Power to the People

[Bêthberry]

I'm going to put this comparison here in Books, as I think it pertains best to Tolkien's and Lewis' books, but if Esty thinks it belongs better in movies, why, I'm sure she will wave her magic wand and we shall find ourselves in the popcorn gallery rather than in the coffee house.

One of the points which I think we Downers have come to repeatedly in terms of Tolkien's work is his sympathetic stance with anarchism and his fervent horror of statism; for all his conservatism, his attitude towards authority is not absolute. After all, the error of Saruman is his desire for power over others. The implied reunification of the kingdoms suggests more a diplomatic association rather than an empire from sea--Nurnen and Rhûn--to sea--Belegaer. The Shire has considerably autonomy. And what little we see of Elessar the King suggests he is anything but an absolute monarch.

Can we say the same of Lewis' work? I recently saw an article which made the claim that Narnia is a horrible movie because "the reward for heroic behaviour is getting to have political power over others." Now, is this sour grapes? A fair statement to make of Lewis' work?

Is there a significant difference between these two Inklings here in terms of their stance towards authority?

And since it's been ages since I read Lewis, I will gladly leave the floor to those of you more read and more recently read in Narnia.

[the guy who be short]

Are you limiting this to a comparison strictly between Narnia and Gondor, or a wider comparison of Lewis and Tolkien? Just thought I'd ask...

[Bêthberry]

Far be it from me to limit discussion in such a controlling way, tgwbs. I think both might be kind of interesting, although personally I might be more intrigued by the wider one.

[the guy who be short]

In that case, I will actually need to read some non-Narnian Lewis. It'll be interesting to see if anybody here has read Out of the Silent Planet or anything else.

As for Narnia; I'm not really sure a direct comparison can be made between Narnia and Midde-Earth. The former was aimed specifically at younger children, the latter at, to generalise a little, the oddballs in society.

But more importantly than that is the religious message behind Narnia. Narnia is accepted as a rewriting of the Bible, more or less. That makes Peter and co. divinely appointed rulers rather than dictators. And - though Medieval kings may have claimed this - the difference here is that the children were appointed as rulers directly by Aslan. Their rule is a theocratic one.

However, they are benevolent dictators. In this respect, Lewis doesn't differ from Tolkien. As Elessar rules in name but gives regions a lot of autonomy, so the Children rule in name but, I presume, let the inhabitants of Narnia go about their business. Certainly we see no Big Government, whether dictatorial or communistic, but an appreciation of individuality.

So, by my method of rambling about the first thing to come to mind, I have determined that their political views were more or less that same. Which means the difference is not in terms of political outlook or stance on authority, but in rewards.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

It will take some thought to make a more reasoned
analysis. off hand, the various aspects of Narnia
(rulership?) seem to be, as noted above, variants
of benevolent dictatorship--- with apparently no
noted dissension or rebellions. Middle-earth,
or the other hand, is interestingly varied, and more
in tune with the history of humanity. You do have
non-regal societies (Laketown, and the Shire)
and even more interesting, M-e peoples get
dissatisfied for various reasons and seek to change
their governmental organizations. And even Gondor after
the War of the Ring requires at least a pro forma
ratification of Strider's kingship. Much of the cause of
strife in Middle-earth, indeed, seems to come from
human restlessness and interest in change
(often just for the sake of change, even Numenor
not being exempt).

[Son of Númenor]

One thing that's always fascinated me about Tolkien is, to put it crudely, his politics.

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. Letters, 51

We see, roughly, an example of enlightened 'Anarchy' in Rivendell, and King Elessar's realm is nothing if not the model for Tolkien's ideal monarchy. What I find interesting is the vast chasm between Tolkien's political and social views and the reality of his (and our) time. The idea of self-sustaining anarchy in the time of WWII would have been laughable, and monarchy in any form was rapidly becoming archaic. Tolkien, I think, spurned 'practical' politics altogether, in the sense that his confessed "political opinions", as well as his almost regressive (not necessarily in a negative sense of the word, mind you) social ideals, seem divorced from the reality of the time . Tolkien, it seems to me, lived in the political idyll of his mind--and, to an extent, of Middle-earth.

These thoughts are cursory at best. I do not claim to have great insight into the subtlety of Tolkien's values. And I have said nothing of C.S. Lewis, who I am far less familiar with; I will leave it to others to comment on his beliefs.

[Formendacil]

I haven't read the article you refer to, regarding the Narnian monarchy, but the author of it seems (willfully or otherwise) ignorant of a very major fact of the Narnian monarchy: that it was MEANT to be held by Children of Adam (humans), and that the children of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe are the first humans in Narnia in over a hundred years.

Now, to the modern political correctness, it might seem wrong that the throne can only be held by humans, when Narnia is largely populated by mythological creatures or by talking beasts. However, becoming Kings and Queens of Narnia after the fall of the White Witch, isn't so much a reward for the Pevensie children as it is the fulfillment of their role in Narnia.

That said, I DO agree that there is a major difference that to be seen between the absolute monarchy of Narnia and the more "constitutional" monarchy of Greater Gondor. But whether or not this a good thing, or bad, I am not qualified to say...