Just watched Narnia (Possible spoilers)

Back to the movie.....

My 7 year old son thought it was excellent (wicked i believe) and loads better than HP and The GoF.
I thought it was very very good. Very nicely acted by the children. Just enough action. Nice fairly scarey bits, but not too much for my son. He didnt know the story at all so nice plot events for him to go Wow etc.
Favourite for me as a rpg-er was just the huge range of monsters all brought to life, i guess more 'beasts' on screen than in LOTR etc even though large battle on a smaller screen. The dryads where also very 'cool' in how thye work from an rpg prospective.
Maybe just me but i still thought the white witch was kinda sexy!!

Enjoy
JohnD, aged 39
I am definitely off to see it again.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Storm Raven said:
The parallel is made even more obvious by the fact that C.S. Lewis stated explicitly that this was what he intended to do. You don't have to guess as to the author's intent with respect to the Chronicles of Narnia - he flat out said what his intent was.

Where do you see that?

Lewis' estate maintains that that is not the case. Instead, Lewis wrote the story using his own ideals in life. Remember, C.S. Lewis was an athiest from childhood until college. He converted to Catholicism after he and Tolkien became good friends while at Oxford. Both Lewis and Tolkien claimed that their works are not allegories for anything, but are rather stories they made that happened to be influenced by their life experiences.

C.S. Lewis said:
"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord."
 

Did C.S. Lewis Create Narnia as an Allegory?
Adapted From: C.S. Lewis & Narnia For Dummies

Perhaps the single most common question about The Chronicles of Narnia asks whether Lewis wrote the series as an allegory. After all, even if your biblical knowledge is limited to a few Sunday school classes in third grade, you probably notice that Aslan has many similarities to Jesus Christ. If Lewis added that symbolism on purpose, does that mean that everything in Narnia represents something in the Bible?

C.S. Lewis makes clear that he didn't write the Narnian Chronicles as a biblical allegory. But you may be asking: How can this be true given the obvious symbolism used throughout the series? In order to understand Lewis's side of the story, you need to understand the difference between allegory and something he called supposal.

The gory details of allegory
An allegory is a literary device in which an author uses the form of a person, place, or animal to represent an abstract idea. For example, an eagle can represent the abstract concept of "freedom," a witch can represent "evil," or a photo of yours truly can express "amazing, profound wisdom."

Some of the more popular literature in history is allegorical. In Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy, for example, Dante represents humanity as he journeys through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. In John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, concepts like hope and mercy become real-life characters in his saga of a man (named Christian) searching for salvation. So too, Lewis's first book written after his Christian conversion was The Pilgrim's Regress, a Bunyan-like allegory that describes his road to the Christian faith.

In The Allegory of Love, Lewis writes that when you use allegory, "you can start with [facts] . . . and can then invent . . . visible things to express them." He adds, "What is good or happy has always been high like the heavens and bright like the sun. Evil and misery were deep and dark from the first."

A slightly broader definition of allegory applies when an author represents real people or places in a fictional context. George Orwell's Animal Farm is a well-known example of this allegorical type. As a way of addressing the issues surrounding the Russian Revolution, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and other real historical figures are represented as pigs on a farm.

The Chronicles of Narnia is not in this genre. Lewis did not write the series as an allegory using his fantasy setting to represent abstract concepts or real people. In terms of literary style, the series bears no parallels to allegorical works like The Divine Comedy, Animal Farm, or even Lewis's own The Pilgrim's Regress.

In fact, Lewis explicitly warns readers against trying to make a one-for-one match between Narnia and the real world. In a May 1954 letter to a fifth grade class in Maryland, he writes, "You are mistaken when you think everything in the books 'represents' something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress but I'm not writing in that way."

Supposedly, there's a supposal
Although Lewis makes it clear that The Chronicles of Narnia isn't an allegory, he doesn't deny that some symbolism was written into the series. But, to understand his approach, you need to recognize that Lewis differentiates allegory from something he calls supposal. In a December 1959 letter to a young girl named Sophia Storr, he explains the difference:

I don't say. 'Let us represent Christ as Aslan.' I say, 'Supposing there was a world like Narnia, and supposing, like ours, it needed redemption, let us imagine what sort of Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection Christ would have there.'

Allegory and supposal aren't identical devices, according to Lewis, because they deal with what's real and what's unreal quite differently. In an allegory, the ideas, concepts, and even people being expressed are true, but the characters are make-believe. They always behave in a way reflective of the underlying concepts they're representing. A supposal is much different; the fictional character becomes "real" within the imaginary world, taking on a life of its own and adapting to the make-believe world as necessary. If, for example, you accept the supposal of Aslan as true, then Lewis says, "He would really have been a physical object in that world as He was in Palestine, and His death on the Stone Table would have been a physical event no less than his death on Calvary."

Aslan isn't an allegory of Jesus Christ. Instead, he's a supposal. Lewis emphasizes this point in a December 1958 letter to a lady named Mrs. Hook:

[Aslan] is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all.

Much of The Chronicles of Narnia is built on the concept of supposal. For example:

  • Suppose Christ came into the world of Narnia as Aslan. What would he be like?
  • Suppose Aslan created Narnia out of nothing and centuries later brought it to a conclusion. How would these stories play out?
  • Suppose evil were introduced into Narnia. What would that be like?
  • Suppose a person or talking animal could freely choose to obey or disobey Aslan. What would life in Narnia be like?

By using supposal, Lewis doesn't feel compelled to have a direct 1 to-1 correlation between the experiences of Aslan and the real life of Jesus Christ. In his letter to Sophia Storr, Lewis talks of this freedom: "When I started The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I don't think I foresaw what Aslan was going to do and suffer. I think He just insisted on behaving in His own way."

Using supposal as the vehicle for getting him there, Lewis views The Chronicles of Narnia as myth. He explains that an allegory is a story with a single meaning, but a myth is a story that can have many meanings for different readers in different generations. According to Lewis, an author puts into an allegory "only what he already knows," but in a myth, he puts "what he does not yet know and could not come by in any other way."

Either way, it's pretty clear the Christian elements in the Narnia books when you take them all into account. Aslan as Jesus is especially obvious.
 

Xath said:
Where do you see that?

Lewis' estate maintains that that is not the case. Instead, Lewis wrote the story using his own ideals in life. Remember, C.S. Lewis was an athiest from childhood until college. He converted to Catholicism after he and Tolkien became good friends while at Oxford.
odd, I thought he was anglican. Also his own descriptions of his preconversion attitude is not one of atheism (nor do I recal him claiming a non-religious childhood.) More he was in a phase of "sticking it to the Man" and identified God as the biggest "the man" one could possibly stick it to. ;)

As for the differences between allegory and suppository (er, supposal) and all the other dissection of what we have to mean in order to be wrong about him, all I can say is: wow, he was born too early! That man missed his calling as an internet pedant! :p :D

A work doesn't have to be planned propaganda to be allegorical, nor does every person and event in the book have to map exactly to something else. Aslan = jesus and it wasn't an accident, beyond that it seems a bit of hair splitting.
 

Of course we do, we're English majors!

Dark Jezter said:
Yes, I'm sure all those english majors knew Tolkien's intentions better than he did.

Absolutely! There are people who devote their entire lives to knowing the writing of a single author who know far about it than the author ever could. You see, literature is a seperate entity of it's creator. Like a child, after you've given birth, that book will be read and seen in thousands of different ways by different readers. There was once a school of thought that there were "correct readings" of books by polling readers and finding out what they thought it meant. Not only did these results differ from the author's intent, but differ from year to year and certainly generation by generation.


Dark Jezter said:
Allegory and personal interpretation are two seperate things. In particular, I find the claim that Gandalf is allegory of Christ to have more holes than an old fence. So unless some kind of note or journal written by Tolkien claiming that anything in LotR is an allegory is found, I'm going to have a hard time thinking any claims of allegory to be valid.

Forgive me while I laugh heartily, Professor Jezter, but I've been in plenty of classes were we've discussed allegory, symbolism, nuance, and other things without having any idea about the intentions of the author. That's what you are talking about, author's intent. What did the author state he or she intended to write. A.) Most author's don't, often delibritely being obscure on the subject. B.) Any creative product belongs as much, if not more, to the readers than the writer. Did Harriet Beecher Stowe MEAN to fuel the Civil War with "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? Probably not, but Lincoln credited her with doing so. Was Twain being racist or equitible when he wrote "Huckleberry Finn"? That debate has raged for decades.

You can disagree with me until you're blue in the face, but the entire literary establishment is behind me on this one. Allegory exists regardless of whether the author states it does. As I've said before, "What does the author know?" If you have further questions or comments, please refer to your local literature professor.

I have to say, I've never heard of suppousal being used before. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just not familiar with that point of view. I don't know what school of thought suppousal comes from, but it wasn't in my literary criticism book. I SUPPOUSE I should go to my alma mater and ask for my money back. :p
 
Last edited:

Narnian bestiary

TheNovaLord said:
Back to the movie.....

My 7 year old son thought it was excellent (wicked i believe) and loads better than HP and The GoF.
I thought it was very very good. Very nicely acted by the children. Just enough action. Nice fairly scarey bits, but not too much for my son. He didnt know the story at all so nice plot events for him to go Wow etc.

My kids (who I took yesterday, can't be a neglectful father while I'm watching all these movies, can I?) loved it too. My 8-year old roared like a lion for hours.

TheNovaLord said:
Favourite for me as a rpg-er was just the huge range of monsters all brought to life, i guess more 'beasts' on screen than in LOTR etc even though large battle on a smaller screen. The dryads where also very 'cool' in how thye work from an rpg prospective.

Yes, there are terrific images and a wide diversity of creatures. I can remember griffons, giants, minotaurs, dwarfs, centaurs, fauns, ibixians, orcs/goblins, harpies, werewolves, along with many animals (all talking, of course.)

TheNovaLord said:
Maybe just me but i still thought the white witch was kinda sexy!!

Yes, in a Sleeping Beauty wicked stepmother sort of way. But there are no curves to her, no plunging necklines or clinging gowns. The original illustrations show a "sexier" outfit than the one in the movie. My point is that most movies have some sort of sexuality to them. In Her Shoes had Cameron Diaz constantly in a state of being halfway undressed, Legend of Zorro has Catherine Zeta-Jones in a plunging neckline in each scene. I'm not complaining, mind you, but it is cheesy and I'm glad they didn't do it here.

TheNovaLord said:
I am definitely off to see it again.

Amen, brother. I saw the end again last night (employee showing), and I'll probably see it again.
 

White Witch did it.

Captain Tagon said:
I'll get you Col Mustard, if it's the last thing I doooo

It was the White Witch with the stone knife at the stone table, yah goofs. . .

Wonder if there will be the usual board game adaptations, Clue, Risk might be cool, Narnian Monopoly? (groan)
 

Firebeetle said:
I have to say, I've never heard of suppousal being used before. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just not familiar with that point of view. I don't know what school of thought suppousal comes from, but it wasn't in my literary criticism book. I SUPPOUSE I should go to my alma mater and ask for my money back. :p
I tend to think that Lewis made it up on the spot to argue he wasn't being allegorical. ;) He's a lovely writer but his argument skill tend to be lacking.
 

Firebeetle said:
I have to say, I've never heard of suppousal being used before. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just not familiar with that point of view. I don't know what school of thought suppousal comes from, but it wasn't in my literary criticism book. I SUPPOUSE I should go to my alma mater and ask for my money back. :p

The problem with Lewis' argument that his work is "supposal" and not "allegorical" is that his definition of what a "supposal" is cuts so close to what "allegory" is that you really cannot distinguish the two in any meaningful manner.
 

Firebeetle said:
Of course we do, we're english majors!

It will take more than that to convince me. I've known a fair share of english majors who were insufferable gits who thought that every time a sword was mentioned in a novel it was a "phallic symbol" and every time a good guy died it was a "Christ figure." And, of course, many of them have very high opinions of their intelligence and usefulness, even after graduation when they find themselves working the register at their nearest Barnes & Noble store.

Absolutely! There are people who devote their entire lives to knowing the writing of a single author who know far about it than the author ever could. You see, literature is a seperate entity of it's creator. Like a child, after you've given birth, that book will be read and seen in thousands of different ways by different readers. There was once a school of thought that there were "correct readings" of books by polling readers and finding out what they thought it meant. Not only did these results differ from the author's intent, but differ from year to year and certainly generation by generation.

Once again, you're talking about personal interpretation.

Forgive me while I laugh heartily, Professor Jezter, but I've been in plenty of classes were we've discussed allegory, symbolism, nuance, and other things without having any idea about the intentions of the author. That's what you are talking about, author's intent. What did the author state he or she intended to write. A.) Most author's don't, often delibritely being obscure on the subject. B.) Any creative product belongs as much, if not more, to the readers than the writer. Did Harriet Beecher Stowe MEAN to fuel the Civil War with "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? Probably not, but Lincoln credited her with doing so. Was Twain being racist or equitible when he wrote "Huckleberry Finn"? That debate has raged for decades.

Don't be an ass, Firebeetle. There's no need to start tossing insults because I find your theory about Gandalf being a Christ Figure to be unconvincing.

Besides, I thought we were talking about allegory here, not what effects authors intended their books to have on popular culture or whether or not a book is racist.

You can disagree with me until you're blue in the face, but the entire literary establishment is behind me on this one. Allegory exists regardless of whether the author states it does. As I've said before, "What does the author know?" If you have further questions or comments, please refer to your local literature professor.

As Freud once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Just because literary enthusiasts choose to interpret a book as something other than what the author intended does not automatically make it an allegory.

But I'm through arguing semantics. If you want to say that Gandalf represents Christ and that the Literary Establishment believes that "The Little Engine that Could" is allegory about the Roe vs Wade descision, go right ahead. You won't hear any more from me on this subject.
 

Remove ads

Top