Bullying

[Powl']

Ok, Jill gets bullied in SC, but what kind of bullying did you imagine ??

[Ephinie]

In the BBC version, they show a scene of Jill being pushed back and forth inside a ring of older kids while they literally shouted at her. Their portrayal really did not look very realistic to me, however.

I think, based on how it was worded in the books, they were bullying her physically. I don't think it was all verbal abuse, or else why would she and Eustace feel the need to literally run away when they came after them. So they likely were beating her up.

[Powl']

well in the BBC they call her Pole, I guess that's why she was really tall

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I think that had to do with her surname, not her height.

When Lewis wrote of the bullying practiced at Experiment House, he was speaking from experience. He'd been the victim of bullying at a public school (in England that means a private boarding school, the most famous of which are Eton and Harrow) he'd attended. Sadly, bullying was a common occurrence at such places (see works such as Tom Brown's Schooldays and Stalky & Company for examples.) The form was usually multifaceted - there was almost certainly physical abuse, but there was also verbal abuse and intimidation, institutional and social avenues, and other ways that we won't mention here because it's a family friendly forum.

The upshot is that the bullies of Experiment House had 1001 ways to make their victims miserable without having to lay a finger upon them - though they almost certainly did that, too.

[Powl']

yeah, we could see how much Jill felt hurt

[sarahnarnia1983]

well it isnt very nice what they do to her.i can imgine what she felt like.since i was victim of bullying myself at school.physical and verbally.

[Copperfox]

You know what makes me want to KILL someone, by horrible and merciless torture? It's when evil, wicked youngsters, who DO know exactly what they are doing and ARE 100 percent morally accountable for it, maintain sadistic, vicious persecution of their victims for weeks and months...and then some liberal bureaucratic MORON minimizes this CRIME (for which the bullies DO deserve to fry in H-ll forever and ever) by calling it merely "teasing."

[dayhawk68]

You know what makes me want to KILL someone, by horrible and merciless torture? It's when evil, wicked youngsters, who DO know exactly what they are doing and ARE 100 percent morally accountable for it, maintain sadistic, vicious persecution of their victims for weeks and months...and then some liberal bureaucratic MORON minimizes this CRIME (for which the bullies DO deserve to fry in H-ll forever and ever) by calling it merely "teasing."

ha ha CF you said youngsters!:D

anyways I always thought they were the type of kids that threw eggs at ya, then blamed you for the mess.

[Copperfox]

The evil children in "Silver Chair" were not merely prank-players, they were tormentors.

[MrBob]

I think most of it was psychological bullying. I think They kept the physcial bullying to when they thought someone needed "attending to." Realize that the bullies also had to court favor with the headmistress and knew how to talk with her in such a way that she favored them.

With the headmistress on the side of the bullies, psychological bullying would be easy as there would be no one for the victims to help them.

I think They had just finished psychologically harassing Jill when she was crying just outside the gym and were either about to continue some more harassment or get a bit more physical with her.

MrBob

[gair]

i think it is enough to know she is bullied, without having to visualise it.

[Powl']

The evil children in "Silver Chair" were not merely prank-players, they were tormentors.

of course, but can we really say they were "evil" ?? :confused:

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Yes, we can. Maybe not as thoroughly steeped in a lifetime of evil as someone who's done it for decades. Maybe not irretrievably evil - though nobody's ever that - because they hadn't yet formed deep habits of wickedness. But yes, we can say they were evil in what they did because every human has that potential.

Lewis did a great service in that first half of the first chapter of Silver Chair by making plain the simple truth that children can be and are wicked in their choices - and in fact, if their characters are not formed by discipline and proper instruction, they will become evil people. This went counter to the prevailing mythology of the time, heavily influenced by the teaching of Enlightenment philosophe Rousseau, which maintained that children were born innocent, pure, and well-motivated, and that it was social corruption which turned them into sinners. Lewis knew, from both his Christian anthropology and his classic studies, that the opposite is true. Undisciplined human nature yields savage, selfish, and brutal people.

There was another author just prior to Lewis who wrote the same lesson into another classic work. The author was J.M. Barrie, and the work was Peter Pan. Victorian England had bought heavily into the mythology that childhood was this pristine, idyllic period before the burdens and corruption of adulthood set in. Knowing children, Barrie cast his protagonist as one who had chosen perpetual childhood, and he did it with a keen eye and insightful eye on human nature. The original work is a bit cloying for modern tastes, but well worth the time. The equally classic Disney animated translation hews to the original plot line with great accuracy, but portrays Peter as more lighthearted and carefree. Barrie's story has that component, but also shows Peter's immaturity and selfishness. He has no attention span, is extremely inconsiderate of those around him, and sees nothing but his own perspective. Wendy tries to draw him out of himself, but he shuns her loving discipline, thus dooming himself to perpetual immaturity.

This is a lengthy answer, but I'm trying to say that yes, the bullies in Silver Chair were evil in what they did and what they intended.

[Copperfox]

Okay, Powl, imagine that _I'm_ one of the bullies at Experiment House. What am I like?

1) I enjoy endless privileges and indulgence.

2) I know that I enjoy endless privileges and indulgence.

3) The smaller children have not done me ANY wrong, and their presence does not in any way threaten the comfortable conditions in which I live.

4) I know that the smaller children have not done me any wrong, and that their presence does not in any way threaten the comfortable conditions in which I live.

5) I know perfectly well that I myself would not like to be beaten up, robbed, or kept in constant fear.

6) I know perfectly well that the smaller children don't want to suffer such things, either.

7) I also know that there is nothing I need which will be gained by bullying the smaller children.

8) I bully them anyway, simply because I enjoy doing it.

If that does not add up to evil, then there IS NO SUCH THING as evil, anywhere in the world.

[waterhogboy]

Hmmm... without trying to make this thread too philosophical, I would argue that there aren't bullies and non-bullies as some people seem to be suggesting, rather those who intentionally bully and those who do it unintentionally.

The bullies in SC are clearly going out of they're way to bully Pole and so are doing it intentionally. In terms of whether bullies are evil - no more than anyone else is evil, so it's a bit academic, unless I'm misunderstanding you're definition of 'evil'.

Finally, going back to what I said earlier. I think we can all be guilty of bullying - but maybe not to the extreme seen in the book. I freely admit I've been guilty of it in the past (so it looks like in CF's book I'm destined for hell), but in the sense that amongst friends, those who feel inferior may try to assert some superiority over others in the group less fortunate than themselves. It may not always come across as full blown bullying but it can certainly feel that way to the victim. I see it happen with many people I know.

Again, this would be incorrect if I've misunderstood the term 'bullying' - I mean it quite generally rather than as a lifestyle choice.

Anyway - to relate this to the topic. I agree with gair in that I don't think it's important how the bullies bullied - all forms are as bad as each other and affect different people in different ways. In response to people's condemnation of bullies, I would agree that it's a terrible thing to do, but remember... those who judge will be judged.

[Powl']

well some bullies bully for pleasure, I understand, but some bullies just bully because they need to feel safe and powerful, if they know people are scared of them, they will feel safe enough ... so sometimes bully are just the ones who are scared, aren't they ??

[sarahnarnia1983]

well some bullies bully for pleasure, I understand, but some bullies just bully because they need to feel safe and powerful, if they know people are scared of them, they will feel safe enough ... so sometimes bully are just the ones who are scared, aren't they ??

agree with you on that one

[Powl']

thank you ;)

[BarbarianKing]

Powl', you're not saying that you could run an "Experiment House" type of school right?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

well some bullies bully for pleasure, I understand, but some bullies just bully because they need to feel safe and powerful, if they know people are scared of them, they will feel safe enough ... so sometimes bully are just the ones who are scared, aren't they ??
That is very true - but that does not make them less evil. The older you get, the more you find that most evil in the world is done because people are scared, and want to do something to secure their position.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the human race is divided into"bad" people and the "good" people. There is no "bad" person who rises in the morning, cracks his knuckles while cackling evilly, and asks himself, "what wickedness can I do today?" That's a caricature not even worthy of a comic book. Everyone does what seems prudent and reasonable by their own lights. But if that behaviour is not guided by moral laws, then inevitably that person will behave in a way justified by their own selfish and self-centered nature.

Thus the bullies of Experiment House didn't see what they were doing as "evil". They saw it as "having a little fun" and "dealing with annoyances". Perhaps they wanted to pay this kid back for what he did to them, or teach that girl how to treat her betters. To their minds, they were not being unreasonable - all people had to do was toe their line, and not give them any cheek, and everyone would get along just fine. What they did not realize was that the appetite for control is ravenous and never satisfied. The more they controlled, the more they wanted to control. The further their dominance of the wills of others spread, the more sensitive they would become to the slightest perceived affront, and the tighter their grip would grow. But one thing they would never see was how brutal and vicious they were becoming - from their point of view, they were just trying to live in peace.

That's why moral law is so important, and why breaking that law is always evil. Yes, that means I do evil, because I break that law. It's a simplistic fallacy to think of people as being "good" or "bad". We're all complex mixtures of both. Mother Theresa struggled with her sinful nature until her dying day, and Hitler was kind to his dog. It is our deeds that are good or evil - which is why we need to tame them by obedience to God's law.

[Powl']

Barbarian King, why would I say I could run a school :confused: what I meant was that people shouldn't be scared if some bullies.

And I know we all have an evil part, but I just can't admit it, I mean they might be mean and bad, but to say evil is like Devil to me ... and maybe Lewis wanted to show evil people but in general, bullies are mand bad, but are they really evil :( because I feel bad saying that, I don't know why ... :(:(

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It seems your problem is with the definition of terms. It's clear from your terminology that to you, "evil" means "utterly and irretrievably wicked, lacking any good, beyond possibility of redemption." This is what scholars refer to as "absolute depravity", and it is indeed the state of Satan and the fallen angels who followed him into rebellion.

No man who yet breathes is absolutely depraved. By that definition, it would be inaccurate to refer to any living person as "evil". That is not how people like Copperfox and I use the term - but I think we use the more accurate rendition.

When we - and most orthodox Christians and Jews - use the term evil, we refer to an act of rebellion against God's holy law. Thus any lie, or theft, or slander, or murder, is an evil act because it is in opposition to God's law. How responsible a person is for the degree of the evil may depend on many factors - how much they were aware of the law they were breaking, what the external circumstances were, etc. - but breaking a law is breaking a law.

By this definition, we all commit evil acts. That's the very problem of salvation that Jesus came to solve. The fact that we can still be saved means that we are not yet absolutely depraved (though Scripture warns we can come perilously close if we're not careful), but we must always be aware that any one of us could commit acts of deep evil.

This is why we shouldn't think of people as being "good" or "bad". It's an easy trap to fall into, and it's dangerous because we would almost never put ourselves in the "bad person" category. Sure, you can look at people who commit despicable acts - like the murderous cowardly thugs currently attacking innocent unarmed civilians in Mumbai - and say, "those people are surely evil", but you'll almost immediately follow that with "glad I'm not like that." But if we're honest, we'll admit that yes, indeed, we can be like that, given the circumstances.

Yes, we all have evil parts to us - and good, as well. We have to be on constant guard that the evil does not overwhelm us. That's what the bullies at Experiment House didn't do. They gave into their wicked selfishness and indulged that evil part. Did it irretrievably **** them? No - but it brought them closer to ultimate damnation. What they did was evil, and their doing it made their own repentance more difficult.

[Powl']

ok so evil actually means sinner :confused:

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The way that CF, Barbarian King, and I were all using it, yes. "Sinner" as in "commits sinful acts", which obviously includes all of us.

As Lewis points out, the fact that we're sinners gives us an "inside view" of motives. We know that we don't set out to be wicked, or (initially) take pleasure in tormenting others, or betray others. We just do what seems prudent or easy or profitable at the moment - yet we end up sinning. This enables us to understand that people can do wicked things without being "all wicked" - fear or ignorance or inconsideration can play a big part.

But we also get a "victim's view" of sin, because other people sin against us. And when they do, we don't like it one bit. For instance, let's say some identity thief cleans out our bank account and ruins our credit. If we learn that person came from a broken home and never had any moral instruction, it may help us understand why he'd do that, but it would still be a sin.

This is why we're left without excuse regarding our own sinning. We have a very simple and easily accessible moral standard that we carry with us everywhere we go: how we like to be treated. If we treat each other like that, we will do no wrong to anyone.

That's why Aslan's justice on the bullies of Experiment House was so apropos - it was their own treatment turned back on them. He gave explicit instruction to Caspian, Eustace, and Jill that the bullies not be harmed, but they could be hurt - for their own benefit. Notice what they cried as they fled their discipline: "Murderers! Fascists! Lions! It's not fair!" When they got a small taste of what they'd been handing out, it was clear to them that this was not right. Hopefully the message got through.

[Powl']

ok, I understand, it was the word "evil" that made me not understand you guys, but now it's okay ;) well I think you're right, we mustnot do to others what we wouldn't want them to do to us ;)

[BarbarianKing]

I am proud of you Powl'. I think PoTW explained really well. We called them evil not because they were like demons or anything like that but because they knew that their acts were mean and still did them anyway. Certainly they could be accepted by Aslan if they had repented. I would have accepted them.

[Powl']

so would I :p we must always forgive them, so we forgive or sinner brothers :)