You're viewing a single thread.
I mean, it was written by a Christian and the first book was published 1950.
The 1949 law was passed in the UK barring marriage under 16, and went into effect 1/1/50.
Knowing Lewis the entire reason for the "Susan problem" was him likely being upset child marriage had been (slightly more) outlawed.
So Susan turned 16 and Lewis made a big deal about a sudden change and now she's an adult.
Granted, I could very well be wrong.
But it seems like somebody upset about progress, and I wouldn't be the first to label Lewis as such. But it's hard for anyone to claim he wasn't using his writing to shoehorn his opinions in and get kids to agree with him.
It's not that deep. The whole series is thinly veiled Christianity. By the end, Susan lost her faith. That's it. She no longer held Narnia in her heart. But it's an allegory for children so it was couched in awkward old man language. Why Susan and not Peter? Regular old misogyny, Eve-style.
1950 is when the first book was published. Susan being excluded completely didn't happen until the last book, in 1956. And considering
Tap for spoiler
They all fucking died IRL
Susan being unable to enter
HeavenNarnia because she no longer believed makes sense narratively and thematically.If you want to see this as some sort of commentary on child marriage laws, well... have fun.
A spoiler tag for a book series that ended in 1956 is wild lol
You're not wrong 😅 But as far as I'm concerned there's no expiration date on literature. Somewhere, someone is reading the books for the first time. The odds of them also being on Lemmy are astronomically small. But it was enough of an "oh shit" moment IMO that it was worth the half-second it took to hit the spoiler button.
Tap for ramblings of an old man about old children's books
It was also the moment that jolted me out of whatever enjoyment I had been getting out of The Last Battle. Whenever I would do a re-read, things really slowed down for Silver Chair and Horse And His Boy, picked back up wonderfully for Magician's Nephew, then Last Battle would ham-fist its way through to the end, with Furry Jesus reveling with his most devout disciples. Just eye-rolling stuff.
The Wardrobe movie from a while back was a surprisingly good adaptation, and as the series went on (and then stalled out after Dawn Treader) I was worried about the actors literally aging out of being able to play the roles. Thinking back, it was probably for the best that it ended there.
I exist and I appreciate the spoiler tag :)
...huh. I wonder if this means I should play the lottery, or if my cosmic coincidence currency has already been consumed lol.
I more meant I have not read them and I may want to read them in the future... Please stay away from the lottery no matter what.
He was having an affair with a woman almost 30 years older than himself, and she died in 1951. I would lean more towards him being upset about something between them, than supposed pedophilia.
He was having an affair with a woman almost 30 years older than himself, and she died in 1951
And surely a wealthy Christian man in England 70 years ago would never be hypocritical....
But like I said, maybe it's a coincidence and not an intended statement. But the books are incredibly preachy and Lewis writes as if his personal beliefs are clearly and obviously the right and only beliefs.
It's been decades since I've read them, but I'm not the only one with that takeaway from his writings.
And while a child being married under 16 immediately sounds like pedophilia to you (as it should) this was back when the law was being passed and lots opposed it. There were people fighting it for decades after even.
And it literally explains why Susan was held to a different standard than Pete:
This section re-enacts section 1 of the Age of Marriage Act 1929 which set the minimum marriage age at 16 with consent of parents or guardians and 21 (since lowered to 18) without that consent. Marriages contracted by persons either of whom is under the age of 16 years are void.[10][11] Before 1929, the common law and canon law applied so that a person who had attained the legal age of puberty could contract a valid marriage. A marriage contracted by persons either of whom was under the legal age of puberty was voidable. The legal age of puberty was 14 for males and 12 for females.
In 1971, Eekelaar wrote that the prohibition now contained in this section "though desirable, is extreme and inflexible." According to him it could result in "genuine hardship", such as where it is discovered, after years of apparent marriage, that a mistake was made, at the time of the ceremony, regarding the age of one of the spouses, or where one of the spouses concealed their real age, though, after 1971, some protection was afforded by section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970[12] (now repealed and replaced by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1949
So while you think I'm making an assumption in saying his opposition to this law was likely and may have influenced what he wrote about....
You've also twisted that into me labeling him a pedo that wants to marry a child younger than 16 and implied everyone agreed that this law was a good thing. One thing you've just invented and another that's easily disproven
I gave a fact; that he was having an affair with an older woman who died shortly after the book was published. You are the one who claims that he was upset about child marriage. When we talk about people making things up, let's remember who is basing their posts in facts, and who is basing them in unrelated conjecture.
Here's my "theory". He was having an affair with a woman, and like all hypocrites, he wanted to feel as though it was something that others were guilty of, too. So, he had a woman who, at the end of her life, is having regrets about their relationship. Lewis is upset that she doesn't like their relationship anymore, and he vilifies her and in his writing says that she's not getting into heaven because she's an adultress.
Do I have any proof? No. Do you? No, also. However, this is based on real events that happened to him, and your idea is just "well, maybe he was into child marriage."
Lewis is well-known for having an Oedipus complex. There is nothing to indicate he was attracted to or abused children.
Great.
Why do you think I said he was?
Genuinely asking because for some reason when I said he was likely against the law like most religious people were, that meant he personally wanted a bride under 16
And I legitimately would like to know why, even after I explicitly said this:
You’ve also twisted that into me labeling him a pedo that wants to marry a child younger than 16 and implied everyone agreed that this law was a good thing. One thing you’ve just invented and another that’s easily disproven
What about that did you read and think I meant Lewis wanted to marry a child?
Because all you're doing is wildly speculating about a man without a shred of evidence.
"Everyone older than me is irredeemably evil" is such a Zoomer take