Was the Frolic inappropriate?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

In Prince Caspian, the liberation of Narnia from the Telmarines is accompanied by a gay frolic let by Aslan and accompanied by Bacchus, Silenus, and the Maenads. Some find this delightful and refreshing, others find it inexplicable, and yet others think it another example of the pastiche writing that so annoyed Lewis' friend J.R.R. Tolkien. What do you think?

[EveningStar]

I think humour, rest, rejoicing and celebration are gifts of God just like determination, faith, sacrifice and heroism.

When God sends men into battle to fight, bleed and perhaps die, he understands that they need to express the joy of living as well.

Look at the Wedding at Cana. Jesus turned water into wine. Water is certainly a practical form of refreshment, and if Jesus was some sort of somber, humourless "Git er done" fellow who frowned upon all forms of rejoicing and celebration, I imagine he would have made a point of that.

Remember, as much work as God tells us we have to do, he still ORDERED us to take off one day a week to rest.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, it seemed to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the topics raised in another thread was whether Aslan Himself would take part in the frolic, or hold Himself aloof and leave the frolicking to His creatures.

My take on this is that He'd happily frolic with His creatures, indeed, He would lead the frolicking (as Lewis has Him do.) Why wouldn't He? After all, He's the author of all joy and the fountain of all celebration. His presence was the very cause of the rejoicing - why would He not rejoice and play along with everyone else?

[dawnpatrol]

In Prince Caspian, the liberation of Narnia from the Telmarines is accompanied by a gay frolic



I think gay frolics are always inappropriate.

[EveningStar]

Perhaps the term JOYFUL frolic might be more appropriate in a 21st century discussion thread. ;)

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

Perhaps the term JOYFUL frolic might be more appropriate in a 21st century discussion thread.* ;)

It was certianly Joyful if it was nothing else. :D

I wish they'd put the 'Frolic' in the movie, it would have been better than some things in it... and besides they need happy things to happen too. ;)

And I've always liked the part in the book when it happens... happy people! :)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Perhaps the term JOYFUL frolic might be more appropriate in a 21st century discussion thread. ;)
I was making a counterstrike to try to reclaim a perfectly good English word that has been co-opted by people with an agenda. I know I'm dating myself, but I am a student of Lewis and an Old Western Man, so I shall use the term as it has always been understood, not as it has been corrupted.

I would contend that in the classic use of the term, "gay" was precisely what that frolic was.

So there. :p

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

I was making a counterstrike to try to reclaim a perfectly good English word that has been co-opted by people with an agenda. I know I'm dating myself, but I am a student of Lewis and an Old Western Man, so I shall use the term as it has always been understood, not as it has been corrupted.

I would contend that in the classic use of the term, "gay" was precisely what that frolic was.

So there. :p

Are we promptly deciding gay means joyful then?;)

I personally have no problem with the word I was just wondering.:)

[Aravis Kenobi]

Well, in the old(er) days, "gay" meant joyful or happy; but sadly, in modern times has been used, as POTW has said, by people with an agenda.

I don't think the frolic was inappropriate. I've never thought of that. I saw it as being a thing where they could have fun and be carefree. Some people may see it as inappropriate because of the mention of Bacchus and his wild girls, including all the mentions of wine. (but in Jesus' day, it was little more than grape juice).

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The classical meaning of "gay" is joyful, upbeat, delighted, and exciting. In an exchange like this:

"Did you and Mark have fun at the fair last evening?"

"Mother, we had a positively gay time last evening!"

would indicate that the experience was more than simply fun or interesting. That's what the term meant until it was co-opted by A Certain Group in the late 1970's for their own purposes. Those of us who are old enough (or wear enough stripes) remember when they term was untainted by overtones.

[EveningStar]

Satyrs, Nymphs and Bacchus all represent the idea of pleasures that can take our mind off our duties and pursuit of righteousness. And yet we speak of Heaven being a place of absolute and undiluted joy. It's not the joy that's bad, it's a life out of balance that's bad.

Bacchus and his wild bunch did not spend all day partying. They should not be seen as elves in some fairy story that live in little houses in the wood with no visible source of income singing "Hi ho the derry oh, with a hey nonnie nonnie and a ho ho ho!" They were, in fact, immortals with the mission to bring relief of suffering and loneliness to the oppressed and downtrodden. They went about blessing the celebrations and simple rustic joys of the poor so that their lives may be rich in meaning and fulfilment without mansion, yachts and stacks of gold coins.

We have trouble as Christians dealing with so-called demigods. These folk, like our concept of archangels and cherubim were powerful beings entrusted with the power to do things outside the usual order of nature. There is nothing in the Chronicles of Narnia to indicate the blasphemous idea that Bacchus was in the same class as Jehovah, only smaller. Nor was there any indication that his powers were endemic rather than coming from God the Father, much as the ordinary human disciples of Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons. Like Santa Claus, their appearance in Chronicles was as mythical beings behind whose legend was an element of truth where Narnia is concerned. And like Santa Claus there was no harm intended.

[~Lava~]

My question to any who ask whether Aslan should have participated in a frolic that was intended to restore the old order in Narnia is: What about Palm Sunday? Jesus is the only reason that the riotous events of Palm Sunday happened.

The frolic was a perfect break in the fighting; it shows that Lucy and Susan are not being idle while their brothers are off fighting in the war, they are about Aslan's business (why did the movie have show Lucy sitting around in the room of the stone table while the boys and Susan were off fighting).

[EveningStar]

It all comes down to this. Does God want people to be happy? Sometimes we portray faith as "Be extremely miserable in your self denial and when you die God will give you chocolates and wine." Which is, of course, rot. Heaven is how we should live. The sin in this world prevents it, but we still pray what JESUS HIMSELF told us to pray...that God's kingdom comes and his will is done here exactly as it's done in Heaven. Heaven is not a reward, it's a restoration. Just as recovery is not a reward for being sick but a restoration to one's original state of health.

[inkspot]

I think humour, rest, rejoicing and celebration are gifts of God just like determination, faith, sacrifice and heroism.
Totally agree!
It was certianly Joyful if it was nothing else. :D

I wish they'd put the 'Frolic' in the movie, it would have been better than some things in it...
completely agree!

We have trouble as Christians dealing with so-called demigods. These folk, like our concept of archangels and cherubim were powerful beings entrusted with the power to do things outside the usual order of nature. There is nothing in the Chronicles of Narnia to indicate the blasphemous idea that Bacchus was in the same class as Jehovah, only smaller. Nor was there any indication that his powers were endemic rather than coming from God the Father, much as the ordinary human disciples of Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons. Like Santa Claus, their appearance in Chronicles was as mythical beings behind whose legend was an element of truth where Narnia is concerned. And like Santa Claus there was no harm intended.
Yup, you got it.
My question to any who ask whether Aslan should have participated in a frolic that was intended to restore the old order in Narnia is: What about Palm Sunday? Jesus is the only reason that the riotous events of Palm Sunday happened.
Completely agree with you.

Everyone said what I wanted to say or would have said if I were smarter. My brother listens to some crazy Christian radio show that says CSL never was a Christian, and part of their proof is stuff like this in CON, the demi-gods and mythical stuff. It's just so small minded and silly!

[EveningStar]

I think about the trial of Oscar Wilde. He was convicted of immoral dealings with a youth. One of the prime bits of evidence against him was a fictional novel he wrote about a man whose face remained young and innocent whilst his portrait aged and soured. Even though at the front of the novel was a disclaimer that the characters were fictional and he didn't necessarily agree with what they did and why. Even though at the end of the novel Dorian Gray destroyed the portrait at cost of his own life and in dying begged God to forgive him...and was forgiven.

Now Wilde was guilty. He admitted as much later on, especially in his tretise "De Profundis". BUT that would be like convicting me of theft because Loki Sharptooth in my Byron on Wells stories stole silverware from the Moon and Hare Inn. That was a gross miscarriage of justice.

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

(why did the movie have show Lucy sitting around in the room of the stone table while the boys and Susan were off fighting).

*snickers* that question has an answer found in comentary at least if you refer to The Castle Raid. Castle Raid why Lucy wasn't there: Georgie Henly the girl who plays her they said had curfiu so she wasn't aloud to participate in Night stuff.:D:p

But yeah she and Susan should have been with Aslan I think.;)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The frolic was a perfect break in the fighting; it shows that Lucy and Susan are not being idle while their brothers are off fighting in the war, they are about Aslan's business Actually, the frolic was going on while the men are fighting. Remember Peter's comment that Aslan would do things in His time, not theirs, but would expect them to be busy about His work. That's when they arranged the single combat, etc.

I think the point of the frolic is more subtle and more profound than just something to give the girls something to do. For one thing, it was the restoration of the heart of Narnia. That which was not of Narnia was driven away (e.g. the nasty boys) or undone (e.g. the cruel muleteer). That which was of Narnia, such as the oppressed donkey or little Gwendolen, were liberated. The frolic released more power than Caspian's army did, and ultimately achieved that which tipped the balance: the awakening of the trees.

Everyone was being obedient to Aslan's command: the boys and Trumpkin going into the How and dealing with what they found there, the girls staying with Aslan. But the center of power was where the frivolity was. As Scriptures say, "The joy of the Lord shall be your strength." Those frolicking with Aslan were rejoicing with Him, and therefore strengthened by Him. While the Telmarine army was facing the rebels, their country was being stripped from them behind their backs.

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

This is the day this is the day that the Lord has made that the Lord has made and we will rejoyce we will rejoyce and be glad in it and be glad in it!

Does that sum up the frolic? Because if it doesn't I don't know what will.:D

[Truman]

The frolic was "out of place" you could say. It was strange, random, and bizarre. Sure, it could "represent joyful feelings and happiness," but to me it really topped off the weirdest pile of junk I've ever seen.

I'm surprised no one here felt it was bizarre or strange in any way. :rolleyes: That's my argument. Thank the Lord it wasn't included. People would've left their seats in the theater. You people have got to think about those who haven't read the book, and those unfamiliar would think (probably in these exact words), "What the hell is this?"

[PrinceOfTheWest]

That seems to. I'm also reminded of that little bit, almost a passing mention, in The Return of the King, when Gandalf and Pippin are in their room in Minas Tirith, about to be besieged by the hosts of Mordor. Pippin has just been interrogated by Denethor and caught between him and Gandalf, and is feeling grim and depressed. Then he looks at Gandalf and catches a glimpse of all the laughter that lay within him, enough to set a whole kingdom laughing if it were to burst forth. That's the kind of joy we're talking about.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, I guess everyone's entitled to an opinion. I thought it was an important message, and central to the theme of liberation that underpinned the entire book.

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

The frolic was "out of place" you could say. It was strange, random, and bizarre. Sure, it could "represent joyful feelings and happiness," but to me it really topped off the weirdest pile of junk I've ever seen.

I'm surprised no one here felt it was bizarre or strange in any way. :rolleyes: That's my argument. Thank the Lord it wasn't included. People would've left their seats in the theater. You people have got to think about those who haven't read the book, and those unfamiliar would think (probably in these exact words), "What the hell is this?"


How do you know people would have left eh? and how do you know what they would say?

As I said in another thread (and I quote) 'We can never know what would've happened...'

I don't know how you can't like that part in the book either its AWSOMEATIC!!!

Tis what I think.;)

[inkspot]

I don't think people would have left the cinema had it been included in the movie except for the fact that the movie ws so far afield from the book that it would have been inappropriate in that movie. There was no place for joy in the PC movie as it existed. They would have had to completely change the climax to match what actually happened in the book. Had they done this, I am pretty certain that the movie would have been a ton better than it was.

All the stuff about Aslan liberating the land from the Telmarines was cut out, and to me the frolic was part and parcel of that.

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

I don't think people would have left the cinema had it been included in the movie except for the fact that the movie ws so far afield from the book that it would have been inappropriate in that movie. There was no place for joy in the PC movie as it existed. They would have had to completely change the climax to match what actually happened in the book. Had they done this, I am pretty certain that the movie would have been a ton better than it was.

I agree!:)

[Miss.SunFlower]

This is the day this is the day that the Lord has made that the Lord has made and we will rejoyce we will rejoyce and be glad in it and be glad in it!

Does that sum up the frolic? Because if it doesn't I don't know what will.:D

*nods nods* That's a song we sing in church. One of my favorites too.
It does very much describe what the frolic was.

[MRW]

The frolic was "out of place" you could say. It was strange, random, and bizarre. Sure, it could "represent joyful feelings and happiness," but to me it really topped off the weirdest pile of junk I've ever seen.

I'm surprised no one here felt it was bizarre or strange in any way. :rolleyes: That's my argument. Thank the Lord it wasn't included. People would've left their seats in the theater. You people have got to think about those who haven't read the book, and those unfamiliar would think (probably in these exact words), "What the hell is this?"
I thought it was an important message, and central to the theme of liberation that underpinned the entire book.
I agree with PotW. The whole point of the frolic was that Aslan was using it to sweep away the oppression of the Telmarine rule and awaken those whom Narnia really belonged to. Miraz had done his best to stamp out the old Narnians -- talking beasts, sprites, and demigods alike. Their returne, en masse, showed better than anything else that Aslan had returned to set things right, and that Caspian's army wasn't meant to win the war by itself -- merely to do their duty by rebelling against the oppression and keeping Aslan's ways alive while they waited for Aslan to set things straight.

As much as I like the PC movie, I would have liked it so much better if the Frolic had been included. To do it right, we would have had to split up the girls and the boys about halfway through the movie, we'd have met Aslan much sooner which would make the castle raid unnecessary, and we'd have had each of the children gradually coming to see Aslan, including Susan's admission that she knew he was there all along, but that she didn't want to see him, which is important for her character development.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

That's a very important point, MRW. The Telmarines had conquered Narnia by force and had been ruling it that way ever since. Their heavy hand had lain upon the country for ten generations (though it's clear Miraz' hand was heaviest of all.) What ended their reign was not simply a more powerful force, but the true liberation brought by Aslan. It was the victory of the small and joyous over the strong and oppressive. The meek did inherit Narnia. In a very real sense, the Telmarines were laughed and danced out of Narnia - except those who chose to stay to laugh and dance.

The question vis a vis the movie (which would probably better be taken up in the thread where this discussion originated) is how they might have portrayed the frolic. Frankly, given where they took the story, I don't think they could have succeeded. The moviemakers missed this aspect entirely, and cast the story as a contest of strength and skill between two warring forces. Ultimately the force with the greater strength won. Granted, the scene with the trees charging the battlefield and the river god destroying the bridge were impressive - but they weren't true to the book. The river god asked Aslan to loose his chains, and at His word the vines tore the bridge down. The trees didn't assault anyone - they didn't need to. The Telmarines were so terrified at their approach that they cast down their weapons.

So one of the real lessons of Caspian is that the meek shall inherit the land. The Old Narnian army played a role, but were ultimately doomed - it was only a matter of time before they would be crushed by the superior Telmarine force. What defeated the Telmarines was the power released by the joy of the jubilee proclaimed by Aslan. In Him they had the victory, the freedom, and the ultimate rest.

Sound familiar?

[inkspot]

Good points Meg and Roger.
The question vis a vis the movie (which would probably better be taken up in the thread where this discussion originated) is how they might have portrayed the frolic. Frankly, given where they took the story, I don't think they could have succeeded. The moviemakers missed this aspect entirely, and cast the story as a contest of strength and skill between two warring forces. Ultimately the force with the greater strength won.
That's what I meant before - the filmmakers could only had included the frolic if they had made a different movie from the one they made, way different. If they had made that movie, the one that stayed true to the book in these critical areas, then the joy of the frolic would have been more than appropriate, it would have been the climax of the story. And they'd have been able to include all those beautiful scenes of how Aslan liberated the land, like the school houses demolished, and the old nurse reunited with Caspian ... **sigh**

[EveningStar]

Changing the movie from the book is like a bit of a lie. And we all know that a lie grows and grows. The moment you diverge from the book, the more decisions are made for you TODAY by what you did BEFORE.

[dawnpatrol]

Good points Meg and Roger.

That's what I meant before - the filmmakers could only had included the frolic if they had made a different movie from the one they made, way different. If they had made that movie, the one that stayed true to the book in these critical areas, then the joy of the frolic would have been more than appropriate, it would have been the climax of the story. And they'd have been able to include all those beautiful scenes of how Aslan liberated the land, like the school houses demolished, and the old nurse reunited with Caspian ... **sigh**

That would've been nice. The teachers union may have been offended though. It's been awhile since I've read Prince Caspian but I remembered that scene with the shool houses being a clear shot at secular public education.

[MrBob]

Actually, the filmmakers seemed to just treat Aslan as a more serious character than he was in the books. The romp in PC was the third scene where Aslan was shown that he could be fun. Earlier in PC, he has some fun with Trumpkin, tossing him in the air and catching him in his paws. In LWW, Aslan runs around and plays with Lucy and Susan after he comes back to life.

The romp in the PC book could have been limited to an LWW-style mission where he reawakened the statues in the Witch's castle. In the film, this was pared down completely to a roar that reawakened the trees. A "gay" romp was not absolutely necessary complete with Bacchus, but I so much wanted to see Gwendolyn's classroom turning into a wooded area :D

As for the word "gay" every child that I know (me included) goes through that stage where they learn the real meaning of gay and have fun with the word.

MrBob

[PrinceOfTheWest]

That would've been nice. The teachers union may have been offended though. It's been awhile since I've read Prince Caspian but I remembered that scene with the shool houses being a clear shot at secular public education.I think it was a shot at excessive education altogether. Remember in Lion, one of the things the Kings & Queens did that helped make it Narnia's Golden Age was "liberated young dwarfs and young satyrs from being sent to school" (odd thing for a teacher to say :D). Lewis' educational experiences was exclusively with private schools, so I don't think it was a private/public thing he was expressing, just impatience with excessive schooling.

[inkspot]

The romp in the PC book could have been limited to an LWW-style mission where he reawakened the statues in the Witch's castle. In the film, this was pared down completely to a roar that reawakened the trees. A "gay" romp was not absolutely necessary complete with Bacchus, but I so much wanted to see Gwendolyn's classroom turning into a wooded area :D

Agreed, they could have done it that way, and it would at least have been a nod to the joy of Narnia and Aslan himself ... but I think ES is right, once they started turning away from the true themes of the book, there was no way to go back and re-integrate their actions to the new storyline. Once the battle for Narnia just became a showdown between two armies to be accomplished completely by force ... then the venue for the joyful romp that actually reawakened the trees and won the war by dancing and partying and laughter was completely gone. :(

[Animus Wyrmis]

I have always loved the Romp, and I was looking forward to seeing everyone drinking and partying with Aslan. (To be honest, I was bored silly at the end of the film--and that's impressive, because I hold my breath for the fight in the book.)

I do think that the Romp is important, though--when I think of Narnia, I think of a happy place where everyone is outside, usually in the spring or the summer. Almost all of my Narnia fics have their pivotal scenes outside, and that's not a conscious choice on my part--it's just that Narnia, for me, is always outside. The only building in my mind seems to be Cair Paravel. I imagine the Narnians running around with Aslan and playing in the meadows and talking to the naiads and dryads. But if you think about it, that's not a Narnia we actually see much of. We almost always see Narnia in trouble (LWW, PC, LB) or we spend most of our time outside of Narnia proper (MN, HHB, VDT, SC)--the Narnia of my imagination is almost entirely imagined, and I've finally figured out where I get it from--it's the stories and the Romp. The stories Tumnus tells about dances and parties, the stories Bree and Jewel tell, and the tiny bits of scenes where the Pevensies have already saved the world. The only place we really see that happy, wild Narnia for any length of time is the Romp. It's restoring Narnia to itself, and in a lot of ways to a Narnia we don't ever get to see.

I would have loved to see it in the film, but I agree it would have required a different sort of movie to pull it off, which is depressing. I think whoever said that Aslan is more serious in the films makes a really good point--in the books he's a great deal more playful.

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

I do think that the Romp is important, though--when I think of Narnia, I think of a happy place where everyone is outside, usually in the spring or the summer. Almost all of my Narnia fics have their pivotal scenes outside, and that's not a conscious choice on my part--it's just that Narnia, for me, is always outside. The only building in my mind seems to be Cair Paravel. I imagine the Narnians running around with Aslan and playing in the meadows and talking to the naiads and dryads. But if you think about it, that's not a Narnia we actually see much of. We almost always see Narnia in trouble (LWW, PC, LB) or we spend most of our time outside of Narnia proper (MN, HHB, VDT, SC)--the Narnia of my imagination is almost entirely imagined, and I've finally figured out where I get it from--it's the stories and the Romp. The stories Tumnus tells about dances and parties, the stories Bree and Jewel tell, and the tiny bits of scenes where the Pevensies have already saved the world. The only place we really see that happy, wild Narnia for any length of time is the Romp. It's restoring Narnia to itself, and in a lot of ways to a Narnia we don't ever get to see.

Not intirely true.

I agree the Romp is the main happy thing for Narnia in the books, but there is also; When Aslan is reserected He and Lucy and Susan play and in the end of Last Battle thats the happiest moment in all the books I think,and in PC after the Telmarines are defeated they have happier times too the night before Aslan sends them back, and in LWW when the Pevinses become kings and queens.


Still you're right that happy Narnia is not seen alot in the books and almost not at all in the movies.
They should have put the Romp in the movie it would have been alot better.

Still "We can never know what would have happened..."

[BarbarianKing]

I think gay frolics are always inappropriate.
Hahaha, This made me laugh. No they are not inappropriate, in the right meaning of the word.

I was making a counterstrike to try to reclaim a perfectly good English word that has been co-opted by people with an agenda. I know I'm dating myself, but I am a student of Lewis and an Old Western Man, so I shall use the term as it has always been understood, not as it has been corrupted.

I would contend that in the classic use of the term, "gay" was precisely what that frolic was.

So there. :p
I agree, so there! When I read The Silver Chair and Puddleglum, Eustace and Jill begin to act silly they say "Gay is the word." And so they act gay in the proper, original, unhijacked version of it. I'm reclaiming that word too.

[onlymystory]

I didn't horribly miss the scene in the movie but I do love it in the book. It reminds me of David dancing for joy before the world.

And ES, you mentioned "It all comes down to this. Does God want people to be happy? Sometimes we portray faith as "Be extremely miserable in your self denial and when you die God will give you chocolates and wine."
Oddly enough, I was rereading old journal entries and I have one on joy (I think its actually influenced from John Piper). I'm just going to post it here. But my commentary on it would be that I think the frolic was a prime example of Narnians taking joy in the simple fact that Aslan was with them. That in itself was a reason to be the gayest of all Narnians. (Proper usage fully intended ;) ) Okay, now I wish it had been in the movie.

"Joy is not the absence of suffering, it is the presence of God. It is the consciousness of the threefold joy of the Lord. His joy in ransoming us. His joy in dwelling within us as our Savior and power for fruitbearing and His joy in possessing us, as His Bride and His delight; it is the consciousness of this joy which is our real strength. Our joy in Him may be a fluctuating thing: His joy in us knows no change.
A tongue filled with laughter and praise is a reflection of a heart filled to overflowing with the joy of the Lord. What a joy it is just to be with someone whose heart is full.
When was the last time you laughed for the sheer joy of your salvation? People are not attracted to somber doctines. There is no persuasive power in a gloomy and morbid religion. Let the world see your joy and you won't be able to keep them away. To be filled with God is to be filled with joy."

[lieke]

You know, i agree with what everyone on here has been saying about being happy, we are meant to be happy, and being happy was not really included in the movie and should have been. And i really love that scene in the books, because it shows that it's not all 'serious' at times, but also happy and joyfull, and 'gay' (if you want it:D).

But this is one of the parts that does bother me the most, because of the gods of ancient mythologie in it. I mean, no, it doesn't really bother me, but it bothers some people around me, and the keep bugging me with it :rolleyes: And i just don't really know how to answer it. They usually get their info from 'heaven is open', which is in my opinion NOT a reliable site at all, and not just because of their Narnia-posts, but also for various other reasons that kind of shows that they don't get some things. But anyway, about halfway through this webpage, it talks about the part with Bachus in PC:
http://www.heavenisopen.com/narnia.html

It talks about how bad it is and how demonic that Bachus was included in Narnia, and when i hear that, i just don't really know how to respond to it. I always say that Lewis included various mythology creatures and such, because he obviously wanted that, and that almost no one has a problem with readin the Iliad and such. But it just doesn't work, and i find it a bit hard. Maybe someone can help me, 'cause i don't really get why Lewis included Bachus and all that :o

[EveningStar]

I will go out on a limb here. Narnia had the real Bauchus whilst Ancient Greece had a false one, the same way we have the real God of righteousness whilst Ancient Greece had false gods that dallied with buxom farmers' daughters.

There is a scale of reality in force, one mentioned by the Professor at the end of LWW. The Neoplatonic scale by which there is the class (model) and the instance (copy). Things on Earth are slightly weaker instances of the original classes, things in Narnia are closer to the original, more sincere and less tainted by sin and corruption.

By my analogy, beauty on Earth is like a VHS tape made from broadcast TV of a movie, "Modified to fit your screen", blurry and riddled with commercials. Beauty in Narnia during the trials is like DVD. Beauty in Narnia during the Golden Age is like Blu-Ray. Beauty in Heaven is meeting the actors and watching them perform for you, then having them write you into the plot.

[onlymystory]

That's an interesting observation. It could certainly connect in other ways too. After all, I could do it with Satan.
Bible: Satan can appear beautiful but is a deceiver and evil but powerful for a time
Narnia: The white witch is beautiful (as are many of the evil ones in Narnia) and seen ultimately as evil. She holds a limited power for a time.
Earth: People come and go so fast we forget to focus on the evil behind the bad. We only see bad humans and then try to justify how they got there, rather than recognizing evil for what it is.

I like that insight, I really do. :D The Bacchus thing has always bugged me a bit too, Lieke. This idea definitely helps.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Try reading Lewis' That Hideous Strength and Perelandra for a more careful unpacking of this theme. The idea is precisely what the Magister says: the "gods" - i.e. great spiritual beings - were created by God and are perfectly submitted to Him. Only in the diseased and damaged imaginations of sinful humans have we projected onto them our own immorality, and worshiped them because they were greater than us. They would not have it so.

Meanwhile...

*throws grapes at Eveningstar*

Interloper! How dare you frolic and be joyful when there is so much to be glum and dour about? How dare you dance around Aslan as if He'd liberated you, and join hands with your fellow ex-prisoners to make total fools of yourselves? Have you no dignity, no self-respect? If you don't cut it out, I'm going to put you on that donkey and take you into exile among the Marsh-wiggles to teach you to take a properly serious view of things! (And a badger on a donkey is quite a foolish sight, I assure you!)

[EveningStar]

Use a zebra, then. At least the stripes coordinate.

[waterhogboy]

Yeh, I mean a good example to back up POTW's point is the river God at the end of PC. He's submissive to Aslan as well.

[EveningStar]

That's "Old Man River." He don't plant 'taters, he don't plant cotton....

[Narniamoondust]

I don't believe it was inappropriate,i think it was because the Narnia films get good views from the christian society. If they were putting something like that (bachuss however you spell it and the ladies) the christian society would be mad and wouldn't give good ratings. Also it would put the rating higher. From watching Shrek 2 i would say andrew adamson's vulgar sense of humor(Seeing as he already changed enough,of the movie he'd probably change that part too!) would volt Prince Caspian to a non-kid friendly movie,(don't watch the commentary either,Ben says something raunchy)
So it was better left out. I do think they should've left in the part where he meets all the narnian's and when the parts in the beginning when he's still little. Those were cute!
Also the origins of bachus are Pagan and a bit adult. It wouldn't be right to put them into a kids movie. And evening star,prince of the west,stop fighting. Even though your pitiful little argument made me laugh,(and about the taters and cotton) don't fight.

[Pardine]

I think , having freshly read this book, that it was necessary.

I hear about the greatness of God a lot in my role. But to me, to be great, you must be at peace. You must be content.

Remember, God looked at the world and saw that it was good.

If I am to believe in God, I contend that the only God worth believing in is one who feels free enough and joyful enough to romp through his creation with wild abandon.

[lieke]

I will go out on a limb here. Narnia had the real Bauchus whilst Ancient Greece had a false one, the same way we have the real God of righteousness whilst Ancient Greece had false gods that dallied with buxom farmers' daughters.

There is a scale of reality in force, one mentioned by the Professor at the end of LWW. The Neoplatonic scale by which there is the class (model) and the instance (copy). Things on Earth are slightly weaker instances of the original classes, things in Narnia are closer to the original, more sincere and less tainted by sin and corruption.

By my analogy, beauty on Earth is like a VHS tape made from broadcast TV of a movie, "Modified to fit your screen", blurry and riddled with commercials. Beauty in Narnia during the trials is like DVD. Beauty in Narnia during the Golden Age is like Blu-Ray. Beauty in Heaven is meeting the actors and watching them perform for you, then having them write you into the plot.
I get what you mean, i think.

But i hope you don't mind me going further about it. I'm surrounded by people who keep telling me other things. Bachus was an ancient Greek god, and he was not such a nice one in their stories, with not such a high moral. So far i agree with them. And then people say: Lewis put him in his story, he put in a false god in a story, and the false god is supposed to be accepted by Aslan, who represents the real God. So Narnia is basically saying that all the ancient gods were good and are accepted by God. The ancient gods were worshipped by people, but they are not the real god, therefore, the ancient gods are demons, and should not be worshipped. They are occult, and they can get an influence in your life, you cannot worship the true God, and those other gods. Aslan and Bachus can never be on the same side, since they are per definition contradictory.

Again, this is NOT my opinion. But i get this thrown at me so many times when i say i like Narnia. And i just find it very hard to answer it. So i'm wondering: how do you all answer it, and how would i make people understand it. 'cause it gives me doubts as well. And basically all the information people have comes from the heavenisopen article i posted in my last post, which is very negative about Narnia. And i just don't know how to reply to that either. It keeps saying that since Narnia has magic, it's occult, and therefore, if you're a christian you can never read/watch Narnia.

Some help? :o

[Animus Wyrmis]

Scattered thoughts in no particular order:

Well, I'd start by reminding them that Lewis didn't just put the Roman god of wine into Narnia; he put in Bacchus-the-Narnian-god. All symbolism aside, Narnian Bacchus isn't a false god; he's just as real as the other demigods Aslan put in Narnia in the beginning--the river gods, for instance. I think it's stretching to take from that that Lewis thinks Bacchus was real in our world; does he feel the same way about dryads?

I think I remember reading something about how Lewis felt that the older gods were sort of, like, baby gods? Like, people worshiped them 'cause they hadn't gotten to the level of worshiping the Christian god. That might be what they mean, but even so, within the Narnian world Bacchus is firmly under Aslan and there's absolutely no evidence he's worshiped at all (nor that he's nice--Susan and Lucy remark on how they'd never want to be with him without Aslan). So I think you'd have to reach to say that Lewis is arguing y'all should go out and worship Zeus.

Finally, I also wonder--do these people expect that they'll agree with Lewis's portrayal of Aslan on every point? Aslan isn't Jesus; he's Lewis's idea of what Jesus would have been had he been a lion in Narnia. There's a lot of debate in Christian theology even within denominations; can they really expect that his high Anglican views are going to be the same as everyone else's? Part of reading is reading critically and saying "No, I don't think that this is right--this was the wrong choice for the character to make, the author made a mistake in endorsing this view, this is a silly cliche and I'm sick of it." And that's a really important skill to learn early, because authors are people and people make mistakes. So even if Lewis is endorsing this view (and I really don't think he is), I think that's okay. The narration and always-right characters say a lot of things I disagree with within Narnia, but that doesn't mean he changes my mind. It just means I get to say "Was it right for X to do Y and Lewis to allow the narration to endorse this as the right thing? Hm, I don't think so. Fail, Lewis!" and move on with my life. Unless they're planning on using Narnia as a set of rules to live life by that should be fine.

And it should be noted this happens with every book, but specifically also with books with a god-type character whose pronouncements/actions are taken as Always Right. The narration might seem to agree that God caused X to do Y, or that God wanted Z to do such-and-such, or whatever. In those cases you know what the author thought was the right choice (as opposed to stories where, say, twelve characters have different opinions and there's no clear answer about which the author thinks is right or wants you to think is right) and what s/he thinks you should think is right, and sometimes you're going to disagree. That's okay. You should disagree. Sometimes it's even better that way so you can think about it and discuss it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Wow, good thoughts, guys!

Pardine: great insight and I agree completely. It was God who made the butterflies and the mad growth of jungles and instilled in men a sense of frolic and humor that not even sin could stamp out. All the bitter consequences of sin are a passing thing, and what will be restored will be something like the frolic.

Animus, great insight as well - the Bacchus of the Romp was the Narnian Bacchus, unpolluted by depraved human imagination. And, as Narnia had no fall as Earth did, I imagine he was the Bacchus that Bacchus was intended to be. And you also make an important point that Lewis was writing a story, not postulating a thesis, and what he says shouldn't be pressed further than he intended.

lieke, I don't know what to suggest other than be firm in your own understanding of what Narnia is about. Just because people who haven't read or understood it choose to superimpose their ignorance on the situation doesn't mean you should be confused. You know who runs Narnia, just as Lewis' Bacchus does.

[Pardine]

Lewis, a thing to remember, was also someone who believed in the long term salvation. He said that England was in such disrepair spiritually that it might be necessary to make them good pagans, first, and then good Christians.

I don't believe Lewis was a pantheist. I think he was the opposite. I think he believed that all religions pointed their way into Christianity.

That all gods pointed to One True God.

So that's why I can see Bachus in there. And I can even see Lewis having believed in a Bachus here. He believed that when people prayed at the shrine of Apollo, they were .. well, here's his quote:


"I had some ado to prevent Joy and myself from relapsing into Paganism in Attica! At Daphni it was hard not to pray to Apollo the Healer. But somehow one didn't feel it would have been very wrong - would have only been addressing Christ sub specie Apollinis." -CS Lewis

So his inclusion of other gods , by no doubt, would include this world too. Mere Christianity is littered with suggestions of this.

In short, no. Romp good. Frolic good.

Because as much as people talk about all the ills and evils of this world.. I think that misses the point.

This world is awesome. This world is wonderful. This world is spectacular, and beautiful, and joyful, and resiliant. It CAN and SHOULD be a happy world.

[EveningStar]

Our problem is "self denial". We are surrounded by fallen man in a world tainted with sin. We're in the midst of an emergency and so we spend a lot of our time putting out fires and binding up wounds. We make a mistake to confuse the suffering in this corrupted world with what God intended for us. We were meant to have joy, and the lack of joy only adds to our woes. It's easy to become so puritanical that we think the joy itself is the problem, but that is an error in our logic.

[waterhogboy]

I agree with a lot of the above comments.

In terms of the frolic's appropriateness, I think at the time it was more appropriate than it would be had it been written today. Not because anything in the nature of it has changed, but because of society's view.

Everything these days is viewed with suspicion, and no writer would include such a chapter simply because of the way it could be viewed. It's almost certainly the reason it was left out of the film.

Back then, however, there was no problem, and the themes of joy and all the above that people have been saying were what would have been taken out of it. The question of its acceptability is really just a reflection on our society!

[Tarkaan]

Everything these days is viewed with suspicion... The question of its acceptability is really just a reflection on our society!

Ahhh wonderful. As a Calormen, I know little of your world but from the snippets I glean it would appear that over time your society is slowly ascending towards a summit of civilization comparable to ours.

Joy of course is an inappropriate emotion and one should always treat it with the suspicion and derision it deserves.

That such behaviour is suitable in Narnia but is discarded in your world demonstrates that you are moving in the right direction!:eek:

[inkspot]

That such behaviour is suitable in Narnia but is discarded in your world demonstrates that you are moving in the right direction!
Ugh! That we should get such a compliment from such a source ... truly the Bible says "better are wounds from a friend than kisses from an enemy."

[Tarkaan]

Ugh! That we should get such a compliment from such a source ... truly the Bible says "better are wounds from a friend than kisses from an enemy."

Oh most resplendent mod, the lash of your derision is most humbly received by one who speaketh out of turn.

Has not one of the poets said that a noble friend is the best gift and a noble enemy the next best?

[Jefferson Smith]

Ugh! That we should get such a compliment from such a source ... truly the Bible says "better are wounds from a friend than kisses from an enemy."
...weren't such Proverbs nulled by Jesus when he said, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you..." ?

in that case wounds from a friend would be a terrible thing, while kisses from an enemy are wonderful. we don't go by the "eye for an eye" scriptures in the OT anymore...

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Oh most sapient Tarkaan, again you grace us with your presence and bestow upon us the blessing of your wisdom! How sagely the poets have written that the fruit of the melon tree sates the fool but for a moment, while the wise feast upon the fruit of wisdom to the end of their days!

How correct your observation that this "frolic" - that is to say, this indulgent and frivolous waste of time, this idle and irresponsible pursuit of "joy" and "celebration" - is indeed the sign of a primitive and barbaric land. What kind of leader is this Aslan, that He tolerates such undignified and unproductive activity? He cannot have much power over his subjects to put up with that manner of behaviour.

Now, in a more civilized and orderly land, such as Calormen or our land, such pursuits would be swiftly put to an end. If the activity is not productive, it should not be done at all. Everyone should attend to their duties with utmost dispatch and diligence. Once all responsibilities are discharged, then perhaps some time for leisure - diligent study of the poets, perhaps, or discourse upon better ways of performing one's tasks. Not of this dancing about and running. We have specialized slaves for those activities; those who do not know how to perform them should not try at all.

So, my good Tarkaan, with such thoughts we may yet persuade the barbarians to abandon these irresponsible notions such as "freedom" and "wonder", that they may better embrace the more productive and practical realities of life, such as the duty they owe their betters and the weighty responsibilities they bear.

[Lucy Fan]

The term "gay" also means happy. Therefore, everyone was happy over the victory and was celebrating it. Nothing more.

[Tarkaan]

in a more civilized and orderly land, such as Calormen or our land, such pursuits would be swiftly put to an end.

May the sublime perfume of onions and garlic ever grace your nostrils Oh most wondrous and mighty Prince Of The West. May your wise words long continue to tumble like a plenitude of priceless gems and carbuncles from the horn of riches and may the shining blade of your discernment confound and crush all who oppose you.

It has long been my wish to adopt certain advanced philosophies from your world to further strengthen the iron hand of the Tisroc's rule (may it last for ever). Such notions as political correctness, the opposite of which must surely be political incorrectness can be used to our ends, if I could but fully plumb the depths and layers of sophistication to be found therein.

Yes, there is much to be learned from your world.

Frolic Ha! Why weren't they working? No wonder their economy is in such a poor state. I have heard that even Turkish delight, bananas, figs and so forth are in short supply there. A fact I'm sure we will use to our advantage at some point.

[BarbarianKing]

I liked the frolic.

The poets are usually wrong! They write with their feelings, not their brains.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

You see how quickly the good Tarkaan goes right to the heart of it. How senseless and wasteful this Frolic was! These creatures are spending an entire day - an entire day - with this Aslan of theirs, doing nothing but playing, resting, and fawning upon Him! An entire day that could have been used much more productively at some kind of gainful labor. And that feast of theirs! What gluttony and excess! What good did all those rich dishes do, when they could have gotten by with much smaller portions of much simpler and cost-effective fare, like porridge. Why, men have been known to work long days on just porridge! So what is the good of all these elaborate dishes? And they also wasted hours just talking to one another - as if men have nothing better to do than talk!

I've heard that Calormen has a much more practical approach to their god. First of all, slaves aren't even allowed in the presence of Tash, so they're herded into the outer courtyard to await their instructions. Of course, the sacrifices are perfomed there on the altar in the outer court - what good would the lesson be if it couldn't be seen? A few condemned criminals, or if there aren't enough of them a couple of slaves selected randomly from the crowd. A long enough rite to get the message across, and then the followup instructions from the junior priest - inevitably some words of warning or encouragements to greater diligence at their tasks - and then back to work for them all. A very practical religion that doesn't interfere with the business of life.

Boy, Tarkaan, if you Calormenes ever get hold of Narnia, I imagine you'll set it right in no time.

[Xenithar]

In Prince Caspian, the liberation of Narnia from the Telmarines is accompanied by a gay frolic let by Aslan and accompanied by Bacchus, Silenus, and the Maenads. Some find this delightful and refreshing, others find it inexplicable, and yet others think it another example of the pastiche writing that so annoyed Lewis' friend J.R.R. Tolkien. What do you think?

I didn't think it was inappropriate in consideration of the story when it comes to talking about being jolly and joyful. You have to remember that Narnia is a completely different world from ours and they may celebrate things in different ways.

Quite frankly, though, I found the whole description of the frolic part pointless to the entire plot of the book. I'm glad they didn't put it in the movie.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

(I think people are missing the central point of what the Frolic was, which the Tarkaan and I are coming at from an oblique angle...)

[inkspot]

(I think people are missing the central point of what the Frolic was, which the Tarkaan and I are coming at from an oblique angle...)
I agree. People who find the frolic pointless or offensive, I think, haven't grasped the joy of just being in Narnia, with Aslan, which to me is really the whole point of Narnia ... the joy. But then I tend to think of Aslan as Jesus, and the joy of just knowing Jesus is so much greater than any happenings or doings or actions ... there's an old hymn that refers to "friendship with Jesus, fellowship divine, oh what blessed sweet communion -- Jesus is a friend of mine." That's what the magic of Narnia is to me, and to Lucy, too, I think, just being with Aslan, not neccesarily doing anything. Just His friendship -- and His friendship erupts into a celebration! Hardly pointless, to me, or offensive.

[Tarkaan]

I've heard that Calormen has a much more practical approach to their god. First of all, slaves aren't even allowed in the presence of Tash

Oh sagacious Prince Of The West, thou art well informed and in my humble opinion shouldst also be prince (nay Emperor) of the East, South and North also.

Much have I read here of your unusual religion. Words such as belief, search, doubt and faith are oft associated with it.

In Calormen we have need of only one word to describe our relationship with Tash:

Obey!

Needless to say, only the nobility are within the inner circle of our religion. I am well connected as my uncle is high priest at the temple of Tash. A fact which causes some ire amongst our rivals.

Has not a poet once said:
"Bow down before the one you serve, you'll get what you deserve".

Alas I digress. Indulgence is permitted amongst our aristocracy. As leaders of men we well deserve it. Opulence is nought but the outer display of power and the prerogative of the ruling class - therefore, I'm sure you agree, mere insolence for those of low birth.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I'll put off the backhanded commentary that I was affecting for the sake of bantering with Tarkaan and address this question squarely. In my Scripture study recently I've been paying particular attention to the concept of "the rest of the Lord", which is a surprisingly deep topic. What I'm learning sheds surprising light on this particular question.

When reading the Chronicles, an important principle to keep in mind is what I call "the Aslan Effect" - i.e. watch for when Aslan appears in the story and attend to what He does, because it will illuminate key themes of the tale. For instance, Aslan's role in Lion is more obvious: His sacrificial death on the Stone Table and His resurrection are clearly meaningful, as is His resuscitation of the ossified Narnians and His triumph over the Witch at Beruna.

In Caspian, His appearances are less clear. He appears to Lucy in what you might call a special revelation, and then commissions and empowers her for a difficult task: getting the others moving on the proper path. He does not make Himself immediately clear to the others (a point which Peter uses as an argument against believing); they have to take His presence on faith and upon the word of the prophetess Lucy. The more they obey the more clear their vision becomes, and they begin to see Aslan starting with the most willing to believe (Edmund) and ending with the most fearful (Susan) and unbelieving (Trumpkin, who is also fearful in his own way.) This little byplay, which happens primarily at the beginning of the chapter The Lion Roars, illustrates the theme of obedience in spite of external appearances.

Following this is Aslan's Big Appearance in Caspian - which is, suprisingly, not the establishment of King Caspian, the risky and dangerous single combat with the tyrant Miraz, or the Second Battle of Beruna. While all these significant and critical events are happening, where is Aslan? That's the vital question, for where Aslan is will be the heart of the true action, the truly Significant and Critical Events.

As it turns out, Aslan is sponsoring a party. Leaving his lieutenants to deal with the lesser matters of a difficult and dangerous battle (which they come very close to losing), He is romping about the land with the queens, liberating everything in sight. And that, I think, is the central idea: liberation. Aslan and his crew are a little wild to begin with (though not uncontrolled, as Lucy and Susan observe), and wherever they frolic, the immediate result is liberation from bondage and slavery. Look at the vignettes: the River God is loosed from his chains (the Beruna Bridge), the student Gwendolen who welcomes Aslan is liberated from her bondage in her class (and her stiff clothing in the bargain), chained dogs broke their chains, carthorses kicked their carts to pieces, a boy is freed from an oppressive master (who is turned into a tree), a schoolmistress is freed from the tedium of her job, and Caspian's old nurse is given reprieve from the bonds of old age and impending death.

Do we see a pattern here? I'm convinced that what we're witnessing is a Narnian Sabbath, or perhaps more accurately a Narnian Jubilee (Leviticus 25) - the Rest of Aslan. Not only is there no work (toil) done, but the very instruments of toil (chains, rods, schoolrooms) are broken and destroyed. The only "work" is to rejoice and revel in Aslan's presence, to set free those in bondage, to welcome the captives into a new day of freedom, to feast and rejoice and fellowship with friends old and new. After ten generations of enslavement to their Telmarine conquerors, the Narnians are set free to be who they are: the Great River flows unhindered, the beasts (dumb and Talking) are again free to simply live rather than justify their existence by working.

Of particular significance is the Talking Trees. Remember Aslan's commission to the Narnians at the beginning: "Narnia, Narnia, Narnia, awake." His particular command to the trees was, "Be walking trees." In response to the Telmarine oppression, the trees had ceased walking and fallen back asleep - essentially doing the reverse of what they'd been commanded. But when Aslan returns proclaiming liberty, they respond and take up their assigned role.

Where we find Aslan, we find the center of the action. This is the central theme, the Really Important Message of the entire book. I am not surprised that certain members even in this thread find the Frolic opaque or even ridiculous and contemptible - to the natural mind, it seems like this is a frivolous distraction from the truly important events, which in Caspian would be the struggle for political power over Narnia and the battle. (In my opinion this is where the filmmakers went wrong - they made that the exclusive focus, turning it into a comic book event that totally misses the point.) But in the book the seemingly important events are almost peripheral: Peter's combat with Miraz proves inconclusive, and even with the presence of the Ancient Heroes the outcome of the battle is in doubt until...

Until what? Until an event that was completely out of their hands: the charge of the Trees. That was instigated by Aslan's liberation of them, and none of the doing of the warriors. They had to "hold the fort" - as Peter puts it, "do what we can on our own" - which they did with determination, courage, and no small amount of risk. But the final resolution of the battle is beyond them (to me, an excellent illustration of the principle of Isaiah 30:15), and the Telmarines are finally defeated not by the might of Caspian's army but by the silent power of the liberated Narnians - most particularly the woods and waters. Notice there's no indication that the Trees actually harmed anyone (another thing the filmmakers got wrong) - the fear of them was sufficient to knock the fight out of the Telmarines.

So it seems to me that the Frolic was not simply a pivotal event in Caspian, but a central theme of the entire Chronicles. Narnia is the Sacramental Land, the Rest of Aslan, to the Narnian universe. It was created directly by fiat of Aslan, it is the center and hub of all Aslan's work, through Narnia flows all Aslan's grace to all the peripheral lands. Narnians work to be sure, but it is the willing work of free citizens, not the grinding toil of an enslaved populace. They live in the Rest of Aslan - who would not celebrate?

[EveningStar]

In its way the liberation was echoic of the freeing of the statues in LWW, and what did the unfrozen people do in LWW? They turned the tide of battle. Really not that surprising.