| Author |
Comment
|
Heidi
Anne Heiner
ezOP
(6/3/01 10:24:31 pm)
|
C.S. Lewis and New Narnia Marketing Ploys
If you are interested, this article should be available for a few more days:
www.nytimes.com/2001/06/0...e68c044334
Wondering what everyone's thoughts on this new development with Lewis' estate and publisher. They are making plush dolls, allowing more books to be written, and working to minimize the Christian influence on Lewis' writing in documentaries and marketing.
The question really is, whether or not you like Narnia and/or Lewis, is this fair to the author?
I am not a huge Lewis fan, but I am respectful of his influence and intentions as a writer. I am sure he wouldn't have wanted this kind of approach taken with his books. What kind of clauses must we include in our wills and handling of our estates now? It's not like his life was cut short and he didn't get to finish his body of work the way he desired.
Heidi
|
janeyolen
Unregistered User
(6/4/01 2:45:27 am)
|
My response
I was one of ther first authors asked to write in the Narnia universe. The only book I would have liked to do was of Reepicheep's last voyage. But Douglas Gresham vetoed that idea because he--the guardian of all things Narnia--felt that Reepicheep leaves the Dawn treader to sail to Heaven so there should not be more to the story. And while as an author I may disagree, I tell this anecdote to point out that Gresham is a fierce champion of the perceived true Narnia and will allow nothing that goes against his stepfather's vision.
I was certanly not asked to de-Christianize anything.
These kind of stories--which are all over the news now--are compelling, but essentially wrong-headed.
And the initial plans for the expansion of the Narnia "franchise" happened well before Harry Potter.
Jane
|
Laura
Registered User
(6/4/01 10:50:56 am)
|
Narnia's future
At the risk of being savaged, I must say it sounds like a tentatively good idea. They make the excellent point that many Christians know about the books already, so marketing them <i>exclusively</i> in that vein will do nothing but reduce visibility to others who might enjoy the novels. I'll be the first to admit that I rarely if ever enter the Christian section of a bookstore, and certainly wouldn't do so with a child in mind. That's simply the way I am. Therefore, if I weren't familiar with Lewis, I would be unlikely to discover him. I have a hard time pooh-poohing what seem to be respectful tactics aimed at bringing these wonderful books to a wider audience.
Of course, the merchandising tie-ins are more concerning. I'm not fond of many of the Harry Potter tchotchkes, but I can easily imagine a very handsome plush Aslan. We can only hope it will all be handled with restraint and taste -- fat chance, but that's what hope's about.
So really, I don't see why we're all so upset. They aren't trying to pass off abridged editions as Lewis' original work -- just leaving the interpretation up to the reader, as it should be. Since when is it the bookstore's business to tell us what a book is about? And additional books, even if they're bad (witness many of the Star Wars and Star Trek books, as well as the infamous <i>Scarlett</i>), don't really damage the original works. If anything, I'd like to hope such atrocious stories encourage people to revisit the marvelous originals. As for good novels related to a renowned series? What lover of literature can really deplore the birth of another good work, whatever its subject?
I suppose I've preached enough for now ... ;-)
Laura
|
Eirenical
Registered User
(6/4/01 1:34:35 pm)
|
RE: C.S. Lewis and New Narnia Marketing Ploys
Hello everyone. I thought I would chime in here because yesterday I read the very article Heidi posted and couldn't make up my mind about it. It's great hearing what everyone else's take on the situation is.
Yesterday I was pretty disturbed. Today, I think I was most unsettled by not knowing exactly what my opinion was: the article is slanted against the new marketing campaign, and played with my emotions without giving straight facts.
I don't see anything wrong with marketing the books and not mentioning Christianity (when I read them as a kid I had no idea, and didn't hear about--or draw connections to, more's the pity--their Christian themes until high school). On the other hand, I will have a problem with the marketing campaign if it denies the Christian references (although how could it?). This quote, for example:
"The negotiations over the documentary [for PBS on C.S. Lewis] unraveled, Ms. Hatcher said, amid pressures from the publisher and the estate to eliminate references in the script to Christian imagery in the Narnia series."
Also, I think it was implied (not actually said, but I had to re-read the article to figure that out) that even the official online websites would avoid mention of CS Lewis' links to Christianity. That would be terrible.
The other thing in the article that bothered me is "new Narnia novels by unidentified authors." In my mind (perhaps unjustly) unidentified equates to hack. And yet, knowing that they approached such a well respected author as Jane (and even then didn't give her free reign on plot) makes me feel a lot better. Jane, would you have been an "unidentified author?" Surely you would have been credited?
But all in all, I don't think it's terrible to NOT mention Christianity--after all, it's not essential to enjoy the stories--so long as it's still there to find for the inspired child who wants to learn more. Nor do I think more Narnia books are necessarily a bad thing. I would prefer that they be more like tributes, though, and by recognizable authors.
Opinionated wannabe intellectual signing off,
Eirenical
|
janeyolen
Unregistered User
(6/4/01 6:21:33 pm)
|
Another correction(s)
Eirenical wrote: "The other thing in the article that bothered me is "new Narnia novels by unidentified authors." In my mind (perhaps unjustly) unidentified equates to hack. And yet, knowing that they approached such a well respected author as Jane (and even then didn't give her free reign on plot) makes me feel a lot better. Jane, would you have been an "unidentified author?" Surely you would have been credited?"
No, no, no--you have three major faults with this.
1."Unidentified authors" simply means that they haven't yet signed contracts with particular folks so they cannot yet say in public who this means.
2. Nowhere does it mean the authors will be uncredited.
3. Free reign with plot? No, if they had let me write my Reepicheep novel, I would have had free reign. But he was one of the few characters which Gresham ruled out of use. Actually, HC really wants folks to write within the Narnia universe, but not use major characters, which makes sense.
Jane
|
Marlowe
Registered User
(6/4/01 6:30:49 pm)
|
Re: C.S. Lewis and New Narnia Marketing Ploys
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with working to expand readership or with writing new novels. Tie-in marketing, while overdone, is an unavoidable part of the contemporary world. The only thing I see that is questionable is to downplay the Christian influence in documentaries. It was a large part of his life and a huge influence for him. To downplay it in such a setting is to offer a dishonest portrait of the man.
|
Annette
Unregistered User
(6/5/01 6:07:10 am)
|
The real Narnia
Hi, I've just read the article, I've mixed feelings about it. I've only ever read "The Last Battle" while in school, age 11, and we did deal a lot with the Christian imagery.
I don't think they shold take out Christian references in a documentary, but I also have no objections to a furry toy of Aslan.
By the way, the inspiration for Narnia, is an area in Northern Ireland around Newcastle, and the Mourne Mountains in County Down (where I grew up - a small town about 13 miles away to be precise).
It was only after I'd left school that I discovered that, I would have paid more attention to his work if I'd known that beforehand!
Annette
|
Eirenical
Registered User
(6/5/01 7:39:51 am)
|
Ah!
Well, it's good to know that I misunderstood!
|
Heidi
Anne Heiner
ezOP
(6/5/01 9:05:14 am)
|
Re: C.S. Lewis and New Narnia Marketing Ploys
What an interesting discussion, thanks for everyone's commments. Yes, the article is misleading and I still have mixed feelings. To be honest, I don't mind the plush animals, but I am also exhausted with all of the other Harry Potter materials everywhere and I had bad images of the same happening to Narnia. Narnia won't show up at the grocery store, but I also hope the materials are high quality. For example, I do like the toys for Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are" that have been at Toys R Us and Wal-Mart the past year.
Also, my first reaction when reading the article was a strong memory of "Scarlet" and other sequels that have been okayed by estates. Now that I know they are approaching talented authors and keeping such control, I am happier. Yet, how much control will be exerted, too? It seems that either the author will be overcontroled out of creativity or perhaps forced into strictures that will try to make the books feel the same as Lewis. It can be a fine line.
I also remember Willa Cather's horror at the film version of one of her novels and stating in her will that she didn't want any more movies made of her books. I can't remember the exact details, but it was a concern for her.
Lewis probably wouldn't mind any of this except for the lack of emphasis on his Christianity. However, as long as it is not edited out, it doesn't matter. He also wrote the books to be enjoyed on other levels and as everyone usually says on and off the board--they never knew about the allusions to Christianity until much later after the books were read the first time.
Heidi
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(6/5/01 9:20:52 am)
|
Re: C.S. Lewis and New Narnia Marketing Ploys
Hey All,
According to the NE Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators listserve, we can expect some new Oz books as well. Baum's work is now public domain.
As to the Lewis article, I was a bit dumbfounded with the suggestion that the Narnia series is not really read anymore because of its Christian symbolism. This hasn't been my experience at all. It has been in all the children's libraries in which I have worked. Kids still pick the books up and read them. Teachers and librarians still recommend them as great fantasy. The books are in my local bookstores in the children's fantasy section. Maybe things are different outside my small piece of the world?
As far as new Narnia series written by different people, I guess I feel mixed. I adored the Narnia books as a child, though I didn't at all understand the Christian symbolism, just as I didn't understand LeGuin's Buddhist ideology within the "Earthsea" books. To me, both series had adventure and great characters and magic. They took me to places I wanted to be. Theie characters had feelings that I understood or that enlightened me, though I wasn't Christian or Buddhist or any religious denomination. Since I have such strong childhood memories of the Narnia books, any change - like the way the Narnia books are now packaged in chronological order, rather than in the order Lewis wrote them - makes me a little irritated. Nostalgia don't you know. And the childish stubborness in me. I do realize that this is the way the world works, however. New books however, will not be able to touch the Narnia of my childhood memories. They'll be seperate - the Narnia books by so-and-so - like the new "Little House" books. Reading something for the first time as an adult is a very different expereince. And I doubt any writer could, or perhaps would want to, try to exactly copy or emulate Lewis's writing style and vision.
Jane - I was wondering how would you feel about working within someone else's created world? I suppose anyone who has read the books shares Narnia to a certain degree, but as with many writers, I'm sure Lewis knew more about Narnia than is in the books. You, I'm sure, know more about your immagined worlds than the actual details that make it onto the pages of your books. Just curious as to how you'd feel writing stories within an immagined world that you didn't create. Laura Mc
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(6/5/01 10:02:21 am)
|
Expanding universes
Jane, as she's been directly involved, can comment more accurately, but this all seems to me yet another publishing ploy (a loaded word, but still applicable) to take a dead author's universe and try to milk it for more money. It's already a known and popular world, so why not expand upon it?
This has been done repeatedly in science fiction and fantasy with the likes of Asimov, Zelazny, Dick and Herbert. I don't know that it's a particularly evil thing, since the originals remain untarnished by all the literary golems arising from their fertile soil. The results have been uneven, as one would expect. No one writing in the world of C.S. Lewis is likely to improve upon it; but that doesn't mean something very fine can't be produced. Otherwise no writer would get excited about such things when they were offered to us. I think Jane could write a killer Narnia book. I can think of a few others, and of some who might do something wonderful with Oz. I won't worry too much until somebody gets the bright idea of expanding upon the works of E.R.R. Eddisson. Then I'll panic.
G
|
janeyolen
Unregistered User
(6/5/01 10:45:29 am)
|
Jane's answer
I love the idea of being able to play in a beloved world. I write a lot of Arthurian stories, poems, and novels, for goodness sakes. The Narnia world is being very carefully monitored by Gresham and he is certainly a world class dragon on matters Narnian.
Jane
|
Kate
Unregistered User
(6/5/01 11:25:47 am)
|
Art originals, etc.
If I couldn't play in a beloved world, I wouldn't be writing. I'm sure I began to write because I felt alive inside books when I read.
That's why I hope no one minds if I comment a little philosophically on the emotion of this conversation, which seems to me to have a lot to do with living inside books, in a way.
I empathize with everyone in this discussion; it is very interesting. Our admiration and love for the Lewis series is apparent. The emergence of new additions to that somehow perfect universe need not be so threatening, though it is certainly understandable that it seems threatening. That is, it is completely reasonable to feel anxious about these new books—not to mention appropriate philosophically—even if the new books are wonderful once written.
Art theory has addressed these issues for a long time (in work on the question of the original and the copy, authorship and appropriationism). And postmodern theory has helped us analyze the despair that emerges when an ‘original’ experience seems threatened by something new.
That’s why I think it’s important not to reject out of hand new versions of Narnia, however much embracing them as potentially valuable works of art challenges my proprietary feelings about the ‘real’ series, the one I took home book-by-book from the library in my home town. As an artist, I am hopeful that new additions to the Narnia series would be lovely works in their own right. Nothing makes me happier than reading terrific new work. The world can hold a lot of art. Art can hold a lot of worlds.
But, again, it is completely understandable—emotionally, philosophically-- that one’s stomach drops from time to time when hearing about ‘new’ versions of beloved classics. I think this is because their emergence appears to challenge our feelings of ownership to our memories of reading a particular text. Reading is an activity that is extremely creative; in reading, you create yourself. So if the text you created yourself through might be replaced for a whole generation of readers, you feel fearful—but really, it can’t be replaced. That is philosophically impossible! Yet book nostalgia is real and powerful and very, very important, I think, to address at this historical juncture. If you agree with someone like Drucker (and I do) it is important to pay attention to our emotions about books.
p.s. I had no idea there are ‘new Little House’ books—can someone tell me what these are? I should admit here that I am in a new band called “Half Pint.” (!)
|
Richard
Unregistered User
(6/5/01 2:36:05 pm)
|
E.R.R. Eddison
Now I have this nightmare of some other writer trying to recreate
Eddison's style. Thanks, Greg.
|
Heidi
Anne Heiner
ezOP
(6/5/01 9:47:16 pm)
|
Re: C.S. Lewis and New Narnia Marketing Ploys
Oh, yes, Kate, there are quite a few "Little House" books, some about Laura and some about Rose, her daughter. They have been published mostly for middle readers with some picture books. I particularly liked the picture books of some of Pa's stories. The other books didn't thrill me, but I haven't read them all either. I have to reread the originals every few years along with L. M. Montgomery and Louisa May Alcott. There is a new book about Alcott coming out for children this fall that should be interesting, too. Can't remember the exact title, something like "On the Way to Little Women." It's being published by Penguin.
Also, a new Madeline picture book is coming out, written by Bemelman's grandson. (Remember the little girl with the yellow hat and red hair in Paris?) It has a subtitle about teaching manners. (Amusing when you consider our discussion on manners started by Terri last month.) The illustrations look pretty faithful and the writing is similar to Bemelmans in style, but the content is much more didactic than Bemelmans Sr. ever was.
So the trend is everywhere after all.
Heidi
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(6/7/01 11:23:06 am)
|
Nightmare?
Richard,
At least you know it's a shared nightmare.
Kate & all,
I think we all began writing or painting because we fell in love with something someone else had done. We want to do something as grand, as eloquent. Since we really can't duplicate another's voice or style--unless being a forger is what you're about--the imitation eventually leads to our own style, and to what is (I hope) greater creation.
I saw a Van Gogh exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum awhile ago. The paintings were placed sequentially, and it was really a revelation for me to see the early drab and dark paintings, which were in the Dutch style; then almost the moment Van Gogh moved to Paris and discovered the impressionists, how his paintings exploded with color and life. He was being reshaped by the art world he'd fallen into; not imitating exactly, but processing, absorbing, being guided. And no one else's work looked like his anymore than his looked like theirs. If he hadn't fallen into that "beloved world", he might have kept on painting in dreary browns and grays forever.
GF
|
|
