole.

We're missing the larger point, though. Old-fashioned storytelling -- the stuff dreams are made of -- seems to be back in style.

Should have read "has to be saved from industrialization at the end of the story."

Insert mandatory comment about loose shit, etc.

Regarding the Elf-spirit/Human-soul thing above.

This is why it was difficult for Aragorn and Arwen to be together, and why Arwen had to make the choice to stay with Aragorn. Aragorn was a mortal (though long-lived) Man and would someday die, his sould passing to the unknown realm of Heaven. Arwen was born an Elf...but of a Half-Elf Father.

Elrond had a twin brother Elros. They were both half Elven, half Man. They were forced to choose which existence to have: that of Man with eligibility for Heaven, or that of Elf with immortality in the West but no chance of Heaven. Elros chose mankind, his act of will causing him to be mortal. Elrond chose Elvenkind, and its fading into immortality.

Arwen was 1/4 human and thus she was also eligible for the choice. She chose to be mortal (and surely die) in order to be with Aragorn, who could not choose to be immortal and was destined to someday die.

Free will vs. determinism, soul vs. spirit, ascention into Heaven...No Christian theology in Tolkien my ass.

My favorite Tolkien remembrance, his scribbling "not a penny for the Concorde" on a tax return.

rho, I see you and I simulposted on the Gandalf-angel thing. You never read the book/watch the movie quite the same way after you learn that.

C. S. Lewis wrote another series of books I alluded to earlier, called "The Space Trilogy": Perelandra, Out Of The Silent Planet, and That Hideous Strength. He explores many of the same themes as he did in Narnia but (since these books are written for adults) in a more philosophical way. I've always thought these books worked less well than the Narnia books, but that may simply be because my sci-fi taste finds them very old fashioned now -- rather like Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles. (Bradbury doesn't explain what the rocket looks like or how it works; all you need to know is that a rocket got his men to Mars, and so that's all he tells you. Lewis does the same, but even more peremptorily -- I always had the feeling that he was just uncomfortable with technology in general, and didn't want to go into too much detail.)

Lewis's sci-fi stuff is much more brainy and less child-oriented than Narnia. Good stuff, but takes patience.

You're much more advanced than I, Mark, on your Tolkienology. I have the Silmarillion right over there *points*, but have never read it. You're right, though, once you see Gandalf as an angel, several oddities of the books (such as his "resurrection") make a lot more sense.

If you want to get into Tolkien religious themes, though, you have to get familiar with Catholic theology as well. My Protestant background means I miss things unless I'm looking for them.

You guys are a tremendous buzz kill at a movie I'm guessing. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Gandalf (at least in the movie): "Look for my coming on the dawn of the third day."

Sounds familar, somewhat.

Ok, I'm a huge C.S. Lewis fan and I'm really interested in this, but after reading and evaluating ver 1,000 gross Cheney jokes, I'm having trouble shifting gears.

Excuse me for lurking.

Jack, now I see them very differently. I would LOVE to see LOTR with somone like Mark or Monty. Seeing a movie like that with someone who knows the meaning of it is wonderful. It would have to be DVD I suppose though, yakking through a movie just isn't nice...;-)

I thought the best adaptation of Lewis by an entertainer was John Cleese reading "The Screwtape Letters." Amazing stuff, if you can find a copy.

Slublog,

The "Screwtape Letters" is my favorite book by Lewis, without question. I give it to my kids when they become teenagers. It's a great way for them to understand (and be entertained by a great book too) that although they may have always been taught about the forces of good in this world, one must always be aware of the forces of evil as well.

Sparkle:

The whole issue of meaning in a novel must be taken lightly: Tolkien especially insisted that his works were not allegorical in any way (but as I said, I think he was being coy). Lewis and Tolkien both were themselves products of a Classicist/Judeo-Christian tradition, and this came out in their novels -- I don't think the works were produced explicitly as Christian apologias.

Readers often find many meanings in a fictional work that the author may not have intended. But I think the Judeo-Christian ethos is so obvious and prevalent in both Rings and Narnia that it can hardly be argued otherwise. In fact (and just to bring poor Kong back into the discussion), one can say the same of King Kong: it is simply a re-telling of the old Beauty and the Beast story, but overlaid with elements of modern conflicts: modernity versus "naturalism", individuality versus collectivism (Kong vs. nameless faceless agents of the State), and the primacy of romantic love over pragmatic concerns (like not dying by being shot off the Empire State Building by biplanes).

I think my favorite is "A Severe Mercy"

For those of you interested in Tolkien's Catholicism, I'll recommend this readable biography: http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=238&AFID=12&

As an atheist who grew up in a Fundamentalist household and is still very sympathetic to Christianity, I can understand how the subtexts in the movie might be slightly annoying. The Chronicles of Narnia are supposed to be subtle but they aren't as subtle as some people think. And you can't swing a dead cat these days without hitting a Christian who wants to remind us unsaved that C.S. Lewis was a Christian.

My favorite Lewis book is "Screwtape" as well. Obviously, since a minor character in that book forms the basis for the name I use on this site. I like the good versus evil aspect of the book, but what I really love is the humor. It is one very funny book.

I bought those Lewis sci-fi novels but never got around to reading them. Worth it?

I never said I didn't understand it RWS. I dare say I read LOTR more than most and even wrote a senior thesis on it (which I then sold to pay for the devils work).

There are exactly 2 themes in any good story: good v. bad. Any author then injects whatever bias he or she is comfortable, Christianity, paganism, sports, girl on girl, yada yada.

LOTR is just a great story as Tolkien himself said many times. He also said it was just that, a story, not an allegory for anything. That said its not surprising that some don't see Christianity in the story. What is surprising is that Paganism isn't seen as a bigger influence. Warlocks, talking trees, ritual creations of killer beasts. Thats not the Christianity I was raised in.

Sometimes a story is just a story drawn from whatever we have to make it with. Not everything has to be a Christian morality play.

Oh and Allan is right, the movies, not so much.

1 theme. Good v. Bad. Loose shit.

Monty,

I don't think that either story was meant to be OVERTLY Christian at all. Like I said before, I would bet that if someone went to Narnia without knowing anything about it's background, I doubt they would feel they were at a Bill Graham revival.

hyper-hormonal monkey,

Perhaps that is true because he is a fairly modern Christian writer who was good and an intellectual. Someone respected for his writing before it became somehow wrong to be a Christian and an intellectual.

You know who would have really spiced up the LOTR movies?

Zabka.

JackStraw:

I agree that you can read (or watch) Narnia with no allegorical overtones -- it's just that if you do, you'll lose a whole layer of meaning that the author clearly intended. Lewis was clearly up to something other than a simple adventure story (as was Tolkien, much as he denied it).

As perhaps we shouldn't call it Christian allegory so much as Western allegory. For their themes, moral concerns, and ethos are clearly those of the West -- and the Western ethos is, for good or ill, a Judeo-Christian one.

Sparkle:

I like Lewis because he is unafraid to make moral judgements, and to punish his characters for moral transgressions. The character Edmund is only a child, and yet Lewis deals with him fairly harshly for making bad moral choices -- this is a very non-modern approach and tends to put a lot of lefties (like Philip Pullman) on edge.

Loose shit everywhere! Ace hasn't read the Silmarillion!? Seriously, it's the only Tolkein worth reading.

But Mark says

Lucifer would be Morkoth, who appears in the Silmarillion.

Sauron is of an order of being more powerful than Gandalf.

Of course, the movies had lots and lots of loose shit too. The whole giant-Sauron battle scene -- all wrong. One of the main themes of Tolkein's books is that the world has declined, that there were giants in those days of yore... This is missed entirely by Jackson.

Incidentally, I think Narnia is overtly Christian. But Tolkein... not so much. More, as Monty said, "Western". How often the LOTR characters invoke "men of the West"!

Lewis was clearly up to something other than a simple adventure story (as was Tolkien, much as he denied it).

Sometimes no just means no. The man said no. I mean come on, your supposed to be a Republican. Ok that made me feel kinda weird just writing it.

But if you gonna take the man's word to task then translate the story as a Christian allegory. Don't just pick an "a HA" moment.

I'm not denying the man was raised a Christian and it is not therefore surprising that he defaults to Christian allusions when appropriate or needed but I sitied some very Pagan examples. Show me how that works in a Christian allegory.

Damn, you got orcs and wizards and giant freaking spiders. Enjoy.

Some of Tolkein's smaller, non-Middle Earth, stories, like Farmer Giles of Ham and the Smith of Wooten Major, are my favorites.

Maybe they're not quite 'Old-fashioned storytelling -- the stuff dreams are made of' but I like them.

JackStraw:

I won't waste my time -- you like Rings as simple fantasy, more power. I see a bit more, that's all.

Sparkle:

I meant to bring up one more novel as a good companion to the Narnia series: Richard Adams' Watership Down (another Brit!). Yet another book in which animals (in this case, rabbits) operate as eidolons for human beings in the real world. It is a fascinating, textured, and (pace JackStraw) highly allegorical book. Highly, highly recommended.

And let me add another pitch for Robert Holdstock's books: Mythago Wood, Lavondyss, and The Hollowing.

Rightwingsparkle,

You're probably right. And Pullman is an idiot.

The New York Times review (and find your own damn link) was explicitly down on the Christian angle. 'Too high a Jeesiosity quotient', I believe they said.

No link because no review maybe? It doesn't seem to exist on the NYTimes site (Times Select?). Where did you read this "jeesiosity quotient" review?

Btw Castrol prevents jeesiosity breakdown in your pistons. Your jesus pistons.

Thanks Monty-

I won't waste mine or Tolkiens either.

"Gandalf has always been a tough one to figure out if you are reading Rings through a Christian lens: perhaps he can be read as the archangel Michael, the warrior angel with the flaming sword. It's not that much of a reach, when you think of it."

Gandalf is easy to figure out if you read LOTR as the work of a poet who took up the task of giving guidance and confidence to the people of his time. Gandalf is Tolkien, doing his part to help manage the transition from ancient orders to modern orders. The ruby ring Gandalf carries, concealed, is Tolkien's poetic art.

Ahh, funny you should say that. Ace thought I was joking, and I was of course about the Jeesiosity, but I just found the text here, Mr. at December 7. Pour a little of that Castrol in your humor valve. It prevents a sticking sphincter.

It's not a review so much as a column about C.S. Lewis' private life, by Charles McGrath, in which he seems determined to prove that C.S. LEWIS MAY POSSIBLY HAVE HAD SEX. And he thinks it's much nicer to imagine Aslan as just a superhero lion and not "Jesus in a Bert Lahr suit".

Lewis and Tolkien both were themselves products of a Classicist/Judeo-Christian tradition, and this came out in their novels -- I don't think the works were produced explicitly as Christian apologias.

Yes, they were. Especially Lewis, but Tolkien also (a member of the same Bible study fellowship that turned Lewis away from his ardent atheism).

C'mon. It's not even subtle.

Here's my question. How does Ace manage to host a site that features sodomizing animals on any given day, and then moves on to a conversation like this?

It's strange. I like it.

It's strange. I like it.

Like Michael, I've been lurking. Like Michael, I choose now to come in. Great discussion.

How does Ace manage to host a site that features sodomizing animals on any given day, and then moves on to a conversation like this?

Because Dick Cheney wants him to, that's why.

Especially Lewis, but Tolkien also
There is an excellent profile of Narnia / Lewis in the latest issue of NR.

The thing about any layered work is that it reflects the mythos behind the authors. It's a matter of translation, creation, and just plain the lens that you see through.

I think it was Monty who was saying that so many other works in the last 20-30 years are poorer for not having the morality of lewis and tolkien. I think that's about right - a deeply layered work that ultimately points to itself winds up being annoying and self-absorbed, like a Jimmy Page solo.

[bone crushing synthesis] This is what annoys me about a lot of liberal orthodoxy concerning their own intelligence. What's the point of understanding why, say, Iraq is not like Korea, if you are not going to learn the lessons from Korea and win iraq. If your point is simply to show how smart you are by noticing that they're, well, different, then just shut up already.

If you want the super lion, isn't that ultimately more creepy than Jesus in a Bert Lahr suit? JIABLS at least implies a morality, an order, whereas a super lion is just you noticing that it's a super lion. But how smart are you exactly if you don't pick up on the whole Aslan-is-resurrected thing? Seems like someone was reading the cliff notes version to me.

Its nice that they're finally making these classics, but can Hollywood come up with something original?

Note to Ace:

Have you noticed that you have a lot of seriously religious commenters. I know this from reading them here and elsewhere. I'm not sure why we show up here, because you, apparently, are not religious at all. Maybe we're just looking for some cheap thrills. But have you noticed how your comment threads will turn religious at the slightest provocation? OK with me; my Bible search engine is fired up and ready to go.

Or, we can go back to talking about Thai hookers.

Toynbee states, "that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right."

Why do the liberals who bend over backwards to fabricate failures and then point to them as proof of wrong always want to play the "might makes right
" card on anyone who disagrees with them?

"Hello, Pot? This is Polly... You're black!"

Michael--I've commented before a long time ago that this bunch is actually, unlike many blogs described as "South Park conservatives", very socially conservative underneath all the pottymouth. There's the religion thing, and I don't see any rush toward e.g. gay marriage or drug legalization among the majority of commenters. Schiavo was more divisive but it was so all across the Right.

And no, you anonymous jackwipe, I'm not giving you a cite.

CS Lewis' stepkid says Narnia's not what you think:
"It's not a Christian film and the Narnia books aren't Christian novels....Jack didn't intend the Narnia books to be an evangelistic fantasy... The myths of Narnia are partly those of the great man-made religions - Norse mythology, Hindu mythology, as well as the true myth of Christ. Exposure to man's myths will make young viewers ask questions about themselves - and only later will the seed of faith take root."

http://clivedavis.blogs.com/clive/2005/12/in_out_of_the_w.html

I was glad to see someone corrected the Morkoth thing. But if there's anyone who can't slog through the whole Silmarillion, there is a more concise version at http://www.livejournal.com/users/camwyn/328358.html

Also, there is a glimpse of religion in LotR:
"Before they ate, Faramir and all his men turned and faced west in a moment of silence. Faramir signed to Frodo and Sam that they should do likewise.
'So we always do,' he said, as they sat down: `we look towards Númenor that was, and beyond to Elvenhome that is, and to that which is beyond Elvenhome and will ever be...'"

Or, we can go back to talking about Thai hookers.

That's funny; my favorite CS Lewis story is a sci-fi short called "Ministering Angels" and involves space hookers. No, really. Space Hookers.

Space Hookers? done 'em.

Now if you wanna talk quality, you've got to talk about wookie space hookers.

TABLK, are you saying that Christians are sun-worshippers?

This is off-topic, but a good idea. The "Church" of Scientology should declare itself a polygamous religion, then sell raffle tickets to marry Tom Cruise! They'd make millions! And twenty lucky women would then be able to frustrate themselves with a closet case!

Dianetics: It's What Makes You Pee.

Man, wookies smell. Bad. You ain't never seen dingleberries like that before...

What are the three things you take with you when you go for Wookie Hooker Sex?

One has got to be a lint brush ....

Ahh, funny you should say that. Ace thought I was joking, and I was of course about the Jeesiosity, but I just found the text here, Mr. at December 7. Pour a little of that Castrol in your humor valve. It prevents a sticking sphincter.

Anonymous idiot (Mr. at December 7) here,

Your link seems to be wrong, Dubya, but I think what you're talking about is here. Knew you were joking about the jeesiosity.

Am I the only one that didn't skip the "Who is Tom Bombadil?" LOTR Geekoid seminar ?

""In the House of Tom Bombadil" Goldberry answers the question "Who is Tom Bombadil?" with the simple statement "He is" (Rings, 1:135). In terms of medieval philosophy this would mean that existence is a predicate of Tom Bombadil and that he is therefore God. Although Tolkien denies this implication in a letter, written in 1954 (Letters, pp. 191-92), saying that Goldberry, like Tom later, is only making a point about the nature of naming, I remain haunted by the remark. Just as the reference to Odin does not necessarily mean that we must conclude that Tom is Odin, the allusion to medieval philosophical terminology in describing him need not be interpreted as a Christian theological crisis. While Tolkien's denial clearly rules out the possibility that Tom is Iluvatar, I do not see that it eliminates the possibility that he is an offspring of Iluvatar's thought, a Vala or a Maia, for I see nothing theologically troublesome with existence being a predicate of part of God. "

"If we take Tom's remark quite literally that he "was here before the river and the trees. . .the first raindrop and the first acorn" (Rings, 1:142), he is saying either that he was in Middle-earth when the Valar arrived or that he arrived as one of the Valar. His remark that "he knew the dark under ths stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from the Outside" refers to the time before Morgoth, the original Dark Lord, had officially turned renegade - the time when the "old" or original stars were made. Since the world was incomplete at that time and nothing lived on the earth except the Valar, it is hard to believe that Tom is anything but a Vala."

"It is also important to note the tremendous power and control that Tom has over the ring. He is, first of all, able to overcome its normal effects. When he puts it on his finger, he does not become invisible. When Frodo puts it on his finger, Tom is still able to see Frodo: he is "not as blind as that yet" (Ibid.). Second, Tom is able with ease to use the ring in ways that were not intended by its maker, for he is able to make the ring itself disappear. (It is possible that Sauron himself might be unable to do this, for the ring embodied a great part of Sauron's own power, drained from him during its making.) Such power over the ring, displayed almost as a parlor trick, I submit, cannot be accounted for by classifying Tom Bombadil as an anomalous nature spirit. The ability to dominate the ring suggests a Vala; the ease with which it is dominated suggests the ultimate maker of all things in Middle-earth, Aule the Smith, of whom both Sauron and Saruman were mere servants in the beginning before time. "

Who is Tom Bombadil?

Sorry for the grouchiness, Mantis. Yes, that's the link I meant, but I still had the other link on the clipboard.

So I guess liberals are smart after all.

No, wait, we didn't prove that.

Here's Lileks on a different box office rivalry: Narnia and Brokeback Mountain. EW=Entertainment Weekly:

Well, in retrospect my big essay turned out to be 94% typing and 6% thinking, so nevermind. It had to do with the fact that EW put “Brokeback Mountain” on the cover this week instead of that Nornio or Neeneria movie or whatever it’s called. For all I know next week's issue will eschew all things Kong for a big happy Narnia-o-rama, and my whole point will be moot, so there's no need to make a fool of myself. Again. The second feature in EW was a movie about a transsexual who discovers the existence of a son; for all I know it’s a fine movie too - but I do not think these are two subjects that necessarily grip the public mind. BUT THEY SHOULD! And that’s the sense that I got from the EW issue – not that you MUST see “Brokeback” to prove you’re not homophobic, but that you should, because it’s helpful. In some vague sense. Seeing Narnia is not necessarily unhelpful, but it gives off those Bible-y Christy vibes somehow, and while that’s fine, we must encourage movies about cowboys in love, because somewhere in some small town a gay youth looks at the box office grosses, and decides to stay in the closet out of fear he will be eaten by a computer generated lion who manifests the stigmata. Or something like that. As if the two movies are somehow in a meta-competition for the Soul of America; as if disinterest in a gay cowboy love story means that 99.98 percent of America HATE GAYS.

But disinterest does not mean intolerance.

I have no problem with EW putting it on the cover; I have no problem with the movie whatsoever. I do wonder why the editors chose that movie instead of Narnia, though, and I suspect that it was a matter of which provided the proper dose of societal spinach. Narnia appeals to them; Narnia isn’t helpful.

"Regarding the Elf-spirit/Human-soul thing above."

Ahh, so that's why in 1ED D&D you couldn't use Raise Dead on Elves...a lingering hat-tip by Gygax. Funny.

I read the Pull "Dark Materials" trilogy, and I was fascinated by what I thought was clever Christian allegory woven in--until a line in the 3rd book in which a character plainly rejects, if not actually denounces, Christianity.

I stopped loving the story then.

Tres, Atom Bomb, Kralizec, someone,

Geez you guys are geeks. I was just talking off the cuff, but you guys are serious Tolkien scholars. I'm either humbled, or happy that someone has less of a life than I do.

(And only on this site will I get a bunch of freaks clamoring to correct a spelling error in the name of a character in a Tolkien book no one has read... :)

I confess, I gave up on the LOTR movies after the first one. Or was it the second one? It was the one with the wizards' contest between Saruman and Gandalf, which I imagined as a sort of dreadful internal metaphysical struggle, but the director visualized as two flailing skinny old guys punting each other back and forth across a stone room with their minds. And the elves looked gross and wormy. And Aragorn had that scraggly and obviously genuine beard, instead of the lush man-pelt I expect on my legendary kings, even in exile. And the Rohirrim were dirty. And the armor was wings and geegaws and preposterous swoops and whooptidoos. And the dwarf tossing joke was a jarringly stupid inclusion, too.

In short -- not counting some genuinely brilliant CGI -- it wasn't the misty, sparkly, heroic world of the books I read in the sixties, but an underimagined 1980's Dungeons 'n' Dragons-inspired shadow of the thing. I could easily imagine Arnold in it...which is okely-dokely if that's what you're expecting.

Mark,

Just wait until ALL OF US SEE THE MOVIE.

Imagine THAT thread my friend!...Heh.

Cool fantasy movies and underlying Christian themes.

It's the ties that bind us....;-)

Michael,

I certainly don't speak for every Christian that comes to Ace's site, but for me it's kind of like being around my brothers and their friends while growing up. They were nasty and inapproprioate most of the time, but hilarious.

The thing about them (and about you guys I'm guessing) is that they may have made me mad or offended me sometimes, but I knew that under all the dirty stupid talk they would always do the right thing in real life.

I could count on them. They were "good people."

That...or....I've given up on having any kind of a life and just have given myself over to hanging out with political geeks that my inner self has always pined for....;-)

They have run out of ideas in hollywood their beginging to copy old classics like KING KONG,WAR OF THE WORLDS and WILLIE WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORTY

Philip Pullman -- he of the marvellously secular trilogy His Dark Materials --

2) The Dark Materials books are also not that secular. When your characters declare war on God, and win (killing God and his lead angel after a protracted military battle against the forces of heaven), you might be anti-religious, but you're not exactly secular.

There might be one major issue that drives box office reciepts more than any other. So far, the only people I've seen who are crazy to see King Kong are guys. My wife isn't interested, and neither are the wives or girlfriends of any of my friends.

For some reason, it's been tagged a 'guy movie.' I think if the marketing staff cut a good trailer about the relationship between Kong and the woman, it would help improve the movie's appeal to women.

Either that, or remind people that it's good old fashioned storytelling. You know, the stuff that dreams are made of.

Chicks dig that sort of thing.

It's the ties that bind us....;-)

so that's how you roll...

Point of information about the John Cleese narrated version of the Screwtape Letters... it's available on Amazon. Pricey at over $68.

'For some reason, it's been tagged a 'guy movie.' I think if the marketing staff cut a good trailer about the relationship between Kong and the woman, it would help improve the movie's appeal to women.'

Maybe not even then, the whole beast iality (sorry for splitting, it rejected the whole word) thing comes to mind, not attractive to most women I would think. My wife as little interest in seeing it, for whatever reason.

I have no interest in seeing King Kong either, but I am sure my 13 yr old will drag me to it.

Late to the game here, but I loved The Screwtape Letters. Very funny stuff.

Per the inestimable Lileks, see-dub, I heard about this gay-cowboy movie but I wasn't aware it was named "Bareback Mountain."

Oops, check that, misread.

JackStraw:

I won't waste my time

That sounded ruder than I intended -- I simply meant to point out that it would take *several* tubino-length posts to get at the symbolic elements in Rings that are arguably Christian in character, and it wouldn't really make a convincing argument when all is said and done. Rings can certainly be enjoyed as a simple fantasy/adeventure story -- although I'd argue that to ignore the thematic elements is to also miss the whole point of the story.

If you're still reading... no offense intended.

I enjoyed both Narnia and LoTR. Not so big on the monkey movie, fwiw

"Brokeback Mountain" is an unfortunate name for a movie about gay cowboys, isn't it?

Their going and remaking old classics becuase they have become hooked on dope and booze