This is just too funny. It's a pity the author didn't take it further, but the concept is friggin hilarious.

Aslan Shrugged (http://rebecca.hitherby.com/archives/000490.php).

An excerpt:

This is a story of makers and builders, of children who even as children set their mark upon the world. This is a story to show the dear niece of our colleague C.S. Lewis that the only magical cordial she needs is a devotion to modern industrial medical practice. It is a story, first and foremost, of how not even the foulest witchery can stand before the pure exercise of reason; and we dedicate it, says Mrs. Schiff, regarding the notes for the next three days of performances, and hoping that the readers will understand that this is literal and the author's note is not the entire performance, to the spirit of our dear departed colleague Erwin Schrodinger, whom we suspect to be dead but whose actual state we have elected not to investigate.
From the comments:


"You got your Narnia in my Objectivism!"
"You got your Objectivism on my Narnia!"

This is just too funny. It's a pity the author didn't take it further, but the concept is friggin hilarious.

Aslan Shrugged (http://rebecca.hitherby.com/archives/000490.php).

An excerpt: "dedicated" to the spirit of our dear departed colleague Erwin Schrodinger, whom we suspect to be dead but whose actual state we have elected not to investigate.



"You got your Narnia in my Objectivism!"
"You got your Objectivism on my Narnia!"

ROFL! Schrodinger is still alive as long as we don't peek in his Box! I Love it: I'm coming apart Laughing!! - "the spirit of our dear departed colleague Erwin Schrodinger, whom we suspect to be dead but whose actual state we have elected not to investigate."

:D

the spirit of our dear departed colleague Erwin Schrodinger, whom we suspect to be dead but whose actual state we have elected not to investigate."

Sweet!

We also present a mental herb far more powerful than a pinch of Viagra. We supsect an erection has limits but we have elected not to to investigate.

Seriously, I'm digging this one:


This is the meaning of magic, after all: that we do not yet know every truth of ourselves, or every capacity in our hearts to arrange the world in the order of our minds. In every case we studied, however, we found that fantasy leads children astray---that it proposes to them the idea that magic symbolizes the adult moralities of the street-corner preachers and snake oil politicians. It teaches that the mysteries of the world are those that flow from gods and rituals and wands and titles and being the heir to an empire of blood. We believe that a mystery is never more or less than the unknown, and that wands and rituals and gods are very much the known. Magic is simply a question mark, and it is our own spirit and insight that in every case provides the answer.

Magic.

Heh.

Reminds me of a line from the new Wonka movie.

"Candy doesn't have to have a point. That's why it's candy."
(Can't fucking WAIT!!! Ok. Calm down.)

The case she makes about the nature of magic is intriguing, isn't it? It seems to point back to discussions we've had in the past about Gendy's Spandrel and Magic.

Magic is the unknown. And along comes the magician to claim the unknown and make it the known through his arcane processes. To cage the uncageable. To tame the untameable.

Aslan was never a tame lion, they say.

I don't know if John Galt was or not. I'm sure he'd claim to not be tame. But the reality might be entirely different.

Ick.
'dya call me "Gendy"? Damocle's sword swings by thy cowlick.......



Magic is the unknown. And along comes the magician to claim the unknown and make it the known through his arcane processes. To cage the uncageable. To tame the untameable.

Precisely.
And thereby collapsing its mystery. Consider the common American film with its pyrrhotechnic gore.

It does not achieve its goal of terrifying the viewer as much as thrilling him- Freddy Crouger was roller coaster ride. Chucky and Jason was a carnival.
I’m going to get shot for this, but “The Grudge” wasn't. The directors purposely limited human presence in that film, which we as mammals find comforting.

And that was the horror of that film. Not the corpses or the phantom girl, but the lack of human presence. THAT was its mystery, something so …..simple.

Too, Iaian Banks and Charlee Jacobs are far more captivating authors than are Robert Lee, Ray Garton, Rex Miller simply because of their subtlety in writing (less Jacobs than Banks).
Obvious gore is Barbie shit, and way too complicated.

But as for films, its those obscure films where the horror is never quite defined but just hangs in the air thinly veiled yet there because your instincts scream that its there that is most effective.
Same with magic.

Which is why I have a tinge of dread to watch the Wonka remake. I'm afraid they'll make it too definitive and because of it, lose all its charm.

Speaking of (and of course, I cannot resist):

Ahem.
Violet (picking her snotty little nose): “Spitting’s a dirty habit”
Brilliant Wonka ( oh so subtly) : “I know a worse one”.


Aslan was never a tame lion, they say.

But C.S Lewis was. That's the sad part.

'dya call me "Gendy"? Damocle's sword swings by thy cowlick.......

Apologies. But it was the name proposed long ago: Gendy's Spandrel. About halfway through this long ass post I proposed it. You never answered so it's your fault, not mine, that you don't like the name.

However, I'd be more than happy to refer to it as Gendanken's Spandrel in the future. Or whatever other name you might prefer to call it.

It is your spandrel, after all.

(I wonder if it's a tame spandrel? I don't think it is. But, it could be...)


I’m going to get shot for this, but “The Grudge” wasn't. The directors purposely limited human presence in that film, which we as mammals find comforting.

And that was the horror of that film. Not the corpses or the phantom girl, but the lack of human presence. THAT was its mystery, something so …..simple.

Nice.
Very nice analogy.

There's an even deeper level here as well.
Consider that most horror movies are victims of excessive special effects. Computer generated this. Robotronic animation that.

But, the movements by the ghosts in the movie were all performed by the actors themselves. That scene with the ghost girl (I forget all the names) crawling down the stairs? Well, of course there was some post-production processing. But, the majority of the effect, the movement, the face, the ambience, was all captured live and in vivo. It wasn't something that was created by a computer, merely enhanced by it.

Having trouble trying to explain what I'm saying here. Bear with me.

What I'm trying to convey is that the human performance is more of an unknown than the completely computer generated performance.

Every aspect of a computer generated character is put there purposefully by animator. Every aspect. Every shrug. Every movement. Everything.

But, a live performance is more... mystical. It's not a complete unknown as the performer does do things on purpose for a specific effect, but much of what is being done by the body is automatic. The mind brings in the idea of "act scary" and the body does it.

Now, this really leads back to the discussions in that long ago and lovely thread and others that were going on at the same time. In that the mind tends towards automation. The conscious mind is an active overlord... yes. But, it works best when the commands given by the mind are vague and the body is allowed to work beneath the surface of consciousness.

The 'doing it in your sleep'. Remember?

The magical hands carving figures from a piece of wood. When asked, "How do you do that?" The owner of the hands can try to explain it. And he might even have worked out his explanations to a fine degree, but the explanations and the doing may not have much in common. The hands do, the mind rationalizes.

Try teaching someone to carve by explaining how it's done...

Magic.



But, I kinda understand what you mean by lack of human presence in the movie. I completely understand it in a general sense. But, would you care to elaborate a bit more in specific?


I watched a movie last week. The Boogeyman.
Have you seen?
The most... godawful... piece of shit, horror movie I've seen in a while.
It had potential, but the script was inane. There was nothing 'scary' in the movie outside of a couple of well-crafted scenes... The first scene, actually. The rest sucked.
It sucked because it depended on the 'magic' of throwing a cat in your face.
You know what I'm talking about? A sudden scraping noise that grates on the nerves. Sudden flashes of images that fly by too quickly to be grappled by the mind. And the weak-minded jump on command.

I must admit that this technique has advanced down the years from its humble beginnings of literally throwing a cat in your face. You know the scene. Looking around for someone. Some strange noise and the heroine walking around in panties. People in the audience on edge and saying, "Don't open that door, girl. Don't you do it!" And she does. And... a cat comes flying out with a loud yowl. And everyone jumps on command.

Magic?
Bah. No magic in hackneyed tricks.
But the people eat that shit up because they don't even have to think about it. Everyone jumps on command and no one has to jump at the wrong time. Out of order.

The social dynamics of horror shlock.
Ha.


Very nice tangent.
And. No. I won't shoot you for it.


But as for films, its those obscure films where the horror is never quite defined but just hangs in the air thinly veiled yet there because your instincts scream that its there that is most effective.
Same with magic.

But. There is a balance that must be maintained between undefined and nonexistent.

Three words.

Blair.Witch.Project.

Ok. Four.
Bah!

(The hype was delicious though, wasn't it? And that was real magic.)


Which is why I have a tinge of dread to watch the Wonka remake. I'm afraid they'll make it too definitive and because of it, lose all its charm.

Nah.
Won't happen.
Think of the principle players.

Tim Burton.
Johhny Depp.

They both understand magic.


http://chocolatefactorymovie.warnerbros.com/img/home/homeMain.jpg


Edit:
Almost forgot:

But C.S Lewis was. That's the sad part.

Yeah.
Very. Very tame.
But, in a way, he could be called wild. He was a Christian, but I think that many of his ideas (even for his good characters) could be easily considered Satanic.

I imagine he had a few outraged christian groups on his case back in the day...

(He was a friend of somebody... Who? J.R.R. Tolkien?)