opinion of CS Lewis

[© tweed]

I read Mere Christianity a few weeks back.  I am shaking a bit right now, must be due to caffeine, which is odd.  I only had two cups of coffee.  not shaking due to alcohol withdrawal, I'm 62 days clean or so.  anyway.  read Mere Christianity a few weeks back, I guess I understand why the American right-protestants like him so much, but there is a lot better out there.  Hans Kung's On Being a Christian blows it out of the water, naturally.  perhaps this is an unfair comparison?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

His books for children are genuinely charming and are classics of that rather loosely defined genre for a reason. A little problematic in a couple of places (particularly wrt gender roles, etc), but that's often the way. I've never read any of his 'serious' stuff.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

His books for children are genuinely charming and are classics of that rather loosely defined genre for a reason. A little problematic in a couple of places (particularly wrt gender roles, etc), but that's often the way.

This too. The fact that I no longer know Lewis primarily for Narnia is one of the more baffling (to me myself) elements of my young adulthood so far.

[politicus]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

I have read that some people think he was "racist", but that seems based on pretty thin evidence and is kind of a (pointless IMO) standard accusation against most people from his era anyway + he was quite vocal in his critique of apartheid.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

I have read that some people think he was "racist", but that seems based on pretty thin evidence and is kind of a (pointless IMO) standard accusation against most people from his era anyway + he was quite vocal in his critique of apartheid.

Mostly his views on gender roles--which, to be fair, are attenuated by his demonstrated ability to write good and interesting female characters when he had the inclination (and by 'Aldarion and Erendis', as a text, in general). I do think he has some racial and cultural essentializing tendencies as well (The Lord of the Rings is not what I'd call a racially sensitive text), if not as severe as some criticism of him would claim. But overall, I like Tolkien a lot, and consider him more FF than Lewis.

[DemPGH]

I can't vote either way, honestly. Neutral.

Eons (only a few) ago as a child I read one of the Narnia books but have little to no recollection of it. Within the last several years I read Surprised By Joy as my bedtime reading, which I actually enjoyed because of the wonderful writing and his often funny digressions. It's a series of tangents about his younger years with the bulk of it focused on his relationships with his teachers and their many quirks, which I found amusing. Their personalities shone through in the various nicknames he invented for them. The most benevolent one, an avowed atheist, "Old Knock," was his favorite, he says at some point late in the book.

The problem was that as it starts to wind down with what seems like a lot of ground left to cover (the book should have been a tome), he says something along the lines of, well, I'm running out of room, so I found faith, I dislike people like Francis Bacon because they're boring, and in the next few years this and this happened. And that's more or less it. I suppose there are some cloudy passages about what faith means to him on a personal level, but I found it all largely inaccessible and irrational. So the first 4/5 of the book were very interesting, the last 1/5 underwhelming and trite or cliched.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Surprised by Joy--the titular concept more than the contents of the book itself--has been highly influential in contemporary Anglican theology, and what you're describing is often how theology is done in Anglicanism. I admit it's an acquired taste.

[Lurker]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

His support for Francisco Franco could certainly be considered so.

[politicus]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

His support for Francisco Franco could certainly be considered so.

Sure, but that more or less went with the territory of being a traditional Catholic and Monarchist in the 1930s.

My question was not polemic. I was just curious about what specific aspects of Tolkien's views he found unfortunate. Since it was Nathan I expected there was something more to it than just the usual "his heroes are blond and blue eyed and the orks are darkskinned, so he must be a racist" stuff. Gender roles is a good point I hadn't really thought about myself.

[CatoMinor]

I think he is a great author. Over the last summer I read all 7 of the Narnia books and I've started getting into his more serious stuff like The Screwtape Letters.

[DC Al Fine]

I think he is a great author. Over the last summer I read all 7 of the Narnia books and I've started getting into his more serious stuff like The Screwtape Letters.

Screwtape was fun. Try The Great Divorce next. Excellent stuff.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

His support for Francisco Franco could certainly be considered so.

Sure, but that more or less went with the territory of being a traditional Catholic and Monarchist in the 1930s.

Which is unfortunate.

[politicus]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

His support for Francisco Franco could certainly be considered so.

Sure, but that more or less went with the territory of being a traditional Catholic and Monarchist in the 1930s.

Which is unfortunate.

Touche.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I like him.  I don't read books other than the Bible, but his books, along with John Piper's, are the authors I choose when and if I do read.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

His support for Francisco Franco could certainly be considered so.

Sure, but that more or less went with the territory of being a traditional Catholic and Monarchist in the 1930s.

Which is unfortunate.

Touche.

As I recall reading, his opposition to the republicans and support for Franco was based largely if not entirely on their views on religion and the fact that (as I recall) the commies weren't being too overly kind to the Church and such, a somewhat identifiable position.

[DC Al Fine]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

His support for Francisco Franco could certainly be considered so.

Sure, but that more or less went with the territory of being a traditional Catholic and Monarchist in the 1930s.

Which is unfortunate.

Touche.

As I recall reading, his opposition to the republicans and support for Franco was based largely if not entirely on their views on religion and the fact that (as I recall) the commies weren't being too overly kind to the Church and such, a somewhat identifiable position.

IIRC they murdered quite a number of priests during the civil war.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Strong lean or weak likely FF. He had some very unfortunate social and political opinions (like Tolkien, but more severely so, partially because more conventionally so in a lot of ways) and Mere Christianity is a fairly facile text--and is to some extent supposed to be. But The Great Divorce is excellent, as are Til We Have Faces and a lot of his academic work.

Tolkien was a monarchist, traditional Catholic, anti-industrialist/rural romantic, softcore libertarian anti-nationalsocialist, apartheid critic. Which of those things do you consider "unfortunate"?

His support for Francisco Franco could certainly be considered so.

Sure, but that more or less went with the territory of being a traditional Catholic and Monarchist in the 1930s.

Which is unfortunate.

Touche.

As I recall reading, his opposition to the republicans and support for Franco was based largely if not entirely on their views on religion and the fact that (as I recall) the commies weren't being too overly kind to the Church and such, a somewhat identifiable position.

IIRC they murdered quite a number of priests during the civil war.

Ah, that's what it was. I didn't want to go too far in my accusations, and checking wikipedia would've been too much for me.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

His books for children are genuinely charming and are classics of that rather loosely defined genre for a reason. A little problematic in a couple of places (particularly wrt gender roles, etc), but that's often the way. I've never read any of his 'serious' stuff.

Mostly this.

I like him.  I don't read books other than the Bible, but his books, along with John Piper's, are the authors I choose when and if I do read.

Oh dear.

[afleitch]

I never liked the Narnia books as a child. It was just not something I was in to (though I do remember the BBC TV series) I tried to read them as an adult and couldn't make it through them. So I can't judge other than on the basis I personally don't like them.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I like him.  I don't read books other than the Bible, but his books, along with John Piper's, are the authors I choose when and if I do read.

Oh dear.

It's not that I refuse to read, I just don't like to read.  I find it so boring.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Massive FF.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It's not that I refuse to read, I just don't like to read.  I find it so boring.

That doesn't make it better, bro.

[Joe Biden 2020]

It's not that I refuse to read, I just don't like to read.  I find it so boring.

That doesn't make it better, bro.

It's the best I've got!