Some things in this note some people will probably find interesting, while others not so interesting, or even distasteful, as this note covers a variety of subjects, which may or may not seem to be in conflict. This might add to the difficulty of commenting on it, as at times it may seem more puzzling than consistent.
If someone wants to comment on a particular book, then I suggest putting the book in question’s title in the comment.
I created this note with the idea that someone might find it that was looking for a book review (in a search engine perhaps) on a certain book and search the page for it using the “Find,” command. The reason I have not divided this into multiple notes is for the purpose of my own organization. Instead of creating 50 – 100 book review notes for the year, I intended to create one. However, such a blog would run out of space.
I have no expectation for myself that anyone will read it in its entirety. There are no addressees to this, such that I know that the only people that want comments, if any are made, are those that want to be updated. That said, I wrote this with the idea that it probably wouldn’t be commented mainly because material is so diverse.
Feel free to message me personally if you prefer a closed discussion. I would appreciate that. It is my experience that extroverts prefer open ended discussions, while introverts prefer personal contact, and that neither is wrong, so in order to facilitate everyone’s preferences I encourage the use of both mediums to respond to me, or others.
11. *** Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America by Robert Reich – A fundamental flaw in this book is that the author is tries to radicalize the mundane. It’s as if he is trying to paint an emotional face on Al Gore.
He was right, that the liberals would win, but I don’t think it was because of Barrack Obama’s reason, but because of his charisma. The Democrats, synonymous with “liberals,” who in this book might as well be termed centrists, won the last Presidential election (Barrack Obama), and fared well in the interim election by evading the typical routine of catastrophic change in the legislature. There is no turn back in the foreseeable future. However, history does repeat itself. Give it 20 years or so! Personally, I don’t think the Tea Party (note: This book was published in 2004, so it is pre-Tea Party) stands a chance. They are sinking the GOP with their neoconservative ethics; such that droves of moderate Republicans will vote Democratic (Chomsky reports this has already happened).
The definition of liberal in this book is anyone with libertarian ethics in all subjects except economics. His argument for this point of view is well supported. I agree with him too. I object to his labeling of what he calls Radcons or people whom are radical conservatives though I wholeheartedly disagree with radical conservatives. That is as silly as Republicans calling Democrats, “Demorats,” or something else. Let’s not resort to name calling!
I object that young liberals are different now than they once were in the 60s, where the 60s is supposedly the time which birthed the Radcon objection to the liberal way of thinking. At Rutgers, I was witness and sometimes a part of what is known as liberalism, but is actually better termed outright freedom, as liberty comes with restraint, while one person’s freedom is another person’s lacking. As far as I know, college campuses are as wild as ever. For example, there was a four way rape reported to have occurred in a haze of drugs on my dorm room floor, lesbian hippy students that didn’t shave their armpits on my floor, gays, and once an engineering student stabbed a police officer. Yet, I also object to the Radcon approach to dealing with morality. Preachers don’t stop these sorts of things from happening, and also the gay student on my floor happened to be very nice, and the lesbians were nice as well. They went on their LSD trips without bothering a fly.
Reich also uses the term, “DINS,” which stands for Double Income No Sex.
12. * The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris (Stopped reading this pile of dung.) – This book gets one star for inspiring me to criticize it. In summary, the idea is to evaluate ethics with science. First, to evaluate the data ethical experiments would give us would result in a mound of data so gloppy that one could only hope to find the needle in the haystack that is the truth. Second, moral experiments are ethically wrong. You can’t ask people to do something immoral and another group to do something moral to see if what we think is moral is in fact moral. How ridiculous! And, third, should we even trust such findings? That is, we learn about the moral landscape as we gather knowledge in life naturally. There is no need to have a scientific journal of moral findings. One mistake in a journal article would call the entire system into account. We learn about such ethical studies already by experience, age, and in order to receive moral data, we have to trust the source. This means that there could be no science, meaning the scientific method, in the experiment because in order to trust the results, we have to trust the experimenter, and what reasonable person is going to trust an experimenter that asks people to do something that is immoral! This idea has the same mentality as Nazi experiments during the Holocaust, as by its very nature it creates human guinea pigs. Lastly, if we understand the history of evolution, then we already know the answers to all the moral questions. Without writing a book on the subject, I will just refer you to Richard Dawkins whom addresses the subject of ethics in biology in his book, “The Selfish Gene.”
This book is about the moral landscape. I believe landscaping – for example mowing lawns but generally not rearranging rocks - is immoral. I probably need to give a dissertation on that claim, but I won’t. I will leave it that at bare minimum, he is referring to mowing lawns. What about me, aren’t I carving a moral landscape as I write this. Well um, actually, I am carving rocks, not trees. This is written to a magnetic recording device, not on paper.
Though I have done some landscaping, and sometimes continue to do so, I believe that it is immoral. It helps pay the bills, and I only do it regrettably if someone gives me something to do it. Generally, I would prefer to do something else for reward, and some things I do I believe are good with no expectation of reward.
I do not like the author’s suggestion that the truth is open to analysis. The truth is the truth. What is good is good. Either you know what is good, or you don’t. Otherwise you learn what is good, or you don’t. Some people don’t know what is good that much I understand. Some people know what is good and don’t do it. Some people know the truth and do the wrong thing. Some people know the truth and cling to it. Some people know the truth and are moderate about it, sometimes choosing to do good, sometimes choosing to do evil. Analyze that in an already massive multivariable experiment!
Let’s imagine Sam Harris’ idea in practice. The experiment will be to evaluate if making species extinct is a good thing or a bad thing, or neutral. Group A will attempt to make several species extinct. Group B will try to make new species. And, as a control, Group C will neither try to make species extinct, nor make new species. How absurd to think Group C is a control! What can we expect to find? If Group A has a great amount of sociopaths in it, then they will report, making species extinct results in the most blessed feeling imaginable, maybe. It will probably depend on the people involved and the wording of the experiment regarding extinction. What if the people entering the experiment think that they will only be making species extinct such as the good for nothing tapeworm? Do we differentiate between tapeworms and butterflies? Doctors might enter this group to provide us with cures! If Group B is able make some new species, we are left with an ethical conundrum. Have they made pathogens, dinosaurs, house pets, and/or maybe food? The control, Group C’s response might only be relative to the season of the year, where dark or cold seasons of the year often result in depression. Then, we would have to add an experiment on top of it all to see whether or not it is good to feel good or if it better to feel terrible. Then, we are probably likely to conclude that it is good to feel good when doing some things, but that it is good to feel bad when doing others. But, then we might consider intent, and even accidents. One conundrum leads to another. The result of the original experiment is that the experimenters talked themselves into a pretzel and probably never found out whether or not it is good to make species extinct. As for me, if tapeworms become extinct, I won’t fret, and if you make a new species of butterfly that is probably a good thing. I’m sure some people would disagree with me. I won’t say, let’s not pretend that we know what is ethical though because some of us don’t.
13. ? The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization by Thomas L. Friedman (Did not bother to finish) – I am not sure how to rate this book. It is so dated that I wouldn’t recommend it. The author is still in the world of modems. It is not bad though, just dated. If you don’t know the basics in this book, then you probably live in third world nation. This book was written when globalization was something new. People were discovering that the era of globalization had replaced the cold war. If you are up to date, then if you haven’t already addressed the question, “Where do I fit in the global playing field?” then you are way behind the times.
The Lexus in the title is symbolic of technology. The olive tree is symbolic of cultural roots. That much given, I already believe that culture will become more and more irrelevant as technology increases and causes increasing globalization.
14. ***** Coriolanus by William Shakespeare (audiobook) – A marvelous idea by this witty playwright considering that his audience was royalty. Coriolanus is an overbearing Roman ruler with no concern for the common people whom merely want bread, and though he repents near the end, he is consequently slain. I would expect that Shakespeare had intended this play to serve as a warning to the nobility that they should not be to overbearing lest they receive the fate of Coriolanus.
As far as I can tell, the semi-legendary story of Coriolanus starts with Cicero in the 1st century BCE, as he is mentioned only twice in his classic work, “Laelius.” However, Coriolanus reportedly lived circa 453 BCE. Plutarch mentions him in a classic titled, “The Comparison of Coriolanus to Alcibiades,” circa 1st or 2nd century CE, and it is this work from which Shakespeare bases his play. So far as I can tell, Coriolanus was only of minor importance prior to this play, where though these books are written by major authors, they are closer to being minor works by them, and where everything Shakespeare wrote might be considered integral in an education in the fundamentals of literature and history.
It would appear as if Coriolanus has become a minor King Arthur in the sense that King Arthur possibly lived, but much of the truth of his story is obscured by Arthurian romances in the same way that the several authors that have written of Coriolanus probably spoiled the accuracy of his story. Thus, it would seem Shakespeare took a character of only of minor importance, and made him of major importance to ascent to what one might call a crown of knowledge.
I will also add that though I did not subtract a star for it, in general, I feel that works that rewrite history do a general disservice. I would appreciate the work more if Shakespeare had changed the name Coriolanus to something else in order to preserve the integrity of what is now a legend. However, I must admit, I do enjoy Shakespeare drawing my attention to him for the sake of study. I found out most of what I know about the actual Coriolanus from Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.
Shakespeare uses the name Brutus for one of Coriolanus’ followers designated to represent the plebes. Thus, Brutus is painted in a positive light. This may have been an attempt by Shakespeare to include Brutus, at least in namesake. To the royals, Brutus may have been known to them as a semi-legendary Englishman of whom it was written that he was descended from the gods, specifically that he was a descendent of Zeus through Silvius, and not only that but Brutus was also claimed to be a genetic ancestor to all British royalty. Thus, Shakespeare’s using of the namesake Brutus possibly gave royal Britain a genetic connection to the Roman Empire. Likewise, I suggest that the use of the namesake Brutus further gave Shakespeare means to woo the nobility into treating the common people well through this connection.
15. *** Antony and Cleopatra by William Shakespeare (audiobook) –
I sent most of this commentary out in a message to certain individuals. Mainly, I sent it to people that frequently comment to my wall or people that I felt might be interested. I sent it as a message, in addition to this note because I felt like it would get lost in the shuffle on this massive note, which only promises to get longer, as I continue to update it with my latest reads. Not everyone appreciated that message, while some people liked it, and because of that I have asked that if someone wants to make an open comment, feel free to do so here instead of commenting to the message with “Reply all.” Every comment made to that message will further miff anyone that did not receive constant updates of it through new notifications every time someone comments, whether they want it or not. Some people obviously wanted to continue the conversation, and this is the place for it.
This review is slightly longer than the message. When I tried to send the whole thing, Facebook said that it was too long, such that I had to edit it. So, here it is in its entirety.
Having done some genealogic research this play especially interested me. Again, I feel Shakespeare is trying to educate the nobility, mainly Queen Elizabeth I. The moral landscape of Scotland at the time was such that the House of Lords had proposed that James Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Arran be a husband for Mary, Queen of Scots (Queen Elizabeth was not Queen of Scotland at the time). James wooed her, but was unsuccessful. Instead, Mary married her half brother, her second husband, and James became psychotic. Tragically, the Scottish monarchy never recovered from this and subsequently James VI Stewart of Scotland became James I of England, and incidentally there is some question as to whether or not this was a result of a non-paternal event. Thus, the Scots lost their independence.
Antony and Cleopatra is very similar to this story. It is about love gone bad, except the sexes are reversed. Mark Antony is as Mary, Queen of Scots. Like Mary, Queen of Scots, he is seen as guilty of sexual sin, which in this case is adultery though possibly more accurately yet not mentioned in the play, polygamy. Cleopatra is as James Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Arran. Though he and Cleopatra are lovers, Mark Antony marries Octavia, the daughter of Octavian. Mark Antony continues loving both Octavia and Cleopatra. This marriage is a tragedy, which eventually leads to the suicide of Cleopatra. Furthering Antony’s sexual sins is that early in the play he leaves Cleopatra, whom he seems to love, to journey to the place of his wife’s death.
Since, the subject of adultery and polygamy are addressed in the beginning paragraph, I suggest that I explain what I know about polygamy, and perhaps what I don’t know to support that Antony was in fact a polygamist, and not an adulterer. That is I don’t claim to understand women, but I will try. From experience, I understand that sometimes in the ebb and flow of the emotional tides of relationships, it is the man whom a woman complains about most bitterly that she at times loves the most. Likewise, sometimes it is the man not complained about that is loved the least. An explanation for this is that we tend to find the eccentricities of our lover or beloved at times most endearing and at other times frustrating. That is most humans love each other due to differences not due to likeness. This is true of both men and women. Thus, it is that both men and women are generally not good reporters as the wellness of their own unity, such as marriage or even dating and other forms. This is such that, at one time a relationship is in no greater danger of separation than when love is at is greatest peak though it is also true that the danger of separation is never greater than when someone finds their partner most despicable. It is when we find our partner most despicable that when separation occurs that it is most easy to accept, but for the losing partner that is most enamored it is the most difficult.
The book of Genesis writes on this power struggle between men and women in amorous relationships, “He shall strike her head, and she shall strike his heal.” Though this is rather extreme, this curse should be reworded in translation such it says that, “Lovers are destined to bicker.” This is true not only of humans, but also of other species. For example, it was humans that called Love Birds by their name (How personally revealing of our species!), a species of bird that is extremely affectionate, at one time, loving (grooming each other etc.), then quarrelling. Also, I don’t believe it is always the loved (man) that starts the bickering, but that sometimes it is the beloved (woman).
Though women generally say that they hate the idea of polygamy, and I believe them, because this sort of report is most given outside of the polygamous relationship (It is illegal in our country after all!) where inside the relationship reports are less reliable, there is some question as to the authenticity of these reports by women. I have no doubt that some males would prefer to share a woman, while some would never share a woman. It seems likely that these sorts of preferences exist among women too. This is such that I question whether or not mass lying is occurring on the parts of women, such that they would admit to being tolerable of polygamy if they felt that this admission would not cause the admitter to be labeled as a slut. That is, if it were more culturally acceptable for women to prefer polygamy, then it is possible that more women would prefer this sort of relationship to monogamy.
As the age old tale of the Bible goes, Jacob married Leah and Rachel, a polygamous relationship. However, it was Leah whom brought more children into this world for Jacob, than Rachel. In this polygamous relationship, Leah is the unloved wife, while Rachel is the loved wife. Given that contraception was not yet invented, I suggest this meant that Leah was more receptive to having sex with Jacob than Rachel was. Certainly, Jacob was not guilty of having enough leftovers for Rachel. And, so far as I know, nothing is mentioned about the fertility of Rachel, so we should not assume that she was infertile. I believe that is because many women often prefer to be an unloved wife, and additionally some women are confused as to what love looks like in a man, such that the unloved wife thinks that she is loved, and the loved wife thinks that she is unloved. I suggest that to a woman, a man whom loves her looks creepy, while the man whom does not love her appears valiant. In Antony and Cleopatra, it is Antony whom the women see as a valiant warrior, such that they do not question Antony’s pursuit of the opposite sex, but that they bicker amongst each other. Women prefer to be the unloved wife, all the while stating that love is in fact what they want. For example, I suggest that this is the reason why so many women do not prefer male virgins. I suggest that women generally prefer that a man find love, rip it out of his soul, and only then is he ready for the sort of relationship that many a woman prefers. Given the curse of Genesis, I suggest that this preference has arisen from the idea that a male generally treats his unloved wife better because he has fewer emotions associated with the relationship. Thus, it is such that Leah was probably treated better than Rachel, as Jacob and Rachel probably often quarreled for the sake of love getting nothing done, while Leah having been treated better caused her to be more delighted with having sex more often with Jacob. And furthermore, that Leah knew she was probably adding to Rachel’s jealousy might have made her more likely to seek sex than Rachel, where women find themselves trying to find favor with their husband, and snuff the other party. Likewise, the Bible records Leah and Rachel quarreling in an episode. Oh how timeless this Biblical story is! It is no wonder that it is one of the reasons that the Bible has interested masses of people, both male and female, for longer than any other book in the world! I might add that at Gordon College (a Christian school which I attended) there were more women than men attending, and that though some of this might be explained by the fact that more women prefer a liberal arts education, while more men prefer tech careers, in fact this ratio was especially skewed at Gordon, such that one might make the assumption that more women like the Bible than men.
Furthering the idea that women prefer polygamy, I would even question if there is such a thing as male virginity. I believe that only a brainwashed fundamentalist woman would prefer a male virgin. Speaking of the idea of such a fundamentalist women, this would be the kind of lady that confesses, “The joy of submission to her husband.” This is also the type of woman that prefers a husband with the lowest levels of testosterone, as this is the hormone of desire, such that her preferred lover actually might be less receptive to giving love another shot. Such a woman would generally prefer a pastor to a football player, where the studies say that pastors’ generally have the lowest testosterone levels, while football players are among those with the highest levels. This is the rare, yet not completely unheard of concept of the man that is all used up.
Again to further the idea that women actually prefer polygamy are the reports I have heard women give. Most women say that they find men attractive when they are disinterested in them. The progressive rock band Dream Theater agrees in their lyrics saying, “The distance in his voice isn’t leaving you a choice. So if you are looking for a time to run away, you won’t find it here. …Try another day.” That is the virgin man whom has love to give is much less attractive. Like a wild stag, most women think he needs to be broken in, such that he loves women less. Of the separation of a man from his first wife the Talmud says, “Even the alter sheds tears.” In general, the first women a man erotically loves are the ones he feels the greatest emotional attachment to. Women in unison might as well have said, “We don’t want this sort of love, as it just brings turbulence to the relationship. What we want is a man that treats us well. We prefer being given flowers to love. We prefer to have fewer quarrels.” The fact is that women can’t have it both ways! Either they want love, which comes with quarrels, or they prefer to be the unloved wife. In modernity, that is not tolerant of polygamy, this means that a man loves, and then is separated from someone he loves, perhaps several times, before he is emotionally ready for marriage.
Usually, it is culture that prizes virginity in women, whom by nature have less testosterone than men, such that sexual hyperactivity is less tolerated among women by both other women and other men. This is such that I am aware of a side of women that they are extremely insecure as to how they appear to the public, such that I find it highly likely that it is a part a woman’s soul that concern for social status is so much a part of womanhood that virtually all women would prefer to lie than admit the truth if the admission of truth would cause their judgment, especially among other women. This is probably not an attempt to be evil on the part of women, but it is merely an attempt to avoid the emotional abuse. Women are prone to subjecting their own sex to emotional abuse, which indeed is often more hurtful that actual physical abuse. Thus, it is such that the pot of women is much more likely to call the kettle black in falsehood than admit the truth. Thus, it is such that this sort of relationship, polygamy, possibly causes too much love for the male, no matter how appealing the idea of being treated well seems, such that the rather unpleasant curse of relationships, the bickering, becomes more and even too severe. After all, we know that though in Victorian times, female enjoyment of sex was publically considered deviant though the most intelligent women were known to admit in privacy that they in fact did enjoy sex. It seems one era of sexual repression breeds another. Perhaps, sexual repression is a way of life. In Victorian times, females were suppressed into saying that they did not enjoy sex. In modern times, perhaps women repress each other into saying that they don’t prefer polygamy.
That said, there is no bickering among the ladies in love with Antony (though there is some signs of jealousy of each other), but perhaps that comes more as a matter of their separation. For example, had they been kept together in a harem, then their probably would have been more bickering.
I happen to like the idea of arranged marriage, where young women and young men have a right of refusal. Culture tells little girls that they want love, which as I have shown is possibly a lie. Rather, when considering marriage, what we should be looking for are family and personal attributes primarily for the sake of breeding, where a wise old woman is the matchmaker. This is necessary because too many times do fairly intelligent rich men woo pin head women, squandering the gene pool. Then, when these women are older they are traded in for the younger model. For their own sake, my experience is that young men are too visual when selecting a mate, while young women are too naïve.
The play is especially relevant because the nobility of the time had a fairly recent marriage (Isabella of France had married King Edward II of England, and produced King Edward III [circa 1300s]) with French nobility that traced their lineage all the way back Persian Kings, such as Darius the Great. Thus, Cleopatra would have been in Queen Elizabeth I’s the family tree!
16. **** The Horse and His Boy by C.S. Lewis – Strangely, I was expecting for there to be more symbolism in this book. Well, there is a lot of symbolism, but not until near the end of the book. Perhaps, I missed it in the first 70 or so pages of this 110 page book. Lewis does address some important topics which are relative to the Bible though, such as mastery, slavery, prearranged marriage, anti-Semitism, and necessity that Jesus (Aslan) is a human, and not just a symbol. Additionally, there is a very touching part where Aslan tells the Boy how he has been providing for him throughout his life, which is in response to the boy’s feeling that his is unlucky. That part reminded me of the short classic Christian poem, “Footsteps,” such that Lewis is possibly also seeking to put the notion of divine Providence into the heads of little children.
17. ** Henry IV, part 2 by William Shakespeare (audiobook) – A mistake is made by Arkangel, the plot of this play is exactly the same as part 1, at least according to the jacket. However, the jacket is wrong. This is especially apparent as even the number of acts and scenes do not match between the disks and the jacket. I realize that I am probably one of a handful of people that probably even bothered to listen to the play, as it is only a minor work of Shakespeare’s, such that only Shakespeare buffs would be familiar with it and the missing summary for this series has largely gone unmissed.
There does not appear to be a great deal of coherent orchestration of the plot in part 2, just like part 1. I had a difficult time discerning what exactly the plot was, if there really was one. The amount of characters without having a plot synopsis makes this play especially hard to follow as an audiobook, such that I look forward to watching the movie of it. There were 30 actors that made this play, and trying to keep track of who is who just by voice is next to impossible, at least for me though Richard Griffiths, the man who plays Falstaff, is very recognizable. The plot is very similar to part 1 though. Both plays contain the idea of corruption of the youth, especially by the immoral corruptor Falstaff. I liked the general mood in part 1 better than part 2.
If there is any subject that Shakespeare addresses in this play, it is hedonism and youthfulness. The question is that of growing up. The hedonism is pleasant to listen to though it is of very little substance. Usually, being immature grows old though sometimes boys will be boys. Falstaff is the hedonist in chief, and the question is will he be successful in corrupting the crown prince even when he ascends to the throne. I suggest that the answer to this has further implications than is relevant merely to the play.
Corruptors eventually grow up though they may continue corrupting. Likewise, every youth comes across a corruptor, and decides whether or not corruption is for him. The answer of a youth is usually, I will rebel, and such it is in this play. However, few continue their rebellion even in old age. This story is somewhat different as Falstaff not only talks the talk of a bard, but he also walks the walk. Thus, it is such that few people actually take this path, and it is more normal that the corruptor and the corrupted grow up. In this play, the Prince grows up.
What usually happens is that wives succeed in taming their husbands from their lewd ways. Those that refuse to be tamed, usually end up single, or in short relationships with naïve young women. Thus, it is the age old question of ethics, not really of good and evil, but more of civility and manhood versus lack thereof, the animal nature.
Another subject that might be discussed in both these places is Falstaff. Religionists have people thinking that evil is small minded, and there is not such a thing as intelligent evil. Yet, Falstaff, as most story weavers understand is necessary, is as the brilliant genius that completely squanders it immorality. Thus, it is such that every interesting villain has a certain level of brilliance and charm, but yet chooses to sin nearly every chance that they get. Though I don’t know enough to be able to say that we might credit Shakespeare for this idea, I know that it existed before George Lucas whom some people credit the idea that the villain, Darth Vader, is more interesting.
18. ** King Henry IV, part 1 by William Shakespeare (audiobook) – Typically, Shakespeare comes on very powerful in act 1 of his plays. Act 2 is good. Act 3 is okay. Act 4 is somewhat boring. And, act 5 is both splendid and emotional, even if the play is a tragedy. That said; this play fails to get off the ground in act 1, while act 2 is better. King Henry IV does not steal the show, but rather a character named Falstaff. Surprisingly, the play does not crash and burn though the plot is quite unfocused.
Though I happen to be a direct descendent of his, prior to listening, I was unfamiliar with the history of King Henry IV. After picking up a book and reading it, my appetite had not been wet. Compared to some of the other kings, King Henry IV did not seem to particularly stand out. The only reason I figure that Shakespeare would write a play on him was his Elizabethan audience, as Elizabeth was the daughter of King Henry VIII.
19. ** C.S. Lewis – The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (BBC 1990 [video])
This made for television PBS movie by the BBC comes from the times when books used to be better than the movie. Strangely, this was only a few short years ago, 1990. Though it was probably considered to have a modest budget at the time, most people probably wouldn’t be bothered to watch such a low budget film these days. Thus, given the low budget, the film has to rely on good acting instead of great special effects in order to carry it. Though it is successful at this – the children especially did a great job – it still probably won’t compare with the modern renditions of these movies by Disney, which I will add that I intend to watch or see again.
20. **** Prince Caspian by C.S. Lewis (book) – By now it is clear to me that Lewis probably thought of unbelievers in the Christian story as people that would say, “Bah! Humbug!” to a children’s fairytale. That is C.S. Lewis probably became a Christian in order to embrace the mystical aspects of Christianity that captivate both the imaginations of child and adult alike. Given that Christianity has so far been interwoven with fairytale ideas, I have no doubt that Lewis did not care much to separate the two. For me, as an unbeliever, this is quite powerful evangelism. Most evangelists want to say that my soul is at stake. Thus, I should believe in their tales. I hate that! I would sooner go to hell than be with such people in heaven. However, it is as if Lewis is saying, “Let’s believe in Christianity and enter the world of make-believe simply because it’s fun!” I won’t do that because I know that the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence. Christians would probably get angry at me if I became a Christian because I wanted to further exacerbate my propensity for believing in fairy tales (As an example, look at all my ancestries that go back to the Bible.) However, I do feel somewhat left out for not believing in Jesus and reading his Chronicles of Narnia. Lewis has Christians journeying to the land of religious fairy tales, while I feel that his intent in writing this was to leave me feeling somewhat excluded.
Aside from the issue of belief in an old legend, C.S. Lewis evangelistically uses the fantasy world of Narnia to show how one might use the New Testament in order to engage in spiritual warfare. There are quite a few passages in the New Testament that are relative to the subject. The High King, King Peter, is obviously representative of the apostle Peter, the one whom it is claimed that Jesus used to build the foundation of what became Christianity on. Lewis is essentially telling children that if they come into trouble with adults or witchcraft that they “Put on the full armor of God,” including a spiritual sword, the Word of God, and do battle, as the New Testament tells Christians to do. Thus, it is not the injured and consequently imperfect King Caspian X is engaging in battle, but it is that he is allowing Peter, symbolic of the New Testament, to fight his battles for him.
No comments:
Post a Comment