Problems with Narnia (open spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

So I took my oldest daughter to see the Narnia movie yesterday. I read the book as a kid and didn’t much get into it. I read it again as an adult, out loud to a 4th grade classroom. Again, it didn’t do much for me. I was aware of the Christian allegory and all that but I mostly just read it as a children’s story and found it kind of so-so. The characters weren’t very compelling, the lion wasn’t very interesting or inspiring and the witch wasn’t dark or scary enough to create any tension.Watching the movie yesterday, I took the opportunity to really consider the allegory and try to find something deeper but I found it even more lacking. I think the failure of the allegory is actually why the story has never resonated with me, and here are my problems with it.

  1. A lion is the wrong animal for “Jesus.” Jesus is not supposed to be a badass. He’s not a king and he’s not a military leader. He’s supposed to be passive and unassuming. He’s a peasant, a servant, a nobody, a wuss. A Jesus animal shouldn’t be intimidating or powerful. He should be gentle and meek and vulnerable. I might suggest a lamb, but that would be to obvious and too cheesy. A better choice might be something like a pack mule. Humble, loyal, self-sacrificing in a REAL way (more on that later) and subserviant. Making him a lion immediately removes any vulnerability, makes him violent, makes him a political authority and disallows the audience from feeling any real sympathy or pity. He’s just a big protective daddy figure and that’s the wrong conception for Jesus.

  2. Aslan’s sacrifice is no sacrifice at all. If he knows he’s going to come right back to life then there isn’t any particular virtue n it and he isn’t really sacrificing anything. He’s basically playing a trick on the White Witch and cheating her out of what is rightfully hers. Giving one’s life is only meaningful if one is really giving it with no expectation of a big resurrection scene. My pack mule would have stayed dead. The sacrifice would have meant something.

  3. The sacrifice doesn’t work as Christian allegory because Lewis misplaced the blame for it on his “Satan” figure rather than on God. In Christian doctrine, Jesus did not die to satisfy Satan but to satisfy God. By shifting the blame away from God (who I guess would be Aslan himself in this scenario?) Lewis blows his own analogy. He makes the demand for a sacrifice come from an entity of evil rather than God and thus makes it appear as though the demand itself is evil or unjust in some way.

  4. Lewis steps all over his allegory by making Narnians into Christians (or at least, they celebrate Christmas). It’s very clumsy symbolism to say that Jesus is like a lion who worships Jesus. By bringing Father Christmas into Narnia, the story also implies that Father Christmas exists in the “real” world too, which is just silly.

  5. Where the hell does Aslan keep disappearing to? He just vanishes for long stretches and everybody is supposed to accept it without asking questions, no matter how badly the place goes to shit while he’s gone. I can’t feel sympathy or loyalty or have any faith in an absentee king (or God) and I think the denizens of Narnia are idiots for going along with it and making excuses the way they do.

I also had some aesthetic complaints about the movie (the children’s acting ability ranges from saccharine to wooden and the sacrifice scene goes on forever without evoking a shred of emotion, just to name a couple) but the issues I raised above (issues which have to be blamed on C.S. Lewis, not the movie itself) are the reasons I think that the story fails to be great.

In fairness, I must disclose that my daughter loved the movie, sat entranced, literally at the edge of her seat for most of the movie and imediately asked if we could get it on DVD whenever it comes out.

2

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. The same reasoning could be used to say that Lewis implies that fauns exist in the real world too.

As for your other complaints, I think you’re reading it as too strict of an allegory. I don’t believe that the events in the book are meant to stand in for the death of Jesus in our world. Even so, Aslan as Jesus isn’t too far out, because Lewis found Jesus to be very intimidating.

3

False dichotemy. Good is terrible and dangerous, at least in Lewis’ view (and I agree). A lion is perfectly apporpriate. Note also that Aslan is rarely violent, and then only to the blackest of evil beings, and onyl after they have repeatedly taken evil upon themselves.

One should also to note that even in the Bible, Jesus tears the temple market apart in a rage. But Jesus came to die for our sins. Aslan went to die for Edmund’s. This is not a direct allegory.

Ah, no. The entire Christmas scene was simply another part of the oddball melange of myth which makes up Narnia.

Aslan - and God - comes and goes as he pleases. It’s not his job to keep Narnia from screwing itself (and selfishness and foolishness do so repeatedly). He’ll eventually bring it out of darkness, but he doesn’t keep people from screwing up. Neither did he run off and save Edmund’s buttocks on a whim. He does nothign to help until after Edmund decided (albeit privately) that the White Witch was a real jerk, and was, in fact, about to be killed.

4

If Lewis’ intention was to create an exact parallel with Christianity/Jesus, perhaps you’re right. I think his intention was to create a setting with his personal idea of what a religion should be, borrowing what he wanted, discarding what he didn’t like. (Not unlike what biblical John did, to some thinking.)

A big protective daddy figure is bound to appeal to kids more than a wandering philosopher spouting recycled aphorisms.

The same could be said about Jesus. As a god, he supposedly knew what would happen after three days; as a man, he endured the suffering. At least that’s the religious theory about the person/event.

Again, you seem bent on showing differences between Jesus and Lewis as if any differences are a mistake. Perhaps they were intentional or of no particular consequence? Lewis never indicated he was writing a historical novel; quite the contrary, a fantasy. He had no obligations to adhere to anything.

And the rest of the story is NOT “just silly”? Ever read any fairy tales? LOTR? All such stories rely heavily on suspension of disbelief; logic is not their strongpoint if you’re a stickler for it.

Mixing anthropomorphic creatures with the mythical and the real from different worlds is pretty much the entire Narnia concept, IMHO. The sons & daughters of Eve exist in both worlds; no reason why other entities can’t do the same. Or not. It’s Lewis’ fantasy, he can make the rules.

So where the hell is God on earth when bad things happen? The faithful have been waiting for 2000 years for a second coming, and the faith doesn’t seemed to have diminished. In biblical event tale-telling, didn’t the diety abandon His people, then reappear either just-in-time or regretably, too late? It seems to be a common theme and it also provides a measure of suspense, a literary device frequently used to good advantage by Lewis.

I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t comment on the acting, but the books were favorites of mine as a young child. And, oddly, I recall never being aware of the Christian parallels until someone pointed them out much later.

5

No objection here. I would point out that Jesus could be a bit martial when the situation called for it, but all and all, it’s a large stretch from “Turn the other cheek” to “Pounce upon your foes, savor their fear, and devour their flesh.”

But…he was shaved! All the mean mythological creatures picked on him! He was tied up tightly! Surely this compares to death itself not quite taking.

Yeah, yeah, I know. It works better if you assume that Aslan and the White Witch were performing contract negeotiation for an extended BDSM scene in the tent.

Edmund must die for his treachary to satisfy the Deep Magic, which was set by the Emperor and will destroy Narnia itself if not satisfied. The question of giving the Witch jurisdiction over whom actually died is questionable, but we can always assume that what took place was in fact a BDSM scene and it just took the Deep Magic another six books to take effect.

The cosmology of Narnia is tricky. Remember that there are lots of gods, but Aslan is special. If it makes you feel better, consider Father Christmas a lesser god, like Bacchus.

Other worlds with other witches. Leaving aside the fact that there are a nigh-uncountable number of worlds in the Narnia cosmology and the amount of time Aslan can spend on any one world is therefore subject to 1/N rules, this actually makes sense. After all, Aslan doesn’t rule. He just overwhelms the world with superior magical might, installs his puppet government, and leaves. This sounds distressingly familiar.

Of course, from the perspective of the Narnians, how exactly can they not go along with it? The vast majority of them were personally suffering oppression of some sort under the Witch, and weren’t under the Kings and Queens. Plus, given the possiblity of Aslan showing up again to kick their asses if they get too out of line, what reason do you have to support any possible insurgency over the Pevinses?

6

I’ve neither read the books nor seen the movie and don’t really have any interest in doing either. But a friend of mine emailed me after seeing the flick and said that he didn’t like “what it had to say about war.” I’ll reply to him and ask for details, but in the meantime…What does the movie have to say about war?

7

Further thoughts about the presence/absence of Aslan and his influence on Narnia.

One definition of “God” describes Him as the only entity with unlimited powers; omniscient and omnipresent. This philosophy, associated with some Christian sects and eras runs into trouble when God appears to not care or not be present at critical moments.

The other def is that Our God is only one among many. Gods interact; they confer, they have specialized powers, they fight for jurisidiction, align or split up territories and constituencies. They are supernatural, but have limitations. They are aware of many things, but not everything. They have very-human, that is, flawed, personalities. They may choose to step in or step back for reasons we mere mortals cannot understand but are in awe of from a worshipful distance. This philosophy allows an easy explanation of why things don’t go right, and why some groups drop their allegiance when their God or Gods don’t perform satisfactorily.

I think Lewis chose the characteristics for Aslan from these options for literary purposes as well as personal convictions. He wanted to tell a story, and I think he told some pretty good ones.

8

Jesus is too a king, but “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The Second Person of the Trinity is most certainly a badass, but in coming to earth as a human being, he put off his badassness, humbled himself and became unassuming (but not passive or a wuss).

You may be right to be bothered by this; “deeper magic from before the dawn of time” does seem to come as sort of a deus ex machina. But Aslan really wouldn’t have been Jesus without a resurrection scene. (As for how much a sacrifice it really was for the Biblical Jesus, well, this has been Great Debated, in e.g. Jesus gave up a weekend for our sins.)

Well, there is something odd about having a Christmas in a world without a Christ. But I think that’s just Lewis throwing into his fantasy world whatever appeals to him, regardless of what culture or mythology it belongs to, which bothers some people (including Tolkien).

But Father Christmas does “exist” in the “real” world, in an abstract way (yes, Virginia). And one of the things that fantasy fiction and/or allegory can do is to make the abstract concrete.

Anyway, Diogenes, I think your objections aren’t wholly without merit, but you may be overthinking things and trying to make Narnia too close of an allegory. (I’m not sure “allegory” is the best word for what Lewis was trying to do; maybe “parallel” would be better.) Either TLtW&tW works as a story on its own terms, or it doesn’t.

9

My main problem was always the reactions of the kids when they stumble into a winter wonderland filled with talking animals and mythological beings. Within a couple of moments they’re merrily skipping off to have tea with fauns. Real kids, even English kids surviving a blitz, who go into a piece of furniture and come out in a frozen wasteland of talking satyrs are more likely going to piss on themselves, go into shock and their frozen remains eaten the next day by minotaurs.

And there’s no nuance, no Snape like “part villain/part hero” or Dursley like “villainous but not evil”. Everybody’s all one or the other. Gets old.

And why do humans who have absolutely no knowledge of the intricacies of Narnia get to rule the place?

10

I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t know too much about C.S. Lewis’s views on atonement (I’ve only read “Mere Christianity” and I honestly don’t remember too much about it), but could he have held to some version of the ransom theory? In that case, the analogy works pretty well- Christ’s death on the cross, like Aslan’s death, served as a payment to Satan, or the White Witch, for the souls of humanity. Of course, the same criticism for that theory are applied to Lewis’s story.

But anyway, I think it’s worthwhile to point out that Lewis didn’t intend on writing an allegory, and did not consider the Narnia books to be allegory (as mentioned in the Wikipedia Article on the series.

11

It was my understanding, as stated on other threads, that the point was not so much to retell the Bible story as to prime kids for it by throwing some of the basic themes together into a children’s fantasy" an alternate universe telling borrowing some similar ideas.

12

I was raised evangelical Xtian, & was first introduced to Narnia by the animated movie of many years back. The first thing I was told was that it was Christian allegory. This, of course, is highly misleading. I read the Chronicles expecting parabolae which weren’t there.

TLTW&TW is the only really allegorical book in the series (well, except arguably The Last Battle, in a symbolic sense), & most of the Christian parallels in the series (there aren’t a lot) are just parallel-world conceits (like in some of the “Elseworlds” DC Comics).

It’s an important distinction. Reading The Silver Chair as allegory is downright dangerous to young Xtians, since the obvious tendency is turn the Emerald Witch into a metaphor for sexual temptation or sexuality itself, rather than a fiend who uses mind control & sexuality in her bag of tricks.

And TLTW&TW is definitely not a straight roman à clef of the Gospels. Seriously.

13

It’s unpleasant and to be avoided when possible, but still sometimes necessary… and it helps, if Santa gives you some badass weapons as gifts (tho the girls get more-defensive, less-aggressive weaponry).

14

Arrows and a dagger aren’t aggressive?

Peter got a shield as well as a sword, remember. I thought Lewis did a good job, considering his era, at giving the three kids an even balance of gifts.

15

“I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34. And Jesus is described as “The Lion of Judah” in Revelation 5:5. And one of my best Christian artist friends often depicts Jesus as a lion.

And - hmm - God The Son, for want of a more general term, does appear as a Lamb in “The Last Battle”.

I agree completely with this. I think it’s the major weakness of the book, both from a literary and theological viewpoint. Aslan’s victory isn’t through sacrifice; he wins on a legal technicality, he wins because Jardis doesn’t know, or, worse, hasn’t been told, the (exceptionally) arbitary rules by which this game is played.

Considering it as a Christian allegory, another major ommission is Gethsemane - this, not Calvary, is the most important part of the Passion, in my opinion. There’s no scene where Aslan has to make a choice - save himself and avoid his death, or save Edmund and die. Aslan knows he’s going to be resurrected, that it’s just pretence throughout. Jesus, if the Gospel accounts are to believed, didn’t have that knowledge or confidence of final victory.

More of a plot inconsistency than anything else. In “The Magician’s Nephew”, Jardis is an entirely adventitious, alien presence in Narnia. The idea of her being entitled to punish sinners is, I agree, irrational. However, the idea of Satan being “The Emperor’s jailer” is consistent with traditional Christianity (although it has little support in the Bible).

This also brings in another problem with mapping the books directly to Christian theology. Aslan is described as the son of “the Emperor over Sea” (God), but is never explicitly identified as being the same “being” as the Emperor, which isn’t consistent with the standard doctrine of the Trinity.

I agree “Saturnalia” might have been a better word to use, but few of Lewis’ target audience would have understood it. :slight_smile:

Well, evidence for God’s presence in the real world is similarly scant. This is a legitimate problem with any religion, and I understand completely why you notice it here.

16

Nitpick: the movie adaptation has Susan using her arrows to good effect, and Lucy practicing with her throwing dagger at the archery range, but the books have the girls using the weapons only at the very, very last necessity (Susan uses her horn, and Lucy uses her cordial, much more often than their ‘token’ weapons).

Re the OP–I like the books even so; they’re not as complex or engaging as LOTR or His Dark Materials or a number of series, but they’re still fun, charming reads. But even if you accept that Lewis’s allegory was really more of a loose parallel, it still falls apart at points.

17

Look, let’s not mince words: the complaints Diogenes lists have very little to do with C.S. Lewis or Narnia. Rather, they’re Diogenes’ problems with Christianity in general.

Which is fine and dandy, even by Catholic Astorian.

But let’s not pretend the problem is with Lewis. If you hate the very thing for which Lewis’ story is an analogy, of COURSE you’re going to hate the analogy!

18

The only item on my list which could be construed as a “problem with Christianity” is no. 2. How is thinking Lewis chose the wrong animal for Jesus a problem with Christianity? How is thinking it was clumsy to put Christmas in Narnia a problem with Christianity? I do not hate Christianity. Please try not to read my mind for me, ok.

19

My big question was this:

If every animal in Narnia is a citizen and can talk and are all neighbors,
why are they hunting a white stag at the end? Was he a fugitive?

20

I also wonder what Aslan eats. Does he hunt talking animals?