starlady | The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Entry tags:

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Lewis, C.S. Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. [1951]

Though my copy of this book is also well-read, I recall clearly not liking it very much until eighth grade, when my second grade reading partner insisted we read it because it was her favorite, and I came to see its good points--namely, Pevensies in Narnia! But despite some things about it that I like very much, I have real problems with it on multiple levels.

swan_tower mentioned that the book has serious structural problems, and it's true; to wit, way too much of the action is told in reported discourse, it takes the Pevensies too long to join up with Caspian (though the delay, I suppose, lends a degree of inevitability to their triumph), and most importantly of all, wandering around in the woods is bloody boring. I can think of multiple fantasy epics that suffer from this truth--Harry Potter, The Sword of Shannara (oh jebus I wanted to gouge my eyes out in that section); heck, even The Hobbit, the Mirkwood sections are rather long and depressing--and really, I think it's probably just better, if you're ever tempted to have your characters wander around pointlessly in the woods, to just say no. Though Lewis obviously didn't think it was pointless, and this is one of the places where his didactic goals interfere with his storytelling.

To continue the discussion of Susan, though, reading this book I realized that it wasn't just Susan (though she doesn't come off at all well here; Lewis does not like Susan) but adulthood in general that bothers him--at the end, when the older two Pevensies are told that they'll never go back to Narnia, it's summarily because they're getting too old. Now, being me, and reading this as I am in the throes of fannish obsession, I incline to a Watsonian explanation for this that does not reflect well on Aslan, but on the Doylist level, Jack Lewis clearly is deeply suspicious of adults and adulthood in general and adult women in particular. He likes children best, even if he isn't so suspicious of adults as to believe in the automatic moral purity of all children (viz. Edmund). I tend to find this a deeply mistaken and false dichotomy, but I find myself wanting to write a series of children's fantasy books arguing with Lewis, too.

Speaking of arguing with Lewis, rereading these books, it's rather shocking just how much of the architectonics of His Dark Materials that Philip Pullman lifted out of Narnia and transformed for his own purposes, starting with the multiverse theory--Diggory comes out in favor of it in LWW, since of course in TMN he experiences it for himself, and of course he's right. I also feel like Lyra, in a lot of ways, is a conglomeration of traits that in the Pevensies, especially Edmund, are downplayed or denied, starting with the fact that she's a liar and that she betrays her best friend. Edmund comes off fairly well in PC, which I like (EDMUND I <3 YOU), but one feels that's almost because Lewis wants to weight the scales against the older Pevensies. And given the climax of this book, it's clearly not a coincidence that Lucy and Susan were kept out of the battle in LWW, too. For that matter, Mrs. Coulter is clearly an argument with Jadis and the Witch, too.

I was talking with my roommate, who made the invaluable observation that for Lewis, for the Pevensies, Narnia is like a really awesome video game--no matter how enthralled you are playing it, eventually there comes a time when you shut the system off and go back to the rest of your life. Maybe like me you cried at the end of FFX and you've had some emotional catharsis or learned a few things about determination and ethics or what have you (more on that anon), but it's still fundamentally a game, a secondary or dependent reality. And I think that it's pretty obvious, both here and at the end of LWW, that that's the assumption that Lewis is working off of, and thus for him there's no cruelty in either ending, and the Pevensies would have no problem with being called back and forth, because they always know which world is more real. I can't really accept that on an emotional level anymore, but I don't think it ever gave Lewis any trouble. For me, I tend to think that people sort of just become more and more who they actually are over time, so that personal development looks sort of like a spiral, and the idea of becoming who you were as an adult and then being summarily transformed back into a child is just fundamentally, well, destabilizing and awful, and I don't think there's any way that having been an adult wouldn't show in your behaviour even after you became a child again. Lewis disagrees with me here, obviously.

But you know what? REEPICHEEP, that's what. And also, what is up with Bacchus and the Maenads?

Also, for what it's worth and for your information, the semi-official Narnia chronology.

Okay, actually, I have more to say about Reepicheep, because I've already mentioned Tolkien and Pullman and Croggon in these posts and

epershand brought up Oz in the comments to the last one and really, at this point I'm actively looking for ways to connect the canon of children's fantasy with itself--for instance, I'm developing the conviction that J.K. Rowling is having an argument with Tolkien, though not as pointedly as Pullman is with Lewis. But on the specific topic of Reepicheep, and the importance of food in these books and particularly here and in LWW, which I wouldn't have twigged to if not for

jennifer_gale's comment--these books are clearly the locus classicus not only for Watership Down but for Brian Jacques' Redwall books, which pretty much are all about mice (and the occasional squirrel) with swords. A Sword in particular, actually. And let me just say, if you haven't read the Redwall books, and you enjoyed the high adventure of HHB, you really should read the first seven of the Redwall books (going by publication order). They're fun, and ethical[*ETA see below], and have lots of food and song and swashbuckling, and are better on gender issues than Lewis. I ♥ Mariel.

Also, if you haven't seen the two Narnia festivids, Never the Same and The Greatest Day, you should, because they're both pretty damn awesome.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

And I think that it's pretty obvious, both here and at the end of LWW, that that's the assumption that Lewis is working off of, and thus for him there's no cruelty in either ending, and the Pevensies would have no problem with being called back and forth, because they always know which world is more real. I can't really accept that on an emotional level anymore, but I don't think it ever gave Lewis any trouble.

I think this is the main reason why finding out about the books' Christian allegory was such a cruel betrayal for me, and why I've never been able to reread them since: it told me that Narnia was realer to me than it had ever been to Lewis. And once I'd seen that, I couldn't unsee it; it really is all over the text.

Yeah, I was reading VDT last night and actually feeling really weirdly emotional and wishing I hadn't started this reread--it's not the Christianity of the books per se that bothers me, but the casual brutality of the ending of TLB and its message that heaven is better than here, which I find really, really dubious, and I think I would even if I were Christian--though granted it would be an extreme interpretation I think you can totally construct an interpretation of TLB that basically says, Kill yourself now, the Shadowlands suck and they aren't real anyway, heaven is better! And I passionately disagree with all those ideas, and I would even if I were still a theist; the point of Frodo going to Valinor is that it's after he's won through his struggle, the point of Timeheart is that it's there for after you've laid down your life, or simply lived it out, in service of Life and in defiance of the Lone Power, to totally speak on two levels at once. And I don't agree with Lewis that it wouldn't bother the Pevensies, and for me and I think for them too Narnia is just as real, or would be, and I think in some ways he violates the reader-author contract w/r/t suspension of disbelief.

I am really enjoying these posts, although I remember Narnia rather poorly and don't have much to say about them specifically. Would love to hear about how Rowling is arguing with Tolkien.

I am a little surprised by your description of the first seven Redwall books as "ethical." I mostly enjoyed them as a kid, but I was always deeply, deeply bothered by the whole concept of "vermin", and birth/species dooming you to be evil/gross/mean/generally despicable. I gave up on the Redwall books many books ago, but I don't remember Jacques ever making more than a token attempt to subvert that (I even vaguely recall one token attempt with a "vermin" character trying to be good but ultimately failing because his vermin nature kept taking over), and that's a huge sticking point for me in recommending the books to anyone.

I really...just can't find a non-nasty way to read that pattern. (it probably doesn't help that I am personally extremely fond of rats and ferrets and so on, and find the concept of kind cuddly badgers fundamentally hilarious and wrong-headed--but regardless, fantasy being about animals or aliens or vampires or whatever does not to me justify intrinsically evil species).

...wow, I have a lot of Redwall issues. This is only the main one.

Those are very good points. My calling the books "ethical" above is part of another related discussion with my roommate that will get mentioned at some point in these posts, but you're right about the skeeviness of the whole "vermin" thing in Jacques. It's been eons since I've read any of the books, but just thinking about them now, yeah, I have problems with that. The Outcast of Redwall, that book you mention with the possibly good ferret, did not work for me, I can tell you that much.

I think, on further consideration, that I probably would say that the books are moral in the sense that they do emphasize things like bravery, friendship, keeping one's promises, helping out other people--fairly basic social morality, yes, but morality all the same (though I should admit that I rate ethics over morals). And they are very fun swashbuckling, problems and all. I remember them very fondly, I must say.

That makes sense, yeah. Hmmm, do you think they emphasis that basic social morality more than Narnia does?

I don't know if I could read them at all now, but they were fun at a certain age. (Although they did leave me with a general lack of tolerance for loving descriptions of food in fantasy.)

(There's a really vicious Jacques satire floating around now, which is...well, pretty harsh, but I confess, I really do want to know what his reasoning behind the vermin thing is. I do not find the explanation at the unofficial FAQ at all convincing...but then, I have ideas about what constitutes good writing which pretty much preclude "I need to symbolize the villain's evil....by making him a rat!".)

That makes sense, yeah. Hmmm, do you think they emphasis that basic social morality more than Narnia does?

…I don't know. I think the most ethical of all children's/YA fantasy is far and away Diane Duane's Young Wizards books, which are and always will be my gold standard in that department. I think the answer depends on what values one sees in Narnia--I know that Lewis intended them to be Christian, but I didn't read them that way as a kid, and I'm still not emotionally convinced by that allegorical edge (though I'm surprised now just how much I must have ignored without even realizing it). So I'd rate Narnia and Redwall about equal in terms of morality and problematic elements, but obviously other people more attached to the Christianity of Narnia would think differently. I think the one thing Narnia does show unequivocally, excepting TLB, is forgiveness and repentance (see icon)--which some people I think would say are Christian ideas, but which undoubtedly have a wider social currency. Redwall definitely doesn't have that; Jacques' stories aren't that morally complex, I think. His protagonists struggle at best with self-doubt and external betrayals.

I really need to read Diane Duane--I've had so many recs for them.

I know that Lewis intended them to be Christian, but I didn't read them that way as a kid, and I'm still not emotionally convinced by that allegorical edge

They are in a really weird place, I think.

Jacques' stories aren't that morally complex, I think

I think that's my big issue with them. He justifies a lot of things in them to make a not-morally-complex point, and I think that's insulting to the audience (and perhaps harmful). Part of the reason I've always had a problem with good vs evil fantasy is that the real world is not black and white, it's complex--and I feel that fantasy, including (especially?) fantasy for kids should be a lens for addressing emotional and social realities. I don't think oversimplifying does anyone a service.

I can confidently predict that you would like certain aspects of Young Wizards very much. Simple they are not, and they're often dazzlingly sublime.

I don't think oversimplifying does anyone a service.

In principle I agree with this, unquestionably, but in practice I find myself emotionally attached to a lot of children's fantasy even though it does tend to oversimplify, I think. Jacques is particularly egregious, but so are Lewis and Tolkien in only slightly different ways. In general I think more recent children's fantasy is much better at this, but I think this is also part and parcel of ideas about childhood changing over the past century or so, and I wonder about going too far, but then I doubt my own doubt.

The real problem I have with so much of children's fantasy is the gratuitous cruelty of the endings.

Edited 2011-01-25 19:37 (UTC)

but in practice I find myself emotionally attached to a lot of children's fantasy even though it does tend to oversimplify, I think.

Oh, definitely, me too. But at the same time...I think that if there had been more moral complexity to the average children's fantasy when I was a kid, I would have read more children's fantasy (instead I read a lot of adult SFF, of varying quality).

The real problem I have with so much of children's fantasy is the gratuitous cruelty of the endings.

This, too. I get the impression with some types of children's books that the authors have...not found adulthood kind, and perhaps didn't find childhood kind, so they're trying to, I don't know, recreate something that never existed? But they know it's not real, and so there's this edge of bitterness or nastiness to all of it. (Roald Dahl is a prime example.) I'm not sure, really.

Redwall I see, easily, but I'm not catching the Watership Down connection here.

---L.

*eh heh heh* I've never actually read Watership Down; I tried at one point in high school? and was bored and gave up. But everyone mentions it in connection with Redwall--though perhaps Adams is drawing from Kenneth Grahame et al.

No, hardly any Grahame in WD either. There's traces of it being post-Tolkien (in the rabbit mythologies) and possibly also Alan Gardner, but it reads to me primarily like the work of someone who has read and absorbed at a very deep level Virgil and Homer and box of natural history books.

There's a bit of WD in Redwall, though, and in practically every other talking animal fantasy since (including Tad Williams' oddity).

---L.

The problem with PC, that I've always felt, is that it's actually a relatively ugly, normal-world story about how a set of conquerors move into Narnia and then get bogged down in vicious dynastic squabbling, and then it is a story of that ordinary-world crashing headfirst into the wild-world of the living woods and Bacchus and Aslan and everything else, and then Lewis went off and wrote mostly about the Pevensies and tried to make them the center of the book.

They aren't. Caspian is the centre of this story. It's a story that should be about the mediation of that wild-world and the Telmarines-ordinary-world that doesn't end up in mass slaughter for both, personified by this thirteen year old child who was very nearly locked up in a tower his whole life (Caspian may not have REALIZED that he was a prisoner in his own life, but he clearly was), who goes from that to being dumped head-first into, well, EVERYTHING ELSE.

But it's not, because instead (and it's very much "instead", not "and") Lewis decided to mostly tell the story about how growing up is bad, and faith is good, and add a mild bunch of boys-own-adventure stuff in having the Pevensies treck across Narnia.

Re: Edmund - for all the problems I have with, well, EVERYTHING about the metaphysics of this 'verse, the moment where Aslan looks at Edmund and says "well done" in PC will make me tear up every. damn. time. Because whatever I think about Aslan as a god-thing, it is very clear that he is Edmund's god-thing, chosen and devoted, and so the level of vindication for Edmund Pevensie in that moment has to be unbelievable.

And I would agree that if Narnia had any influence on Watership Down, it was only in a sniff of disgust at how thin and ridiculous it was as an idea, and going on to paint over it in large strokes. (WD is . . . an interesting book. I would not class it as a children's book, unless you feel that all thinking-animal books must be children's books. It has rather too much sex and bloody violence for that.)

Edited 2011-01-25 06:21 (UTC)

The imbalance in the two sides of the book is striking. Either Lewis didn't know his story well, or he just ignored his authorial senses tingling.

I am slowly accumulating more problems with the metaphysics of Narnia, but yes, Edmund. I appreciated anew all over again his vindication in this book, even though Lewis shoehorns it into his "growing up is bad" agenda. Sigh.

Before the movie of PC came out, I re-read the book, and it squarely hit a button I had recently formed because of the game I was running. (Memento, the game that gave rise to the Onyx Court books.) Bear with me while I give some background; I promise I'll get back to Narnia.

Memento was a Changeling game, and in Changeling, humans can't see faerie things unless they're enchanted; also, once the enchantment ends, they forget most of what they saw. But fae-blooded humans can have faerie gifts, and so when I was making Nicholas Merriman, the last scion of a family that had been helping the faeries for hundreds of years, I gave him the gift that lets you remember everything from while you were enchanted.

Not until later did it occur to me what a hideously cruel thing I had done to Nicholas. The characters enchanted him several times -- which was tantamount to taking him to Oz or Narnia for a few days, where everything is more colorful and magical and amazing, and then kicking him out again. Leaving him with a perfect recollection of what he had lost, the wonder all around him . . . that he was incapable of seeing for himself.

So when I re-read PC, I instantly thought about what that would do to the Pevensies, and Susan in particular. It made me so very happy that the film brought it up explicitly, with Lucy asking Susan if she isn't happy to be back, and Susan saying yes . . . but how long will it last? Because I'm with you: after how much the characters go on about the simultaneously numinous and real feeling of Narnia, the idea that pulling the plug doesn't scar them forever is just impossible for me to believe. The movie also flat-out changes the reason Peter and Susan don't come back, in my opinion for the philosophical better; how horrible would it be to hear it's just because you're too old? (Especially when you became an adult in Narnia, before getting demoted to childhood once more?)

If I ever write my "problem of Susan" story, that experience is going to be at the heart of it.

I'd love to hear the stuff in your last graf, both the Reepicheep and Rowling parts.

Re: Reepicheep and Jacques, it just screams influence to me, both Reepicheep in PC (valiant warrior) and as he is in VDT (he's got a quest! and a Destiny!)--both of those things are pretty prominent in the characters of Matthias and Martin the Warrior, I think, and really the world of Redwall reads to me (with the caveat again that it's been eons since I read those books too) as if Jacques just decided to write Narnia with all Talking Animals and no magic. Which makes things a good deal simpler in some ways.

I'd have to reread HP to really develop this idea, I think, and probably Tolkien too, but there are at least a few explicit Tolkien references in HP, the most obvious being the Wormtail/Wormtongue thing, and I also think in some ways they're doing similar things--you know how Tolkien was perpetually toying with the idea that Ennorath/Middle-earth was the distant history of our world, and that's part of why some things in MIddle-earth are the way they are, like Fourth Age Gondor celebrating the new year on 25 March? It reminds me of things like the money in the wizarding world being the same as pre-decimalization British Muggle money, and I think on some level Rowling's books offer a view of the world in which it's possible to see magic in the background, the same way that Tolkien's books (and Allison Croggon's too, actually) offer an ancient past in the background.

After rereading PC I'm even more on board with the changes the movie made, for all the reasons you mention. And I like a lot of things in the VDT movie much better than the book, too, particularly at the ending. Maybe it's just a difference in storytelling style between then and now (well, it's definitely that, at least in part), but I feel like the Narnia movies are making a lot of similar changes that Peter Jackson and company did to LotR--though I think a lot of the Jackson changes are just bringing up bits of the backstory that are stated canonically elsewhere and suturing them into the alpha narrative, whereas the Narnia movies are taking more things on extrapolation.

Anyway. Narnia. My heart hurts for all of them (and this is what I like about bedlamsbard's fic, she is very much on board with the cruelty of it all).

I haven't read the Redwall stuff in years, but based on my recollection I think you're right about that being Narnia with all Talking Animals and no magic. I hadn't thought about Reepicheep connecting to specific characters, but that's because I don't remember specific characters very well.

I'm not sure I see the Rowling/Tolkien thing as clearly, though. (For one thing, wizarding money isn't the same as pre-decimalization currency; it shares the trait of not dividing by tens, but Knuts and Sickles and Galleons don't actually map to pennies and shillings and pounds, much less the actual coinage. But I'll stop before I go off into random currency neepery, which would not be interesting to anybody, me included.)

Re: LotR movies, I'm in the camp of liking almost all of the changes Jackson made. But I was never a die-hard fan of the books, so I wasn't married to the original form of the story.

And now we have proved that you know more about pre-decimalization British money than I do. *g* I'm not sure about the HP-Tolkien thing either, to be honest, but it's interesting to think about.

I just rewatched all three of the extended editions, and I was confirmed again in my conviction that Jackson & co. did a stellar job--I really like almost all of the changes that they made, even though I suppose I could call myself a die-hard fan of the books, given my history of rereading them and everything else Tolkien wrote from the age of nine onwards.

Short form of the currency thing is, there were lots of coins that weren't pennies, shillings, and pounds (in fact, there was no actual "pound" coin, though there were coins with other names worth one pound), and they didn't map neatly out into bronze/copper, silver, and gold.

What I think is interesting about HP in the context of the fantasy genre is the way it puts a Dark Lord in a more realistic political and social context. It isn't about some numinous figure sweeping down out of a foreign realm or other plane; he was a guy, who went evil, and almost took control. More Hitler than Sauron.

My thing with Tolkien is that, since I didn't imprint on and love the books -- I admire them intellectually, but don't read them for fun -- I have no problem with seeing any update to bring it more in line with current narrative conventions as an improvement. Tempting Faramir with the Ring? Giving Aragorn self-doubts? Tightening up the pacing in Fellowship? I'm on board for all of it. It makes the story more compelling to me, not less.

I know I have a couple random farthing and ha'penny coins from back in the day, as well as some of the shilling-part coins too.

Ah, the Faramir thing, undoubtedly the most controversial change in all the movies. I don't have a problem with it, though I think Faramir could have been left unchanged if they hadn't given Aragorn self-doubts (though not, however, temptation by the Ring, which is what proves that he's got both the blood and the merit to be King), but I liked all of those changes in context--they do make for a more compelling story. Tolkien, especially at the beginning, is relating the basis for what becomes a legend by the end of the books.

I do very much like the way everything in HP goes by choice. Sometimes in a very horrible and deterministic way, but choices have consequences, and she's good at showing the long-term consequences of the choices the characters make. And yeah, totally Hitler, both Voldemort and Grindelwald.

I am a huge fan of choice. Which is why I liked so many of the changes in LotR, because they often went in that vein: Aragorn choosing to step up despite his doubts, Faramir being different from Boromir not by being not-tempted but by being tempted and choosing differently. Character is such a huge part of how I get into a story, anything that makes the characters more complex and realistic is generally a plus in my book.

(I do get what Tolkien was doing, stylistically; I've read a lot of the sagas that were his inspiration. But those stories don't wring my heart the way modern characterization can.)

This book is my favorite of the series, but I'm not really sure what to say about it in the context of this discussion. Let's see...

One of the things I love about it is that of all the books, it most directly deals with the Pevensies trying to reconcile their adult and child identities. I wish, as I think a lot of us do, that it had gone much further in exploring that, but we get more of it here than anywhere else. The Pevensies have a dual nature in this book that has always intrigued me. It also hits my competence kink hard; they've been through this once and know what to do this time, and they become more competent the longer they're there.

recessional made the point that this is really Caspian's story, and I think the interesting thing about that is that it's Caspian who provides the child POV in this book — he's the one who's discovering Narnia for the first time — whereas the Pevensies represent a hybrid child/adult viewpoint and are already at home in Narnia (and, in fact, are themselves an important part of the Narnian culture into which Caspian is being initiated).

It strikes me that every book in the series, with the exception of TLB, is somebody's Narnian initiation story.

I love the emphasis on the amount of time that has passed in Narnia and how they have to mentally reconstruct Cair Paravel like archaeologists to recognize it as their home. (I loved that there were illuminated manuscripts and cave paintings of the Pevensies in the PC film.)

And because I am one of those people who enjoys loving descriptions of food in literature, I love the part about roasting bear meat with apples. :) I've always thought that sounded delicious, even though I would never be able to eat it in real life.

Narnia! Narnia!
Between the mountains and the sea!
West wind blew there, and the light
Upon the silver tree…

Oh wait, wrong epic fantasy series.

Yeah, it's striking to me all over again, reading VDT, that Caspian in the book of VDT is younger than he is in the PC movie, even, and it's interesting that the movie made him that much older than the Pevensies, but so much less competent. And I totally agree with you about discovering Narnia all over again, every time; that's a great point.

I've heard bear meat is good, but I haven't had it. :)

Now I want to read a remix of TLB focused on Emeth's discovery of Narnia.

Yeah, I was just thinking, reading this thread, that TLB is the Calormenes' discovery of Narnia. *g*

Yep... but unfortunately they fail even more thoroughly than Jadis did to understand what Narnia is really about.

Yeah, but they're also given much less time to do so. I can't imagine that they're that much worse than the Telmarines when they first invaded. (Though Lewis would probably disagree with me.)

True. One could perhaps argue that they had centuries of sending ambassadors and such, but of course that's not the same as living there.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject