Narnia (and Other Lewis Works): Love It or Hate It?

[Mindfire]

Tolkien is pretty much universally respected (even if not liked or admired) in fantasydom. His friend C.S. Lewis is a more divisive figure however. The Chronicles of Narnia in particular seem to be a polarizing issue. Either you love it or you hate it. (The Space Trilogy seems to be more obscure and thus draw less of both the ire and the praise.) Or at least that's what my observations lead me to believe. Me personally, I love it, but I'd like to hear your opinions on whether it's good or terrible and why. Thoughts?

 

[Steerpike]

I like C.S. Lewis. I thought the Narnia books were a lot of fun to read. I don't mind that the world isn't so well-defined as Tolkien. Lewis does a good job of providing a story the reader can escape into for a period of time.

I also liked Out of the Silent Planet, and I'll leave you with this:

 

[Ireth]

I personally love it too. Getting lost in the lands of Middle-earth while reading Tolkien is one thing, but there's something rather engaging too about following the adventures of people from our own world as they stumble into Narnia in its various stages of life, from creation to destruction. (I think that idea is a big part of why self-insert or other real-world-person-falling-into-story-world fanfic of any book or movie is so appealing.) I'll leave it to others to remark on the religious elements or not, since that's a hugely divisive issue.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I read the first two Narnia books when I was younger; I don't really remember what I thought of them at the time.

I reread all seven (out loud, to my son) a year or two ago. I didn't really enjoy them; they didn't really seem to have what I consider proper character arcs. They were just a bunch of random fantastical things happening in a sequence, which is pretty common in children's lit. Yeah, they were pretty creative fantastical things, but at this point in my life I don't really enjoy reading stuff intended for children. (I've gone back and reread some stuff I loved as a kid, and now I find it trite and simplistic; which isn't to say there's anything wrong with it, just that I'm no longer the audience for it.)

 

[ArelEndan]

I like Narnia, particularly books 2-6. As a Christian writer, I like reading different ways that other Christian writers have approached fantasy. I've never written anything quite as close to allegory as Lewis, but I like to read it. I also find it really interesting that he wrote Narnia for children, and yet there is something about it that captures the attention of adults as well.
As for his space trilogy, That Hideous Strength with its Arthurian themes was excellent, and I liked Out of the Silent Planet. Perelandra didn't do anything for me.

 

[Mindfire]

I like Narnia, particularly books 2-6. As a Christian writer, I like reading different ways that other Christian writers have approached fantasy. I've never written anything quite as close to allegory as Lewis, but I like to read it. I also find it really interesting that he wrote Narnia for children, and yet there is something about it that captures the attention of adults as well.
As for his space trilogy, That Hideous Strength with its Arthurian themes was excellent, and I liked Out of the Silent Planet. Perelandra didn't do anything for me.

I think the Space Trilogy is really underrated. If I had to chose a favorite out of the three, I'd go with That Hideous Strength I think. But I actually liked Perelandra more than Out of the Silent Planet. There's something bone-chillingly creepy about Professor Weston's possession and the confrontation between Ransom and the "un-man" is truly riveting.

 

[ArelEndan]

But I actually liked Perelandra more than Out of the Silent Planet. There's something bone-chillingly creepy about Professor Weston's possession and the confrontation between Ransom and the "un-man" is truly riveting.

The creepiness was one reason I didn't like it as much, but I'll admit that I wasn't able to put it down while reading Ransom's confrontation with the "un-man." It was well-written.

 

[TWErvin2]

The Great Divorce is an excellent read. It's a fantasy about a soul taking a bus trip from Hell to the outskirts of Heaven. Definately more religious/faith oriented than the Chronicles of Narnia, but nevertheless an interesting fantasy read.

 

[CupofJoe]

I won't go as far as "hate" but I don't like what I've read of CSL and disliked it enough to not want to try any more.
I've read a bit about him and find myself warming to the man... at least a little bit...

 

[shangrila]

I read a few of them when I was younger. The first was boring and I never liked the second the first time I read it. Of course, that meant it was a subject in English, so I had the book read to me ad nauseum and had to watch a bunch of horrible, horrible films (this was before the more recent one, which kind of sucked anyway. But it was better than the old ones).

 

[Mindfire]

I won't go as far as "hate" but I don't like what I've read of CSL and disliked it enough to not want to try any more.
I've read a bit about him and find myself warming to the man... at least a little bit...

What did you dislike exactly?

I read a few of them when I was younger. The first was boring and I never liked the second the first time I read it. Of course, that meant it was a subject in English, so I had the book read to me ad nauseum and had to watch a bunch of horrible, horrible films (this was before the more recent one, which kind of sucked anyway. But it was better than the old ones).

I actually enjoyed those films, the newer ones I mean. Although they get less and less like the books with each adaptation, they capture the spirit fairly well. As for the older versions, they definitely haven't aged very well, but they're still charming in their own way.

 

[CupofJoe]

What did you dislike exactly?.

It's all in the eye of the beholder etc. but I didn't warm the children in TLTW&TW [I knew too many private school children as a kid and they hadn't changed much]... I'm not a fan of cute anthropomorphic animals... and even as a child [and a non-christian] I couldn't stand the "Saviour" Aslan... I like my gods a little more humble.
I know that other people think CSL is a great but not for me...

 

[Vinegar Tom]

Personally, I detest the Narnia books. I read them as quite a young child, and although I was into all that fantasy stuff - I loved The Hobbit - there was something about the whole saga that bugged me. I did read them all just to try and figure out what was going on, though I never liked those smug, cardboard children with one magical attribute each. Or the way Lewis' language is very much aimed at the kiddiwinks he's talking down to. Or indeed the episodic, almost random nature of the story. But really, what I hated was the fact that, although at the time I was a little bit too young to notice quite what he was doing, Lewis was preaching at me in a way designed to put ideas into my childish mind that I couldn't possibly understand, and without me catching on what he was up to.

If you're the kind of Christian who thinks that small children should have religious ideas drummed into them before they're old enough to think about them properly, in case they don't encounter these concepts until they're old enough to make rational decisions about what to believe, choose not to believe in these particular bronze-age folk-tales, and are therefore doomed by God, in His infinite mercy, to be tortured by monsters in a burning concentration camp forever, then obviously it's a splendid idea to brainwash uncomprehending kiddies. But personally I think it's an outrageous cheat to try to get children to vaguely believe in a religion on the grounds that it's sort of like that talking animal book they just read, except that Jesus isn't really a lion.

Talking of which, Aslan is one of the all-time worst fictional characters ever! If you know he's supposed to be Jesus, you have a sufficient grasp of the situation to read about the actual Jesus, as opposed to some dumbed-down version in a lion costume. And if don't, you're probably wondering, just like I did, what's with the weirdly pacifist lion who, apart from that bit at the end when he suddenly starts behaving like a proper lion, is completely out of character, and basically a total waste of space? I mean, when you're that age, it's utterly baffling that, in a situation where all the animals can talk and some of them are very brave, if you want any serious fighting done, the lion's so useless that you're better off asking the mice!

"In a hole there lived a hobbit." Now that's how you start a proper fantasy novel for kids! Seven words in, and they're already asking: "Hey! A hobbit! What's one of those?" And then some more exotic characters show up, and without further ado off they go on a very linear yet action-packed "there and back again" adventure for the sketchiest of reasons. Moral, of any? If you're brave and clever, you can be a hero, even if you're little. The End. Trolls, goblins, Gollum, etc. don't symbolize the Seven Deadly Sins or anything else - they're just monsters that have to be coped with. Gandalf isn't Jesus Christ in a pointy hat - he is, as far as I can make out, a slightly inept wizard who is making up for all those years studying dusty old books at Hogwarts by having a wildly irresponsible old age. And it's just as well those dwarves don't individually represent anything at all, because there are way too many of them to keep track of.

Also, there are individual things in the Narnia series that are genuinely nasty, or at least a bit off. For example, the generic baddies out to get Bilbo Baggins are goblins. Which is fine, because having a prejudice against an entire rave of ugly, wicked, spiteful creatures who don't exist has no bearing on life whatsoever - you might as well be a total bigot concerning Daleks for all the harm it will do you or anyone else. But Lewis, in a world where the good guys can be literally anyone or anything - talking mice, creatures from Greek mythology, you name it! - and the stand-in for Jesus Christ isn't even human, why do the bad guys have to be ordinary human beings who are Middle Eastern in appearance, habits, etc, if not for the sole purpose of making sure that even the least perceptive infant knows that Arabs are bad and sinister and have an evil religion that worships a horrible monster instead of that nice cuddly lion?

Also, the ending of the whole series was just awful, and even my unformed young mind grasped that some point was being made there which, even if I didn't quite understand it, was clearly wrong. In the last adventure, the oldest girl is left out, because she's more interested in being pretty and getting herself admired by boys than in her half-remembered adventures as a fairy princess in a curiously flat fantasy kingdom. In other words, she's growing up. Then at the end, all the other children die in a freakin' train wreck! But that's all fine and dandy, because they get to live an innocent fantasy afterlife in Narnia forever. Except Oldest Girly (it's been a long time - I forget who they all were, except that somebody called Eustace was more annoying than the others), who presumably lives a normal life and eventually dies, but is excluded from what's supposed to be Heaven as a punishment for living long enough to reach puberty! WHAT is going on there, exactly?

 

[CupofJoe]

Then at the end, all the other children die in a freakin' train wreck!

Okay! Now you're talking! I want to read that book!

 

[Mindfire]

...Okay this is starting to get far too mean-spirited.

 

[Steerpike]

...Okay this is starting to get far too mean-spirited.

Well, if you title a thread Love It or Hate It, you might get responses from people who hate it

That said, forum rules dictate respect for religious beliefs. You don't have to agree with them, and there is no prohibition on discussing the issue, but the religious views of others are not to be denigrated, ridiculed, made fun of, and so on. Vinegar Tom's post, above, crosses that line, so let me suggest right now that anyone commenting on the religious nature of the Narnia books should do so in a respectful manner. If you can't express yourself well enough to communicate your view respectfully, then you should probably skip the subject altogether.

 

[Sheilawisz]

Please take a look at the Mythic Scribes Guidelines for discussing religion Here.

 

[Mindfire]

If you'll put aside your excessive vitriol a moment, I'll try and clarify some things.

I never liked those smug, cardboard children with one magical attribute each. Or the way Lewis' language is very much aimed at the kiddiwinks he's talking down to. Or indeed the episodic, almost random nature of the story.

The first thing you need to understand is that it's a children's book in the most elementary sense of the word. It's not supposed to be complex. Also, Tolkien and Lewis had very different styles despite being close friends. (You knew that right?)

But really, what I hated was the fact that, although at the time I was a little bit too young to notice quite what he was doing, Lewis was preaching at me in a way designed to put ideas into my childish mind that I couldn't possibly understand, and without me catching on what he was up to.

If you're the kind of Christian who thinks that small children should have religious ideas drummed into them before they're old enough to think about them properly, in case they don't encounter these concepts until they're old enough to make rational decisions about what to believe, choose not to believe in these particular bronze-age folk-tales, and are therefore doomed by God, in His infinite mercy, to be tortured by monsters in a burning concentration camp forever, then obviously it's a splendid idea to brainwash uncomprehending kiddies. But personally I think it's an outrageous cheat to try to get children to vaguely believe in a religion on the grounds that it's sort of like that talking animal book they just read, except that Jesus isn't really a lion.

I think you're being extremely condescending here. Your wild accusations of brainwashing are absurd. If Lewis's work is brainwashing, then so is Phillip Pullman's. But of course you wouldn't agree to that because he falls in line with your own philosophical opinions. And let's not even get started on your oversimplified, caricatured, and flat out incorrect assertions about what Christianity is.

Talking of which, Aslan is one of the all-time worst fictional characters ever! If you know he's supposed to be Jesus, you have a sufficient grasp of the situation to read about the actual Jesus, as opposed to some dumbed-down version in a lion costume. And if don't, you're probably wondering, just like I did, what's with the weirdly pacifist lion who, apart from that bit at the end when he suddenly starts behaving like a proper lion, is completely out of character, and basically a total waste of space? I mean, when you're that age, it's utterly baffling that, in a situation where all the animals can talk and some of them are very brave, if you want any serious fighting done, the lion's so useless that you're better off asking the mice!

Pacifist? Out of character? Waste of space? ...Did we read the same book? I'm mildly curious about what you expected him to do. The reason Aslan doesn't fight at first is painfully obvious. He agreed to give his life to save Edmund's. After that's done, he immediately contributes to the battle and in a big way. Previous to these events, the character of Aslan hadn't really appeared yet because the first half of the book is about the children escaping enemy territory to get to him. We don't know what he was up to because we were following the main characters. There could have been several battles and skirmishes that we know nothing about. Or Aslan could have been off visiting other kingdoms (which he does have btw) and had only just arrived in Narnia. I don't really see your point.

"In a hole there lived a hobbit." Now that's how you start a proper fantasy novel for kids! Seven words in, and they're already asking: "Hey! A hobbit! What's one of those?" And then some more exotic characters show up, and without further ado off they go on a very linear yet action-packed "there and back again" adventure for the sketchiest of reasons. Moral, of any? If you're brave and clever, you can be a hero, even if you're little. The End. Trolls, goblins, Gollum, etc. don't symbolize the Seven Deadly Sins or anything else - they're just monsters that have to be coped with. Gandalf isn't Jesus Christ in a pointy hat - he is, as far as I can make out, a slightly inept wizard who is making up for all those years studying dusty old books at Hogwarts by having a wildly irresponsible old age. And it's just as well those dwarves don't individually represent anything at all, because there are way too many of them to keep track of.

First, not everything in Narnia is symbolic. Very little is symbolic in fact. Even Aslan isn't "symbolic" of Christ, he is Christ, as he might behave in another world with slightly different rules. It's speculative, not allegorical. Also, I'm starting to wonder if you know much about the lore behind The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings because if you did, you would know that Gandalf isn't just an ordinary "inept wizard" having a fun time in his old age, but is one of the Istari, a Maiar spirit in bodily form. To put it in pedestrian terms: he's an angel.

Also, there are individual things in the Narnia series that are genuinely nasty, or at least a bit off. For example, the generic baddies out to get Bilbo Baggins are goblins. Which is fine, because having a prejudice against an entire rave of ugly, wicked, spiteful creatures who don't exist has no bearing on life whatsoever - you might as well be a total bigot concerning Daleks for all the harm it will do you or anyone else. But Lewis, in a world where the good guys can be literally anyone or anything - talking mice, creatures from Greek mythology, you name it! - and the stand-in for Jesus Christ isn't even human, why do the bad guys have to be ordinary human beings who are Middle Eastern in appearance, habits, etc, if not for the sole purpose of making sure that even the least perceptive infant knows that Arabs are bad and sinister and have an evil religion that worships a horrible monster instead of that nice cuddly lion?

Where do I even begin? First, it's hypocritical of you to call Lewis out on his portrayal of the Calormenes, and not call Tolkien out on his portrayal of the Easterlings and Southrons/Men of Harad (in pedestrian terms, Russians/Asians and North Africans/Arabs). Second, there are numerous people and sites accessible via google search defending both Tolkien and Lewis from accusations of racism. I wonder if you've read all the the Narnia books, because if you did, you would know that the Calormenes are not inherenetly evil, nor are they depicted as such. One Calormene, Emeth, is even taken into Aslan's country despite having fought on the wrong side during the war, and it's implied that his is not an isolated case. Also, the Calormenes aren't based on Arabs/Middle Easterners, they're based on the Turks.

Also, the ending of the whole series was just awful, and even my unformed young mind grasped that some point was being made there which, even if I didn't quite understand it, was clearly wrong. In the last adventure, the oldest girl is left out, because she's more interested in being pretty and getting herself admired by boys than in her half-remembered adventures as a fairy princess in a curiously flat fantasy kingdom. In other words, she's growing up. Then at the end, all the other children die in a freakin' train wreck! But that's all fine and dandy, because they get to live an innocent fantasy afterlife in Narnia forever. Except Oldest Girly (it's been a long time - I forget who they all were, except that somebody called Eustace was more annoying than the others), who presumably lives a normal life and eventually dies, but is excluded from what's supposed to be Heaven as a punishment for living long enough to reach puberty! WHAT is going on there, exactly?

I'm running out of time, so my last point will be brief:
First, Susan (the oldest girl) isn't barred from the last adventure with the others because she's growing up, but because she's become selfish, condescending, and materialistic. Second, she wasn't on the train with the others, so she didn't die. Ergo, she's still alive. Ergo, there's still hope for her. Her end is never specified. We don't know what happened to her after the others died, so it's factually incorrect for you to say "she lived a normal live and died and was excluded from heaven etc."

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be running off to make my next class.

 

[Mindfire]

Void post.

 

[Mindfire]

Well, if you title a thread Love It or Hate It, you might get responses from people who hate it

I fully expected that. I just hoped it would be... polite hate.