CS Lewis, Islam and The Last Battle

CS Lewis, Islam 

and 

The Last Battle

I have been a reader of CS Lewis since I was introduced to them by my headmistress who read them to us at my boarding school on Sunday evenings before bedtime.  It is one of my fondest memories.

Of course at the time of I didn’t understand the allegorical significance of Aslan or the deeper meanings intended, but came back to the stories time and again, always finding new levels of meaning in them as I grew older.

Lewis was a convinced Christian, a conversion he reached in the years around 1930, partly influenced by JRR Tolkien, himself a devout Roman Catholic all his life since a child.  This was to come out a great deal more obviously in his works than in those of Tolkien, although both took it as a foundation of meaning in their sub-created worlds.

As I have grown older, and especially in more recent times when I have read and studied their writings in more depth, I have come to understand the historic archetypal forces which they describe in terms of the real world.

Tolkien said that he wanted to compose a mythology for the English, since so much had been lost after the Norman invasion.

This mythology would have to have some parallels or symbolic relations with the real world or else it wouldn’t stick.

His Middle Earth is quite clearly a representation of European peoples defending against barbarian invasion by hordes from the East.  This is a dynamic which Europe has experienced time and again with Attila, the Mongols, the Ottomans, even the USSR, although that had not spread its Iron Curtain across the continent at the time when Tolkien was conceiving Lord of the Rings.

We all know the literary forebears of Middle Earth ~ Beowulf, the Icelandic sagas, Finnish and Celtic influences, but scholars will shy away from the more difficult threads.  Who are the Orcs?

It seems to me to be dishonest to suggest that the geographical location of Mordor and the Orcs do not in some way correlate with Turkey, or the Middle East, or its inhabitants.

The Shire is the safety of northwestern Europe, Gondor is some version of Rome or Constantinople which stands as a bulwark against the barbarian hordes of the East.  Do we really need to argue this?  Are people so politically correct in their pretence that they cannot see the obvious correlations with the geopolitical world of, not only the past, but the present as well?  I recently found that the term 'orc' means 'foreigner, monster or demon'.  Perhaps our forebears made no great distinction between these things.

My previous blog post about Tolkien and Islam

[May I briefly interject here that it is my opinion, having recently read John Buchan’s superb Greenmantle that there is a literary root of the LOTR in that novel.  The journey across country to reach the great river Danube, going down it in a line of boats and reaching the great city of Constantinople (Minas Tirith in Gondor surely).  But the real bullseye was the nine riders who appear at one point, and there are others.  But I digress.]

It is my conviction that both Lewis and Tolkien knew that there were great threats to our civilisation, and that a decline of faith into agnosticism would lead to a vacuum which could be taken advantage of.

CS Lewis had a much more unconventional theological evolution than Tolkien and in the twenties had dabbled in theosophical and other ideas.  One of his closest friends, Charles Williams, is reputed to have been a member of the Order of the Golden Dawn. 

There is much written amongst certain groups about how Tolkien and Lewis were occultists who sought to infiltrate the Church with their heresies.  On the other hand, Marxists claim that they were racist nationalists and xenophobes.

I’m inclined to go with a middle way and accept that Lewis was probably the most influential and widely read Christian writer in English of the twentieth century, and Tolkien was probably the greatest scholar and writer in English of the century.  Whilst the modern cultural left approach them warily, recognising that they form a part of a serious backbone of English literary, religious and cultural national identity which persists to this day, they still take sidelong swipes at them whenever they can find, or invent, an opportunity.

Philip Pullman’s claim that Lewis exercises racist attitudes in The Last Battle for instance has been roundly dispelled, so I shan’t bother to detail that here, but it is that work, the final one in the Narnian Chronicles which I wish to address here.

It occurred to me this Good Friday just gone that there were certain parallels with the actual situation in which we find ourselves at this very time, so I embarked on a quick read of said book (at 165 pages it can be polished off in three or four hours) and found much to feed my curiosity.

The principal idea which had sparked this train of thought was that Tash, the god of the Calormenes had a head like a vulture.  The meaning of this suggests that the god only eats dead flesh.  Thus the followers of Tash are in themselves spiritually dead. 

Whilst Aslan is a lion.  Lion only seek living prey.  The meaning of this then is that the followers of Aslan are spiritually alive, they are vital and thus have the Holy Spirit.

Tash is the principle god of the Calormenes.  They do have some others, Azaroth and Zardeenah, but these seem like minor household deities while the ruling class of the Tisroc and his Tarkaans all claim descent from Tash.

It seems unavoidable to see some conflation between Islam and the worship of Tash, illustrated here by Pauline Baynes from The Last Battle.

On the superficial level, the Calormenes appear similar to Turkish Ottomans or nearby Middle Eastern people.  In itself only a casual association, but there is much more to flesh this out.

        The descent from Tash is reminiscent of the descent from Mahomet which the leaders of the two main branches of Islam claim.  And their society based on the worship of this creature which only seeks the spiritually dead is one which seems to be built on top down domination by the sword, not the high trust co-operation of the Narnians.

But we also find that there have been numerous wars between the Calormenes and Narnia and Archenland, its southern neighbour.  Which we cannot ignore is what has happened to Europe at the hands of the Turks numerous times over the centuries, as well as other incursions into Iberia and the Italian peninsula.  It is hard to be certain, as Lewis is frequently almost deliberately vague about dates and how often, but it seems clear that there have been numerous wars with Calormen, mostly instigated by the Calormene desire to take these free northern countries under its rule.  Also reminiscent of the constant pressure of the East on Gondor, if I may say ˡ.

The image of Tashbaan in Pauline Baynes’ charming illustrations in The Horse and His Boy clearly shows minarets in the Islamic style around what must be the Temple of Tash at the top and centre of the city, and to me is highly evocative of Istanbul, Constantinople as it was known for about 1600 years, while the very name of their lordly class Tarkaans sounds like a conflation of Turk and khan, a common name or ending in Islamic lands deriving from the Indo-European root word meaning king.

The language of the Calormenes is rich with the kind of sayings we associate with Islam and middle eastern potentates ~ May he live forever is reminiscent of the saying Peace be upon him.

We get into more detail with The Last Battle in which Calormenes have been infiltrating Narnia in twos and threes pretending to be merchants and diplomats.  Meanwhile they are assembling a military force at the very heart of Narnia while at the same time dominating the local Narnians.

And here we come to the crunch.  The Narnians are all saying that this is what Aslan has been instructing.  Indeed as the story progresses Tash and Aslan are quickly conflated into a ‘We Are All One’ scenario and the noble Talking Beasts of Narnia are to be caged up while the Speaking Trees are to be cut down and a more productive state of affairs is to be imposed.  (I love Lewis’s dig at communism!)

To my eyes, what we are seeing here is an almost literal account of what is actually happening today.  We hear that the God of Jesus and that of Mahomet are one and the same, although their commandments and their practices are entirely different.  We are told to invite them into our lands, and yet meanwhile they build up covert forces in enclaves which have already struck against us.  Mollenbeek is an obvious example.

What has been described by Dr Kevin McDonald as ‘pathological altruism’ leaves the Narnians vulnerable to foreign incursion because they trust the Calormenes at face value.  This is the vulnerable downside of the living spirit which the enemies exploit.  Many of the Talking Beasts are too timid to fight on the side of right and their own people, slinking off into the woods, or are cowed by the threat of Calormene punishment.  Is this not what we see in the face of Islamic rape gangs?  People too afraid to speak up?

Did Lewis realise what he was writing, or was he just using a convenient stereotype to get over a story?

The images in the works of CS Lewis were spontaneous creations of his imagination which tended to jump fully formed into consciousness, but he did not string them all together until he had understood them.

He was a literary historian.  He knew the story of the Crusades and the endless attrition of the Moors and the Ottomans on Christendom.  It is no coincidence that the God of the Calormenes is shaped like a vulture and has robes like an Aztec priest.  He knew that Islam was the ancient enemy which lurked on the borders of our entire historic awareness like a bogey man in a fairy story and so he represented it as such.  The more important story is of the children and the King and how they behaved with honour and loyalty, while we see that the Ape (whom I imagine as Tony Blair, the chief traitor of our nation) who has contrived this but also been the puppet of larger forces is gobbled up by the demon god.

What is it to be spiritually dead?  It is to wish to build your own life force on the domination of others, of taking their life energy from them, to have no conception of spiritual creativity yourself.

Islam promotes the idea to men that women are mere chattel, whilst Christianity (and some other faiths and creeds as well) believes in the concept of Romantic love, something Lewis himself wrote on extensively in several books.  It is a higher level of spiritual development engaged with a sense of humility before the divine, but also of generosity and forgiveness absent in the Religion of the Sword.

Some of the more politically correct of Lewis’s readers just dismiss The Last Battle as if it were some aberration.  Lewis getting senile, run out of ideas, returning to a second childhood, turning into some right wing bigot, racist, xenophobe. 

One thing I tremendously admire about Jack was his almost reckless disregard for social convention when it came to facing the truth.  And consequently I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic references in his final Narnian story are entirely intended.

While I am at it, may I briefly add that the speculation that some make that Lewis was running out of ideas and wanted to kill the Narnia series have entirely got it wrong.  Michael Ward in his excellent Planet Narnia demonstrates, to my full and complete satisfaction, that there was an underlying pattern behind the books of which he never explicitly spoke but which is clear nonetheless to those with eyes to see.  And I think many would agree that if Lewis had run out of ideas he was a sensible enough chap not to try and squeeze toothpaste out of a tube which had run dry.  It’s also my understanding that the books were not written like some penny dreadful serial with the publisher asking for the next best seller by a certain date, but that he had an organised, overarching plan which he evolved as a whole.  The very fact that there are seven in the Chronicles, the Holy Number, is surely no accident.

Yes, CS Lewis was very much more into the mystical side, at least in some of his works, than was his friend Tolkien.  And it’s my belief that he saw this as a genuine possibility which he felt would be better signalled and preserved in a work of fiction than in some prosaic political commentary that would be forgotten.

And lastly, I should say that it is my firm conviction that both Tolkien and Lewis saw the potential re-emergence of Islam as a danger which lurked always on the horizon.  These are two of the finest minds of twentieth century Christendom and to dismiss that they may have seen this afar off is for lesser minds to scoff at elders they fail to recognise.

It can be no coincidence that both of them produced major, mature works which seem to be themed around the invasion of Europe.  Tolkien at a more mythological level invoking the barbarian hordes of the East, yet nonetheless with certain Islamic resonances (see my blog Tolkien and Islam), and Lewis far more explicitly with The Last Battle.

Coming as they did in the 1950s, in the last wave of traditional Western culture before the Marxists got their teeth into it, the Narnian Chronicles and the Lord of the Rings can be seen as great signposts and warnings that have been left to tell us of the dangers we face, built before the leftist propaganda destroyed the rest of our culture.

Had they come later they might not have achieved the stature that they did.  Were they to be written today, they would be ridiculed, attacked as racist, imperialist, xenophobic.  We see how The Hobbit films were infected with political correctness that went entirely against what would have been true to the story and to Middle Earth.

The works of CS Lewis and Tolkien are edifices which we would do well to value and learn from.  They are voices from the past crying for us to remember who we are, to stand firm against chaos and barbarism, the cruel tyranny of Islam and attrition against the truth of our own spiritual nature and destiny.

ˡ  Gondor: in my recent researches and deliberation about Middle Earth, I came across a Cultural Marxist ‘analysis’ of Gondor.  It claimed that Gondor was an invading power which sought to dominate Middle Earth.  The writer of this piece (I have lost the link) has clearly not properly read the history of Numenor as it was the case that only Elendil, his sons and a few boats filled with survivors of the wreck of Numenor arrived on the western coast of Middle Earth.  This was hardly an invading force.  It was only by their intelligence and mighty works that they established themselves in the lands in which they arrived.  Where else should they go?  There were already Elves in the West of Middle Earth who were friendly to them, and that is where they set up, West of the River, and East of the Sea.  They had no other options.

By today’s standards they would undoubtedly qualify as refugees, but the Men of the West did not try to sponge off the local inhabitants, who were accustomed to a much lower standard of living than the Numenoreans.  Instead they set about building a new civilisation in as close an image to the one they had lost as possible.

So the builders of Gondor and Arnor were far more like entrepreneurs, explorers and inventors in that they brought trade and artisan skills to the West of Middle Earth, as well as building alliances of strength with their neighbours such as Rohan which maintained peace for long periods in the face of chaotic incursions from the tribes of the East.

 You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my shamanic rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp 'Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming The Hundredth Monkey' (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) below

Purchase Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming The Hundredth Monkey

Waking The Monkey! Amazon Kindle

My Waking The Monkey! blog where I discuss metaphysical and spiritual concerns.

Tolkien and Islam

Tolkien and Islam

It is well known that Tolkien said that he ‘cordially despised allegory in all it’s forms’.  However he was not always entirely true to this.  ‘Leaf by Niggle’ a well loved short story of his is clearly and unambiguously allegorical, and probably semi-autobiographical in its expression of what seems likely to be his own feelings about his work, constantly erasing and reworking, refining but never complete or satisfied.

It is also clear from his writings and the great amount of work that has been done on the sources of his huge range of imagery that his work is filled with imaginative versions of things he had known and seen in his life.  I have made a small contribution on this subject myself

http://cosmicclaire.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/tolkien-and-headingley.html

of local landscapes and landmarks that are likely to have had some influence as sources since they are things that he experienced in his daily life, and which bear striking resemblances to actual locations and things in Middle Earth.

Allegory can blend with unconscious reference and half remembered image so that a piece can be a combination of many ideas.  Tolkien did not deny that there was a moral meaning to his tales and it is clear that his world is a representation of the Catholic universe before the Incarnation of Jesus.  (I think he might have even said that.)

Just as with, in The Hobbit, he drew unashamedly from literary sources such as the Eddas and Beowulf, we should not be surprised if in his works there are unconscious references to the historical world that we know, or simply contextual embedding of geographical patterns and the cultures that inhabit them.

The geography of Middle Earth in the Third Age has an overall layout which is reminiscent of Europe and the Middle East, as it might have been after the sinking of Atlantis, the race memory which he translated into the Fall of Numenor.  The languages were where it all started and these principally began with Finnish, Welsh and Norse tongues, and his world is built around the kind of people he thought would speak them.

So it is not pushing Tolkien too far in my view to suggest that the geographical and cultural references may have more detail, texture and depth than the simple and obvious facts of the Shire representing England and so forth.

As an Art Therapist I have spent much time looking at images and finding hidden material.  Some might be my own projection, but some were undoubtedly there waiting for me to find.

Ever since I first saw the map of Middle Earth in The Lord of The Rings as a child, I have always been aware of the similarity in shape between Mordor and Turkey.  One detail alone may be coincidence, but when others conform with it, the hypothesis is supported.

The separation between Mordor and Gondor is defined by the Great River which passes between them, like the Bosphorus, and Gondor stands like Constantinople facing towards the East.

Tolkien wrote LR and his whole legendarium to be a mythology for England, since it had lost so much after the Norman Invasion.  While I am content to acknowledge that it was intended as an inspiration to the English people, and a reworking of myths into literature somewhat in the way that Vaughan Williams turned folk song into symphony, it does not seem impossible that there may have been deeper purposes.

He was a lifelong Catholic from the days of his childhood when his mother converted.  It is also well known that he felt a deep sense of regret at the loss of Anglo-Saxon culture, almost as if it were something that had only happened recently and that it was his duty to restore.

Would it be so impossible that in someone so conscious of the racial, linguistic and cultural history of the peoples of Northern Europe, resonances of the various invasions from the East might be found embedded in his imagination?

The great fear of Europe was from the East.  Attila, the Saracens, Turks, Genghis Khan and the Ottomans.  Can we project that the threat of Sauron might in any way be comparable to these?  In archetypal form, these things are near identical.  It might be considered not very politically correct to suggest as much, but Tolkien clearly describes the inhabitants of Mordor, the Orcs, as swarthy and slant eyed.  We must accept that this is probably how the mediaeval Europeans saw those from the Middle East who were continually trying to invade and take over the West.  And their weapons are scimitars.

Victory for Sauron would mean the end of everything for the West.  Sauron is seen as the Antichrist, (or had Melkor not already taken that part, Satan).

A picture is building here of a demonic power, residing in a country to the East that resembles Turkey (and beyond), with swarthy inhabitants wielding scimitars.  It is the will of Sauron that all must submit to him and acknowledge him as master.  Any treaties would be worthless.  He would always make more complaints and aggression against the men of the West, as he has always harried and preyed upon them and coveted their lands.

Are you, dear reader arriving at the same conclusion as I have done?  That the demonic power of Mordor characterised by the Will of Sauron is archetypically identical with none other than that of Islam today?

I am not suggesting that this is an intentional meaning from Tolkien, but rather that it is unconsciously prophetic.  Perhaps a repeating cycle that he characterised, and which has come round again.

One last point I would like to add is to remind the reader of both Tolkien’s Catholic faith, and his devotion to the survival and meaning of Anglo-Saxon culture.  To suggest that he would agree with the current Pope that Christians should abandon their past and embrace the muslim hordes who press like orcs at our gates is to my mind, absurd.  Such a course will clearly lead to the end of European civilisation, indeed probably the European peoples.  During the Crusades, the then Pope declared Mohamed and Islam were the AntiChrist.  Saruman in the books symbolically represents the Pope who has submitted his will and is now working for the success of the Enemy.  The Lord Denethor represents the collective will of the Europeans, against this, but despairing.  I have seen a muslim site which suggested that Aragorn represented the Mahdi.  I think not, since Aragorn came to free the West from domination, but all the Mahdi would do is subject it perpetual slavery. 

If Tolkien felt so much grief about the loss of a root culture 900 years ago, how much more would he grieve for the loss of Christendom and his own people?

I would assert that it is plain for any who study the works of the Professor that he would have no truck with the politically correct movement which seeks to open the doors to invaders and betray our people.  In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that his great work, The Lord of The Rings, voted the nation’s most popular book at the millennium, is no less than a prophetic warning from the levels of deep racial memory and the collective unconscious.

Islam is the hordes of Mordor, and Sauron the guiding will of their demonic mentor, Mohamed.

There may be more symbolic meaning in the stories and images, but so far, this much is clear from many years of consideration, and I wouldn’t be surprised if thousands of Tolkienists the world over have thought it too.  But it is time to reserve those thoughts no more and speak the truth, that Islam is the Will of Sauron. 

You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my shamanic rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp ‘Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey’ (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) at 

http://www.lulu.com/shop/claire-rae-randall/waking-the-monkey-becoming-the-hundredth-monkey/paperback/product-22175832.html

 My other blogs

 http://pcnewspeak.blogspot.co.uk/

Deconstruction of politically correct material, such as feminism and immigration. 

 

 http://cosmicclaire.blogspot.co.uk/

Includes complete index of recordings of the entire procedings of the Leeds Trolleybus Vehicle System Public Inquiry 2015 and blog entries for over fifty days of the Inquiry.

Beowulf Destroyed

Beowulf Destroyed

Beowulf may seem to some to be an odd place to start an analysis of politically correct Newspeak, but since it is at the root of our English culture I believe it is quite appropriate, as it is those values that Political Correctness and Newspeak wish to undermine and destroy.

I am something of a newcomer to Beowulf, having been rather daunted by the stature of the epic, in the same way as I was with the Baghavad Gita, but both are actually quite short and can be read in half a day or so.

I saw the Ray Winston/ Anthony Hopkins voiced animation some years ago and quite enjoyed it I have to confess.  However, this was before I had read the actual text.

Last year, 2014, saw the Tolkien translation from the 1930s finally published by his son Christopher, with some reserve.  Tolkien is infamous for his uncompleted manuscripts and it is said that he abandoned his Beowulf in an unpolished form.  The annotation does indeed lie unfinished, but on reading the actual translation itself I found it gripping and atmospheric.  He captured the mood of how the epic may have been presented in a mead hall of the seventh century in superb style.

I was somewhat surprised that on the webcast launch of the newly published edition Tolkien experts were saying that, while it may be wonderful to have a new/old text from the Professor, it wouldn’t really stand as a major translation and was mostly of academic interest.  I cannot claim to be an expert on the Anglo-Saxon, although I have done some research on Tolkien with respect to his local sojourn here in Leeds during the early nineteen twenties and believe I have gained some feel for his character and interests.

It is well recognised that there are a number of scenes and situations in both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings which are based on vignettes from Beowulf, but not least is the fact that it was the heroic ethic, as much as any formal details of the story, which inspired Tolkien.  His translation almost immediately preceded his writing of The Hobbit.

The noble warrior Beowulf is keen to aid his kinsman Hrothgar and his clan against the predations of the ogre Grendel, and when it turns out that Grendel’s mother continues his evil work once he has been slain, he goes into her lair and despatches her as well.  Having achieved this he is praised and rewarded by Hrothgar before he returns over the sea to his people in the land of the Geats.

The kingship of his own people comes to him in due course, and eventually, after fifty years, he has to face a dragon which has been woken from a barrow by a thrall who had crept inside and stolen a golden goblet.  (The inspiration for Bilbo’s escapade under the Mountain in The Hobbit.)  Aided only by his loyal warrior comrade Wiglaf, he confronts the dragon and deals it a fatal blow, but not before he has been mortally injured himself.  A burial mound is then raised over his funeral pyre (thought to be Skalunda in southern Sweden) and the poem ends with his people fearing an uncertain future at the hands of Frisians and Franks now that their hero is no more.

http://creationwiki.org/Beowulf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skalunda

Since I had seen the animated film version sufficiently long ago to forget the details of the plot, when I actually read the translation it slipped past me that there were significant differences.  Recently I rewatched the video and was left wondering if I had missed niceties in the poem when I had read it.  Having been at the time somewhat preoccupied by other matters I had only read it through once and not studied it in close detail.  I therefore had recourse to reread it, having greater leisure at my disposal with some downtime over Christmas.  I also availed myself of the Seamus Heaney translation (1999), a much easier version than Tolkien’s, recounted as it is in a modern idiom, so that I didn’t miss anything which might have been hidden in the Professor’s archaic style.

I was shocked to realise that the animated version had diverged from the original in many aspects.  I understand that stories often need adaptation to make them workable on the screen, but too often these adaptations change and even pervert the intended meanings of the original works.  Peter Jackson’s rewriting of some parts of the Lord of the Rings come to mind as examples of this, particularly the changing of Faramir’s behaviour towards Frodo when he finds that he carries the Ring, or Frodo’s behaviour towards Sam on the stair above Minas Morgul.  In both instances the honourable behaviour displayed in the book is changed so that the characters become less and their ethical choices (the essence of the story) debased.

And this is what has been done to Beowulf.

I did a little research on the background to the movie and found that the script had been written by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_%282007_film%29

 Gaiman is a highly respected scifi/fantasy writer, and I have enjoyed some of his work, such as on Doctor Who, but was very disappointed with his ‘Whatever Happened To The Caped Crusader’, which seemed to me to lack substance.

In his rewrite of Beowulf he tampered with what has always been the substance of the story, the honour and worthiness of the hero.  In fact, nearly all the characters have been debased and made less worthy.  Hrothgar, for instance, is shown estranged from his wife, and eventually commits suicide when his dark secret is sensed by Beowulf, rather than praising his champion and sending him home with a reward of treasure.

But the core of the rewrite clusters around the proposition that Beowulf is not ‘a reliable witness’ when it comes to his report that he slew Grendel’s mother with the giant’s blade in her underwater lair.  The fact that there were no other eyewitnesses than the hero himself is used by Gaiman and his co-writer to suggest, or rather conclude, that Beowulf lied and had actually come to a secret agreement with the evil spirit.

While it is true that we are obliged to rely on the hero’s own account, we must ask of Gaiman and Avery what other evidence they put forward for their own version?  If they had simply admitted that they wished to create a ‘dark’ version, or that they didn’t like the ethic that prevailed in those times and wished to make a ‘modern’ version, then we would have an honest admission that they have changed to story and its motivations for their own reasons, and things would be clear.

But their claim to have reworked the story due to the ‘unreliable’ nature of the reports raises many problems.  There is no mention of the golden ‘dragon horn’ in the text, Hrothgar is an honourable king who leaves a son and heir, there is no suggestion that Beowulf takes the king’s wife to himself after his demise, nor that the dragon at the end of the tale had any relation to Grendel’s mother.  It is made clear that the dragon’s reason for attacking the Geats is his affront at the theft of the golden goblet and it is never suggested that he has anything against Beowulf personally, let alone that he is his offspring by Grendel’s mother.

I could go on detailing the aberrant features of the storyline used in the animation, but I hope it will by now be clear that there is a lot more going on than a mere reinterpretation due to a piece of unsupported reporting by Beowulf.  In fact, in the text, there are several points observed by the bystanders which tend to support Beowulf’s own report.  Firstly, the boiling and bubbling of the water with blood at the entrance to her submarine den suggests that he had indeed slain some monster.  Grendel had already died, so although when his head is cut off from his corpse in the cave and brought back to show Hrothgar it is reported by the poet to ‘drip’ with blood, surely drips are all that there would have been having lost an arm a day before and died in his mother’s lair, not the boiling surge which is observed by Geats when the mother is slain.  In addition, the giant’s blade melts from the toxicity of the blood.  No mention is made of Grendel’s blood having these qualities, which surely would have been observed and recorded when his arm was wrenched from his torso in the meadhall Heorot, had it been so. 

Gaiman and his accomplice also manage to overlook the fact that having rid the Spear Danes of their demons, Beowulf then returns home over the sea to his own land where he recounts his tale to his King and kinsman, Hygelac.  In due course the kingship of the Geats comes to Beowulf, not the kingship of the Danes who he had saved from the monsters.  This is absolutely clear in the words of the poet, and the tradition remains to this day that Skalunda in the Geatish lands is the burial mound of the hero.

One might be forgiven for seeing the animated version as a hatchet job designed to discredit the reputation of the greatest hero of the Norse people.  He is shown to make one last heroic sacrifice with the slaying of the dragon, but when one understands that this is portrayed as being necessitated by the consequences of his own cupidity long ago when he supposedly succumbed to the temptations of the demon mother, rather than kill her as he had claimed, then it is rather less noble.  In fact it amounts to a denial of his responsibility for what had happened, and the suggestion is  made at the end of the film that Wiglaf may well respond to the mother and start the whole thing over again. 

Hrothgar, Beowulf, and now perhaps Wiglaf are shown as cheats who gained their prowess and kingdoms through magical bargains with the demon mother, rather than as selfless heroes who defend their peoples against chaos and evil.

So why should this all matter, and what has it to do with Newspeak and Political Correctness?

The poem Beowulf is recognised as probably the finest example of Anglo-Saxon poetry surviving (one manuscript only, which miraculously survived a fire some hundreds of years ago which lead to it being examined and copied).  Like all great works of literature it contains many levels and depths.  Tolkien’s work on it some eighty years ago, and his famous ‘Beowulf: the Critics and the Monsters’ significantly developed understanding of the work beyond the mere historical frame which had limited it hitherto.

It is so much more than an adventurous tale of killing demons.  It could be said that its entire raison d’être was to express and enshrine the moral values of the culture in which it was embedded.  To extol the virtues of selfless heroism and generosity demonstrated by Beowulf in his life and actions.  Even had he engaged in the faithless lies and self advancement suggested by Gaiman and Avery, (which I very much doubt) the purpose of the story is not primarily to provide an accurate historical record, (although it is drawn on what seems to be quite an accurate canvas of actual history and identifiable people) but to teach the people listening to the performance of this piece (for surely that is how it must have been known to the Anglo-Saxons) the example of what high morality was considered to be in that culture.  We might as well ask whether the hare really did lie down and rest so that the tortoise could win the race when reading Aesop’s fables.  If we want to get into historical analysis and find out what ‘really’ happened in the moors beyond Heorot or on the Geatish headlands we would have to accept that probably neither Grendel, his mother, nor the dragon, actually existed and the entire business would fall.  But it is not about this.  The tale was woven out of a mixture of historical fact (Hrothgar and Hygelac really existed, as did probably Beowulf) and mythical imagination about whatever it was that he really faced on the moors, to create a legend of the ideal hero.  Did Odysseus really confront the Cyclops, the Sirens, Circe and the rest?  I doubt it.  That is not the point.  The tales of heroes tell us what we should admire, what we should aspire to be.

The Gaiman-Avery script for the animation does none of this.

Rather it follows ‘Critical Theory’ as proposed by the Frankfurt School and attempts to entirely deconstruct the story so that its meaning is lost.  As Gandalf said ‘One who breaks a thing to find out what it is made of has left the path of wisdom’.

Willi Munzenberg is reputed to have said that the goal of this school of thought was to make Western culture ‘stink’, and fellow of the school George Lukács aspired to create a ‘culture of pessimism’ which would be achieved by destroying the idea of the sanctity of the soul

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2514

http://www.sunray22b.net/Willi_Muenzenberg.htm

   We can see that the deliberate deconstruction and intentional imputation of dishonourable motives in leading characters from the epic has led to a reading in which the hero is neither honourable, nor the best of men.  Had he truly been ‘most eager for praise’ as the tale ends, then he would could never have engaged in the lies which are imputed to him in the modern reworking.

The part of the cynic is played in the poem by Unferth, but even he admits that he was wrong and that Beowulf is worthy of honour.

However the modern reading of all things is to take the part of Unferth and doubt truth, without the reformation of the character which follows the demonstration of the great deed.  In so doing the modern writers demonstrate their lack of understanding of the tradition and poetic techniques from which the epic derives, or else are purposely poisoning it.

The Newspeak version of Beowulf is like the news reports in 1984 which are perpetually being rewritten so that it comes to the point where no-one knows what really happened, and no-one cares.  All that matters is that the narrative supports the currently prevailing  attitudes and policies of the Party.

Subtexts abound.  Anything good must be brought into disrepute.  Indeed, the very concept of ‘goodness’ must be brought down.  Everyone only seeks their own ends and personal glorification.  The idea that Beowulf might have actually wanted to do the right things because he felt a duty to do so has to be undermined, and his motivations are deceptive, all he wanted was the fame and any rewards that might accrue from that.

In our modern world, heroic, selfless behaviour has to be discredited, because post modern cynicism insists that such a thing is impossible.  Human nature is evil and selfish.  What the original poet would have seen instantly is that such ways of thought are no more than a reflection of the motives of the ‘analyst’, the projection of his own cowardice and failure to act honourably.  Gaiman and Avary have entered the mindset of Unferth before he repented, and have imprisoned themselves there.  In the mythic world, this is a mere fragment of reality, and one that must be integrated and if possible rectified.

I recently heard Owen Jones, the rising young firebrand of the new Left speak and was dismayed to hear him say that ‘The individual alone can achieve nothing, only collective action can bring about change’.  Well, I am all in favour of working together for common goals if such a thing can be arranged.  But there are times when one alone, or the few who are willing to join him, must act because the collective has neither the will nor the courage to do so.  To stand alone against great evil is heroic.  To stand alone whether one knows that one can prevail or not, but simply to do so because it is right, is the mark of courage.

This is the action of Beowulf, and why this poem will have been held as an example of honour, courage and nobility for hundreds of years by those who performed and heard it.

But the Politically Correct Newspeak version of our reality cannot allow for individual heroism, or what in our modern world amounts to responsibility.  All things must submit to collective approval, and all those who wish to step out of the rank and file must be slapped down, their motivations must be undermined and discredited because it is required politically.  There is no right because it is ethical, there is only personal advantage or the collective will.  

From here we are only a few short steps to the demonisation of the hero, who dares to act on his own without first seeking approval from the collective.  Stan Lee masterfully drew the character of Peter Parker/ Spiderman as the hero/ outcast, but maintained the integrity of the character since we know that his intentions are honest, despite the ranting of J. Jonah Jameson and the sheeple who believe him.  And so the hero becomes the demon because of the faithless projections of those who are the real enemy.

In the cultural Marxist utopias envisioned by the likes of Huxley and Orwell all vestiges of independent thought are eradicated through conditioning and fear.  Even Bertrand Russell bought into an ideology that was adapted to the mainstream by the Fabians (emblem a wolf in sheep’s clothing) and the Tavistock institute.

Modern successors of Critical Theory and Deconstructionism have persuaded their followers that all original thought is an illusion anyway since we are all dependent on the cultures in which we are embedded, and that we are thereby only expressions of the ongoing collective.  And the Cultural Marxists wish here to close the game, boxing in the individual as no more than ‘subject’, the passive observer of the deterministic universe with no more than the illusion of free will.

This is why it is so important to rewrite Beowulf and corrupt the values it champions.  Gaiman and Avary probably don’t even think about how they are implementing the Cultural Marxist agenda.  It is so pervasive a contextual underpinning that it is those who cling to the idea of value and purpose who are seen as the ones out of step, while Gaiman and friend are the champions of the new order, tearing down and corrupting anything which stands in the way of its bleak pessimism and emptiness.  The ‘Hero’ is an illusion, really just a corrupt self seeking exploiter who lies for his own ends and reputation.  Of course, we were stupid to imagine that real heroism, real honesty could exist, even in our dreams and imagination.  Just a false hope and illusion.  And the propagandists have won over those foolish enough to believe this lie.