C.S. Lewis
With The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe about to (re-)introduce Narnia to the world, a glut of essays on C.S. Lewis have begun to appear. This one by Adam Gopnik in the New Yorker is interesting: American readers will be surprised to find that Lewis — so lionized in American Christianity (including Mormonism) — is considered to be “a slightly embarrassing polemicist” in Britain. Don’t read too much into that — embarrassment of one’s icons is a peculiarly British pastime — but still, Gopnik’s article paints a less saintly, more “realistic” portrait of Lewis than many will be used to. (UPDATE: The question of “realism” vs. hostile revisionism is thoroughly discussed by BT blogger John Fowles at ABEV; for Lewis’s “romanticism” see Russell Fox at T&S.)
Did he use a peepstone?
Comment by John Dehlin — November 15, 2005 @ 10:08 am
A pipe not a peep, I think, John.
I should warn readers that the article contains one or two fruity words and descriptions (particularly in relation to Lewis’s sexuality). I, for one, prefer my Christian heroes to be sinners rather than saints; it gives me hope.
Comment by Ronan — November 15, 2005 @ 10:38 am
Interesting article on a fascinating person. So, do Limey sodomy mill boarding schools like Lewis experienced still exist? It’s good in the end that he figured out [his sexuality].
Comment by Steve EM — November 15, 2005 @ 11:59 am
Steve,
Remember that Lewis was there about 100 years ago. One hopes times have changed. A friend of mine went to a boarding school in the 90s and spoke bitterly of all the hazing though.
Comment by Ronan — November 15, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
Ronan, I began a comment with my own response to Gopnik’s analysis to contribute to this thread, but it became far too long and would have derailed things here, so I have posted it over at ABEV. Sorry if this comes across as poaching, but my own analysis really would only have been a distraction to discussion here about the matter.
Comment by john fowles — November 15, 2005 @ 2:41 pm
Of course, as John shows, “realistic” is in the eye of the beholder.
Comment by Ronan — November 15, 2005 @ 3:13 pm