It's just doesn't sit well with me.
Granted, Lewis is writing a fictional account of a ground-breaking idea. But to, in essence, tear down your self-proclaimed hero seems...tacky to say the least.
Along with this and one other strange allusion I can't remember, I've never been a fan of Lewis's voice. The way he writes is strange and different. It's definitely a style thing, but it's not an old thing, because there are plenty of writings that are much older that I love (Shakespeare, Dumas, Doestyevsky for example).
It's sad because my roommate, Josh, asked if I would maybe like Great Divorce and even Lewis a bit more if it wasn't "being shoved down [my] throat." Hmh. I wonder the same.
See, every text for the course is by Lewis, or Lewis's friend (J.R.R. Tolkien), or his mentor/hero (George MacDonald). And it is this lack of variation that is so frustrating.
It's really getting out of hand. The title is so amazing and the genre is incredible, but we are all being blind sided by a bigot (not Lewis). Mythology has recently become an obsession of mine (one I wish I could begin to pursue more), and of course fantasy and especially imagination have always been my loves. There is so much information and ideas that we are not experiencing.
It saddens me.
Irony is that heartless bitch, since I remember back last semester when Cora (the professor) told me that I could "take that class over at Cal State if [I] want to." At the time I thought it was weird her trying to push me out since she is so determined to teach and mentor everyone to follow her ways. Now I wish I would have taken her up on the offer.
If the class were merely re-named as "C.S. Lewis 101" or "C.S. Lewis and Friends" that'd be fine, but to ruin the idea of mythology and imagination (that "bitch" again: the lack of imagination in choosing the course texts), and especially to have us read Mere Christianity (Lewis's renowned book on theology) under the same pretext of fantasy.
Yeah, I know right?
I take comfort only in our final project. We have to write out a 125 page story (in groups, mine is of 5) that displays all the attributes of a fantasy/myth story (of course, there must must MUST be a "christian truth" present). Then we have to present the story in whatever form we want, using the entire school as our "stage." We of course have to have a song and a dance, with food and costumes, and take up the entire class period—75 minutes.
It'll be fun, and our story is coming together well.
I only wish I was learning about Icarus and Loki instead of the Pevensie children and Bilbo (there is no correlation between the two contrasting groups I used as an example).
But Nathan that's the best part of his reference to MacDonald's work. He tears it down not because he wants to or because he thinks that it is truly flawed but because it represents that even all of our earthly heroes fall short. To make the main character a huge MacDonald fan helps to illustrate the way people most likely view Lewis and how even if you like his works doesn't mean he's perfect.
ReplyDeleteAnd I will never be able to understand why you (or anyone for that instance) can prefer Shakespeare's voice to Lewis', but that's entirely based on my view that Shakespeare is nothing more than an old school Kevin Smith whose perversion and beat you over the head "wit" have been over glorified (and sometimes deified) over the years.
in short... Shakespeare's a douche.
I guess it's the fact that you're commenting on one of my favorite fictional writings by Lewis. C.S. Lewis is definitely not with out his flaws, but I prefer him to Shakespeare and Dostoevsky (mostly because the translations seldom do Dostoevsky justice- most pretentious comment on this blog).
I will however agree that a course on Myth, Fantasy, and Fiction that doesn't EVER mention Don Quixote or Beowulf or The Wind and the Willows (which completely paved the way for the Narnia books) can hardly be considered a legitimate course. Freakin' Alleys think they know everything about literature.
-The Right Reverend
... Screw Icarus, it's all about the Pevensies. (sarcasm)
Here is the exact quote of me reading this comment:
ReplyDelete"Hahahaha...ah...AH...OH OH OH!"
Direct quote.
I see your point about MacDonald. And I agree with his purpose in the novel. As always Alex, you presented a point I failed to see.
However, I'm still not a fan of the introduction of MacDonald. Yet again back to Josh, this might because MacDonald as well has been crammed down my throat.
Who knows.
Your Shakespeare commentary hurts me, though, it hurts me deep down. But of course I perfectly understand the distaste for Shakespeare, and I've always known of your over-gloried, Second Coming view of Lewis (very similar to the Alleys actually).
I can't however, comment on Doestyevsky further than I love what I've read.
And I can't read Russian. Didn't know you could.