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)]

Which is where I also feel the need to butt in. I'm also going to wave the poor theologian, terrible at self-examination flag, but my response is "why does there have to be an answer?" I like (and want) a nice answer tied up in a neat bow, just as much as the next woman. But I'm also old enough to know that life rarely hands us nice, neat answers, especially to the big theological/philosophical questions like these. Through a glass darkly, now I know in part, and all of that...

Long question short, does there have to be an answer? Life doesn't go that way for most of us, so why should/would I expect you clever writers to be able to answer all of the biggies for me? For mine, it comes back to doing the best I can with what I have been given - and surely that is all that any one of us can do.

[rthstewart.livejournal.com]

A lovely answer, thank you. Do you come here and usually don't sign in? Is there some initial or pseudo by which you normally self-identify? (There are several H's here and several L's, for instance). And if this is your first time, thank you even more.

I especially appreciate this as I am stinging a bit over something I got about the chapter, so meh. Eustace's skepticism took me by surprise. I can see how Eustace's skepticism and anger about the deity he does know translate into outright disbelief of the deity he does not know. There is a difference -- as pointed out, he's never going to pull a "don't believe in Narnia." But maybe he does develop a more challenging relationship with Aslan -- I don't think this is a bad thing, by the way and I suppose it becomes a positive. He perceives the shortcomings and the injustice (real or imagined), and still believes.

[min023.livejournal.com]

Whoops - that was me, sorry. Computer ate my signon, what is what I get for doing too many things at once. Oh, well...

[cofax7]

Long question short, does there have to be an answer?

Well, if there does, I think we're kind of screwed. *grins*

Your last line reminds me of that line from Angel: the Series: "If nothing that we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." On the days I feel a bit ground down by the universe, I try to cling to that.

Rth, thanks for hosting this discussion!

[rthstewart.livejournal.com]

A lovely quote. I'm really humbled by the quality of the discussion here.