A Diversity of Lions--an open letter to Neil Gaiman

[Animus Seed]

Feeling semi-confident about Dr. Malandra's American Lit mid-term, I took a break from homework and walked over to Borders. While I usually spend my time at Borders browsing the manga and tales of Faerie, there were two books I had been hunting. I found them both. "Pride of Baghdad" was beautiful. It was so well done that, while I'm fairly certain the creators had some sort of anti-Bush agenda, it worked on so many other levels besides that. It was good. Really good.

But there was another book I had been searching for... one which, I did not know, also featured a lion prominently. I had been tracking the release of "Fragile Things" for a long time, Mr. Gaiman. And when your website said it finallly came out, I spent a month going from bookstore-to-bookstore, looking for it. I found it. In the words of a wise woman I know:

Mr. Gaiman, for shame.


Now, I know that, despite your education at the Church of England, you are not a Christian. I understand that. But I love your work, Mr. Gaiman. You make your points so elegantly, even when your point is as simple as "stories are good" or "bad dreams go away." And yes, I will admit, some of your stories ventured a little too near the Infernal places of the soul than I was comfortable with, but with those, I simply didn't read them. I read "Murder Mysteries" and, while you and I might have a talk about angels some day, it was a good story and I took from it what I could---for example, a beautiful way of addressing God as the Name. I read "We Can Get Them for You Wholesale," and smiled at that wonderful Twilight-Zoney feeling only the best horror stories can bring.

I read "Season of Mists" and applauded. I stood up for you, Mr. Gaiman. Once I held you as the triumph of the English language, the demonstration of the power of imagination, and the case for graphic art as literature.

Okay, maybe this is all stupid. But I feel betrayed. I know we only met that one time in line, when you autographed my copy of Anansi Boys and went on to the person behind me. You probably don't remember. (I do.)

My eyes, they burn! Mr. Gaiman, even non-Christians get Narnia. Lewis wasn't all that subtle. But everyone loves it. Don't you realize, Mr. Gaiman, that your daughter will read this story some day? Look, what happens to Susan is hard, I will grant that. While children reading the story just accept it, those of us rereading Narnia now that we're older have to come to terms with it. I wish Susan had gone to heaven too, Mr. Gaiman. I love Susan. She's smart and intellectual, and views the world much the way you and I would, Mr. Gaiman. That's why you care so much, I'm sure. For what it's worth, all the 12-14 year-old boys I know who saw the movie told me Susan was hot, so I'll take their word for it.

Perhaps I take these things too seriously. Narnia was only a fairy tale, after all. "Only." Maybe I'm the only Christian who takes these things to heart. Maybe saying bad things about Aslan isn't the same as blasphemy against Jesus.

But oh, Mr. Gaiman! Do you realize what you've done? Do you realize who Aslan is in our world? Maybe you do, and that scares me even more.

The events in your story, Mr. Gaiman, were so dark and twisted and foul I can't even repeat them. I wish to God that my Jesus, my Aslan, would take his claws and rip the memory of your words from my eyes like dragon scales. Even if you aren't guilty of blasphemy, you have taken my trust in your stories and insulted my core---the little boy who first read The Lion, the Wich, and the Wardrobe, recognized himself in Edmund, and realized that there was more to the world than what he could see; the little boy inside me that rejoiced in seeing MirrorMask.

It's like a backlash that makes me not want to read anything but Christian literature ever again. I went through a phase like that once. It wasn't so bad. I discovered Ted Dekker. But see, that's not an option again, because of this silly little thing called Torrey.

I dropped Fragile Things like it was poison. I didn't even get to read the Sherlock Holmes story, which I really wanted to.

So what can I say, Mr. Gaiman? I'm angry, probably beyond what I have a legitimate right to be. But I'll probably wind up coming back. The beauty of Death and the gentleness of MirrorMask and the love of Coraline will probably bring me back. I'll probably keep checking the release date of your next book. But for now, Mr. Gaiman, good-bye. And think about what Aslan did for Edmund, Mr. Gaiman, and wonder if the Deepest Magic might not apply to you as well.

With love and warmest regards,
Fernando Rojas, Jr.
---a fan.

[RedMage]

To attack the Chronicles because Susan doesn't go to heaven is to completely miss the point.

It's not that Susan won't go to heaven, it's that she doesn't go to heaven right then. Susan doesn't arrive in Aslan's country with the others because she wasn't on the train with them and thus didn't die in the railway accident. At no point does Lewis even imply that Susan is somehow condemned, it simply wasn't her time.

One has to begin one's assessment with a completely biased state of mind to construe the information in The Last Battle as saying that Susan goes to hell because she becomes interested in boys or some such nonsense. Lewis may in fact have been a sort of universalist. Such willful misinterpretation and contemptible straw-man argumentation destroys Mr. Gaiman's credability completely.

[mitsuki lover]

Also reread the parts of The Final Battle where Susan IS spoken of,from there it becomes quite clear that she is still very much alive and well in our world.

[Animus Seed]

I haven't decided if I'm actually going to send this to him or not. He probably wouldn't care all that much.

[JasonPratt]

He probably wouldn't care. (What surprises me, though perhaps it shouldn't, is how normally perceptive and literate authors such as Gaiman and Pullman can so totally misread Susan's situation in _TLB_.) Gaiman has been dissing Lewis for years. I remember several years ago, he drew/wrote an introduction for a graphic novel based on Moorcock's Elric work. Essentially, it was an autobiography about growing up in a horrible British school system, finding escapism in fantasy, especially Narnia, and then feeling betrayed by Lewis--_not_ when he discovered Susan had betrayed Aslan and her family in TLB (or even that 'Susan didn't go to heaven'), but when he discovered that Eustace's story as a dragon had parallels to St. Paul's story. (It did??-- --- um-- okay, whatever...)

Anyway, he felt betrayed by Lewis when he learned Lewis was a Christian and was writing his Christianity into his work. So, he's been aware of this for a very long time. Ironically (according to this autobiographical work) he then turned to Moorcock, because Moorcock was more honest and would never treat his readers like that. (I couldn't decide if this was supposed to be self-critical satire on his part, though; it's freakishly obvious that Moorcock is doing philosophical sketchsheeting in his Elric stories. Though then again, a writer of my acquaintence, whom I admire, and who admires Gaiman--and Pullman to some extent--never picked up on Moorcock doing that in his work. Maybe it helps to be religious... {wry s})

Note: this is certainly not "The Problem of Susan", btw.

[Animus Seed]

I remember several years ago, he drew/wrote an introduction for a graphic novel based on Moorcock's Elric work. Essentially, it was an autobiography about growing up in a horrible British school system, finding escapism in fantasy, especially Narnia, and then feeling betrayed by Lewis--_not_ when he discovered Susan had betrayed Aslan and her family in TLB (or even that 'Susan didn't go to heaven'), but when he discovered that Eustace's story as a dragon had parallels to St. Paul's story. (It did??-- --- um-- okay, whatever...)

Anyway, he felt betrayed by Lewis when he learned Lewis was a Christian and was writing his Christianity into his work.

I remember that. I got over it.

"Fragile Things," like "Smoke and Mirrors," is a collection of Gaiman stories, poems, and miscellany. The story in question is entitled "The Problem of Susan." It's horrible. And I mean the "horror" part of "horrible" literally.

[ClosetOtaku]

Anyway, he felt betrayed by Lewis when he learned Lewis was a Christian and was writing his Christianity into his work.

Interesting. I had much the same feeling about Pullman when I realized just what an anti-Christian bigoted zealot he was. I didn't pick up on it until "The Amber Spyglass", but when I did, I was quite disappointed and refused to read any other of his works.

So, perhaps the knife cuts both ways...

[SP1]

I never got to The Amber Spyglass. I choked on this series about mid-way through The Subtle Knife. More like "let's not so subtley explore what happens when I make omniscient, and nearly omnipotent, evil characters."

Of course, NOW I have to read The Last Battle again...

[bigsleepj]

I don't think Gaiman is quite as anti-Christian as Pullman (if anything Gaiman seems just plain old indifferent). I haven't read "The Problem of Susan" but I can remember once, reading on his blog (or somewhere because I could not find it again), some comment of his on someone who called "Problem" blasphemous, his reaction was something like "I don't understand how an old women ranting against a fictional lion can be blasphemous." It was something like that. Off course he knows who Aslan represents, but to him ultimately Aslan is just a fictional character in a fictional work. Admittedly he does not understand because of the association with Christ that we take Aslan seriously, but then again his comment is not really an evasive technicality either. Aslan is strictly just a fictional character in an allegorical story and to criticise an aspect of that story is not in my mind a critique of Christianity or Christ nor do I think its blasphemous (though it might be a critique of Christianity but I'll just see it as a critique of "The Last Battle" until I have more proof otherwise). I don't think Lewis wanted us to hold Aslan up as a theological and spiritual equal of Christ, just a allegorical representation. I'd be more angry if it was "The Problem of Judas" or "The Problem of the Second Thief on Golgotha" because that's the Bible. The Narnian Chronicles isn't the Bible. That's just my take on the issue. (And I am a CS Lewis fan, by the way).

I do know what it feels like to be "betrayed" by an author though and I can understand how you feel. I once read a story by Argentinian short story master Jorge Luis Borges called "The Three Versions of Judas". Borges was an agnostic but still had a respect for Christianity and the other monotheistic religions (like Judaism and Islam). Still he produced "Three Versions" which, although he probably did not take it seriously on a theological level, was still very much a freaky heresy if I ever saw one (as heresies go its interesting since it plays by many of the theological rules of Christianity while still turning it all on its head, but never mind). Fact is, despite his respect he still did not believe. I wouldn't be surprised if the same could be said about Gaiman. I'm not sure if I could read more Borges (my respect for Borges is immense but I read that story last December and I've only read one more short story of his since then, mostly because I was jaded by "Three Versions"). Truth is (sadly) that authors can believe what they want and if it does not correspond with our beliefs then its just too bad.

I think you should tone down your letter a tad (just in case you don't come across as patronizing which is an easy thing to happen accidentaly on the 'Net) but still just make your feelings known. He does answer fan-mail on his blog at neilgaiman.com and he would probably answer yours (or a similar one).

Edit: As for part where I said he said that Aslan was fictional, I've searched his website but could not find it, so my quote might be wrong and possibly then a large part of my first paragraph's argument as well, but that happens when you can't find the things you reference. But I'm pretty sure he said it.

Edit: I also think people are reading into the Chronicles and the whole Susan ordeal things that just are not there (most specifically Pullman).

Edit: Here is an extended quote from Gaiman's speech at the Mythopoeic Society's 35th Annual Conference, where he speaks directly about CS Lewis. His feelings about the chronicles seem to be Love / Hate, that is he still likes them but also has issues with them. The speech on its own is rather good reading in itself.

For good or ill the religious allegory, such as it was, went entirely over my head, and it was not until I was about twelve that I found myself realising that there were Certain Parallels. Most people get it at the Stone Table; I got it when it suddenly occurred to me that the story of the events that occurred to Saint Paul on the road to Damascus was the dragoning of Eustace Scrubb all over again. I was personally offended: I felt that an author, whom I had trusted, had had a hidden agenda. I had nothing against religion, or religion in fiction -- I had bought (in the school bookshop) and loved The Screwtape Letters, and was already dedicated to G.K. Chesterton. My upset was, I think, that it made less of Narnia for me, it made it less interesting a thing, less interesting a place. Still, the lessons of Narnia sank deep. Aslan telling the Tash worshippers that the prayers he had given to Tash were actually prayers to Him was something I believed then, and ultimately still believe.

C.S. Lewis was the first person to make me want to be a writer. He made me aware of the writer, that there was someone standing behind the words, that there was someone telling the story. I fell in love with the way he used parentheses -- the auctorial asides that were both wise and chatty, and I rejoiced in using such brackets in my own essays and compositions through the rest of my childhood.

Full Speech here:
http://www.mythsoc.org/gaiman.htm

[JasonPratt]

Well, that would fit well enough into a theory that what people are caviling about in TLB is not so much what Lewis was actually saying (since that rarely factors into it) but what they figured would be extrapolated from it by the average Christian--with this sometimes being attributed to Lewis for sake of making the point seem stronger regardless of things like accurate literary criticism. {wry s}

Anyway: I'm glad to hear he isn't quite as death on Lewis as Pullman is (and Moorcock is/was.)

[uc pseudonym]

From the Gaiman interviews I have read, he strikes me as a universalist. He has respect for some parts of the Christian tradition and various Christian authors, but he doesn't buy into their philosophies completely.

I haven't read Fragile Things yet. Generally speaking I read them when they come across my path but don't pursue them. Could someone who has tell me the exact content of the story in question? I've seen it mentioned a number of places and I have been curious.

Interesting. I had much the same feeling about Pullman when I realized just what an anti-Christian bigoted zealot he was. I didn't pick up on it until "The Amber Spyglass", but when I did, I was quite disappointed and refused to read any other of his works.

So, perhaps the knife cuts both ways...

And it certainly does not do so subtly, in this case. I apologize, but it was simply too obvious to resist. Regardless, I quote your post to bring up the comparison to Pullman. For me, there is a world of a difference between my respect for Gaiman and what little I have for Pullman, both as authors and as they relate to religion. Gaiman, though he believes differently than I and thus creates worlds with different assumptions, deals with issues honestly and deeply. Pullman, on the other hand, is an inverse Jack Chick with better writing skills.

[Animus Seed]

Could someone who has tell me the exact content of the story in question? I've seen it mentioned a number of places and I have been curious.

Since you asked (Warning: explicit):

[SPOILER="the end of The Problem with Susan"]
Aslan abandons Edmund to the White Witch, hands Peter over to her as well, eats Lucy, kills Susan but doesn't eat her head so she has to watch while Aslan gives oral sex to the White Witch in detail. The last line of the story is "And the lion licked his mouth and was clean once more."[/SPOILER]

Even allowing that Aslan isn't actually Jesus and the Chronicles aren't the Bible, even if they are just fiction, if you are aware on any level that Aslan in some way represents Christ and the Witch in some way represents Satan... what's Mr. Gaiman's point there, especially with that last line?

[mitsuki lover]

Maybe he meant it as a pastiche?Who knows.
Any way I am totally in the dark as to who this Mr.Pullman is,the only Pullman I know of is the city in southeastern Washington where Washington State is located.

[RedMage]

Maybe he meant it as a pastiche?Who knows.

Which...would excuse it in some way???

[uc pseudonym]

Since you asked (Warning: explicit):

Ah, alright. Not what I was expecting, but not really an outlier as far as Gaiman's work goes.

Even allowing that Aslan isn't actually Jesus and the Chronicles aren't the Bible, even if they are just fiction, if you are aware on any level that Aslan in some way represents Christ and the Witch in some way represents Satan... what's Mr. Gaiman's point there, especially with that last line?

Quite possibly there is no point. I, at least, believe that Gaiman at times writes horror for horror's sake. Attempting to find a message does seem a puzzle, though there may be clues for interpretation that do not occur in a summary. If anything, I'd look to the title of the story for meaning, but until I read the story myself I will operate by this theory.

As for the last line, it strikes me as the most potentially offensive line in the story. However, I would rather not elaborate on that.

Any way I am totally in the dark as to who this Mr.Pullman is,the only Pullman I know of is the city in southeastern Washington where Washington State is located.

We are refering to the author described in the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Pullman

The novels that are particularly in question as far as his religious beliefs go are those in the His Dark Materials series (also with a solid wiki article). It is slightly odd that you have not heard of him, but his books never received an extreme amount of public attention. I did find it amusing that everyone was trying to burn Harry Potter while these passed almost without comment.

[mitsuki lover]

I never said it was an excuse I just said that maybe it was written as a pastiche on
TL,TWAndTW.Writers from time to time do enjoy writing pastiches of their favorite
works of literature by other writers.Certainly both Tolkien and Lewis were in the habit of doing it themselves,so why should we wonder that Gaiman might have done the same with The Chronicles of Narnia,which he admitted enjoying as a boy.

[mitsuki lover]

So I googled Philip Pullman and found his official website.He didn't seem to be the ogre you are trying to make him out to be.Yes,he is an Agnostic but as he himself admits you can't be anti-God when you don't even know IF a God exists.He also had an excerpt from one of his books there and I read it and it was rather good,especially the part where the bear talks.
Personally I would love to get a hold of some of his books and read them to make up my own mind,he seems to be rather a good writer.

[uc pseudonym]

By the same token, you might want to read his books prior to declaring our statements about him void. Having read the trilogy in question, I stand by what I've said and the quote you mentioned does not change that.

Here's an example of something that, while not terribly offensive, is rather indicative of his feelings about religion:
[spoiler=The Amber Spyglass]It is revealed in the story that God (yes, the Christian one, because the world with talking bears and such is parallel to our own and characters cross) is actually not divine, merely the first being to be randomly generated in the universe. He told all the others that they created him and they believed him.

Recently he's given almost all his power over to Metatron, who is essentially the antagonist for the story. Because Pullman has a philosophy of "physical is stronger than the spiritual" all it takes to kill Metatron is two humans. God, meanwhile, is finally found by the main characters as a senile, barely-aware being that dies of his own fragility upon contact with the real world.[/spoiler]

Let me also note that we're drifting off topic and should make a general effort not to stray too far from it.

[Zarn Ishtare]

I think this is a natural extension of the topic, but I digress.



Friend, I suggest you send it. that quote horrified me. Send it, and pray the scales fall off of his eyes.


As for Pullman, I most admit, he enchanted me with the first of his trilogy. I loved every moment of it...he drew me in, and it was a sweet escape.

The second one was....well, questionable, but I didn't want to give it up.

The third...The third was a bitter poison and a mote of hell in my soul. I made it my cause to warn fellow christians away from the horrors of Pullman. It scars me still, thinking of it. This horror that Gaimen has unleashed seems no different.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I agree. Northern Lights was very good and had very little objectionable content, The Subtle Knife was pretty good, but not so subtle in parts and The Amber Spyglass was hatespeech. I felt betrayed by Phillip Pullman too.

Back ontopic I haven't read or seen any of Neil Gaimen's stuff but I want to see MirrorMask soon. I've heard his works are fairly dark and surreal and I enjoy that sort of thing sometimes (but that quote is just downright sick).

[Animus Seed]

So I googled Philip Pullman and found his official website.He didn't seem to be the ogre you are trying to make him out to be.Yes,he is an Agnostic but as he himself admits you can't be anti-God when you don't even know IF a God exists.He also had an excerpt from one of his books there and I read it and it was rather good,especially the part where the bear talks.
Personally I would love to get a hold of some of his books and read them to make up my own mind,he seems to be rather a good writer.

I don't remember where I head this, but doesn't Pullman describe himself rather proudly as "the anti-Lewis"? Compared to Mr. Gaiman, who according to the introduction to "The Problem with Susan" continues to read the Narnia books to his daughters at bedtime.

[Zarn Ishtare]

Pullman does not deserve to be considered Lewis's equal opposite: his writing if faulty and his ideals are pathetic.