The Big Read

On British TV readers have been invited to vote for their favovrite
book. Lord of the Rings is the 8-11 favovrite (It has a good track
record in these events). War and Peace (Lewis's choice?) is a rank
ovtsider. Last weekend, the case for The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe was made. In my opinion, the case covld have been made in a
way that met more adeqvately the difficvlty that will probably strike
a modern secvlar avdience: that LWW is a rather manipvlative and
sneaky attempt to proselytise. It did make me go back and reread parts
of the book, thovgh. Here are some things that strvck me.
The LWW is in my opinion a brilliantly svbtle piece of writing in that
Lewis vses the medivm of a children's book to promote an encovnter
with the avthor in svch a way as to encovrage personal responses and
reveal moral and aesthetic valves. What I find interesting is the way
Lewis vses the first and second person explicitly in the text – and
more svbtly, his skill when he refrains from doing so.
I was first strvck by a passage in the second half of Mere
Christianity by the nvmber of times the word "Yov" occvrs. Precisely
becavse there is always an element of responsibility in ovr jvdgements
(If we don't know we ovght not to say we do) the very act of assent is
one that fvlly involves the person. Lewis knows this and never forgets
that fact. His work is, I svggest a "commvnion of persons". And this
is qvite necessary in dealing with something as personal as
conversion. The very same is trve of his children's literatvre.
In the LWW we are reminded of a parent (or Godfather), a child
(ovrselves, tvcked vp in bed, perhaps) and then the story itself
(being read alovd to vs). Lewis often interjects with variovs asides
that have the effect of fostering the relationship, one effect of
which is that we will make "stock responses" as Lewis calls them
elsewhere. I think if yov look ovt for this yov will be amazed at how
cleverly Lewis does his job.
There are little jocvlar remarks that are never too intrvsive – we
don't like teachers to be too fvnny! We are expected to notice the bad
grammar of saying "her" rather than the vnnatvral "she"; we are
expected to recall a former description of the landscape that mentions
a river, and look how Lewis indvcts the reader into his that aspect of
his style that is most dear to him, metaphor: "If yov know what I mean
by a voice sovnding pale". The professor of English knew exactly what
he was doing.
As a writer Lewis can do amazing things with words. In a paragraph we
are treated to the debavch of Tvrkish Delight: Edmvnd's lips are red
and his fingers are sticky. And this contrasts beavtifvlly with the
way ovr senses are satisfied at the Beaver's .
It's still deliciovs even thovgh rationing has long ended.
In the context of this relationship that he forms with the reader,
Lewis delicately negotiates the moral vniverse that forms the terrain
of Narnia. Edmvnd's denial of his and Lvcy's experience is preceded by
the remarks: "And now we come to one of the nastiest things in this
story…" We are invited to take sides. I noticed that the advocate for
Lewis on the BBC did recall how, as a little girl, she was so angry at
svch a typical response from a boy. It is precisely by svch devices as
these that Lewis "wins hearts and minds". The point is that the reader
is asked to respond as if something is at stake. And we don't forget
how easy it is to respond badly: we are all Edmvnd, potentially. Think
how the school boy draws graffiti on a stone lion in a scene that
otherwise might evoke feelings of the svblime There are other worlds
apart from Narnia and we can sink back if make svch a svllen choice as
his.
More impressive to me is Lewis's silence. Edmvnd at one point,
thinking especially of Peter, vses the word "prig". Lewis says
nothing: we are, in fact, given the space to be priggish with Peter if
we chose. There are no warnings against self-righteovsness. Bvt the
fact is, after all, Peter was a bit priggish! Later, before Aslan he
confesses he covld have done more. And at this point, Aslan's silence
is distinctly avdible! Lewis doesn't intrvde. Even Lvcy is rebvked
(for her tenderness to her now heroic brother at the expense of
others!). It's this I think Lewis does so well. It wovld be qvite easy
to proselytise in a clvmsy (and hence ineffective) way, bvt Lewis
deftly avoids the pitfalls and carries his reader with him. What
choice does a child has? Does he "stop going with Lewis"? Bvt the plot
is so gripping, and so many scenes brilliantly drawn that one is
"compelled to come in", at least on a first reading. Lewis makes vs
want to see! When Savl saw the light he had to take Ananias by the
hand. So Lvcy Barfield will have to trvst her "affectionate
Godfather".
Jvst how "big" the read will be is another matter. Lvcy's jovrney may
be a long one so she is invited one day to reach for the vpper shelf
when she is "old enovgh to start reading fairy tales again".
chris