ext_13364 ([identity profile] swan-tower.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] starlady 2011-01-17 08:52 pm (UTC)

They are definitely like fairy tales (much moreso than they are like legends). It's mixed with a degree of realism* that fairy tales do not traditionally have, but those and fables (and the Bible) were pretty clearly the soil out of which Narnia grew, while for Tolkien it was Norse sagas and the Kalevala.

On the whole, throughout the series, it's very startling how quickly things wrap up. I'd be curious to know what the actual word-counts are for the novels: I wouldn't be surprised if by "official" standards they're barely novellas.


*I'm drawing here on Max Luthi, who says that in fairy tales the magic lies far away, in an indeterminate land and time, but it is spiritually close; when the characters encounter talking animals or mountains of glass, they don't stand around fearing or marveling at these things, but accept them and go on. In legends, by contrast the magic lies physically much closer, in specific real-world locations and often times as well, but it is spiritually far: the characters are afraid, more like real people would be. Lewis starts by grounding the characters in a real time and place, but takes them off to fairy-tale-distant Narnia, and while they do have brief moments of disbelief or fear, they are very brief, and not what an author working today would likely do.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org