Because of course it's reasonable to expect an author to go by social mores and standards which weren't common until fifty years after the books in question were written! *sigh*

I seem to be running into a lot of frothingly angry rants about popular fiction lately. Some of them have a better point than others. This isn't one of the better ones.

Now, when I was eight I got through the first three chapters of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe before losing interest, and I never got around to trying them again, so I can't give much of an opinion in terms of accuracy.

That said, I've taken Honors English classes all throughout high school, so I know what a good essay is and this is not a good essay. While it's important to avoid having a wishy-washy or passive voice, this author's tone is far too forceful, almost insulting to the reader. It relies on the use of strong language to make its point, and thus it's difficult to be taken seriously.

Furthermore, in all the types of essays I've ever written, be they persuasive or analytical or any other, my teachers have stressed the importance of evidence to back up one's claims, and clear, specific examples from the work that are explored, explained, and connected to the writer's point. The few examples this writer brings up are vague and confusing, making it clear that it never occurred to this writer that there would be a few readers (like myself) who are not familiar with the series. I always learned, when writing essays, to assume the readers know nothing of the issue or piece of literature I'm addressing, because there will always be a few readers who do.

Now that I've said this, I have the sudden urge to lock myself in my room and read every single one of them straight through. I'll try and wait until winter break rolls around.

Having read the article and the discussion so far, I'm content to dismiss the article as the drivel it is. As Sylibane points out so entertainingly, the author fails at every turn to support his arguments with evidence, and therefore can be dismissed as a serious essayist.

I actually considered that it might be a piece of sarcasm, mocking other people who actually do believe those things, but I doubt it. It's just a screed.

Now, I do take issue with anyone applying this kind of thinking to a fantasy world. Here's the thing: if you're writing about countries that are at war, you are naturally going to characterize the "bad guys" in a way that makes them seem bad to your audience, so they can cheer for your protagonists. If you're going to tell me that it's racist to characterize cannibalism and/or human sacrifice and/or serving an evil demigod as bad, or that it's racist to make people from a hot place have dark skin, then we have a serious problem. Using the prejudice of your audience as a shortcut for that characterization--"brown people = evil" in the absence of any other defining characteristics--that's a different issue, but I'd like to see the proof for that in Tolkien's or Lewis' case.

~Neshomeh

The article (near as I can tell) is by Philip Hensher, who wrote it for The Independent, which newspaper he is a columnist and book reviewer for. Kathryn Lindskoog is the editor of the journal entitled The Lewis Legacy, in which the article was reprinted.

That said, while several of the points he makes are sound, the tone of the article leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Hensher vastly overstates his case. I understand that he was writing for a newspaper and therefore impartiality wasn't really what he was going for, but when you call the subject of your article "ghastly, priggish, half-witted, money-making drivel" I begin to think that you're either compensating for the weakness of your arguments, or attempting to manipulate me with a kind of appeal to emotion. Personally, I don't like being manipulated. I really don't like being manipulated.

On a personal note, I have burned two books in my lifetime, simply because having them in my house gave me a sick feeling that wouldn't go away. It was an emotional thing. I didn't talk to anyone about it, just quietly tore them up and fed them into the fire at a family marshmallow-roasting session. It was extremely satisfying. While there are things in the Narnia series that struck me wrong, they don't even approach that level. And, furthermore, they're fun, interesting stories that hold a special place in my heart.

And with that, I once more retreat into the shadows of Real Life and Lurkerdom (TM). ;)

In the Appendices to LotR, it is quite clear that the white, racially superior Numenoreans caused one of the greatest catastrophes in the world and that their colonial enterprise in Middle-Earth was concurrent with and contributed with their moral and physical decline. Not merely that, but later in the timeline, the only King of Gondor (a Numenorean remnant state) who actually cared about racial purity was a Complete Monster who nearly brought his kingdom to ruin (but as he discriminated against Blonde-haired people, albeit ones with a shorter lifespan and inferior material culture, that may not count *snigger*).

As for the Orcs, while Tolkien did describe them as "Mongolian-Types", he carefully added a parenthesis saying (To Europeans). While further background material (Morgoth's Ring) showed that he may not have intended for the "Orcs are converted Elves" thing in The Silmarillion to be canon, he still agonized over how Orcs can be "Always Evil all the Time".

Speaking of The Silmarillion, background material to it shows that Tolkien had always intended for many, many, Elves to be foolish, violent, and impulsive Jerkasses. That said, the Blonde ones (Finrod Felagund and his family) are the most good of the lot, but they no racism whatsoever to Men, who are racially inferior except for some esoteric gifts (the ability to leave the world after death and to control their own destinies, but those are obviously not genetic). In fact, one of them even sacrifices his life for a non-blonde human so that an interracial marriage can occur.

Now, back to LotR. While it is true that the Easterlings and Southrons (who may or may not be different from the Haradrim) are described as "Dark Men" under the service of the "Dark Lord" Sauron, the Appendices reveal that said "Dark Lord" had many White-skinned minions as well (in fact, the Cosairs of Umbar were descended from the followers of the Gondorian king I mentioned earlier, the one who belived in racial purity). Not just that, but a noble of Gondor (Forlong the Fat), had Non-Numenorean blood and his followers fought just like the Easterlings. He later dies, but all mentions of him are of a positive nature (all this is omitted in the Tv.Tropes article "Gondor Calls For Aid, which is just sad).

Not just that, but other examples of Good Easterlings also appear in The Silmarillion and the background material to it reveals that originally, all Easterlings were to be given the chance to rebel against the first Dark Lord, Morgoth. Not merely that, but the Southrons/Haradrim (the supposed african analogues) were established to have been deceived by Numenorean agents (Herumor and Fuinur, I may be misspelling the latter) under the service of the Dark Lord Sauron.

-End.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AyxZnAVoh4Y7T-bIepZ-G7cIDT5oRElb33tczBGXoB4/edit?hl=en&authkey=CMTN_PkI&pli=1#

Whew. That was a doozy. My comments are blue.

Calling C. S. Lewis unimaginative? Oh really? Makes it hard to take the author too seriously. One point I do agree on is Susan's being kept out of Narnia in the end. It struck me as a sudden chain-yank in the midst of the feel-good uniting of all the former Narnia protagonists. There was never any previous evidence in Susan's character of her being less devoted to Aslan than any other Pevensie, though to be fair, we hadn't seen her for a few years before The Last Battle. Some of the author's other points are also at least somewhat justified, like the negative portrayal of the Calormenes as stand-ins for Islamic nations, but the fact is, the Chronicles were all written over fifty years ago, now, and C. S. Lewis can't help being a product of his time anymore than another person can.

It looks like the person who created that website was merely collecting articles written by other people and hosting them on her website.

As for the article itself, well... Given that we don't know much of the writer's background besides the fact that he apparently didn't like the books as a kid, I can't honestly rip this article apart. Yes, it makes me angry to see drivel like that, but I also have to realize that since I don't know the context of said piece, I can't properly rationalize going into a tizzy about it.