Narnia Meta
May. 24th, 2006 01:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mari4212Okay, it seems like almost everybody wants to hear me babble about Narnia.
I've heard so many people say that they hate The Last Battle, or that they think C.S. Lewis is misogynistic for having Susan fall away from Narnia. I've never understood it.
To start off with, for the purposes of the story, someone had to stop believing. It wouldn't feel realistic if everybody were saved, if everyone who visited Narnia remembered it forever and were redeemed forever. It just wouldn't feel right, someone has to doubt. And for various reasons, Susan was the perfect person for that role.
Let's look at the nine people from our world who end up in Narnia and then return. We have Diggory Kirke, his uncle, Polly, Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, Eustace, and Jill. Ignoring Diggory's uncle, as we never hear of his fate, that gives us eight people to express the variety of reactions to Narnia.
Edmund and Eustace cannot deny Narnia. They were both forced to confront themselves there, and to have them turn away from Narnia and Aslan would negate all of the power of their redemption. How could Edmund forget that Aslan died for him? What would it take to make Eustace forget the pain of being a dragon, and the suffering he endured as he was renewed? If they'd given up on Narnia, it would have utterly destroyed their characters.
What about Diggory and Polly? They were only in Narnia once, and they didn't undergo any dramatic redemptions. Why wouldn't one of them forget Narnia? I'd say part of it was the palpable reminder of Narnia's reality. Diggory's mother was healed by the fruit from Narnia. Her life was a constant reminder to Diggory of what he had experienced. And Jadis left quite a mark on their street in London, again, a physical reminder. Then later in life, Diggory was reminded again of Narnia through the children's stories. Diggory always had tangible evidence that Narnia was there, and his memories were all good. Diggory couldn't forget. As for Polly, she was only a major character in one of the books. If she'd given up on Narnia, chances are none of us would have noticed or cared. For the sake of the story, it makes no sense for Polly to forget, because it wouldn't mean anything to us.
Jill. Jill would seem, in many ways, to be an ideal candidate to forget Narnia. She was only there once, so it wouldn't have left as big of a mark on her life, theoretically. However, while we aren't given an exact time between The Silver Chair and The Last Battle, the implication is that it wasn't that long between the two books. Certainly no more than a year. And she hadn't been told she wouldn't be allowed back, so she still had hope. While Jill could have forgotten Narnia, she probably wouldn't have at the time of the last book.
Peter. C.S. Lewis's last chance to have it be a guy who forgets Narnia. And you could easily say that given the fact that Aslan told him he wouldn't be allowed to return, that he would want to forget rather than feel the pain. But Peter was old enough to be sure of himself and his personality when he last sees Narnia, and his personality is such that he would not choose to forget. Everything we see of Peter reinforces his bravery and endurance, he'd feel the need to remember Narnia for the sake of Edmund and Lucy. As with Edmund and Eustace, it would have destroyed the characterization we had of Peter to have him deny Narnia.
Then there's Lucy. Lucy, who from the first believed in Narnia, even when all of her siblings thought she was lying. Lucy, who endured Edmund's teasing without giving up on her faith in Narnia. Lucy who was the first to see Aslan again in Prince Caspian. And Lucy who wept on leaving Narnia because she didn't want to lose Aslan. Does anyone think it would ever be believable that Lucy would deny what Narnia was?
That gives us Susan. Susan who didn't want to believe that Lucy had seen Aslan in Prince Caspian. Susan who was told that she would never return to Narnia, and was at precisely the wrong age to hear it, right when she was figuring out who she would be as an adult. Susan is also then shown the distractions of this world, is told to act like an adult so that her parents will take her along with them on a trip to America. Susan's decision to deny that Narnia was real makes sense in light of her character, which is more than you could say about any of the other choices. And her gender isn't the key factor in this, it's her personality, where she's striving to be "mature" by society's standards, regardless of what she might have been.
So that's why it had to be Susan who didn't come back to Narnia in the books. But remember something else. It is not Aslan who condemns Susan. It is humans, specifically Polly, Jill, and Peter. They are human, and prone to bad or hasty judgment. Susan is still alive in England when the books end, she surely has a chance to be redeemed before her death. The Last Battle isn't the end of the line for Susan, it's just the last glimpse of her we have. And even the ones who were condemning her do not call her bad, only silly. Silliness can be grown out of in time, and Lewis has given her that time.
There, you asked for it and got it.
I've heard so many people say that they hate The Last Battle, or that they think C.S. Lewis is misogynistic for having Susan fall away from Narnia. I've never understood it.
To start off with, for the purposes of the story, someone had to stop believing. It wouldn't feel realistic if everybody were saved, if everyone who visited Narnia remembered it forever and were redeemed forever. It just wouldn't feel right, someone has to doubt. And for various reasons, Susan was the perfect person for that role.
Let's look at the nine people from our world who end up in Narnia and then return. We have Diggory Kirke, his uncle, Polly, Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, Eustace, and Jill. Ignoring Diggory's uncle, as we never hear of his fate, that gives us eight people to express the variety of reactions to Narnia.
Edmund and Eustace cannot deny Narnia. They were both forced to confront themselves there, and to have them turn away from Narnia and Aslan would negate all of the power of their redemption. How could Edmund forget that Aslan died for him? What would it take to make Eustace forget the pain of being a dragon, and the suffering he endured as he was renewed? If they'd given up on Narnia, it would have utterly destroyed their characters.
What about Diggory and Polly? They were only in Narnia once, and they didn't undergo any dramatic redemptions. Why wouldn't one of them forget Narnia? I'd say part of it was the palpable reminder of Narnia's reality. Diggory's mother was healed by the fruit from Narnia. Her life was a constant reminder to Diggory of what he had experienced. And Jadis left quite a mark on their street in London, again, a physical reminder. Then later in life, Diggory was reminded again of Narnia through the children's stories. Diggory always had tangible evidence that Narnia was there, and his memories were all good. Diggory couldn't forget. As for Polly, she was only a major character in one of the books. If she'd given up on Narnia, chances are none of us would have noticed or cared. For the sake of the story, it makes no sense for Polly to forget, because it wouldn't mean anything to us.
Jill. Jill would seem, in many ways, to be an ideal candidate to forget Narnia. She was only there once, so it wouldn't have left as big of a mark on her life, theoretically. However, while we aren't given an exact time between The Silver Chair and The Last Battle, the implication is that it wasn't that long between the two books. Certainly no more than a year. And she hadn't been told she wouldn't be allowed back, so she still had hope. While Jill could have forgotten Narnia, she probably wouldn't have at the time of the last book.
Peter. C.S. Lewis's last chance to have it be a guy who forgets Narnia. And you could easily say that given the fact that Aslan told him he wouldn't be allowed to return, that he would want to forget rather than feel the pain. But Peter was old enough to be sure of himself and his personality when he last sees Narnia, and his personality is such that he would not choose to forget. Everything we see of Peter reinforces his bravery and endurance, he'd feel the need to remember Narnia for the sake of Edmund and Lucy. As with Edmund and Eustace, it would have destroyed the characterization we had of Peter to have him deny Narnia.
Then there's Lucy. Lucy, who from the first believed in Narnia, even when all of her siblings thought she was lying. Lucy, who endured Edmund's teasing without giving up on her faith in Narnia. Lucy who was the first to see Aslan again in Prince Caspian. And Lucy who wept on leaving Narnia because she didn't want to lose Aslan. Does anyone think it would ever be believable that Lucy would deny what Narnia was?
That gives us Susan. Susan who didn't want to believe that Lucy had seen Aslan in Prince Caspian. Susan who was told that she would never return to Narnia, and was at precisely the wrong age to hear it, right when she was figuring out who she would be as an adult. Susan is also then shown the distractions of this world, is told to act like an adult so that her parents will take her along with them on a trip to America. Susan's decision to deny that Narnia was real makes sense in light of her character, which is more than you could say about any of the other choices. And her gender isn't the key factor in this, it's her personality, where she's striving to be "mature" by society's standards, regardless of what she might have been.
So that's why it had to be Susan who didn't come back to Narnia in the books. But remember something else. It is not Aslan who condemns Susan. It is humans, specifically Polly, Jill, and Peter. They are human, and prone to bad or hasty judgment. Susan is still alive in England when the books end, she surely has a chance to be redeemed before her death. The Last Battle isn't the end of the line for Susan, it's just the last glimpse of her we have. And even the ones who were condemning her do not call her bad, only silly. Silliness can be grown out of in time, and Lewis has given her that time.
There, you asked for it and got it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 10:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 06:43 pm (UTC)I think where the "Lewis-is-a-misogynyst" argument gets most of its ammo from saying that grown-up Susan takes on the customary stereotypical trappings of adult femininity: Lipstick and a certain "silliness". However, this does not take into account that she was the character who made the most earnest effort to fit into society and its expectations. She was a skeptic because a mature person should be a skeptic; she "grew up" in order to gain maximum advantages. This contrasts her with Peter, who, more often than not was "mature" in the "right" ways: responsible, looking after his little siblings, learning to be a leader even though he was afraid. Aslan aside, his pressures were mainly internal, a struggle with himself.
I also have to say: Lewis was a product of his time. To, say, switch the characterizations between Peter and Susan so that a woman would be the strong, genuinely mature leader and a man would be the one who succumbed to social pressures rather than following his heart, would have, most likely, been unheard of then. Peter's role is a traditionally masculine one; feminine social pressures at that time, on the other hand, were often the most overt ("settle down, don't question, and look pretty for your man"). I thus have trouble seeing it as straight-up misogyny. The only thing I can say is that it would have been nice to see another woman of Susan-age RESIST such temptations, but one only has room for so many characters, and to add another would have cluttered the story.
...you can see I've thought about this way too much ^^:;
no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 11:01 pm (UTC)Going in reverse order, yes Peter and Susan really do fit the traditional masculine and femine roles, but do look at Lucy, who was highly regarded for her bravery, and who fought openly with the Narnian army in The Horse and His Boy, and Jill who joined in with the fights in The Last Battle and who was better at woodscraft than either Trinian or Eustace. For that matter Aravis was a pretty strong character in her own right and expected Shasta to treat her as his equal And while I would agree that it would be good to see a Susan foil of her own age and gender, Lewis was working within a small cast of characters. There wasn't room for another girl with the way he wrote.
And I'm sitting here at my computer nodding along like a bobble head doll to your other arguement about Susan. She wanted to be a "grown up", but her definition of a grown up lacked all maturity, but was what was expected from a girl her age at that time period.
I don't like Last Battle nearly as much as the other books, but I do understand from the point of the story why he wrote it. He showed us the begining of Narnia, he had to show us the end. And if Narnia ended during a time of happiness and peace, we'd feel cheated that it had to end while things were good. As it is, the destruction at least felt natural, like it had to happen.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 07:49 pm (UTC)I just recently re-read The Last Battle, and remembered why it took me so long to go back to it. It's definitely my least favorite of the series, and usually I don't read the whole thing, only the chapters at the end after the stable door is closed. The rest of the book is so dark in comparison to the rest of the series, and because--unlike most of the other books--the action takes place exclusively in Narnia, we don't really get to see what happened in England that led up to the train wreck and subsequent events in the Real Narnia. I think that, more than her exclusion itself, was what upset me the first time I read it about Susan. There was no lead-up to it; we never got to see her "silliness" only hear about it, which made her absence seem all the more keen and unjust because it came out of the blue.
Looking back on the series now, I definitely understand *why* it was her (as illustrated by my ramble above *g*), but at the time I first read the book I felt very cheated. I wanted them *all* to come back! ;-)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-28 11:54 pm (UTC)Oh all right...
Date: 2006-05-25 06:54 am (UTC)I don't think I echo everyone's sentiments about not enjoying The Last Battle. Then again, the first time I read the series, I just plowed through the thing in about a week and a half, so I may still be viewing the whole thing as one big book.
Yes, it was extremely dark, and your heart gets very heavy. The line "So Narnia is no more." felt like a baseball bat to the stomach. I think I felt a little like Sam Gamgee from the movie version of The Two Towers talking about great stories saying how could anything good come when so much evil has happened. But the story is ultimately redeemed in what Ralph Wood, author of The Gospel According To Tolkein would remind us is a Eucatastrophe. A redeeming event which overcomes the evil only at the cost of a great sacrifice made of love. Eustace, Jill, King Tirian and the last loyal band of Narnians know that their fate likely lies through the stable door, but they fight nonetheless because they love Narnia, and would choose no other fate than the one they march too and would rather die this death than any other death in silly old England. So even though The Last Battle is dark and depressing, it is ultimately redeemed through hope, and I think this is why I can still read it and enjoy it. I won't lie, I was moved to tears the first time I read the closing, and it still always gets to me. Death is tragic, and those that have seen it know its terrible power, but Lewis offers a glimpse at something beautiful which stirs the soul in a place that is hard to reach in the everyday world.
Yes, it was hard to read that Susan didn't join her family. But she chose like Uncle Andrew and the Dwarves, cunning and her own devices rather than what was right in front of her. I wanted to see her. We all wanted to see her, because she is a Queen, and because she is family, which only makes betrayal worse. Now, did she not make it because Lewis said so, or because she chose not to come? That's a more delicate matter.
Re: Oh all right...
Date: 2006-05-25 06:54 am (UTC)On the female issue, perhaps it is a bit unfair that one of the girls is the unbeliever. After all, when they talk about Susan's denial, they mention that she's into "Lipsticks and nylons and innovations." I think most people have (correctly) taken this as a thinly veiled jab at sexuality. Whether it is a jab at exclusively female sexuality is a bit sketchier. Lewis believed in a bit of indulgence, in matters of food and drink and pipes and enjoyment of life (Trumpkin smoked, Nikabrik didn't, the Scrubbs were Tea Totallers and Vegetarians). So why would sex be any different? I don't think he felt it was, apart maybe from being for fidelity. From that standpoint, I don't think he was a mysogenist. After all, I think he was a romantic, and therefore felt female sexuality deserved some measure of glorification. So what is it that Susan is guilty of?
Tying sex and beauty and vanity together for a moment (I'm assuming this isn't a huge strech for anyone, if it is, please let me know and I'll be happy to debate the point), looking at the Chronicles, beauty is emphasized at a few key moments. Firstly, when Diggory and Polly meet Jadis; seccond when Lucy reads the Magician's Book, and lastly, when Tirian meets Queen Lucy the Valiant beyond the door. I think, in the case of Diggory seeing Jadis in the Hall and Lucy seeing herself in the Book both show false beauty, born of vanity. True beauty is seen in Lucy meeting Aslan and coming at last to Aslan's country. They show inner beauty which needs no spell or veil or "innovation." So, I think that Lewis was trying to link vanity and sex (or maybe promiscuity is a better word for it) together through Susan's unbelief. It wasn't necessarily female sexuality, which again, I think he glorifies in Lucy and would be for anyway being a romantic. I think that Susan's unbelief is a judgement on vanity (and vanity comes of pride, belief comes of humility).
I think everyone else has nicely discussed why someone had to be left behind, and why it's plausible as to why it was Susan. To add a few points to that discussion:
While Susan and Peter do nicely fit traditional masculine and feminine, mother and father roles, there are a few differences worth noting. Bad masculinity supresses open affection and emotion. Peter doesn't have this problem. He sheds tears when he rescues his sisters from the wolves, and he kisses Trufflehunter on the cheek, and Lewis makes a point of noting that these are not faults or weakness. Peter is definately in touch with his feminine side, as they say in the Shadowlands. Susan doesn't fight in the wars, even when Narnia is at risk. Lucy does. One might say that Lucy is in touch with her masculine, while Susan is not. This sort of imbalance may also contribute to Susan's inability to believe. She is incomplete. Even Aslan and Narnia could not make her whole. What she needs to find, she needs to find somewhere else. So there is hope yet.
Also, thinking on the three "sinners": Edmund was a traitor. Eustace was an ass. And Susan was an unbeliever. Edmund and Eustace make it, but Susan does not. Weren't Edmund and Eustace's crimes of a much higher magnitude? Perhaps, but I think Lewis's view on this is well stated in the supplement to The Screwtape Letters. While one Hitler makes a tasty feast for the demons of Hell, they are just as easily fed by volume and volume of bland mediocrity, such as one finds in the world. The scores of people who live lives of horid mediocrity and casual indifference. Susan's sin may not be on a grand scale, but it is continuous. As continuous and monotonous as God's love for us (he uses that image somewhere else, I don't remember where).
Ok, so I went on for a bit. What can I say, you twisted my arm.
Re: Oh all right...
Date: 2006-05-25 11:54 am (UTC)I like your point on beauty, and how you draw in Lucy here. She's portrayed, except for that one lapse in Dawn Treader, as being very unselfconcious and unaware of her beauty because it's not what she's focused on, whereas Susan was prideful about her looks, and very focused on them. Lucy is truly humble, and it shows.
You make a good point here about Peter. He does have his loving, emotional sides and he doesn't mind showing it, which does make him stand out in comparison to the negative masculine roles. I do have a bit of sympathy for Susan's distaste for violence, because I have to admit I wouldn't want to be out there fighting and killing either. I'd be waiting back at the camp to bandage the wounded instead.
For Susan's hope, we have to remember that she's regarded as silly and misguided, not bad. And I don't know about you, but I'd think that the sudden shock of losing her entire family would probably shock her out of silliness. One thing that foolishness can not long endure is sober reality. Will it be hard on her? Yes, but what Eustace and Edmund endured was hard on them. I have a lot of hope for Susan. And in the end, Aslan doesn't turn his back on anyone. He will be there for her when she realizes that she needs him.
The only problem with you going on for a bit is that it encourages me to do so as well. You have been warned.
Re: Oh all right...
Date: 2006-05-25 11:33 am (UTC)I understood why Last Battle had to be the way it was for the series as a whole to work, but that doesn't mean I don't still dislike parts of it. Some of that might come from the fact that I identified with Lucy from the first, and never did with Jill, and therefore I don't like the Jill books as much as I do the ones with Lucy in them. I used to really dislike The Silver Chair as well, although on more recent re-reads I love it, this might be part and parcel with my dislike of Last Battle.
I'll continue with your other comment.