Fellowship & Fairydust

I am a Canadian of Pakistani ancestry and a practicing Muslim. Not a perfect Muslim, as I swear like a sailor, but practicing as best I can. I was born in the 1980s and spent my childhood and early teen years in the 90s.  I didn’t like what most kids around me liked, other than anything with some sort of fantasy action like X-Men comics, Superman or Batman. But even these things were considered “geeky”, and geek culture was still pretty fringe during my childhood. Speculative fiction was still an underappreciated genre.

Then my school teachers introduced me to C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, and I was utterly overjoyed.

Finally!

Finally a story with action and yet imagination, a whole new world I could explore. Finally something we were studying in school was actually fun for a kid like me.

Then in later years, my fellow Muslim reader friends introduced me to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.  These works by Lewis and Tolkien were often grouped together, since both were written by prominent Christian authors taking a crack at the fantasy genre.

Yet…Narnia and Middle-earth were very different from each other.

What did I like or dislike from them?

C.S. LEWIS: THE GOOD.

One of the first things we see in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is that it places us in a familiar world before anything else happens. We don’t need to have a historical explanation of what England is. Nothing but a brief background on the reason the children who are the main characters of the story are there. Immediately we are then thrown into the plot and get to know the characters. Even when they finally enter the wardrobe and journey into Narnia, the focus is always upon the plot, the characters and the interaction of the world with the characters.

Although Lewis wrote a story for children which often has caricatures as characters more than representatives of species of tropes, the main cast of LWW each have distinct personalities and perspectives about this strange land they are exploring. The characters are well-developed. The plot is fast-paced and on point.

Edmund is one of the most complex characters in the story, who isn’t a bad boy but is simply tempted. He’s not a demonic orc or evil spirit. He’s a boy that made a mistake out of childish cravings for attention and sweets, and it nearly cost him his family.  (As a side note, I like Turkish Delights too! They’re very tasty. Too bad Lewis didn’t appreciate the culture that produced it…but that will be touched upon later in this article.)

LWW is more of a traditional story, but it’s also more coherent compared to Tolkien’s saga, given that Lewis had a smaller goal and younger audience in mind.

It is true that Lewis seriously lacked complexity in his fantasy universe, but to be fair, complexity wasn’t the goal – good clear narration was. The action scenes at the end of LWW were well-described and had excellent tension. They were detailed and clear, and they were battles of an otherworldly nature that fit appropriately his retelling of the Easter story.

  
TOLKIEN: THE GOOD

 I do not think what I am about to write will be a surprise to anyone.

Tolkien’s was very, very, very good at world building and history for his world.  So many writers afterwards tried to imitate him. Dungeons and Dragons based fantasy novels have similar bestiaries and history behind their worlds, yet even though they may have catalogues of creatures and events like Tolkien’s world did…they lack the philosophical base for Tolkien’s world.

Although some Christians may hold Muslims in disdain, and vice versa, I know for a fact that many of my nerdy Muslim friends became interested and started to respect Catholic belief more because of the creatures and the world Tolkien created and the connections they have to his spiritual beliefs. Through this, they learned to respect some aspects of Catholicism.

As Muslims, we saw that Christians share much of what we believe, and even where we did not, there was still some core understanding of the importance of meaning and purpose in existence and storytelling. No other fantasy universe but Tolkien’s Middle-earth has the same depth level with regards to an entire world history and creature encyclopedia, where everything has a deeper purpose and meaning behind it.

Tolkien’s allegory (if it could be called an allegory, as he himself resisted the title, although his faith and personal experiences clearly influenced him greatly) was far more complex than that of Lewis. Lewis had creatures in his story, but they were mostly there as fantasy eye-candy for the kiddies. They had no distinct personalities or culture, and Tolkien himself commented on how excessively on the nose Lewis’s allegories tended to be, lacking subtlety and standing out as allegory for allegory’s sake.

Tolkien, however, created creatures based on myth with their own cultures, quirks and beliefs. And these different factions within his world represented different forces in our own lives and history. The allegories were far more complex, and treated what they represented as parts of systems with dimension and subtlety. The Valar, Maia, and other angelic beings are symbolic of forces within reality themselves. The actual characters, including villains like Gollum, are more complex than that, and tend to avoid cartoonish stereotypes. A good example of mixed characters in the story is the morally gray yet ultimately redeemable like Boromir.  The orcs are corrupted creatures, but even they are not purely evil in origin. They are humanoids that fell to temptation or were simply born in the wrong culture.

Within the published works of Tolkien, there are no redeemable orcs. But my friends who are diehard Tolkien’s fanatics say dragons are evil in Tolkien’s world…but he wrote that some choose to be good. There is always free will at the heart of things, it seems, and if Tolkien had been able to complete his expanded universe, I am positive we would also be presented with Orcs who chose good. Of course, some would argue with me on that point, but I believe my theory is certainly in keeping with Tolkien’s worldview.   

LEWIS: THE BAD

As I established above, Lewis didn’t seem to care much for world-building. He was, after all, creating a novel for children with a bedtime story feel to it, and only made sequels when the first was successful, and even then, mostly just to pass the time while he was on holiday. He did not handle his fantasy series as a serious endeavor, and still seemed to view the more speculative elements of his story as childish. He treats his creatures and even his villains as cardboard cut-outs. You can make this argument with the orcs and the villains in Tolkien’s world, but the high fantasy of Middle-Earth can get away with pure evil forces because they are just that: forces and not characters or even real entities. They are part of a huge world and mythology.

While the White Witch and other villains in Narnia tend to be direct allegories for either demons or a specific symbol for Satan, and fairly cartoonish attempts at that, in Lord of the Rings the forces of evil are not direct allegories but rather have their own distinct purposes in their own separate universe. Their significance goes beyond real-world symbolism. If they are allegories, they are very broad allegories.

Worse, his quasi-Muslim Calormenes were…well, I’m sure you already can guess my feelings on the subject. Having them yell “May he live forever!’’ after almost every sentence of dialogue proved…subtle. They were also pretty underwhelming, even with their stereotypical turbans, curved swords, crescent coins, and spicy food. Narnia is filled with weird creatures and furry people running around, but somehow the faux Arab nation is filled only with humans. Lewis did seem to like Middle Eastern candy like Turkish Delights, but that’s about the end of his appreciation for the culture of the region.

To be honest, his allegory for Muslims seriously puzzles me. Even if it might be argued that he was drawing from pre-Islamic pagan motifs, he was also pretty clearly making reference to Islamic society as well, particularly with regards to the territorial expansions of the Ottoman Empire (but as a child of the British Empire, Lewis should really have looked around his own glass house before throwing stones). Screwtape Letters was so well researched, and yet it seems he couldn’t manage to read a basic book on Islamic Aqeedah before setting his pen to paper in this case.

 I do wonder how Christian Lewis fans would react to some Muslim writing a fantasy story where the Christian equivalents were similar to Englishmen, with red tunics and old-fashioned muskets, smoking pipes or cigars, eating really bland food, having really bad dental hygiene, and horribly pagan with a three-pronged god.

Hey, other people can do stereotypes too, bro!

TOLKIEN: THE BAD

So…it would be unfair of me to say that Tolkien did not write good plot. No…his plot was amazing. Did it have plot-holes? Well, we all know the cartoons on the internet saying the hobbits could have just flown over Mount Doom and thrown the ring into the volcano below with no further ado. So, no, it was not perfect.

But still, Tolkien’s story about the little man and his importance compared to more powerful people remains the center of the conflict, and that must be achieved through the long journey and struggle up the slopes of Mount Doom. The humble hobbits in both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are the main characters instead of the more powerful and more admired Gandalf. The point of the story was always that, as Jesus said according to the Christian Gospels, “The meek shall inherit the earth.”

However…Tolkien knew he was good at world-building, then took a very good thing and made the reader sick of it sometimes. Everything had to have a backstory, even the most minute of details about the world around the characters.

I wonder if, in some future book, he would have had a scene where some elves or hobbits pass by a pile of fossilized dung, and then suddenly the narration would go on for three pages upon the history of that dung pile and the dragon that passed such waste.

Another example of this was his excessive detail about the properties of pipe weed tobacco in the Shire. The question remains…is it really tobacco? He says in his description it made the hobbits feel “pleasant”. That sounds like something more green…

But I digress. Too much information either way. Unless of course Tolkien wanted to make some commentary on “herbal remedies”. That would have been a fun read for his fanbase of hippies during the 60s…it would have taken them on a quite a trip…

Thing is, even without such psychedelic delights, Tolkien managed to describe the history of every little vein on the leaf of every little tree…but then action would happen, and he’d speed everything up. An entire fight scene would be summed up so simply or otherwise glossed over. I remember one line read: “And he stabbed it with Sting.”

Wow. Okay.

So, giving his friend Lewis credit where credit is due (still haven’t gotten over the Muslim weirdo inserts, though), he goes into great detail of how his battles in Narnia take place and unfold, describing what the formations were and why character did what, and how they felt as they fought.

Tolkien? It seemed less important to him than a lengthy historical monologue about a footprint on Galadriel’s dress. I mean, we get it, Tolkien. You know every detail about your world, and your proud of it. You deserve a medal…

WHAT THEY BOTH COULD HAVE DONE BETTER

This may make some people angry to read, or perhaps blame my Islamic faith for these opinions, but I honestly mean no offense.

However, I honestly feel that the hyper-Christian sensitivities and British conservative culture norms tended to hold Tolkien and Lewis back at times. I do not mean to say Christianity itself was to blame, or that being British was a failing, but they both seemed to suffer from a fear of shaking the status quo boat or touching too much controversy.

I feel that if they tackled more mature themes without selling out their Christian beliefs, we could have a more expanded and less polarized fantasy geek culture today.

Of course, these were men of the Edwardian era, an age of more propriety and social reserve. As a result, they shied away from covering complex topics on war and sexuality and death and racism (well, beyond the lovable relationship between Gimli and Legolas. Boy, that man has a nice wig…Gimli clearly thought so too…).

I don’t mean that these men should have written crudely. But it seems high fantasy is in decline, and grim-dark fantasy like Game of Thrones is on the rise, with every third female character being sexually assaulted, and someone getting their heads cut off or worse is the norm, while pushing the values of nihilism and hopelessness that are not remotely Christian nor, for that matter, Islamic. Indeed, traditional religious beliefs in hope and meaning are often scrapped on the cutting room floor.

I didn’t want to see fantasy become, frankly, a well-written Edge-lord’s fantasy, like grim-dark fantasy is now. Imagine if Tolkien had a character tortured in a similar manner as Theon Greyjoy in GoT, but instead of it ending with a broken pathetic man who would die forgotten and not mourned…it could have been hopeful? Like the high god of Tolkien’s world could have given him a vision of salvation as he died, symbolizing Christ’s mercy from a Christian perspective, or as we Muslims would see it, as Allah’s noor (light) and blessings.

Imagine if C.S. Lewis truly took the allegory of Calormenes as Muslims further, and their beliefs were portrayed as more complex. They could still be portrayed as misled…after all, Lewis was a Christian and not a Muslim, so that would be expected. He didn’t have to agree with Muslims, but he could have at least portrayed them as real people with beliefs that were not just simply evil and wrong, but had shreds of truth shared with Aslan the Christ-Lion.

In fact…wouldn’t it have been fascinating to see the Calormenes argue the real identity of Aslan? Lewis’s world basically says he is Christ the lion and thus, in keeping with Christian theology, God in lion flesh. It may not be said, but it certainly is implied. Maybe the Calamores could revere Aslan but disagree upon his divine nature, just as real Muslims do. And maybe the Calamores are wrong in the universe of Narnia, because Lewis is trying to argue in favour of Christianity. But it would have at least dealt with the controversy more intelligently than his one-dimensional, motley bunch of spice-consuming Arabs.

And back to Tolkien’s Orcs…do they feel pain or despair? Do they pray for anything? Do they have families? One thing the Dungeons and Dragons versions of these stories do is show the ‘evil’ creatures still have communities and personalities, especially the newer ones before Grimdark fantasy took over. The Draconians in DragonLance were almost bloodthirsty monsters, but even then, as the franchise moved on before ending, Draconians seemed to have different factions and even goodhearted versions of themselves. It was commentary on racism and stereotyping living things.

Last but not least, Lewis and Tolkien both really shied away from violence, almost to an unreasonable excess, in most of their fight scenes. Really? You talk about them murdering hordes of monsters and orcs, but barely ever mention blood. Perhaps Lewis could be given more of a pass, given his main audience was children, but Tolkien was supposed to be writing the first *adult* fantasy. Again, he didn’t have to go overboard, but some realism would have made it more believable and mature.

While I hate how George R.R. Martin emphasises that nothing has soul or meaning, I must admit that he did have good fight scenes, and his characters have their own fighting styles, tactics, weapon, ways they react upon being injured, etc.  Also, violence has consequences. People get maimed and traumatized by battle. But in Tolkien’s world, you’re either a good fighter or you’re fodder. You win or you die, with little more said about what happens afterwards. There isn’t any lasting PTSD or consequences.

Why didn’t these stories have these elements I am complaining about?

First, they still thought fantasy only appealed to children and young adults; and secondly, their writings were mainly being used as vehicle to deliver a Christian message (a Christian message which, for the most part, I actually like).

But they seemed to not understand that their writings could have been received by a much wider audience and could have said so much more in a way that would have left a lasting impression on the world around them. By creating whole new universes, they had so much room to comment about multiple issues and expand the genre in so many new ways.

Avellina, my friend and the kindhearted editor of this magazine, is writing a series of novels retelling the legend of Robin Hood. It isn’t fantasy, but rather historical fiction, and at times, it can be brutal in its depiction of medieval violence. Yet Avellina’s story has historical violence without indulging in the almost exploitive vigor of George RR Martin and his ilk. He excuses this by simply saying he is portraying history…but he is only portraying the worst of history. In Avellina’s story, though it can get dark at times, there is always a message of hope and beauty from a Christian perspective, just like Lewis and Tolkien tried to portray.

My own story in progress is about superheroes in an alternative history where mythological gods and creatures exist. Lots of very bad things happen to these characters, yet there is a purpose or a lesson for each. It’s part of their development. I love fighting and martial arts, and that makes its way into my story. But it has consequences, and violence is both glorified as an art form yet also shown as being ugly and unappealing, and scars people for life. I cover racism and sexism and anti-religious bigotry within the story, including anti-Christian bigotry. In all this, I strive to put soul in my stories.

I am not nearly the writer Tolkien and Lewis were. But I am trying.

Imagine if brilliant writers like Lewis and Tolkien had expanded their stories and taken them more seriously, beyond children and young adults as their primary audiences. Imagine if they had turned it into something bigger. Imagine if the Christianity they had wanted to preach was not just symbols and lessons, but Christianity reflected in every aspect of life and with allegories truly similar to real life.

SPICY FOOD: ENEMY OF THE CHRISTIAN THINKER

Last but not least…pardon the Muslamic rant, but is spicy food somehow the enemy of the Christian Thinker? I mean, imagine if Lewis had truly stopped caring about spicy food long enough to chill out and do some cultural research…

I mean, Lewis, dude, how weak could you possibly be? You believe Christ got crucified! I’m sure He’d expect his followers (who originally came from the Middle East) to be able to handle some heat/spice, even if they are English!

Go eat a taco. That’s Hispanic, not Middle Eastern, and its spicy. Or eat Shawarma. Shawarma isn’t spicy, and it’s Middle Eastern.

Ironically, Lewis liked Hinduism…yet he never obsessed over their food like he did Muslim food. Did he ever even try South Asian cuisine? Man, my people’s food is very spicy. Hindus eat the same spice as we do in the region. I’m Pakistani, a culture with a mixture of Hindi, Arab, and other influences (think Mexico…Indigenous, Spanish, etc.), but most of our dishes are from our former Hindu past.

Remember: Catholics in Sudan and the rest of Africa eat some pretty spicy food.  I know Indian Christians love spicy food. Arab Christians love spicy food. And, in yet another twist of irony, England seems to have caught the craving, because Pakistani and Indian restaurants are doing swimmingly over there.    

Anyway, for those who wish to know, the real-world equivalents of Calormenes (raises hand) say “Salla allahu alaihi wa sallam” (Peace be upon him). So in the spirit of goodwill, may peace be upon Tolkien and Lewis. I hope the latter doesn’t have to eat any spicy food in heaven….

Then again, if I get to paradise, I may be inspired to bring him up some wholesome hindu daal, with extra spice, from my mom’s recipe book…