Skip to main content

The Horse and his Boy

As time goes on, classics of children's literature do not have the proper impact for a modern audience.  So it is with the C.S. Lewis stories of Narnia, which has incredibly outdated morals and values.

And so, in part 5 of our continuing series, we learn about... Terrorists...

(Synopsis on the flip)

The story begins with Shasta.  He lives with a fisherman named Arsheesh, who also seems to be able to tend an oil well in the back of his shack, but refuses to sign over his rights to a large Narnian corporation, thus proving he's a communist.  

One day, a party member from the south arrives and attempts to have Shasta drafted into the Glorious Calormen People's Army.  It is here that we find out that Shasta was actually right not to love Arsheesh, who was just a dirty commie, despite the fact that Arsheesh raised the boy, cared for him, and provided education and health care.  Nope, because he's a commie, we now see that he's the true face of evil, and so Shasta immediately plans to run away to the land of Narnia, where people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just like Jesus intended!

Shasta finds out that the noble's horse, Bree, is in fact a talking Narnian horse.  This horse is fulfilling his god directed duty of being a servant, but he's doing it in the WRONG place, for commie terrorist Muslims, and so wishes to run off to Narnia, where he can serve a good Narnian master.  Since Shasta is the only white person around, Bree immediately knows that he's a Christian, and so for the rest of the book acts properly subservient.

After a short journey, during which the horse and boy stay in the most luxurious casino/hotels along the Calormen coast, the two meet a second rider and horse, which they immediately assume is another party member from the south.  They intend to hide from the commies, but are tricked by lions into meeting up with them.  It turns out that the party member is in fact a girl, named Aravis along with her talking horse.  The horses attempt to get her to tell her story, and she must acquiese in the proper manner of things.  After all, the horses are Christians, which makes them better than her, even though they are servants.

Aravis is a descendent of the God Tash, but it is made very clear that this is merely a euphemism for Satan, or Mohammed, Since they both mean exactly the same thing.  Aravis' father properly had arranged her marriage, (Which is unusual for a commie, but it is explained that even commie terrorist Muslims can occasionally do the right thing)  but she didn't want to obey her father.  She prepared to kill herself rather than marry her chosen husband, when the Christian horse she was riding, Hwin, explained that if she went to Narnia, she could properly submit to a good white man, instead of a filthy commie.

Aravis escapes by claiming that she's going to a pre-marriage pagan orgy, which of course her father heartily agrees with.  During this, she gives her mandatory lesbian lover (Which it's established that ALL young women in this society are expected to have) a roofie and leaves her with a pamphlet that explains how the lover is evil and must take Jesus into her heart.  After this, Aravis pretends that she went off with her proper husband via text message, and runs away.

Finally, the two people arrive at Tashbaan, which is heavily guarded by Narnian soldiers.  Tashbaan has been under Narnian liberation for some time now, but the filthy commies who live there have been engaging in acts of terrorism, so as a result every person is checked thoroughly.  Except Shasta of course, who is immediately seen as a Narnian, and taken to the Green Zone.

In the green zone, it turns out that Queen Susan of Narnia is being courted by the son of the greatest prince in the land.  This normally would be a good thing, complete with a Narnian reality series, but it turns out that Rabadash is GASP a terrorist!  Yes, it turns out that the prince of Calormen was only PRETENDING to be a Christian, which was the only reason that queen Susan agreed to that date...  Rumors of the Susan/Rabadash sex tape are merely rumors...  until Queen Susan gets home of course, and then it turns out that it's real and Queen Susan gets a new series "I was prisoner of the evil sex commie terrorist satanists!"

It turns out that Shasta looks exactly like Corin, who is a young officer in the Narnian Air Force.  Corin is also the son of the Christian family that rules the neighboring kingdom of Archenland.  

Shasta leaves the green zone when the Narnian forces withdraw after killing the Calormen number two man and declaring victory.  This of course is NOT taken well back home by the Narnians, who know that King Peter is just cutting and running, until King Peter makes a public announcement that Jesus himself told Peter to bring the troops home.  That shuts them all up, as the Narnian media will tell you, and rumors of hot sauce sprayed satyrs are merely unfounded rumors.

But back to the plot.  Shasta waits for Aravis at the Tomb of the Ancient kings.  He is feted to a good Narnian rock group and an endless parade of good revival experiences as he waits.  Of course Aravis, being a silly girl, doesn't give ANY thought to how Shasta is suffering, since there's only ONE Christian channel on Calormen TV, and all the rest broadcast award winning pagan/satan/muslim/terrorist programming that erodes moral values.

It turns out that Aravis was recognized by a rich friend of hers, and after she was forced, FORCED I tell you, to engage in lascivious acts that are detailed for ten pages of loving detail, her friend helped her escape.  During the escape, the two stumble across a plan by the Calormens to bomb Cair Paravel.  They not only plan to take Cair Paravel, but also to create a Tash Mosque on the site of where they bombed the castle!  

After this, the group immediately phones in a tip to Narnian Homeland Security, which raises the Terror alert to RED!  King Peter is briefed regarding the specific threat during a golf game, and he decides to of course, do nothing and let Jesus solve the problem.

Aravis and Shasta arrive at the hermit's house, after a strange sequence in which Jesus shows up and has Aravis beat herself for all her nasty gay sins earlier in the book.    The hermit tends to Aravis, and sends Shasta on ahead.

Shasta gets lost and ends up in Narnia proper.  Jesus shows up, and engages everyone in a sparkling re-dedication ceremony, where Shasta accepts Jesus into his heart, and thereafter becomes a true paragon of humanity, who can truly do whatever he wants from now on, and Jesus will forgive him!

Soon the Narnian Army shows up, and immediately takes every suspicious and left leaning animal into custody, because there's a terrorist threat.  The REAL prince Corin wants to fight, but it's clearly explained to him that political heir apparents only serve in the Narnian National Guard, not the proper army.  Corin and SHasta sign up to fight with the National Guard, which inexplicably is then sent to the Archenland front.

The battle is told from the perspective of the Hermit, who is watching the war on his TV.  It opens with a bomb going off in Cair Paravel, and then glorious Narnian army soldier detaining the entire population of Archenland.  Clearly, if the terrorists are going to Archenland, they must have a support system in place.  The war ends with the permanent stationing of Narnian troops in Archenland, at the invite of the appointed ruler, who quickly figured out which side his bread was buttered on, and swore fealty to Narnia.

Aravis is then greeted by prince Cor, who turns out to be Shasta.  It turns out that Shasta was ALWAYS a Christian, and was raised by evil commies because he was abducted from his proper home.  It is also revealed that the only way that Aravis can stay in Archenland is if she's a citizen, since Archenland and Narnia are in the process of building ten meter high electrified fences with talking alligators on constant patrol.

Prince Rabadash has been captured, and the Narnians decide that he should be let go, since he's only a corporate criminal, and if they punish him, they will not have access to cheap Calormen goods.  However, Rabadash refuses to make a deal where he swears to become a Christian, and so as a result is executed.  The next Calormen they bring in immediately becomes a Christian and agrees to get Nar-mart as many cheap goods as they want.

Aravis and Shasta are married in a quicky ceremony on Narnian TV, during which we find out that Aravis was ALWAYS a christian too, so it's all ok.  No, really, she was.  Look, we don't have to provide you with the evidence, just take our word for it, she was always a christian, and just had to hide it from the commie/terrorists.  That's WHY there's no evidence, jeez...

Originally posted to detroitmechworks on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:13 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (22+ / 0-)

    One of these days, I'm gonna learn that I'm only really good at convincing people when I'm being a wiseass.

    by detroitmechworks on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:13:33 AM PST

  •  Yeah, Dickens and Jack London (5+ / 0-)

    suck too.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mohandas Gandhi

    by 2dimeshift on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:53:31 AM PST

  •  thanks, i always avoided those but now.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    detroitmechworks, Temmoku

    Progressives will lose all major messaging battles until they picket the limbaugh/hannity megastations and boycott those stations' local sponsors.

    by certainot on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:46:08 AM PST

  •  man, it's like a bull in a china shop (5+ / 0-)

    have you ever seen the path a bulldozer leaves through a pristine forest? that's the image in my mind after reading your diary here. You're driving roughshod over some pretty sensitive and complex allegory. The only consolation is that you're obviously not even trying to relate your exposition to the actual story. But why bother using the book to 'go off' on the Right wing at all??

    This 'adaptation' doesn't do the The Horse and His Boy justice. Arsheesh, for example, better fits the model of an amoral corporate wage slave than a socialist benefactor (who owns an oil well? where does that even come from?). This is an idiots interpretation of the story. In the same vein, why not pick out a book of Islamic folk tales to malign Al Quaeda, or use some folk fiction from the Jewish tradition to explain what idiots neo-conservative pro Israel groups are, or find some African folk tale to bash Charles Taylor. That would be just as narrow minded and irresponsible.

    The diary would do better to drop the vehicle of "A Horse and His Boy" in favor of a more direct rebuttal of modern fundamentalist Christianity. By maligning a story that encapsulates the complexity and contradiction of a specific religious mythology, the diarist turns an exposition that might otherwise be an effective critique of modern Christian values, into an uninformed and unpleasant rant.

    boo, two thumbs down!

    •  The point is- (5+ / 0-)

      to show exactly how far you have to skew a great story in order to make it conform to the right wing's twisted morals.

      Personally, I love Lewis' prose and think he's a fine author.  While I do disagree with him on many issues, he eloquently and elegantly describes his position.

      And I suck when I'm not being a wise ass...

      One of these days, I'm gonna learn that I'm only really good at convincing people when I'm being a wiseass.

      by detroitmechworks on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 03:36:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except that C.S.Lewis was a bit of an ass (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adrianrf, skwimmer, Temmoku

        you don't need to re-interpret his stories to see the Christianity Uber Alles attitude in them.  It's right there plain as day.

        •  Well, yes and no. (7+ / 0-)

          I dislike the overt, over-the-head Christianism of his science fiction novels, but I find the later Narnia stories more nuanced, with more shades of grey.  They had a huge influence on my own spiritual thinking.  After turning away from my Christian upbringing as I went into my 20's, they actually led me to regain some respect for Christianity when it is seen as not literal truth, but another set of stories with mythical power.

          For example, I've always liked the part where Aslan says -- (something along the lines of) -- that if people do good in the name of Tash (the scary god), they are really worshipping him (Aslan).

          It reminds me of William Blake's observation that a lot of Christians confuse God and Satan.  They think they're worshipping Jesus when they're really worshipping the devil;  and a lot of people who are accused of doing the devil's work are really doing God's work.

          I like that attitude of tolerance:  whatever cultural forms a person's religious imagery or set of beliefs might take -- Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, atheist -- if they are doing good, they are all right;  they are worshipping the deepest, truest "god."  

          In other words, God is goodness, harmony, truth, healthiness -- whatever the religious form it is given.

          •  Oddly enough (3+ / 0-)

            It was precisely this attitude of tolerance (which is also repeated near the end of The Last Battle) which had a large effect on my religious beliefs and attitude to life. That you to my teachers who read these books to me on Friday afternoons in primary school!

            FOSI: Full Of Shit Information - Both my sister and I are trivia freaks...

            by Spoc42 on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:57:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Uh. No. (0+ / 0-)
            For example, I've always liked the part where Aslan says -- (something along the lines of) -- that if people do good in the name of Tash (the scary god), they are really worshipping him (Aslan).

            That's what you highlight as an example of tolerance?  Really?

            It seems to me to be saying something very intolerant, actually.  That BY DEFINITION all good people must be followers of Aslan and BY DEFINITION all bad people are not, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves about who they're really worshipping.

            Besides, that's not really the part that pisses me off about the Last Battle, although thank you for highlighting it.  The really annoying thing is that Lewis does the usual bullshit of making it so that unbelief is identical to belief in Satan (Tash).  And since he's the author he gets to force that to happen in his characters.

            •  Yes, I do see it that as tolerance. (0+ / 0-)

              It had a profound, life-changing effect on me, and at least one other person here, so there must be something to that interpretation.

              I think the differences in perception of that passage come from differences in understanding the language of mythology.  Some people -- even those who don't like mythology -- tend to read these things as literally and concretely as fundamentalists do.  It strikes me that you are  doing that.

              It is metaphor.  You use the term "by DEFINITION."  Mythology is not left-brained and definitional.  It's isn't logical, separating, and categorical, with clear "equal signs".

              This is the same conflict that arises when Easterners have no problem saying one can be both a Christian and a Buddhist, or a Christian and a Hindu ... but fundamentalist Christians go into fits at that assertion and fervently deny any such possibility.

              When Blake says people confuse God and the Devil, he is speaking of those things as abstract forces, not as literal beings with a definite identity.  "The Devil" is an image/metaphor for harmful, damaging selfishness.  "God" is an image/metaphor for what is true, good, harmonious and beneficial.  

              One can consciously think one is worshipping the image of Jesus, and go to church, and say a zillion Christian prayers, and think one is acting and "doing good" in Jesus' name -- but if those actions are harmful and damaging, in this sense -- in the deeper  levels of reality -- that person is really "worshipping the devil."  That is, one is devoting one's life and energy to selfishly causing hurt and damage.  In that sense I would have no problem saying that half of the Bible-thumping Republican party is really worshipping the Devil.  

              Same with Narnia:  Aslan is not speaking as "Aslan the Big Lion Being";  he is speaking as the force of good and truth while in the form of a lion.  (I recall that he even says at one point that that's not his real, literal form ... that he has many forms.)  

              Goodness, truth, and healthiness are the real "God."  That can take a million forms, and that is what Aslan is speaking as the personification of.  The names and definitions and imagery are of little importance.  

              When people do good in the name of Tash, they are worshipping goodness and truth.  When Hindus do good in the name of Krishna, they are worshipping goodness and truth.  When atheists do good in the name of their moral code, they are worshipping goodness and truth.  If a professed Satanist consistently does nice, healing things, he or she is worshipping goodness and truth.  And so on ...

              If people could see things that way, that would indeed lead to more tolerance ... giving other people some slack instead of getting lost in the images and definitions, and fighting about them as if they were the primary and only thing.

              •  You're not getting it. (0+ / 0-)

                Of course I know it's a metaphor.  It's about a magic land with talking animals for crying out loud.  But what is it a metaphor FOR?  It's a metaphor for Lewis's view of Christianity.  And your idea of what Lewis thinks Christianity is about is completely wrong.  He does not think that God is merely a metaphor for good and right.  He thinks of God as actually existing as a thinking divine entity, and Aslan as a metaphor for that existing god.

                What you call literalism I call a hatred of dishonesty.  To claim the existence of a thinking divine entity of a god and then to dial it back to pretending it's only a metaphor for goodness and light and that's all (not necessarily actually a god then) when it comes time to defend the belief it exists is simply dodgy moving the goalposts.  If that was all god was, then there'd be no reason to argue that god exists.  The reason the term is used is because it's far more than a mere metaphor.  For an example of a mere metaphor, take the fable of the tortoise and the hare.  Nobody actually thinks that rabbit and that turtle really existed and really had that race.  Nobody above the age of 5.  That's because as a pure metaphorical tale, it doesn't actaully have to exist and be real to get the point across, and it is presented as a fiction.  No parent telling the story of the toroise and the hare to a child is actually trying to make the child believe it really happened, that's not the point of a metaphorical tale.  If Christianity was mere metaphor like that, no preacher would bother insisting upon virgin births, 3-day ressurrections, jesus being god's son, and so on.   Christianity is not taught as if it was merely a fairy tale.  It's not taught as if it was merely a metaphor.

                There is no difference between saying "it's all just a metaphor" and saying "it's a work of fiction", yet so many people want to have their bible both ways - for it to be simultaneously a non-fiction story AND for it to be merely a metaphor.

                The vast majority of the 10 commandments, for example, require one to believe God actually exists and is a real being and not just a metaphor in order to follow them.  The bit about the sabbath is irrelevant if there's no god to worship.  The bit about sacrifices to god are irrelevant if there's no god there.  The bit about "have no gods but me" is irrelevant if there's no god there.  The bit about no graven images is irrelevant if there's no god there.  Need I go on?  The few bits and pieces of morality you can glean from the bible that require no belief in the existence of a divine thinking being are bits it cribbed from earlier sources that were already normal human culture before that time.

                Being against that sort of bait-and-switch dodge is NOT identical to being a fundamentalist.  

                Imagine a graph with two axes perpendicular to each other:  The X-axis ranges from "religion A is meant literally" to "religion A is meant just metaphorically".  The Y-axis ranges from "religion A is telling the truth" to "religion A is telling a falsehood".  A fundamentalist is on the "literal" end of the X axis and on the "true" end of the Y axis.  From your post I gather that you are on the "metaphor" end of the X axis (in disagreement with the fundamentalist) and on the "true" end of the Y axis (in agreement with the fundamentalist).  I am on the "literal" end  of  the X axis (in agreement with the fundamentalist) but on the "false" end of the Y axis (in disagreement with the fundamentalist).

                We are BOTH equally in agreement with, and disagreement with the fundamentalist, but along different axes.  By accusing me of agreeing with a fundamentailst while ignoring the fact that you're just as much in agreement as I am but along a different axis, you're being kind of an ass.  I don't accuse you of being as literal as a fundamentalist, so don't accuse me of agreeing with the fundamentalist that the religion is telling the truth.

                BOTH you and I think a literal interpretation of the relgion is not in accordance with the real world.  We just don't take the same approach of how to respond to this information.  You respond to it by claiming the literal interpretation conflicts with reality because such a literal interpretation was never the intent.  I respond to it by claiming that the literal interpretation conflicts with reality because telling the truth was not the intent. (i.e.  it had dishonest authors falsifying history to push an agenda).

        •  I think Lewis wanted to be balanced (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          He got people complaining the books were not Christian enough and people complaining they were too Christian.

          They were about balanced, so he figured they were OK as allegories.

      •  I was going to point out to ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... Green Bean that you are actually a professed admirer of Lewis yourself ... but now I see that you've done that.

        But I do understand Green Bean's point in that I think it can be very easy to misinterpret your intentions in writing this series.  At first I was offended and it took me a while to understand where you were coming from too.

    •  One of my favorites... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      detroitmechworks, adrianrf, Temmoku a kid.  I was pretty much ignorant of the whole Christian allegory aspect of the series and just enjoyed "A Horse and his Boy" as a coming-of-age and rags-to-riches story within a fantasy setting.  I made the mistake of rereading it a few months back and was disillusioned with how heavy-handed it was.  So it is amusing to see detroitmechworks "update" it to be even more appealing to the fundamentalist set.

      Lewis hammers the Christian values home with an anvil, but it still has some less Old Testamenty points that detroitmechworks expunged for being too liberal.  Aravis is actually a pretty strong female character who argues constantly with Shasta.  Her punishment by Aslan was somewhat arbitrary considering the lack of consequences for other characters but I liked the fact that it was done to help a rich, privileged individual empathize with the plight of her underlings.

      Rabadash lives on in Lewis' version of the tale and is humiliated sufficiently to become a passable ruler.  While this is better than executing him outright, it still left a bad taste in my mouth because it reenforces the belief that the rich and privileged can abuse their power horribly and yet they deserve to retain their position and power.

      I don't know if there are many fundamentalists out there that find the Naria stories to be too liberal and in need of revision, but it is sad that it is probable enough to inspire someone to mock the possibility.

      •  Rabadash (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The whole point was to teach him humility, tolerance, empathy and responsibility, not to strip him of power. Losing his power would not have taught him anything, but would have left him only resentful.

        FOSI: Full Of Shit Information - Both my sister and I are trivia freaks...

        by Spoc42 on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 05:00:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Blergh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Nose

      It's not THAT complex. Let me spell it out for you in simple words. Among other things, the Jesus figure of the Narnia books rips hell out of the back of the one lead female character. Why? Because in order to escape, Aravis had to drug her maid and her maid was lashed. Aravis had to experience what that was like.

      Sorry, but that was f*cked when I first read it in 1974, and it's still f*cked today. Subtle allegory my ass.

      •  Allegory? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Champurrado, niemann

        See my remarks re Rabadash above. Aravis had to learn responsibility for her actions and the consequences they have for others.

        FOSI: Full Of Shit Information - Both my sister and I are trivia freaks...

        by Spoc42 on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 05:02:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That example seems complex and subtle to me ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... akin to the theological debates related to the issue of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" ...

        ... or Dietrich Bonhoeffer struggling with the issue of whether doing an evil, harmful act might sometimes be the morally right thing to do, while still being willing to take full responsibility for the punishment/consequences of that evil, harmful act.  

        You see that part of the story as "f*cked" -- and insist in no uncertain (and rather condescending) terms that it is.  Other people don't see it that way at all.  

        That in itself indicates some level of complexity at work.  If everyone perceived it as obviously one or the other, that would mean the story wasn't complex or subtle.  

        I like those troubling aspects in the Narnia stories.  They're not black-and-white and formulaic ... just like real life.

  •  Didn't Tarzan wake up instantly? (3+ / 0-)

    It was in there somewhere but you didn't mention it.

    Look, if you want to scare off a really big lion, you need a really really big vacuum cleaner.

    the Clear Light is the consciousness of the quantum vacuum

    by Sharkmeister on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 03:09:37 PM PST

  •  My favorite is that Arsheesh is bad because he (4+ / 0-)

    makes Shasta/Cor eat his bread with (horrors!) OLIVE OIL instead of good, Christian butter. Seriously. Read the book.

    •  *blink* (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      seriously? I don't remember that. Wow, if true, that's pretty screwed up. Southern Europeans--Christians--also eat bread with olive oil.

      •  Olive oil on bread? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Temmoku, Sychotic1

        I love it, especially with a touch of salt and pepper on top.

        I remember being in a restaurant in Spain with my parents. While waiting for the first course (green salad with green lettuce, green onions, green tomatoes, green olives, and lots of other green things, no other colours), I put olive oil onto a piece of bread and ate it. I noticed the lady on the table next to us looking on with curiosity. She tried it, got an exstactic look on her face, and almost shoved it into her husband's mouth to try. The rest of their bread was treated the same way.

        Another success in the cause of good and fine eating . . .

        FOSI: Full Of Shit Information - Both my sister and I are trivia freaks...

        by Spoc42 on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 05:08:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Outdated morals and values? (3+ / 0-)

    I admit having stopped right there, perhaps for nitpicky reasons.

    Morals and values never really become outdated. Well, a "value" may, but only by transferring to something equal, more "updated." Morals just simply are, held or not, agreed with or not. They aren't technical innovations.

    Anyway, I've read C.S. Lewis and pretty much all of the Inkings, including Tolkien and Charles Williams. Lewis was, of course, a Christian apologist, back when intellectual defense of faith came into its own and before it went out of favor. I believe his harshest critic was Tolkien, who said he did a bad job of hiding his Christian morality in his novels. Lewis in turn chided Tolkien for taking like forever to write the Ring trilogy.

    If you knew the work of Lewis, you'd know he was about as far from a Right wing fundamentalist as you could get. The man used to be an atheist. Blame Tolkien for his conversion. Hobbits, indeed.

  •  I like this version, it has more (0+ / 0-)

    relevance in today's world! Ha!!!!

    Character is what you are in the dark. Emilio Lizardo in Buckaroo Bonzai

    by Temmoku on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 06:01:16 AM PST

  •  This (0+ / 0-)

    This diary was a complete pile of shit. And yes, I used that word deliberately.

    Hush! Hush! see how the Child is sleeping; Hush! Hush! see how he smiles in dreams!

    by Zornorph on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 09:56:14 AM PST

    •  Thank you! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Thank you for making it clear that this shitty comment of yours was a passionate and deliberate shit--not to be confused with your casual shits. Mighty considerate of you. But I have to admit that--about your opinions--I don't give a shit.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site