11/22/63 ... a book review, but not THAT book!

So today is the anniversary of three deaths. JFK was shot on this day in 1963. Also, Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World, among other books) died of an intentionally lethal overdose of LSD. In 1963. Finally, C.S. Lewis (author of the Narnia books) died on this day, as a result of a long battle with kidney disease. In 1963.

A couple weeks ago, one of the best-selling American authors of all time released a book entitled 11/22/63, about a time traveller who intends to stop the events of that date. You've probably guessed it has to do with the Kennedy assassination, not the two British authors. I haven't read the book (it's a brick -- seriously, a couple hundred copies of that book and I could build a garage) but that's okay, because that's not the book dealing with this date that I'm writing about for this blog post.

No, the book I'm writing about -- and recommending -- is called Between Heaven & Hell: A Dialogue Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C.S. Lewis, & Aldous Huxley. Written by philosopher and C.S. Lewis scholar Peter Kreeft, the book is a modern Socratic dialogue between these three men.

Kreeft uses each of the men to express a different philosophy and a different view of who Christ was. Kennedy represents a modern American "Christian", or "humanist Christian" as Kreeft puts it. Someone who believes Christ existed and was wise, but that Jesus was not God and miracles were exaggerations of Christ's true actions. Huxley represents a universal philosophy, one that makes Christ's teachings an expression of universal truth, but not THE expression of THE truth. And Lewis represents "mere Christianity", the common and essential beliefs of Christians and the catholic (little "c" is intended here) church.

The book itself is brilliant. Sometime after these deaths on 11/22/63, these three men meet . . . somewhere "between heaven and hell". As the title suggests. Of course, their actual location becomes a matter of debate. As their conversation continues, they begin discussing "life, the universe, and everything" (not in those words). Questions arise about Jesus' divinity and whether someone can be intellectually honest if they merely believe Jesus to be a good teacher, the historicity of the Bible, free will, and what does "truth" even mean?

The book tackles deep questions and gives deep answers. It's a dense book, too, packing a lot into its 100 pages. But it gets you thinking. It gets you asking these questions. It gets you mulling over the answers.

It's all imaginary. Yes, yes, I know, obviously it is imaginary. But that's not what I mean. This isn't a matter of Kreeft creating a true "dialogue" through the manipulation of three men's writings. Rather, he casts these three men in representations of an argument, as opposed to the arguers themselves. Using these three famous men, who all happened to die on the same day, as a storytelling device, he crafts an engaging and dramatic conversation. In Kreeft's own words, "the purpose of the dialog is not historical accuracy; the argument is all, as it is with Plato's Socrates." Thus, Kennedy, who rarely spoke publicly about his religious beliefs becomes a symbol for modern "casual Christianity". Only when reading Lewis' lines, which contain numerous allusions to his famous writings about why Christianity can claim to be Truth (capital "T" also intentional), did I feel that this might actually have been what he would have said. (I've not read anything by Kennedy, and my knowledge of Huxley is limited to a few readings of Brave New World over a decade ago.)

So I do recommend it. I recommend it to people who are Christians and want to explore answers to some of the questions being posed to them about their faith. (And these are important questions. Christians are, too often, afraid to approach some questions. Perhaps because they are afraid that the answer might invalidate their beliefs?) I recommend it to people who are not Christians, but wonder how anyone could possibly believe such hogwash as a man who claimed to be God.

But beyond saying it's a good book, with a lot of meaning, I'd also like to recommend HOW you read it. Take your time. Reread some of the passages. It's a short book, perhaps an afternoon read. But I said before it is dense. Every sentence builds on the last, as arguments are made, challenges given, and answers explained. But don't let that deter you. Rather, embrace that and use exercise some of your extra brain muscle.

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #29 -- The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

(Earlier Narnia posts: Read my review of Prince Caspian here. Here's Disney's admittance to releasing Prince Caspian on a bad weekend. And here's the news that Disney was dumping the Narnia franchise, but Fox was picking it up.)


Voyage of the Dawn Treader has some really great acting. Some incredible special effects. Great sets. Brilliant cinematography. Awesome creature design. It's a really good movie.

But, you know what, my review is going to be one of those "it was different than the book" type things. I feel bad even typing it. But it's true.

The kid who plays Eustace is spot on perfect. Edmund and Lucy, the same actors from the first two Walden Media Narnia films, fall into their rolls perfectly. Caspian does better as King Caspian than he did as Prince Caspian. The White Witch, brought back in a larger cameo than in Prince Caspian, is right on.

But they made so many changes. Unnecessary changes. Now, I understand the challenges of taking a story created for one medium and changing it to another medium. Most of my experience comes from comic books. I've taken historical stories and turned them into comic books. I've taken novels and turned them into comics. I've also done some small scale film projects and stage projects doing the same thing. And it is a challenge. Books are not visual, and so lots of action can happen within people's minds and it's really interesting, but on the screen or comic book panel or stage it's not as easy to do. But that's not the problem with Voyage of the Dawn Treader. They actually do a really good job of putting the internal conflicts of the characters on the screen in a visual way.

I understand that Voyage of the Dawn Treader, as a book, is not a long story with a beginning, middle, and end. It's a series of episodes, held together by a vague "quest" for seven lords who left Narnia long ago. There's no big battle at the end, there's no huge climax. So some of the "episodes" get rearranged. Two islands stops are combined into one island, saving a lot of time. The scariest and most dangerous island is moved to the end and turned into a fierce conflict. That all makes sense.

But apparently, rescuing the seven lords of Narnia wasn't enough. So they fall into the Star Trek movie trap: a story isn't big enough unless Earth itself is in trouble. So Narnia itself is in trouble. A vague evil is causing trouble, and it keeps showing up, and will eventually destroy Narnia if it isn't stopped. And the only way to stop it is . . . well, it's in the video below.



Yup, for some reason those seven lords of Narnia have a magic sword to place at on Alsan's table. And now our heroes must find the swords to destroy the evil.

Just curious about the logic here -- if it won't work unless all seven swords are brought to the table, what good could it possibly be to split up? Instead of seven guys working together to get teh job done, you've got seven guys trying to do it alone, and if even one of them fails, they all do . . . and they have no way of knowing if one of the others needed help . . . adding this element didn't help create a stronger story, it took a stable story and gave it a whole bunch of plot holes.

So we end up with a movie that becomes the "book to movie" cliche that they avoided in the first two movies. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian, changes were made to amp up the action and the drama and to make it more epic. But the story remained the same. In this version, action and drama are amped up . . . but sacrificing the original story to do so. Iconic moments from the book are removed -- moments I was excited to see on the big screen brought to life by master visual effects creators. At one point in the movie, I felt like I was watching an '80's fantasy film -- "You must find the magic weapon to destroy the world-engulfing evil!" and I had images of the Glaive flashing in my head . . . normally not a bad thing.

So overall, we get a well made movie with familiar characters . . . but it's just not Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I'll watch it again. My son was excited about this Narnia movie in the same way I got excited about Star Wars movies. Fortunately, he loves the Narnia books as well.

It's not a bad story. It just felt like big budget fan fiction.

Now, were the spiritual elements lost in the midst of this? Surprisingly, no. There's some really good moments with Aslan and about Aslan. The director and writers were trying to be true, I think, to the intent of the book, and Lewis' ideas. For some reason, though, they just didn't have the same goal for the story.

(Let's address the Liam Neesan controversy for a moment. Mr. Neesan said, "Aslan symbolises a Christlike figure, but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries. That’s who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids – that’s what he means for me." You can't fault him, though, for misunderstanding the difference between Christ and Mohammed & Buddha. Christ is a personal, living part of God who wants a personal relationship with us -- not just a dead mentor. And this shines through brilliantly in the movie. Aslan reveals to Lucy in the end of the movie (and the book) that the reason Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, Eustace, and (eventually, Jill Pole) is so they might get to know Aslan better in our world. That's one of C.S. Lewis' intents for writing these stories as well -- to show us Jesus and help us know him better here.)

So, I do hope Walden Media gets the chance to do Silver Chair, which they should find less challenging to actually use the story as it is. I want to see more of Eustace, and he can carry that film. And I really want to see The Horse and His Boy made into a film (which would allow Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy to appear). But I fear that this is the last we'll see of Narnia on the silver screen. I had hopes for all seven movies to be made, but as of December 15 (six days after opening) Dawn Treader has only made back $112 million of its $155 million budget. It will make money, I think, but it's not a smash hit.

Final thoughts: it's a good movie, it's fun, it's kid-friendly (more than the other two). But I'm a grumpy old man . . .

~ Ben

C.S. Lewis on "Choices"

"[E]very time you make a choice you are turning into the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different than it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing into a heavenly creature or a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state of the other."

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I heard this quote from Peter Kreeft, in a podcast about Mere Christianity, while I was on my run this morning, and it stuck with me. Mere Christianity is a dangerous book, of course, because it so concisely cuts through a lot of the bull that surrounds what really matters.

Lewis had a similar quote, using a similar word picture but in a different context, in The Weight of Glory. In that context it was not about personal choices making us into one or the other, beautiful creature or horrific beast, but rather seeing other people's potential as one or the other and helping them toward the better one. I'll post that quote someday.

This quote feeds nicely into a werewolf story I've wanted to write for a long time . . . maybe someday . . .

~ Ben

THE WAY OF THE WRITER: Inspirational Quote

A little more from my favorite writer:

"Whenever you are fed up with life, start writing: ink is the great cure for all human ills, as I have found out long ago."

- C.S. Lewis, Letters of C.S. Lewis to Arthur Graves

Samurai art by Tim Baron, (c) 2009

THE WAY OF THE WRITER: Inspirational Quotes from C.S. Lewis

"It is impossible to write one's best if nobody else ever has a look at the result."

"What you want is practice, practice, practice. It doesn't matter what we write . . . so long as we write continually as well as we can. I feel that every time I write either of prose or of verse, with real effort, even if it's thrown into the fire the next minute, I am so much further on."

"I am sure that some are born to write as trees are born to bear leaves: for these, writing is a necessary mode of their own development. If the impulse to write survives the hope of success, then one is among these. if not, then the impulse was at best only pardonable vanity, and it will certainly disappear when the hope is withdrawn."

From The Letters of C.S. Lewis to Arthur Graves

Samurai art by Tim Baron, (c) 2009

Nano Film Review #11 -- Prince Caspian

I'm just going to cut to the chase:

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian was amazing.

It was more intense than the first film, and younger children may be disturbed by that. Violence has series consequences in this movie. So do mistakes. And our four heroes make some serious mistakes.

But the movie itself is beautiful. And the themes and messages in the movie, well, they're there if you're looking for them.

I was a little worried about this movie, though. The first one was, to me, really well done. All the things I like about the first movie were in this one, only better. (I am hoping for an extended edition, though.)

So, Speed Racer is going to be kicked to the curb by Narnia. Too bad, I liked Speed Racer. It'll be interesting to see how Iron Man holds up this weekend. People are predicting Narnia to knock it out of the top slot. Next weekend sees the new Indiana Jones movie. How will the Narnians fare against the man with the whip?

~ Ben

"The Lie that Tells the Truth"

I was recently reminded of this article that I wrote last year for an art exhibit in Calgary.

A lot of it is me exploring my attitudes about art and why it is important.

Here it is:


“Art is the lie that tells the truth.”

-- Pablo Picasso

If you’ve ever spent any time studying art, you probably have come across the famous (infamous?) painting by René Magritte entitled “La trahison des images” (“The Treachery of Images”). It is a picture of a pipe and underneath the image are the words “Ceci n'est pas une pipe”. (“This is not a pipe”)

Of course it isn’t. Any three year old can understand that.

And yet, what we are supposed to think on in that highbrow manner is that the picture is a representation of a pipe. (Although, I’m more curious about why he chose a pipe. I mean, did he paint that pipe first and then decide, “You know, this is NOT a pipe.” Or did he say, “I think I’ll make an artistic statement about art that will echo down the halls of art analysis for decades -- and the best way to do that is a pipe.” But that’s just me.)

The artist himself commented about how his painting of a pipe could not be stuffed with tobacco and such. As realistic as the painting may be, it will NEVER be a pipe, barring some sort of Twilight Zone-esque miracle.

Again, this is obvious, but bear with me.

Instead, in looking at the painting, one is looking at a statement the artist makes about the world. This is where the truth comes in.

In Magritte’s case, he made a statement that said, “This is not a pipe.” And that’s the truth. And the Truth.

Yes. I added a capital “T”. Again, bear with me.

You see, I believe that all art is a lie. Because art cannot represent reality. It can only reflect the artist’s perception of reality.

The artist’s truth.

And in that, the Truth.

I believe in an absolute Truth. How can conflicting statements BOTH be true? How can there be two truths that are in diametric opposition? I do not believe that we all have “our own truth”, rather I believe we all have our own perspective of Truth. I also believe that as long as I am looking through my mortal eyes and processing information with my mortal brain, I cannot hope to fully comprehend the Truth of the universe.

But I can get some glimpses. Where?

Art.

Art. The lie that tells the truth.

In art, we find an artist’s perspective of the world. The artist, when putting pen to paper or brush to canvass or fingertip to keyboard, is about to create a window into their view of the universe. And the artist cannot lie. The artist is completely incapable of lying. Because even in their lie there is a reflection of the truth.

If Magritte had titled his pipe painting “This Really Is a Pipe”, he would have been lying. But he would have been lying with the knowledge that it was not a pipe, and those who understood the lie would get a glimpse of truth.

The artist, in trying to lie, gives a view of the truth.

And a view of the Truth.

The artist cannot help it. That’s just the way of things. Even artists who are actively trying to make statements against Truth, in their own rebellion against Truth, are acknowledging Truth. Revealing Truth.

The Truth is revealed in the lie.

As a writer who believes in absolute Truth, I find myself drawn to other writers who believe in absolute Truth, C.S. Lewis is one.

C.S. Lewis loved the myths of the North. As an avowed atheist Lewis believed that God did not exist. (Then again, his first book -- a book of poetry called Spirits in Bondage -- comes off as a possible example of “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” He spends much time exploring how God does no exist, but just in case he spends some more time exploring how ugly and evil God is. Oh, and Nature is beautiful and good.) Meanwhile, his good buddy J.R.R. Tolkien, a devout Catholic had been trying to “evangelize” Lewis. (Much to the chagrin of many of Tokien’s fans, the writer of The Lord of the Rings was a VERY religious man who believed in God. And Jesus. And good and evil. And sin.)

One evening, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were discussing myth. Lewis said, “. . . if I met the idea of a god sacrificing himself. . . I liked it very much and was mysteriously moved by it,” as in the tales of Balder, Adonis, and Bacchus, but of course they were not true. Tolkien, surprisingly, disagreed, saying he believed “myths, like everything else, originated from God, and they preserved, sometimes in a disguised or distorted form, something of God’s truth.”

The Norse myths, like all art, are lies. Obviously. And yet, they tell the truth.

In my own life I sang in a band called The Whispering Loons. The songs I wrote were about the evils and pain of love. They were angry and funny and sarcastic and, generally speaking, untrue. But that was the joke. And in the “lie” of “Buzzards of Love” and “Gold Digger” and “Manipulator” was a truth: that boy had never experienced real love.

The lie revealed the truth.

Incidentally, one of the partners in that band was an artist named David Zimmerman. Dave and I collaborated with each other by proxy. We fed each other creative energy: I, as a writer, drew on his creative energy to fuel my writing, and he, as an artist, drew on my creative energy to fuel his artwork. While we worked, many times on different projects, it was still collaboration as we pushed each other to grow and get better with each new artistic endeavor.

Together, as college students, and then as adult professionals, Dave and I learned about expressing the truth of the world as we saw it and explored finding Truth in our own work and other people’s. Dave’s work began getting less and less realistic and more and more symbolic. And yet, as he strayed away from photo realistic “truth”, his presentation of “Truth” became more potent.

As his artwork became more like a “lie”, it revealed more of the Truth.

“Art is the lie that tells the truth.”

If we truly want to understand the world around us, we must look in many places. In science, we find the mechanics of the universe. In art, we find the Truth behind understanding those mechanics:

Where the mechanics came from . . .

Who set it in motion . . .

And most importantly, what is our place in this celestial machine . . .

And now, if you will bear with me for just a moment longer, I’ve borrowed liberally from masters of art and writing, but I choose to end with something decidedly more lowbrow: “The truth is out there.”

~ Ben