It depends on the context...

In this case I don't mind it so much as Eustace is still his old self, who doesn't believe in Narnia. Whereas if Lucy said it, I would be upset.

Although I would have liked more emphasis on the fact it was wrong.

Another point to make here is that the donkey synonymn is used countless times in SC... although my own theory is that they were written before it was considered a swearword.

Heh. You should read the books. The D-word (it rhymes with 'dam') appears more than once, as does the A-word (it rhymes with 'jackass').

I do know they pop up in the books, I just wondered how people felt knowing these films are widely known a christian, but yet use the Lords name in vain... to me that is a HUGE difference to just a few little words like that...??? Is it appropriate for the films? does it add anything that couldnt have been there without it?

You have to keep in mind that, although the movies are based on Christian books and therefore still have the Christian elements in them, most of the filmmakers are not Christian. And so, it's pretty much a given that they're going to put things like that in the movie without even thinking about it. (Not to mention the fact that even most Christians I know also use the Lord's name in vain). The main purpose of the filmmakers is not to sit down, go through the script, and weed out anything that might be a sin. The main purpose of the filmmakers is to just make a good PG movie people will go see, pure and simple.

That being said, I'm not sure if it matters too much that one of the characters used His Name in vain. I mean, of course it would be better if he hadn't. But it's not exactly something that would make me stop watching the movies. I've heard worse swear words in other movies. It's a sin to use God's Name in vain, but it's not a sin to watch someone else use God's Name in vain. So it's definitely not a sin to watch VDT.

Also, I remember, even in the books, a few characters using Aslan's name "in vain", i.e. "What, in the name of Aslan, are you?". It was also pointed out in HHB in a conversation between Shasta and Bree. The way Bree talked about it, it sounded almost as if using Aslan's name in vain was some sort of sign of devotion to Aslan; because they use his name, and not the name of anything/anyone else. I'm not sure if I agree with C.S. Lewis there though. I think using the Lord's Name in that way is something we should avoid doing ourselves. But Lewis's intentions were obviously in the right place.

~Riella

If Eustace did indeed say that, it was among the film's lesser offenses. This is not to downplay the Fourth Commandment, but actually to show that if we're talking about "using God's Name in vain," it was the corruption of Aslan that did that most of all. Ithilwen is spot-on — we shouldn't expect a Christian Movie, with the filmmakers keeping C.S. Lewis's book open, with an open Bible right next to that. But it's not too much to expect them to try for more faithfulness to the actual story. Sadly, Dawn Treader did not, and "took Aslan's name in vain" by salvaging the character for use as a mere sidekick and spouter of humanist platitudes.

Heh. You should read the books. The D-word (it rhymes with 'dam') appears more than once, as does the A-word (it rhymes with 'jackass').

The latter is a very mild swear in British English, used as an insult (similar to calling someone an "idiot") comparing someone to a donkey (unlike the American connotation of the rear end---the Brits have a similar-sounding equivalent).

For the record, the British neither pronounce nor spell the 'similar sounding word' anything like the American donkey synonym. Their four letter 'similar sounding word' rhymes with farce. Down Under we refer to a person's backside, which isn't a swear word at all, but can sound just as offensive or authoritative if people are told to get off theirs. Or we can use 'derrière' or 'sit upon' if we want to be fancy.

I agree that C.S.Lewis never wrote the books with American usage in mind, genteel or otherwise. And he referred to donkeys or their asinine synonyms quite a bit as synonyms for idiots. Poor Puzzle! And I agree with Ithilwen and Dr Elwin Ransom who said, "we shouldn't expect a Christian Movie, with the filmmakers keeping C.S. Lewis's book open, with an open Bible right next to that.".

I think that Eustace behaved naturally. He wouldn't have been expected to worry about Christian concerns at a time when he wasn't one. C.S.Lewis depicts his male characters, in particular, in a fairly realistic way. From time immemorial, boys have been given more latitude in the sort of language they are allowed to use, often whilst expecting girls to be more polite and 'genteel', which I think is a bit of a mistake. Both boys and girls should be expected to be polite at all times, whilst being able to call a spade a spade.

In HHB Aravis asks Bree why he continually swears by Aslan. Noticeably she swears by Tash, like all Calormenes. And in SC Aslan tells Jill that she will know Rilian because he is the first person who will ask her to do something in Aslan's name.

I don't have a problem with Narnian characters using Aslan's name. Yes, Aslan is a supremely good character in the Narnian stories, a Narnian parallel to our ideas of our Christian messiah. But the Narnian stories are stories, after all. Not fact. If swearing is such a problem in the Narnian world why not adopt the very earthy Trumpkin method of exclaiming 'beards and bedsteads', or 'lobsters and lollipops'?

In my opinion, VDT, the film, is relatively free of such styles of language,apart from that one incident. Unlike 99% of other movies, including Mickey Mouse cartoons, where some sort of watered down remarks are often used. Including Golly, Gosh, By Jove, Crikey, etc. But then English speakers aren't the only offenders. The French say merde, Sacre Bleu and other terms, whilst devout Muslims say Inshallah (God willing) a lot.

I have always understood that taking the Lord's name in vain is swearing you will do something by the Lord's name and then not doing it as you swore. If you swear on the Bible to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, then you must keep that oath.

Just my tuppence worth.

I wouldn't call that phrase using it 'in vain', so differing opinion there.
But if the movies had expressions like that every other sentence, I'd loose respect for them since that'd make them sound like shallow, teenybopper movies

Remember the books:
In SC Jill says "Dam' good of you" to Eustace.
In MN Uncle Andrew says "A dem mine woman, a dem fine woman."

So there is some "swearing", though the "D-word" is never spelled out. But notice that Jill, while a good person, is not a Christian nor has she ever met Aslan or Narnia. Andrew is certainly no Christian either.

What do you think?

I'm not sure. Part of me when I read the books thought it can be credited to C.S. Lewis and his usage of "swearing" or "swear" words in the British cultural sense. There's a character I'm reminded of in Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens that Uncle Andrew reminds me of when I read his phrase "a dem fine woman". So maybe it's cultural. I have a different opinion of what is considered "swearing" than my sister does. She actually thinks "wooden" swearing (saying words almost similiar to an outright actual swear word, egs. dang, gosh...) is just as bad a regular swearing. "Gosh" or "Jeez" are just corrupted forms of taking the Lord's name in vain to her.

So there is some "swearing", though the "D-word" is never spelled out. But notice that Jill, while a good person, is not a Christian nor has she ever met Aslan or Narnia. Andrew is certainly no Christian either.

What do you think?

I don't think the "D-word" never being spelled out diminishes it's appearance. We all know what word was being referred to, regardless of it's spelling....all the spelling does is indicate the accent/tone of voice when the word was spoken.

I've read other books from the time period where 4-letter swears are obscured in some form or another (by replacing a k with a g, for example), but it doesn't really matter because I know exactly what word was intended, especially if I read it out loud and consider the context. Publishers were more strict back then and sometimes would refuse to publish books with swears in them.

I think the more interesting question point is that the "swears" in the Narnia books are usually said by non-Christian/Aslan-followers, except for perhaps Peter in PC ("Come back Reepicheep, you little @$$"). Is swearing by a god one doesn't believe in as bad as swearing by a god one does believe in? There is one instance in the Chronicles that indicates that it is (Rishda mockingly calling upon tash, and tash comes and eventually eats him), but Eustace's slip of the word God doesn't have the same intended harshness towards the one he is referring to.

Note that the use of "@$$" in CoN is not the same as our interpretation. It's like calling someone an idiot, or fool. Not nice, but it's nothing like using the "A-word" American style, nor is it like calling someone one of the words that begin with "B". (Is this getting ridiculous or is it just me?)

I've never had a problem with the language in the Narnia books. It amuses me that it's such a big deal in the US. That said, I was a little startled when I first read The Cosmic Trilogy, to find some of the characters continually disrespecting God.

Fellow Roman, countryman and citizen, you don't have to lend me your ears. In fact I am all ears.

It has always amused me the censorship used in countries so devoted to the right to free speech. I'm not worried about the language used in the Cosmic trilogy, since these are adult novels, meant for an adult audience, in a pre-1960's age where men were given too much licence as heads of their households to indulge themselves, and when Parliament was not on national TV.

What annoys me a lot more is the amount of much worse profanity habitually used in adult books, including fantasy novels such as in Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant chronicles. I don't know why there is such a stew about the American word (or donkey synonym) for a backside on the one hand, and on the other hand, the apparently commonly held opinion that it is normal for any adult (male) to swear whether in real life, in books or in films as it is considered their constitutional right to do so. It sometimes gets that way I need a translator when some men (and not only men) express any sort of opinion.

I am not considering C.S.Lewis's habits, since that was then and this is now. Surely since his death it doesn't take someone like me, or even the Church to point out that 'monkey see, monkey do' and that leadership in a household is all about setting an example, rather than domination. If men want their children and their wives to behave just so, they should remember to behave themselves the way they expect of others.

As for poor Eustace, swearing is something you would expect a brat to do. (Mind you, is 'brat' a swear word or pejorative?)