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.