I'm always intrigued people people who argue that writers' personal beliefs must be reflected in their writing--mine certainly aren't always! (Especially, say, in my Narnia fic, where I tend to give Aslan a lot of slack, even though a) atheist! and b) if I did believe in an omnipotent omniscient deity I would have to hate it.) Sometimes your personal credo doesn't work for the story you're telling, or the world, or the audience. Especially fantasy children's stories--you might have to change your theology around a bit.
I'm also intrigued by the idea that writers have one set of personal beliefs, even though (as in Lewis's case) those beliefs were forged over a lifetime, and we seriously don't have access to a lot of them (like the sexuality issue, for instance. Lewis was close friends with a gay man and seemed to have some S&M leanings himself, so...). Even if we could say with 100% certainty that Lewis was writing his direct beliefs into each book, what do we do if his understanding of Christ changed between LWW and LB? Which is the "true" Aslan?
Mainly, though, I don't think it's relevant. (I mean, I think it's interesting, to be sure--sometimes I am fascinated by what writers think. And I *do* think context is frequently important. A writer writing about two men sharing a bed, frex, is going to mean different things in a novel set during the civil war than a novel set right now. Which is why the Achilles/Patrocles ship war is ultimately futile, but I digress.) And that's for two reasons: first, because I don't think writers should be able to insist on their readers carrying around three biographies, a manifesto, and a commentary to understand the story. That's sloppy writing. I might have meant that, say, Will is an elderly basset hound, but if you have to read through my journal to the bit where I talk about how I've always believed in writing about dogs as those left behind by soldiers, and then read through a comment somewhere else about how I love basset hounds, and then read through another comment about how Will is the perfect name for a dog...if that's the way my story was meant to be read I am a sloppy writer. You know?
And second, like, whatever, author. The author is dead! I don't believe in the idea that there is one thing put into the story, and that's what the author meant, and that's the end. Readers get different things out (I mean, hell, what are Homer's thoughts on war, right?), and writers don't get to dictate that, even within the confines of the story. If I write a story that I think is totally about stalking, is it invalid if readers think it's about sainthood? (uuuuum actually I think I am going to go with yes here. NEVER HEALTHY, READERS. :/ Maybe the better example is: I interpreted--and wrote--that final section as Lucy finally getting some power back in that relationship, but other people have definitely seen it as the nail in the coffin of Aslan being an abusive boyfriend, so to speak. I don't think that's invalid at all--I think it's totally a valid conclusion from the text that I wrote. And my text speaks for itself, and I can't wander about telling people what to think, because the story is a story all by itself.)
I think also...like, sometimes writers mean for the hero to be perfect, and they say he's perfect, and they write it into the text, and they tell you in interviews, and he's still Edward Cullen. So authors can be wrong. Even Lewis. And I think Narnia fandom sometimes has a problem with that, because there's a weird contingent of fandom that wants to take Lewis as, like, a fifth gospel.
no subject
I'm also intrigued by the idea that writers have one set of personal beliefs, even though (as in Lewis's case) those beliefs were forged over a lifetime, and we seriously don't have access to a lot of them (like the sexuality issue, for instance. Lewis was close friends with a gay man and seemed to have some S&M leanings himself, so...). Even if we could say with 100% certainty that Lewis was writing his direct beliefs into each book, what do we do if his understanding of Christ changed between LWW and LB? Which is the "true" Aslan?
Mainly, though, I don't think it's relevant. (I mean, I think it's interesting, to be sure--sometimes I am fascinated by what writers think. And I *do* think context is frequently important. A writer writing about two men sharing a bed, frex, is going to mean different things in a novel set during the civil war than a novel set right now. Which is why the Achilles/Patrocles ship war is ultimately futile, but I digress.) And that's for two reasons: first, because I don't think writers should be able to insist on their readers carrying around three biographies, a manifesto, and a commentary to understand the story. That's sloppy writing. I might have meant that, say, Will is an elderly basset hound, but if you have to read through my journal to the bit where I talk about how I've always believed in writing about dogs as those left behind by soldiers, and then read through a comment somewhere else about how I love basset hounds, and then read through another comment about how Will is the perfect name for a dog...if that's the way my story was meant to be read I am a sloppy writer. You know?
And second, like, whatever, author. The author is dead! I don't believe in the idea that there is one thing put into the story, and that's what the author meant, and that's the end. Readers get different things out (I mean, hell, what are Homer's thoughts on war, right?), and writers don't get to dictate that, even within the confines of the story. If I write a story that I think is totally about stalking, is it invalid if readers think it's about sainthood? (uuuuum actually I think I am going to go with yes here. NEVER HEALTHY, READERS. :/ Maybe the better example is: I interpreted--and wrote--that final section as Lucy finally getting some power back in that relationship, but other people have definitely seen it as the nail in the coffin of Aslan being an abusive boyfriend, so to speak. I don't think that's invalid at all--I think it's totally a valid conclusion from the text that I wrote. And my text speaks for itself, and I can't wander about telling people what to think, because the story is a story all by itself.)
I think also...like, sometimes writers mean for the hero to be perfect, and they say he's perfect, and they write it into the text, and they tell you in interviews, and he's still Edward Cullen. So authors can be wrong. Even Lewis. And I think Narnia fandom sometimes has a problem with that, because there's a weird contingent of fandom that wants to take Lewis as, like, a fifth gospel.