]]>
In life, we often see people suffer as a result of their past behaviour. Sometimes, with reason (it is the consequence of past choices), but we still if God has punished them too much. But I think SYorickson and Swan hit on it when they pointed out that all discipline from God is good. He sees the bigger picture and knows exactly what each person needs to be drawn to him (or drawn nearer to him). In some cases a harsh lesson is required (as was apparently necessary for Aravis), but in other cases, simply a reprimand is enough (like in Edmund's case). (emphasis added)
We can all agree that Edmund betrayal of his family is, at least as far as we see with our earthly perspective, a far worse sin than Aravis'. And yet, he just stayed up all night talking with Aslan while Aravis was physically wounded. Why is that? (Again, from our earthly perspective.)
And then something Lily said also caught my attention:
My issue is whether, ...after a journey in which she has suffered much and begun to learn her lesson about lower-class people being able to be honorable comrades and human beings (Shasta), it's quite a proportionate punishment for her to be non-fatally torn open and bedridden in extreme pain.
This in combination with Ajnos' comment led me to this: What if the apparent disproportion in punishment between Edmund (the "worse" sinner with the lesser punishment) and Aravis (the "lesser" sinner with the worse punishment) was based not so much on the past, but on the present? (For the rest of the post, when I speak in the present tense, I mean "at the time of confrontation by Aslan".) Edmund was already repentant before the Narnians rescued him and brought him to camp. Aravis, though she's learned to respect someone below her station as her companion and would not have left him behind had she shown up at the tombs first, shows no indication of repenting of what she did to the slave. We could again bring up the arguments that she was raised to see servants as tools to be used (though that doesn't jive so well with her learning to respect Shasta, as far as her present state goes) and that the drugging may have been an essential step in her escape, and thus she didn't -- and still doesn't -- believe she was in the wrong to do it. But isn't that what the gift of repentance is about, that even though we can justify ourselves and be confronted by someone else about what we've done (in Aravis' case, Shasta stated that her attitude about the slave girl was rather hard), it's not until we have a change of heart that we can truly repent?
As for the severity of Aravis' punishment, sure, Aslan could have just talked to her, maybe even growled like he did at Lucy in PC for good measure. Maybe that would have affected a change -- and goodness knows that sometimes, that's all it takes -- or maybe the scratching was a necessary catalyst to Aravis' repentance. And/or maybe it was very simply what Aslan told her: that she needed to know what it felt like, that is, to grasp the full consequence of her actions (which fits into the book thematically: recall the "I am the lion" monologue and how Lord Bar's attempt to thwart the prophesy actually led to its fulfillment; Aravis' case is just a "negative" result, as far as we can see from an earthly perspective at this time, though it was brought up several times that the future effect can be conjectured to be positive).
On a semi-related tangent, in the event that my ramblings now brings up the question of how Eustace fits in (being a "lesser" sinner than Edmund but repentant before Aslan literally skins him alive (which is worse than just a scratching, even if he did get almost-immediate healing in the pool)), I don't think we need to look a whole lot farther than Eustace's own words: like peeling off a scab, that it hurt like billy-oh but what a pleasure it was to feel that stuff come off (emphasis added). His punishment wasn't the "undressing" (though it was directly related and is thus part of the punishment), but the dragoning itself. Besides the point of our own inability to wholly change ourselves, try as we might, and that we need to submit to God's root-cause cleansing, Eustace's undragoning also has the element of the temporary pain of cutting off the old nature from the new. It's a transformation, a dying to oneself, and thus different in both tone and purpose from the clawing of Aravis.
Statistics: Posted by Ariel.of.Narnia — Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:47 pm
]]>
]]>
I think we should be careful about accusing C.S. Lewis as misrepresenting Christ as at that stage he had been a Christian for some time and had thought about Christ quite a bit.
Frankly, though, we're not "accusing" him of doing it "on purpose", just accidentally, through the general non-unfallibility of humankind. I've been Christian all my life but I certainly wouldn't trust myself to be 100% accurate when it comes to God, and I think Lewis himself would probably be honest enough to admit he may not have got things 100% correct if he had things pointed out to him.ETA: Also, a while ago, this whole conversation, and especially Knight's last points, reminded me of a story in the Gospels - can't look it up right now, sorry, in a bit of a hurry - where the disciples ask Jesus if a tower falling on some people was a punishment for something, and he says a definite No.
And it's like, accidents happen, things that mean something have to MEAN SOMETHING.
If that makes any sense. As noted, I'm posting in a bit of a hurry.
Statistics: Posted by marmota-b — Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:35 am
]]>
If an accident had happened to Aravis, and she had been injured equally to the whipping of her servant, perhaps some people would blame it on Aravis.
In our world, we can't necessarily link bad events with meaning that that person is worse than another. But even if it was a person's fault, it doesn't help them at all if other people blame them. We have to trust that if they did do something wrong, that God will tell them Himself. And if they didn't do anything wrong, then they definitely need our help and not to feel any extra guilt.
I think Lewis was trying to have Aravis realize her treatment of her servant was wrong, and maybe show, as Aslan is a lion, a way a lion would punish. Now that I think about it, he might've gone a little too far with Aslan directly scratching Aravis. But if he hadn't, how would Aravis have realized that all people should be given respect? If this hadn't happened, readers would think she just changed her mind about Cor/Shasta because it turns out he is prince instead of a peasant.
Statistics: Posted by HermitoftheNorthernMarch — Thu May 05, 2016 12:31 am
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Lily of Archenland — Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:00 am
]]>
*Digory is made to put the safety of Narnia over his concerns for his mother.
*Edmund gets stabbed by the White Witch which might never have happened if Edmund had just gone with the others to reach Cair Paravel and be crowned kings and queens which we are told would have ended the Witch's life.
*Lucy is reprimanded for waiting for Edmund to get well when she could be helping to heal other Narnians.
*Shasta is also scratched by Aslan, but it is in his cat form, so that's kind of minor, but it was also for mistreating others (cats) in the past.
*Peter almost leads his siblings and Trumpkin into a trap, which he does get in trouble for.
*Eustace has the dragon skin removed.
*Jill is made to learn the signs, but almost gets Puddleglum, Eustace, and herself eaten by giants by forgetting them.
*Caspian and Eustace hit bullies with the flats of their swords while Jill hits them with a whip.
*The children (okay, they were not really children anymore) would also have avoided the train accident in LB if they hadn't been trying to use the rings, which Aslan had told them not to use in MN.
Statistics: Posted by HermitoftheNorthernMarch — Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:02 pm
]]>
]]>
(I always thought of the Bolt of Tash being like a lightning bolt, but it could also be a reference to that he's a sort of bird man. Maybe they think he's supposed to drop out of the sky like a seagull diving into the waves to catch fish.)
Statistics: Posted by HermitoftheNorthernMarch — Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:37 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
As for the linguistic similarities, they seem to make sense.
The Calormens are old-fashioned/traditionalists, and also have flowery proverbs for poetry. And Frankenstein was written in an older time than Lewis's, while still recent enough for the language to be recognizable, and was written by somebody who hung out with poets and some scholars suspect was stylistically influenced by her poet-husband.Statistics: Posted by Lily of Archenland — Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:30 am
]]>
]]>
]]>