Chapter 11, Squamates

[rthstewart]

Chapter 11, Squamates, is up.

After much angst, I decided to split the chapter, putting off, yet again, conversations about camels and same sex bonded pairs of black swans, albatrosses, and giraffes. There will also be a flashback with Lucy, Aidan, Morgan and Edmund which answers the question Doctor Dolly raised after He loves not man the less, but nature more -- if Peter and Susan did the great bonding with Narnia, what did Lucy and Edmund do? The answer is that they performed Narnian bonding ceremonies with their spouses. Also, we (finally) get a normal, non-AU conversation with Mary and Peter -- the first since Part 1. But that is all for later.

For this chapter....

Thanks to lady_songsmith, clio, and snacky for the nudges and to many previous reviewers who asked some of the things I now wrestle with here.

I spent way too much time looking at historical agricultural production in Oxfordshire and locations of RAF bases and Aeorodromes. We finally get into the ballroom and return to the plaster blocks and Eustace finally hears about Chinese dragons. I found the story of the four dragons who became the four rivers of China in several places, including here. It is purportedly taken from Dragon Tales: A Collection of Chinese Stories. Beijing: Chinese Literature Press, 1988

I first found the discussion of the same sex giraffe pairs and rams who prefer other rams in the very comprehensive wiki entry, Homosexual behavior in animals and I'll be going back to that in a longer discussion in the next chapter. Other references, however, include the Merck Veterinary Manual which I understand recommends dealing with the rams that will not tup ewes as a matter of herd management and husbandry. N. Bailey and M. Zuk, Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 24, Issue 8, 439-446, 10 June 2009 was also useful, here

Some time ago, readers expressed an interest in seeing something of Mary and Richard happy, some explanation for why their relationship was what it was. So, I've done that here, writing what I hope is an older man and husband's point of view on his wife, love, lust, and bitter regret.

In an original text with Christian symbolism (I hesitate to call it allegory, as Lewis eschewed the term) and a fandom that so emphasizes it, I know that, nevertheless, there are plenty of readers (including some or many who come here) who do not adhere to Christianity and who do not and never have read the Chronicles for their Christian symbology. Some time ago, a reader asked me if Mary was an atheist. I said no, and of course, Richard is not an atheist as a point of his character was to show the co-existence of science and faith. The question though has stayed with me. As I moved into Part 3, I have begun to play with an idea with Digory -- that as a religious scholar he is, nevertheless, not religious. He is, however, a deist and shows how seeing God in everything means he sees God everywhere.  He does not subscribe to the view that God must be worshiped one particular way. He (and Lucy) are very iconoclastic, but still they are not atheists.

With Eustace, I go there, posing the questions a lot of fans have with this series. If we assume Aslan is a Jesus-stand-in, he is, at best, a pretty poor deity, so this argument goes. He imperils children, is inconsistent, arbitrary and even cruel, and, for instance, unlike Jesus who did tell his disciples that he would be resurrected (they just didn't understand the elliptical message), Lucy and Susan didn't have that information and so for a night, they weep over Aslan's dead body thinking he is really and truly gone forever. Nice.

Eustace, both in the canon character that we know, and as developed here, is in a position to express those viewpoints about where Aslan can be seen as falling short in the love your children, God is omnipotent, department. Eustace voices the criticism of Aslan the other Friends of Narnia don't voice. The counter is Jill who, as is developing here, has a very charismatic view of God and has been raised to see God as the deliverer, shepherd, and protector of oppressed people.  Jill is very comfortable with the age old question, why does God let bad things happen to good people?  She comes from slaves and still believes.

And if there was any doubt, Peter is no theologian or philosopher.

So, the next chapter is mostly finished and the one after that is the Christmas chapter, Just Like The Ones We Used To Know. I've been trying to get AW to the point that I can move seamlessly to my Big Bang, but they may not happen.

Anyway, thanks so much.  I would not have pushed Eustace in this direction were it not for the thoughtful commentary I've read over the last 2+ years so my thanks to those who have posed these questions.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Good old problem of theodicy...
Personally I always emphasize two aspects:
- of the free will – roughly speaking: if we have a free will, we must be allowed to do wrong; God certainly cannot repair everything we do immediately after it’s done;
- of the limited knowledge and perception plus unclear definition of “good” and “bad” – we are not able to say what are all results of a particular deed and most certainly we are not able to judge if they are better or worse than all results of a deed which could prevent the other one from happening; to establish what is good or bad – or rather: happening of what is good or bad - one needs to possess infinite knowledge and infinite ability of information processing. In particular, one have to able to perceive time just as one of the dimensions. Such an independent observer – which, for his superhuman abilities, may be called God – would also need to have some criteria to establish what is worse and what is better – and these criteria could be different from ours (they surely are, as we – people – differ in that matter even between ourselves).
Example for a second aspect: Pevensie siblings as monarchs were clear result of Jadis’ rule. Have their reign brought more good then Jadis’ - evil? Discuss.
Why do I write so much about that (instead of commenting a new chapter like a good girl)? I have a feeling that second aspect I submitted could be close to your Edmund’s point of view. As a person which has an access to not-so-widely-available knowledge it should be especially conspicuous for him how lack of or possessing certain information influences our judgment about sb’s behaviour or facts.
Krystyna

[rthstewart.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting, Krystyna! I think you are right that Edmund falls into your second point as written here. I think that some people though do stake a definitive position on THIS is good and THIS is bad. Some of that is easy of course -- we assume that murder is usually going to be bad -- though I do remember a law and philosophy course I took once many years ago that began with the question, "Why do we not expose infants on hillsides? Why is killing children bad?" I did not do well in the class incidentally, because I may have continually answered, "uhhh because?" But the awareness of imperfect knowledge would make Edmund very slow to judgment.

Whereas the free will argument I could see being completely unpersuasive to Eustace as he would trot out the, well if God's is all powerful and omniscient, that means the free will doesn't mean anything. God saw it all coming and didn't stop the bad and could have done so but did not. How can one "bad" person's exercise of free will be more valuable than than say that person's victim? I'm not disagreeing but it's interesting to think about..