Guardian of Bad Religion
Posted on December 6, 2005 by Tito
After seeing links from Laila Lalami and Bookslut to Polly Toynbee’s Guardian “review” of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I thought I’d check it out – mostly because of Lalami’s remarks that it would be enough to keep her away from a movie she may have otherwise seen. The article is in the Guardian’s “Books” section, so I went in with the mistaken assumption it would be a review of C.S. Lewis’ children’s book, currently enjoying the publicity of a Disney movie adaptation. Instead, I find mean-spirited essay on politics & religion, with hardly any writing that is discernably about the book.
The article starts off by putting the The Chronicles of Narnia series in it’s place with Harry Potter and The Lord of the Ring, other popular children’s books that have been made into movies, followed by a note that TLOTR autor JRR Tolkein had been responsible for the conversion of C.S. Lewis to Christianity. This is where we get our first bit (and possibly last) of criticism of Lewis’ book: “Narnia is a strange blend of magic, myth and Christianity, some of it brilliantly fantastical and richly imaginative, some (the clunking allegory) toe-curlingly, cringingly awful.”1 From here Polly Toynbee goes onto write about Disney’s adapation and where it all fits into the Republican theo-political conglomerate world2. Fair and disturbing enough, but I suspect that these are facts that should be told elsewhere, or at least in a longer book review where this section won’t dominate the piece. I’m not convinced this is entirely relevant in a book review – particularly of a book meant for 10-year olds – a hesitation that is compounded by that fact that many of the pseudo-Christian “themes” being criticized appear to be based specifically on the film.
Toynbee should have been clearer to delineate when she was writing about the movie, the book, both or neither. This sequence for example [empahsis mine]: “The godly will reap earthly reward because God is on the side of the strong. This appears to be CS Lewis’s view, too. In the battle at the end of the film, visually a great epic treat, the child crusaders are crowned kings and queens for no particular reason. Intellectually, the poor do not inherit Lewis’s earth.” Given that previously Lewis was adamently against any film adaptation, to presuppose his theological view based on a movie (by Disney no less) is a grave misstep, in my view. And more to the point, what does this have to do with the writing? I remember when I was a child reading this – I did not consider any mystical, theological or politcal implications but was transported magically by the story. Yet this could all still be considered nit-picking on my part, since the move is based on Lewis’ book.
The line that really floored me was “Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. ” Whoa. Don’t like the book? Cool. Think Disney is crap and the movie is likely not worth seeing? Right with ya. But this ipso facto castigation of a core tenet of a religion is: foolish, mean, ignorant, lazy – take your pick. There is a lot wrong with a lot of churches today, specifically Roman Catholicism, but I would consider most of these issues of religion & dogma. Child molestation, female clergy and birth control are some items that come to mind, and deserve more conversation elsewhere. However, one of the great theological appeals of Christianity (for me at least) is the idea of redemptiom. To call it repugnant is itself repugnant and for better or worse, put an end to my interest in Toynbee’s opinions.
Not to say this is an entirely meritless essay – but I would hardly call it a book review. Why not move it to the OpEd section and at least shed any illusion that this is anything besides polemic? It is never clear where she is talking of the book, the movie, or her own “views” on religion. Of course any book review could and should offer some context, but I don’t think the context should be the review, using thet book as a flimsy launchpad for your own rants. I’m just sayin’.
1Although, based on her later writing, I am no longer sure if she was writing about the movie or the book here.
2 US born-agains are using the movie. The Mission America Coalition is “inviting church leaders around the country to consider the fantastic ministry opportunity presented by the release of this film”. The president’s brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, is organising a scheme for every child in his state to read the book. Walden Media, co-producer of the movie, offers a “17-week Narnia Bible study for children”. The owner of Walden Media is both a big Republican donor and a donor to the Florida governor’s book promotion – a neat synergy of politics, religion and product placement. It has aroused protests from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which complains that “a governmental endorsement of the book’s religious message is in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution”.
» Filed Under Books, Film, Liberal Media Conspiracies, Politics, Religion, Theology
Comments
One Response to “Guardian of Bad Religion”
-
Search
-
[...] A number of people have offered their thoughts on the subject already. But let’s ponder what seems to be considered the most offensive passage: Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight. Philip Pullman – he of the marvellously secular trilogy His Dark Materials – has called Narnia “one of the most ugly, poisonous things I have ever read”. Why? Because here in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America – that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right. I once heard the famous preacher Norman Vincent Peel in New York expound a sermon that reassured his wealthy congregation that they were made rich by God because they deserved it. The godly will reap earthly reward because God is on the side of the strong. This appears to be CS Lewis’s view, too. In the battle at the end of the film, visually a great epic treat, the child crusaders are crowned kings and queens for no particular reason. Intellectually, the poor do not inherit Lewis’s earth. [...]