Post-Christmas
Epiphany is January 6, so I guess, strictly speaking, it's still Christmas. But the stores have cleared displays, dry evergreens are lying by the curbsides, and my company has diminished by 2/3. We've had a lovely couple of weeks, with my twin sister, two daughters, and neighbors adding to the mix. I've watched more movies (thanks to amazing DVD availability) than I have in years. Rossini's "La Cenerentala," starring Cecilia Bartoli, was a gift that I just hadn't made time for since my April birthday. She is a sturdy Cinderella. Too sturdy, one thinks, until she transfixes us by her singing in the final scene. At that point, we're convinced she's the only girl for the role. Though this telling of the childhood classic is strikingly redemptive at the end, we also took in the more overtly-Christmasy Charlie Brown, 34th Street, and a CD of Amahl and the Night Visitors. I spent time contemplating how one can drive home the reality of Jesus in a way that is fresh, yet respects both history and theology. Frankly, "Miracle on 34th" Street flunks. I make allowances that some truths can be told best in fiction, but even as a fairy tale, it lacks consistency. Amahl, I love. Wish I could write anything half as good. We also took in the new Narnia. I'd never read the C.S Lewis books before, or seen the story dramatized. Frankly, I thought the allegory lacked some consistency as well, though the show was enchanting. I'm told it wasn't entirely faithful to the books, so maybe I need to make myself read some. I just have never been able to get past the nausea of Turkish Delight. Narnia is more Easter than Christmas, of course--a reality even more challenging to respectful creative telling. There's no doubt C.S Lewis was an able artist. Me, I have yet to write even a song that takes hold. So, enough critique for now...
4 Comments:
The books are way better than the movie was. You really should give them a shot. I adored them as a child, but I find much more depth reading them as an adult. And they're fun, easy reads.
I think the reason why the allegory lacks consistency is that C. S. Lewis didn't mean for it to be an allegory. Christians have tried to pin the books into being allegory in order to justify the existence of magic, etc. in them. (In other words, "It's ok if there's magic because Aslan is Jesus.") But the word Lewis liked was "supposal," not allegory. Suppose that there was a world where there were fauns and other sorts of mythical creatures. Suppose that Christ chose to go to that world. How might it happen?
That's really more the direction he was taking with the stories. So we see characters with Christ-figure traits, and other elements of fall and redemption, but he's really not attempting the one-to-one correlation of allegory.
Jana,
Thanks for your illuminating input. I may have to give the books another chance. I admit to an emotional block to reading Lewis. We'll see.
I read all the Narnia books back when I was teaching 5th graders. I'd say Jana has explained Aslan perfectly. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the books as an adult, and my 5th graders always enjoyed "Lucy and the Wardrobe."
After the movie came out, I bought the whole set on sale. (I don't think I ever made it through the Horse and his Boy as a child). They were definitely worth re-reading, IMO. I also agree with Jana: CS Lewis wasn't fond of precise allegories. Neither was Tolkien, and neither am I. Lewis (and Tolkien) wanted to write entertaining, uplifting stories, that may (or may not) resemble other things.
Post a Comment
<< Home