If you find yourself disagreeing with me, e-mail me. If you have a question for me to answer and post, e-mail me. If you... well, you get the idea.
Another question (related). Do you suppose that Susan's life was spared to give her another chance to repent? I am curious to your opinions.
Sincerely, CJ
As regards your first question as to the children's deaths, I have a couple of opinions on that (and you must remember that these are MY opinions. Popular scholarly opinions may differ).
The children (at least Jill and Eustace) are promised that the next time they return to Narnia, it will be to stay (you will come to it at the end of Silver Chair). In their case, their deaths are the fulfillment of the promise of Aslan. The other five Friends of Narnia (Peter, Edmund, Lucy, Digory, and Polly) all die as an element of the theme of the series. The purpose of the Chronicles is to familiarize the reader with Christ through Aslan. Along the course of the Chronicles we become attached to Him and long for His appearing in each story (even the sixth grade classes I teach want to know when Aslan will come into the story. They, too, are attached to Him). However, we also share the disappointment of each child (except Digory, who wanted to leave) as they are told that they must leave Narnia, sometimes for good. We, with the Friends of Narnia, long to return. But Lewis is setting us up.
There were only a couple things I remember truly fearing as a child. War. Death. The only reason people fear death is because they do not know what follows. Lewis wrote six stories to set up the seventh. Throughout the first six stories, we go through the previously mentioned attachment phase of the reading. We grow fond of Narnia and Aslan. In Chronicle 7, the 7 Friends die and everybody, children included, are delighted that the Friends have come home at last. Our preclusive fear of death has been eradicated because we know what follows.
Summation? The children do not die for a purpose, they are resurrected in Narnia for a purpose: to quell the fear of death by eliminating the mystery behind it. Children especially can benefit from this lesson, thus their inclusion in a "children's series".
The answer to your second question concerning Susan is much shorter.
Yes.
He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
I hope this helps.
Keith A. Webb
Keith,
I keep seeing that Lewis wrote the books in different order than they are numbered by the publisher today. I have been reading them in the current order (not Lewis'). It is confusing to me why Lewis wrote them out of chronological order (Peter & Lucy get older and move on to make way for Eustace & Jill, etc.) and what the value is of reading them in the order Lewis originally intended them. Also, why did the publishers reorder the books from his intentions? - Judy
First of all, thank you for visiting Further Up and Further In! I trust your visit was informative and rewarding.
The order of the books has been the subject of debate for some time. Whether to read them in the original, published order or the chronological order now commonly printed is up to the reader. Personally, I prefer the original order. Book 6 (The Magician's Nephew) gets around to answering all of the questions one may have as a result of reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (questions which never arise if one reads Nephew before Lion). Lewis himself preferred the Chronological approach.
My recommendations to first-time readers is to read them in the order they were published, starting with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Honestly, this makes for a better reading of The Magician's Nephew as Book 6, rather than as Book 1. Subseqent readings could be done in chronological order.
As for the change in order, it is possible the publishers were simply responding to the suggestion of Lewis to read them in chronological order when they started printing in the new order. Otherwise, I cannot begin to explain corporate policy there (who could? 8-) ).
By the Lion,
Keith
I just wanted to let you know that I think you have a very impressive sight and to tell you to keep up the good work!! I do have a question: There are many references to Christian ideologies in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The Queen is said to be Lilith, Adam's first wife. Lilith is not acknowledged in the Chistian bible but she is still refered to in the Hebrew bible at least this is what I have read. Why is the Queen adopted from a non Christian theme and why is Lucy, the daughter of Eve portrayed as the good, believing one. Is Eve not the one who gives into temptation? Edmond seems to be the one who plays Eve's role by not being able to resist the Turkish Delight. Why are the male and female roles reversed?
Samantha
First, thank you for visiting Further Up and Further In! and for your kind words. The site is a work in progress, and comments like yours make it all the more worthwhile.
I will take your second question first. The roles of Edmund and Lucy are not necessarily a reversal of correlations, but rather they are merely a part of the plot. That is to say, I do not believe that all parts of the story are allegorical or inferential. Somehow, sexism aside, it is easier to see an older brother being nasty to his younger sister rather than the opposite. Thus Edmund's general disposition. Just as a note, Lucy does give in to temptation in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader when she selfishly reads a magic spell from the book on Dufflepud Island. Aslan later scolds her for this.
Your first question is an interesting one. First, allow me to note that the witch is descended from Lilith, according to Mr. Beaver. Lilith was supposedly, according to Hebrew myth, the first wife of Adam who refuse to submit herself to his rulership. She spoke a terrible word (sound familiar? See The Magician's Nephew chapter 5) and left Eden. She was commanded by God to return but refused and was cursed with the deaths of a hundred of her offspring daily. Interestingly, there are references to Lilith on an amulet associated with the names 'Arslan' and 'Tash'.
I believe the queen is derived from this myth for a couple of reasons. First, being the offspring of a purely demonic mother, Jadis herself would necessarily be profoundly evil, which she was. Second, the myth ties humans into Narnia a little bit more because the first wife of Adam supposedly bore the enemy of Narnia. Perhaps her roots allow us to feel closer to Narnia and long for its liberation. The general feel of these stories is supposed to be other-worldly. Jadis's cultural background is different enough from our own to keep us from believing her to be like us.
Hope this helps. If you have any questions feel free to email me any time.
Keith
Keith,
Who in the Bible does Shift represent, or does he represent someone from modern times?
Katie
Not trying to be funny, but there is a possibility you are right on both counts. Shift represents in a very small way what the book of Revelation refers to as the Beast. We call him anti-Christ. The Beast, of course, is the betrayer of mankind. Hi is in collaboration with the enemies of God and seeks to destroy all of mankind.
It makes sense for Lewis to use a talking "beast" as the destroyer of Narnia. Shift collaborates with the enemies of Aslan, the Calormenes. He betrays the people of Narnia with lies and deception and orchestrates the fall of Narnia.
As for Shift representing some who is alive today, there is the possibility the the Beast of Revelation lives and breathes and walks among us, not having shown himself for who he truly is. Those of the Christian faith believe that we are living in the end times and the return of Christ is near at hand.
I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, feel free to e-mail me.
Keith
Keith,
About your sight, did you make it because you believe there is a Narnia?
Angel
I created the sight because I believe the lessons taught in the Chronicles bear exposure in a worldwide community. The truth of an everlasting goodness and the ultimate prevalence of good over evil is needed now more than ever in a world where the temporal reigns supreme over eternal and shades of gray replace black and white absolutes. There is no gray area in Narnia, only good and evil.
As regards my belief in a real Narnia, I believe as Aslan states in Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Aslan is here in our world too, but here we will know Him by a different name and we must learn to know Him by that name. There is a way to Aslan's country from our world, but that country's description would be a point for deeper discussion than what I would put here. Suffice it to say that the Biblical book of Revelation sums it up quite nicely. There is, in my opinion, "Aslan's Country" but not as you would expect it to be based on the Chronicles.
Keith
Hey Keith,
I am studying C.S. Lewis right now in school and I am confused on some of his views. We are currently reading his book, Mere Christianity. I am having trouble with what he actually thinks of god, and how our relationship with god should be? Second, he keeps on talking about this moral law thing; this is confusing me very much so, what is it? Personally C.S. Lewis sounds crazy to me from what he is saying. What do u think?
Thank you for visiting my website and for your question on Narnia and C.S. Lewis. I will do my best with it.
Up front I will tell you that I am not nearly the scholar on Lewis's other works as I am (I hope) on Narnia. I have a copy of Mere Christianity sitting on my bookshelf awaiting the post spring semester season when I can actually take the time to appreciate it properly.
To date I have read the Perelandra series, Til We have Faces, several of his letters, and of course the Narnia Chronicles. So I am greatly under-read when it comes to Lewis per say. For these reasons, my concept of Lewis's concept of God may be a little short sighted.
What I can say, based on the Chronicles, is that Lewis had the opinion that God is indirectly involved in the lives of His people through His Son. Through knowing the Son, we better come to know the Father. In the Chronicles, we never come face to face with the "Emperor over the Sea," but we come to know Him through His Son, Aslan. Aslan states that the reason the children were brought into Narnia is so they could know him better there so they could know Christ better here.
As for Lewis being crazy? As far as I can remember, a good number of deep thinkers were labeled such, including Einstien, Edison, and Socrates. Labeling Lewis as crazy is more of a compliment than you may think.
Yours,
Keith
Why did Aslan decide to bring an end to the world in The Last Battle? Also, where exactly do they end up at the end? Is it Aslan's country or some other place? Thank you very much, MV
MV,
Thank you for your visit and for your question.
Similar to the Biblical destruction of the world, Lewis chose to bring an end to the Land of Narnia. Besides, as a point of closure, there is probably no better way to end the series than to see the primary setting of the stories destroyed forever.
The Friends of Narnia are brought into the New Narnia and come to realize that the former Narnia was merely a reflection or shadow of the real thing. It is Tumnus who explains it all in The Last Battle as layers within an onion, except each inner layer is larger than the outer layers. So the world inside the wardrobe was bigger than the wardrobe and the world inside the stable is greater than the stable. The land into which the Friends enter is the real Narnia.
All of this seems about as clear as mud, but Lucy sums it up best when she says, "In our world too, a stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world."
Keith
Dear Mr. Webb, I only just recently discovered your Web site, and I must say I am very impressed with your eloquent insights into the philosophy of Narnia. My question is not as deep and philosophical as others on your site, but here goes. What is the significance of Archenland in Lewis' fantasy world? I don't see much use for mentioning this country when six books of the series deal solely about Narnia and its citizenry, and yet The Horse and His Boy is devoted to the prince and future king of Archenland and how it is allied with Narnia against Calormen. Was Lewis trying to make a statement about the importance of joining forces against a common foe?
Sincerely, KD
Kevin,
Thanks again for your question. I've given it some thought, but I cannot say that a truly satisfactory response has hit me yet. I'll give you what I have, though.
What I got stuck on first was your question about Lewis making a statement about joining forces against a common foe. The position never really sat well with me for some unexplained reason. Reading the history of Narnia, Archenland was settled by the descendants of King Frank in 180N. Over the next few years, trouble of some kind caused "certain outlaws" to leave Archenland and establish the Kingdom of Calormen in 204N. By 300N, the Kingdom of Calormen has flourished and sets its sights on Telmar to the West of Narnia and later seeks to take Narnia as its own. A good fantasy land has a good fantasy history and certain goings-on. Narnia would not be nearly as complete without the surrounding countries. Take Tolkein's realm in the Lord of the Rings series. There is a complete history of that realm, including mythology, all created by the author.
As for the use of one of the books to discuss a prince and future king of Archenland, it is necessary to remember that a centaur, a Narnian beast to be sure, prophesied that Cor would save Archenland from a horrible disaster. We realize that disaster as the attack on Anvard by Rabadash. Rabadash's intent while attacking Anvard was to give the Tisroc a stronghold by which he could take Narnia. Thus, Cor is responsible for saving Narnia by saving his home land of Archenland.
There is truth to the power of unity (it is one of the three greatest powers given to man), but in my opinion it was not the intent of Lewis to show some cooperative victory as more than just a victory.
Keith
Keith,
Thank you for your insights into Narnia. Since you did such a good job answering my question about Archenland, I thought I'd throw a second zinger your way, if that is allowed. In The Silver Chair, Scrubb, Pole and Puddleglum are horrified to discover they had just eaten a Talking Stag. It is, indeed, a shocking and devastating thing to discover they had unknowingly committed an act of cannibalism. I know I would throw up and die if I found out I was eating someone's leg! Although the three are horrified and most certainly repentant, the "sin" is never addressed by Aslan at the end of the book. This surprises me since Puddleglum believed, in his usual pessimistic way, that he had brought a curse upon himself. What lesson was Lewis trying to communicate here?
Kevin
Kevin,
I looked back at the times when Aslan corrected His children for their transgressions and more or less verified my original thoughts on the matter. As I recall, Aslan "checked" the offenses of: Edmund for his treachery; Susan for her unbelief; Trumpkin for his unbelief; Eustace for his general nastiness; Lucy for reading the first spell on Dufflepud Island; Jill for "pushing" Eustace; Jill again for not following the signs; Aravis for using the slave girl; Digory for ringing the bell in Charn; and Puzzle for dressing as Aslan (if I missed any, which is quite possible, please forgive the omission).
When I was in school, we studied a literary tool called cause/effect. It was the responsibility of each student to determine the effects of a certain action or event in whatever piece of literature we happened to be reading. Bringing that same mindset into the Narnian events, eight of the ten actions which Aslan chose to openly correct (the unbelief of Trumpkin and Susan notwithstanding) had profound impacts on later events in each story. Edmund's treachery set up Aslan's death. Eustace's attitude kept him from being useful to Narnia. Lucy's offense caused her to lose a good friend. And so on. These "sins" were generally unrepented (Puzzle was, perhaps) and there was no real hope of repentance without Aslan's intervention.
For some reason, Aslan chose to correct those offenses which change the course of the story or a character's life. To be mildly theological, one cannot truly know the mind of God, but can attempt to live according to His expectations. When one falls short of those expectations, he or she is disciplined, usually after the transgression has occurred.
Tying all of this back in to the talking stag incident, since there was no long term effect derived from eating the talking stag - no lives were going to be changed, no kingdoms were going to fall, no evils turned loose in the land - Aslan did not need to mention the incident to them. The accidental ingestion of a talking beast is vile enough to make one wary in the future, and the three were immediately repentant and ceased the activity immediately. In all of this, what was Aslan to say?
As for the curse Puddleglum mentions, chalk that up to Puddleglum being himself. There is no curse any more than there was wet wood, poor sleep in a wigwam, or floods in Narnia.
Besides, we must remember that, according to scripture, it is not what enters the mouth but what proceeds from the mouth that defiles a man.
By the Lion,
Keith
Hi,
In TMN, it says something like "Polly went to take a bath, but as we know, she wasn't the best swimmer, and perhaps it is best not to ask questions" What does it mean by that?
Thanks, Boyd
Boyd,
The difficulty here may be in the difference between American English and British English. The part of the story to which you refer is at the point in the story when Digory and Polly are riding on Fledge to the hilltop garden to get the apple for which Aslan asked. The three stop along the way near a river to rest overnight. The following morning they awake and refresh themselves with a bath. Lewis writes that she went for her bathe but, since she was not gone for long and she was not much of a swimmer, perhaps she did not bathe, but rather just pretended to do so. Lewis's use of the word "bathe" we would write as "bath". A minor difference, but enough to make one wonder.
It is best not to ask questions because is might make her feel awkward if she had to admit that she did not have a bath. The episode reminds me of when I would sometimes go to the bathroom under the guise of washing my hands, but instead I would just run the water for a few seconds without touching the it. I really hoped my mom would not ask if I washed or ask to see my hands.
Hope this helps clear things up a bit.
Keith
Dear Keith,
I love this site, I think Lewis would have appreciated it. It has tons of information. Now for my question. In Narnia why where there no talking wolves? I know there was werewolves, but they were all bad. And a totally unrelated question, I heard somewhere someone thought the Lady of the Green Girdle( Silver Chair) was somehow a resurrected Jadis. This is actually possible since she ate the stolen fruit ( Magician's Nephew).
Friend,
Thanks for visiting my website and for your kind compliments.
As for your question on wolves, there are at least two talking wolves in the Chronicles (perhaps more, but these two come to mind first). The first is Maugrim (Fenris Ulf in some publications), Captain of the White Witch's Secret Police. He is the one who leaves the note at Mr. Tumnus's house. He also stops Edmund at the door to the Witch's castle and tells Edmund to "stay where you are if you value your life." The second wolf is unnamed in the story, but he is the one who tells the White Witch that Maugrim has been killed by Peter.
As regards your second question, I too have heard that The Green Lady is Jadis resurrected. I believe that this opinion is based on the fact that in the BBC movies, the same actress plays both the White Witch and the Green Lady (and the hag in Caspian...Is she Jadis too?). As for my personal thoughts on the matter, I have come to the conclusion that, movies notwithstanding, the two witches are two separate beings, not reincarnations. There are a number of reasons I believe this. First, Aslan killed the White Witch. Since Aslan would never do anything half way, Jadis is dead, not just sleeping. The hag in Prince Caspian suggests that she could be resurrected but recall that she and the wer-wolf die before the attempt is made.
At no time in the stories is it suggested that Jadis and the Green Lady are the same person, only the same sort of person (Puddleglum notes this). Jadis was a giantess, the Green Lady was a normal sized woman. Both witches learned their dark magic in the north of Narnia, suggesting that someone there had the ability to teach such things. Are we to assume that every hag and evildoer with magical powers is the White Witch resurrected? It hardly seems logical.
Keith
Keith-
Great job on Further Up and Further In! Please forgive me if somehow I've missed this in my reading, but I was wondering your opinion on why Lewis seems to have left out an equivalent to the Holy Spirit. We have Jesus as Aslan, and God the Father in the Emperor over Sea, but have you seen a reference to the Holy Spirit in the Chronicles?
Thanks,
Steve
Steve,
Thanks for the brain tickling question. Problem is, I can not really say that I have come across any obvious reference to the Third Body of a Triune God. Lewis did not particularly consider the Chronicles to be strictly allegorical, but that does not mean there is something that you or I have overlooked.
Anyone wishing to help solve this little puzzle may do so by Emailing me. Thanks.
Sorry for my lack of help, Steve. Any responses I get will be posted in addendum.
Keith
Keith,
The Holy Spirit is portrayed by the Deep(er) magic. Thanks, Casey
I was just wondering what your insight is to Mr. Beaver's claim that The White witch is a daughter of Adam from his first wife Lilith, that part is still confusing me and I don't really know a way to interpret it, I just thought you might give it a shot on one of your discussions. Also I am doing a report of the Chronicles of Narnia for college and I have to say that your site is so far the best I have seen. Austin
Austin,
First of all, thank you for visiting my site, Further Up and Further In! I did a little research into Lilith and Mr. Beaver's claim that Jadis was her daughter. According to Jewish myth (not unlike Greek and Roman myth, which is far more widespread), Lilith was the first wife of Adam. created by God (from mud rather than pure dust) because Adam found all of the other beasts of the world unfit to be his helpmeet. As it turned out, Lilith was not an agreeable mate for Adam either as she resented being beneath him during intercourse. She flew off (literally), but God sent angels to drag her back to Adam. She was found near the red Sea, producing numerous offspring (at the rate of 100 per day) sired by demons. She was taken back to Adam, where she still refused to be his helpmeet. God banished her, promising to kill her offspring at the rate of 100 per day. She in turn spends her time trying to kill the children of man (hence the inclusion of Jadis in Lion, as her rage was against humans). If she is unsuccessful in killing a human child, she must turn against one of her own children.
There are a lot of sites out there that have Lilith stories on them. You might try a Google search on Lilith as see what turns up.
By the Lion,
Keith
I recently read in a booklet of little known Narnian facts that Lucy, Peter, and Edmund Pevensie, Diggory Kirke, Polly Plumber, Eustace Scrubb, and Jill Pole all died in a railway accident in 1949. I know this happens in the Last Battle but is it also something that happened in real life and the books were written to honor the people that died alongside Lewis' goddaughter? Please help me solve this mystery.
Sincerely, The Fool of Great Smails
Research in progress.
Hi.
My name is Greg Gick and I really enjoyed your website, Further Up and Further In. While I personally disagree with your take on what Lewis meant by Emeth's acceptance into Heaven (Lewis makes it clear Aslan ALWAYS counted Emeth as a believer, even when Emeth didn't), but it was interesting. My question, however, is this: In MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW, we find Aslan creating all the Talking Beasts and Mythological Creatures, and they're all unfallen. Yet, by LION, we have "werewolves, People of the toadstools, woses," etc. and it's implied ALL their races are down. So--did Aslan originally create these creatures in Narnia unfallen and later they fell as races (implying early ones who hadn't fallen may be in Aslan's Country) or did Jadis create/pull them into Narnia from elsewhere? I can't recall any mention of them in the Narnia books as coming from Outside as Jadis did (and how did Jadis, Lillith's daughter and therefore from Earth, get to Charn anyway? And was Charn at one time a good country/world?)
Thanks, and God bless, Greg Gick
Producing a response.
Not Really a question, but a comment. Thanks for the visit, Rose.
i think you will find that He isn't really noted. Lewis had some - er, shall we say - interesting ways of seeing things sometimes, and frankly I don't think he was too much into acknoledging the Holy Spirit. Certainly,he didn't know Him. It is a common unappearance in his books, that the Holy Spirit gets mentioned in passing but He is left to be much of a silent, invisible and un-anything sort of "thing". Just a "part" of the whole Godhead, not really a legitamate person...
OK maybe i am going a little too far I don't know Lewis' heart, do I/ But I have read an awful lot of Lewis, both fiction and non-fiction, and see that plainly, he didn't talk about the Holy Spirit very much., he probably didn't know much about Him is my guess.
Bummer!?
Dunno!
Rose Walton
Austrlaia
Dear Sir/Madam, Are you talking about the famous literary writings 'The chronicles of Narnia'?... If so, i think the writer had something, as many reports of cases involving a time lapse on land, where people have somehow entered into a timespan of the past, as land formation had been differnt as well as land marks, also one case involved a gentleman visiting an historical place and saw wonderful paintings etc within the hall/room etc, only to find when he tried to visit again it had all disappeared, it was explained to him that the building had been destroyed in the war, and that only pre-war postcards showed the original buildings splendour...which the gentleman swore that he visited and saw intact before hand, this shocked and baffled him. So in a way Narnia exists.
Also could you answer a question that i originally had?
Q: The mysteries of central Quantumn physics... Where an experiment had
taken place of passing a beam of light through 2 slits(separating the beam),
they concluded that the light had already decided which direction it should
take and coped with the obstruction....Do you think to find the answer to
this mystery lies within a certain amount of logic? as if you look at trees
in the natural world, if a tree over hangs a road or pavement where cars and
people pass by (an obstruction) trees automatically grow around the obstruction (the obstruction not being constantly there also), which is the same theory of quantum physics light experiment, would then this be called that anything that contains an energy actually be an intellegence, then maybe a whole new outlook on intellegences would have to be examined, as to the minimum and maximum ratio of classification of intellegences, which would give a much broader spectrum ?
Um, wow.
Actually, I have had such a thought running around in my brain for some time; to assume that God, is His ever-present form, would take on more of an appearance of 'Intelligent Energy' makes a lot of sense both theologically and scientifically. This is not to detract from the relevance, love, or power of Almighty. This explantion seems to reconcile the bitter ends of the debate over 'God' - does He exist and how? There is a lot of depth I would love to go into, but such depth might take a while both to produce and read.
Thanks for your visit.
Again, a comment. Thanks for the visit, Levi!
Dear Mr. Webb,
This truly is a fine site you have here. In response to the person who didn't see a reference to the Holy Spirit, I did. I believe it is Aslan's breath. Aslan breathes on people and they are purified. Christians also seek to be filled with the breath of God's spirit, as it purifies them. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Levi Crandall
Dear Madam, I just finished reading C.S. Lewis' The Magicain's Nephew. I have two questions that I am quite concerned with. What is the overall theme of this novel? What message do you think the author wanted to get across to his/her audience? It will be great, if you help me to answer them and email me back to XXX@XXX. I can't answer these two questions because this book is an Christian allegory and I think that the theme of this novel and the message that the author wanted to get across to me should be about Christian. I would like to thank you for your kindness and apoloqize that I disturb your time.
Kind Regards,
Shananon N. (9th Grade Student)
Ps. Actually, I'm Thai student. I would like to apologize you, if I had some grammatical errors in this email.
Shananon,
No apologies necessary. Your English is quite good.
I would say that the general theme of Newphew is one of birth and beginnings. There are many examples of this theme in the novel - the creation of Narnia, the restoration of Digory's mother being among them. You don't necessarily need to take a Christian approach to this novel; it stands quite independently without assuming a lot of strict allegory.
Part of Lewis' main message to his audience is to introduce the Land of Narnia, describe its beginning, the existence of Jadis, and to explain a lot of the mysteries a reader might have when they read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
Hope this helps some.
Keith
Dear Mr. Webb, I recently stumbled onto your website, Further Up and Further In!, while searching for a list of characters that can be found in Narnia. I found a wonderful one, as well as much other interesting and helpful information about The Chronicles, on your site, and I will most definetely be a repeat visitor!
The reason that I was searching for a list of characters is because, being highly interested in body art and even more interested in all things Narnian, I am fashioning a tatoo depicting the shield of Aslan's army, being held up on one side by the Head Mouse Reepicheep, and on the other by another smallish Narnian, who I have not yet found. I was hoping you might be able to give me some insight into what a good Narnian to take that place might be. Any suggestions? I'd appreciate any input that someone of your experitse on the subject could give!
Thanks very much!
By the Lion,
Jessica Nealon
Mr. Webb,
All but one of the Narnian Chronicles were among my favorite reading during my childhood. They bear re-reading remarkably well. Without subscribing to Lewis' religious beliefs, I have great admiration for the manner in which he interweaves them into the works without bludgeoning the readers with them.
But when I first read The Last Battle I was shocked and revolted by the treatment of Susan Pevensie, and my reaction if anything has hardened over the years. I would as soon place a piece of pornography into the hands of children as that abominable story.
We hear of the others pitying and contemning Susan for her loss of belief in Narnia at the end of Chapter 12. At this point, we don't know that they are dead or (if you prefer) gone to heaven. When they learn that they are snugly ensconced in Aslan's Country as a result of having been killed in the train crash, there is general rejoicing. There is not one word of regret for this unfortunate young woman who, at a blow, has lost her entire family at the age of 21. Not a word about missing her. If Susan has forgotten all about Narnia, her brothers and sister have certainly forgotten about her.
As it happens, we have another literary treatment of this theme in a work by another religious author: Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom's Cabin. At one point the slave girl Emmeline, desperately trying to bolster her spirits in the misery of living on brutal Simon Legree's plantation, has the sad consolation of singing spirituals -- one of which dwells on the agonized mourning that will take place on Judgment Day, when loved ones will part to see each other no more. In a previous chapter, we witness Emmeline and her mother being auctioned off to separate families, and there can be no doubt what she is referring to; at one point she openly laments that she will never see her mother again.
I do not know how orthodox Stowe's attitude is considered by theological experts, but at least she confronts the problem honestly. If the Judgment Day is really going to happen, it will be the cause of appalling suffering. People considered worthy of being saved will on occasion be attached to people who are rejected, and the prospect of eternal parting from the people they love will render them miserable, despite all of the consolations available in Heaven.
To Lewis this problem doesn't exist. If your relatives or loved ones are unworthy, you simply shuck them off. Peter, Edmund, and Lucy are happy ever after; they march off joyously into "Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has ever read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before," and they do not give their sister as much as a backward glance. Without realizing it, Lewis has shown up the raw egoism that underlies the Christian concept of the afterlife, and has laid bare the savage ruthlessness of a religion that has felt licensed for centuries to treat all non-Christians as subhuman.
Josh
See e-mailed responses to Josh's message here.