Inklings Cage Match!

A while back there was a string of posts on the Christian Pipe Smokers forum, each pitting one sort of thing against another in an online poll. Kind of a Que Es Mas Macho? sort of thing. For those of you who don't remember, Que Es Mas Macho? was a Saturday Night Live sketch featuring Bill Murray as the host of a Mexican TV game show by that name. He would ask contestants "Que es mas macho?" ("What is more macho?") and then they had to choose between two seemingly completely random and unrelated things, like "knife, or pineapple?". The answer was always seemingly random, too, except that where famous people were concerned, Ricardo Montalban was always more macho than anyone.

That's the way I feel about a lot of such contests, which is why a show like Spike's Deadliest Warriors fails to hold my interest. It's all fantasy. It sounds for all the world like the concept was hatched by two potheads in their dorm room, "Okay... okay, like... Samurai vs. Viking... who would win?... No! No!... Ninja vs. Spartan. Ninja? No way. Yer so wrong. A Spartan would totally OWN a ninja...". Of course, it's on Spike, so that's about what one would expect.

So when "J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis?" came up as a poll topic, I kind of rolled my eyes, but weighed in anyhow;

Unfair! This is like asking me which Siamese twin I will allow to live.

That being said, I voted for Tolkien (though I love Lewis).

I certainly owe my reversion to Christianity more to Lewis, since his books were a big influence and were more openly apologetic works. I actually discovered him and Tolkien at about the same time, and had no idea they were friends or that they influenced one another so greatly.

I just had to take into account that Tolkien wrote one of the pivotal works of fiction of the twentieth century, a model for what Christian culture should be like, as opposed to the hamfisted, lowbrow kitsch that is so often foisted upon us (and on a watching world) in the name of JAY-zussss.

Tolkien's tales soak into an unsuspecting heathen's bones and begin to convert his subconscious mind before he ever begins thinking in concrete terms about religion or philosophy. Lewis articulates a meaningful universe, but Tolkien makes you long to live there.

Not everyone makes these connections, of course, or follows through on them, but I think Tolkien's work prepares the soil for those who may later cultivate and harvest.

That's an over-simple analysis, of course. Lewis wrote some marvelous passages that made heaven seem almost palpable. What thinkest thou?

(incidentally, I'm beginning to figure out that part of what has cut into my blogging of late has been a growing Facebook habit, as well as the CPS forum. I react more readily than I invent. I will endeavor from now on to save more ascii and precious brain power for TLBC)

Comments

[Paul S.]

"Tolkien's tales soak into an unsuspecting heathen's bones and begin to convert his subconscious mind before he ever begins thinking in concrete terms about religion or philosophy. Lewis articulates a meaningful universe, but Tolkien makes you long to live there."

Well said!

[Jeff Hendrix]

Full agreement, Bro Tim: Tolkien - especially his letters - speak reams about the Faith. Lewis's logic, images, and writing are bolstering, but generic, if you will.

Now, to start reading another contemporary of both Inklings, yet one who wrote about the specificity of the Catholic faith one must delve into Ronald Knox. I just ordered Fr Milton Walsh's Second Friends about Lewis and Knox, who, BTW, knew and admired one anothers' academics and acquaintance.

A great entree for Knox is his Creed in Slow Motion - one sees almost a "Catholic Lewis" in whimsy, scholarship, and prose writing, but, again, with Catholic specificity (rather than 'mere' Christianity). Cheers

[John Kasaian]

It's all good. The literature of Tolkien, Lewis and Knox (and Chesterton and Belloc too) is like taking in views of the steeple or dome of a destination for a pilgrimage as it appears when our path crests a hill, only to sink into the earth until reappearing when the next hill is crested

[Del]

Lewis didn't do that much to popularize pipe-smoking, either.

[Andrew Preslar]

Lewis or Tolkien?

Just read Till We Have Faces (listened to it, actually).

So, Lewis.

Hold on, just read The Two Towers, "Floatsam and Jetsam." ["and the two hobbits, unabashed, set to a second time"] Also, Gollum's peremptory dismissal of both taters ["What's 'taters', precious?"] and oliphaunts ["he doesn't want them to be"].

So, Tolkien.

[Tim J.]

Till We Have Faces is probably my favorite C.S. Lewis book.

[Patrick]

Apropos of this: at what age do you think a boy should read the LotR trilogy or, say, the Chronicles of Narnia? I have a nephew who is 11, and I think he ought to read these in the next few years as a base for "moral imagination". I'd rather he isn't lost to the general culture, and since he's got no father, I feel like I should suggest these at some point.

I likes this: "Lewis articulates a meaningful universe, but Tolkien makes you long to live there."

That's probably true. Nonetheless, I prefer Lewis for pieces like "The Abolition of Man" and "Mere Christianity" because I prefer arguments rather than allegories. This is more a problem with me than with allegories, though. Whereas one can trace the line of reasoning with argument, you can't "fact check" and allegory - either you're moved or unmoved. And being moved is better than good prose: but I've never been able to trust it as good philosophy.

[John Kasaian]

I'll take Tolkien in the second round---as soon as JJR unleashes his Marian Devotion I think Lewis will "tap out."

[The Pachyderminator]

Patrick: Children can appreciate the Narnia books from a very young age. By all means encourage your nephew to read them now, if he hasn't started them already.

The Lord of the Rings is certainly harder, and has many places that would seem dry to most children. Some can read it at age eleven; most would need to wait a few more years. However, he should be ready to read The Hobbit around this time, or read it together with a family member, in preparation for The Lord of the Rings.

By the way, I don't know if you meant to imply this, but The Lord of the Rings is not an allegory. In any case, though there are risks attendant upon the absence of "fact checking", as human beings we need our minds to be formed by imagination as well as by arguments. The trouble comes when one is mistaken for the other.

So reading The Lord of the Rings would not give one an adequate reason to become Christian no matter how deeply they were moved by it, but it would be reasonable for the reading to help one make the decision to convert in conjunction with rational evidence--that is, it is easier to embrace Truth when it is accompanied by a compellingly beautiful vision of the world expressed in works of imagination.

[Patrick]

Thanks, Pachyderminator.

"I don't know if you meant to imply this..."

Actually, my writing is just *really* sloppy. For instance, when I said "nephew", I meant "cousin" (mother's sister's child - yep, cousin). Sheesh.

[The Cobbler]

Vikings are tops, definitely; after that, I think Spartans rock ninjas, but would be open to persuasion otherwise depending on the ethic and virtue of ninjas (where Spartans, for all their military virtue, could be a tad.. machiavellian?).

Sorry, it's a geek thing; we really do care that much about our cultures and warriors. Although, I have been known to say that the space ninja pirate samurai cowboy viking knight trumps all...