The Fredösphere

We've got more Narnia blogging for you today, prompted by Adam Gopnik's New Yorker article.

Any robust assertion of a religious viewpoint is bound to be polarizing, so I'm not terribly surprised to find out C.S. Lewis has his critics.  Nevertheless, I was disappointed by the degree of hostility Gopnik displays.  Beyond that, he seems to miss the point at several turns.  He has the patronizing opinion that the only good Christianity is meek, lamblike Christianity, and he can't understand how a lion could become a Christian symbol.  He also claims Lewis was too parochial in his Anglicanism, which is patent nonsense -- Lewis is the supreme Mere Christian.  Heck, even pentecostals can raid his writings for ammunition.  And that an Archbishop of Canterbury disliked the strong beer of Lewis' religiosity tells you much of what you need to know about both -- none of it complimentary of Archbishops or derogatory of Lewis if you ask me.

A recurring embarrassment is Gopnik's referring to Narnia as allegory.  That Narnia does not fit the definition of allegory has been discussed a thousand times in Narniological writings; I bet the author knows this, so why didn't he explain himself?

An allegory is an elaborate scenario populated by symbols.  One understands the allegory when one matches each symbol to what is symbolized.  Narnia is not an allegory because Aslan is not a symbol for Jesus; he is Jesus, placed in a new, completely fictional environment, for the purpose of performing a thought experiment regarding What Would Jesus Do in that environment.  Asking oneself, "what was Lewis trying to tell us by including a centaur in this chapter?  What does the half-man, half-horse symbolize?" is a fool's game.  There is no answer to that question.  The centaur symbolizes nothing.  It answers the question "what would Jesus do if he were talking to a centaur?"  You may find that question interesting, or you may find it supremely vacuous, but in any case that is what Narnia is about.

Let's recap what Lewis is doing:  he considers a beloved character from literature, and craving more information than the canon supplies, lets his imagination run free, creating scenarios and plot lines that expand our understanding of the character.  These stories exist with a odd, not-really-official status relative to the canonical work.  Considering this last night, I was suddenly hit by a thunderbolt of comprehension:  Narnia is nothing more or less than fanfic.  Gospel fanfic!

Is this insight semi-original?  That's a tough question.  Googling narnia fanfic won't help you find discussions of Narnia qua fanfic, but will get you lots of sites devoted to Narnia-based fanfic.  Lots and lots and lots of sites.  And this is the moment I rediscover that opening a Pandora's box is a bad idea:  it turns out Narnia fanfic contains all the horrifying variations that make fanfic of any kind so ... charming.  I'm not even going to describe it.  Just one word will say it all -- slash -- and if you don't know what that means, consider yourself very lucky.  Jumpin' Jezebel -- is nothing sacred to these people?

We should be very glad Lewis was enough of an artist to avoid inserting a Mary Sue into the story (although some have dared to claim Aslan is a Mary Sue).  Otherwise we'd have a character named Lewis dying in some centaur's arms or ... well, once again, the decorum for which this blog is justifiably famous prevents me from spelling it out for you.  You figure it out.

One final question:  are there other examples of fanfic based on Biblical characters?  Stupid question!  Meanwhile, someone at Wikipedia thinks Jewish midrashim are premodern examples.  The same link documents a type of fanfic in which a Mary Sue converts all the author's favorite characters to the author's religion.  I suppose it was only a matter of time.

And at this point, even I am sated with this topic.  I'll leave you with a final link to a list of sci-fi authors by religious affiliation.  If you're looking for Quaker sci-fi, now you know where to go.