Why So Little Interest In Prince Caspian?

Post by Tim Bruening
Why so little interest in posting about the Prince Caspian movie,
which was number 1 in its opening weekend?

One fantasy trilogy rules them all.

All the Narnia fans are mesmerized by the Lord of the Rings?

Been there done that.
Between LOTR and Harry Potter, there's little oxygen left for yet
another fantasy movie series adapted from fantasy book series.

I was thinking because it has already come and gone but I'm not even sure it
came out yet. *typing sounds* No, I was right. Its come and gone.

--
History Channel is showing 'Ice Road Truckers' as part of their
"American Originals" brand of shows.

'Ice Road Truckers' is a show about Canadian truck drivers.

Erik Jan

2008-07-11 08:49:33 UTC

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Tim Bruening
Why so little interest in posting about the Prince Caspian movie,
which was number 1 in its opening weekend?

One fantasy trilogy rules them all.

All the Narnia fans are mesmerized by the Lord of the Rings?

Been there done that.
Between LOTR and Harry Potter, there's little oxygen left for yet
another fantasy movie series adapted from fantasy book series.

I was thinking because it has already come and gone but I'm not even sure it
came out yet. *typing sounds* No, I was right. Its come and gone.

I Believe there is less interest in the movie of Prince Caspian, because
it failed. I saw it yesterday and was disappointed. There is too much
war in it and not enough of the theme of the book: renewal of life
through steadfast faith (like the badger's) and Aslan's breath. The
movie reminded me of "The Two towers" and the battle of Hornburg. All
this violence is not in the book. The whole course of the movie and the
heavy losses in Battle has become the result of Lucy's failure to obey
the voice of Aslan. In the book it is only about their taking the wrong
road and the loss of a day. In the movie it is about the beginning of
war and the loss of many lives. This is too heavy a burden for the child
and makes the movy a cautionary tale to teach the children to follow
what they see as right because the consequences of not doing so may be
dire. Gone are all other motives and themes that make a very balanced
mix. Gone are the goodness, humility, mercy and justice that we find in
the book.

I believe that filling the movie with war scenes is an easy way out and
avoids the real problems of transposing the book to the other medium.

The changes that necessitate the splitting up of Lucy's meeting with
Aslan also change the final impression and the total atmosphere of the
movie, and make it very different from the original book. this was much
less the case with "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe".

Erik Jan

AJA

2008-07-11 17:27:21 UTC

Post by Erik Jan
I believe that filling the movie with war scenes is an easy way out and
avoids the real problems of transposing the book to the other medium.

Thanks for your review, Erik. I think you are right about the movie's
having missed the major themes. And as for the 'action' scenes- it's a sign
of the times; it makes for big box office. A shame. Douglas Gresham must
have approved of the script?

Blessings,
Ann

Erik Jan

2008-07-11 18:13:29 UTC

Post by Erik Jan
I believe that filling the movie with war scenes is an easy way out
and avoids the real problems of transposing the book to the other medium.

Thanks for your review, Erik. I think you are right about the movie's
having missed the major themes. And as for the 'action' scenes- it's a
sign of the times; it makes for big box office. A shame. Douglas
Gresham must have approved of the script?
Blessings,
Ann

Dear Ann,

when the super-extended version of "The Lord of the Rings" appeared I
bought the three boxes and listened to the commentary by the authors of
the script. Thus I began to understand the problems of converting a book
to a movie. My summary is: conversion from a medium that is listened to
to one that is looked at, necessitates many changes. The main point is
to maintain the "essence" of the book. To me that is the central themes
and the "atmosphere". I don't know how to express this well. In "The
Lord of the Rings" Peter Jackson and his co-writers did a reasonably
good job with the script, and Weta a beautiful job with all the artwork
and (computer generated) backgrounds. In my opinion the movie keeps much
of the book. In "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" the conversion
from listening to looking was well done to my taste.

As a Harry Potter fan I have seen all the movies and can appreciate most
of them. I believe that the movies are very true to the books. I saw all
of them several times and do agree with most of the changes.

In "Prince Caspian" however I detect a predilection for war scenes, just
like Peter Jackson's choice in LOTR. I disagree with P. Jackson's
choice. I would have preferred less war scenes, much more interaction
between the protagonists. (I don't mind if the movie slows down. Perhaps
a problem with this was, that the actors were chosen for their looks,
and not especially for acting. Most believable in LOTR are Gollum, Bilbo
and Eowyn. Gollum is first in all respects. His mono-dialogue of twenty
minutes is a masterpiece of acting. Most actors do not act longer than
one or two minutes at a time. Frodo especially disappoints me. Remember
the way he looks absent-minded and with empty eyes at the coronation of
Aragorn.) In "Prince Caspian" there is a war on, but the book does not
dwell on it. The book concentrates on being true to the old
faith/folklore and the goodness in it. It dwells on the choices that
must be made like those of Trumpkin and Nikabrik. The cental scene of
the book is the meeting between Lucy and Aslan. During the years that I
taught the christian faith to students I used to comment on this scene
to tell the students about the (mystical) union with God and the
intimacy of the soul between God and man. When Lucy understands what is
required of her, the Lion says: "Now you are a lioness, and now all
Narnia will be renewed." The rest of the book tells this
all-encompassing renewal. In the movie this sentence has become
conditional, and has lost its importance and power. It is not clear
either what she has to do that will start the great renewal. As I
explained to my students: "Now you are a lioness," is not just a
metaphor, but the essence of the story. Lucy -- and later on the others
-- participate in the divine strength and bring about their share in the
renewal, even if this only amounts to going to all those Narnians on
Aslan's back and witnessing the forgiveness, mercy and justice that He
brings. I can understand that all this must be condensed in a movie, but
regret that nothing is left of all this. And what did we get instead?
war scenes! A missed oportunity.

Blessings from Holland to you.

Erik Jan

AJA

2008-07-14 14:01:43 UTC

"Erik Jan" <***@home.here> wrote in message news:4877a2c9$0$32594$***@news.tele2.nl...
Thanks again so much. Wonderful analysis of Tolkien pieces and Lewis!
I quite agree with all you've written.
Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.
Blessings,
A

d***@aol.com

2008-07-15 20:30:05 UTC

Thanks again so much. Wonderful analysis of Tolkien pieces and Lewis!
I quite agree with all you've written.
Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
drugged, I think it was fitting.

Narnia was harder, how to make a kiddie movie but keep the adult
edge, LWW partially succeded, Caspian pretty much failed.

Daryl

Ken from Chicago

2008-07-16 01:42:32 UTC

Thanks again so much. Wonderful analysis of Tolkien pieces and Lewis!
I quite agree with all you've written.
Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

~
~
~Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
~that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
~drugged, I think it was fitting.
~
~ Narnia was harder, how to make a kiddie movie but keep the adult
~edge, LWW partially succeded, Caspian pretty much failed.
~
~Daryl

Origins are easier to plot. Middles in a series are harder.

That's what makes REAL tv mini-series--series with at least THREE parts,
beginning, MIDDLE and conclusion--a real challenge, getting that middle part
interesting without the initial set-up and without the conclusion to wrap it
all up.

-- Ken from Chicago

Dimensional Traveler

2008-07-16 02:46:27 UTC

Thanks again so much. Wonderful analysis of Tolkien pieces and Lewis!
I quite agree with all you've written.
Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

~
~
~Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
~that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
~drugged, I think it was fitting.
~
~ Narnia was harder, how to make a kiddie movie but keep the adult
~edge, LWW partially succeded, Caspian pretty much failed.
~
~Daryl
Origins are easier to plot. Middles in a series are harder.
That's what makes REAL tv mini-series--series with at least THREE
parts, beginning, MIDDLE and conclusion--a real challenge, getting
that middle part interesting without the initial set-up and without
the conclusion to wrap it all up.

Then the Narnia series is in deep doo-doo 'cause they've got four more
middle parts before they reach conclusion.

--
History Channel is showing 'Ice Road Truckers' as part of their
"American Originals" brand of shows.

'Ice Road Truckers' is a show about Canadian truck drivers.

And the more people try to make fun of this sig, the longer I keep it.

AJA

2008-07-16 02:01:58 UTC

Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
drugged, I think it was fitting.

Going back to a discussion we had in abcsl long ago, which I've either
forgotten or which didn't come to any conclusion. What is the Ring
exactly? Where would Tolkien gotten that image? Why a ring?
Ann

Paul Howard

2008-07-16 03:20:04 UTC

Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
drugged, I think it was fitting.
Going back to a discussion we had in abcsl long ago, which I've either
forgotten or which didn't come to any conclusion. What is the Ring
exactly? Where would Tolkien gotten that image? Why a ring?
Ann

Wagner's Ring Saga is likely to be one source. The Ring is a powerful
object yet is a cursed object.

--
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*

Ken from Chicago

2008-07-16 10:56:02 UTC

Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
drugged, I think it was fitting.
Going back to a discussion we had in abcsl long ago, which I've either
forgotten or which didn't come to any conclusion. What is the Ring
exactly? Where would Tolkien gotten that image? Why a ring?
Ann

Wagner's Ring Saga is likely to be one source. The Ring is a powerful
object yet is a cursed object.
--
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*

The One Ring = the nuclear bomb, the one weapon argueably too powerful to
wield. Remember Tolkien lived in a country bombed to oblivion, much like the
countryside around Mordor, and one could argue WW2 was ended because of The
Bomb, some wonder if the cost was too high.

At least that's one theory some have.

-- Ken from Chicago

Paul Howard

2008-07-16 12:05:30 UTC

Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
drugged, I think it was fitting.
Going back to a discussion we had in abcsl long ago, which I've either
forgotten or which didn't come to any conclusion. What is the Ring
exactly? Where would Tolkien gotten that image? Why a ring?
Ann

Wagner's Ring Saga is likely to be one source. The Ring is a powerful
object yet is a cursed object.
--
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*

The One Ring = the nuclear bomb, the one weapon argueably too powerful to
wield. Remember Tolkien lived in a country bombed to oblivion, much like
the countryside around Mordor, and one could argue WW2 was ended because
of The Bomb, some wonder if the cost was too high.
At least that's one theory some have.
-- Ken from Chicago

Tolkien rejected any idea that Lord Of The Rings had any connection with
WW2. I don't believe he said anything against "The One Ring = Nuclear
Bomb", but I suspect he would argued against that idea.

--
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*

Steve Morrison

2008-07-16 17:42:56 UTC

(snip)

Post by Ken from Chicago
The One Ring = the nuclear bomb, the one weapon argueably too powerful to
wield. Remember Tolkien lived in a country bombed to oblivion, much like
the countryside around Mordor, and one could argue WW2 was ended because
of The Bomb, some wonder if the cost was too high.
At least that's one theory some have.
-- Ken from Chicago

Tolkien rejected any idea that Lord Of The Rings had any connection with
WW2. I don't believe he said anything against "The One Ring = Nuclear
Bomb", but I suspect he would argued against that idea.

On chronological grounds alone, the One Ring could not have been
inspired by the atom bomb. Remember that Tolkien started writing
LotR in the late 1930s, years before there was any such thing as
The Bomb. (Some people did have advance knowledge that such a
thing was in the offing, of course, but I doubt the Inklings were
on top of such developments in the hard sciences.)

Tolkien also denied that his ring had anything to do with
Wagner's ("Both rings were round, and there the resemblance
ceases"). I'm not sure I believe this, though, since there /were/
a number of other resemblances; a good discussion of them is at
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-Wagner
Tolkien generally disliked Wagner, although we know that he and
the Lewis brothers read the libretti of /Der Ring/ in 1934 in
preparation for a performance at Covent Garden.

d***@aol.com

2008-07-16 16:39:28 UTC

Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
drugged, I think it was fitting.
Going back to a discussion we had in abcsl long ago, which I've either
forgotten or which didn't come to any conclusion. What is the Ring
exactly? Where would Tolkien gotten that image? Why a ring?
Ann

Wagner's Ring Saga is likely to be one source. The Ring is a powerful
object yet is a cursed object.
--
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)

a few others http://www.jjkent.com/articles/first-rings-mythology.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_ring

But it could have been any amulet or talisman, something portable and
reasonably immune to theft when worn.

*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*

Steve Morrison

2008-07-16 18:03:55 UTC

Frodo was just too bad. Seemed to have acted in only one dreamy key.

Yes but, how to explain his failure to recognize evil and diversion
that were so apparent to Samwise. The ring was a drug, he acted
drugged, I think it was fitting.
Going back to a discussion we had in abcsl long ago, which I've either
forgotten or which didn't come to any conclusion. What is the Ring
exactly? Where would Tolkien gotten that image? Why a ring?
Ann

Wagner's Ring Saga is likely to be one source. The Ring is a powerful
object yet is a cursed object.
--
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)

a few others http://www.jjkent.com/articles/first-rings-mythology.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_ring
But it could have been any amulet or talisman, something portable and
reasonably immune to theft when worn.

Post by Paul Howard
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*

The important thing to remember is that the Ring was not originally
"One Ring to rule them all", but a simple ring of invisibility which
Bilbo happened to acquire at an opportune moment. It was only when
Tolkien began work on a sequel to /The Hobbit/ that he decided the
Ring was the natural link between the two books, and decided to
invest it with such great significance.

As for the origin of Bilbo's invisibility ring, John Rateliff has
an interesting discussion in vol. 1 of his /The History of The
Hobbit/. He notes that although there are many precedents for magic
rings in folklore, and also many talismans of invisibility, there
aren't really very many examples of rings of invisibility. The few
he does list include the Ring of Gyges from Plato (referred to in
the Wikipedia article you linked), and a ring from the Arthurian
romance /Ywain/ by Chrétian de Troyes; there is some information
about the latter here:

http://www.brightweavings.com/scholarship/royalascent.htm

AJA

2008-07-16 20:24:51 UTC

"Steve Morrison" <***@toast.net> wrote in message news:3->>
I've lost the orginal, but thanks for this link. Interesting. Also the
reference to Charles Williams' book Many Dimensions in this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_ring

Post by Steve Morrison

Post by d***@aol.com
But it could have been any amulet or talisman, something portable and
reasonably immune to theft when worn.

Yes, but there is more meaning than talisman, I think.
Thanks for the following and the link you give. (I think the atom bomb
theory has been safely put to rest, btw.)

Post by Steve Morrison
The important thing to remember is that the Ring was not originally
"One Ring to rule them all", but a simple ring of invisibility which
Bilbo happened to acquire at an opportune moment. It was only when
Tolkien began work on a sequel to /The Hobbit/ that he decided the
Ring was the natural link between the two books, and decided to
invest it with such great significance.

And what is that great significance? What precisely is the evil in
Tolkien's ring?

Post by Steve Morrison
As for the origin of Bilbo's invisibility ring, John Rateliff has
an interesting discussion in vol. 1 of his /The History of The
Hobbit/. He notes that although there are many precedents for magic
rings in folklore, and also many talismans of invisibility, there
aren't really very many examples of rings of invisibility. The few
he does list include the Ring of Gyges from Plato (referred to in
the Wikipedia article you linked), and a ring from the Arthurian
romance /Ywain/ by Chrétian de Troyes; there is some information
http://www.brightweavings.com/scholarship/royalascent.htm

But do go on about One ring to rule them all. What is that about,
fundamentally. Misuse of power, failure to acknowledge the One True Power
and seek to grab power for oneself?
I'm looking for something below, or very much above the surface. What would
you say the lesson of the ring is in Tolkien?

Blessings,
Ann

Steve Morrison

2008-07-19 02:24:35 UTC

AJA wrote:

(snip)

Post by AJA
But do go on about One ring to rule them all. What is that about,
fundamentally. Misuse of power, failure to acknowledge the One True
Power and seek to grab power for oneself?
I'm looking for something below, or very much above the surface. What
would you say the lesson of the ring is in Tolkien?
Blessings,
Ann

No doubt that is a more interesting subject than the search for
literary antecedents; Tolkien was intensely skeptical of the value
of going into sources. Power, and the inability of anyone to do good
with too much power, is such an obvious part of the Ring's meaning
that it doesn't need much elaboration. Your other answer does chime
with things Tolkien wrote in his letters. In item #183 in his
/Letters/, he wrote the following passage:

In /The Lord of the Rings/ the conflict is not basically about
'freedom' though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and
His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Númenóreans
believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other
person as an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and
was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he
would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and
absolute temporal power over the whole world.

But as for the Ring itself, it's an instance of a motif which Tolkien
repeatedly used. In the /Silmarillion/, most of the action was
motivated by various characters' desire for the Silmarils, and that
desire nearly always led them to ruin. In /The Hobbit/, Thorin comes
to grief because of his obsession with the Arkenstone. And the poem
"The Hoard" has an ancient treasure pass from elves to a dwarf, then
to a dragon, then a knight -- each of whom comes to ruin as a result.
Of course, none of these other treasures was intrinsically evil in
the way the Ring was, or intrinsically designed to give power over
other wills. I'd say that the danger of obsession with any earthly
thing of value must have been a centrally important idea for Tolkien.

d***@aol.com

2008-07-19 05:19:02 UTC

On Jul 18, 7:24 pm, Steve Morrison <***@toast.net> wrote:

Power, and the inability of anyone to do good

Post by Steve Morrison
with too much power, is such an obvious part of the Ring's meaning
that it doesn't need much elaboration.

Seems a lesson we often forget. "Power corrupts, absolute power
corrupts absolutely." Far too many people think they know exactly how
everyone else should live, and just lie in wait for the power to bring
that about. Far too many people are willing to grant that power so
they don't have to be responsible for their own welfare. Sigh, oh
well, God will out in the end.

Daryl

Ken from Chicago

2008-07-19 09:39:18 UTC

<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:50ec871c-a7c6-464b-9c62-***@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 18, 7:24 pm, Steve Morrison <***@toast.net> wrote:

Power, and the inability of anyone to do good

Post by Steve Morrison
with too much power, is such an obvious part of the Ring's meaning
that it doesn't need much elaboration.

~
~Seems a lesson we often forget. "Power corrupts, absolute power
~corrupts absolutely." Far too many people think they know exactly how
~everyone else should live, and just lie in wait for the power to bring
~that about. Far too many people are willing to grant that power so
~they don't have to be responsible for their own welfare. Sigh, oh
~well, God will out in the end.
~
~Daryl

Power NEVER corrupts.

Power MAGNIFIES.

Power appears to corrupt by magnifying one's flaws--and the consequences of
one's actions.

Imagine power like weight: If I step on your toe, I apologize and you move
on. If I step on your toe--and I weigh 10 tons--you have a broken if not
amputated foot. The extra weight magnified the consequences of my action.

A 10-year-old bully with a nuclear bomb is not corrupted by said power but
the consequences of their actions--and how others react to their demand--are
incredibly magnified.

-- Ken from Chicago

AJA

2008-07-19 14:05:48 UTC

Post by Ken from Chicago
Power NEVER corrupts.

I'm not sure about the NEVER.

Post by Ken from Chicago
Power MAGNIFIES.
Power appears to corrupt by magnifying one's flaws--and the consequences
of one's actions.

One might accept the semantics here. I think I know what you are getting
at. But when one seeks power for power's sake, then you have great sin in
placing oneself against
the All Powerful Good. Scripture tells us, wisely, that in order to save
one's life you must lose it.
Is there not such a thing as power in humility? I wonder what the
fundamental difference is between stepping on toes and the bomb bully. It
seems a continuum of a downward slope.
First, one would have to acknowledge one's ability or rather lack thereof of
doing with power without guidance of a moral code, and an acceptance of
such, and much introspection and prayer. Tolkien knew that; it's written on
every page of the Ring- a fact that is often overlooked or downplayed in the
excitement of battle scenes and all. How it could be missed seeing in film
the fabulous depiction of Smeagol/Golem?
As Steve writes: "I'd say that the danger of obsession with any earthly
thing of value must have been a centrally important idea for Tolkien"
Any earthly thing.
Blessings,
Ann

Ken from Chicago

2008-07-20 01:21:45 UTC

Post by AJA

Post by Ken from Chicago
Power NEVER corrupts.

I'm not sure about the NEVER.

Post by Ken from Chicago
Power MAGNIFIES.
Power appears to corrupt by magnifying one's flaws--and the consequences
of one's actions.

It's like another misquoted Scripture:

Money is NOT the root of all evil.

It's the LOVE of money that's the problem.

1 Timothy 6:10.

Power is not the problem, but the LOVE of power ... that's a problem.

Post by AJA
Is there not such a thing as power in humility? I wonder what the
fundamental difference is between stepping on toes and the bomb bully. It
seems a continuum of a downward slope.
First, one would have to acknowledge one's ability or rather lack thereof
of doing with power without guidance of a moral code, and an acceptance of
such, and much introspection and prayer. Tolkien knew that; it's written
on every page of the Ring- a fact that is often overlooked or downplayed
in the excitement of battle scenes and all. How it could be missed seeing
in film the fabulous depiction of Smeagol/Golem?
As Steve writes: "I'd say that the danger of obsession with any earthly
thing of value must have been a centrally important idea for Tolkien"
Any earthly thing.
Blessings,
Ann

Thus Jesus' counsel to store up for oneself treasures in heaven.

Matthew 6:20-21.

-- Ken from Chicago

d***@aol.com

2008-07-20 18:56:50 UTC

Power, and the inability of anyone to do good> with too much power, is such an obvious part of the Ring's meaning

Post by Steve Morrison
that it doesn't need much elaboration.

I've been messing around in political circles a bit too long to agree,
I'm afraid. What you say about power magnifying flaws is true, but
I've known a lot of good people who were really warped by getting
power. (The best examples I could cite would be letter carriers who
became supervisors in the Postal Service where I worked.)

Power appears to corrupt by magnifying one's flaws--and the consequences of
one's actions.

It does that, but it also seems to dampen virtues.

Imagine power like weight: If I step on your toe, I apologize and you move
on. If I step on your toe--and I weigh 10 tons--you have a broken if not
amputated foot. The extra weight magnified the consequences of my action.
A 10-year-old bully with a nuclear bomb is not corrupted by said power but
the consequences of their actions--and how others react to their demand--are
incredibly magnified.

Tolkien was not the only great author to show how power can corrupt,
Victor Hugo, Dickens, come to mind right away. Is there not the
temptation with power to think some different ethic applies to one?
The divine right of kings?

Daryl

AJA

2008-07-21 00:57:43 UTC

Post by d***@aol.com
Tolkien was not the only great author to show how power can corrupt,

Victor Hugo, Dickens, come to mind right away. Is there not the
temptation with power to think some different ethic applies to one?
The divine right of kings?

Sartre's Les Mains Sales made a huge impression on me. The very power that
replaced the corrupt regime became even more corrupt than the regime
replaced.
Misuse of and lust for power is a Charles William's theme. His first novel,
_War in Heaven_ paints a terrifying image of the horror of the lust for
power.
On the other hand there are also many examples of those having great power
working for good in the face of tremendous odds. Abraham Lincoln, for one
real person. Bill Gates perhaps? I'm so encouraged by what I'm reading
about his foundation and what he plans to do with large amounts of his
fortune.For those people power is not an end unto itself, but a tool for
doing good in the world. And perhaps in that sense, the love of power for
it's own sake is the problem

Ann

d***@aol.com

2008-07-21 16:33:11 UTC

Post by AJA
On the other hand there are also many examples of those having great power
working for good in the face of tremendous odds. Abraham Lincoln, for one
real person. Bill Gates perhaps? I'm so encouraged by what I'm reading
about his foundation and what he plans to do with large amounts of his
fortune.For those people power is not an end unto itself, but a tool for
doing good in the world. And perhaps in that sense, the love of power for
it's own sake is the problem
Ann

I am really impressed by those offered power or privilege that decline
to take advantage of it because it is not the honorable course.
Washington, refusing to be made king, Elvis and Prince Henry in the
military, a prisoner in North Viet Nam refusing to accept early
release offered because of his connections, and of course the greatest
example, Christ, not clinging to his divinity but taking on humanity,
even to death. It would be nice if more of our leaders had this
quality, don't you think?

Daryl

AJA

2008-07-21 23:15:45 UTC

Post by d***@aol.com
I am really impressed by those offered power or privilege that decline

to take advantage of it because it is not the honorable course.
Washington, refusing to be made king, Elvis and Prince Henry in the
military, a prisoner in North Viet Nam refusing to accept early
release offered because of his connections, and of course the greatest
example, Christ, not clinging to his divinity but taking on humanity,
even to death. It would be nice if more of our leaders had this
quality, don't you think?

Daryl

That is my prayer. We so need good leaders in this country who refuse the
expedient and take on what is right.
Ann

Ken from Chicago

2008-07-21 00:46:47 UTC

Power, and the inability of anyone to do good> with too much power, is
such an obvious part of the Ring's meaning

Post by Steve Morrison
that it doesn't need much elaboration.

~
~
~I've been messing around in political circles a bit too long to agree,
~I'm afraid. What you say about power magnifying flaws is true, but
~I've known a lot of good people who were really warped by getting
~power. (The best examples I could cite would be letter carriers who
~became supervisors in the Postal Service where I worked.)
~

Power appears to corrupt by magnifying one's flaws--and the consequences of
one's actions.

~
~It does that, but it also seems to dampen virtues.
~

~
~Tolkien was not the only great author to show how power can corrupt,
~Victor Hugo, Dickens, come to mind right away. Is there not the
~temptation with power to think some different ethic applies to one?
~The divine right of kings?
~
~Daryl

It's easy for a good person to atone for small mistakes. However with
increased power, the consequence of a mistake can be so great they can't be
atone. A good person is always tempted to do what's wrong, but power
magnifies that temptation to ignore the rules.

Plus OTHER PEOPLE REACT differently to people with power, and that tendds to
tip the scales. Your own ego combined with fawning sycophants and the
temptation to abuse power become so great many a person gives in to said
temptation.

Look at "overnight" celebrities on reality shows or athletes or lottery
winners who are suddenly shoved into the spotlight. The combination of ego,
sycophants, and the ability to minimize or delay having to face the negative
consequences of abusing power are such that many succumb.

-- Ken from Chicago

d***@aol.com

2008-07-21 16:14:25 UTC

Post by Ken from Chicago
It's easy for a good person to atone for small mistakes. However with
increased power, the consequence of a mistake can be so great they can't be
atone. A good person is always tempted to do what's wrong, but power
magnifies that temptation to ignore the rules.
Plus OTHER PEOPLE REACT differently to people with power, and that tendds to
tip the scales. Your own ego combined with fawning sycophants and the
temptation to abuse power become so great many a person gives in to said
temptation.
Look at "overnight" celebrities on reality shows or athletes or lottery
winners who are suddenly shoved into the spotlight. The combination of ego,
sycophants, and the ability to minimize or delay having to face the negative
consequences of abusing power are such that many succumb.
-- Ken from Chicago-

I don't think we really disagree, The greater the power the greater
the strength of character necessary to do the honorable, instead of
the expedient, thing. I remember in "A Man For All Seasons" Thomas
Moore saying that the king should be told what he ought to do, not
what he can do.

Daryl

AJA

2008-07-28 01:04:08 UTC

I'm posting this again hoping to get some discussion about it.

In another group some were concerned about wrong information in fiction.
The question was, does it bother you when something is clearly incorrect.
The question of CSL's fiction
came up. Venus as a watery planet. Wouldn't it have been better if Lewis
just made up the name of a fictional planet?

Sorina has given a great response to this and I have her permission to post
it here:
Read it please and comment!
Sorina wrote:
But haven't you all read Michael Ward's Planet Narnia? Whether or not
you agree with his central thesis (and it's hard not to!), you must
come away from that book understanding CSL's fascination with, almost
immersion in, the Medieval Model of the Universe. He had to use Venus,
because everything he was communicating had to do with her traditional
fertility, romance, maternity, fecundity, and so on. And Dr. Ward
proposes that Father Christmas occurs in LWW because he's the only
remaning Jovial archtype in contemporary society, and LWW was written
"under the influence" of Jove/Jupiter.

I highly recommend Dr. Ward's book. No understanding of CSL is
complete without it. And he throws some little side-lights on CW while
he's at it.

Here's another thought about Perelandra. Back in October, I attended a
CSL conference at SE Baptist Seminary in NC. Here's a summary I wrote
of one interesting paper:

Stanford Schwartz, from Pennsylvania State University, gave a paper
entitled "Why Wells is from Mars, Bergson from Venus: The Hybrid
Worlds of the Space Trilogy". This fascinating paper proposed that in
Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, C. S. Lewis simultaneously
parodied and "baptized" two kinds of evolution respectively: first a
Wellsian/Darwinian "nature red in tooth and claw" nasty,
stronger-devouring-the-weaker kind, and second, a Bergsonian
life-force, developmental, powerful, spiritual, positive kind. CSL
parodied these types of evolution by having the antagonist Weston
believe in and attempt to propagate Wellsian evolution in OotSP, and
Bergsonian life-force evolution in P, and in each Weston is defeated.
However, Lewis once wrote that there must be a true principle of which
Bergson's ideas were a perversion; Mr. Schwartz proposed that in the
Space Trilogy Lewis was imagining what that true principle would look
like, and embodied it in the species and landscapes of his Mars and
Venus. So on Malacandra, there are three species living in harmony,
while the spiritual life of the hrossa depends upon their mutual, and
mutually satisfactory, rivalry with the hnakra. This is perhaps the
good original of which natural selection and the preying of the
stronger on the weaker which Darwin proposed is a poor copy. In the
same way, on Perelandra the entire planet is in flux, and Tinidril
herself is in a state of rapid development. This seems to be a
Christianized version of Bergson's life-force evolution.

If all that is true, it would provide another reason for Perelandra's
oceans, even if they are scientifically impossible. Frankly, I don't
think Perelandra's scientific errors would bother me even if it were
written now!

Thanks for this great discussion.

~ Sorina

And if you are interested in things Inkling you must visit her thought
provoking website!!
Here:
http://iambicadmonit.blogspot.com
Enjoy!!

Blessings,
Ann

Steve Hayes

2008-08-01 03:53:16 UTC

Post by AJA
I'm posting this again hoping to get some discussion about it.
In another group some were concerned about wrong information in fiction.
The question was, does it bother you when something is clearly incorrect.
The question of CSL's fiction
came up. Venus as a watery planet. Wouldn't it have been better if Lewis
just made up the name of a fictional planet?

C.S. Lewis was more concerned with astrology than astronomy.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Steve Hix

2008-08-01 04:40:06 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes

C.S. Lewis was more concerned with astrology than astronomy.

When did Lewis write Perelandra? 1943?

The first good evidence that Venus wasn't wet and steamy showed up
around 1958 from radio-band observations, and verified in 1962 by the
Mariner II fly-by.

Can't blame him much for not being well ahead of the professional
astronomers.

As for astrology? Read his history of Renaissance English literature
(now called ''Poetry and Prose in the Sixteenth Century'') and you'll
discard any notions in that direction.

Allegory, sure, astrology, not so much.

Tim Bruening

2008-08-31 10:05:40 UTC

I remember a Babylon 5 novel which described Mars as being very hot! (Voices
by Vornhort, IIRC).

Ken from Chicago

2008-08-31 11:49:29 UTC

I remember a Babylon 5 novel which described Mars as being very hot!
(Voices
by Vornhort, IIRC).

He volunteered online that he messed that up (I think because of all the
photos of Mars' desert terrain). Surprisingly none of the editors caught the
error either.

It's a far more obvious error than in CHILDREN OF THE JEDI where Luke
Skywalker has to travel thru an electrified corridor and does NOT know about
"Faraday cages" (a cage of metal, even if a mesh and not solid will block
out electrical waves, ala tunnels blocking out radio signals when you drive
thru them). It's fairly basic physics that someone who knows about
hyperspace travel and repairing his own x-wing fighter should know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

-- Ken from Chicago

Steven L.

2008-08-31 19:16:54 UTC

I remember a Babylon 5 novel which described Mars as being very hot!
(Voices
by Vornhort, IIRC).

He volunteered online that he messed that up (I think because of all the
photos of Mars' desert terrain). Surprisingly none of the editors caught the
error either.
It's a far more obvious error than in CHILDREN OF THE JEDI where Luke
Skywalker has to travel thru an electrified corridor and does NOT know about
"Faraday cages" (a cage of metal, even if a mesh and not solid will block
out electrical waves, ala tunnels blocking out radio signals when you drive
thru them). It's fairly basic physics that someone who knows about
hyperspace travel and repairing his own x-wing fighter should know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Movies are replete with technical errors and anachronisms. Nobody
expects Hollywood to depict the Wild West accurately, even though
historians know tons about what it was really like. So why should we be
surprised if SF movies get some scientific facts wrong?

Finally, SF has a unique problem in that the "future" it writes about
eventually becomes our present and then our past. So you have to enjoy
a lot of classic SF as a period piece, in the context of the scientific
knowledge of their time. The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey," is still a
marvel, even though Pan Am went bankrupt years ago, the USSR collapsed
years ago, and the year 2001 has now come and gone, ushering in not a
Hilton Space Station nor a monolith, but a Global War on Terror (tm).

--
Steven L.
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Tim Bruening

2008-09-02 03:31:00 UTC

Post by Steven L.

I remember a Babylon 5 novel which described Mars as being very hot!
(Voices
by Vornhort, IIRC).

He volunteered online that he messed that up (I think because of all the
photos of Mars' desert terrain). Surprisingly none of the editors caught the
error either.
It's a far more obvious error than in CHILDREN OF THE JEDI where Luke
Skywalker has to travel thru an electrified corridor and does NOT know about
"Faraday cages" (a cage of metal, even if a mesh and not solid will block
out electrical waves, ala tunnels blocking out radio signals when you drive
thru them). It's fairly basic physics that someone who knows about
hyperspace travel and repairing his own x-wing fighter should know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Movies are replete with technical errors and anachronisms. Nobody
expects Hollywood to depict the Wild West accurately, even though
historians know tons about what it was really like. So why should we be
surprised if SF movies get some scientific facts wrong?
Finally, SF has a unique problem in that the "future" it writes about
eventually becomes our present and then our past. So you have to enjoy
a lot of classic SF as a period piece, in the context of the scientific
knowledge of their time. The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey," is still a
marvel, even though Pan Am went bankrupt years ago, the USSR collapsed
years ago, and the year 2001 has now come and gone, ushering in not a
Hilton Space Station nor a monolith, but a Global War on Terror (tm).

Who owns the trademark on "The Global War On Terror (tm)"?

J.J. O'Shea

2008-09-02 15:44:29 UTC

Post by Steven L.

I remember a Babylon 5 novel which described Mars as being very hot!
(Voices
by Vornhort, IIRC).

He volunteered online that he messed that up (I think because of all the
photos of Mars' desert terrain). Surprisingly none of the editors caught the
error either.
It's a far more obvious error than in CHILDREN OF THE JEDI where Luke
Skywalker has to travel thru an electrified corridor and does NOT know about
"Faraday cages" (a cage of metal, even if a mesh and not solid will block
out electrical waves, ala tunnels blocking out radio signals when you drive
thru them). It's fairly basic physics that someone who knows about
hyperspace travel and repairing his own x-wing fighter should know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Movies are replete with technical errors and anachronisms. Nobody
expects Hollywood to depict the Wild West accurately, even though
historians know tons about what it was really like. So why should we be
surprised if SF movies get some scientific facts wrong?
Finally, SF has a unique problem in that the "future" it writes about
eventually becomes our present and then our past. So you have to enjoy
a lot of classic SF as a period piece, in the context of the scientific
knowledge of their time. The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey," is still a
marvel, even though Pan Am went bankrupt years ago, the USSR collapsed
years ago, and the year 2001 has now come and gone, ushering in not a
Hilton Space Station nor a monolith, but a Global War on Terror (tm).

Who owns the trademark on "The Global War On Terror (tm)"?

Richard "The French Texan" Cheney.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Tim Bruening

2009-09-24 21:43:31 UTC

Post by Steven L.

I remember a Babylon 5 novel which described Mars as being very hot!
(Voices
by Vornhort, IIRC).

He volunteered online that he messed that up (I think because of all the
photos of Mars' desert terrain). Surprisingly none of the editors caught the
error either.
It's a far more obvious error than in CHILDREN OF THE JEDI where Luke
Skywalker has to travel thru an electrified corridor and does NOT know about
"Faraday cages" (a cage of metal, even if a mesh and not solid will block
out electrical waves, ala tunnels blocking out radio signals when you drive
thru them). It's fairly basic physics that someone who knows about
hyperspace travel and repairing his own x-wing fighter should know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Movies are replete with technical errors and anachronisms. Nobody
expects Hollywood to depict the Wild West accurately, even though
historians know tons about what it was really like. So why should we be
surprised if SF movies get some scientific facts wrong?
Finally, SF has a unique problem in that the "future" it writes about
eventually becomes our present and then our past. So you have to enjoy
a lot of classic SF as a period piece, in the context of the scientific
knowledge of their time. The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey," is still a
marvel, even though Pan Am went bankrupt years ago, the USSR collapsed
years ago, and the year 2001 has now come and gone, ushering in not a
Hilton Space Station nor a monolith, but a Global War on Terror (tm).

Who owns the trademark on "The Global War On Terror (tm)"?

AJA

2008-07-16 20:56:02 UTC

Thanks so much for providing these references, all,

Plato's Republic Book 10 The Ring of Gyges, spoken by Glaucon and argued
against by Socrates is what I'm after.
What is justice, is humankind capable of justice, and what is the payoff?
Glaucon, of course argues that no man could resist temptation. Socrates
argues that a person using the ring for harm or personal gain would be
morally bankrupt, and align himself or herself with evil. Not succombing to
the ring's power brings peace. The moral choice is often lost in the
discussion, I think. For Tolkien in the Ring saga, souls are at stake, no?
Does anyone believe that anymore? Or do we more or less agree with Glaucon?

Blessings,
Ann

laraine

2008-07-13 03:31:29 UTC

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Erik Jan

Post by Tim Bruening
Why so little interest in posting about the Prince Caspian movie,
which was number 1 in its opening weekend?

One fantasy trilogy rules them all.

All the Narnia fans are mesmerized by the Lord of the Rings?

Been there done that.
Between LOTR and Harry Potter, there's little oxygen left for yet
another fantasy movie series adapted from fantasy book series.

I was thinking because it has already come and gone but I'm not even sure it
came out yet. *typing sounds* No, I was right. Its come and gone.

You make some good points in your review. And I don't
think it was really much of a children's movie --more for
young teenagers (and I saw plenty of adults in the
theatre too). There wasn't too much blood or graphic violence,
as far as I remember, save for a few exceptions, and
the battle situations were mitigated by the fact that Lucy
was able to cure all of the wounded with her magic cordial--
I think that was much more emphasized in the book.

Yet, we don't know what would have happened if Lucy
had taken the 'right' road, and Aslan will not tell her.
It's possible that things might have turned out worse.

C.

Post by Erik Jan
This is too heavy a burden for the child
and makes the movy a cautionary tale to teach the children to follow
what they see as right because the consequences of not doing so may be
dire. Gone are all other motives and themes that make a very balanced
mix. Gone are the goodness, humility, mercy and justice that we find in
the book.
I believe that filling the movie with war scenes is an easy way out and
avoids the real problems of transposing the book to the other medium.
The changes that necessitate the splitting up of Lucy's meeting with
Aslan also change the final impression and the total atmosphere of the
movie, and make it very different from the original book. this was much
less the case with "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe".
Erik Jan

Tim Bruening

2008-07-11 08:30:50 UTC