|
|
fourthage (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} fourthage) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2005-12-09 14:13:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Narnia Wank
Over at Pandagon, Amanda Marcotte posts an entry titled How enchanting are the Chronicles of Narnia?
I was thinking about this because of the feeding frenzy of free publicity for Disney's live action adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, another dead Jeebus movie, but this one a little more palatable than the snuff-flick-masquerading-as-religious-ar
Things are pretty calm,
Mnemosyne quotes from the post and responds:
"The book was intended to be and is wielded by believers as covert propaganda for their religion on children--the woman who gave it to me was a devout Christian but said absolutely nothing about the Christian angle of the book, presumably hoping that she could soften me up for a conversion."
Except that it WASN'T WRITTEN TO BE FUCKING COVERT PROPAGANDA FOR FUNDAMENTALISTS!
And then Amanda posts a follow-up that says
As for the Narnia post, c'mon now, y'all. Do I have to like the books in order to get a pass? Am I free to dislike Tolkien?
Update: I am sorry I was flip about something people are clearly touchy about. But unfortunately the ugly truth is that lovely as Narnia is, Lewis' plot kind of sucks, the ascendency to royalty is boring, and the theology just isn't all that. But hey, I wasn't ever the hugest fantasy fan, so hate away.
And Mnemosyne gets defensive
Mnemosyne:
Nobody said you have to like the books. I think PZ Myers' comment has some good reasons to dislike them aside from the Christian symbolism.
But it's like you're arguing that we all have to stop listening to Johnny Cash because he's been co-opted by the fundies. Do you really want to start drawing those kinds of lines? Because you'll pry "Man in Black" out of my cold, dead hands.
Amanda:
The problem is that I didn't say that the Christian symbolism is why I didn't like it. I don't like it because it's boring. The Christianity is weakly argued and wingnuts like the weak argument because it fits their embattled self-image. None of this strikes me as controversial.
Mnemosyne:
So you'd like them better if the Christianity were "strongly argued" like, say, the Left Behind books?
I'm really not getting your point. If you were bored by them, fine. It's a matter of taste. But what the heck does "the Christianity is weakly argued" mean?
Amanda:
No. I have two separate points. They aren't that interesting as literature. And--remember, this is an entirely separate point--I don't think they are effective Christian propaganda. Granted, they might be better conversion tools if they were better books, but the Left Behind series demonstrates that's probably not true.
Mnemosyne:
Again, there are plenty of perfectly valid criticisms to make of Lewis' books. But snarkily dismissing books that were a huge part of some people's childhoods -- especially people who (guess what?) didn't become fundamentalist Christians despite their exposure to the books -- is really not worthy of you.
Josh Jasper is here to tell us the difference between personal taste and just plain bad.
The problem isn't that you chose Narnia, it's that you still have yet to learn the difference between "I didn't like it because I got bored" and "I didn't like it because it's boring, and a bad book".
Seriously. Learn to seperate your taste from "good" and "bad". No one gives a shit if you don't like anything from Shakespeare to Rumi to Van gough to Kurasawa.
J-Ha:
Oh Jesus H Aslan, Josh
Please give me more of you "People who say things on the internet I disagree with" list! Oh wait, don't. I don't give a rat's ass about your e-integrity. My comment was tongue-in-cheek and more about the general observation that people don't get their panties in a wad about baseless snobbery/criticism until it's one of their cherised books/movies/songs that's being criticized.
Mnemosyne pulls out the Glove of Ignorance and slaps Amanda with it
Amanda:
Yep, it's very pagan, just like the article I linked to approvingly said. Which is why I pitied Lewis, because pagans have better stories, so of course he had to water down his Christian theme to get at the better story.
Mnemosyne:
Pretty rich coming from someone who admits she never read the book and is going off other peoples' opinions.
And if you don't know that the entire story of Jesus is built on pagan imagery (Dionysus, anyone?) then you're pretty ignorant of the religion you were raised in.
And then people start swapping titles of their favorite children's books.
ETA: Heh, forgot the link to the main wank.
ETA2: Because seven hours later, I notice I twice gave Mnemosyne an extra "e".
Over at Pandagon, Amanda Marcotte posts an entry titled How enchanting are the Chronicles of Narnia?
I was thinking about this because of the feeding frenzy of free publicity for Disney's live action adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, another dead Jeebus movie, but this one a little more palatable than the snuff-flick-masquerading-as-religious-ar
Things are pretty calm,
Mnemosyne quotes from the post and responds:
"The book was intended to be and is wielded by believers as covert propaganda for their religion on children--the woman who gave it to me was a devout Christian but said absolutely nothing about the Christian angle of the book, presumably hoping that she could soften me up for a conversion."
Except that it WASN'T WRITTEN TO BE FUCKING COVERT PROPAGANDA FOR FUNDAMENTALISTS!
And then Amanda posts a follow-up that says
As for the Narnia post, c'mon now, y'all. Do I have to like the books in order to get a pass? Am I free to dislike Tolkien?
Update: I am sorry I was flip about something people are clearly touchy about. But unfortunately the ugly truth is that lovely as Narnia is, Lewis' plot kind of sucks, the ascendency to royalty is boring, and the theology just isn't all that. But hey, I wasn't ever the hugest fantasy fan, so hate away.
And Mnemosyne gets defensive
Mnemosyne:
Nobody said you have to like the books. I think PZ Myers' comment has some good reasons to dislike them aside from the Christian symbolism.
But it's like you're arguing that we all have to stop listening to Johnny Cash because he's been co-opted by the fundies. Do you really want to start drawing those kinds of lines? Because you'll pry "Man in Black" out of my cold, dead hands.
Amanda:
The problem is that I didn't say that the Christian symbolism is why I didn't like it. I don't like it because it's boring. The Christianity is weakly argued and wingnuts like the weak argument because it fits their embattled self-image. None of this strikes me as controversial.
Mnemosyne:
So you'd like them better if the Christianity were "strongly argued" like, say, the Left Behind books?
I'm really not getting your point. If you were bored by them, fine. It's a matter of taste. But what the heck does "the Christianity is weakly argued" mean?
Amanda:
No. I have two separate points. They aren't that interesting as literature. And--remember, this is an entirely separate point--I don't think they are effective Christian propaganda. Granted, they might be better conversion tools if they were better books, but the Left Behind series demonstrates that's probably not true.
Mnemosyne:
Again, there are plenty of perfectly valid criticisms to make of Lewis' books. But snarkily dismissing books that were a huge part of some people's childhoods -- especially people who (guess what?) didn't become fundamentalist Christians despite their exposure to the books -- is really not worthy of you.
Josh Jasper is here to tell us the difference between personal taste and just plain bad.
The problem isn't that you chose Narnia, it's that you still have yet to learn the difference between "I didn't like it because I got bored" and "I didn't like it because it's boring, and a bad book".
Seriously. Learn to seperate your taste from "good" and "bad". No one gives a shit if you don't like anything from Shakespeare to Rumi to Van gough to Kurasawa.
J-Ha:
Oh Jesus H Aslan, Josh
Please give me more of you "People who say things on the internet I disagree with" list! Oh wait, don't. I don't give a rat's ass about your e-integrity. My comment was tongue-in-cheek and more about the general observation that people don't get their panties in a wad about baseless snobbery/criticism until it's one of their cherised books/movies/songs that's being criticized.
Mnemosyne pulls out the Glove of Ignorance and slaps Amanda with it
Amanda:
Yep, it's very pagan, just like the article I linked to approvingly said. Which is why I pitied Lewis, because pagans have better stories, so of course he had to water down his Christian theme to get at the better story.
Mnemosyne:
Pretty rich coming from someone who admits she never read the book and is going off other peoples' opinions.
And if you don't know that the entire story of Jesus is built on pagan imagery (Dionysus, anyone?) then you're pretty ignorant of the religion you were raised in.
And then people start swapping titles of their favorite children's books.
ETA: Heh, forgot the link to the main wank.
ETA2: Because seven hours later, I notice I twice gave Mnemosyne an extra "e".
