Fourth Age of Middle Earth gaming

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

You are either being very politically correct or else you know nothing about C.S Lewis. Go and read some of his other works, his letters, any halfway decent biography and then get back to me. Heck, even browse the wiki page on the man.

Since you seem to know essentially nothing about Lewis:
After a period of atheism as a younger man, he converted as an adult. He became a famous Christian apologist through works of non fiction like 'Mere Christianity.' His works of fiction are chock full of Christian elements, sometimes subtle and sometimes quite overt.
He was a good friend of Tolkien’s, by the way.

Maybe I'm confusing him with another author of the time. But that makes his work rather less interesting, if his apparent juvenile blatant bible thumping truly is that. I always assumed his work was deeper than an insidious kiddy version of the new testament. I'm saddened now. :(

I admit to being confused. But how could what I wrote be construed as political correctness? I don't think anyone has ever accused me of that before. I'm far more likely to be rudely blunt.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Maybe I'm confusing him with another author of the time. But that makes his work rather less interesting, if his apparent juvenile blatant bible thumping truly is that. I always assumed his work was deeper than an insidious kiddy version of the new testament. I'm saddened now. :(

I admit to being confused. But how could what I wrote be construed as political correctness? I don't think anyone has ever accused me of that before. I'm far more likely to be rudely blunt.

Your first question can only be answered by reading the books. The Narnia books are a light read, mostly. You might really like some, and not care so much for others. It's not an 'insidious kiddy NT', although in some of the books the religious themes are pretty overt. But they aren't just rewrites of Christian history or mythology, if that's what you mean. And with your weaker knowledge of Christianity (that’s not an insult; you just don’t seem to have a deep background in the religion and related cultural stuff—neither do some professed Christians) you might miss some of the subtext, anyhow. Please don’t let the allegorical elements in the books prevent you from giving them a read. I’m sure even some atheists have enjoyed them simply as fantasy.


But if you want to read Lewis, I actually think you'd like the Planetary Trilogy more than the Narnia books, at least the first two volumes. This series is sci fi.


The Screwtape Letters are great. Do you like devils?

As for 'p c', I address that in a PM. Don't want to get far off topic. Let’s let it drop in this thread, out of courtesy to the others.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

If he admitted to cribbing from his understanding of Christianity, then I can't deny it. But it diminishes his originality then. To you that may be uplifting, but to me it's kind of sad and a failure of story telling. But to each their own.
When I read fantasy, I don't want to get unexpectedly slapped by sections of, or references to, an entirely unrelated mythology.

The reader does not get slapped by that at all in any of Tolkien's work. As I said, he keeps it subtle.

You really should read his works and then start on his letters and notes if you wish to understand the man and his sub-creations.


And isn't it a little strange for you to object to Christian ideas and myths subtly influencing Tolkien's design of Middle Earth but to say nothing against the great big loads of pagan Norse and Anglo Saxon lore that overtly influenced the setting?
Anti-Christian bias much, Flyn?

;)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I’m sure even some atheists have enjoyed them simply as fantasy.

They vary in quality as fantasy; many of the middle books are perfectly fine, avoid The Last Battle like the plague.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Anthony

They vary in quality as fantasy; many of the middle books are perfectly fine, avoid The Last Battle like the plague.

While I wouldn't pan it like that, it wasn't my fave.

I really liked Voyage of the Dawn Treader and A Horse and his Boy.


RE:Middle-Erath-


This interview with Tolkien is pure gold.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-G_v6-u3hg

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Wow, they cut a lot out for the movies. There wasn't a d*mn bit of Christianity in LOTR. I wish I could slog through his writing style.

Tolkien seems to have been influenced by Macaulay, whose Lays of Ancient Rome explicitly disclaimed any thought of having early Roman figures live by or espouse Christian or humanitarian values, on the ground that this would be false to the period. Tolkien's characters say nothing that refers to the (far in their future) Incarnation or its implications. Which is not to say that Tolkien's philosophical perspective was not informed by Christian thought; his letters make it clear that he actively worried about this—for example, about whether having Elves undergo reincarnation was heretical, or whether that was a possible mode for nonhuman sentient beings within a Christian view of things.

The biggest unhistorical element in Tolkien is probably that none of his good guys practice slavery in any form.

Bill Stoddard

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

The reader does not get slapped by that at all in any of Tolkien's work. As I said, he keeps it subtle.

You really should read his works and then start on his letters and notes if you wish to understand the man and his sub-creations.


And isn't it a little strange for you to object to Christian ideas and myths subtly influencing Tolkien's design of Middle Earth but to say nothing against the great big loads of pagan Norse and Anglo Saxon lore that overtly influenced the setting?
Anti-Christian bias much, Flyn?

;)

One post then I'm leaving this thread with no hard feelings.
Overt mythological influences are obvious by definition and known going in. I can accept quite a bit if told ahead of time. I don't like getting roped into caring about a story only later to find out that it had a Trojan horse full of *.
I can't think of the word that describes the distaste I feel, and trying now will only lead to misunderstanding.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

If he admitted to cribbing from his understanding of Christianity, then I can't deny it. But it diminishes his originality then. To you that may be uplifting, but to me it's kind of sad and a failure of story telling. But to each their own.
When I read fantasy, I don't want to get unexpectedly slapped by sections of, or references to, an entirely unrelated mythology.

That's a problem with Lewis, but to me it's a bigger problem with the fauns and the centaurs and other classical intrusions, not least because the requirements of children's fiction in his time made it impossible for him to portray them authentically. They were perilously close to Disney versions! His use of Aslan strikes me as having far more authenticity.

Bill Stoddard

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Tolkien seems to have been influenced by Macaulay, whose Lays of Ancient Rome explicitly disclaimed any thought of having early Roman figures live by or espouse Christian or humanitarian values, on the ground that this would be false to the period. Tolkien's characters say nothing that refers to the (far in their future) Incarnation or its implications. Which is not to say that Tolkien's philosophical perspective was not informed by Christian thought; his letters make it clear that he actively worried about this—for example, about whether having Elves undergo reincarnation was heretical, or whether that was a possible mode for nonhuman sentient beings within a Christian view of things.

The biggest unhistorical element in Tolkien is probably that none of his good guys practice slavery in any form.

Bill Stoddard

Why would he care about made up creatures in a made up setting fitting with what he believed about the real world? That's not helping my head ache.
It's really hard, if not completely impossible, to make slave holders seem good to modern audiences. I know that my judgmental attitude would preclude it for anyone. I'm not into moral relativism oddly enough.

[shawnhcorey]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The biggest unhistorical element in Tolkien is probably that none of his good guys practice slavery in any form.

He also didn't mention anything about all those peasants who fed those large armies.