The Chronicles of Narnia

Ethan's post #34 sums it up perfectly.

I hope Deanna (and anyone else in panic mode) can relax a little, now that it's been made crystal clear that Objectivism isn't the evil religion that forbids its members from enjoying Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.

People here are just giving their two cents, that's all. Some appreciate fantasy entertainment. Some don't. The opinions, and the reasons for those opinions, may vary, but no one is doling out Objectivist childrearing guidelines here. (Save, maybe, Ethan's wise advice about teaching your child to know reality from fantasy...which is something I would hope that all parents would want to do...whether they claim to be "Objectivist" or not.)

Erica

Post 41

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 6:49am

I have seen all four Harry Potter movies. When did anyone say that you can't watch Harry Potter movies?

Post 42

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 8:57am

Chris Baker,

First, I don't have a daughter. Second, I never even tried out for the cheerleading squad. Third, if my son shows an interest in cheerleading, then I guess I'll be investing in cheerleading camp. Finally, how dare you presume that I'm "messing up" my 2-year-old by hoping that he enjoys being a kid?

To all,
My presence here is due to my recent intense interest in Objectivism as a way of life. I'm reading and participating in these posts to learn. I pick posts by the titles that seem interesting, so cause that just seems the easiest way to start. The questions that I ask are part of how I'm trying to assimilate the mass amounts of information, and so far nothing has made me panic as one person suggested. (Well, until Chris said that I'm messing up my kid, but I've decided he's wrong, so there.) I really appreciate every response and every perspective (even the wrong ones). :-)

Post 43

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 9:20am

Well, until Chris said that I'm messing up my kid, but I've decided he's wrong, so there.

Well, I never said or wrote any such thing. What do you accomplish by making this up?

I didn't know if you had a daughter or a son, I was writing hypothetically. If my son was interested in cheerleading, I would be behind him all the way (except if he does some dangerous stunts).

I'm all for kids reading books like Harry Potter, provided they realize that they are fantasy. I have even traveled to several Buffy the Vampire Slayer conventions and own probably ten BTVS shirts. I own three DVD's. I sincerely think that such indulgences are actually beneficial and healthy, provided that you keep a proper perspective.

I don't necessarily advocate letting kids be kids. I advocate letting them be themselves. There is a big difference here.

(Edited by Chris Baker on 8/29, 9:22am)

Post 44

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 9:35am

I was brought up believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, the Boogey Man and that manipulative and terrifying notion that, if you are making faces -- and someone comes up behind you and slaps you on the back -- then your face will remain that way, forever. I was literally scared into accepting the Lord Jesus Christ into my heart as my personal Savior (by a vivid horror film about rapture -- shown to children in the church).

I was brought up believing that, if you say certain things, you'll jinx yourself -- and those certain and awful things will come true. I was brought up believing that heroes were only found in comic books -- and that being human is sub-optimal. I can say that fantasy has harmed me, though my current philosophical and psychological disposition is, statistically, extraordinary (I've built bucketloads of character).

I wrote something about how humans can deal well with reality, utilizing their conceptual power of awareness, here. I just wanted to be sure to show the potential folly inherent in fantasy. I, myself, have not even read fiction in the last 2 decades (because I find fact to be so captivating). Now, be sure, I don't think less of those who take time to read fiction (there are great truths and motivations to be had there) -- I'm just so captivated by that which is.

Don't hate me because I'm (or my mind is) beautiful.

;-)

Ed
[a "real-life" hero]

Post 45

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 7:05pm

Hi Deanna,

Rand certainly liked fairy tale stuff at times - at least unicorns. Here is a passage from The Art of Fiction (based on her lectures), pp. 125-126.

From Seven Gothic Tales
by Isak Dinesen
The road from Closter Seven to Hopballehus rises more than five hundred feet and winds through tall pine forest. From time to time this opens and affords a magnificent view over large stretches of land below. Now in the afternoon sun the trunks of the fir trees were burning red, and the landscape far away seemed cool, all blue and pale gold. Boris was able now to believe what the old gardener at the convent had told him when he was a child: that he had once seen, about this time of the year and the day, a herd of unicorns come out of the woods to graze upon the sunny slopes, the white and dappled mares, rosy in the sun, treading daintily and looking around for their young, the old stallion, darker roan, sniffing and pawing the ground. The air here smelled of fir leaves and toadstools, and was so fresh that it made him yawn. And yet, he thought, it was different from the freshness of spring; the courage and gaiety of it were tinged with despair. It was the finale of the symphony.
This is one of the most beautiful descriptions I have read in the Romantic style. ( Primarily a writer of fantastic stories, Isak Dinesen is hard to classify; but she is certainly nearer to being a Romanticist than a Naturalist.)

Rand particularly liked the idea of unicorns instead of horses because of what the image suggested. Her words:

Observe the connotations. That an old gardener at a convent tells something to a child has in itself a fantastic quality; and when he tells him that he has seen unicorns, this impossible fantasy projects the exact eerie quality of the afternoon. "A herd of horses" would not have produced the same effect, because the purpose is to suggest something supernatural, odd, almost decadently frightening, but very attractive.

Despite objections to fantasy from some Objectivists, you won't find any such objections from Rand. So I say let your kid get his treasure from the tooth fairy under his pillow while he still can.

The world is a wonderful place and these fantasies foster and nurture the sense of wonder at that age.

btw - The second bestselling author behind Rand whose work is openly derived from Objectivism is Terry Goodkind - an author of pure fantasy works. I hear he is a good friend of Yaron Brook, the current president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Michael

Post 46

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 8:57am

Chris, it was an attempt at making a joke, lightening a mood. Apparently, I was unsuccessful. My apologies.

Post 47

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 10:20am

The world is a wonderful place and these fantasies foster and nurture the sense of wonder at that age.

And that raises the question of why there is this persistant cry that to achieve this 'sense of wonder' there must be a resorting to fantasy - what is it of reality that supposedly is so barren that imagination would not provide all the sense of wonder one could hold, that would - because it is reality oriented- aid even moreso that development in a person to seek and achieve the 'best within him/her'...

Post 48

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 10:58am

What the Rev' said.

Ed

Post 49

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 11:00am

Robert,

All I can tell you to do is check your premises.

A child is at a stage where he is learning how to think and use his perceptual/conceptual equipment. There is a lot of bumping into stuff at that age. Fantasies allow him to learn the difference between the real and the unreal by making a game out of it.

Did you ever notice the fascination children have with cartoons where necks stretch all out of shape, where coyotes run off cliffs but have time to look down, look back, gulp and wave goodbye before falling, where a sledge hammer rams a character into the ground like a nail, but then the character pops back up and on and on and on and on?

This fascination with the absurd has a very real cognitive and sense-of-life function for development.

And then we all need to experience the innocent joy of childhood before advanced learning took place once in a while as emotional fuel. So adults consume fantasies at times too - and it is perfectly rational to do so. Rand did. As I pointed out, she wrote glowingly about it (although her focus was on technique).

Michael.

Post 50

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:51am

Yes Deanna, there is a Santa Claus.

Is Objectivism a lens through which to see and enjoy the world more clearly? Or a hammer with which to smite our imagined foes? I think the reactions in this thread toward �Narnia� show a lot more about the posters themselves than it does about the ~relative~ value of this particular movie in our culture.

(First, let me thank Michael Kelly for his post referring to Dinesen, whom I have obviously avoided in error for all these years simply because of my dislike for Meryl Streep.)

I first read Tolkien at 10 years old. My elementary school held a book fair after I had seen the cartoon version on TV. After 28 years I still remember the strength of the joy I felt when I saw that there was a paperback version. After devouring the �LOTR� and the �Silmarilion� I was distressed to find there were no other [major] works available by Tolkien. So for Easter my mom bought me the �Narnia Chronicles� which I read through in just two days. I remember liking them a lot but thinking they were �just kids� books.� I didn�t read Rand until I was 16, and I read her nonfiction first, TVOS to be specific. I went from a doubting Catholic freethinker to a full-blown atheist Objectivist in seven days. In between Tolkien and Rand I read the entire works of Heinlein, Niven, Herbert and (I�ll admit) Piers Anthony. I realized after reading Rand that I had been cursed with having read the best (Tolkien) first and realized why I was never quite fulfilled by the works of other authors. Tolkien and Rand re-created reality � full and self consistent worlds � while Niven just told good adventure stories and Heinlein was an erratic Romantic genius who could always start a good story but rarely finish one.

After graduating high school I had pretty much read through all the available Sci-Fi. And I never really enjoyed fantasy because it always seemed like third-rate Tolkien knock-offs. (Although the �Earthsea� trilogy by Leguin and its screen adaptation were both great, and �The Mists of Avalon� by M.Z.Bradley was second only to Tolkien � but with a terrible TV adaptation.) So I have reread most of my favorite authors over the years many times, three times through Atlas and four through LOTR and I have added in a lot of �grown-up� literature like Melville, Orwell, Hugo, Conrad and Dostoyevsky into the mix, but I never did reread C.S.Lewis. Then I heard the movie was coming out, so I tried once more to enjoy The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but I just couldn�t get through it. No problems with make-believe, no problems with scary lion-Jesus-monsters, just too juvenile for me to enjoy or hold my attention, a shame really.

Now is there anyone on this list (or anyone over the age of six worth talking to) who has a problem telling reality from fairytale make-believe? Is there anyone on this list (or anyone over the age of eight worth talking to) who can�t, as Kurt Eichert pointed out, figure out that the supposed ethical premises of guilt and betrayal in Lewis� story are just contradictory nonsense that not even a self-respecting Sunday-school teacher would try to defend? Yet I still watched the movie, and enjoyed it, for what it was, within its context � a visual spectacle and little more, but at least one that didn�t glorify depravity, that didn�t ask me to explicitly accept moral relativism or present me with gore instead of (if I might so dignify it) plot. I didn�t seek it out, I didn�t think it was great, I won�t look to watch it again � but I did enjoy it.

Think of it this way. The next time you get stuck in traffic, or on an elevator, or your train goes out of service, are you going to whine and moan about those f*@%ing irrational bastards who are ruining your productivity, or are you going to sit back and enjoy the landscape, read the funnies or listen to your i-pod? Are you going to use the full focus of your rational faculties to be miserable, or to be happy? The wisest words I�ve ever heard were taught to me by my father who learned them from the Jesuit brothers of Phila.West Catholic � �Only you can make you happy.�

Yes, there is a Santa Claus, someone who distributes unconditional joy, and every day is Christmas. And Santa Claus is you.

P.S. Ms Delancey, (forgive my presumption here) I�d suggest that you never encourage or discourage your son in �believing� in anything, just never tell him lies, and always answer his questions as clearly as possible for his level of understanding. Someday he will ask you, �Mommy, it�s just make believe, isn�t it?� and you can tell him �Yes, it is just make-believe. But don�t tell the �little� kids. Let them be happy.�

Ted Keer Manhattan 08/31/06

Post 51

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 1:01pm

Robert,
What's the difference between the fantasies Michael speaks of and the imagination that you speak of? Fantasies originate in imagination, do they not?

Post 52

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 4:52pm

To imaginate is to extrapolate from that which is, reality, and project its possibilities.. to fantasize is to deal with the impossible rather than the coulds and oughts to be... in the old days, when life was much more a matter of sustanence, one could understand the idea of not distinguishing the two - especially since religion itself, by its nature, dealt with the fantastic and impossibles and proclaimed them as coulds... indeed, religions proclaimed reality to be a vale of tears, to be despised and forsaken, and to yearn for the pie-in-the-sky of heavens and all the like...

Moreover, in the youth of civilization, there was needed to learn the difference between the two, thus to be able to distinguish what is real and what is not and could not ever be - but we have passed beyond that youth, that childness, into at least the adulescent phase if not a bit more, and have learned this difference, even as there is revolt against acknowledging this, for fear of giving up long habituations... to claim that fantasies are harmless, is to claim that one refuses to acknowledge the difference between reality-oriented imaginating and the non-reality oriented fantasy - and further, to claim that by forsaking the fantasy, the world would be poor for it, that by adheasing to reality, one 'loses' a value in a nothingness which cannot be found in imaginating... it is the tired claim of tradition for its own sake, not the voice of rationality applying inventiveness and imaginating, joying in reality and seeking to expand on the possibilities...

Make no mistake, whatever you claim as a gain of fantasy is only that aspect of it which does pertain to reality [and some aspect has to else there'd be nothing to tie it to any sense of understanding]... as such, of what real use, then is this fantasy, if the only real value comes from the reality-orientedness of it - the non-real is a nothingness, of no value to the flourishing of a human, any human, so why not discard it and deal with that aspect which does give value, imaginating.....

Post 53

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 1:32am

Oh ... yeah! Now THAT'S why it is that I call you the Rev'rend, Rev'rend!

Spot on.

Ed

Post 54

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 1:02am

Robert,

I am trying to bite my tongue to avoid saying something like it's a shame you were not around to teach Ayn Rand how to get it right. I think you completely miss the point of the psychological need served by fantasy (but Rand sure didn't).

The purpose is not to deny reality (or make any gains or whatnot). It is to give a workout to the imagination. It is for fun and nothing else. Notice that even children are aware of the difference between what a cartoon character does and what they can do in reality. Yet they are fascinated by the cartoons. Notice how easily kids give up the notion of Santa Claus when they are finally told. Or the Easter Bunny. It seems like their doubts about how Santa and the others do all that impossible stuff gets answered with the revelation, so it is not painful.

Nobody forces kids to watch cartoons for hours. Nobody forces people to buy Goodkind's consistently best-selling books, either. These things serve a very real demand and the volitional action of all those oodles of people - kids and adults - consuming it is proof.

However, I do agree that reality-based fantasy is valuable in its own right.

btw - I find you stated views here inconsistent with your surreal fantasy-like paintings.

Michael

Post 55

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 8:57am

Just another thought. Even dogs have fantasies on one level. When they wrestle with a human being, they are feigning that the person is an enemy that needs biting and growling. They know he isn't the enemy in reality, so they don't bite hard.

Of course, this activity by a dog could be called faking reality by positing that a non-enemy is an enemy, that A is not A, and going off into make-believe in order to have some fun...

Maybe if the dog programmed its subconscious better...

//;-)

Michael

Post 56

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 11:25am

Michael:

     Well quoted point about Rand's view of 'fantasy' in literary works. The 'wonder' in such (especially for children), when done by a good writer, is of fantastical realms that might (or may have once) exist(ed), but, for children, acquisition of familiarity with the reality around them causes 'wonderness' of reality to fade away...until you take them somewhere NEW and DIFFERENT (like,  you know what they say about 'familiarity'...though for kids I'd say it breeds boredom.) At least until they discover (epistemologically?) new perspectives to use in seeing the formerly familiar around them. --- Methinks that good 'fantasy' can be a metaphor for discovery of new perspectives in looking at the familiar, (apart from the usual metaphors often used therein anyway) but, I digress.

     If I may iterate a point or two you implied about children, they really are not Randian adults who should all be expected to think like Rearden in a given (as in Narnia) situation. Most children never were (or are) of Rand's mental calibre around the ages in that story. I know that *I* certainly wasn't. Were all such, 'developmental' child-psychology'd be pointless to attempt discoveries about. We all know that 6 and 13 yr-olds don't 'think' like Roark did...or Rand. That plus children written about by C.S. Lewis would be expected to be 'christian' oriented, non?

     Interestingly, I didn't see much of 'christianity' per se in the movie-version, given all I've read about Lewis' books being oriented so. Indeed, I suspect many Narnia-book purists see a lot left out of the movie (like, what's new 'tween book-writers and Hollywood? Alan Moore didn't want to be associated to the movie-version of his "V".) --- Yes, the lion (whatever his name) was 'resurrected', but, unlike the biblical version of Christ, such wasn't exactly a 'miracle' in Narnia so much as a result of an oversight by The Wicked Queen re some small print in some kind of contract/cosmic-law 'twixt the realms of good and evil. She blew it, ergo, he gets to return to fight another day.

     That last aside though, for all that Pat Robertson rode on the popularity of the movie, (attempting to buttress his choir...and monetary prayer send-ins) re the known background reputation of Lewis, the movie itself didn't really push 'christian' themes, all said and done that I saw. Indeed, akin to LOTR (and H. Potter) it seemed to push its major stress on the idea of courage and commitment in the face of intimidatingly lethal threats (especially to children), and, unlike LOTR (but akin to SW!), redemption possibilities for wrongs done (betrayal, for one): redemption for 1 child seduced, then extorted, by The Wicked Queen, as well as for the satyr (I forget his name) re the 1st youngest discoverer he (it?) met...and reported to the Queen about. Indeed, the scene re the satyr's regret...and attempt to recompense...I found very moving.

     Most noteworthy of all though, was...The Wicked Queen. She (I forget the actress' name, unfortunately) was absolutely great as EVIL INCARNATE. If one's going to look at this with christian-glasses, her name should have been Satana The Demonatrix (or, Lilith). She outdid Disney's noted (by many commenters re presentation of scariness for kids) wicked witch in Snow White, Cinderella's step-mother, Maleficient in 'Sleeping Beauty', etc. She could give Hannibal a run for his...menus. The Wicked Queen was seduction, extortion, and then finally and ultimately her goal: obey my arbitrary demands...or else! --- For kids, the moral obviously was: "Don't take candy from strangers, even if they smile at you...and it tastes really good"       :D

     Movie-wise, it was not only worth seeing, it was also worth HAVING your kids see. (Need I add, with conversation about it 'twixt you and them? But then, re kids seeing any movie, that applies to all movies, non?) On its own, re all us 'Objectivists', it was a cinematically very-well-done (as LOTR)...fairy tale fantasy. --- Such should be let go at that.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: My wife's favorite fantasy-character is a cousin of the unicorn. Pegasus. The scene in Disney's (original) "Fantasia" with the herd of them traipsing through the clouds to land in Olympia's lake to the strains of Beethoven's 9th IS a favorite scene of hers. Every year I search for a new figurine/statue of Peggy. --- The only thing 'wrong' with fantasy is how literal some wish (to be redundant) to see it, rather than how metaphorically meaningful it can be about 'reality'.

(Edited by John Dailey on 9/01, 12:27pm)

Post 57

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 8:36pm

Just another thought. Even dogs have fantasies on one level. When they wrestle with a human being, they are feigning that the person is an enemy that needs biting and growling.

Michael, do you have any proof of that, or is it just speculation? I don't think that the dog sees the person as an enemy, they are just playing, but barking a growling are their only verbal means of communication. A bark or growl could mean many things. Dogs are obviously not capable of sophisticated communication, so I don't think we should assign a bark to have one set meaning. Just curious.

Post 58

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:14pm

John Dailey:

The actress' name is Tilda Swinton, she is the lead in "Orlando" a film adaptation of the novel by Virgina Woolfe, a fantasy about an immortal who occasionally regenerates by sleeping for years at a time. The story runs from Elizabethean to modern day England. The movie is wonderful visually and I highly recommend it.

Swinton also appears in Derek Jarmans' "Edward II" where again she plays the ice-queen type, but King Edward was notoriously effeminate and was murdered for his homosexuality, the movie is gay themed and many will find the homeoeroticism unapealling. The work is good if you don't mind watching men french-kiss. Both Run on the Ovation channel

Thanks for reminding me of Fantasia, god I loved that movie, and Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony with the Pegasi was mine and my sisters favorite. Divine music, wonderful sense of life animation. Something everyone must see. Congress outta pass a law...

Post 59

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:09pm