October 17, 2005Pot calling kettle a stereotypical ethnic centaurOverrated children's author Philip Pullman has criticised Disney's new Narnia film, describing C. S. Lewis' books as "a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice". Now hang on...I've never bought the racist argument myself: when you've got fauns and beavers mingling with unicorns and centaurs, I would say the side of good is pretty multi-racial - whilst the villain of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, need I point out, is white. And misogynistic? When the person who discovers Narnia, who is shown great favouritism by both author and fictional characters, and is the only person in the story who is always in the right, is a girl? As for "reactionary prejudice"...Mr Pullman, how exactly do you justify this accusation in the light of your own rabidly anti-Christian propaganda? If there is a problem with the film, it's that it looks like a clone of The Lord of the Rings. Bet it's shorter, though. And considerably better structured than Pullman's execrable The Amber Spyglass. Posted by James Lark at October 17, 2005 09:35 AMComments
"war legitimises violence" hmm - i'm note quite sure if that's true. certainly it sounds good - and sounds as if it might be true. but i think it's probably something in the region of a tautology - war *is* violence, almost by defintion. so - the question is really what legitimises war - and as a Christian, George W, or Mr Lark, should find this easier to answer than an atheist such as myself. (hint: you need to be a government to make an act of war "just"). ergo - the 'War on Terror' is a war in which only one side has a legitimate right to fight (viz. the state). and, to followers of most 20th century western moral and political thought, that is correct. 'You need to be a government to make an act of war "just"'?? This includes Hitler's government's decision to invade Poland, does it? Don't tell me that you have to be a government to have a "just" cause for war. Was Martin Luther King's "war" against apartheid unjust because he was an individual? As a Christian, I would point out that I'm far less inclined to believe in the right of a government to decide what kind of war is legitimate and what isn't. Moses wasn't in charge of a government when he took on Pharoah. Neither was Jesus when he took on the Roman Empire. "War legitimises violence" may be a tautology, but it's essentially what all sides in a war believe; it's all very well for one side to "know" that their cause is "just" (ooh, they've got a government so they must be right) but I think you'll find the other side has pretty much the same view. It's really up to one of them to win before they can enforce it. And since we're never going to win a war against anything as nebulous as terrorism, we've got to live with the fact that terrorists have had their opinions confirmed (in their eyes) by our government's actions. If you want to argue about it, take it up with them. (Except I'm afraid they'll probably kill you.) Oh, and please don't make the mistake of mixing up 20th century moral thought with 20th century political thought. They sometimes coincide, but more often than not don't. Posted by: James Lark at October 18, 2005 02:06 AM |
