Slashdot Mirror
Douglas Adams, Narnia, and Trailers
A few interesting movie tidbits: Joel Greengrass writes "Final post-production has been completed on the long awaited documentary, 'Life, the Universe, and Douglas Adams.' Narrated by Neil Gaiman, the film is a tribute documentary about the life, loves, and passions, of the greatest sci fi comedy writer ever, Douglas Adams. The film will be available for sale on August 4 at douglasadams.com."
Reader The_Shadows writes "Sci-fi Storm and Scfi.com's Scifi-wire are reporting that Walden Media exercised options for feature-length, big screen versions of the Chronicles of Narnia, by C. S. Lewis. They have also found an Emmy award winning writer (Ann Peacock) to adapt the most famous book, 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.'" And finally, there's an interesting piece about the process of turning a two-hour movie into a two-minute trailer.
"Walden Media exercised options for feature-length, big screen versions of the Chronicles of Narnia, "
Of course that doesn't mean it will get any further than the film on Doom did.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Take all the best parts of the movie. String them together in one 2-minute epileptic-seizure-inducing orgasm of light and sound, preferably with some modern rock/psuedo-metal song in the background. Stick your title on the end in a grunge or techno font along with "This movie has not yet been rated," and a release date between 6 months and a year into the future.
blog |
A movie version of Narnia? Outstanding! I remember devouring the collection several times as a kid.
Admittedly, I'm a little hesitant about how a filmmaker could bring CS Lewis' vision to the big screen, but I'll still fork over my $8.50 to see it.
If the Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe does well, maybe some conglomerate studio can hire Tim Burton to film CS Lewis' other great book: The Screwtape Letters.
Every movie that comes out does not follow the book. LoTR followed very close to the book, but wasn't quite on target all the time. I have enjoyed reading the Narnia series, but am alittle weary of the movies. C.S. Lewis is a great author, and I would hate to see his books turned into not so great of movie. I just hope that the movies follow the story line very close for me to even think of going to watch/buy them.
Getting a movie to fit into two minutes shouldn't be too dificult, since it has already been proven you can get five books into a trilogy
The problem comes when you notice that the story line of the movie being promoted is so thin, that you got the entire story in the 150 seconds. I can think of many movies who's trailer started off convincing me to see the movie, but by the end have told me that I got the whole deal for free, while waiting for the feature.
:)
The few times I ended up seeing a movie after determining its entire useful content was dumped into the trailer, I either walked out due to lameness, or just bitched about it to my movie-going companion the whole way home
Hubbard never intended Battlefield Earth to be a 'comedy'. It just turned into one in the hands of Hollywood and Travolta. The best Hubbard sci-fi/comedy story came in the form of the 10-volume Mission Earth - A bitingly sarcastic riot of a read IMO.
"Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
I'm betting that they're going to attempt a Harry Potter/LotR of this classic. And I'm also betting that if they don't get precisely the right people, it's going to tank. Hard. My bet's on the tanking.... ;-)
But anyway, it's sort of a shame to see the best literatre of my youth ("'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe', 'Lord of the Rings', etcetera) turned into Hollywood extraveganzas. Where's the imagination? The visualization of the scenes and characters was, for me, the whole joy in those works? Perhaps it's just a sign of our times, that an active imagination is now considered to be a Bad Thing.
Admittedly, a fantastic job has been done with LotR, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
.f00Dave
To make a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster using Terran ingredients:
Take the liquid contained in a 200 ml bottle of EverClear to remind you that your head will be clear forever if you drink too many Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters, and that your brain will clear of anything soon after you start drinking some, if not before.
Into it, slowly pour a 750 ml bottle of Bombay Sapphire to remind you of the marvelous beauty of the old Santraginean seas, or an equal amount of Jeremiah Weed in acknowledgement of what has happened to the Santraginean Seas and their lifeforms.
Now add 750 ml of Cold Wild Turkey, letting it run into the mixture as we run through life to remind us of all the lifeforms we meet and experience while hitchhiking through the galaxy.
Speedily stirring, add 375 ml of Herradua Tequila, mixing it in to commemorate the galactic hitchhikers who died of pleasure among the vapors and gasses in the marshes of Fallia.
Over the bowl of a silver spoon, let flow 1 liter of rum in memory of the waterfalls and their glorious rainbows encountered on your journeys through the galaxy of life.
Next, drop in the worm found in a bottle of Musquil, watching it dissolve into the mixture. If the bottom falls out and the worm survives, drink at your own risk.
Finally, sprinkle into the mixture some Gatorade to commemorate the lifeforms which have vanished and are becoming extinct, both sentient and non-sentient, especially those most in need of aid.
If this many Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters are too many for the number of people you think you are, mix together the following amounts of ingredients as described above for a single serving.
1 oz. EverClear
4 oz. Bombay Sapphire or Jeremiah Weed
4 oz. Cold Wild Turkey
2 oz. Herredura Tequila
5 oz. Rum
1 worm from bottle of Mezcla
2 oz. Gatorade
This makes one approximately 18 ounce Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. The reason this drink seems so large is that Zaphod Beeblebrox has two heads, so when he created it, it came out to 9 ounces per head, so both were happy.
Before drinking, eat one olive to create a sweetness in it which is not there.
Drink very, very extremely carefully at your own risk, and remember where your towel is (if you can).
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Great series of books, I read The Magicians Nephew and The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe in second grade, excellent series. C.S. Lewis's science fiction books are also rather nice, though he has a rather nasty habit of starting a series well and then having each successive book get worse and worse (lucky if you can read through the third one. . . .) but it was years ago that I last read C. S. Lewis so my opinions may change should I read those books again.
/can/ go to far at times. :
/books/ with religious content? Hell it is OK to read every body elses religiously derived fiction but just not Christian religiously derived fiction? It seems to me that if church and state are to be separate, then the state should not work their asses of concentrating on just isolating out any one particular religion! As it is the removal of Narnia was an obvious attempt at "see we are't being biased, look here, we are removing Christian inspired literature! Yeeesh. That IS called bias folks!!!
/are/ damn nearly classics and all. :-D )
.... Ugh! People must be reminded that it IS possible to get through schooling without punching and fucking your way from one class to the next. :(
Narnia has been banned from my local school district do to 'religious' content. Pisses me off, had it not been for Narnia there is a good chance that I would never have developed my love of reading. Liberals
And what the hell is wrong with
(By banned I mean it was banned from being read in the classroom as part of school work or assignments, students can still check them out from the Library of course, I mean they
I do think that some of C. S. Lewis's works should be mandatory reading though if just to show students that things do NOT have to be the way that they are. My word, people cannot even IMAGINE that schools used to not have as much fighting or sex in them!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I happened to open to the bit where they go to see God's final message to his creation. I'm not normally a very emotional person, but when I was reading that I cried like a little kid. For a geek like me, Adams was my John Lennon -- hearing that there just wasn't going to be anymore stories made the world seem gray.
I wonder if the book made up from his notes is worthwhile, or if it'll just seem.. I dunno... wrong.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
In the Narnia timeline, yes. In the order in which they were written, no. The first was the the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Heh, they should get Sean Connery to be the voice of Aslan. That would rock
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Being the funniest sci fi writer is roughly equivalent in status to being the best ballet dancer in Idaho.
Best Windows Freeware
My real point of this post is I often comment that I think Harry Potter really isn't that different from the Narnia books. I think the success is just a product of modern marketing on something of quality. If C. S. Lewis was writing now, I think we would see the series become a wild success, just like Potter.
I am not really commenting on the quality of the movie, more the books. The movie was alright, and it did stay true to the story, but it was not a classic or anything. I think the C. S. Lewis books would be the same way if they were coming out now. Great books, enjoyed and loved by poeple around the world, but they would also become a piece of pop culture. 1000's of toys and games, movies, etc. of varying quality would come of them.
Engineers arn't boring people, we just get excited about boring things.
The series should stay the way it was written, not re-ordered by a focus group and committee. This is what leads to mediocre films, books, and music.
See also: Ren and Stimpy, The Simpsons, NSYNC & Britney (and their ilk), Dr. Pepper Red Fusion, New Coke, any Disney anything, Windows ME, ect.
I know repackaging "content" and the like is a fine way to make an extra buck when the bottom line needs a push and nobody wants to take a chance, but just leave it alone already!
Make that 1979.
I saw the movie when I was 13, and the Jesusness of the lion did impress me a lot.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how this can POSSIBLY that hard, artistic, or time-consuming when all they end up doing is either telling you everything about the film or nothing at all except the title...which is of course, subject to change.
Nowadays, you get stuff like the Terminator 3 "trailer" or the Solaris "trailer" which make you turn to whoever's sitting next to you and go, "Well, that was fucking informative. That movie's out, when? Next year? Better mark that down in my calendar."
Honestly, I learned all the skills necessary to put every trailer I've ever seen together back in High School using Adobe Premiere and a Power PC. It's no different today. The reason it takes this guy so long to make anything is the same reason it takes 6 months to design a webpage. All the idiots up in marketing will hum and haw while the designer and artists tear their hair out creating 15 different designs, only to decide in the end they just want it to look like MSN or Yahoo.
Boo fricking hoo, Mr. Trailer Creator. Join the club.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
Not me!
.. nostalgia is cool, but only when you're with friends. Otherwise, these large scale remakes just feel like someone is milking my voyeurist weakness for nostalgic bits of my past.
.. that way you can do pretty much the same thing, but avoid the risk of spoiling the original .. tho I realize you're giving up X% in garaunteed ticket sales from HHGTTG fans going that route.)
I liked the BBC version. It was glib, flakey, low-budget and understated, exactly like Adams' writing. I loved it. Nobody could do a better Marvin, or Ford Prefect, or Auther Dent.
I'm tried of the studios rehashing fables of my youth
I can't believe how many people yearn for remakes considering all the legal wrangling going on in the copyright world designed to foster more cultural innovation and creativity. If they really want to be more creative, make up a new story for pete's sake, and let the classics be!
(What would be much more interesting, and in the spirit of art and creativity would be a new movie _inspired_ by the type of comedy and characterization seen in HHGTTG
"Old man yells at systemd"
I was looking back over Walden's site, after I submitted the story about the movies.
Here is their official press release. For those too lazy (like me) to go, it summarizes the Chronicles and the movie plans. It also has the date of the official announcement: December 6, 2001.
I guess they weren't doing a huge amount to publicize it. I hadn't heard anything about it until today. Ah well. It was probably overlooked due to the release of LotR.
Hmmmm.... How about an actual release date of Christmas 2004 for Narnia? We'll be done with The Trilogy in 2003. We'll need some kind of good fantasy in 2004.
I always loved The Last Battle, and I grew up to be an atheist. Go figure!
**>>BELCH
Lewis got his revenge on these idiots in advance through his withering commentary on exactly this kind of thinking in the book "The Abolition of Man". (As well as his description of Eustace's parents and the school they sent him to.) The Abolition of Man should be required reading for the school administrators that made this decision (or ALL school administrators for that matter).
They were doing that when I was a kid. It was 'reading order' if you like. Although almost everyone read LW&W first
The order wasn't changed, it was corrected.
**>>BELCH
The House with a Clock in Its Walls (The first book in the Lewis Barnavelt series) (1972) by John Bellairs
and Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles :( ,
The Castle of Llyr , Taran Wanderer ,
The High King .
The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron (got the Disney Treatment
Yeah, they're all 'adolescent' books, but all very good, and are worth finding. Besides, didn't everyone read 'The Hobbit' when they were 12?
I sometimes wonder if those people with sticks in their butts and think everything in "joke land" is mocking them also think that the only useless part of a human is the funny bone. It would explain the shallow thinking.
Best Windows Freeware
No, that's a teaser.
A trailer is where you start with some soothing an peaceful scene, when
[Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells"/Sam the Sham & the Pharoahs' "Louie Louie"/Smashmouth's "All-Star"]
starts playing and Don LaFontaine intones the words "In a world
[gone mad/where dreams come true/where shit happens]..."
and some fast paced cuts show the the audience that this movie is supposed to be
[scary/funny/action-packed].
Then Mr. Fontaine tells us about the "one
[man/woman/dog]
[brave/smart/stupid]
enough to
[fight for something/change everything/screw everything up]"
while we see our protagonist looking
[determined/happy/dumb as a sack of hammers].
Then a quick montage of the
[funniest/exploding-est/tear-jerking-est]
scenes interspersed with a voiceover telling us what
[A-list/B-list/C-list]
celebrities have top billing and that the movie is
[based on a book by somebody/based on a true story/based on an older, better movie/from the director of some other movie that made money],
then finally we get the title of the movie and a screenful of tiny text acknowledging all the people who got paid enough to feed a village in Botswana for a
[month/year/decade]
for their work on the film.
This is a standard part of any film school curriculum, you see. Job applications in Hollywood test you on this stuff.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Privatize education.
.
yaah, and let all the poor people rot!
Feh.
Look at Korea if you want an idea of what 'privatized' education will get you. . .
On the plus side, Japan has a rather nice privatized education system, but then again the whole entire cultural incentive towards honor and creating a good name for ones self, and in this instance one's educational institution, is a major part of that, factors which American society lacks in the same quantity that Japanese society has.
It has already been shown that American schools will put up with almost any level of B.S. students in order to keep funding, where as many schools in Japan will kick out disgraceful students in order to keep a good name.
Of course there is a strong downside to that as well, namely that students who could be helped by patience and perseverance will end up being screwed over and just kicked out on the street.
As in the past one of those students whom that would have happened to had such a system been in place, and almost happened to under the current system any ways, I am not a fan of such a system that would discriminate against students with behavioral problems who DO want to improve themselves.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I thought they usually worked the other way around in Hollywood these days...
I think he was referring to voucher systems, in which poor people would be compensated for the price of tuition. Since public schools spend more on average per pupil than private schools, giving parents this money in the form of a voucher for private schools, instead of requiring them to send their children to public schools, should result in a better quality of education.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
If, like I did, you remember the Narnia books as being one of the high points of your childhood, for pity's sake leave it like that. Returning to the material as an adult reveals them to be the most hopelessly inept and clumsy stream of the most sickly Christian propaganda ever written. ONLY children could read this stuff without feeling nauseous.
Leave the memory intact is my advice.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
---Since public schools spend more on average per pupil than private schools---
Most private schools also have other large sources of income available (like endowments) that public schools do not. Nor do they generally have to spend money on things like books (parents buy them), disciplinary programs (they have a much better behaved and more intelligent students), etc. But if _every_ school became a private school, the amount of money spent ont he average student might be more or less than the current average public school student. But you can't just assume that a figure from the current system will be reflected in a completely new system.
Nobody could do a better Marvin
Hear hear! I agree completely. In fact, I did a google search for pictures of Marvin and found two varieties: the "classic" marvin, and some other really femmy version -- kinda like the Simpsons "the cool robots from battlestar galatica take on the gay robots of star wars!"
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Hardly that recent - it has been produced in chronological order for over 20 years, since it was that long ago since I first read them.
The only problem with reading it in the chronological order of the stories is the way the quality of the writing and stories goes up and down throughout. Lion is poorly written compared to the later works; Last Battle is just plain unpleasant, with Lewis' mysogyny running rampant.
Horse and His Boy and Prince Caspian remain my favourites.
The best Hubbard sci-fi/comedy story came in the form of the 10-volume Mission Earth - A bitingly sarcastic riot of a read IMO.
I liked the first one, thought the later ones were pretty lame. Funny how most of these books came out after his death....
All are available on August 27th.
The Silver Chair
Prince Caspian
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
Ben
Work Safe Porn
LOL! Man that is funny...
There are already live-action versions of three of the Narnia books "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", "The Silver Chair", and "Prince Caspian". See here.
They aren't master works of film by any means, but they aren't too bad and are probably available at your local public library (if you're in the states). I and my younger sister both enjoyed them.
While I love movies and would go see this one, it is a little disappointing to see books like The Lord of the Rings and the Narnia series released as movies.
As a kid I remember reading the Hobbit. It was the first book I ever read outside of school assignments.
The words were hypnotic and the story almost intoxicating to me. It unleashed a power, which ignited my imagination in ways I had never known before. I couldn't put it down. Once I finished The Hobbit, I wanted, or rather needed, more. Dark corners of my mind had suddenly been flooded with wonder and excitement and I could not allow them to dim.
After The Hobbit, I read The Lord of the Rings and then the Narnia series and many other books.
The hobby of reading everything in sight is still with me today; and is not limited to fiction or fantasy. I firmly believe that I learned much more from reading books growing up than I ever did in school.
Books offered me so much it is beyond my capacity to describe the benefits. Movies, while entertaining, are not able to offer the same and it is for this reason I am disappointed. I think many children will see the movie and miss out on the thaumaturgic properties of literature.
Just because something is optioned doesn't mean that it will ever be made into a movie. It means that the company owns the rights to do so. It may very well make that movie, or it can sell the option to someone else, or it can sit on it forever.
For example, Men of Honor was optioned for something like nine years before they were given the green light, and then it took another four years for the movie to be completed.
So don't hold your breath.
Yeah, right.
Well, since all religion is based on lies it's off to a bad start but in Lewis' case the lack of subtlety is the worst part: Tolkien got across many of the same moral and ethical values without jamming it down the reader's throat.
Do you just have something against Christianity?
Not JUST Christianity, no.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
On the plus side, Japan has a rather nice privatized education system, but then again the whole entire cultural incentive towards honor and creating a good name for ones self, and in this instance one's educational institution, is a major part of that, factors which American society lacks in the same quantity that Japanese society has.
.sig is a quote) schools do kick people out. Academic Probation. Fall below academic probation for 2 semesters/terms and see how much they care about funding. There are ways around it, such as having rich relatives donating stadiums and what not, but you still get your ass kicked out quick.
From what I hear, to get into the good universities you have to score well on the test and have enough money to afford it. Although I know a lot of Japanese people that are going to university in Japan and planning on coming to America to work, because they get much better educations over there, as a whole.
It has already been shown that American schools will put up with almost any level of B.S. students in order to keep funding, where as many schools in Japan will kick out disgraceful students in order to keep a good name.
Wrong. US (America isn't a country, and my
Prep schools, and uni's all do it.
You make very good points about discrimination though. Public schools are in no way tailored for the minority group. They want cookie cutter students who all conform nicely. Those who stray from the trail of normality seldom do good, even when those kids may very well be geniuses.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
For those unfamiliar with Mere Christianity, most of the book is an effort to map out what it is that "we" as "Christians" believe, if you cut away all the denominational cruft.
His apologetic argument (the part where he's "pushing" Christianity) ignores most traditional approaches based on Judaic prophesy an accounts of the resurrection, and instead examines the person of Jesus. It basically went like this:
From all available historical accounts, Jesus was respected as a teacher and perhaps even a prophet, even by those who were not his followers. (Both Jewish and Islamic tradition regard him as a very noteworthy ethicist, etc.) Yet, he claimed to be God. Not just "a god," which would not be all that noteworthy. He went into a Monothiestic culture and claimed to be the One-And-Only divine being.
Now, when somebody makes a remarkable claim like this, there are really only three possible conclusions you can draw:
1. He is telling the truth (usually the least likely).
2. He is lying (that "Crossing Over" dude comes to mind).
3. He actually believes it, but is wrong.
Lewis pointed out that anybody who actually believes himself to be God, and isn't, is a complete nut. Charles Manson, for example, is one such complete nut. When we examine the record of Christ's words, deeds, and how people and society reacted to him, it looks like the chance of him being a nut can probably be ruled out.
Also, a sane man who is calling himself God as an outright lie is working an extremely bold con. Looking at Christ's life also makes this a hard rap to pin on him. There's really not a lot of variety in these types of cons, and the behavior is easy to spot when you know what to look for. Not only did Jesus not behave in such a manner, but it is hard to figure out what he had to gain by preaching in relative poverty, mostly to non-religious poor folk, and allowing himself to be executed in spite of his followers' capacity to protect him.
Once you rule out the other two possibilies to your mind's satisfaction, you are left with the remarkable choice that Jesus is actually the human manifestation of God.
So, that's the gauntlet that Lewis threw down: Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar. In spite of my own belief, I can see how reasonable people can draw a different conclusion than I did. I tend to agree with junkgrep that Lewis's arguements, standing on their own, don't really do much to settle the issue. One could argue "maybe it was the most successful con ever"... The more common agnostic reply is "maybe some of what we think we know about Jesus is incorrect." That would be a debate for a whole other thread though, and I'm far from the best person to argue either side.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Huh - I'll believe the "private education will be better than public" when the private schools have to follow the same rules as the public: 1) the private schools have to accept ALL students that apply (they don't get to pick and choose, except possibly based on capacity--and even then, they should be required to use a lottery), and 2) they can't kick out "problem" students unless those students are shown to be a physical danger to other people or property (they have to deal with them just like the public schools), and 3) they have to meet _ALL_ of the same academic standards as the public schools, and 4) schools aren't allowed to set their expense/student to above the voucher value (i.e., any student will be allowed to go to any school they can reach).
If you don't have all these requirements, then the private schools will immediately take all the good students, and leave the public schools to deal with the problem students. Can you say, "class discrimination?" I bet idiot private school advocates would probably even point to this situation as the "success" of private education.
Providing a good, strong, uniform education to EVERY single one of its citizens is the only fair way that a society can claim they provide "equal opportunities", and give every member of its society the chance to bootstrap themselves out of bad circumstances (unlike welfare, where you just hand money to people & hope that they'll somehow miraculously start a new life).
Considering that the word Christ doesn't even appear in the script, it's difficult to say that it's Christian propeganda. All authors are inspired by their worldviews. That doesn't make their fictional stories propeganda. I think that you are too sensative towards the issue. C.S. Lewis was not some crazy Television Evangelist. He just had strong convictions that are found in his writings, just like any other decent author.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I realize you were mostly just trying to be funny, but that's a shitty analog. Adams single-handedly gave birth to an entire genre: The Sci-fi comedy.
If some Idahoan (or whatever the hell you call them) was such a great dancer that ambitious young dancers all over the world were scrambling to become the next great master of "Idaho-syle ballet", then maybe it would be roughly equivelant.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Adams was good, damm good.
and he pioneered his genre to some extent.
but his output was both patchy and sparse.
Terry Pratchett and Robert Rankin have written far more at an arguably higher standard.
just my 2c.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
---I went to high school with a number of students whose IQ was well above 160, and I have seen many students in private school who where dumber then bricks.---
Which proves... what? We are talking about averages and trends, not being able to pull out some individual examples.
Your rejection of his arguments seems to me just as likely to be colored by your perspective as his acceptance of them may have been colored by his conversion.
I don't think so. Just because arguements are lousy doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong, and just because I think his apologism is lousy doesn't mean I think all of his conclusions are wrong.
From all available historical accounts, Jesus was respected as a teacher and perhaps even a prophet, even by those who were not his followers. (Both Jewish and Islamic tradition regard him as a very noteworthy ethicist, etc.)
Not sure if you mean this to be your arguement or Lewis', but it is highly misleading. Not all historians agree on this, and certainly not all Jews (and some Muslims, though Jesus IS religiously validated in their tradition). In a way, Lewis is trying to refute exactly these people: that respect Jesus but don't think he's God. But Lewis entirely ignores that many of these people have much more complex reasoning than simply praising Jesus as a great ethical teacher: many, like Jefferson, did so only after rejecting certain aspects of Jesus' claimed teaching and acts that they DID find to be immoral and nutty. In addition, almost none of Christ's ethical teachings are original to him. Indeed, the one major contribution he made has: eternal suffering for unbelief: precisely the teaching that many people who like his other teachings, consider a moral abomination.
Yet, he claimed to be God. Not just "a god," which would not be all that noteworthy. He went into a Monothiestic culture and claimed to be the One-And-Only divine being.
First of all, this is not as obvious as Lewis claims it is. Jesus' claims about his own divnity are controversial, not straightforward, Lewis' reading is hardly the plain or only one.
Now, when somebody makes a remarkable claim like this, there are really only three possible conclusions you can draw:
This set of carefully constrained options is begins the very weak line of argumentation. It's also possible, for instance that he was misquoted, or that he was misunderstood, possibly by later followers who needed to create a new theology about him and his life to rescue his teachings after his death.
Lewis pointed out that anybody who actually believes himself to be God, and isn't, is a complete nut.
Except this relies upon, yet again, a very closeminded concept of sanity. It's perfectly possible that a person could have some brilliant beliefs, and some delusional ones. It's perfectly possible that their views develop over time.
When we examine the record of Christ's words, deeds, and how people and society reacted to him, it looks like the chance of him being a nut can probably be ruled out.
Why? Many people in the Gospels clearly thought he was a nut, and there is plenty of behavior that would most certainly be nutty IF he wasn't in fact god, which would assume Lewis conclusion. The NT gives these interpretation into his actions: but that simply begs the question we are supposed to be considering (for instance, the killing of the barren fig tree, which is certainly loony unless you first assume that its a metaphor for Israel).
The liar arguement works the same way: by pleading ignorance as to why and how someone could possibly do that. And the plain of the matter is that MANY people, even in Christ's time, did that. In fact, the lord/liar/lunatic arguement could be used by anyone to argue that countless other professed gods were real gods, or indeed that countless non-Christian religious phophets were real phrophets.
So, that's the gauntlet that Lewis threw down: Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar.
But the guantlet is a tricked out situation. Most real people, even the greatest, are a mix of lunacy, lying, and powerful insights. Lewis' arguement requires that we forget that, not to mention the usual ignoring of the possibility that Jesus's followers developed their theology of his teachings over time. But regardless of ones opinion on this, the fact that Lewis ignores this possibility invalidates the force of his deductive arguement, even if we grant the fantasy view of human psychology that he thinks rules out the liar/lunatic arguement.
Lewis pointed out that anybody who actually believes himself to be God, and isn't, is a complete nut. Charles Manson, for example, is one such complete nut. When we examine the record of Christ's words, deeds, and how people and society reacted to him, it looks like the chance of him being a nut can probably be ruled out.
The problem here is that neither Lewis nor anyone else knows the odds that someone who claims to be God is a complete lunatic. I happen to know several people like this (they all accept the premise that Man is God, and they appear, at least to me, to be sane and honest). Implicit in Lewis's argument is the fourth case where Jesus claims to be God, is wrong, and is not a lunatic -- either because he's actually mistaken, or because he's speaking metaphorically. If I had to weigh these four options against each other, then the mostly-sane-but-wrong option strikes me as the most likely.
Lewis does some impressive hand-waving to try to make us believe the false dillema that he's created, but it's still a false dillema.
Finding God in a Dog
I've read a very large fraction of Lewis' published writings and more about them.
First, Lewis rejects the term allegory for Narnia-- he'd call them "supposals." He didn't intend the Narnia series to convert children- rather, he wanted to implant basic ideas and concepts into children's thought processes that were compatable with Christianity. So yes, they are a form of propaganda.
Secondly, I enjoy the Narnia series more and more each time I read them. The messages in Narnia may not be subtle to adults, but they still have a beauty behind them that I can fully appreciate now. Don't expect the same subtlety in a children's book as you would find in an adult's book.
Lewis' greatest (no arguments, darnit!) fiction work is _Till We Have Faces_. Lewis fully displays his skills with words and story as he retells the Cupid/Psyche myth. It's serious, adult literature that deserves greater attention.
His Space Trilogy, while not as good, is just flat out _different_. _Perelandra_ is an amazing read; I was exhausted (physically & emotionally-- but I wasn't tired) and breathless when I went through it the first time. _That Hideous Strength_ is a lot like _1984_ in many ways.
The Space Trilogy, though, is overtly Christian; _Faces_ is not.
If you read nothing else this year, read _Till We Have Faces_.
Well, since all religion is based on lies it's off to a bad start but in Lewis' case the lack of subtlety is the worst part: Tolkien got across many of the same moral and ethical values without jamming it down the reader's throat.
True Christianity is not about Religion, as in a bunch of rules to follow, and i's to dot, and other such nonsense. Many have said otherwise, and many will say otherwise, but you are right, those are lies. Christianity is truely about believing that Jesus Christ has saved you, and declaring him Lord. Period, that is it. Nothing else.
Most people who do believe in Christ, and I mean really believe in Christ, do their best to not sin, out of honor and love for Christ... but we definately do sin, that is the truth.
I am sorry that your experiences with religion have tainted the idea of Jesus Christ - but, accept this challenge: Think about Christ as Lord, and shedding His blood as payment for us. Maybe even ask God to open your heart to the possibility, and show you if it is the truth or not.... and then make your decision.
Take care,
jtc
Unless you're not very familiar with the works of C.S. Lewis, you would know that he's written much better "Christian propaganda" books.
Pick up The Screwtape Letters and come back to post after reading it.
Specifically: Lewis's case is not as ironclad as the tone of his writing made it seem that he thought it was. I don't think it stands alone as a total vindication of Christian worship, and I can easilly see how one could draw conclusions outside of the scenario he laid out.
However, while it is not a lead-pipe "QED" solution of the matter (which all the people poking holes in his logic insist it should be to even be considered worth pondering), it is a valid model for considering the possibility of Christ's divinity.
That said, the holes in his argument are not nearly as troublesome as the axioms which must first be established before such a case can be made. To somebody who does not think it likely that we have any accurate account of what Jesus said and did, the entire exercise becomes meaningless, because his personal claim of being the One God is central to the entire case.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Yes, a person can believe that mankind is divine and not be crazy. They can also believe that they are a god and not really deviate all that far from what we consider to be sanity.
However, somebody that enters a monothiestic culture and (wrongly) believes himself to be the One True God, and insists to everybody that he be recognized as such, that guy is a complete basket-case. For Jesus to think he's Jehovah, and not be, would be as far removed from reality as I would be if I thought I was Jesus.
Do you see the distinction? You can't have an identity dysphoria of that magnitude and yet not be insane. To have such delusions is the very definition of insanity: a psychotic break from the real world.
To put it another way, "the odds that someone who claims to be God is a complete lunatic", if you are talking about the single, almighty, omnipotent, omnipresent, personal creator of all the world, is one-to-one (1:1) if he is wrong.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
reacted to him, it looks like the chance of him being a nut can probably be ruled out.
This doesn't follow. There are have been many examples of "complete nuts" who were nonetheless very charismatic and influential. Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Richard Stallman... ;^)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
make a damn fine silver screen adaptation with plenty of subtle homoeroticism? (LotR)
There's some subtle homoeroticism in HP, also. In fact, when J.K. Rowling kills off the "major character" late in the series (as she said she was going to, in some interview a while back), my first guess is that it's going to be Ron Weasley. This would metaphorically mark the end of Harry's adolescence (albeit in a dreadful way - I like Ron more than Harry, actually; it's one thing to have your destiny handed to you, and just have to fulfill it, and it's quite another to be the youngest in a large family, with no clear expectations on you or obvious interests to pursue), as it shows he can no longer go back and fuck around (so to speak) with his schoolboy friends, but must accept his lot as an adult. My next guess would be Hagrid, because Hagrid acted as a replacement dad (or big brother, at least), and it's time for Harry to stand on his own. If she was talking about Dumbledore, well, I will be disappointed, because, sorry, I don't consider him to be a major character (I haven't read book 4 yet, though, so maybe I am wrong), and besides, he's an old geezer, and we all kind of expect him to go anyway.
Get off my launchpad!
I bought this the other day and while I haven't got very far into it (I'm saving it for an upcoming plane trip but I couldn't resist reading a bit) I've found it both interesting and entertaining so far. It isn't a "Douglas Adams novel" and doesn't pretend to be but it has given me a chance to get to know him a little better and that's something I appreciate.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The problem comes when you notice that the story line of the movie being promoted is so thin, that you got the entire story in the 150 seconds. I can think of many movies who's trailer started off convincing me to see the movie, but by the end have told me that I got the whole deal for free, while waiting for the feature.
They don't call those trailers. They call those public service announcements =)
Seriously - I want to know up front if a movie is so lame that they can't even fill a whole trailer full of interesting things (like Men In Black II).
Get off my launchpad!
Jesus=Great bloke: yes
Jesus=Child of a god: no
I think JC's philosophy is one of the most insightful things to come down to us from ancient times but in a world where "Army Chaplain" is a respected job and people carrying guns call themselves Christians it's clear that the message was lost on the vast majority of people.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Actually, the Screwtape Letters were the first thing I read as an adult that made me wonder if my high opinion of Lewis (from doing his stuff at school) might be off-beam.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Excuse me, but isn't a bit pretentious to pan the not-even-shot film simply because its plot relies on religious themes?
I'm saying that a faithful adaption will not give an adult the enjoyment that s/he might remember from being a child reading the books.
I, for one, have no problem with these classic tales of companionship, loyalty, and mysiticism that captured my imagination when I was young.
They captured mine when I was young too and I wish I'd never returned to them later.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Adams didn't write science fiction either. He said so in a radio interview in 1999.
"Information wants to be paid"
However, somebody that enters a monothiestic culture and (wrongly) believes himself to be the One True God, and insists to everybody that he be recognized as such, that guy is a complete basket-case. For Jesus to think he's Jehovah, and not be, would be as far removed from reality as I would be if I thought I was Jesus.
This is a good point. However, Jesus was not born in raised in, and did not live in, a monotheistic culture. He lived in Hellenized Judea, under the control of the Roman Empire, and would have been exposed to persons from dozens if not hundreds of religious traditions. Judea at the time was a lot more cosmopolitan than, say, Kokomo, Indiana is today.
To put it another way, "the odds that someone who claims to be God is a complete lunatic", if you are talking about the single, almighty, omnipotent, omnipresent, personal creator of all the world, is one-to-one (1:1) if he is wrong.
This concept of God did not exist in Jesus's time, even in Judea; it is a Christian concept of God, evolved after the fact, which was adopted later by the Jews and the Muslims, but still a Christian concept nonetheless.
This isn't to say that Jesus wasn't divine; it is just to say that we can't prove he was divine using Lewis's argument.
Finding God in a Dog
That's like saying an Hamish person was not raised in a Mennonite culture because there are other religions in Pennsylvania. Jesus was raised by a Jewish family, which worshipped in a Jewish temple. Furthermore, his ministry was targeted at the monothiestic culture of the Jews. Other people were welcome to follow him, but he taught from Hebrew scripture and identified himself as the One True God, which Abraham once worshipped.
This concept of God did not exist in Jesus's time, even in Judea; it is a Christian concept of God, evolved after the fact, which was adopted later by the Jews and the Muslims, but still a Christian concept nonetheless.
The concept of monothiesm was most certainly a Jewish concept. Scholars may disagree on the exact century in which Genesis and Exodus were written, but only complete crackpots claim they were written after Christ's ministry. God was known to the Jews as the "Great I Am" for hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Other sources of INCOME does not mean the figures for EXPENDITURE per pupil are wrong. Parents buying books might, but in my experience, after selling back used books, it's only about $50 a year, not nearly as much as college.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Sorry, but the scholarship, all well informed by cultural references, is simply not as final and declarative on this as you are.
---However, while it is not a lead-pipe "QED" solution of the matter (which all the people poking holes in his logic insist it should be to even be considered worth pondering), it is a valid model for considering the possibility of Christ's divinity.---
Lewis presents it as a deductive arguement. In doing so, he is being very misleading. And this is what I meant when I said that his apologism is poor (which is the claim we were orignially discussing). At question is not whether, via some after the fact rethinking of the arguement, it coulld be made to work, but rather Lewis own treatment, which is far more than a vindication: but is in fact part of his arguements FOR particular claims.
As to the arguement, I don't think it could possibly be convincing unless one A) assumes its conclusion so as all instances of strange behaviors can be explained away via theology (which is what Lewis does elsewhere in his work) B) temporarily accepts an understanding of human psychology couched in false dilemna that almost no one would in any other situation.