Jonathan Terrington's Reviews > The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Chronicles of Narnia, #1)
by
by
Jonathan Terrington's review
bookshelves: personal-favourites, favourite-series, children-s-literature, childhood-book, fantasy, re-read, c-s-lewis
Sep 15, 2011
bookshelves: personal-favourites, favourite-series, children-s-literature, childhood-book, fantasy, re-read, c-s-lewis
A Defence of C.S. Lewis...or a brief attempt at such
Some thoughts recently crossed my mind in regards to arguments one could offer as a defence of the Christian side of this novel. The main arguments against this novel as a 'Christian allegory' that I have heard are: 1)Aslan is not a strong Christ-figure 2)That C.S. Lewis 'preaches' a black and white morality. So I'm going to roughly address them from my perspective and hope it encourages some discussion.
1) I will agree that Aslan is not a strong Christ-figure. Firstly for Aslan to really represent Christ he would have to be true to the gospel story. In other words he would have to be god made into man come to die for all mankind. However as he only dies for the one traitor again it's not sticking true to the Biblical gospel that all have sinned and that Christ was needed as a sacrifice for that sin. If you take things too literally here, C.S. Lewis' novel doesn't make much that much sense theologically as a result. I'll explain where I am/was going with that in a moment.
2) I debate that C.S. Lewis preaches in his novel. Occasionally he can be a touch patronising but compared to many authors he rarely slips into such condescension. As for his morality I think you must understand it from the perspective of Christianity. Christianity is about black and white morality essentially: good versus evil, light vs. dark and truth vs. lies etc. It is also very grey in that Christianity is about life and the fact that no one is perfect, that everyone fits into that moral grey area. Of course I explain roughly and inadequately.
Ultimately I see that there is room to argue that C.S. Lewis does a poor job of writing an allegorical novel. However I see it as a very subtle novel that unlike others (for instance The Alchemist) does not build its story around expressing an ideology but rather incorporates an ideology into its storytelling. I think that if one wants to criticise this novel it should be for not properly showing the gospel rather than for 'preaching'. I know that I and many others enjoyed the story first before seeing the connection between it and the Biblical tales. I enjoyed it even more afterwards so, then again I could be a tad biased.
Original Review
To begin I must note that I grant this such a high rating due to the impact it had on my life. It to me is one novel that were I to pick the one novel that forged a love of books for me it would be The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Why? Because I can remember back about twelve years ago when I was homeschooled by my mother as a five year old. We wandered down during winter into the warm back room and she read the first Narnia book to us. The image of a red faun carrying parcels as he passed a growing lamppost would stick with me from that moment (as it stuck with C.S. Lewis). As I learned to read the Narnia books were the first novels I sunk my growing reading teeth into. And to this day I have read and re read the novels back to front (and maybe front to back).
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is a novel written for both children and adults. It contains highly allegorical elements as C.S.Lewis was a well-known apologetics writer. However he wrote that he did not write his novel as a pure allegory but as a story. And that is what The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is, a story to be enjoyed by everyone. And although written in simple language the reader can quickly, concisely and easily imagine the world without the clumsy constraints of overused words. I personally cannot imagine a world without these novels.
Additional thoughts:
1. Just a question at last. And one with a highly philosophical twist to it. Why is it that people so readily condemn those books which are considered as moral tales? You'd think we could do with more morality in such a twisted and confused world regardless of accepting the belief systems.
2. I have heard many people describe the entire series as silly and far too preachy. I do not see it that way at all. Trust me if C.S.Lewis wanted to be preachy he would have written a lot more philosophy and less story. Yes I can see how some would call this silly but then I argue that they are missing the point. It's a fairytale type fantasy intended mainly for children (and for those children again as adults or for their parents perhaps). But I argue that as Lewis only wrote this story based on the story of the crucifixion in many ways that it was not intended as a preachy book. My question is that why is it that if I were to base a story along what some call the 'Christian myth' it is claimed as preaching while as if I were to base it on any other mythology or story it would be deemed as merely copying the themes of another mythology? Is this yet another example of doublethink?*
*See 1984
Some thoughts recently crossed my mind in regards to arguments one could offer as a defence of the Christian side of this novel. The main arguments against this novel as a 'Christian allegory' that I have heard are: 1)Aslan is not a strong Christ-figure 2)That C.S. Lewis 'preaches' a black and white morality. So I'm going to roughly address them from my perspective and hope it encourages some discussion.
1) I will agree that Aslan is not a strong Christ-figure. Firstly for Aslan to really represent Christ he would have to be true to the gospel story. In other words he would have to be god made into man come to die for all mankind. However as he only dies for the one traitor again it's not sticking true to the Biblical gospel that all have sinned and that Christ was needed as a sacrifice for that sin. If you take things too literally here, C.S. Lewis' novel doesn't make much that much sense theologically as a result. I'll explain where I am/was going with that in a moment.
2) I debate that C.S. Lewis preaches in his novel. Occasionally he can be a touch patronising but compared to many authors he rarely slips into such condescension. As for his morality I think you must understand it from the perspective of Christianity. Christianity is about black and white morality essentially: good versus evil, light vs. dark and truth vs. lies etc. It is also very grey in that Christianity is about life and the fact that no one is perfect, that everyone fits into that moral grey area. Of course I explain roughly and inadequately.
Ultimately I see that there is room to argue that C.S. Lewis does a poor job of writing an allegorical novel. However I see it as a very subtle novel that unlike others (for instance The Alchemist) does not build its story around expressing an ideology but rather incorporates an ideology into its storytelling. I think that if one wants to criticise this novel it should be for not properly showing the gospel rather than for 'preaching'. I know that I and many others enjoyed the story first before seeing the connection between it and the Biblical tales. I enjoyed it even more afterwards so, then again I could be a tad biased.
Original Review
To begin I must note that I grant this such a high rating due to the impact it had on my life. It to me is one novel that were I to pick the one novel that forged a love of books for me it would be The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Why? Because I can remember back about twelve years ago when I was homeschooled by my mother as a five year old. We wandered down during winter into the warm back room and she read the first Narnia book to us. The image of a red faun carrying parcels as he passed a growing lamppost would stick with me from that moment (as it stuck with C.S. Lewis). As I learned to read the Narnia books were the first novels I sunk my growing reading teeth into. And to this day I have read and re read the novels back to front (and maybe front to back).
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is a novel written for both children and adults. It contains highly allegorical elements as C.S.Lewis was a well-known apologetics writer. However he wrote that he did not write his novel as a pure allegory but as a story. And that is what The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is, a story to be enjoyed by everyone. And although written in simple language the reader can quickly, concisely and easily imagine the world without the clumsy constraints of overused words. I personally cannot imagine a world without these novels.
Additional thoughts:
1. Just a question at last. And one with a highly philosophical twist to it. Why is it that people so readily condemn those books which are considered as moral tales? You'd think we could do with more morality in such a twisted and confused world regardless of accepting the belief systems.
2. I have heard many people describe the entire series as silly and far too preachy. I do not see it that way at all. Trust me if C.S.Lewis wanted to be preachy he would have written a lot more philosophy and less story. Yes I can see how some would call this silly but then I argue that they are missing the point. It's a fairytale type fantasy intended mainly for children (and for those children again as adults or for their parents perhaps). But I argue that as Lewis only wrote this story based on the story of the crucifixion in many ways that it was not intended as a preachy book. My question is that why is it that if I were to base a story along what some call the 'Christian myth' it is claimed as preaching while as if I were to base it on any other mythology or story it would be deemed as merely copying the themes of another mythology? Is this yet another example of doublethink?*
*See 1984
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
September 15, 2011
– Shelved
September 19, 2011
– Shelved as:
personal-favourites
April 23, 2012
– Shelved as:
favourite-series
April 23, 2012
– Shelved as:
children-s-literature
April 23, 2012
– Shelved as:
childhood-book
June 14, 2012
– Shelved as:
fantasy
June 14, 2012
– Shelved as:
re-read
November 5, 2012
– Shelved as:
c-s-lewis
January 12, 2021
–
Started Reading
January 12, 2021
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 57 (57 new)
I was voicing this as a general query. I have heard the same comments on more humanist moral books such as A Picture of Dorian Grey for instance and wonder why it is that any kind of morality is seemingly frowned upon in books at times.
I was homeschooled for six years. Basically until secondary school. I then completed a further six at school and am now at University. I guess that the reading history in my family helps too. I seem to have picked up many genes from Mum's side of the family and most of them are avid readers.
I can't, either. Lovely review, Jonathan."
I'm of the same mind. I have read all the Narnia Chronicles on a regular basis throughout my adulthood.There is a wonder about them which is never-ending. A lovely personal review, thank you.
I was never quite at ease with Mr Tumnus as a child, though I couldn't pinpoint why. When I saw the film version (as an adult, with my son), it seemed to expose the creepiness I had silently felt before. That was my last encounter with Narnia.
I see it as more the way the human brain works. We think about X, and our emotional reactions to X occur simultaneously. In some cases, the emotional reactions are so strong that rational thought basically ceases. To some extent it is possible to train people out of this, but it's not easy.
Another example from the field of religion is the "historicity of Jesus". Just about every professional historian that has studied the subject concluded that there was a man named Jesus from a town named Nazareth; that he preached in northern Israel and attracted disciples; that he visited Jerusalem during Passover; that the Jewish authorities had him arrested and turned over to the Romans, who executed him; that his following didn't fall apart after his death, but spread and evolved into the Christian religion.
Yet there's a vociferously held counter-view, championed almost entirely by people who have no historical qualifications whatsoever, and all of whom, without exception, are anti-Christianity. In this view, some people made Jesus up, devoted themselves to persuading contemporaries that this imaginary person had existed, and underwent various persecutions up to and including death in support of this story. Not only that, the inventors deliberately created difficulties for themselves that worked against their story, such as saying that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, a person who was supposed to be born in Bethlehem, while specifying that came from a town on the other side of the country! Moreover, no one ever said 'Hey, wait a minute, I'm from the Galilea region, and I never heard of this guy,' or 'Hold on, I was in Jerusalem that Passover, and no one was crucified as a supposed King of the Jews,' thus stopping the con job in its tracks. The whole idea of a mythical Jesus is so outlandish that professional historians have trouble even taking it seriously.
As for the people who do take it seriously, they swallow much harder to believe tales, e.g. that the Catholic Church has documentary proof of the non-existance of Jesus in a secret vault, and that they've carefully preserved this for thousands of years, apparently so that someone can put them out of business someday. Or that the phrase "Son of God" was originally "Sun of God", even though the words aren't pronounced alike in the languages of the time.
Almost as weird are the people who think Jesus existed, but that he REALLY preached an ethical/political/social doctrine that no one of the time appears to have believed in, but that by an extraordinary coincidence is almost identical with some modern belief system invented in the last few hundred years, which by an eerie coincidence just happens to whatever the person pushing this story also believes. Thus Jesus-the-feminist, Jesus-the-Marxist, Jesus-the-Secular-Liberal.
Humans just aren't very logical.
What "racist opinions" do you think Lewis held?
What "rac..."
Well I read in biographical books about him that he tended to be racially prejudiced against those of an Asian ethnicity and tended to see them as inferior beings. There's a lot of criticism about his portrayal of the Middle Eastern people in the Callormenes as being a racist stereotypical one but I'm not sure I agree.I think a lot of that is to do with the times in which he lived and the fact that he saw the Chinese/Japanese etc. fighting against the British in the World Wars he lived through, hence seeing them as the enemy.
You are absolutely right about that humans aren't just that logical. People will continue to hold onto ideas that appeal to them even in the face of proper evidence, and I mean evidence that has been fully researched from a perspective that is not overtly prejudiced.
Having read a couple of biographies of Lewis, I'm dubious. But then, racism is used as a smear fairly often nowadays.
Yet, it can be understood that Lewis is human and hence flawed and also, as mentioned, lived in a time where the Asian populations were the enemy in the western world. After all they fought against the Allied forces. Part of why I dislike this is because of the fact that my wife (and many of my friends) are part of this demographic and it always disappoints me when 'race' is used to belittle anyone in anyway.
However something like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun...
Is not what I am getting at. I do not see the books as being racist or sexist. What Pullman says in relation to Narnia I struggle with as he purposefully seems to have written his The Golden Compass as an anti-Narnia series. He considers Narnia as propaganda which, if that is the case, he ignores that his own series would also be atheistic propaganda.
I do not see the series as propaganda however as Lewis is never forthright in stating his views as the truth, but rather creates a world which is based on his beliefs. Alongside a mixture of other mythological and legendary ideas.
The tone of the Narnia novels, with the author's by now outdated views and cultural propensity towards certainty (authors like Lewis and Tolkien keep a far tighter rein on the whole atmosphere of their story, giving a sense of a single will of the narrator, than would be advisable today) make them seem didactic and may well function that way, but it's still up to a good reader, however young, to be critical (which it's easy to do with a straightforward story like this) and take away what they will for their own reasons.
The confusion again comes down to the difference between allegory and supposition.
Pullman's central premise counters Lewis's, but he's also more open about his world and what interpretations apply. Rather than deciding on what's a 'wrong perspective' in advance, he lets one unravel in the story through a series of questions. I think The Golden Compass is a better novel in that sense (especially as a novel for children) than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, though the excitement and wonder is more muted than the latter. Whether this is because of the opposing perspectives, I really can't say.
Narnia has that value as a reimagining which doesn't depend on an allegorical interpretation, but Pullman tackling religion head on doesn't drag him down, at least as I found.
Narnia has that value as a reimagining which doesn't depend on an allegorical interpretation, but Pullman tackling religio..."
I'll have to look into it!
Lewis is writing as a believing Christian certainly but it has never weighed the stories down in any wading through piety-porridge type sense, he is not seeking to convert but share a story and if God is eoncuntered then more to the good. Pullman, in my opinion, has a more aggressive agenda and though equally this does not in any way spoil the brilliance of the story it is fairly in your face, especially in the last volume.
Having said that I did, as a believing catholic, thoroughly enjoy both creations.
There is a great quote by I think John O'Shea who says 'A great story/image begins as a window and ends as a mirror'.
Absolutely. My son was quite young when he first encountered Pullman: I would read some to him at bedtime, but at breakfast, I'd discover he'd read on when he woke up, so I'd have to read on before bed. In the end I just read ahead, making notes of any issues that he might be puzzled by or which I thought merited further discussion. It was wonderful. So many fascinating and very profound conversations arose from that trilogy.
And Jonathan, that Kafka quote is very apt (and one of my favourites).
The entire series is something anyone can read at any age. If you like long books then The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings is the same kind of story but a touch more advanced...
I would only add that this is the very first of the novels written and Lewis clearly improved as he worked into the series. Some of the later novels are remarkable in their depth of feeling and construction. The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader, for instance, is based on the Brendan voyages in Irish Medieval Literature. But it has its own wonderful character with one of the most moving endings in the series.
I find this series perpetually engaging and filled with a beautiful spiritual allusiveness.
I would only add that this is the very first of the novels writte..."
Thank you for the comment. Lewis definitely improves as he writes the series and becomes familiar with the entire concept of his world and the logic and magic of it. However there is a rough kind of charm connected to this first novel which remains with me every time I read it...
Which is part of the allegorical lesson really...
"Profanity is the manifestation of a Weak Mind."
"Ignore Mean People" Amanda Hocking
I was never quite at ease with Mr Tumnus as a child, though I couldn't pinpoint why. When I saw the film version (as an adult, w..."
Tumnus wouldn't make a good babysitter?
Which is part of the allegorical lesson really..."
Wouldn't most people Not Sacrifice themselves and say
"The boy / girl has to face the consequences of his/her own actions?
They have to take responsibility"
I can't, either. Lovely review, Jonathan.