Print Media Hot Takes
- Thread starter TheMysteriousGX
- Start date
It's pretty much an Isekai. No doubt about that. The idea of travelling to different world/alternate dimension or timeline is almost as old as the dirt itself. I don't know why that part in particular would be considered a hot take. The John Carter books are glorified Isekai stories. With John Carter being the clueless proto-shounen protagonist. No harem though, and he only cares for the one woman. Any other woman that gains an interest, he gently lets down.
Last edited:
The wiki list of isekai includes both the Narnia series and the Barsoom series. Even the Barsoom stories about native martians involve them going to weird places on Mars they've never heard of before. Though, there's a whole bunch of other Burroughs stories that should be there that aren't, because most of his stories were like that.
I admit, I've never heard of "Isekai" until now. But checking Wikipedia, I'd say Chronicles of Narnia fits the bill.
That said, while it's true that CoN does make sense in the context of its own universe, and therefore isn't pure allegory, the allegory is really what you're meant to get.
Also, looking at that post, I don't think the user really 'gets' how the series handles sin. And I realize that's arguably an arrogant thing to say, but here's some key points:
-Jadis, Polly, and Diggory bring 'sin' into Narnia at its foundation (if you want the allagory, look at the apple tree).
-Aslan takes on Edmund's sin, not the sins of the world. Of course, it mimics Christ, but in this particular moment, Aslan is only dying for Edmund, not the world.
-Per the author's question of "does a badger deserve eternal damnation?", well, some of them apparently. In Last Battle, Aslan judges every animal at the world's end, and not all of them meet the cut. So, it's fair to say that the animals are being judged for their sins, and whether they make it to the "real Narnia" (Heaven).
And before any smartarse says anything (they know who they are), yes, I'm well aware that Narnia is a fairytale that doesn't focus on worldbuilding, don't get your panties in a knot by me mentioning internal consistency.
That said, while it's true that CoN does make sense in the context of its own universe, and therefore isn't pure allegory, the allegory is really what you're meant to get.
Also, looking at that post, I don't think the user really 'gets' how the series handles sin. And I realize that's arguably an arrogant thing to say, but here's some key points:
-Jadis, Polly, and Diggory bring 'sin' into Narnia at its foundation (if you want the allagory, look at the apple tree).
-Aslan takes on Edmund's sin, not the sins of the world. Of course, it mimics Christ, but in this particular moment, Aslan is only dying for Edmund, not the world.
-Per the author's question of "does a badger deserve eternal damnation?", well, some of them apparently. In Last Battle, Aslan judges every animal at the world's end, and not all of them meet the cut. So, it's fair to say that the animals are being judged for their sins, and whether they make it to the "real Narnia" (Heaven).
And before any smartarse says anything (they know who they are), yes, I'm well aware that Narnia is a fairytale that doesn't focus on worldbuilding, don't get your panties in a knot by me mentioning internal consistency.
I think the biggest proof of it being allegory is that the last book just doesn't make any sense otherwise. I was completely lost in the last book as to why people were doing what they were doing or why events were taking place, but apparently if you have a religious upbringing it makes some sort of sense, including dying in a train crash being a happy outcome.
That's a fair critique of the last book, but I don't think that retroactively makes the previous books leading up to it pure allegory.
Also, I don't think you need a religious upbringing to 'get' the last book. In fact, part of what makes me dislike it so much is that I do get what it's saying, and dislike it all the more for it (being someone who's irreligious).
Erm, not sure if that makes it an allegory, in that example they end up going to heaven, which is the platonic ideal of England. Now, you might need the religious upbringing to think that's a good thing, but it's still understandable without it. I'd say that applies to most of the book.
It was more the whole anti-christ orangutan part of it I was thinking of as not really understandable without religious knowledge, and Aslan being literally god and that one girl messing up by not believing every word he says and following his directions to the exact letter. It just didn't really work as a story on it's own merits, because what the characters did or why they failed didn't make sense if you weren't drawing parallels to the bible.
I think the real take away from Chronicles of Narnia is that a Christ-figure that lets you ride on their back is better than one that doesn't.
Do we actually know that Jesus Christ never gave anyone piggyback rides?
In the old days this would be the subject of a holy war.
Lets start out with some Harry Potter ones.
-Voldemort is a terrible villain.
Firstly Voldemort is ridiculously incompetent for someone we should all believe is very dangerous. Harry and co could have been dead countless of times if Voldemort hadn't gone out of his way to put all sorts of restrictions on his forces. Its very common for the Death Eaters to have Harry dead to rights only to freak out about having to deal the final blow. Aside from that Voldemort seems to fail at just about everything he sets out to do. His spells keep backfiring on him when facing Harry, he's made to flee by Dumbledore, and getting his hands on the McGuffin of each book either fails or backfires horribly for him.
Its worth pointing out the Death Eaters greatest victories, the fall of the ministry and the death of Dumbledore both have nothing to do with Voldemort. Taking over the ministry was achieved by Voldemort just siting back and not getting in his agents way for once, and Voldemort isn't even interested his minions having taken over the ministry. Dumbledore's death meanwhile came to be through Dumbledore's own plotting after the trauma inflicted on him by an entirely different villain caused him to slip up and get wounded.
Voldemort is also just boring. He's just 100% evil all the time without anything to break up the nonstop villainy. And thematically its not even fitting that Voldemort's like this. Its a big deal that he's supposedly very charismatic and able to gather fanatical loyalty, but every time his followers are on screen they obviously think Voldemort's a freak who they just serve out of fear. Its a shame because the pseudo charming Tom Riddle is far more interesting when he's on page. In terms of magic Voldemort's also really boring. He supposedly knows every spell out there but he only ever uses Avada Kadavra despite this spell continuously failing him.
-The main trio are all fairly unlikable.
Harry often comes across as somewhat of a brat, and because he's the viewpoint character its easy to notice that Harry's both very judgmental and rarely lets go of a grudge. Ron meanly comes off as a fair weather friend who turns on Harry and Hermoine multiple times, and Hermoine can be stuck up and very unreasonable.
-The house system is a bit of a mess.
Aside from Griffondor being the only house that matters and Slytherin always being 100% in the wrong on 100% of topics there are other problems too. Namely that very few characters seem to be sorted into the correct house. Slytherin is supposed to be about cunning and ambition, but it has students like Grabbe and Goyle who are mentally challenged, and who have no other ambition than being Draco's bodyguard. Meanwhile Fred and George are both very cunning and very ambitious, or their brother Percy who's defined by his ambition.
And some Game of Thrones ones.
-Ned was far less likable in the books. As a viewpoint character he often came across as an asshole. He's classist, very judgmental and overly traditional. Now, Little Finger deserves every inch cold shoulder he gets from other characters, but Ned threats him with disdain in the books far before finding out about any of that, even mocking Littlefinger about his brother nearly having killed him.
He's also fairly hypocritical. Ned believes very strongly that Jaime breaking his oath was unforgivable yet House Stark also swore an oath to the king. He's outraged Jaime murdered his king but it stands to reason Ned's conquest of the city would have resulted in the king's death too.
-The Dance of the Dragon is a wee bit too lopsided in one factions favor. If you're irredeemably evil, insane or completely incompetent you're in the Green faction, and if you're baddass you're in the Black faction. The Blacks have their bad apples, but the Greens are almost nothing but bad apples.
-Voldemort is a terrible villain.
Firstly Voldemort is ridiculously incompetent for someone we should all believe is very dangerous. Harry and co could have been dead countless of times if Voldemort hadn't gone out of his way to put all sorts of restrictions on his forces. Its very common for the Death Eaters to have Harry dead to rights only to freak out about having to deal the final blow. Aside from that Voldemort seems to fail at just about everything he sets out to do. His spells keep backfiring on him when facing Harry, he's made to flee by Dumbledore, and getting his hands on the McGuffin of each book either fails or backfires horribly for him.
Its worth pointing out the Death Eaters greatest victories, the fall of the ministry and the death of Dumbledore both have nothing to do with Voldemort. Taking over the ministry was achieved by Voldemort just siting back and not getting in his agents way for once, and Voldemort isn't even interested his minions having taken over the ministry. Dumbledore's death meanwhile came to be through Dumbledore's own plotting after the trauma inflicted on him by an entirely different villain caused him to slip up and get wounded.
Voldemort is also just boring. He's just 100% evil all the time without anything to break up the nonstop villainy. And thematically its not even fitting that Voldemort's like this. Its a big deal that he's supposedly very charismatic and able to gather fanatical loyalty, but every time his followers are on screen they obviously think Voldemort's a freak who they just serve out of fear. Its a shame because the pseudo charming Tom Riddle is far more interesting when he's on page. In terms of magic Voldemort's also really boring. He supposedly knows every spell out there but he only ever uses Avada Kadavra despite this spell continuously failing him.
-The main trio are all fairly unlikable.
Harry often comes across as somewhat of a brat, and because he's the viewpoint character its easy to notice that Harry's both very judgmental and rarely lets go of a grudge. Ron meanly comes off as a fair weather friend who turns on Harry and Hermoine multiple times, and Hermoine can be stuck up and very unreasonable.
-The house system is a bit of a mess.
Aside from Griffondor being the only house that matters and Slytherin always being 100% in the wrong on 100% of topics there are other problems too. Namely that very few characters seem to be sorted into the correct house. Slytherin is supposed to be about cunning and ambition, but it has students like Grabbe and Goyle who are mentally challenged, and who have no other ambition than being Draco's bodyguard. Meanwhile Fred and George are both very cunning and very ambitious, or their brother Percy who's defined by his ambition.
And some Game of Thrones ones.
-Ned was far less likable in the books. As a viewpoint character he often came across as an asshole. He's classist, very judgmental and overly traditional. Now, Little Finger deserves every inch cold shoulder he gets from other characters, but Ned threats him with disdain in the books far before finding out about any of that, even mocking Littlefinger about his brother nearly having killed him.
He's also fairly hypocritical. Ned believes very strongly that Jaime breaking his oath was unforgivable yet House Stark also swore an oath to the king. He's outraged Jaime murdered his king but it stands to reason Ned's conquest of the city would have resulted in the king's death too.
-The Dance of the Dragon is a wee bit too lopsided in one factions favor. If you're irredeemably evil, insane or completely incompetent you're in the Green faction, and if you're baddass you're in the Black faction. The Blacks have their bad apples, but the Greens are almost nothing but bad apples.
Yeah, Voldemort really kind of sucks, especially at the end. Rowling was really phoning it in for that last book. Oops Voldemort conveniently forgot how to use occlumency so Harry can just close his eyes and read Voldemort's mind whenever Harry doesn't know what to do (read: all the time). Wasn't he supposed to be ridiculously intelligent and careful, and all that? Because leaving a part of your soul lying on a shelf in a closet doesn't seem particularly smart or careful. Especially since there was an elaborate chamber guarded by a deadly snake that only he could enter ready and available. Not even gonna talk about the fact that he was killed by a technicality.
Let's not forget how they start throwing around the Unforgivable Curses in the last book. Because they are only unforgivable if you're a bad guy.
Yes, but Crabbe and Goyle are also evil, so obviously they belong in the evil house. Now why they don't just send all Slytherin students immediately to Azkaban is another question.
I will always believe that Rowling either had the ending written down, or at least had it planned, way ahead of time and didn’t change anything when the story naturally deviated from her plans. Books Six and Seven were her desperately trying to course correct back to her original plan to avoid rewriting the ending and that’s why there is such a radical change in characterization for so many characters.
Well, she always claimed she had it all planned out from the start, I don't really buy it though. I think the biggest problem with book 7 in particular was that she had a formula that worked well (gradually solving a mystery over the course of a school year) and didn't realize that she had written herself out of that formula when Harry and co. left Hogwarts. The final book was the time to focus on tying all the loose ends together, but she sticks to formula and introduces a whole new mystery about the Deathly Hallows that was entirely irrelevant apart from providing some extremely flaky justification for how Harry defeats Voldemort. They were already searching for a ton of macguffins when the book began, but for some reason she decided there needed to be more, and that they all needed to just fall into Harry's lap.
