SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • teleologist: Thanks you for the opportunity to express our opinions with the time that we had. Tongues will cease,...
  • Orthodoxdj: As Tolkien said to Lewis as they parted on that fateful night in Oxford, “Goodbye.”
  • Livingston Dell: I didn’t always comment as frequently as I had liked to on these articles, but I always...
  • Nikolai Volk: You know, we had a hell of a run in these comment sections. I’ve had many a great discussion with...
  • David Strunk: Hey Joe, I also appreciated what you guys did here, and always had this blog on my RSS feed to see the...
  • Amy K. Hall: Thanks for starting the blog, Joe. It was an honor to be included.
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 11:28 AM

    This past week I finally was able to take my family to see “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” which is a marvelous film.  Though it streamlines some of the book’s plots (it’s a favorite of my children), we found the film to be quite satisfying.

    As the movie reached its climax, I was dazzled by the levels of allegory that were present.  Mind you, my doctorate is in Medieval / Renaissance literature, so this kind of literature and film is a playground for my imagination.  I love finding the story within the story, where, as Milton would say, there is more than meets the eye.  I adore typology, symbolism, and subtext.  I am gobsmacked by how well Lewis creates symbolic depictions of confession, redemption, and rebirth.  Literature is one of the best ways to communicate elements of the Gospel to non-believers because I believe that God designed us to resonate with narrative in very specific ways (my book “God as Author: A Biblical Approach to Narrative” outlines this in detail).  “Creation-Fall-Redemption” resonates incredibly with “Rising Action-Climax-Falling Action,” somehow inverting the pattern, looking-glass style.  We can find at least a shadow of the Gospel in virtually every human narrative through its very structure.

    As I have pondered the Narnia series for the past few days, however, I have been fairly crest-fallen at how ill-equipped viewers and readers are to understand what Lewis (or Tolkien or Milton or . . . , well, you get the point) is doing with allegory.  Most literary theorists view allegory as quaint and out of date.  It certainly isn’t worth teaching to our students.

    This is ironic, of course, because almost all literary theory is based on allegory.  When a feminist critic says that a work is “really” about the struggle for women under the oppressiveness of a patriarchy, that’s really an allegorical reading of a kind.  When a Marxist says that what’s “actually” going on in a story is the struggle of the proletariat against those who hold economic hegemony, it’s another kind of allegorical reading. 

    Somehow, however, as we have left allegory behind, perhaps killing it off precisely because of its religious origins, we have ended up leaving viewers and readers with oddly literalistic interpretive skills.  The Narnia films, then, are nice movies about brave children.  We like them because we want to be brave.  There: that’s all. 

    When I was in graduate school, I used to chuckle that my more theologically conservative classmates, the ones who were quietly ridiculed for taking the Bible “literally,” were the ones who understood literature more thoroughly as a symbolic artform that communicated on multiple levels.  The ones who thought that the Bible was a “nice story” that shouldn’t be taken literally all tended to view literature in a way that was almost slavishly literal.  In the end, they would aver “This is what the story means to me,” sort of giving their own personal testimony about the story, where they discovered an interesting version of themselves in the text.  I often say that what lies at the heart of most lovers of literature is a single impulse: “Let me read a story about someone who is unique and interesting, someone just like me.”   Ego-centrism, to a great extent, is the highest form of literalism.

    After September 11th, some critics observed that we had witnessed the death of irony.  In the wake of such shared, genuine horror, how could we ever go back to hearing people imply with a wink that nothing is real or true?  How could we ever entertain such innocent fun as the tongue-in-cheek observation?  Irony is not dead, of course, it’s merely been refined into the sharper cultural dagger of sarcasm.  Sarcasm is not subtle; it is aggressive.  It’s not an inside joke but rather an in-your-face affront.  It is as literal as it is shameless.

    Amazingly, however, despite the ignorance people currently endure where allegory is concerned, I think that allegory is what we call a divinely designed part of our humanity.  We watch something like the Narnia series and there is still something that attracts us to the story.  It’s not the literal story alone; we intuit that something else is going on.  Something more powerful.  Something beyond ourselves.  We imagine however subconsciously that the human author may be tapping into something greater than him / herself.  We suspect that there may be another Author who has granted a touch of narrative fire to that author.  A splinter of that haunting thought lies buried in our hearts and in our minds until our spirits are strangely moved by a glimpse of His identity, and then a realization that all of our stories are really re-tellings of the Story that He Himself has used to reveal His great love to us.

    13 Comments

      BillT
      January 4th, 2011 | 12:54 pm | #1

      Speaking of allegory. If you haven’t seen “Tangled” you might be surprised by the level of allegory in it. Just as a hint, Rapunzel’s forest pet is named Pascal.

      Truth Unites... and Divides
      January 4th, 2011 | 1:46 pm | #2

      “When I was in graduate school, I used to chuckle that my more theologically conservative classmates, the ones who were quietly ridiculed for taking the Bible “literally,” were the ones who understood literature more thoroughly as a symbolic artform that communicated on multiple levels.”

      Blasphemy!!

      No way that hick Bible-thumping literalist-fundys did what you say they did.

      David Strunk
      January 4th, 2011 | 2:04 pm | #3

      “Ego-centrism, to a great extent, is the highest form of literalism.”

      That’s an interesting insight and one I will ponder for a while. Very profound points in this post. Thanks.

      Craig Payne
      January 4th, 2011 | 2:05 pm | #4

      Regarding the Dawn Treader film: the one scene at the heart of the book, the scene I was waiting for, the scene which would have kicked the entire movie up a notch, was somewhat downplayed: the scene in which Aslan uses his claws to tear off, very painfully, Eustace’s dragon skin, to give him his new birth.

      Still a good movie, but that could have been THE scene.

      Tom Gilson
      January 4th, 2011 | 2:09 pm | #5

      The word I’ve heard is that if they had done it to match the book, it would have kicked the age-rating up a notch too, and they wanted to avoid that. I agree it was a loss, but understandable if that was really the reason for it.

      Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e154v3
      January 5th, 2011 | 8:12 am | #6

      [...] In praise of allegory and mythopoetic fiction. [...]

      Wednesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath
      January 5th, 2011 | 8:13 am | #7

      [...] In praise of allegory and mythopoetic fiction. [...]

      Flotsam and jetsam (1/5) « scientia et sapientia
      January 5th, 2011 | 10:30 am | #8

      [...] Fant discusses the importance of allegory in literature. Somehow, however, as we have left allegory behind, perhaps killing it off precisely because of [...]

      Tweets that mention An Obituary (However Temporary) for Allegory in the Land of Narnia » Evangel | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com
      January 5th, 2011 | 10:35 am | #9

      [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Ellsworth. Tim Ellsworth said: An Obituary (However Temporary) for Allegory in the Land of Narnia, by Gene Fant at First Things http://bit.ly/f9WbGA [...]

      An obituary for allegory? | S I L O U A N
      January 5th, 2011 | 11:33 am | #10

      [...] a post on the Narnia movie “Voyage of the Dawn-Treader,” Gene Fant [...]

      Craig Payne
      January 5th, 2011 | 4:42 pm | #11

      Dear Tom Gilson: That makes sense.

      Kind of ironic, isn’t it?–that an extended violent scene involving a rather ugly sea serpent is okay, but a scene involving the pain of spiritual regeneration might be too much for the kids?

      david c
      January 5th, 2011 | 4:51 pm | #12

      It is one of my favorite scenes in all of Narnia as well and I think it could have been done without kicking up the rating. Lewis’ description of it is not at all bloody — like a butterfly being stripped of a chrysalis… it could have been done I think.

      Perhaps the makers of the film didn’t like the image of baptism following regeneration. (that’s a joke folks…)

      Colin
      January 16th, 2011 | 11:10 pm | #13

      Tolkien despised allegory. I refuse to believe that there is allegory, as some say, where the author explicitly denied it. Perhaps the insistence that there IS, in fact, allegory in Tolkien’s work whether he intended it or not is another manifestation of “ego-centrism?”

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact