You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.73 AVERAGE
3.73 AVERAGE
Best book I've read in a long time. Re-examination of the Chronicles of Narnia by a woman about my age, who was in love with them as a child, then horrified to discover the Christian elements. Ranges all over through the books themselves, Lewis's biography, the author's own psychology, the Tolkien connection, and so on, and so on. Gave me a lot to think about from my own youthful readings of Narnia. (Over and over and over.) I think I discovered the Christian stuff about the same age that she did, but my reaction (initially) was quite different. Mom bought me a glossary (?) of Narnia, and I was fascinated trying to work out the symbolism, like a puzzle. Not that I was especially converted (that's a long story), but I liked the idea of a story inside the story. Also greatly appreciated the little quotes; had forgotten how lovely Lewis's writing could be.
Ms. Miller's response to Narnia is, on the one hand, a great re-experiencing of the Chronicles and the world that Jack built. On the other, it's an attempt to deflate the Christian aspects of this "supposal" of Lewis.
Much of the book I agreed with and enjoyed, particularly when she introduced other readers' comments and reactions to the Chronicles. The deft interweaving of Jack's biography, the times in which he wrote, the Inklings and the what and who of the books is impressive. I also very much liked how she handled the nature of the relationships between Lewis and Tolkien and Lewis and Mrs. Moore.
And yet...
Relying on [a:A.N. Wilson|5842160|A.N. Wilson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1350382233p2/5842160.jpg]'s biography while leaving other, better versions out is problematic. Why? Granted, almost all biographers have an ax to grind, but in this case a balance could have been struck between Wilson and, for example, [a:George Sayer|17193|George Sayer|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]. Obviously, the biographer's views on his relationship with Joy Gresham, Mrs. Moore and Christianity will ultimately color what's written, so (I think) relying only on one version sends signals about what you believe.
The Susan Question was dealt with, but not totally satisfactorily. My reading has always been that for now, Susan won't be joining the rest in the Narnia-further-up-and-farther-inside-Narnia. But there is a promise of her getting there, if she chooses. I don't see Lewis' attitude towards Susan as misogynistic, I see it as him saying "pay attention to all this nonsense, trivial stuff and you miss the really important things."
But where this book falls down for me is her treatment of Puddleglum. His expression of faith is, I thought, mocked and, well, that just won't do.
One amusing bit: there's an assumption that older (adult) readers will get the symbolism and the dragon-sneaking because they're older and more aware and exposed, etc. Not so true: my father read them in the 70s and was shocked (shocked!) when I picked up on "something extra" (he was in his mid-30s, I was about 10).
Much of the book I agreed with and enjoyed, particularly when she introduced other readers' comments and reactions to the Chronicles. The deft interweaving of Jack's biography, the times in which he wrote, the Inklings and the what and who of the books is impressive. I also very much liked how she handled the nature of the relationships between Lewis and Tolkien and Lewis and Mrs. Moore.
And yet...
Relying on [a:A.N. Wilson|5842160|A.N. Wilson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1350382233p2/5842160.jpg]'s biography while leaving other, better versions out is problematic. Why? Granted, almost all biographers have an ax to grind, but in this case a balance could have been struck between Wilson and, for example, [a:George Sayer|17193|George Sayer|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]. Obviously, the biographer's views on his relationship with Joy Gresham, Mrs. Moore and Christianity will ultimately color what's written, so (I think) relying only on one version sends signals about what you believe.
The Susan Question was dealt with, but not totally satisfactorily. My reading has always been that for now, Susan won't be joining the rest in the Narnia-further-up-and-farther-inside-Narnia. But there is a promise of her getting there, if she chooses. I don't see Lewis' attitude towards Susan as misogynistic, I see it as him saying "pay attention to all this nonsense, trivial stuff and you miss the really important things."
But where this book falls down for me is her treatment of Puddleglum. His expression of faith is, I thought, mocked and, well, that just won't do.
One amusing bit: there's an assumption that older (adult) readers will get the symbolism and the dragon-sneaking because they're older and more aware and exposed, etc. Not so true: my father read them in the 70s and was shocked (shocked!) when I picked up on "something extra" (he was in his mid-30s, I was about 10).
Miller writes at times extremely movingly about the impact that reading has especially on the juvenile mind. I particularly liked her exploration of the differences between reading as a child and reading as an adult and the way in which children inhabit a fantasy world of a novel with a passion and without any degree of removal or eye towards literary criticism.
Her description of her relationship with religion and how it impacted her to realize that Narnia was about religion (and more to the point that it was rife with symbolism and additional meanings) and overall her maturation in her reading style was poignant.
Also interesting was the exploration of the relationship between Lewis and Tolkien - Miller really uses the men as foils to each other to explore their distinct religiosities and views on their manifest to write. In addition, she talks about the different approaches to writing and the relative importance of different components of a story's structure. It made clear to me that the reason I've always liked Lewis and never liked Tolkien is that Lewis is committed to a narrative, whereas Tolkien was truly a setting simulationist.
On the other hand, once she had dispensed with her central thesis, the remainder of the book really lagged and seemed to be the same key points in repetition.
Her description of her relationship with religion and how it impacted her to realize that Narnia was about religion (and more to the point that it was rife with symbolism and additional meanings) and overall her maturation in her reading style was poignant.
Also interesting was the exploration of the relationship between Lewis and Tolkien - Miller really uses the men as foils to each other to explore their distinct religiosities and views on their manifest to write. In addition, she talks about the different approaches to writing and the relative importance of different components of a story's structure. It made clear to me that the reason I've always liked Lewis and never liked Tolkien is that Lewis is committed to a narrative, whereas Tolkien was truly a setting simulationist.
On the other hand, once she had dispensed with her central thesis, the remainder of the book really lagged and seemed to be the same key points in repetition.
This book is about a literary critic who fell in love with Narnia as a child, then became horrified and offended as a young adult when she learned of the Christian allegories and other fundamental issues in the books after reading a literary criticism of them. She recently returned to the books, looking for the magic she found as a child, and argues that others can find the same, even as a skeptic.
Unlike the author of this book, I did not fall in love with Narnia as a child. I read the "Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" in school about the time I was in junior-high. By that time, I had progressed way beyond the sophistication of this book. If I had been exposed to it at the age of seven as the author was, I might have been a fan. Unfortunately for CS Lewis, I was old enough to notice the not-very-thinly-veiled Christian references, sexism, and overt racism and allegory (maybe because I was reading Orwell's "Animal Farm" concurrently.) I was offended, because like the author of "The Magician's Book" I was a growing skeptic who disliked being manipulated. I set the book aside and picked up Tolkien's "The Hobbit" which I fell in love with, with the same intensity and passion that the author describes she had for Narnia, initially.
I read no more Lewis until I took a course in the literature of Lewis and Tolkien in college. I read almost everything both of them had written, and came to the same conclusion as I did at 12--Lewis is an imaginative, but annoying and manipulative author with an agenda I whole-heartedly disagree with.
The author of "The Magician's Book" makes very good arguments for why you can read Narnia and love it even as a skeptic. She had me convinced that it was possible for me to re-read Narnia and find some magic within until she resorted to criticizing Tolkien in order to accomplish her goal. This maneuver was unnecessary. I will probably go back and try to re-read the Narnia books, which I still own, but I will remain a skeptic about the books, I think.
Though I found the accounts of her exploration of Narnia interesting, the book held very little new knowledge about Lewis or Tolkien I hadn't already known. For the uninitiated, this book might be more fascinating, as it is very well researched an written. I couldn't really finish the last few chapters, though, possibly because I am one of the Tolkien fanatics she references to when she begins to criticize him. I recognize the weaknesses of the individual and his writing, but it was unnecessary to tear down what Tolkien accomplished in order to build up what Lewis accomplished (and vice-versa, really, for those Lewis bashers who point to Tolkien's work as a means of discounting Lewis. Each man had his biases, problems, and issues.) She also makes an argument that Narnia pulls in the reader and evokes a rich, living landscape of the imagination, where many stories untold live beyond the horizon, where Tolkien's doesn't. Maybe not for her, but for me the opposite has always been true. Furthermore, learning more about Tolkien, his biases, his agenda and his problems did not ruin the world of Middle-Earth for me, like it does for readers of Narnia. I think this is because Tolkien's writing is much more "honest" and engages the reader in dialog rather than polemic on issues such as evil, war, racism, and hatred. I have never felt preached to or manipulated by Tolkien, and appreciate that as a reader.
Since I never was a Narnia fan, I don't think this book convinced me. It might convince you to give Narnia a second chance, if indeed you loved the books as a child and were offended when you learned of the author's use of Christian metaphor in his writing.
Unlike the author of this book, I did not fall in love with Narnia as a child. I read the "Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" in school about the time I was in junior-high. By that time, I had progressed way beyond the sophistication of this book. If I had been exposed to it at the age of seven as the author was, I might have been a fan. Unfortunately for CS Lewis, I was old enough to notice the not-very-thinly-veiled Christian references, sexism, and overt racism and allegory (maybe because I was reading Orwell's "Animal Farm" concurrently.) I was offended, because like the author of "The Magician's Book" I was a growing skeptic who disliked being manipulated. I set the book aside and picked up Tolkien's "The Hobbit" which I fell in love with, with the same intensity and passion that the author describes she had for Narnia, initially.
I read no more Lewis until I took a course in the literature of Lewis and Tolkien in college. I read almost everything both of them had written, and came to the same conclusion as I did at 12--Lewis is an imaginative, but annoying and manipulative author with an agenda I whole-heartedly disagree with.
The author of "The Magician's Book" makes very good arguments for why you can read Narnia and love it even as a skeptic. She had me convinced that it was possible for me to re-read Narnia and find some magic within until she resorted to criticizing Tolkien in order to accomplish her goal. This maneuver was unnecessary. I will probably go back and try to re-read the Narnia books, which I still own, but I will remain a skeptic about the books, I think.
Though I found the accounts of her exploration of Narnia interesting, the book held very little new knowledge about Lewis or Tolkien I hadn't already known. For the uninitiated, this book might be more fascinating, as it is very well researched an written. I couldn't really finish the last few chapters, though, possibly because I am one of the Tolkien fanatics she references to when she begins to criticize him. I recognize the weaknesses of the individual and his writing, but it was unnecessary to tear down what Tolkien accomplished in order to build up what Lewis accomplished (and vice-versa, really, for those Lewis bashers who point to Tolkien's work as a means of discounting Lewis. Each man had his biases, problems, and issues.) She also makes an argument that Narnia pulls in the reader and evokes a rich, living landscape of the imagination, where many stories untold live beyond the horizon, where Tolkien's doesn't. Maybe not for her, but for me the opposite has always been true. Furthermore, learning more about Tolkien, his biases, his agenda and his problems did not ruin the world of Middle-Earth for me, like it does for readers of Narnia. I think this is because Tolkien's writing is much more "honest" and engages the reader in dialog rather than polemic on issues such as evil, war, racism, and hatred. I have never felt preached to or manipulated by Tolkien, and appreciate that as a reader.
Since I never was a Narnia fan, I don't think this book convinced me. It might convince you to give Narnia a second chance, if indeed you loved the books as a child and were offended when you learned of the author's use of Christian metaphor in his writing.
I really enjoyed the author’s writing style, her clear grasp of the literary world, and open honesty about not being a Christian, a minority in the fandom of CS Lewis.
I DNFed this about a quarter of the way for several reasons. Firstly, the author references Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy” so many times I felt I’d be better off just re-reading that book instead. Secondly, I feel that one cannot truly accept/understand the writings of Lewis while also denying the Scriptures he based them on. A lot of meaning is lost in translation between the believing mind & the non-religious. Lastly, when the author drew conclusions of an erotic encounter between Lucy, Susan & Aslan, I knew I was done.
I DNFed this about a quarter of the way for several reasons. Firstly, the author references Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy” so many times I felt I’d be better off just re-reading that book instead. Secondly, I feel that one cannot truly accept/understand the writings of Lewis while also denying the Scriptures he based them on. A lot of meaning is lost in translation between the believing mind & the non-religious. Lastly, when the author drew conclusions of an erotic encounter between Lucy, Susan & Aslan, I knew I was done.
I gave this book only 2 stars because it wasn’t what I was expecting or hoping for—and maybe that’s partially my fault. Based on the book’s description (“an intellectual adventure story in which Miller travels to Lewis’s childhood home in Ireland, the possible inspiration for Narnia’s landscape…”), I was expecting a memoir or autobiographical narrative of the author’s re-read of the Chronicles of Narnia later in life coupled with her journeys throughout the British Isles. Instead, the author—who is a literary critic—gave us a literary critique of the Chronicles, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien. (She writes a TON about Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, probably dedicating a good third of the book to these topics. This was disappointing to me, as I have never much been into Tolkien’s writings.) There were sprinkles of autobiographical tidbits thrown in here and there, but it was mostly things that would only fascinate English professors: a Freudian analysis of Lewis’s works, comparing Lewis and Tolkien’s works to Medieval Anglo-Saxon literature, a breakdown of the themes in the Chronicles, biographical information on Lewis, etc. So based on the author’s profession, maybe I should not have been surprised that The Magician’s Book was less exciting than I had hoped, but based on the description, this was definitely a letdown. Perhaps someone coming into reading it with a better understanding of the book’s content would have a better experience.
I don't know what I was looking for in this book. Maybe meaning making, even for a non-believer.
It's an interesting look at the Narnia books, and at CS Lewis. Miller is a self-identified "skeptic", non-religious. And she also grew up loving the Narnia books. That's the central tension here as she explores Lewis and his life and relationships.
It's an interesting look at the Narnia books, and at CS Lewis. Miller is a self-identified "skeptic", non-religious. And she also grew up loving the Narnia books. That's the central tension here as she explores Lewis and his life and relationships.
I was initially drawn to this book because of my childhood love of the Chronicles of Narnia. As one who is not an English major or familiar with literary criticism I did enjoy this book. I liked the conversational tone of the narrative which made it easy to go along for the ride as Miller related all the building blocks that make Narnia as beloved as it is despite its Christian allegory heritage.
Recently I've been reading a lot of these more personal, autobiographical takes on literary criticism. This is the best I've read so far. She captured so much of what I loved about the Narnia books as a kid, and what I didn't like about them as a teenager. Then she goes further, forcing me to reconsider my narrow-minded views of Lewis and his work.