The Magician’s Book: Actual Smart Things About C.S. Lewis (and J.R.R. Tolkien)

I haven’t come across a whole ton of quality writing about C.S. Lewis. Some of it over-focuses on the Christian angle, pro and con, and a lot more of it is kind of fannish, which isn’t a huge problem for me because I’m a fan, but still. Sometimes you want fandom, sometimes you want hard flinty literary analysis.

Now I’m reading Laura Miller’s The Magician’s Book: A Skeptic’s Adventures in Narnia, which is incredibly interesting not because it ignores the Christian stuff or the fannish stuff — Miller is both a non-Christian and a Fan — but because it leaves all that stuff in, plus all the kinda racist stuff about the Calormenes, and the kinda sexist stuff about Susan, and tries to construct a theory of Narnia that embraces all that messy, problematic stuff and still explains why the books are great.

(Plus Miller reads people like William Morris and Lord Dunsany and tells you what they said, so you don’t have to. Which is great because they’re unbelievably boring.)

I’m not going to rehearse Miller’s arguments here, because they’re complex enough that they don’t compress into blog length very well, but I do want to call out one aspect of the book. I was a Narnia boy as a kid, which hierarchically speaking put me below the Tolkien boys in terms of manliness, which is pretty far down when you consider where the Tolkien boys ranked on the Great Chain of Manliness. What can I say, my young mind had not yet awakened to the joys of Norse philology. But I did read Tolkien. What I didn’t realize then was that Lewis and Tolkien were actually friends. For some reason I’m still amazed by this fact: Lewis and Tolkien, the two founding fathers of modern fantasy, actually knew each other, hung out once a week, sometimes more, drank together and read their work to each other.

The parts about their complicated, bitchy, rivalrous friendship are my favorite thing about The Magician’s Book. They were the original nerd Odd Couple. Lewis was the flamboyant, passionate, hell-bent scribbler, Tolkien was the touchy, meticulous, industrious intellectual. When he first met Tolkien Lewis described him as “a smooth, pale, fluent little chap…. No real harm in him, only needs a smack or so.” Tolkien was the fussy prude. Lewis — though he was as Christian as they come, and spent most of his life living with a woman who was 20 years older than him — had a not-so-secret bondage fetish. “As an Oxford freshman,” Miller writes, “he once got very drunk at a party and loudly offered to pay a shilling a lash to whoever would submit to a whipping at his hands.” Yup, that was college.

Their different personalities came out in their work. Miller calls them the Builder (Tolkien) and the Dreamer (Lewis). Tolkien constructed whole new languages for his characters to speak. Lewis could barely keep his continuity straight from page to page (try reconciling The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe with its origin-prequel The Magican’s Nephew — it almost works, but you can’t quite do it). The whole production was thrown together (brilliantly) out of whatever materials Lewis could lay his hands on in the moment. Look, it’s Bacchus! Here’s Father Christmas! Here’s a faun! Here’s a Jesus-Lion! Not that surprising when you realize that he wrote the entire Chronicles of Narnia in a little more than two years.

No wonder Tolkien hated the Narnia books. Really, it’s amazing that the two men could stand each other. Except then you remember that they did have one thing in common: they were jointly engaged in inventing modern fantasy literature, virtually from scratch. Oh right.

OK, that’s enough lit crit. Here’s a cell phone ad of Bruce Lee playing ping-pong with his nunchucks. Somebody write in and tell me how they did this:

[p.s. a reader writes arguing, vehemently, that Lord Dunsany isn't boring at all, and that more people should read him. so YMMV. I couldn't get into it, but maybe you can.]

Related Topics: Gaming & Culture
  • Dave

    I’ve always been a Narnia boy myself – I lack the patience to really enjoy Tolkien as much as I’m supposed to (and I suppose to be a full-fledged nerd). At the same time, it entertains me to watch people try to explain (and replicate) the success of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter. Heck, take it a half-step further and add in Star Wars. Yes, they’ve got the right elements, or enough of the right elements, and you can give good and bad reasons all day long why they’re the brilliant, timeless successes that they are. Maybe I just think it’s easier to explain why something is bad than why something is good :)
    `
    Side note: am I the only one who read “lit crit” and immediately thought of rolling 2d6 for damage from throwing a book at an enemy?

  • Kemper

    I defy anyone to find another article that manages to cover literary criticism, Narnia, the Lord of the Rings, Jesus lions, drunken lashing offers, Bruce Lee, nunchuks and ping pong.
    .
    Put those key words in Google and this has got to be the only thing that comes up.
    .

  • Cliff

    I was a Narnia boy as a kid, which hierarchically speaking put me below the Tolkien boys in terms of manliness, which is pretty far down when you consider where the Tolkien boys ranked on the Great Chain of Manliness.
    .
    Huh, I didn’t realize there was such a thing, since I was the only kid in school who bothered reading any of those books at all.
    .
    Also, I never tried to reconcile the continuity of TLW&W and TMN (I’m guessing at these acronyms). It might have bugged me but it didn’t keep me up at night.

  • tereglith

    It’s LWW and MN in most abbreviation nonmenclatures. You leave out “The”.

    I enjoy both authors, but (cliche alert) in different ways. I agree wholeheartedly with the “Creator” and “Dreamer” classifications.

    By the way, has anyone heard of “The Worm Ourobouros”? While we’re talking about the founders of the modern fantasy genre, it might be useful to include – it was written around the turn of the century or before and was read by Tolkien and possibly Lewis.

  • hambyiii

    How did they do it? Depressingly simple actually. Get two guys to do their thing around a ping-pong table, sans ball, and then CGI the ball in after. Easier than finding a guy that bears a passing resemblance to Bruce Lee and then training him to whack a ball with nunchuks!

  • dennitzio

    Yeah, real people, fake ball. The guy doesn’t look like Bruce Lee to me… But it wouldn’t be impossible to map Lee’s face onto someone else, especially at low res. Explains why a third the ad is from behind Nunchuk guy’s back. Also, if you watch the ball, it does some wonderful non-linear moves (that my brain at first explained as “spin”) in order to keep the paddle and the chucks in synch. There was a rage of student films with fake ping-pong balls a few years ago, it’s not hard to do. You can’t really see the ball’s third dimension, so you can even do it in 2d with a white circle and rotos for paddles/bodies/net.

  • tyrantking

    You Narnia boys are like the Númenóreans who tried to conquer the Undying Lands. You just don’t mess with the Immortals.

blog comments powered by Disqus