« Home | Merry Christmas! » | Addiction » | Slashdot Recap » | Male Bond-ing » | Interview with Piper » | Ben's Soulmate » | Public Service Announcement » | Embarrassment » | We incorporated! » | Blues Clues Sings the Blues (sorry, 'blues' worked... »

Pure Fantasy

In case you're interested, someone has created a list of every deviation Peter Jackson took in his movies from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books. I'm glad that I'm never this obsessive-compulsive.

Furthermore, Apple's Trailers site has recently put up a two minute trailer of the upcoming Chronicles of Narnia movies, which will begin with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. (Note: this isn't a theatrical trailer, but more of a "making of" trailer, although it does look like they have included very small clips of things that might be from the movie.) If you generally liked what the filmmakers did with the Lord of the Rings series, it looks like you will enjoy this: the same people are doing the special effects, and it's being filmed in New Zealand. Disney is also in on the deal, but that will probably simply mean deeper pockets rather than an over-childrification of the films. It's supposed to come out December 9th, 2005, so that will (hopefully) be an enjoyable Christmas activity next year.

By the way, which Narnia book was your favorite? I personally preferred The Magician's Nephew because the whole creation thing at the end was so cool, but I suppose a good case could also be made for The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, or for The Last Battle. The other ones were good, but compared to the big three (at least, the big three in my mind), they were little more than fillers.

Labels: ,

Call me a "filling-lover", but I always liked "The Horse and His Boy" the best. It just seemed like such a great story of connection, hope, relationship, and was the most exciting. It was like, the only one where the ending wasn't some big, Aslan-miracle Kung-Pow thing. Rather, Aslan's main role is in leading a lost person home again, and helping him find purpose along the path.

-Ivan - www.geocities.com/prayn4food

Fillers?! If you don't read all of the adventures of Narnia, you won't have a full understanding of it by the end. Take it as your proverbial pizza:
Your "big three" are the crust, sauce, and cheese, which are essential to the being of pizza. But everything else such as hamburger, pepperoni, and even pineapple for some weird people, are not essential, but serve to make a greater, more flavorful pizza which by the end, you often cannot imagine without.

I think I'd cry if I didn't know how Reepicheep made it to the World's End, or of the stories of Archenland and the Underworld.

I'm a 'Voyage of the Dawn Treader' fan.

I knew I was going to get in trouble for my "fillers" comment. :) I would, however, like to reestablish the context for what I said: I certainly think that the other books are good (indeed, I haven't come across a C.S. Lewis book that I haven't liked), but I think that certain ones are more equal than others.

I am partial to the first book and the last two books because the Chronicles of Narnia were designed specifically to be allegorical, and if something is going to be allegorical, I like clear allegory. Most of all, I especially like how The Magician's Nephew gave me a better understanding of what was going on in the Bible's account of creation (I never really understood the problem with the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden until I read the book by Lewis).

But still, far be it from me to criticize the works of C.S. Lewis, who I think will be seen as one of the most influential Christian thinkers/writers of all-time. No one else had a better grasp of the nature of sanctification--he, second to none, explained in astonishing clarity the nature of our natures, both first Adamic and second Adamic. Thus, I retract my "filler" comment.

******************
Off topic questions and comments:
1) Has anyone else always said, "Far be it for me..." instead of "Far be it from me..."? I had been saying the wrong thing for as long as I can remember, but Ms. Austen posthumously straightened me out the other day.

2) I spent about 30 minutes trying to determine whether the sentence in my third paragraph should be "...whom I think will be seen..." or "...who I think will be seen...". (If anyone thinks that my final decision, "who," is incorrect, please let me know.) I really wish that UNL would offer a real grammar course.

But still, far be it from me to criticize the works of C.S. Lewis, who I think will be seen as one of the most influential Christian thinkers/writers of all-time.

Your usage of "who" in that sentence was correct, as who is the subject:"who...will be seen" (although it is a bit tricky since you used passive voice). Easy test to determine who vs. whom: substitute "he" or "him." If "he" is correct, use "who;" if "him" is right, use "whom."

I know The Chronicles of Narnia are allegorical, but if I remember clearly, C.S. Lewis didn't write them with specific evangelistic intent, rather, it "just happened" as I think he said. Being a Christian, Christian ideals and thoughts naturally seeped into the writing rather than it being intentional.

Bethany--
You are correct! I simply forgot to use that test. (Instead, I called "will be seen" a linking verb, causing the sentence to require the nominative "who" rather than the objective "whom.")

The only thing that makes me a bit leery about a pronoun-substitute test, though, is that our ears often tell us the wrong thing, especially when it comes to linking verbs like this. For example, our ears tell us that we should say, "That would be me," or "That's me," when the linking verb "to be" requires the nominative form of the pronoun--thus, even though "That would be I" sounds somewhat bizarre, it is actually the correct form (we do, though, make a point of saying, "This is s/he" when we answer the phone, which is correct).

This is my problem with grammar--I only know about enough to get myself into trouble (similar to Hawkeye's statement on MASH: "I know only enough Korean to get my face slapped.") UNL's sole course about grammar is interested in the cultural aspect of grammar--it describes how grammar as an abstract concept works, but it does not prescribe how one should use grammar. At times like these, I really miss my 11th grade English teacher--Mrs. Kort. She would beat grammar into us like nobody's business. Whither art thou, Mrs. Kort?

In any case, the passive voice is certainly the bane of my grammarian existence. I guess I've spent too much time with books on parliamentary procedure that use passive voice as a matter of style (i.e., "It is moved and seconded that..." is better than "Mr. Jones moved that...and Mrs. Anderson seconded the motion" both for reasons of simplicity and impartiality--when names are thrown around, members begin to debate people, not ideas). I would appreciate being held accountable for this. (Yes, I purposefully used the passive voice on that last sentence.)

Lindsey--
I'm not sure that I would agree with the idea that the Christianity of C.S. Lewis simply seeped into such clear-cut allegory as several of the books in Chronicles of Narnia, because what he ended up with was much more than ideals and thoughts. Besides, I don't think that allegory is usually evangelistic in its intent. Rather, I think that allegory is often instructional by putting familiar stories in unfamiliar settings to reinforce the messages held in those stories.

That said, I think that the stories I previously so callously called "fillers" probably constitute the sort of stories to which you are referring. It may be that I, having read allegory in some of the books, expected what C.S. Lewis had not intended to be in the other books.

(Wow. That comment ended up being far longer than I intended it to be.)

For example, our ears tell us that we should say, "That would be me," or "That's me," when the linking verb "to be" requires the nominative form of the pronoun--thus, even though "That would be I" sounds somewhat bizarre, it is actually the correct form (we do, though, make a point of saying, "This is s/he" when we answer the phone, which is correct).Ah, but "that" is not the subject of those sentences; "I" is. So if you think about it, it only makes sense that it would be "I" and not "me," as "me" cannot be a subject.

I think I'd be a full-fledged grammar snob if I knew the proper terms for things. I can never remember exactly what a gerund is, or a participial phrase, but I have a good instinct and ear for how things are suppose to be, grammatically, and remember the rules, if not the terms.

Post a Comment