I must confess to you that while I am an admirer of his non-fiction work, I don't like C.S. Lewis's fiction. I have never been able to read the Narnia tales, at least not past "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe," which I read aloud to my oldest son before he was able to read on his own. I adore Tolkien, though, and had always assumed that it was a tomato-tomahto thing, in part, and in part a difference in artistic aim: Lewis intended his Narnia tales for children, while Tolkien's aim was far higher.
Tolkien disliked allegory, and the Narnia tales were too allegorical for his taste. Lewis protested that they were not an allegory (he had already written an allegory in his Pilgrim's Regress) but an analogy. While it is true that the characters in Narnia do not have a one-to-one allegorical relationship with abstract truths, they do point clearly to greater truths and greater characters in the Christian story. Tolkien objected.Tolkien disliked allegory so intensely because he felt it was too didactic. It leaves no possibility that any other levels of meaning in the work could exist. Tolkien understood the artist, created in God's image, to be a "sub-creator" -- producing a work of the imagination that functioned best when it followed God's own complex action of creation.
To do this most successfully, a complete alternative world had to be created in which the work of redemption could be played out within its own consistent and logical constraints. It was not enough to create a world with symbolic pointers to Jesus Christ and the cross; that world would have to have a whole history and unique inner dynamic that would incarnate the universal truths in a totally fresh way.
The difference between Narnia and Middle Earth points to the underlying difference between the imagination of Lewis the Protestant and Tolkien the Catholic. For the Protestant, truth is essentially dialectical. It consists of abstract propositions to be stated, argued, and affirmed or denied.
For the Catholic, Truth, while it may be argued dialectically, is essentially something not to be argued but experienced. The Truth is always linked with the mystery of the incarnation, and is therefore something to be encountered.
Many Protestants will argue, for instance, that God's primary revelation is Sacred Scripture, while Catholics maintain that God's primary revelation is Jesus Christ. That Lewis produced works that were profound, worthy, and beautiful, but less than fully incarnational, while Tolkien produced a masterpiece that incarnated the same truths in a complete, subtle, and mysterious way reflects the deeper theological differences that remained between the two men.
I've never thought of it this way. What do you all say? (BTW, Fr. Longenecker was an Anglican priest, and became a Roman Catholic priest several years ago, so he's not talking through his biretta about Protestantism and Catholicism).
H/T: Amy, whose got a bunch of "Prince Caspian" links up.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Though Tolkien himself said he did not like allegory that certainly did not stop him from writing a few. See "Leaf by Niggle" and "Smith of Wooton Major". Both lovely stories and both definitely allegorical. I refer you to their treatment in "J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century" by Tom Shippey.
For what it is worth, I am a Christian and have loved both Lewis and Tolkien for the last 30+ years.
For those of you who are LOTR fans but don't care for C.S. Lewis, just remember that you probably have him to thank for the publication of those books! Though he wasn't always the most careful writer (he dashed things out in a hurry and rarely edited), he was a tireless champion of his friends' work. He badgered and bothered and pleaded with Tolkien until those volumes were finished, and then had to listen to the cranky old man criticize his own work mercilessly (actually, Lewis could be a tough critic, too--sort of the bullying widwife type). I'm very sure that Lewis would agree that Tolkien was the superior writer and genius. This doesn't take away from the fact that many children have loved the Chronicles of Narnia and many Christian children from various traditions have had their religious imaginations quickened and baptized by those stories.
Oh, 'Lord of the Rings' is a glorious, subtle, and psychologically rather acute allegory that makes a valiant effort at the universal. (Trust the tale, not the teller.) I don't find Christianity per se in LOTR, though the books beautifully blend in appropriate little bits of ancient European religious myth all over. Many of the things in the book are pretty clearly and cleverly identified by their character descriptions, by visual descriptions, or their names- though you might have to know Old Norse or ancient Irish for the latter. Like the most intelligent art, everything is hidden in plain sight, and people can take away from it that which they find recognizable, relevant, and at their level. It is also an adult book, really, where 'The Hobbit' is a childrens' book.
'Narnia' is fairly preachy, unsubtle, and religionist by comparison. The hodgepodge of psychologically crude saviors and monsters, magical Rules, bluntly propounded dogmas and apologetics, and the way the human actors are Victorian Age theologians' stereotypes...I can see why Tolkien regarded it as clunky. Of course, if you agree with the premises and logic of the universe he proposes and like to hear those affirmed, it's probably a great read.
As a child, the Narnia books were my favorites. Today, I find Lewis's approach in the Narnia books - putting words in God's mouth very presumptious, and there is something both smug and self-hating about Lewis.
Just contrast Aslan lecturing the various children in the Narnia books to Tolkien saying, "Not even the very wise can see all ends." Tolkien didn't presume to speak for God because he realized the limits of human imagination and the mystery of goodness.
I think the Catholic/Protestant thing makes no sense given that the great age of allegory is the decidedly unReformed Middle Ages.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.