From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #115 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, August 11 2002 Volume 04 : Number 115 Today's Subjects: ----------------- t/narnia etc. ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: t/narnia etc. ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: t/narnia etc. ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: t/narnia etc. ["Susan Kroupa" ] o/long interview with joss [meredith ] Re: o/long interview with joss ["Marta Grabien" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 09:52:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: t/narnia etc. Warning: I just woke up. I've got an idea for an essay in my head, and I thought I'd dash down some notes here, especially since the topic may well be of general interest. Title: "Jungian Symbolism and the Order of the Narnia Books" As some of you may know, the now-standard edition of C.S. Lewis' Narnia series (one of the great children's fantasies) has been rearranged: it now begins with =The Magician's Nephew= (formerly #6 of 7), and moves =The Horse and His Boy= (formerly #5) to the third position after =The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe= (formerly #1), after which the rest follow in the usual order. The =only= justification for this is that it does in fact represent the =internal= chronology of the series (the events of =The Magician's Nephew= take place much earlier--in two senses!--than the events of the rest of the series, and =The Horse and His Boy= is a side-story that happens near the end of =The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe=); but it violates the order as written, and--here's the point of the essay--does further violence to the reader's experience of the series. To begin with a side-issue: the Narnia books are a fantasy that we tend, I think, to read very young (you can take this as a survey-question, in fact), and so in a sense we can (narratology alert!) observe it as an engine for learning to read fantasy; and in this sense =The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe= is the easiest, the most "naive," of the books, and portrays a "younger" sort of fantasizing (the wardrobe in the abandoned room is the gateway to fantasyland), and thus is the perfect introduction to the whole series. By contrast, =The Magician's Nephew= is the most complex and sophisticated (and I would argue the best) of the books, and for that reason needs to come later. Also, the writing of the books, I think, was a discovery process for the author, and =The Magician's Nephew= represents the =end= of that process, not the beginning. (This point can be expanded, and I'll get back to it.) The most smartass thing I can say is: =The Magician's Nephew= is, structurally, a "flashback." Should =all= narratives with flashbacks be re-ordered so the flashbacks are narrated first? I didn't think so. (Absurd examples invited.) Here's the core of the argument, which focuses on one symbol from =The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe=: the lamp-post sitting in the middle of the forest. What's it doing there? (David: is it true, as I seem to remember, that Lewis himself didn't know why it was there at first? Can you give me a ref?) Samuel R. Delany says somewhere (I =think= it's in =The American Shore=, my copy of which has vanished) that the way fiction works (narratology again) is "image first, then explanation"; he uses this as a critique of the order of the stories in the book version of =Foundation=, Asimov's famous science fiction series. And it works in the case of Narnia, as well, because the explanation for the lamp-post is in =The Magician's Nephew=, and I'd argue that if you get the explanation first, it's suddenly no big deal when it appears "later" in =The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe=. It seems to me this is another case of the Freudian/Jungian split. (More research needed to get this point precise.) Jung somewhere says that there's a difference between a symbol and a sign: he points out that for Freud, what he calls a "symbol" is really a sign, since it invariably represents the same content (or signified, in semotic terms). For Jung, a symbol is a sign that represents an =unknown= content, something that is meaningful but we don't know why; and I think that's =exactly= what the lamp-post is if we encounter it first in =The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe=. This may be a side-issue, too, but...I have sort of seen the =Lord of the Rings= movie now (capsule review: 80% wonderful, 20% annoying), and spent an afternoon skimming through the book (which I haven't really looked at in years). I'm going to partly concede to David an argument we were having some time ago, where he complained that the Tolkien entry in =The Encyclopedia of Fantasy= (written by editor John Clute) had things wrong way round by beginning with the First Age creation-myth of Tolkien's mythos rather than with the Third Age events of =The Lord of the Rings= (which is how most readers first encounter Middle-Earth). (David: Did you publish your opinion? Can you point me to it if so?) This would seem to dovetail with what I'm saying about Narnia. But the case is a little different, isn't it? Narnia grew from an initial image (was it the lamp-post? or the faun? I forget [ref solicited]) from which it opened out; but in Tolkien's case the tales of the First and Second Ages long =predate= =The Lord of the Rings=. On the other hand, Tolkien implies in his 1960s foreword ("This tale grew in the telling...) that there were many things in =The Lord of the Rings= that he only figured out as he wrote. Is it the case that the Third Age stories worked like Narnia while the First and Second Ages did not? I invite David's (and everyone else's) discussion of this. Obviously my argument needs some work. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:45:04 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. From: "Donald G. Keller" . > To begin with a side-issue: the Narnia books are a fantasy that we tend, I > think, to read very young (you can take this as a survey-question, in > fact) I did not read the Narnia books until college, and I read them because Lewis was a Christian and that they were Christian fantasy for children. That was my context for reading them. By that time, I had read _The Hobbit_, _The Lord of the Rings_, _A Wrinkle in Time_, all the various colored fairy tale books, the E. Nesbit books, the Edward Eager books, and pretty much all the fantasy that had been published in the 1960s and early '70s. > Here's the core of the argument, which focuses on one symbol from =The > Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe=: the lamp-post sitting in the middle of > the forest. What's it doing there? (David: is it true, as I seem to > remember, that Lewis himself didn't know why it was there at first? Can > you give me a ref?) > > And it works in the case of Narnia, as > well, because the explanation for the lamp-post is in =The Magician's > Nephew=, and I'd argue that if you get the explanation first, it's > suddenly no big deal when it appears "later" in =The Lion, the Witch, and the > Wardrobe=. > > It seems to me this is another case of the Freudian/Jungian split. (More > research needed to get this point precise.) Jung somewhere says that > there's a difference between a symbol and a sign: he points out that for > Freud, what he calls a "symbol" is really a sign, since it invariably > represents the same content (or signified, in semotic terms). For Jung, a > symbol is a sign that represents an =unknown= content, something that is > meaningful but we don't know why; and I think that's =exactly= what the > lamp-post is if we encounter it first in =The Lion, the Witch, and the > Wardrobe=. To me, it is so wrong to try to analyze Narnia from a Jungian or especially from a Freudian point of view. Lewis was a Christian, and that was the language he was speaking when he wrote the Narnia books. Even if he didn't know what he was doing in first putting in the lamp-post in Narnia, if you must analyze it, use the symbols that would have been important to Lewis. A lamp-post, a symbol of light, is in Narnia, whose ruler is Aslan, an avatar of Jesus, who said, "I am the light of the world." Light is one of the primary Christian symbols. That's why churches still use so many candles in this time of electricity. The Easter candle, which Catholics and I believe some high-church Protestants use, is brought in every year during the Easter vigil, in the part of the liturgy called the ceremony of light. The church is totally dark except for this one tiny flame, which symbolizes Christ. As the Exultet, the traditional text incapsulating salvation history is sung, other candles are lit off this one flame until the entire church is aglow. (Everyone who comes into the church is given a candle that night.) Lewis wasn't Catholic, but the English church is high-church enough that they surely do this as well. (Y'all know what I mean by "high-church," don't you? I mean a non-Catholic (and non-Orthodox) Christian church whose services are liturgical -- smells and bells (maybe) and ritual prayer in addition to Scripture reading -- rather than just Bible reading and preaching as the non-denominational Bible churches and sects like the Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. have.) This lamp-post, this symbol of light, is in a place out of time. Jesus said, "Lo, I am with you always," and in Hebrews (13:8) it says, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever," much as that lamp-post just sitting there in the middle of the forest, a reminder of a distant time. So you can say that like Aslan, the lamp-post is a marker for Jesus. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:38:31 -0600 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. Don, I'm delighted that you're thinking about this essay. I'm a big Narnia fan and I've been more than frustrated with the new editions changing the order of the books. The publishers have shown no understanding of the creative process and how it unfolds. What you say about LWW is true--it IS the introductory book and not only is it simpler than MN, it is the one which does the initial character exposition, setting up the cast in a way that none of the other books do--which is a critical reason that it should come first. I think you're right about the lamppost, too. It takes away from its mystery and significance to start with MN. Please keep posting on this as you get new ideas. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald G. Keller" To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 7:52 AM Subject: t/narnia etc. > Warning: I just woke up. I've got an idea for an essay in my head, and I > thought I'd dash down some notes here, especially since the topic may well > be of general interest. > > Title: "Jungian Symbolism and the Order of the Narnia Books" > > As some of you may know, the now-standard edition of C.S. Lewis' Narnia > series (one of the great children's fantasies) has been rearranged: it now > begins with =The Magician's Nephew= (formerly #6 of 7), and moves =The > Horse and His Boy= (formerly #5) to the third position after =The Lion, > the Witch, and the Wardrobe= (formerly #1), after which the rest follow in > the usual order. > > The =only= justification for this is that it does in fact represent the > =internal= chronology of the series (the events of =The Magician's Nephew= > take place much earlier--in two senses!--than the events of the rest of > the series, and =The Horse and His Boy= is a side-story that happens near > the end of =The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe=); but it violates the > order as written, and--here's the point of the essay--does further > violence to the reader's experience of the series. > > To begin with a side-issue: the Narnia books are a fantasy that we tend, I > think, to read very young (you can take this as a survey-question, in > fact), and so in a sense we can (narratology alert!) observe it as an > engine for learning to read fantasy; and in this sense =The Lion, the > Witch, and the Wardrobe= is the easiest, the most "naive," of the books, > and portrays a "younger" sort of fantasizing (the wardrobe in the > abandoned room is the gateway to fantasyland), and thus is the perfect > introduction to the whole series. By contrast, =The Magician's Nephew= is > the most complex and sophisticated (and I would argue the best) of the > books, and for that reason needs to come later. > > Also, the writing of the books, I think, was a discovery process for the > author, and =The Magician's Nephew= represents the =end= of that process, > not the beginning. (This point can be expanded, and I'll get back to it.) > > The most smartass thing I can say is: =The Magician's Nephew= is, > structurally, a "flashback." Should =all= narratives with flashbacks be > re-ordered so the flashbacks are narrated first? I didn't think so. > (Absurd examples invited.) > > Here's the core of the argument, which focuses on one symbol from =The > Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe=: the lamp-post sitting in the middle of > the forest. What's it doing there? (David: is it true, as I seem to > remember, that Lewis himself didn't know why it was there at first? Can > you give me a ref?) > > Samuel R. Delany says somewhere (I =think= it's in =The American Shore=, > my copy of which has vanished) that the way fiction works (narratology > again) is "image first, then explanation"; he uses this as a critique of > the order of the stories in the book version of =Foundation=, Asimov's > famous science fiction series. And it works in the case of Narnia, as > well, because the explanation for the lamp-post is in =The Magician's > Nephew=, and I'd argue that if you get the explanation first, it's > suddenly no big deal when it appears "later" in =The Lion, the Witch, and the > Wardrobe=. > > It seems to me this is another case of the Freudian/Jungian split. (More > research needed to get this point precise.) Jung somewhere says that > there's a difference between a symbol and a sign: he points out that for > Freud, what he calls a "symbol" is really a sign, since it invariably > represents the same content (or signified, in semotic terms). For Jung, a > symbol is a sign that represents an =unknown= content, something that is > meaningful but we don't know why; and I think that's =exactly= what the > lamp-post is if we encounter it first in =The Lion, the Witch, and the > Wardrobe=. > > This may be a side-issue, too, but...I have sort of seen the =Lord of the > Rings= movie now (capsule review: 80% wonderful, 20% annoying), and spent > an afternoon skimming through the book (which I haven't really looked at > in years). I'm going to partly concede to David an argument we were having > some time ago, where he complained that the Tolkien entry in =The > Encyclopedia of Fantasy= (written by editor John Clute) had things wrong > way round by beginning with the First Age creation-myth of Tolkien's > mythos rather than with the Third Age events of =The Lord of the > Rings= (which is how most readers first encounter Middle-Earth). > (David: Did you publish your opinion? Can you point me to it if so?) This > would seem to dovetail with what I'm saying about Narnia. > > But the case is a little different, isn't it? Narnia grew from an initial > image (was it the lamp-post? or the faun? I forget [ref solicited]) from > which it opened out; but in Tolkien's case the tales of the First and > Second Ages long =predate= =The Lord of the Rings=. > > On the other hand, Tolkien implies in his 1960s foreword ("This tale > grew in the telling...) that there were many things in =The Lord of the > Rings= that he only figured out as he wrote. Is it the case that the Third > Age stories worked like Narnia while the First and Second Ages did not? > > I invite David's (and everyone else's) discussion of this. Obviously my > argument needs some work. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:09:20 -0600 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. That was my experience, too--I read them, actually, in my thirties because I was reading all of Lewis's works. I agree with Berni about seeing the books from a Christian perspective. But I still abhor the new way the books are ordered because from a _writing_ perspective--that of character development and world-building, I think the series should start with the Lion, Witch & Wardrobe. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Berni Phillips" To: Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 3:45 PM Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. > From: "Donald G. Keller" > . > > To begin with a side-issue: the Narnia books are a fantasy that we tend, I > > think, to read very young (you can take this as a survey-question, in > > fact) > > I did not read the Narnia books until college, and I read them because Lewis > was a Christian and that they were Christian fantasy for children. That was > my context for reading them. By that time, I had read _The Hobbit_, _The > Lord of the Rings_, _A Wrinkle in Time_, ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:28:19 -0400 From: meredith Subject: o/long interview with joss Hi, There is a long interview with Joss, mostly about FIREFLY, at scifi.com. http://www.scifi.com/scifimag/october2002/transcripts/index.html ============================================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ============================================== Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ============================================== ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:05:42 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: o/long interview with joss > There is a long interview with Joss, mostly about FIREFLY, at scifi.com. > > http://www.scifi.com/scifimag/october2002/transcripts/index.html Thank you. Really gives you a peek at Joss's mind. I would love to see him writing in a restaurant. Bet you could put anything in front of him and he would eat it, without noticing. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #115 *****************************