I liked Chronicles of Narnia and I am an adult. Is it something wrong?

[tobl]

Occasionally the Narnian books will be casually referred to as "allegories." I don't know if anyone reading this posting calls them "allegories." If we take the historically normative use of "allegory," I don't think the Narnian books qualify. The Pilgrim's Progress is a good book and a good example of an allegory that ought to be familiar to everyone. In it a character named Christian runs into trouble in a town called Vanity Fair, and during his journey he meets characters with names such as Watchful, Hypocrisy, Worldly Wiseman, Giant Despair, & so on. Persons, things, places are emblems of spiritual states. Conversely, certain spiritual states are like these emblems.

In the Narnian books, you have children such as Peter, Edmund, Jill, &c. They're not allegories but kids. You have Aslan, who is not an allegory of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity; He is, as readers may eventually realize,* the Second Person as He might be supposed to be incarnated in a world in which animals possess reason, can speak, make moral choices, etc. The White Witch isn't an allegory of evil, she's an evil person. Cair Paravel is a castle, not an allegory of spiritual strength or whatever. Sometimes when people object to the "allegory" of the Narnian books, what they probably are really objecting to is the Christian belief reflected in the books. For many non-Christian readers this isn't a problem, just as for many Christians the Taoism in Ursula Le Guin's first Earthsea books is not a problem.

*Lewis doesn't make it hard for the reader to discern this, but nor does he force the matter on the reader. He wants the stories to be enjoyed by the reader whether the reader unpacks these significances or not, to whatever degree is appropriate. I don't think he wanted busybodies to point out these matters to readers, sort of taking charge of the readers and the books.

i can tell with all honesty that i just saw the movies and aldo i'm catholic i have no bloody idea of any allegory in narnia... exceppt for santa claus but that's obvious

 

[BigBadBob141]

Talking of good old H.P., has anyone read the nine book "Laundry" series by Charles Stross, it's sort of H.P.Lovecraft meets Len Deighton, very good books!

 

[BAYLOR]

Lovecraft is the author I wonder about — did any Lovecraft fan first read him at 30 or later?

I was in my 20's when I first read him.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I was in my 20's when I first read him.

I'm in my 60s and I never have. he's on the list though. I'll get round to him sometime.

 

[Ambrose]

For reasons we need not go into I was looking at the Wikipedia article on raki - the turkish liquor. Apparently 'aslan' means 'lion'. Does anyone know whether that is coimcidence, or how would Lewis have known that.

 

[tobl]

For reasons we need not go into I was looking at the Wikipedia article on raki - the turkish liquor. Apparently 'aslan' means 'lion'. Does anyone know whether that is coimcidence, or how would Lewis have known that.

well obvious... turkish delight

 

[Pyan]

For reasons we need not go into I was looking at the Wikipedia article on raki - the turkish liquor. Apparently 'aslan' means 'lion'. Does anyone know whether that is coimcidence, or how would Lewis have known that.

I think this may answer your question, as apparently a Miss Jenkins asked as well, back when CSL could still answer it personally:

Dear Miss Jenkins,
It is a pleasure to answer your question. I found the name in the notes to Lane's Arabian Nights: it is Turkish for Lion. I pronounce it as Ass-lan myself. And of course I meant the Lion of Judah. I am so glad you like the book. I hope you like the sequel (Prince Caspian) which came out in November.
Yours sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

Source: The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume III: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy

 

[Ambrose]

Ah! Thank you, Pyan.

 

[Boaz]

Occasionally the Narnian books will be casually referred to as "allegories." I don't know if anyone reading this posting calls them "allegories." If we take the historically normative use of "allegory," I don't think the Narnian books qualify. The Pilgrim's Progress is a good book and a good example of an allegory that ought to be familiar to everyone. In it a character named Christian runs into trouble in a town called Vanity Fair, and during his journey he meets characters with names such as Watchful, Hypocrisy, Worldly Wiseman, Giant Despair, & so on. Persons, things, places are emblems of spiritual states. Conversely, certain spiritual states are like these emblems.

In the Narnian books, you have children such as Peter, Edmund, Jill, &c. They're not allegories but kids. You have Aslan, who is not an allegory of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity; He is, as readers may eventually realize,* the Second Person as He might be supposed to be incarnated in a world in which animals possess reason, can speak, make moral choices, etc. The White Witch isn't an allegory of evil, she's an evil person. Cair Paravel is a castle, not an allegory of spiritual strength or whatever. Sometimes when people object to the "allegory" of the Narnian books, what they probably are really objecting to is the Christian belief reflected in the books. For many non-Christian readers this isn't a problem, just as for many Christians the Taoism in Ursula Le Guin's first Earthsea books is not a problem.

*Lewis doesn't make it hard for the reader to discern this, but nor does he force the matter on the reader. He wants the stories to be enjoyed by the reader whether the reader unpacks these significances or not, to whatever degree is appropriate. I don't think he wanted busybodies to point out these matters to readers, sort of taking charge of the readers and the books.

I had to read PP in grad school. I commented to a friend upon the allegory and she said that Narnia was an allegory. Even though I'd read the series about ten times in my childhood, I'd never seen a deeper meaning. My friend pointed out the similarities between Aslan and Jesus. I was stunned.

Rereading Narnia as an adult, I'm stunned again and again by Lewis' insights and abilities to restate biblical principles.

@Extollager I like your argument that The Chronicles are not allegory. Could the Narnia stories be called parables or fables?

 

[Extollager]

Boaz, myself I wouldn't call them allegory, parable, or fable.

We need to have the critical discernment to be able to comment on a work that, to be sure, includes a component of teaching or wisdom without making it sound more didactic than it is. I don't see the Narnian books as being all that much more didactic than, say, A Wizard of Earthsea or lots of other books for children.

I also, personally, rather doubt the attitude that is often attributed to children and their reading by adults. These adults might not be accustomed to a consistent and evident moral underpinning in their own preferred fiction, and thus, if they do encounter it, they may feel got at -- especially if the morality they detect is not one that would celebrate their way of living. So they project onto the child the discomfort they feel, or they assume the young reader will not like it. But here's the thing -- I think often young readers do definitely like the imaginative involvement they experience in a story in which decisions and actions and evasions and bullyings are understood morally. It is more likely to be the case that, should they read a story with minimal morality, they will be unsettled. They naturally feel that certain kinds of decisions and actions should be approved in some way (e.g. by leading to good outcomes for some characters) and others should not, and if this factor is absent they may feel disoriented and dissatisfied.

Critics need to be able to distinguish better between the proverbial "sugar-coated pill" of blatant didacticism on the one hand, and the story with something to say and to show on the other. Someone (Chesterton, I think) said something to the effect that children appreciate justice in their stories and feel a kind of affirmation when the wicked are punished; it's adults (with perhaps bad consciences) who may feel an aversion.

I may have trouble remembering birthdays I should know right off, but I think I remember my early reading pretty well. I first read the Narnian books around age 12. I am positive that I liked them very well and did not feel that the author had an "agenda."

I hope the remarks above can be considered thoughtfully. But furthermore -- can we even imagine the Narnian books being written with their familiar plot materials, but with stories told in such a way that they are just fantasy adventures with nothing much really to say about morality or to suggest about religion? In such versions, Aslan would be the absent Lion King who comes back in all his strength like the proverbial cavalry soldiers rushing down the hill to pull off a last-minute rescue. He wouldn't have anything much to do with Edmund, who would have had a good talking-to from Lucy and got his act together, I suppose. The White Witch would have got away so as to leave the way open for sequels -- ?

Meh.

 

[hitmouse]

Boaz, myself I wouldn't call them allegory, parable, or fable.

We need to have the critical discernment to be able to comment on a work that, to be sure, includes a component of teaching or wisdom without making it sound more didactic than it is. I don't see the Narnian books as being all that much more didactic than, say, A Wizard of Earthsea or lots of other books for children.

I also, personally, rather doubt the attitude that is often attributed to children and their reading by adults. These adults might not be accustomed to a consistent and evident moral underpinning in their own preferred fiction, and thus, if they do encounter it, they may feel got at -- especially if the morality they detect is not one that would celebrate their way of living. So they project onto the child the discomfort they feel, or they assume the young reader will not like it. But here's the thing -- I think often young readers do definitely like the imaginative involvement they experience in a story in which decisions and actions and evasions and bullyings are understood morally. It is more likely to be the case that, should they read a story with minimal morality, they will be unsettled. They naturally feel that certain kinds of decisions and actions should be approved in some way (e.g. by leading to good outcomes for some characters) and others should not, and if this factor is absent they may feel disoriented and dissatisfied.

Critics need to be able to distinguish better between the proverbial "sugar-coated pill" of blatant didacticism on the one hand, and the story with something to say and to show on the other. Someone (Chesterton, I think) said something to the effect that children appreciate justice in their stories and feel a kind of affirmation when the wicked are punished; it's adults (with perhaps bad consciences) who may feel an aversion.

I may have trouble remembering birthdays I should know right off, but I think I remember my early reading pretty well. I first read the Narnian books around age 12. I am positive that I liked them very well and did not feel that the author had an "agenda."

I hope the remarks above can be considered thoughtfully. But furthermore -- can we even imagine the Narnian books being written with their familiar plot materials, but with stories told in such a way that they are just fantasy adventures with nothing much really to say about morality or to suggest about religion? In such versions, Aslan would be the absent Lion King who comes back in all his strength like the proverbial cavalry soldiers rushing down the hill to pull off a last-minute rescue. He wouldn't have anything much to do with Edmund, who would have had a good talking-to from Lucy and got his act together, I suppose. The White Witch would have got away so as to leave the way open for sequels -- ?

Meh.

I take your point about the whole Narnia series being more Anglican flavoured than allegorical, but it is a bit of a stretch to argue that there are not at least allegorical facets to TLTWATW. I think a lot of people would take Aslan’s killing on the table and his return as a fairly plain crucifiction-resurrection allegory.

 

[Extollager]

I wouldn't quarrel with that, Hitmouse.

But a couple of considerations.

1.Should we say that the presence of an allegorical passage in a work makes that whole work an allegory? Would doing so aid good reading? I'd think that allegorization needs to be pretty pervasive, as in The Pilgrim's Progress, before I would identify it as such. It seems to me that much of the Narnian series, even The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (which is probably more "allegorical" than the others), is not allegorical but is mostly the enjoyment of an imagined world and the telling of a story about children who visit it. For example, is the episode with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver at all "allegorical"? For that matter, is Mr. Tumnus the faun "allegorical"? Is the lamp-post an allegorical object? Does Cair Paravel represent something, allegorically? I'd say no to all of these questions.

2.In writing the Narnian books, Lewis may have been working with Spenser's Faerie Queene. Somewhere I read how those 6+ volumes are of variable degrees of allegory, from strongly allegorical when Redcrosse fights a monster called Error that vomits books, to not, or not very, allegorical in other places. I think the FQ is overall much more allegorical than the Narnian books, though; so I don't have a problem with people referring to FQ as an allegory. But anyway, in FQ you get a "mixture" of Classical mythology, Christian tradition, Northern European folklore, etc. And so in the Narnian books you have river nymphs, Father Christmas, dwarfs and dragons, and so on. The Narnian books should be a good preparation for many children who will later, one hopes, have the chance to read Spenser.

 

[chongjasmine]

I love Narnia, too and I am an adult.

 

[reddishbird]

Me too. What's wrong with a good fantasy for children of any age?