Lipstick and nylons and invitations

[helenic]

I was meant to be reading about the construction of gender in the ancient world, but this got my attention instead: Andrew Rilstone's latest article Lipstick on my Scholar, about quite what Lewis was doing with Susan at the end of The Last Battle. Very much worth a read. Big thanks to lizw for the link :)

Comments

[wyrdrune.livejournal.com]

Very much worth a read /indeed/. Thanks.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

Ooh thanks. Something I've wanted to say for ages articulated much better than I would have done. I like it when that happens.

[atreic.livejournal.com]

I'm a huge squeeing fan girl of andrewrilstone His website (http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/) has some marvelous rants on it, especially his one on gay bishops (http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/gaybishops.htm).

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, I read that before and then found some other things on his website I liked. I had no idea it was the same chap.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I've liked him since aegidian pointed me at him when we were talking about the hysteria in some US Christian quarters about RPGs. Being both a Christian and a very experienced GM, he had a good rant about that, too. He used to edit a zine that dealt with the philosopical aspects of gaming, which I used to read despite not being a gamer myself. I was really chuffed when I found he had a blog.

[oxfordgirl.livejournal.com]

Spot on. Very entertaining and informing. Thanks!

[cassielalone.livejournal.com]

Very interesting.

[squiddity.livejournal.com]

That was very interesting, thank you.

I've been a big fan of Lewis for a long time, since before I lost my Xian faith.
'That Hideous Strength' is well, well worth reading if you can, it's not long.
Also, as someone with a reasonable understanding of religious philosophy, and Xianity in particular, 'The Problem of Pain' and 'Mere Chirstianity' are still required reading for anyone on either side of the God debate.

Anyway, the whole 'Susan at the gates' thing has been done to death elsewhere, but the discussion of the effect that such a simple chinese whisper reinterpretation can have is much more interesting.
But then, you can't always go back and check original sources, otherwise we'd never be able to quote or reference.
If I am studying some part of Decartes work I can't double de-reference my English source and so I am pretty much guaranteed to make this kind of mistake - which is one reason why you need to apply the principle of charity.
In this case, the author is not applying it correctly to Rowlings second hand reinterpretation.
It doesn't actually matter that she has misunderstood the original intent, it matters that it is correctly applied in her own use, which it is.

I did like the placing of it into historical context though, making 'lipstick and nylons' not a symbol of womanly temptation but a sign of worldliness.
Makes more sense with his other writings anyway and explains why that section always really bothered me from the Last Battle.
It did seem unreasonably unjust, but if viewed this way, it is more fitting.
I think I'll need to go back and re-read the Last Battle now, hopefully with more charity myself.

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

Ooh, yes, that was really good. Thanks!

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Fascinating.

[baranoouji.livejournal.com]

Interesting!

In exchange, I'd like to give you a link to Rhoddlet's little ficlet (http://joyce.jteers.net/rhoddlet/narnia-closets.html) of Susan. I particularly like the beginning, which perhaps explains why Susan embraces the earthly world with a particular sort of desperation.

[gnimmel.livejournal.com]

Coo, interesting.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree with his last point (that Susan in her 'grown-up in Narnia' phase before the children returned to our world was a sexual being, but in the 'right' way) -- the description of Susan's growing-up in Narnia is very much a child's description of growing up as a fairytale princess, the sort of world where proposals of marriage are completely asexual and the story ends exactly at the moment that the handsome prince puts the ring on your finger.
Agree with the rest, though.

[mirabehn.livejournal.com]

It's a good article, but the whole Susan thing still makes me very uncomfortable. Possibly because I never had a problem with the "lipstick" business at all - perhaps I just read the book too young, but that thought never even occured to me. And the argument that Rilstone makes in the article has pretty much ensured that it's not going to be a problem for me now - it's materialism rather than sexuality, and that makes perfect sense.

My issue with the Susan matter remains, however. It is and has always been the one that djm4 mentions on lizw's journal: that Susan has had actual, real sensory experience of Narnia and yet has ceased to believe in it. And I have a hard time finding any useful Christian message there.

Or maybe I'm missing the point?

I do agree very much about the fact that she hasn't gone to hell though, given that she isn't dead. And that's reassuring - somehow I'd managed to miss that.

[maga-dogg.livejournal.com]

Well, I think there's a pretty strong thread running through the Narnia stuff of Innocence of Childhood = Garden of Paradise = Narnia. Everyone who sins has at some point known the (supposed) innocence of childhood; denying Narnia is denying one's childishness, denying that one was ever a child, which is of course a characteristic of every grumpy teenager, misbehaving to prove they're grown-up.

Hence Susan's denial is not particularly unusual; every child has fiercely believed in a fantasy at some point, and later denied it in the belief that doing so reinforced their maturity.

[the-elyan.livejournal.com]

A most interesting and satisfyingly well-argued read, even for someone who has never read the Narnia books (except LW&W), and knows only of the Pullman-esque wibblings...

[maga-dogg.livejournal.com]

Excellent stuff on the core point. Gets rather weaker against the more general point that Lewis was fixated on innocent childhood and inclined to be a bit wary of sexuality - a basically accurate point, to my mind, if one hard to back up with individual quotes - but ferchrissakes, Man of his Time and all that. You can't, with the best will in the world, condemn someone who went through Edwardian public school for being a bit reticent and preachy.

I particularly approve of the little barbs against Rowling.

Off-topic

[the-elyan.livejournal.com]

Only because you don't appear to read my LJ:

I now have the elusive "Once More, With Footnotes". If you particularly want it, and don't want to wait for shipping, I'm happy to pass it on to you for book token (cost me £18), and order another copy for myself

Depends when/if it's possible to arrange transfer, of course,e specially as I'm away this weekend...

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

That was good, and well-argued. However, Susan is still denied a voice at the end of the series: in fact, she hardly speaks at all throughout, and she is never allowed to argue her case. Her (presumed) denial of the metaphysical reality of Narnia excludes her from the right to make her own case, to enter into the reality of the narrative. Also, of course, just because Lewis is speaking out of a traditionalist position that is sceptical of modernity and tradition and prefers a naturalised ideal of woman (Jadis, that other sexual adventuress, doesn't fare too well either, being cast as a bloodthirsty vamp), doesn't mean I have to think that his position is reasonable. If faith in Narnia cannot survive an engagement with an adult modernity, is it all that useful?

[simont]

It was certainly a good read, although marred slightly for me by the fact that the position he was arguing against wasn't one I'd ever encountered. Perhaps I'm overly naïve and read things excessively literally, but it always seemed to me that Susan's problem was primarily to do with having convinced herself Narnia hadn't been real, and that to the extent that the excessive interest in lipsticknylonsandinvitations was important at all it was mostly as a further illustration of her general wrongheadedness. (And wouldn't have been a problem anyway if it hadn't been excessive and to the exclusion of all else.)

So while it was fun to see some idiots I'd never heard of being thwacked resoundingly over the boundary, it might have been more immediately satisfying if they had previously been annoying the hell out of me :-)

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

You hadn't heard of Pullman or Rowling?

[simont]

*blinks* Oh yeah, they were quoted as supporting the weird argument, weren't they? I'd forgotten that by the time I got to the bottom. I assumed it was some shadowy cabal of weirdos.

[volandum.livejournal.com]

I'm having trouble loading the thing - do you have any idea why this is?

Also: you attended my school. If you could, you'd be superior to your original supremacy.