"To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
C.S. Lewis' popularity has died in more rece "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
C.S. Lewis' popularity has died in more recent history. Academics accuse him of being too simplistic in his expression (a few that I have read even go so far as to say that he adds nothing to Christian theology), other readers find his style too wordy, preachy or patronising to fully enjoy. I myself, however, love C.S. Lewis' work much like I love G.K. Chesterton and J.R.R Tolkien. He is enthusiastic, flawed and all so human - bridging a divide between the more intellectual academics and the everyman. Or so I believe anyway.
The one great thing about Lewis' work, is that like Chesterton, he is so quotable. But where Chesterton is a far better wit and academic, Lewis is more laid back and grounded - like a humorous and approachable, if sometimes gruff, Grandad. The reason, therefore, that I believe many intellectuals (particularly atheistic individuals) dismiss Lewis' contribution to Christian apologetics is because he speaks with honesty and straightforwardly. This may sound contradictory, considering the way Lewis conducts his phrases - however it seems clear to me that the way he states his intentions is direct. He's not tactless, yet he does not hide his sentences in tact (if that makes any particular sense). To the intellectual who prefers greater nuance and ideas that they can make their own, there is little for them in Lewis' work.
"Do you think I am trying to weave a spell? Perhaps I am; but remember your fairytales. Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as for inducing them. And you and I have need of the strongest spell that can be found to wake us from the evil enchantment of worldliness which has been laid upon us for nearly a hundred years."
I would define Lewis as a Christian philosopher in his own way. After all, philosophy is all about critical thought, and Lewis is nothing if not critical - again perhaps a reason for his loss of popularity is that he attacks established intellectual institutions within his thoughts. Yet he is more a philosopher of apologetics - if such a role ever has existed.
"...it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are too easily pleased."
Yet, for most of this review I have merely been defending C.S. Lewis, not addressing this actual work of his. I will say that if you like Lewis, this is one of the better works of his that I have read. His address on The Weight of Glory is one of the finer pieces that he ever composed, I would argue, and many of the other pieces address similarly interesting and complex issues from the idea of unity, peace and scientific logic v. God. I will have to see how Mere Christianity stands up next to this.
For now I will state this in closing. I believe that C.S. Lewis is someone who should be read by anyone who reads philosophy or books of faith - works that address the idea of Human Nature and the mind or soul. Lewis is by far one of the most down-to-earth and confrontationally direct of all the writers I have tried (in many ways he is the direct opposite of Nietzsche) but he is still one of the more appealing to me. I will never cease to find it of more interest that he came from critical and intellectual atheism to critical and intellectual faith - proving that Christianity need not be faith without thought.
"Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."...more
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral tea
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
I am somewhat confused about some of the reasoning behind those giving this work one or two stars. From what I have seen it appears to be that C.S. Lewis does not justify his explanations well enough - that there is not enough of a burden of proof that he has fulfilled. Or that his writing, his work, is far too offensive.
For the first, I believe that those who read this work expecting to see some kind of justification for belief will be disappointed. Lewis himself explains that what Mere Christianity is about is more of an explanation of what all Christian denominations hold to be truth - it is not so much an argument for why these are held to be true. As for Lewis being offensive - yes, yes he is. For that matter, so is Christianity. Christianity should be so offensive to modern thinking so as to be near inconceivable - but that does not make it any less truthful. Nor does it mean that Christians need to be offensive.
Lewis is of course far more readable (and likeable) than Friedrich Nietzsche, yet I feel they are two sides of the one coin. Both view the issues in their modern societies and reflect critically upon them. However, where Nietzsche always asserts his views in first person as if they are fact (where they are opinion), Lewis works his way through his reasoning in the third person - questioning rather than asserting. They are both equally aggressive (and depending on your values as I said, offensive) but one sees Christianity as all that is wrong in this world and the other sees the world as all that is wrong in this world.
I was talking to my father the other day when I said that "I think the funny thing to me about most academics at University, is that they so completely misunderstand Christianity. They think it's about becoming 'good enough' to get into Heaven." To which my Dad turned around and agreed saying, "That is because most churches don't understand Christianity well enough and keep preaching works-based repentance."
For anyone not understanding what I mean by 'works-based repentance', it should be the assertion of every believe that is is by faith that you are saved. However, far too often Churches end up preaching a confused gospel that states something like 'it's a little bit of faith and the rest is you doing stuff to make you good enough'. No. It's all meant to be faith - with anything else stemming from faith.
As Lewis says here in Mere Christianity: "For mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine. God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man."
Lewis is full of these kinds of quotable statements throughout the book as he explains not why he believes, but what he believes. G.K. Chesterton is a much better source (in Heretics and Orthodoxy for looking into 'why' someone believes - but at the core of it all is of course pure faith - based upon the rational but appearing irrational).
"The Christian way is different: harder and easier. Christ says 'Give me all. I don't want so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it...'"
It is statements like these that show the confronting nature of Christianity. As Lewis says elsewhere in the book, Christianity is a fighting religion. And in a world that tries to destroy its held truths, it needs to be. As Lewis explains, merely because something is offensive does not make it any less true - and relegating it down to the 'nice moral principles' is no way to go either.
Lewis begins his book by first addressing the concept of 'fairness' and 'foul-play'. He explains that we all have within us, a notion of good and evil, a notion that he calls the Law of Human Nature. He combines this with other ideas to explain the concept that humanity is essentially flawed - that something is not right. By stating this he therefore continues to explain that there is a need within all of humanity for spiritual help. A need that he continues to expand upon throughout the rest of the work, explaining that Christianity serves to address and answer that need.
There is even an address about morality and Christianity, whereby Lewis explains that Christianity is not merely a moral religion, but that there are morals that are connected to being a Christian. He discusses things like: prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude - the 'Cardinal Virtues' and the great sin of pride (establishing yourself above others). He explains that prudence means common sense - the idea that Christians should not be unintelligent by any means (though so many appear to be - judging by all the 'you will burn in hell for this' comments you can find on Facebook or instagram) and that temperance is not about complete abstinence. After all, alcohol and sex were created by God. The issues come when, as Lewis so clearly explains, you depend upon such things as a crutch to get you through life, where you have an unhealthy interest in them - that is temperance. Justice and fortitude mean respectively fairness and courage.
Essentially this is a book of complexity and simplicity - much like Christianity itself. Anyone looking for a resource to affirm faith and to help you consider the questions which Christianity attempts to address should think about reading this work. It's one of the better works I have read by any Christian author and definitely a classic of faith. Lewis makes Christianity open and easier to understand - he truly shows mere Christianity as it should be, most denominational and individual beliefs aside.
Having just discovered this I thought I might as well review this separately from the actual novels. This being the audio book version that I own.
I enHaving just discovered this I thought I might as well review this separately from the actual novels. This being the audio book version that I own.
I enjoy this audio book and compared to others I have heard it is of a decent quality. The positive of it is that I can of course carry it with me on an mp3 player and listen to it in the car or outside the house, enjoying the story of Narnia without the necessity of delving into a book or watching a film.
The sound effects and voice acting are generally very good as benefits an audio version endorsed by Douglas Gresham. He does in fact provide commentary on the series.
What I must comment on as always is how people always negatively downgrade the series for C.S.Lewis's views on religion, race, gender and his general 'Britishness' while perfectly accepting other authors who do very similar things with their writing. It makes me laugh and often I wonder whether such people are simply being too politically correct and stuffy, whether they lack imagination because to be honest there is nothing about the series to do with race or gender that has ever made me think that it was offensive. I've seen more offensive writing being acclaimed by those who would critique it. Therefore the one real criticism which I believe most truly feel about this series is C.S.Lewis use of allegory to display the Christian gospel. Even regardless of my beliefs I still find it odd that people go so fussy over that and yet will accept other supposed myths being presented in novels. Or will criticize Lewis and accept the atheistic Pullman. It seems rather bigoted to accept one and not the other. Still it is such division that makes me realize that Lewis' books are having their effect. They make people think about such challenging questions and that is perhaps why some are offended. Because such questions are too challenging and they resort to prim and proper offense to remove the object of challenge....more
I began The Screwtape Letters many years ago and only ever managed to begin three or so pages of it before finding the style too difficult for my youn I began The Screwtape Letters many years ago and only ever managed to begin three or so pages of it before finding the style too difficult for my younger self. It is a sign to me, therefore, of my development as an individual and reader, that I was able to sit down this afternoon and finish it off in two sessions.
The Screwtape Letters is perhaps, C.S. Lewis' most nuanced and subtle work. Through providing a narrative that covers advice from a senior devil to his junior nephew, Lewis explores issues as deep as in any of his other books but with a creative twist. He explores the nature of evil, of demonic forces, as all so human - but yet spiritual at the same time - revealing that evil exists in the seductive qualities that threaten our everyday life. Evil, as Lewis explores it, is good twisted against its own powerful purpose.
It is for this very reason that I can only recommend reading this book. It is a collection of creative and thought provoking letters which, as mentioned, cover the concept of Good and Evil. Where Mere Christianity should appeal more to the Christian and the 'seeker', this is one of Lewis' works that should appeal to anyone, I believe. Therefore I definitely recommend this as a classic of fantasy mixed with faith - the best type of work that Lewis always did. As Lewis himself said, the greatest success of the Devil was to convince the world that he does not exist......more
The other works of C.S. Lewis that I have been reading recently, tackle more of the concept of Christianity. Lewis, arguing in those works concepts th The other works of C.S. Lewis that I have been reading recently, tackle more of the concept of Christianity. Lewis, arguing in those works concepts that I agree with. Namely that Christians aren't any more moral than any other people, nor are they any more spiritual (after all there can be spiritual good and spiritual evil), but that Christianity is more about returning the natural to the supernatural. However, here in this work of non-fiction, he chooses to discuss the topic of love.
Love is one of those ideas that everyone believes they understand. It is one of the most talked about topics in the world after all. Lewis here attempts to show his readers that they know less about love, and that love is harder to discuss, than you would think. He attempts to divide love into two initial categories: Give-Love and Need-Love. Need-Love, Lewis claims, should not be seen as purely selfish, after all, humans are created with certain needs that are required to be lovingly met. He does make the point however, that an imbalance of this Need-Love is detrimental.
He continues on to discuss four particular types of love which connect to these two categories: storge, philia, eros and agape. Or in more modern terms: affection, friendship, romance and charity.
Affection (storge) is family love, the humble love. It is the love that you feel for people that you are close to, without it being erotic in nature. It is here that Lewis first explores and notes that like with any love if you turn it into a god it becomes a devil. Or, in other words, if you idolise aspects of this love, you turn it into something that curses you. If I constantly 'give' to others because of my affection, to the point where I am 'giving' them things that they do not need I am smothering them. It is this aspect of affection that Lewis criticises as 'Need-Love'. Not to mention that affection is the type of love which many people take for granted, when, like any love it never is.
Friendship (philia) is the love between brothers or sisters. It, as Lewis, explores it, is the love which we turn into the idea of 'equality' today and though writing decades ago, he even tackles this idea. Friendship's goal is not to turn love into something that serves us - to make others bow to our values and so on - but is about finding the common ground between friends (and it is this issue I have with 'equality' - that it trues to bend others to one side's values and ideals rather than finding the common ground). The danger of friendship however, is that it can lead one to create separate 'friendship' groups which ignore the point of friendship as love.
Romantic love (eros) is the sense of being in love. Lewis separates this from purely being about sex by stating that he considers sex to be the 'Venus' of erotic love. This is interesting, because we have turned the word 'erotic' into one which is laden with purely sexual undertones. As Lewis points out however, lusty desire - which is not love - is desire which can be satisfied by any person who are sexually attracted to. Eros on the other hand is the desire for ONE individual. It is quite clear to see how eros as a love has been distorted by modern society I believe, yet Lewis also notes that eros can be dangerous in that it can be abused in a fixative sense - that one can fixate themselves upon one person 'mindlessly'.
Finally we come to Charity, which is referenced in the Bible as agape (though not by Lewis himself) - the greatest form of love. This is spiritual love, the kind of love that God has towards us, and therefore is love in the sacrificial sense. It is love without demanding anything in return, giving without receiving, and is therefore the highest goal of all other loves. Together they are meant to work together towards, and with, charity in an individual's life.
Though Lewis writes his book with a Christian worldview and with Christian audiences mainly in mind, this is one of the more applicable of all Lewis' books to a broad audience. Within it, Lewis reveals the notion that love is not the single concept that we have turned it into. And therefore, such arguments and excuses as 'but I love them' can be turned on their head in the face of this realisation. As said before, Lewis reveals that the aim of Christianity is to turn humanity towards becoming not naturally more moral (after all greed, gluttony and other vices are part of the natural order) but supernaturally perfect. To that end, this book serves to address how Christians should live with love and further what the aim of love should be....more
The Chronicles of Narnia are my favourite book series and The Silver Chair stands as my favourite book within that series. There are several clear rea The Chronicles of Narnia are my favourite book series and The Silver Chair stands as my favourite book within that series. There are several clear reasons for this in a story about redemption, belief and magical adventure and I shall attempt to explain them to you.
I particularly love the plot and characters of The Silver Chair. The idea of a quest to find a missing prince is rather old hat, but the twist Lewis offers on that quest with Aslan providing new character Jill Pole several signs to recognise and remember in the search for this missing prince, is fascinating. Not only is this a perfect metaphor for the concept of belief and faith, but it also serves to provide an interesting dilemma in situations such as when Eustace and Jill decide to go into Castle Harfang due to the cold - rather than follow what the signs truly tell them to do.
My favourite character in this novel is Puddleglum the Marsh Wiggle. He is the realistic, yet pessimistically cynical character who always finds something to grumble about. It is the earthy nature to this character that causes him to be so likeable as more than merely a reluctant hero, but as an unlikely hero. Yet in the end he is a true hero in how he sacrifices and does what is right, regardless of the cost.
What else can I say about this novel without gushing all about it? I could say little to sway your opinion, other than to express repeatedly that I hold this novel in very high esteem and therefore encourage others to give it a chance (along with this series). There is plenty more depth in these books than many recognise and certainly far more than merely Christian themes and messages. There are universal messages and beauties to appeal to all....more
Years ago I considered The Horse and His Boy as the weakest of all the Narnia novels. I have since revised my opinion and recognised that the tighter, Years ago I considered The Horse and His Boy as the weakest of all the Narnia novels. I have since revised my opinion and recognised that the tighter, more compact nature of the novel causes it to be a far better story than perhaps can be understood as a child. To that effect this is perhaps one of the better stories in the Narnia series in how it can be read by children and adults as a strong novel.
The story is essentially self contained, with no knowledge of any prior Narnia novels necessary to read this book. It does tie into the overall history of Narnia as seen within the books, yet its self-contained nature is created by the fact that it introduces its own set of protagonists for the story. It is a story which focuses on the escape of one boy by the name of Shasta as he makes his way from Calormen towards the free land of Narnia. He does so with the aid of a talking horse, running into another pair or escapees (a girl and her horse) heading off on the same journey. In the process of escaping, this journey becomes a rescue mission to warn the land of Arkenland of the invasion planned by Calormen through Arkenland and into Narnia.
Calormen is a country strongly inspired by the Middle East and this has led to accusations by some of Lewis being a racist individuals who relies upon mere stereotypes to write. I do believe however that his characters are well rounded enough to escape from being mere sterotypes and he affords sympathy to a variety of different Calormen people while not hesitating to also reveal those who are bound by their particular cultural constraints.
I feel that the entire escape story of The Horse and His Boy could serve as an interesting metaphor for storywriting and fiction altogether. It was a book written by Lewis and dedicated to his stepson Douglas Gresham and certainly seems like more of an escape from the Narnia chronology as it stood. The metaphor I see in this story is this: in escaping from reality or certain ideas, by writing a fun fantasy tale, one can see in the end that there is a greater purpose than mere escape - of aiding others from invasion. Or in the case of writing - of letting other individuals become aware of particular themes and ideas you wish to convey as an author.
It is for these reasons that I view The Horse and His Boy in a new light as a stronger book in the series. Perhaps one day I will recognise it as a favourite or second favourite. ...more
The third work in The Chronicles of Narnia is one of the better novels in the series in my view. Firstly, it has a ship. Secondly, it continues on wit The third work in The Chronicles of Narnia is one of the better novels in the series in my view. Firstly, it has a ship. Secondly, it continues on with four of the better characters from the previous book (Reepicheep, Caspian, Lucy and Edmund). Thirdly, it adds in a new character who is a different flavour of character: Eustace Scrubb. While Edmund began his life in the world of Narnia as the rebel, Eustace exists as the child who believes he knows more about the fantastic than anyone else. Therefore, when plunged into a strange world of talking animals and sailors he believes that it is all some weird dream and chooses to both ignore and feel miserable about the situation.
I consider these three elements a key to making this novel a success of an adventure story. In a subtle way the character of Eustace (even with his entire transformation into a believer) is a subversion of the idea of alternate worlds and fantasy. Certainly the concept of taking sides is one which seems apparent and useful in The Lion the Witch and The Wardrobe or the concept of arriving in a strange world as a veteran (Prince Caspian), yet the idea of choosing to hate a strange world rather than delight in the absurdity? That is unique. If I were taken off to Middle Earth or Narnia I would be like the tourist Twoflower in The Colour of Magic & The Light Fantastic and wouldn't be treating everything as a miserable escapade.
If you have not read past the first two books of the Narnia series I recommend doing so. The third and fourth books are, in my opinion, the best two of the series in terms of characters, plots and subverted expectations. Though many do not seem to recognise or accept it, these books do work rather subtly. And this subtlety seems to be criticised far too often and the tone is named as overly stuffy and patronising when it seems to be humorous instead. However, the beauty of these novels is that they are open to numerous interpretations and that is why they will stand the test of time in my eyes....more
This is in my view the weakest of the Narnian novels and yet it explains many of the motives of characters in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and This is in my view the weakest of the Narnian novels and yet it explains many of the motives of characters in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and subsequent novels. It is for this reason that any fan of Narnia would be remiss to accept that this novel is still a decent read.
For one thing it explains why the White Witch Jadis considers herself above every other creature in Narnia and further where she came from. Her backstory of coming from another world which she destroyed with a single magical word is fascinating and adds a further cold edge to her character.
For another thing the reader can observe how Aslan creates Narnia with magical singing. It often seems that in creation stories seen in fantasy that song is used as part of the creation. See The Silmarillion for another example.
I further appreciate that Digory and Polly exist as new characters in this story and from a slightly older era. This breaks up the recurring nature of certain characters. I also appreciate Frank the cabby and his horse Strawberry immensely. The inclusions of such characters add a touch of difference to this novel.
However I must mention that I dislike the whole storyline connected to Uncle Andrew and the reasoning behind how the magical rings came into existence. For further details on what I refer to, you'd have to read the book if you have not. If you have read the book you'll know what I mean and we can discuss it in the comments below. I would love to get comments about the book.
That is all I have to say about this novel. It is a decent novel and one I do not regret reading. Yet in comparison to the other Narnia novels it lacks something as magical as the others and almost feels like an addition to explain things which were unexplained, rather than a fully developed novel that explains such mysteries. That is perhaps why I feel it is a weaker novel among a series of very fine novels....more
I apologise for the surge of reviews, however I now intend to go through and continue to add reviews for the last six Chronicles of Narnia novels by C
I apologise for the surge of reviews, however I now intend to go through and continue to add reviews for the last six Chronicles of Narnia novels by C.S. Lewis.
When I was seven I began to read on my own for the first time. It was a big deal to my mother that I should learn to read for myself whenever capable and seven happened to be that age. However, even before I could read for myself The Chronicles of Narnia were introduced to me as wonderful children's novels through listening to mum reading the first two to me. I also watched the original BBC versions of those books.
She started working on my reading at around the age of five or six (I cannot remember exactly when - all I remember and know is the learning through readers and that I was very emotionally and intellectually aware as a child). Either way, as I have explained elsewhere, when I was seven the first book I read alone was The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe. I then proceeded to read through the rest of the novels.
I loved the very first book (as evidenced by my stout defence of the novel in my review of it) but was never as keen on the second book. It felt and feels a touch more tired and tedious to read, as if Lewis was never as confident and sure on how to continue the series. While the mix of ideas was still fresh and unique and the story was solid enough, the delivery was not. In fact, I am led to understand that this book is the least popular now of all the book in the Narnia series. Which speaks for itself really.
For those who are yet to touch any Narnia novel, or purposefully avoid Narnia due to the idea of it being 'Christian propaganda', then the story of Prince Caspian mainly follows on from The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe with a Narnia that has been invaded by people from Telmar. These Telmarines also confusingly came from our world to begin with. Either way, Prince Caspian of the Telmarines is forced to join the Narnians to rebel against his Uncle Miraz who wants him dead, which leads to him using magic to call the children seen in the previous novel back to Narnia to fight a battle.
I do love these books regardless of their flaws. Though some people describe them as 'patronising' I disagree and find that Lewis uses a tone which is more good natured and humorous than patronising. He doesn't seem to have looked down on people too often as inferiors (unlike Tolkien apparently notably did) - aside from select groups - and I think this comes across in his writing. That said, I suggest you make up your own minds about these novels. That is the duty of the individual reader despite the myriad of arguments that can surround any work of literature. ...more
A Defence of C.S. Lewis...or a brief attempt at such
Some thoughts recently crossed my mind in regards to arguments one could offer as a defence of theA Defence of C.S. Lewis...or a brief attempt at such
Some thoughts recently crossed my mind in regards to arguments one could offer as a defence of the Christian side of this novel. The main arguments against this novel as a 'Christian allegory' that I have heard are: 1)Aslan is not a strong Christ-figure 2)That C.S. Lewis 'preaches' a black and white morality. So I'm going to roughly address them from my perspective and hope it encourages some discussion.
1) I will agree that Aslan is not a strong Christ-figure. Firstly for Aslan to really represent Christ he would have to be true to the gospel story. In other words he would have to be god made into man come to die for all mankind. However as he only dies for the one traitor again it's not sticking true to the Biblical gospel that all have sinned and that Christ was needed as a sacrifice for that sin. If you take things too literally here, C.S. Lewis' novel doesn't make much that much sense theologically as a result. I'll explain where I am/was going with that in a moment.
2) I debate that C.S. Lewis preaches in his novel. Occasionally he can be a touch patronising but compared to many authors he rarely slips into such condescension. As for his morality I think you must understand it from the perspective of Christianity. Christianity is about black and white morality essentially: good versus evil, light vs. dark and truth vs. lies etc. It is also very grey in that Christianity is about life and the fact that no one is perfect, that everyone fits into that moral grey area. Of course I explain roughly and inadequately.
Ultimately I see that there is room to argue that C.S. Lewis does a poor job of writing an allegorical novel. However I see it as a very subtle novel that unlike others (for instance The Alchemist) does not build its story around expressing an ideology but rather incorporates an ideology into its storytelling. I think that if one wants to criticise this novel it should be for not properly showing the gospel rather than for 'preaching'. I know that I and many others enjoyed the story first before seeing the connection between it and the Biblical tales. I enjoyed it even more afterwards so, then again I could be a tad biased.
Original Review
To begin I must note that I grant this such a high rating due to the impact it had on my life. It to me is one novel that were I to pick the one novel that forged a love of books for me it would be The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Why? Because I can remember back about twelve years ago when I was homeschooled by my mother as a five year old. We wandered down during winter into the warm back room and she read the first Narnia book to us. The image of a red faun carrying parcels as he passed a growing lamppost would stick with me from that moment (as it stuck with C.S. Lewis). As I learned to read the Narnia books were the first novels I sunk my growing reading teeth into. And to this day I have read and re read the novels back to front (and maybe front to back).
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is a novel written for both children and adults. It contains highly allegorical elements as C.S.Lewis was a well-known apologetics writer. However he wrote that he did not write his novel as a pure allegory but as a story. And that is what The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is, a story to be enjoyed by everyone. And although written in simple language the reader can quickly, concisely and easily imagine the world without the clumsy constraints of overused words. I personally cannot imagine a world without these novels.
Additional thoughts:
1. Just a question at last. And one with a highly philosophical twist to it. Why is it that people so readily condemn those books which are considered as moral tales? You'd think we could do with more morality in such a twisted and confused world regardless of accepting the belief systems.
2. I have heard many people describe the entire series as silly and far too preachy. I do not see it that way at all. Trust me if C.S.Lewis wanted to be preachy he would have written a lot more philosophy and less story. Yes I can see how some would call this silly but then I argue that they are missing the point. It's a fairytale type fantasy intended mainly for children (and for those children again as adults or for their parents perhaps). But I argue that as Lewis only wrote this story based on the story of the crucifixion in many ways that it was not intended as a preachy book. My question is that why is it that if I were to base a story along what some call the 'Christian myth' it is claimed as preaching while as if I were to base it on any other mythology or story it would be deemed as merely copying the themes of another mythology? Is this yet another example of doublethink?*
I must confess that I read these books when I was about the age of seven or eight...yes they were my first book series I ever read. And yet while otheI must confess that I read these books when I was about the age of seven or eight...yes they were my first book series I ever read. And yet while other books read around that time have faded into obscurity these novels remain potent in my brain. This is because these novels contain more story within their pages than many other novels floating around. And that is why these novels have influenced and continue to influence modern children's literature. ...more