XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.inklings
From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:30:48 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
wrote:
>In message
>Steve Hayes spoke these staves:
>> The question here is "Should Orthodox Christians read....", not
>> "Should Orthodox Christians be prohibited from reading."
>
>I agree that there's a difference, but I also think that we've got
>pretty much a continuum here, and the desire to dissuade people from
>reading something because it is supposedly bad for them is, to my
>mind, dangerously close to the desire to prohibit people from reading
>something (obviously not a legal prohibition, but, say, a prohibition
>in the guise of a piece of stern religious advice).
>
>Of course I may still be misunderstanding the intention -- if the
>intention is merely 'is it recommendable for Orthodox Christians to
>read XX' then we're at a quite different point on the scale (to me
>the question of whether one _should_ read something automatically
>implies that there are things one should _avoid_ reading).
The problem with treating it as a question of censorship is that it diverts
attention away from what I see as the more important question - what makes
these kinds of books worth reading, or not.
We have been having a similar debate here in South Africa over a painting in
an art gallery that showed the president's penis.
If it's debated purely in terms of censorship, then the discussion centres on
whether or not a painting should depict the presidential prick, which obscured
the point the artist was trying to make, that the president is a prick
(perhaps).
I'm undecided on almost all the issues about the painting, but seeing it
entirely in terms of censorship doesn't help to clarify anything, and I think
the same applies to fantasy literature.
It is not a question of censorship, but what does one think is good or bad
about the genre, or why does one think some example of the genre are good or
bad.
>
>
>
>
>
>> I don't want to read other books like that, though they are quite
>> popular, because reading them is a form of self-torture. I would
>> likewise say that such books are not edifying for Orthodox
>> Christians to read, but that is not "domination through
>> censorship", but a simple statement of fact.
>>
>> The indicative should not be mistaken for the imperative.
>
>To my understanding this is also a far cry from saying that Orthodox
>Christian should not read them, and much closer to what I meant by
>teaching peopole 'to recognize the temptation of evil' (i.e. guide
>people not in _what_ they should read, but in _how_ they should read
>it).
>
>> It turns out that several people (including me) misunderstood what
>> the original poster (Lily Parascheva Rowe) was really getting at.
>> She wasn't referring to the works of the Inklings themselves, but
>> rather the works of imitators and spinoffs, and especially those
>> that glamorised vampires, werewolves and the like.
>
>That is, of course, quite a bit of narrowing from all fantasy, but I
>suppose the question still remains, then, whether Orthodox Christians
>should read these books?
>
>Personally I have no desire to read that kind of books -- and I don't
>mind admitting that this is a matter more of prejudice based on what
>I have heard about these books: I have far too many books to read for
>the time I have to read, and that means that I have to pick and
>choose based on hearsay and prejudice.
I have read a couple of fantasy series that I would say are spin-offs from the
Inklings. One is David Eddings, whose books I found boring and rather
predictable. Another was Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series. Both
those appeared to be attempts to write something like Tolkien, but failing.
Then there was Pullman's "His dark materials", which was deliberately written
to rival C.S. Lewis, whom Pullman disliked. None came anywhere near the
Inklings.
The interesting question to discuss is why.
>I can see that my children, when playing many of the modern on-line
>games, like to play also the 'evil' side -- _The Lord of the Rings
>On-line_ have a 'monster play' mode in which you can play as someone
>allied with Sauron in the War of the Ring, and this kind of options
>is quite common in modern computer games (the greatest Danish
>computer game success was a game in which you should play the role of
>a hired assassin). While I don't have any desire myself to play in
>this mode, I think it helps my kids establish their moral compass by
>giving them a legitimate outlet for experimentation (and I'll insist
>that I am blessed with good kids who are helpful, considerate and
>intelligent).
I once took part in an exchange of magazines with a number of fantasy, myth
and underground journals. We sent them our magazine "Ikon", and they sent us
theirs. One of those we exchanged with was called "Cormallen", and it was
produced by the "Morannon Group". It was based in the Netherlands. I think
they favoured what might now (post-Star Trek) be called "The Dark Side". I
found myself uncomfotable with it, and they never explained why they favoured
that side of things.
I have played a computer game that favoured "the dark side". It was called
"Eastern Front", and you played against the computer, directing the German
armies invading the USSR in 1941.
The booklet accompanying the game pointed out that you could not win, and said
that if you realised that, you had learnt the main lesson of the Eastern
Front. It also pointed out that "dead Russians don't help Germany".
>A number of the books that glorify vampires, werewolves and other
>monsters are juvenalia that could probably be seen in the same light
>(from what little I have seen and heard, some of them are also
>horribly badly written, but still manage to be huge successes -- but
>I guess that's not pertinent to this discussion).
Well it is, in away. What makes the Inklings' books so much better?
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/LITMAIN.HTM
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
