Narnia Recap: Peter and Miraz are going to fight to the death in a winner-take-all extravaganza event. Prince Caspian, Chapter 14: How All Were Very Busy
Hello, everybody! Are you all excited to see that this book is still not finished? Are you maintaining MAXIMUM ENTHUSIASM for Prince Caspian? I know I am! I am so enthusiastic about Prince Caspian that at least four times this week I have thought, "You know, I need to finish those Prince Caspian posts," only to suddenly remember that I needed to wash the car or re-catalog the library or plan our vacation for next year or anything other than writing about Prince Caspian.
Ha ha, I kid. That was a little deconstructionist humor. I am totally on the edge of my seat in anticipation of this VERY EXCITING CHAPTER. How can I not be? Peter and Miraz are going to battle to the death, and we will all be genuinely very worried that Peter might lose. But because I don't want anyone sustaining mental or emotional damage from that stress, I will go ahead and let you all know that Peter will in fact be okay. (Whew!)
A LITTLE BEFORE TWO O'CLOCK TRUMPKIN and the Badger sat with the rest of the creatures at the wood's edge looking across at the gleaming line of Miraz's army which was about two arrow-shots away. In between, a square space of level grass had been staked for the combat. At the two far corners stood Glozelle and Sopespian with drawn swords. At the near corners were Giant Wimbleweather and the Bulgy Bear, who in spite of all their warnings was sucking his paws and looking, to tell the truth, uncommonly silly. To make up for this, Glenstorm on the right of the lists, stockstill except when he stamped a hind hoof occasionally on the turf, looked much more imposing than the Telmarine baron who faced him on the left.
Do you know what is fun about this opening paragraph? SO MUCH.
I love how C.S. Lewis still continues his aggressive Othering campaign of his non-human characters, here calling what I presume is Trufflehunter "the Badger" as though it hasn't already been established that there are multiple Badgers in the Narnian army, what with two of them standing sentry at Aslan's How just a couple of chapters ago. But who cares about which Badger was sitting with Trumpkin, am I right? It's not like the Animal characters are important in these books. Heck, I'm just surprised that Trumpkin hasn't been reduced yet again to "the Dwarf" considering that he's the only named dwarf left now that Nikabrik has been killed.
Continuing the theme of Othering the Narnian Animals as uninteresting and/or silly, we get to see "the Bulgy Bear" (which, again, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? There are three Bulgy Bears. Yes, it was established that the eldest one was picked as a marshal, but still, is it too much to ask that zie be referenced as an individual, like, "the eldest Bulgy Bear" or "the chosen Bulgy Bear" instead of just acting like the other two have stopped existing as far as the narrative is concerned?) sucking on his paws and looking totally silly and un-masculine and therefore utterly embarrassing to the Narnian cause, naturally. Honestly, I'm shocked that Caspian and the Pevensies don't commit ritual suicide right then and there rather than continue to lose face like this. Thank the assorted Narnian river gods that there's a scowly Centaur in the picture to lend everything the appropriate air of machismo, otherwise Narnia wouldn't be worth saving.
And here is a point: Husband and I went ahead and watched the Disney Prince Caspian movie this week because Blockbuster decided to mail it to us and I wanted to watch it once through before taking my usual rambling notes. And there's actually a little bit during the Peter/Miraz battle where the camera cuts away after Peter sustains a wound and there's a reaction shot to the Marshal Bulgy Bear and zie sucks hir paw into hir mouth out of concern for Peter. It's supposed to be a comedic cut, to lessen the tension a bit and retain that all-important PG-13 rating in a movie that has a higher body count than the last R movie we watched, and Husband (who hasn't read the books and wasn't expecting a 'silly' bear) did let out a chuckle. But there was something else going on in the movie, and while I'm sure I'll point it out again in the movie post, I want to talk about it here.
Because the movie -- which, by the way, was SO MUCH BETTER than this book, mostly because they just tossed the source material out on its head and rewrote everything -- didn't spend two or three chapters belaboring just how MONUMENTALLY SILLY the Bulgy Bears are, thus the scene didn't make it seem like the Bear in the reaction shot was being buffoonish. It looked like zie was just genuinely concerned for High King Peter, and was expressing that concern in an unreserved non-patriarchal manner. The scene became something very sweet and endearing, as well as undermining stereotypes: here's this big Bear that you think is going to have a deep voice and be as stoic and terrifying as the Minotaurs already characterized earlier, but instead the Bear is something deeply different from the stereotype. And I liked it. I actually felt like they took something that was just another example of Lewis being what I can only describe as a mean-spirited bully towards his own characters -- because, really, I cannot imagine any other reason for all this character-shaming that he's now devoted SO MANY WORDS to -- and turned it around to be a real Stereotypes Are Harmful And Wrong moment. Go, Disney.
"I wish Aslan had turned up before it came to this," said Trumpkin.
"So do I," said Trufflehunter. "But look behind you."
"Crows and crockery!" muttered the Dwarf as soon as he had done so. "What are they? Huge people -- beautiful people -- like gods and goddesses and giants. Hundreds and thousands of them, closing in behind us. What are they?"
"It's the Dryads and Hamadryads and Silvans," said Trufflehunter. "Aslan has waked them."
"Humph!" said the Dwarf. "That'll be very useful if the enemy try any treachery. But it won't help the High King very much if Miraz proves handier with his sword."
I think this really illustrates everything that's wrong with this chapter, and very possibly with the book entirely. And in more ways than one.
In the Disney movie, which I may or may not stop banging on about, the trees show up in the middle of the final climactic battle and are instrumental in turning the tide for the Narnian army. But here, they've shown up early and are now going to quietly sit in a corner while the fight commences. WHAT AN EXCITING ENTRANCE. And since nothing else is said about this for the time being, presumably the Narnians (who have never seen moving trees in their lives, or at least not for the past 300 years) and the Telmarines (who are so terrified of the trees that they assiduously avoid all forests) just take the arrival of the trees in stride. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG.
Then there's the point, which I feel is underscored deliberately here, that the Narnians really are willing to give over their lives if Peter dies. I mean, I suppose Trumpkin's line could just mean that it won't help Peter because he'll be dead, but it seems like the sub-text of this conversation is that if Peter is defeated, the Narnians won't be 'treacherous' like the Telmarines soon will be. If that is the sub-text of this conversation, then the point is that Good Is Honorable and won't go back on the winner-take-all terms of the battle. But this isn't a battle over lands or titles; it's literally a battle for the survival of the Narnians. I am admittedly a Chaotic Good rebel with disdain for most Lawful systems, but it seems really pointless and stupid to me for an entire race to submit quietly to genocide because their chosen champion didn't manage to win the battle that they only suggested in the first place as a stalling tactic.
But moving away from alignment questions for the moment, I think it's worth noting here that the Lewis!Trees are essentially dryadic humanoids, and very attractive ones at that. The narrative has several times noted how human-like the trees look in their moving forms, and we'll see that again in the next chapter. And I think it's an interesting contrast that the Disney!Trees are, simply, trees. They look like trees. They walk like trees, with their roots curling in and out of the dirt. They fight as trees, letting their roots spring up out of the ground to attack soldiers and siege engines alike. They're deeply foreign, unlike us in every possible way, and yet a respected and meaningful part of Narnia, as well as instrumental to the Narnian victory. And to me, there's something really beautiful there, especially in a series where being human is a prerequisite to being a ruler or a protagonist.
It strikes me that Lewis' trees are humanoid for the same reason that his rulers are human and his Animals are ridiculed and his Centaurs and River Gods occupy a place of grudging respect: the more human you are in Lewis' Narnia, the better you are, with a few key exceptions (Aslan, Jadis, the Black Dwarves). Whereas you look at the Disney Narnia, the one they pretty much rewrote from scratch, and you have non-humanoids who are valued because of their unique and incredible differences. The trees are helpful in the final battle not because there are so many of them, or because the Telmarines are terrified of tree-colored humanoids, but because they are trees. Because trees can fight in ways that Centaurs and humans and Minotaurs and Badgers cannot.
The Badger said nothing, for now Peter and Miraz were entering the lists from opposite ends, both on foot, both in chain shirts, with helmets and shields. They advanced till they were close together. Both bowed and seemed to speak, but it was impossible to hear what they said. Next moment the two swords flashed in the sunlight. For a second the clash could be heard but it was immediately drowned because both armies began shouting like crowds at a football match.
WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN.
I'm trying to remain of good cheer throughout these, but the Constant Cozy is beginning to grate more than a little. "A football match"? "A football match"? Was there really that much of a concern that the children reading their Christian allegory before bedtime would be so terribly concerned for Peter's safety that we needed to liken the whole thing to a football match?
Anyway, we're going to fast-forward through Doctor Cornelius' play-by-play and Edmund's color commentary -- EXCITING THOUGH IT IS to be told what is happening in a battle not through direct narrative but through the voice of the guy sitting next to you who won't shut up -- to get on with it. Suffice to say that both Peter and Miraz get wounded and Edmund informs us that it is REALLY VERY CLOSE and Peter just might lose. Very exciting stuff, this.
[...] Peter staggered, slipped sideways, and fell on one knee. The roar of the Telmarines rose like the noise of the sea. "Now, Miraz," they yelled. "Now. Quick! Quick! Kill him." But indeed there was no need to egg the usurper on. He was on top of Peter already. Edmund bit his lips till the blood came, as the sword flashed down on Peter. It looked as if it would slash off his head. Thank heavens! it had glanced down his right shoulder. The Dwarf-wrought mail was sound and did not break.
A great shout arose from the Old Narnians. Miraz was down -- not struck by Peter, but face downward, having tripped on a tussock. Peter stepped back, waiting for him to rise.
"Oh bother, bother, bother," said Edmund to himself. "Need he be as gentlemanly as that? I suppose he must. Comes of being a Knight and a High King. I suppose it is what Aslan would like. But that brute will be up again in a minute and then -- "
See Peter fight. See Peter nearly get killed by the bloodthirsty usurper. See Peter distinguish himself as more honorable than the bloodthirsty usurper when he gets the chance to move in for the kill and honorably chooses not to. See how very chivalrous it all is.
And I feel like a bad person here, because my general reaction is somewhere between a sigh and a yawn. Peter is gooder than the goodest thing in goodsville, yeah? And he can't bloody well kill the bad guy, because pretty much the only way to kill a bad guy in battle is to go for the throat in a weak moment and that would be Wrong. So naturally, we're going to need a self-dispatching villain, and as you can see from the sentence break up there in Edmund's dialogue, we're about to get just that.
The thing is, this is a kids' book. I get that. Lewis didn't write this for some uppity feminist woman in the year of our gourd 2012 to come along and poke holes in everything and criticize his book. He wrote this for little children to hear chivalrous tales about a King Arthur figure that looks and acts and walks just like them and also hangs out with Jesus on the side and Jesus is also a furry lion. Oooooooh. So who am I to complain about this? I'm nobody special, that's who.
But I hate-hate-hate self-dispatching villains. I do, I can't help it. I hate how they conveniently die at the hands of their underlings or by flinging themselves off of cliffs in a ridiculous attempt to drag the hero to his death with them. And I especially hate how they manage to let the heroes be all heroic without having to get their hands dirty. I hate that.
Peter is fighting for the life of every Narnian there now is or ever will be. Every person in his army, every member of their families, every baby born to them now has their life dependent on his actions. Right now, there's a Centaur woman in the army watching this fight with baited breath, praying that her foal will see another dawn after this one. In the archer ranks behind her, there's a Dwarf who hopes that he will have the chance to return home and see his wife again. Deep within the How, there's a Badger working the supply lines and listening to the battle above and hoping against hope that he will live another day to see his eight siblings, his parents, and that nice boy Badger across the river whom he will finally work up the courage to ask out if he gets out of this battle alive.
There are hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of Narnians all over Narnia, and right now whether they live or die past today depends on whether a little boy from England can manage to kill a grown warrior who has him wounded and on the defensive. So naturally, the Right and Moral thing to do is to make sure the genocidal tyrant has the best possible chance to win as Peter can possibly give him.
I don't know, maybe that attitude makes me a bad person. Maybe it means I lack sufficient faith in Aslan's plan to show up at some point this century, or maybe that I lack the appropriate belief in Peter's ability to win a battle that he himself has deemed very probably unwinnable. MAYBE I JUST NEED TO CLAP MY HANDS AND BELIEVE. But whether I'm really deep down inside evil or lacking faith or just plain wrong, I can't help but feel that if I were a Narnian in this audience, I wouldn't be valuing chivalry. This wouldn't be a courtly game to me. My life would be at stake and the lives of my loved ones, and I'd want someone out there who could press the advantage and win whatever the cost to his or her 'honor'. Not because a slash-and-burn win-at-any-cost strategy is always right, but because in this moment I believe it is.
Anyway. We won't have to grapple with hard moral questions like the above, because LUCKILY Miraz has just hit his expiration date as a villain and the seal of freshness is about to pop.
But "that brute" never rose. The Lords Glozelle and Sopespian had their own plans ready. As soon as they saw their King down they leaped into the lists crying, "Treachery! Treachery! The Narnian traitor has stabbed him in the back while he lay helpless. To arms! To arms, Telmar!"
Peter hardly understood what was happening. [...] If all three had set upon him at once he would never have spoken again. But Glozelle stopped to stab his own King dead where he lay: "That's for your insult, this morning," he whispered as the blade went home. Peter swung to face Sopespian, slashed his legs from under him and, with the back-cut of the same stroke, walloped off his head. Edmund was now at his side crying, "Narnia! Narnia! The Lion!" The whole Telmarine army was rushing toward them. But now the Giant was stamping forward, stooping low and swinging his club. The Centaurs charged. Twang, twang behind and hiss, hiss overhead came the archery of Dwarfs. Trumpkin was fighting at his left. Full battle was joined.
"Come back, Reepicheep, you little ass!" shouted Peter. "You'll only be killed. This is no place for mice." But the ridiculous little creatures were dancing in and out among the feet of both armies, jabbing with their swords. Many a Telmarine warrior that day felt his foot suddenly pierced as if by a dozen skewers, hopped on one leg cursing the pain, and fell as often as not. If he fell, the mice finished him off; if he did not, someone else did.
Thoughts.
One, as above, thank gods we didn't have to grapple with hard moral choices regarding the killing of Miraz. Two, thank more gods that the New Villains are so disorganized that they value getting a final quip in to a dying man over killing the head of the opposing army. PRIORITIES! Three, Edmund's battle call sounds kind of weak to me. I mean, I hate to criticize a little kid in the middle of a pitched battle, but "The Lion"? Oookay. But then again maybe he's in the same boat as I and am hoping that Aslan might get off his furry butt and do something useful in this novel. HERE, LION! DIN-DINS!
Four, I really really really want someone to explain to me WHY Sons of Adams are natural-born kings for Narnia. Because Peter has absolutely no excuse for being a wise-ass racist human who discounts the battle skills and talents of the smaller Animals. I mean, he was king of Narnia for how many years? At least a decade. And supposedly went into numerous battles. Maybe he didn't have fighting Mice then, but they had Dogs and Badgers and Beavers and Cats and Possums and Sugar Gliders, for crying out loud. I'm glad that Lewis actually does allow the Mice to distinguish themselves here and prove Peter wrong, but where is Peter coming from that he thinks its appropriate to discount the contributions of the smaller Animals, and to tell them how they can and cannot spend their lives in service to Narnia? How did he successfully rule even one day without learning to not be a condescending racist asshat? I'm starting to think the best thing the Narnians could do after this battle is dismantle the monarchy and set up a council of Animals.
[...] In a few minutes all Miraz's followers were running down to the Great River in the hope of crossing the bridge to the town of Beruna and there defending themselves behind ramparts and closed gates.
They reached the river, but there was no bridge. It had disappeared since yesterday. Then utter panic and horror fell upon them and they all surrendered.
But what had happened to the bridge?
You'll just have to wait and find out, won't you?
85 comments:
If I ever find myself in a Disney movie, I am staying the hell away from cliffs.
I didn't realize how much I disliked self dispatching villains until I saw it not happen in Mirror Mirror. The end of the Queen gets all the loves from me. I like how right after nobly not killing Mr Bad Guy Peter chops off another guy's head. Whalloped. sure.
I also didn't realize how, well, bizarre the plot of Prince Caspian was although I've read it many times. It was always probably my least favorite of the Chronicles, but still. The movie has been playing on TV where I live so I've watched it pretty recently and I do like the stronger emphasis on Capsian and the improved political tension. I never really liked the Pevensies that much. And poor Susan. I had extra soft spots for her because that is my mom's name.
The thing I like best about deconstructions are the fun slashfics that spring to mind when picking apart the holes. A council of Animals would be quite something.
Warning: violence
Sure, Reepicheep will just get killed, being knee-high, very fast, and armed and armored.
Even in sparring - a far cry from pitched battle - the most challenging opponents are often those significantly smaller and faster than oneself. Given the size and ferocity of the Mice, I am imagining trying to catch an angry and hostile cat who has a sword - not my idea of a fun time.
/warning
Also, I loved these books as a kid, but the othering of the nonhumans is really bugging me in this read-through. One lives and learns, I suppose. =/
The "Trumpkin and the Badger" thing doesn't bother me so much. To me, it sounds like a sort of stylistic choice--using a description rather than the character's name just for variety or a little extra formality. "Bilbo and the wizard", "Amy and the Timelord", "the dwarf and Trufflehunter" sound equally fine to me. (This also avoids the alliteration of "Trumpkin and Trufflehunter" which sounds a little funny to me.)
Interestingly, "Amy and the Timelord" sounds more natural to me than "Rose and the Timelord" or, say, "Susan and the Timelord", possibly because of the stylistic differences betweeen Moffat's Doctor Who and the previous seasons. In the current incarnation, there's very much a sense of being told a Story, with all the Capital Letters and bestowing of titles (like The Girl Who Waited) that that entails. It seems to me that Lewis was doing the same thing.
That's just about the only thing that doesn't bother me, though. (Suddenly I desperately want to read fanfiction about all the Narnians who joined the army in their desperate fight. The young vole who disguised herself as a weasel to go and fight in her father's place; all the animals too young or too old to fight but who knew that this battle was the last chance for them and their families; the grove of giant redwoods who broke a lifelong (millennia-long) vow of nonviolence to turn the tide of battle and defend their smaller brethren, mentored by an ancient, withered bristlecone pine even older than they…)
Given that Peter whacks Sopespian's head off immediately after not killing Miraz, I'm not sure the by-play with him is driven by the avoidance of having Peter kill the villain, though we've seen that trope enough that it certainly has those overtones.
I suspect it's there more to magnify as far as possible the difference between Good Narnians and Bad Telmarines. Peter (who is Miraz' enemy) is willing to kill the guy, but only if he gets an opening while Miraz is on his feet and able to defend himself, because nobility chivalry etc. Miraz' own advisors (who are theoretically his allies) are willing to lie and stab him while he's down, just for their own advantage. From this, I suspect we are meant to conclude that what happens to them in the next chapter is deserved: they are Bad People, therefore Good will smite them. If Peter had killed Miraz -- "nobly" or not -- you might find yourself wondering about those Telmarines and whether they all really deserved to get smote. But it's all okay; clearly every Telmarine except for Caspian is a dishonorable jerk, so you needn't worry a bit.
Of course, being the kind of people we are, your readership here was already wondering exactly that.
(Not to mention, naturally, that if Peter killed Miraz himself, then it would undermine Lewis' oh-so-very-important point about the importance of having Faith that God will save the oppressed from their oppression. Y'know, in his own sweet time.)
See Peter fight. See Peter nearly get killed by the bloodthirsty usurper. See Peter distinguish himself as more honorable than the bloodthirsty usurper when he gets the chance to move in for the kill and honorably chooses not to. See how very chivalrous it all is.
And I feel like a bad person here, because my general reaction is somewhere between a sigh and a yawn. Peter is gooder than the goodest thing in goodsville, yeah? And he can't bloody well kill the bad guy, because pretty much the only way to kill a bad guy in battle is to go for the throat in a weak moment and that would be Wrong.
Well, I wouldn't say that's the only way to kill a bad guy in battle (or else Peter wouldn't have been allowed to kill Sopespian, either), but main villains in children's media seem to have an immunity against getting struck down by luck or skill when they're resisting and instead survive long enough to force a more cold-blooded decision on the hero, which the hero will inevitably reject.
Frustration with chivalrous fighting is one of the reasons I liked the movie so much in comparison. The choreography in the movie, particularly in this fight, is desperate and brutal (to the point that the PG rating it has in the States seems flat-out bizarre) and really gives the sense that the Narnians and their champion are fighting for their lives. Movie!Peter might still be honorable to a fault, but he's perfectly willing to punch Miraz in his injured leg to get him down, the Narnian army used terrain to great advantage, and there was quite a bit of consideration given to how the Animal fighters could do the most damage.
On a related note, might Lewis's preoccupation with the ridiculousness of the Mice be partly a result of the fact that the Mice, by their very nature, need to use somewhat underhanded tactics? They're frighteningly effective in the movie because "slice their ankles, then slit their throats" is both unexpected for a human opponent who's never fought anything less than four feet tall before and virtually impossible to defend against once you're down, but it's also rather lacking in chivalry and is actually rather nasty to think about.
Re: arrival of trees and gods
What what WHAT? How do you write something in so nonsensical a manner? This is not a collection of stories you found in a vault and are haphazardly fitting together, Lewis. You are in control of when and how things happen and are noticed and AAAAAARGH.
Chapter 14: How They Were All Very Busy
*looks at quote*
*looks at own copy, in which Chapter 14 is entitled "How All Were Very Busy"*
Is this a difference in your copy, or is it an accidental rephrasing on your part? (I suppose it doesn't really matter in any case, but I may as well ask.)
zie sucks his paw into his mouth out of concern for Peter.
Just pointing out the pronoun switch.
Peter had just shaken hands with Edmund and the Doctor
Having recently watched seasons 1, 2, and 7a of New Who (which all have different lead actors, for those who don't know) and a season or so of Star Trek: Voyager, I have several competing mental images of this and none of them are correct. It's a bit amusing watching him flicker indecisively. (I think Eleven is winning, but it's hard to say.)
"Crows and crockery!" muttered the Dwarf
Very...interesting phrasing you have there.
"It's the Dryads and Hamadryads and Silvans," said Trufflehunter.
So what's the difference? Off to Wikipedia.
According to them, dryad is a general term, hamadryad is specifically a dryad who will die if their tree does*, and silvan-as-a-form-of-dryad is used only in Narnia. What's wrong with just saying dryad?
*While I might not feel particularly surprised to learn that a given dryad would not die with their tree, I'd assume they would until stated otherwise.
You'll just have to wait and find out, won't you?
Oh. Should've skipped to the bottom to find out where you left off. I'll just save the comments from after this point for later.
Also now I really want to see the movie. At least I think I do. Maybe?
it seems like the sub-text of this conversation is that if Peter is defeated, the Narnians won't be 'treacherous' like the Telmarines soon will be. If that is the sub-text of this conversation, then the point is that Good Is Honorable and won't go back on the winner-take-all terms of the battle.
If there isn't fanfic of the fairies in Hellboy 2 being from Narnia, there should be. Gods I hate this trope.
See Peter fight. See Peter nearly get killed by the bloodthirsty usurper. See Peter distinguish himself as more honorable than the bloodthirsty usurper when he gets the chance to move in for the kill and honorably chooses not to. See how very chivalrous it all is
Peter is wielding a special shiny sword with a special shiny name that he got from Father Christmas himself and his brother was recently glamoured up to look like a fell warrior despite being about ten years old. His playing at chivalry now is about as convincing as a not very convincing thing.
I'm trying to remain of good cheer throughout these, but the Constant Cozy is beginning to grate more than a little. "A football match"? "A football match"? Was there really that much of a concern that the children reading their Christian allegory before bedtime would be so terribly concerned for Peter's safety that we needed to liken the whole thing to a football match?
CW: discussion of hate
I was right. The Hag is wrong to hate the Telmarines because it actually is a frelling sports match between rival public schools. (And we'll see in LB that Lewis could do an atmosphere of doom and high stakes when he wanted to*, so why not here?)
Also, the villain disposal squad rouses the Telmarines with cries of "Telmar", implying that the official Telmarine view is that they're still an occupying force rather than actual inhabitants of Narnia, so is there anyone left in Telmar? It's marked on the maps of Narnia (the world) in the books, which implies that it's still a functioning country, so what reaction are they going to have to the native insurgency in their conquered province?
*Or at least try for it, I haven't read The Last Battle for a long time.
*looks at own copy, in which Chapter 14 is entitled "How All Were Very Busy"*
It's an accidental rephrasing; good catch. Not sure how that happened, except that the one flows more naturally in my head and apparently my hands decided that my version was better than Lewis'. It wasn't intentional though.
It's actually not that bad. I wouldn't pay $15 for it, or whatever the going price is right now, but it's a decent rental. It's ESPECIALLY good after all this tedium in the decons.
Oh my gods, Thomas, perfect catch on the previous flippant dismissal of the Hag's (perfectly legitimate) feelings now combined with the sports imagery during the battle/duel. My mind is blown with the awful.
Ack! I'm no fan of Constant Cozy, either. It has the look and feel of having some larger person in front of you blocking your view of the football game while you listen to the color commentary on the radio despite having paid to get in. Very distancing.
On Self-Dispatching Villains: Given how blatant the allegory is, this plays into another pet peeve of mine: Letting Your Opponent Win, which is exactly what happened here with a Telmarene killing Miraz instead of Peter earning the win. Maybe I'm an uppity heathen who Just Doesn't Get It but games should be won with skill and letting one's opponent win is insulting to the "victor" as well as the spirit of competition. In this section, Peter was behaving as if he knew that he'd be handed the victory because he deserved it.
I grew up in a family that has a saying: We're not kin while we're playing cards. I learned to play various forms of poker before I could read and I could read before I entered kindergarten. Always do your best is a family value I grew up with and doing less than my best is unthinkable. I like it when heroes get their hands dirty, because that means they're truly trying.
Maybe I'm an uppity heathen who Just Doesn't Get It but games should be won with skill and letting one's opponent win is insulting to the "victor" as well as the spirit of competition. In this section, Peter was behaving as if he knew that he'd be handed the victory because he deserved it.
Yes, yes, yes, THIS. He knows he'll win because he's Good and he's Good because he's the Right Kind of Person. There's no point to having a real game/fight against a Telmarine, or a girl, etc. because by definition a Fair Fight is between equals...But then, given the hierarchy thing going on, is there ever any such thing as a fair fight? It seems not. The pecking order always establishes that someone is The Worst and someone is The High King and everyone else falls in their neat pigeonholes in between. Ugh!!!
Meant to say somewhere in there that there's nothing I hate more than the sneering condescension of denying your opponent both any chance of winning and the right to lose honorably. "Honor" only extending to your "own kind" isn't honor at all.
At the same time, I'm kind of a sucker for the trope of giving your opponent a fair shot by training them or giving them equipment or allies or whatever, under certain circumstances. It depends how it's handled.
Suddenly I desperately want to read fanfiction about all the Narnians who joined the army in their desperate fight. The young vole who disguised herself as a weasel to go and fight in her father's place; all the animals too young or too old to fight but who knew that this battle was the last chance for them and their families; the grove of giant redwoods who broke a lifelong (millennia-long) vow of nonviolence to turn the tide of battle and defend their smaller brethren, mentored by an ancient, withered bristlecone pine even older than they…
Or how about, say, a short guy with furry feet who secretly went to the battle after being told he was too small to fight, and a noblewoman who went with him in disguise because she was unrequitedly in love? Hey, if Lewis can put Ents into this book, there's no reason we can't insert Merry and Éowyn!
I like self-dispatching villains when the trope is used well (imo) - that is, when it flows naturally from the characters, doesn't involve anyone being handed idiot balls, and doesn't seem like it's just been tacked on to keep the hero from killing the villain. (This is very rare. I can think of maybe a handful of instances where I think it works.)
This, though? Has to be one of the most tacked on villain-gets-killed-by-lacky that I've seen. Lewis cast "summon conspirators," ignored them for a bit, and ordered them to kill Miraz in front of a bijilion witnesses, including their entire army. All of whom were apparently distracted by the air at just that moment.
(Though I have to assume from their crying treachery that Peter knew he couldn't stab Miraz in the back and be seen to have won, so that, at least, makes his not doing so make sense. It would, however, have been infinitely better if the rules for the duel had been layed out so that we knew this ahead of time. It could even add to the suspense if Lewis hadn't botched the conspirators so badly.)
Frankly, this whole thing is such an implausible mess that almost anything would improve it. The duel doesn't actually make sense, lacking some cultural/historical basis for it. The sports team atmosphere is insulting to the audience and the characters. And then, somehow this battle that should have been slanted heavily toward the Telmarines - who did, presumably by force of arms, conquer Narnia and were stated to have greater numbers (if I recall correctly) - is suddenly a rout. Why? Is it just that over generations, they've forgotten how to fight Mice and Trees (who, up until the battle, they were terrified of)? ... You know what, everyone's characterization and abilities are so inconsistent that at this point the fate of Narnia might as well be decided by the Kool-Aid Man. It makes just as much sense.
I like self-dispatching villains when the trope is used well (imo)
I can get behind that. But is it still a self-dispatching villian? Or does it become something else? Most routes to power do have a shelf-life, balancing drawbacks, etc.
Hey, if Lewis can put Ents into this book, there's no reason we can't insert Merry and Éowyn!
This would actually benefit Narnia quite a bit - someone has to be aware of the necessities of cleaning up after epic battles and the associated trauma, after all.
Meant to say somewhere in there that there's nothing I hate more than the sneering condescension of denying your opponent both any chance of winning and the right to lose honorably. "Honor" only extending to your "own kind" isn't honor at all.
That happened at a state high school wrestling tournament a couple years ago. One of the competitors made it to State, and the randomly drawn opponent refused to wrestle her because she was a girl and his religious beliefs necessitated him walking out of the ring. She advanced and the guy who refused to compete basically chose to give up. He did this in front of the entire crowd and it got in the papers.
To me, this is a serious insult. He essentially proclaimed to all and sundry that he didn't consider her a worthy opponent.
OHHHHHHHH YEEEEEEEEAH is as good a fate for Narnia as any, if you ask me. *s*
There's a big clash, in my mind, between all the talk about honor and how chivalrous King Peter is in this whole mess and the sports metaphor. I'm trying to pin it down, and running into a mess, so I may not actually get a coherent comment out of this. =/
Really good point about the sports match.
This also explains why Peter lets Miraz get up, because this is a gentlemanly game of football we are all playing and kicking your opponent when they fall would upset the referee. (I suppose Aslan is the ref, right?)
And it's really hard to convey things like morality and what it means to be a "good" person in situations like this and discuss why it might be okay for Peter to fight "dirty" to protect others. Using chivalry as a stand-in for morality is easy, because Peter the knight who follows certain rules (beheading people is okay in war, but not in duels because they are different!) is a much more comfortable character in a world that lacks nuance than Peter the High King who needs to weigh things like the lives of his people, his own honor, whether peace with Telmar will be possible after this duel, etc.
Honestly, the sports metaphor primarily leaves me with the impression that Lewis doesn't feel that the situation needs to be taken seriously. Probably this is Because Magic I Mean Jasper Woops I Mean Aslan, and thus we all know it will be okay in the end, but.
On the one hand, for a book made for children, I can see including a subtext suggesting that it will be okay in the end; however, that takes a fair amount of skill to do well. Doing so in a way that suggests that it doesn't matter in the first place, though, is a ... thingy thing of the first magnitude.
I'd say a trope used well is still that trope. Granted, it might be a lot harder to identify as such.
The sad thing is that even in this mess, the trope could've been used a lot better. If Lewis had given a cultural background for the whole duel for the land, if the rules had been layed out ahead of time as to what was considered a fair death (hell, an interesting twist might have been to have it not be supposed to be a duel to the death, though that would require much fleshing out of Telmarine culture.), and if the conspirators hadn't suddenly materialized halfway through the book, then wandered off for a bit to have a smoke until they were needed.
If the readers knew that the conspirators planned to use the duel as a chance to off Miraz and place the blame on Peter, if both sides were planning out what they'd do when the duel was over (with people on both sides planning to go along with the outcome and planning to fight no matter what), and if the conspirators had actually pulled off a stealth kill, it would at least be acceptable - in part because while it would take care of Miraz, it wouldn't actually help out our heroes much at all.
But when I imagine that, I can only imagine it ending with our heroes defeated, Peter awaiting the gallows, and everything apparently shot to hell, either for a downer ending or awaiting a sequel. I think it's my imagination reacting strongly against the "How convenient." that we've got going here.
"But when I imagine that, I can only imagine it ending with our heroes defeated, Peter awaiting the gallows, and everything apparently shot to hell"
...and THEN Aslan shows up with the trees and the gods and the Telmarine civilians he's been gathering to himself, and reveals how it all fits into his plan to end the war peacefully. Alas...
Hmm, self-dispatching villains - Emperor Palpatine? Killed by a minion, check.
On the other hand, it's not Palpatine whom Luke had at his mercy and decided not to kill. (Luke attacked the Emperor *once* which was promptly blocked by Vader. And if Vader hadn't been there, it wouldn't have mattered - Palpatine is the guy who took out four Jedi Masters before they could *blink*, let Mace Windu appear to overwhelm him solely for the purpose of manipulating Anakin, and subsequently beat *Yoda* so badly the little guy had to run for his life. And Palpy's line about "I'm am unarmed - strike me down!" is certainly BS - there's no way he didn't have a lightsaber or three hidden in those robes.)
Actually, in a way it's *Vader* who's the self-dispatching minion in that scene - he's the one Luke shows mercy to, and he *knew* he would die when he took his master down...
“Was there really that much of a concern that the children reading their Christian allegory before bedtime would be so terribly concerned for Peter's safety that we needed to liken the whole thing to a football match?”
That would be a 1940s football match though, when it was a massively popular working class sport (eg these crowds are for England games - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okbHKCN_K84 - but many club side have their record attendances from the 30s, 40s and 50s). The privately tutored, public-school-educated Oxford fellow might have been trying to evoke something of that. Alternatively, he might have meant Rugby Football, in which case he was just giving fair warning there would be blood.
The text does go out of its way to show that Peter's preconceptions about the mice are wrong, at least. Though I'm not sure what to make of it calling them "ridiculous" in the omniscient narrator voice in the same sentence that shows them being actually pretty effective.
I'm trying to remain of good cheer throughout these, but the Constant Cozy is beginning to grate more than a little. "A football match"? "A football match"? Was there really that much of a concern that the children reading their Christian allegory before bedtime would be so terribly concerned for Peter's safety that we needed to liken the whole thing to a football match?
Personally, I don't really have a problem with this. The way I read it at least, Lewis wasn't actually likening the duel itself to a football match, only drawing a simile to describe the noisy reaction of the audience. Seems like a fair use of a simile to me, even by drawing a contrast.
Using chivalry as a stand-in for morality is easy, because Peter the knight who follows certain rules (beheading people is okay in war, but not in duels because they are different!) is a much more comfortable character in a world that lacks nuance than Peter the High King who needs to weigh things like the lives of his people, his own honor, whether peace with Telmar will be possible after this duel, etc.
Actually by this (implied here, but explicit elsewhere) rule I think it's perfectly all right to lop your enemy's head off in a duel. The crucial difference is between killing in the heat of the battle - and, by extension, more or less in self-defense as your foe is presumably trying to kill you - and killing, in cold blood, a defenseless person you have at your mercy.*) King Lune spells it out explicitly in The horse and his boy. One might of course disagree with this chivalrous code, but there's nothing mysterious about it.
I have cheered at a football match.
I have personally never attended a duel on which hinged the lives of everyone I have ever known and cared for. However, I have a very vivid imagination, and I feel confident saying that my reaction at such a duel would be wholly unlike anything I have ever said or done at a football match.
In other words, there are similes and then there are HONKING BAD ANALOGIES PREDICATED ON IMAGINATION FAIL.
Oh, hey, that would work. Much better than what we've got, sadly.
"Self-dispatching villain". Now there's a phrase.
I cannot stand The Lion King for that precise reason. Or Beauty and the Beast.
But when I imagine that, I can only imagine it ending with our heroes defeated, Peter awaiting the gallows, and everything apparently shot to hell, either for a downer ending or awaiting a sequel.
... and now I'm suddenly remembering how Aslan decrees at the end of this book that High King Peter (and Susan, but let's talk about Peter now) can never again return to Narnia in person. Might these two be related? Miraz is dead; people accept Caspian because he'll a better ruler than Miraz's infant son (and having the army of trees and Lion at his back doesn't hurt things) - but we need some scapegoat, and why not Peter who's been accused of breaking the rules of the duel to kill Miraz? Tirian will later be applauded by the narrative for offering to die for Narnia; wouldn't Peter be applauded for exiling himself for Narnia?
Two thoughts:
One, the movie will already be implicitly made 20% cooler by association with Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davies, because those men are awesome.
Two, while the description of how the mice fight in the battle is pretty cool (and conjures a nicely brutal image), I can't help but imagine Tom hopping about on his foot with that wonderfully undulating scream at the description of the soldiers. :)
Dezipan: Perhaps you've seen the anime Trigun? I personally thought that series, for all it's goofyness, handled self-disposing villains and especially the hero who won't kill very well. And it handled it well because Vash's do-not-kill rule was an important part of his character, not something tacked on to get your series about a gunslinger hero a pg rating. And because other characters were suprised by it and called him out when they thought it was stupid. And mostly, because he had to frigging work for it. He got injured due to his non-lethal tactics. And he acknowledged that he would. Plus, he deliberatly acts like a clown and lets villains humiliate him if it means he can avoid violence. Which makes him ten times more awesome than protagonist who can just defeat their opponents without killing them with any problem.
And I'm thinking mostly about Black Cat here, another anime. It started of with some potential. Okay, so there was the unfortunate implication of the villain who could have been wearing a t-shirt saying "I'm so flaming gay" and not be any more obvious than he was. But it had decent character design, nice music, an interesting visual style, and a morally ambigious protagonist. And then by episode 8 his character arc ended, at the point of the goody two-shoes hero, who could knock out all the villains in one cool-looking swipe. And that would be the end of it. Either the opponents died from their super-serum, got killed by their boss, left the series or joined up with the heroes later. And the series seemed so proud of themselves, with their redeemed character who'd decided not to kill anymore. But when you show there's no cost to not killing, even when regularly batteling murderous bastards, his decision not to kill becomes a real "Have a cookie" moment. Yeah, why not let the baddies live if that works just as well. Stop padding yourself on the back for it. Add to it that the the protagonist was a custom-revolver wielding gunslinger against a group of sublty superpowered villains, and it really did become and inferior Trigun knockoff.
The chapter's kind of rubbish, but this post is amazing. The popping Villain Seal of Freshness especially cracked me up.
The first implication I took from the 'football match' comparison was that the Telmarine crowd did not see this as a particularly big deal, perhaps because Peter is about 12 and so obviously about to get roflstomped, and perhaps to emphasise just how little they care about the potential imminent genocide. But now I notice it says 'both armies', and... yeah, unless the Narnians all think that the Mice are sneaking into position to slaughter the enemy commanders the moment Peter falls, this is an excessively cozy phrasing.
I'm going to be contrarian and attempt a reading of this episode that makes it make sense (to me, at least).
What is "really" happening here is not the actual combat - it's the show of combat, and everything around it. Both sides are exhibiting what they are really like, in order for nature/fate/Aslan to judge who is most worthy of victory. On the side of evil nastiness, we have Miraz and the conspirators, whose collective actions show that they are deceitful, backstabbing, and brutal. Miraz himself had no intention of keeping his word regarding the terms of the duel, and his unlawfulness is just one example of the unjust system he represents. Meanwhile, the goodies take pains to act chivalrously: they follow their traditions with the bear (just as they are loyal to Aslan's tradition), and generally behave according to knightly practice. This is why Edmund says of Peter's behaviour, "Need he be as gentlemanly as that? I suppose he must. Comes of being a Knight and a High King. I suppose it is what Aslan would like." If he abandoned his kingly virtue then he would no longer have Aslan's favour, and without that they cannot win.
Peter's proposing of the duel has two sides to it.
(1) It moves the action into the symbolic realm, away from the real war they had been fighting and losing; by picking champions, they expressly frame the conflict as one between two rival systems, to be won or lost according to the displayed merits of those systems. They are not fighting each other so much as they are parading in a beauty contest before Aslan the judge. The trial is by combat but it could perfectly well take another form. Perhaps Susan could win an archery contest despite Miraz's cheating - same idea.
(2) In choosing chivalry, and invoking its tropes (Peter's letter, all the pageantry, ... - these read almost as magical invocations) they lay a claim to the contest being decided in terms of chivalrous virtues, including adherence to tradition, taking morally correct action despite bad personal consequences, keeping a pure heart, and so forth. They are not saying that their system would be better for the average Narnian (a utilitarian or pragmatic claim) but are choosing a virtue-ethics battleground. Inherent to that is the virtue of faith, as shown by Peter in putting himself in a vulnerable position, and trusting in Aslan's decision.
All of this works perfectly well diegetically, given the role of Aslan as Narnia's God, who actually does judge people according to their displayed virtues. It also reads non-diegetically, as we the readers are shown the allegory of the two sides and are invited to join the goodies.
While I occasionally like it when the villain is dispatched by agents other than the hero--for example, I feel the way the device is used in the animated movie Turtles Forever is brilliant--this...ugh. I originally found Prince Caspian to be merely rather dull, which now almost seems like a compliment after your deconstructions.
Now that you've mentioned the dryads, Ana you've reminded me about how some of the fanfiction I read had the Pevensies--now several years into their rule of Narnia--would occasionally share casual sexy fun times with them; I can just imagine the pearl-clutching if Lewis were to find out about his characters doing things like that, and the thought makes me smile. The work also granted them the ability to switch from humanoid to tree form, which is a nice way to grant validity to both versions.
I really really want to read that fanfic about the grove of redwoods, now.
TRiG.
Warning: sarcasm
>that nice boy Badger across the river whom he will finally work up the courage to ask out if he gets out of this battle alive
Now you're just being silly, Ana. There are no gay Badgers in Narnia, just as there are no gay humans in Iran.
There are hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of Narnians all over Narnia, and right now whether they live or die past today depends on whether a little boy from England can manage to kill a grown warrior who has him wounded and on the defensive. So naturally, the Right and Moral thing to do is to make sure the genocidal tyrant has the best possible chance to win as Peter can possibly give him.
Yeah, this.
Which also is why I've never been into Batman: after like the third time the Joker gets out of Arkham and kills a bunch of people, whereupon Batman puts him right back in and either declines to kill him or actively saves his life, Batman then bears some responsibility for the various Gothamites who then get turned into creepily-grinning corpses during the next breakout. Dude: you decided to become a vigilante. Either step up or step back.
Now, admittedly, the DC Universe being what it is, killing the Joker might *actually* make him more powerful than yadda yadda. But I'd like someone to at least pay lip service to that, rather than the blah blah killing him will make me become him blah blah. Especially in the Emperor Joker storyline, wherein: dude. DUDE.
Spoilers for major DCU event: Oernxvat guvf gebcr vf jul V yvxr Svany Pevfvf. Orpnhfr Qnexfrvq = shpx lbh, "ab xvyyvat" bngu.
Yeah, it seems pretty clear to me that this - or something like this - was what Lewis was going for. Now, I can agree it doesn't really work that well, particularly if we're looking realistically at the background story, but it does make sense on its own terms. I actually find this one of the less problematic chapters in the book, although I much prefer the movie's more realistic (sorta) framing of this episode.
Tarzan's the worst offender in my book. Qhqr unatf uvzfrys jura ur trgf gnatyrq va ivarf naq orefrexreyl pubcf njnl gur barf fhccbegvat uvf jrvtug orsber gur bar nebhaq uvf arpx.
Trigun is a great example. Making some tropes really work takes a lot of thought, but it pays off when someone actually puts the effort in.
"diegetically"
Well, that's a new word for me-- thanks!
I was reminded of T.H. White's child Arthur:
If I were to be made a knight,’ said the Wart, staring dreamily into the fire, ‘I should insist on doing my vigil by myself, as Hob does with his hawks, and I should pray to God to let me encounter all the evil in the world in my own person, so that if I conquered there would be none left, and, if I were defeated, I would be the one to suffer for it.’
But the Wart has Merlyn to present the grown-up view:
‘That would be extremely presumptuous of you,’ said Merlyn, ‘and you would be conquered, and you would suffer for it.’
‘I shouldn’t mind.’
‘Wouldn’t you? Wait till it happens and see... Well, anyway,’ he said, ‘suppose they did not let you stand against all the evil in the world?’
‘I could ask,’ said the Wart.
‘You could ask,’ repeated Merlyn.
He thrust the end of his beard into his mouth, stared tragically into the fire, and began to munch it fiercely.
... rather like the Bulgy Bear with his paw, come to think of it.
Now that we keep mentioning dryads-- has anybody read Libriomancer?
I don't know, problematic concept is still kind of problematic even when the intent is to show that it's problematic. But still, the dryad steals the show.
Isabel C.: "Which also is why I've never been into Batman: after like the third time the Joker gets out of Arkham and kills a bunch of people, whereupon Batman puts him right back in and either declines to kill him or actively saves his life, Batman then bears some responsibility for the various Gothamites who then get turned into creepily-grinning corpses during the next breakout. Dude: you decided to become a vigilante. Either step up or step back."
It seems to me that this is a fundamental problem with the medium of comics as it currently exists: supervillains can never be dealt with in a satisfactory manner, because the story must go on forever, and from the point of view of the writers, the best villains are too good to lose. The whole situation in Gotham makes no sense when you think about it: whatever Batman's scruples about killing might be, it can't be the case that everyone else who ever deals with the Joker (and other murderous supervillains) shares those same restraints. Given his current body count, the Joker would be as reviled as Osama bin Laden; people should be literally taking potshots at him as he walks down the street. Someone in the police department would have seen to it that the Joker was "shot while trying to escape". Or someone in Arkham would have decided that the best treatment for the Joker's mental illness was a full frontal lobotomy. Or a state of emergency would be declared and the Joker would be captured by the military and summarily tried and executed by drumhead court-martial. Or Gotham's legislature would pass a law saying that if someone escapes from secure custody more than N times, they can be tried and executed for capital murder no matter how mentally ill they are. It's absurd, knowing what we do about human nature and American society, that Gotham would just accept that since the Joker is legally insane, the only thing that can be done is to keep sending him back to a mental institution which apparently has no security measures.
“However, I have a very vivid imagination, and I feel confident saying that my reaction at such a duel would be wholly unlike anything I have ever said or done at a football match.”
Presumably that is a recent American Football match though? Lewis's comparison would be to post-war Britain, at the latest.
TW: War, Genocide, War Crimes
Oh, well if it's a British post-war football match, then that's COMPLETELY the same thing as knowing my entire family will be brutally murdered five minutes after my 'team' loses. Bring on the concessions and the cheering and the post-war Britain version of giant foam fingers.
jkasfhkasjhfa kjshfioweuroqjl lkj fsoufyoiqhr ajhkjashd *headdesk*
Look, I'm trying not to be overly snarky here, but are you serious? I mean, are you SERIOUS? Really? You think that ANY football match on earth, at ANY time, would be comparable for you as a duel on which hinged the lives of EVERYONE YOU HAVE EVER CARED ABOUT and that an analogy of one to the other is totally appropriate and germane and reasonable and not cozy at all Just The Facts Ma'am and all that? Really? Really?? REALLY?
If that is the case, all I can say is that you -- and by extension, C.S. Lewis -- could not be more unlike me. It's literally, totally, completely impossible for you to be more different from me. So you'll just have to, um, take my word for it that, no, this situation would *not* be like a football match for me. In any way, shape, or form. Maybe it would be for you, but not for me. Not even in post-war Britain.
TW: mention of genocide
knowing my entire family will be brutally murdered five minutes after my 'team' loses.
I'm not quite sure why this line and not previous discussions of the Telmarines set this off in my head, but... This is actually true on both sides, or should be. Unless the Telmarines are possitive that a) Miraz will win and b) the enemy that they must consider horrible, evil, terrifying or something (you don't get people willing to commit genocide without painting the enemy as seriously bad) will abide by the conditions and surrender, they should be just as freaked out about this whole thing as the Narnians. I mean, sure, Peter might look like a teenager, but you just don't know with them.
So even for the Telmarines, a football match, no matter what comparisons Lewis was trying to make (and, frankly, if the defense is "well, those low class football ruffians"...that's really not helping) it falls utterly flat.
You might enjoy the comic book series "Kingdom Come", which was about basically this. The premise is that the Joker is killed by a vigilante superhero, and the killer is acquitted when the jury nullifies. Superman retires in disgust, and the story goes on from there. It explores what would happen in a world where superheroes weren't afraid or unwilling to execute the villains.
VERY good point, and not something I'd thought of; the Old Narnians are apparently feared as horrible ravening monsters of myths and legends, so yeah, I reckon they need to be thinking some of the same fearful thoughts.
Especially with the trees and gods lined up on the other side of the fighting ring, staring them all down.
Not in any way intended to argue further on the appropriateness of the sports simile, but as we talked about how the connotations might or might not have been different in another time I was reminded of George Orwell's 1946 essay on sports and their relation to contemporary politics and nationalism. It's a good read, like all his essays, and might be interesting to others here as well: http://orwell.ru/library/articles/spirit/english/e_spirit
Of course, there was once a war started by a football game, i.e. the "Football War" of 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras. (To be sure, there were already other tensions between the countries before the game!)
TW: war, hooliganism, violence
Do I think a football match and war are comparable? No, or I wouldn't go to matches. Could Lewis, in 1949, think they are? Well, there's a reason hooliganism is known as the "English Disease". I can easily see Lewis thinking how to convey the atmosphere to children and landing on crowds at a football match. He's not thinking of people sitting in a modern stadium having a hotdog and a coke, but likely of packed terraces of men, all shouting antagonistically at the opposing fans and hoping for a fight at some point.
So, if I follow you correctly, you agree that it's a shitty analogy, but you're invested in defending it because of Racism (against the English) and Classism (against lower classes).
STELLAR.
Leave this thread and don't come back. That's not a request.
Moderator Notice
I am also now declaring the whole "football analogy" thing off-topic for the thread, because apparently we can't talk about it without someone employing stereotypes about Those Kinds Of People who attended British football matches after the war, thereby managing to be both offensive AND completely missing the point about the difference between a sporting match and having your family's life on the line.
This is why we can't have nice things, I guess.
And there were no gsy people in Star Wars, either.
asfwrgegfh
That's been slightly rendered past tense by the EU. Not sufficiently, of course. *glares at Bioware (or, probably more appropriately, Lucasarts)* Okay, guys, you said same sex romance was coming for SW:TOR. WHERE IS IT!?
I knew there was a reason this was always the most forgettable of the Narnia books, but I never could put my finger on it, especially after the Disney movie, which was quite good. Now, why do I also find "The Silver Chair" forgettable? I'm curious as to what we'll turn up in its deconstruction.
Miraz and his oh-so-convenient demise at the hands of treacherous minions for some reason brings to mind the a very different battle between the heroic leader and the villainous leader, in a story ostensibly for children: in the 1986 Transformers movie, the climactic battle between Optimus Prime and Megatron. It was, I think, everything this scene in the book "Prince Caspian" was not: brutal, tense, suspenseful, and conveyed that the good guys were on the ropes and this was a last, desperate stand that would determine the fate of the good guys and of the Earth--and all the characters knew it.
Face it, when you really have to win a single-combat duel to the death against your mortal enemies, or face extermination, you're not going to worry about whether the bears will look silly with their paws in their mouths.
It also handled the "self-dispatching villain" issue a lot better: Megatron was gravely wounded by Optimus Prime and carried away in defeat, then disposed of by his long-established-as-treacherous 2nd-in-command away from the battle and the heroes. i.e., it didn't help the heroes win the battle.
I've read it, but...the premise doesn't hold up, for me. It's all very slippery-slope and assumptions that, well, clearly X leads to Y and so on. Well-written, but unconvincing.
I think the point is that for Lewis, Honor ensures Efficacy, not stifling it - that is, there is no such thing as Doomed Moral Victor, or at least shouldn't be. This is, in fact the core of Lewis' position of "Muscular Christianity"- Right really makes Might. That would mean, for example, that England won Battle of Britain not because of better planes, but because it was in the right and because Churchill was a more honorable leader. Sure, the planes were better, but this all is somehow traceable to Churchill and England being honorable.
And if one looks for examples, one can sure find them: Chamberlains "appeasement" clearly brought England in trouble, whereas Churchills leadership saved it. Stalin's Great Terror damaged USSR's science so massively that it had no chance against USA in economic competition.
In this case, we also see that what would logically count as efficacy, actually isn't. Peter survives attack by Telmarine Traitors because they hadn't attacked him all three at once; they don't attack him all three at once because one of them stopped to kill Miraz; and one of them stopps to kill Miraz because Peter spared him. So Peter's honor helped him survive! And in world with Deep Magic (and Deeper Magic), it wouldn't be surprizing for such things to be one of world's laws.
The main drawback, of course, is that this implies Narnians must be Very Bad Behaving for quite some time to be conquered by Telmarines. But since the books run on Protagonist Centered Everything, this is just a minor nuisance (sarcasm off).
I have genuinely no idea if anyone has pointed this out in previous deconstruction posts for this book, but in case nobody has I must:
http://www.shortpacked.com/2008/comic/book-7/01-dr-jan-itor/lucy/
I had not seen that, thank you. That really is pretty much a word-for-word of that scene in the movie.
It's a rather ironic change, given that in the book they outright state that they can't wait around for Aslan because his ways are ineffable...
At least Shortpacked explains why Aslan took so long to do anything. Darn cosmic buses.
Ha, I wonder if it was written in response to the movie - I looked up the date on the movie after reading your comment, Ana.
"Aslan at the bus stop" is a recurring thing in the strip. (Often, he's hanging out at the bus stop with Harry Potter.)
"Aslan at the bus stop" is a recurring thing in the strip.
REALLY? I'm not a reader of this comic and now I want more. SO MUCH MORE. Because that would explain, well, a lot really.
And, yeah, that comic is SPOT ON for the Disney movie.
Apparently he tagged them so here you go! (I'm not caught up far enough to have read all of these. Joys of new webcomics.)
http://www.shortpacked.com/tag/aslan/
BAHAHAHAHAHA, those are awesome thank you.
My favorite: http://www.shortpacked.com/2008/comic/book-6/01-seasonal-employee-affective-disorder/byrnison/
A little late to the party, but the talk of chivalry and pragmatism actually sort of echoes a discussion we've had on-and-off on the Stealthy Stories messageboards, about one scene from the new Nickelodon TMNT show (which is suprisingly good -- not GREAT, and has some jarring problems, but great action scenes and some really funny one-liners).
If y'all haven't seen it, the scene in question takes place after the Turtles have had their first battle with the Foot Clan, and when Leonardo sums up the battle to Splinter, he complains that it wasn't a "fair fight." Which leads to this interesting (and amusing) exchange:
Splinter: What do you mean, "fair fight"?
Leonardo: Uh -- fair fight. You know, where either side could win?
Splinter: So; a "fair fight" is a fight you could lose?
Leonardo: Well... yes, but -- well, what I, what I mean is --
Splinter: You don't want to assure your victory?
Leonardo: No, I do, but --
(Without warning, Splinter lashes out at Leonardo with his stick, sweeping him off his feet, then pinning him down to the ground before Leonardo has time to even react.)
Leonardo: OW! Hey --!
Splinter (clearly trying not to smile): Was that fair?
Leonardo (strained): No!
Splinter: Did I win?
Leonardo: ... I see your point.
Splinter: Seek victory, not fairness.
Seriously, "tough parenting" aside, Splinter's the funniest character in this show. But I found it a pretty interesting example of a stated good guy, and in a kids' show at that, speaking for pragmatism in combat in such a blatant fashion. There was a bit of discussion on the boards on whether this was a good lesson for Splinter to teach and whether it went too much against the sense of "honor" previous incarnations of the Turtles have always stribed for, but I thought it was a pretty refreshing attitude... and especially after reading your deconstruction here I'm more convinced than ever that Splinter has the right idea on this one.
If by "vigilantes" you mean "works outside of the system in order to correct what they perceive to be injustices" then yes. To what extent they do so varies from version to version, as Hyaroo notes, with the plurality of them staying closer to the Sailor Moon end of the evil-fighting scale than they are to the Batman end: they don't look for crime to fight, but will sometimes stop it if they see it.
Hyaroo, I've signed up under the same name I use here, so I may post there before too long. See ya around. ;)
Yeah, that makes sense, although Sailor Moon means nothing to me. I guess I was kind of thinking "hide in the shadows and fight (some) crime = vigilantes," but that's overly simplistic. It came from my hazy memories of an '80s cartoon, mostly, and one part of one movie... I still feel like they did some of that. And Casey...
That... actually, Sailor Moon and the TMNT (the 80s series) have a lot more in common than I would have imagined. Foes from another dimension, assigned a bright primary colors, four fighters and The Chick, with an animalish mentor, and a Japanese origin...
And that's all I've got. But now I want to write a crossover. Oh dear.
Oh noes! What have I unleashed!? :P
Actually, the combination sounds unlikely enough that I wouldn't mind seeing it come to fruition.
Lonespark, what I mean when I refer to Sailor Moon is that she only ever fought threats related to whatever big bad was extant at the moment, and had no interest in fighting more mundane crime.
"I am admittedly a Chaotic Good rebel with disdain for most Lawful systems"
Hello, you don't know me. I tend to lurk - I've posted perhaps a reply or two, nothing really substantial. I've typed up far more replies than that, but always eventually decided that saying what I wanted to say would just be picking a fight that I had far too few spoons to see through, especially with someone who does agree with me on the broad strokes of the important issues.
But seeing as you brought it up, I'd just like to say: that "disdain" you feel for my way of thinking? Yes, I feel it for your way of thinking, too.
Not, please note, that that means I agree with Lewis. What we see in this chapter is what is commonly known as Lawful Stupid. Follow the rules because they are the rules, and if they lead you to be foolish or cruel then that just means that you can strut around all the more proudly because your commitment to the rules is so much stronger than those other wishy-washy people who actually care about doing good and not just about being personally impeccable. Words like "honour" and "integrity" tends to be involved. It's all very annoying and machismo-filled.
That's not what I believe in. What I believe in is this: the default state of the world is pain and suffering and degradation. The world is hostile to human life, and also (more relevantly to the argument), human nature is inherently weak and flawed. Oh, we can tell right from wrong, when we're safe and fed and comfortable. If we couldn't, there would be no hope at all. But put the slightest bit of pressure on us - make us angry, make us scared, make us want something badly enough - and we turn into ruthless, scheming, underhanded bastards who care only about ourselves and what we want.
Those "Lawful systems" that you hold in such "disdain" are there to protect us from ourselves - to give us something to point the way when our own moral compass shuts down, as it invariably does whenever we need it the most. We develop them, hopefully, carefully and meticulously and by taking the time to factor in all the potential outcomes, so that when the big moments come, when we have a complicated situation staring us in the face and we're angry and scared and confused, we don't resort to behaving like the sociopathic apes we really are.
Simply put, a proper set of rules is an admission that the world is evil and an attempt to rise above it. People like me don't follow rules because we are too lazy to think for ourselves. We follow rules because we know our limitations - and because we want to be good people when it really counts and there is a price to be paid.
"Chaotic Good," by comparison, I consider a contradiction in terms. As near as I can tell, it means that you want to be good, but only when you can be bothered. As soon as being good starts carrying a cost, you'll switch over to whatever methods will get you want you want - and if anyone has anything to say about that, you'll rebuke them for being heartless and not understanding your pain and the absolute necessity for you to take the easy way out. And that's not what I call being good. It's just not actively going out of your way to be evil.
You hold me in "disdain"? I am not surprised. I just wanted you to know that the feeling is mutual.
But put the slightest bit of pressure on us - make us angry, make us scared, make us want something badly enough - and we turn into ruthless, scheming, underhanded bastards who care only about ourselves and what we want.
*You* may become ruthless, scheming, and underhanded when scared or angry -- I defer to your judgment of self -- but many people do not. I certainly do not consider this true of myself, and I've been scared and angry many, many times. (Hell, I've been scared and angry most of this week and have been running around like the proverbial chicken trying to help the people I'm scared and angry at. But look at me, going all empirical evidence on the philosophy discussion.)
Please confine your statements to yourself, and not generalized to everyone on earth. That's a major part of the comment policy here, and with good reason: we absolutely do NOT invisible different people who grew up with different perspectives and who have lived vastly different lives to become, well, *different* from (generic) you.
This statement in particular is egregiously bad as a violation of the "me, not thee" policy, because you're basically erasing every victim on this board as either NOT angry/scared by their victimizer OR ruthless/selfish/underhanded during their victimization. That's really problematic.
You hold me in "disdain"? I am not surprised. I just wanted you to know that the feeling is mutual.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Are you a "Lawful system"? Are you the personification of the Code of Hammurabi or something?
Here, I'll make it easy on you: if you hold me in disdain and routinely struggle to not comment because you can tell you're picking fights, I'll revoke your commenting privileges and you can leave. That way I don't have to wake up in the morning to hear how disdainful I am to Internet Stranger Number 4,852 and how terribly restrictive my comment policy is in a safe space and how all victims are underhanded bastards even if they think they aren't. And you won't have to waste time writing comments that you then delete because you know they are inappropriate.
And also, aren't the Turtles vigilantes?
They don't seem to be, in the new series. Really, they weren't in the original comics or the FOX Kids cartoon either; they proteced their own but didn't really go out to fight crime.
EDIT; Oops. This is awkward; I posted wrong. I'm still getting used to this comment system. ^_^*
I'm still conflicted about that scene. It's perfectly in character for Splinter, but I can't help but thinking it runs afoul of "it's more complicated than that": sure, fighting dirty is fine when one it's for one's life (or for a people's, as in Caspian; it's less so when, say, one is trying to get a candidate elected and decides that the way to do that is to prevent people from voting. The distinction is one that I feel should have been made, even at the expense of the joke. Then again, maybe they're not actually trying to portray him as a good parent--it wouldn't be all that many steps removed from the original version of the character, who raised the turtles so that they'd kill the Shredder on his behalf.
On another note, could you please lead me to that message board where the discussion is going on? I've been so looking for discussion on the new series, and the larger fandoms...they aren't all that pleasant, a lot of the time. (ETA: Found it!)
I was just about to type the URL, but since you found it, that's okay then. ^_^ And I might be biased, since I'm one of the moderators (I go by "Roo" on Stealthy Stories), but I think we're a pretty pleasant group... at least one of our disgruntled ex-members called us so "mellow" that she was wishing for a flame war. Yeah, that made no sense to me either.
"Chaotic Good," by comparison, I consider a contradiction in terms...As soon as being good starts carrying a cost, you'll switch over to whatever methods will get you want you want
Yeah, screw Harriet Tubman! Freedom for herself and her family was just a personal advantage she happened to want really badly. And breaking the law was "the easy way out."
I hereby ban you from any campaign I decide to run (not that I seem likely to do so).
Post a Comment