Talking Animals - C. S. Lewis vs. Thornton W. Burgess

Anyone who knows me very well knows that I love C. S. Lewis. I think he was an amazing writer, and I have a quote from him for just about anything. Of course, The Chronicles of Narnia rank right up there as the best childrens' books ever.

So today I'm going to discuss talking animals, using Lewis and Thornton W. Burgess as examples of the right and wrong way to do it.

We've had a few of Burgess' books around our house for as long as I can remember. I've tried and tried to get through them, and I've only succeeded in finishing one; and that one I was never able to re-read. I think for my next article I'll discuss why that was, but for now let's focus on the animals.

Lewis' animals aren't human, that's for sure. Well, OK, in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, some of the animals seem more human than in his later books (especially The Horse and His Boy), but the fact remains that Lewis wrote them as animals. However, these animals have consciences; they know right from wrong (whether they do the right thing or not), they have consciences, they can love, and there are certain rules that, as rational and sentient beings, they must obey. Also, to knowingly eat a talking animal is a great crime, whereas eating a regular dumb beast isn't. Basically, the way Lewis treats his Talking Animals is summed up by Aslan in The Magician's Nephew: 'Laugh and fear not, creatures. Now that you are no longer dumb and witless, you need not always be grave. For jokes as well as justice come in with speech.”

On the other hand, we have Burgess, who wrote a whole lot of stories about the woodland creatures. These creatures may talk, and Burgess may moralize them to death, but they might as well be 'dumb and witless'. Several years ago I picked up Blacky the Crow and read a bit of it, until I came to a certain part that's stuck with me ever since. But first, a quick bit of set-up: Blacky the crow really, really wants the eggs of Mr. and Mrs. Hooty the owls, so he devises several plans to lure the owls away so that he can get to the eggs. All his plans fail, and he ends up deciding that if he can't have the eggs, then he'll get Farmer Brown's boy to take them so that the owls can't have them either.

During all this, we're told several times that Blacky is wronging the owls by trying to steal their eggs.

Then this (emphasis mine):

Blacky The Crow isn't all black. No, indeed. His coat is black, and sometimes it seems as if his heart is all black, but this isn't so. It certainly seemed as if his heart was all black when he tried so hard to make trouble for Hooty the Owl. It would seem as if only a black heart could have urged him to try so hard to steal the eggs of Hooty and Mrs. Hooty, but this wasn't really so. You see, it didn't seem at all wrong to try to get those eggs. Blacky was hungry, and those eggs would have given him a good meal. He knew that Hooty wouldn't hesitate to catch him and eat him if he had the chance, and so it seemed to him perfectly right and fair to steal Hooty's eggs if he was smart enough to do so. And most of the other little people of the Green Forest and the Green Meadows would have felt the same way about it. You see, it is one of the laws of Old Mother Nature that each one must learn to look out for himself.

But when Blacky showed that nest of Hooty's to Farmer Brown's boy with the hope that Farmer Brown's boy would steal those eggs, there was blackness in his heart. He was doing something then which was pure meanness.

I could hardly believe it when I read that. I still can't believe that Burgess goes to so much trouble to get us to think Blacky is being mean and self-serving by trying to get the eggs. Then he completely contradicts himself by saying that, basically, it's perfectly fine according to the laws of Mother Nature (who is worshiped by the animals in all of Burgess' stories) because, hey! Everyone has to take care of himself. No, the only really wrong and mean thing that Blacky did was try to get Farmer Brown's boy to steal the eggs.
So what is wrong, according to Burgess? These are just animals, obeying the laws of Mother Nature, so why shouldn't Blacky do as he pleases? How can he do something out of pure meanness if he's just an animals obeying the laws of nature? If it's perfectly all right for him to steal Hooty's eggs, and for Hooty to eat other talking animals in the forest, then is anything wrong at all? It's not wrong in the real world for a lion to kill and eat a deer, or even for some animal to kill another animal and just leave it there without eating it. But, just as soon as they can talk and think and reason, that's not good enough anymore. And you can't justify it by calling it 'Mother Nature's law', especially if you've been moralizing against it the whole time.

Of course, if Mother Nature is the goddess and makes all the rules, we can't say anything against it, now can we? Survival of the fittest and all that. But as Christians we can't accept that; so, if you're going to write about animals that can talk and reason, then Lewis' way should be the way you go, and not Burgess'.

Realistic Fantasy?

Wow, it's been well over a month since I last posted. My only excuse is that I had two or three ideas for posts in the last month but when I started to write them, I realized that they would take a lot longer and be much more involved and complex than I first thought. I may still write them, but it will definitely take time and probably they would be in a series of posts.
So today I'm going to be talking about an aspect of fantasy that really bugs me. It is the idea that fantasy has to be 'realistic'. That is, that because governments in our world are almost always corrupt, and that good monarchies always go bad after a generation or two, and so on and etcetera. Apparently, according to somebody in a review that I read, Tolkien didn't understand economic issues and that it's painfully obvious in his writings. Well, not really. What's painfully obvious is that Tolkien knew how to write a tale that stirred the imagination and was full of beauty, courage, hope and just plain ol' good adventure. So what if the people of Minas Tirith, if this was 'our world', would have looked at Aragorn with skepticism and not welcomed him with open arms? Who cares if, in real life, Faramir would have been corrupted by the Ring? The beauty of fantasy, to me, is that it tells a tale with elements of reality in it but with more beauty than could be put into a more 'realistic' story.
I don't want to write stories where my protagonist is 'medieval' or 'Celtic', in the sense that he's dirty, barbaric, lives in a drafty castle, takes mistresses, wears no shirt half the time, and has long, unkempt hair. If I want my protagonist to live in a beautiful palace where each of his children has their own bedroom, the pillars are made of ivory, there are warm fires and glass windows in every room, the peasants are well taken care of, and his hair is nicely kept, then why can't I? If I want to write about the other, then I can write historical fiction.
I write fantasy because in it there is a way to have a different 'reality'. Not an escape, but an adventure. I like swords and kings and queens and noblemen and journeys and magic and heroism and the wicked getting their due. Lately, I've felt rather constrained by this idea of 'realistic fantasy' that I seem to see everywhere. But I realized that Tolkien and Lewis most likely would never have become so popular and their fantasies so beloved if they had stuck to what would be 'realistic'. There's no joy in about ninety-five percent of the fantasy stories written today. There's very little beauty, because fantasy has become so 'gritty and real' as a rule. And I'm not even against a little bit of 'gritty realism' showing through once in a while. But when that's all we judge fantasy by, and when that's all we write, I think we've gone from fantasy to alternate reality.
That's why I'm not interested in The Wheel of Time series, or the Game of Thrones series. That's why I dislike the Auralia Thread series (you may have a rant on those books some day).
Now, you may be thinking, "Aw, you're just a sissy. You like pink unicorns and fairies and Prince Charmings . That's what you think fantasy is. We like the gritty, hard, dark stuff."
Which brings me to another point: I'm not against dark, as long as there's light. In the Auralia Thread series, I didn't get a sense of prevailing light in a huge amount of it. And obviously there were things that were supposed to be hopeful and bright, but it was the amount of... I don't know. There was something wrong with those books. But what I mean by fantasy is Narnia and Lord of the Rings. Good overcoming evil, beauty overcoming ugliness. If you want a beautiful princess, then write one (so long as she isn't a Mary Sue :D ). If you want a handsome knight, or a moderately comfortable castle, or peasants that love and respect their king (who also loves his people), then write them. Tolkien and Lewis did it (of course, far more skilfully than we could ever hope to do, but still...), and they infused a light and a hope into their stories. Which of course was mostly due to their Christian (or Christian influenced) views.
So, since I am a Christian, and I believe in hope and valor and beauty, then I am going to write those things in. And maybe my heroes won't be as 'morally conflicted' as some people might like (thought they won't be perfect, of course). And maybe my princess will have long, beautiful, shining hair. And maybe the castle won't be drafty. And maybe, just maybe, the story will be good.
One thing that has always captivated me in The Return of the King, and that has influenced my idea of soldiers and knights in my own fantasy tales, is Prince Imrahil and his tall men with grey eyes and silver armor, bearing a banner that flutters in the wind.
So, what are your thoughts on 'realistic fantasy'? Do you feel constrained in your pursuit of it by all the little things that everyone says you have to do? Do you think that your story will be hampered by your ignorance of medieval serfdom or your sketchy knowledge of the freedoms afforded women in the 12th century? Research is good, and people (myself included) appreciate it when you don't write motorcycle horses (i.e., horses that can run for miles and hardly tire, and require very little care), but some things you can invent or change to your own specifications (providing, of course, that you aren't overstepping bounds of Biblical morality). Well, this is getting long, so I'll end it here. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts!

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, everyone! You're probably visiting family and have already opened your presents. I hope ya'll have an enjoyable day, as I've had so far :D
I got a royal blue sweater, a cross necklace, candy, and an Amazon gift card. I think I already know some of the books I'll be buying with the gift card :)
So, since today is Christmas, I thought, I'd share some of my favorite Christmas-sy things.
1. Of course, first of all is the Christmas story. Obviously, if Jesus hadn't been born, then this whole celebration wouldn't have been thought of! And, even though it sounds cliched, Jesus really is the Reason for the Season.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. -- Luke 2:9-11

2. Second is 'A Christmas Carol' by Charles Dickens. In my opinion, it's one of the classics, and not only that, but an all around really good story. Shortened versions don't do it's wittiness and depth justice; and, though the movie version I've seen of it was good, it also doesn't do the book justice.

Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.
External heat and cold had little influence on Scrooge. No warmth could warm, no wintry weather chill him. No wind that blew was bitterer than he, no falling snow was more intent upon its purpose, no pelting rain less open to entreaty. Foul weather didn’t know where to have him. The heaviest rain, and snow, and hail, and sleet, could boast of the advantage over him in only one respect. They often ‘came down’ handsomely, and Scrooge never did.

3. C. S. Lewis' essay on the difference between the commercialized and religious observations of Christmas; it's really funny, written as a lost chapter from Herodotus on the island of Niatirb (Britain backwards).
 First of all, every citizen is obliged to send to each of his friends and relations a square piece of hard paper stamped with a picture, which in their speech is called an Exmas-card . But the pictures represent birds sitting on branches, or trees with a dark green prickly leaf, or else men in such garments as the Niatirbians believe that their ancestors wore two hundred years ago riding in coaches such as their ancestors used, or houses with snow on their roofs. And the Niatirbians are unwilling to say what these pictures have to do with the festival, guarding (as I suppose) some sacred mystery. (Click the excerpted text to go to the essay)

4. The Gift of the Magi is a well known short story by O. Henry; a sweet story of a young husband and wife who have very little money but still resolve to buy each other a Christmas gift. The results are humorous.

One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies. Pennies saved one and two at a time by bulldozing the grocer and the vegetable man and the butcher until one's cheeks burned with the silent imputation of parsimony that such close dealing implied. Three times Della counted it. One dollar and eighty- seven cents. And the next day would be Christmas.
There was clearly nothing to do but flop down on the shabby little couch and howl. So Della did it. Which instigates the moral reflection that life is made up of sobs, sniffles, and smiles, with sniffles predominating.
(Click the excerpted text to go to the story)

What are your favorite Christmas stories and movies? I'd love to hear about them!
Have a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

Christmas Post--Sleigh Ride

This is a very cheerful Christmas song. I first heard it sung by the Carpenters, and thought ya'll might enjoy it played by the Boston Pops Orchestra.

The Son of God became a man to

enable men to become the sons of God.

-C.S.Lewis