In chapter 6 of Surprised by Joy, there is a passage (pp. 96-100) where Lewis talks of his extreme weariness. He said "Never, except in the front-line trenches (and not always there) do I remember such aching and continuous weariness as at Wyvern." I thought that it was interesting that he could compare his weariness at school to that of his fatigue from his experience of trench warfare. He also wrote "Consciousness itself was becoming the supreme evil; sleep, the prime good. To lie down, to be out of the sound of voices, to pretend and grimace and evade and sling no more, that was the object of all desire--if only there were not another morning ahead--if only sleep could last for ever!" Don't we all feel like this sometimes? I know that I have, especially now that I have been in college.

At the end of chapter 12 in "Suprised by Joy", Lewis talks about his involvement in World War I. He describes the actual war quite fleetingly, and follows his descriptions with phrases like, "all this shows rarely and faintly in memory" or "the war itself has been so often described by those who saw more of it than I that I shall here say little about it." This draws a parallel of sorts to things he wrote in the Narnia books about how the children react to battle. When confronted with battle in the Narnia books we don't get detailed descriptions of the battle, instead we get brief, almost abstract comments on how the battles are won. Take Eustace ("The Last Battle") or Peter (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) for instance. In battles with the Calormen and the Wolf respectively, both are not described in war time lingo with a slash here and a block there and then a fatal blow. They are described with reference to the person in battle and what he feels. Peter is in a hairy mess with the wolf and comes out alive. Eustace was suprised when the Calormen lay dead at his feet. Is there something to be said about Lewis' reluctance to be in depth when talking about battle or war? Compare him to someone like Tolkien and consider how fleeting his descriptions of battle really are. Why is this?

Responding to the first seven chapters of Surprised by Joy, I am shocked that Lewis, a man so completely disassociated with people, is a man who ends up as one of the most popular writers of his day and ours. Lewis writes nothing of any friendships he made through his childhood with the exception of his brother. Furthermore he discusses at length the agony of the social situations, such as dances, he was subjected to in his early years. He seems to be a man who lived all but entirely in his head feeding his thoughts with astonishing amounts of literature. It is interesting that a man who seems to have no way of socially connecting with people so exceptionally connects with others on an intellectual level. He then continues on to masterfully translate these connections into words. That Lewis can express himself in words may well be thought of as a product of his expansive readings and his contemplative nature, but how is it that Lewis is able to connect with others so effectively despite his lack of social relationship skills?

Here's something I was thinking about concerning the Last Battle. I thought it was interesting how Emeth, the Calormen soldier, made into paradise even though he served Tash. But he served Tash honorably so thats how he ended up there. It just caught my attention that someone could get into that paradise even though they didn't believe in Aslan.
.

Just something that caught my eye in Surprised by Joy....

While reading through chapter 2, Concentration Camp, I noticed how he mentioned the influence of H.G. Wells. "The idea of other planets exercised upon me then a peculiar, heady attraction, which was quite different from any other of my literary interests."(pg 35)
I find this interestings because I have read "That Hideous Strength" from his Space Trilogy and one can definitely see how important a role the "idea of other planets" played in it, even though the setting was earth. He then connected those planets with Greek mythology and even brought Merlin from the Arthur legend into the mix, which were other subjects that tickled his fancy in his younger years. I find it amazing how he was able to weave all of them together to make such a unique and wonderful story. It seems that all of the books and subjects he enjoyed when he was younger have played a role in what stories he told and what characters he used.

However, since I haven't ready too many of his books, I was wondering if anyone could tell me if the Norse mythology showed up in any of his writings? I also wonder what caught everyone else's eye (as far as they read it) in Lewis' autobiography?

Earlier today I was thinking about other Narnian moments and I remembered a passage from Prince Caspian that kind of bugged me. The four children are with the dwarf Trumpkin trying to decide whether to go up the gorge or down. Meanwhile, Lucy spots Aslan in the distance indicating that he wants them to climb up the gorge. She excitedly tells the others that she saw Aslan and nobody believes her. They take a vote and everyone votes to go down the gorge except Edmund and Lucy. Edmund sides with Lucy because he thinks that they owe it to her to believe her this time. Peter and Susan once again question Lucy's judgment and overrule her. How could they not believe her when she has been right before?

Links

You may have noticed there are now a list of links at the right side of the page. Follow them and you'll find lots of stuff about Lewis and others. And let me know if you stumble across any links I should add, okay?

Was Susan left behind?

In chapter 12 Through the Stable Door, Peter states to Tirian that Susan is no longer a friend of Narnia. She believes that Narnia is no more than a child's game and seems to have forgotten the real adventures she had there. Susan is now too grown up. Polly says,

"I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time
wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest
of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race on
to the sillieest time of one's life as quick as she can and then stop
there as long as she can." (Chapter 12)

Susan's priorities have turned and now Narnia is no longer something on her list of priorities. So this leads me to my question, at the end Lucy, Peter, and Edmund see their parents and the real England in the New Narnia but Susan seems to be missing (chapter 16). Has Susan's grown up attitude prevented her from going to New Narnia? I'm interested in everybody else's ideas about this.

So going back to what we were talking about today as far as Aslan as a Christ vs. Jesus. I wanted to say this during class but we kinda ran out of time and that was the first comment about Jesus always advocating peace. I dont have a problem with that, and a agree with it 100%. But I just wanted to point out that Aslan also advocated peace when the Witch initially came to meet with him, it seemed like the animals on his side wanted to rip the Witch apart right there but he wouldn't allow it. And yes, Aslan did lead his troops after he came back to life. Now the point I wanted to make was that Jesus also reacted in anger and violence (maybe not killing anyone) in the temple when he freaked out on everyone for what was going on in there. So I thought maybe Aslan clearing the Witch out of Narnia could be compared to Jesus cleaning out the temple. Just a thought, what ya'll think?

Despite the fact that I realize it's just a story and even though I've read it before and know how it ends, I find it hard to read beginning of the Last Battle. The idea of the donkey being used as a pawn for the ape's ambitions in itself sickens me. But this thought doesn't compare to the way I feel about the damage being done, not only to the physical, tangible world of Narnia on the ape's whim, but also to the inhabitants of Narnia's faith and sense of well-being based on their beliefs about Aslan. The Narnians faith in Aslan is seriously put to the test by all of these things they believe him to be doing contrary to what they had previously understood about Aslan. This is a rather blatant parallel to what we believe about the end of days and the anti-Christ. Perhaps this is why it disturbs me so much.
As a reader my first thought was, "Why are they so easily tricked? Don't they realize it isn't really Aslan? Can't be Aslan as they have understood him?" In answer to these questions a thought came to me, they want to believe it is Aslan. They would rather rearrange all of their beliefs slightly about who Aslan is rather than be disillusioned by realizing Aslan hasn't actually returned. No one wants to play the fool and admit he/she was tricked. So, they will try to rationalize what is happening to fit into what they want to be. Thoughts like, "Well, maybe the stories weren't the way things really were when he was last here. No one alive has ever met him personally before, maybe this is the way things have always been." It seems people are easily taken in when they want to believe something is true.

Is it significant that it is Lucy and Susan who accompany Aslan back to the Stone Table and stay with him?

I got to thinking this question while we were talking about Lewis and gender. It just seems interesting to me that only the girls followed him and stayed with him. Could this be because Lewis, being a product of his world, uses the typical female traits we usually associate with girls? That they are good at comforting people and have maternal instincts? Or could it be because that girls are allowed to cry and have that be completely okay with the audience that reads the book? Many boys are brought up with the notion that crying is not okay for them unless they want to be known as crybabies or crying is alright only for major reasons such as a death in the family and even that should be in secret. I was just wondering what everyone else's ideas or thoughts were about this.

Something (slightly, but not really) relevant to the discussion today in class.
Click for the full version!



(c) David Willis
www.shortpacked.com

For your considerations: the musings of a guy who hadn't visited Narnia until this last week.

I sometimes wonder if Aslan is like something out of Peter Pan or the Polar Express; if you're not a child, you sort of lose the mystery and wonder of the entire story. I read The Lion, the Witch and the Wadrobe this last week, and, quire frankly, I'm a little confused. Not with the story, because it's a basic good overcomes evil affair (with a resurrection thrown in for good measure), nor for finding the glaring allegories that stared me down at times (although I might have had a little trouble finding the more subtle ones). No, none of those things were too much to wrap my college-level brain around.

The problem, I've found, is Aslan. The intimidating head honcho? Sure. The god-mode superhero that swoops in an kicks butt? Fine. The... Christ figure? Well... let's talk about that. You see, in the reading that I've done, and granted, I haven't read all of the Narnian lore there is to explore, I'm mostly puzzled with how much Aslan is not like Christ at times.

Upon looking at some articles on the ever-credible internet, I've found that the opinion of many seemingly Evangelical Christians is that Aslan is a perfect Christ figure because of his undeserved death on behalf of the treachorous Edmund (www.talesofnarnia.com, for example). I don't contest this point. The two figures' deaths were pretty similar, as were the nature of Aslan and Jesus at times (very compassionate, kind).

My problem is that Lewis seems to "suppose" that the Narnian Christ-figure (not the allegorial Christ) did not have the humanistic aspect of Christ that I believe Jesus possessed, thus not being anywhere near an accurate representation of Christ. Now, of course, there are varying theological opinions on 'how human' or 'how God-like' Jesus actually was, but I didn't find that Aslan lived a life that was similar to the one that Jesus did while he was "in the flesh and dwealt among us (1 John 1:14)."

Before I give my exact thoughts on this, however, I'd like to know if you guys are tracking with me, and if so, what your opinion is on how closely the symbolism of Aslan and Christ are related.

---CJ

The weakening of the White Witch's power is first given serious attention in chapter ten of LWW, “The Spell Begins to Break.” Here it is clearly shown that the melting of the snow, the thawing of the rivers, and, in effect, the coming of spring is all due to Aslan's arrival.

Yet, several chapters earlier (the previous day), the Pevensie children are led to Mr. Beaver by a Robin (chapter six - “Into the Forest”). I do not know the habits of European robins, but, if they are anything like our American robins, it would seem that the sight of that bird would be a first sign of spring. At least (with regard to American robins), it appears that robins are among the first migrating birds to be seen back north in early spring – often before the snow has left the ground (i.e. when it seems that winter is still here).

Indeed, Lucy exclaims that the Robin is the first bird she has seen in Narnia. This seems interesting, for, if the Robin was in fact the first sign of spring's coming, this would mean that spring was on its way before the children had even heard the name of Aslan. Thus, the Witch's power would have been on the wane before the events of chapter ten (and with Aslan “on the move” [ch. 7 “A Day With the Beavers”], why should her power NOT have already started to be less evident?)

This is just a silly thought, of course.

Any ideas?

"You have forgotten to clean your sword," said Aslan. It was true. Peter blushed when he looked at the bright blade and saw it all smeared with the Wolf's hair and blood. He stooped down and wiped it quite clean on the grass, and then wiped it quite dry on his coat.
"Hand it to me and kneel, Son of Adam," said Aslan. And when Peter had done so he struck him with the flat of the blade and said, "Rise up, Sir Peter Wolf's-Bane. And, whatever happens, never forget to wipe your sword."

What do you suppose Lewis means by this passage? Is it "forget what you have done and move forward" or do you think this is merely a passage about how to literally take care on one's own sword? What do you guys think?

Fantasy appeals to our imagination as it builds fantastic worlds around supernatural characters. I think the "normal" children in the Narnia stories, such as Lucy, Edmund, Susan and Peter, are a "supposal" (as Jack would call it) of what it would be like for us to be thrown into the life of Jesus (Aslan) when He walked the Earth as a man. Let's face it, the story of our God giving a part of himself to walk among us as a man is a supernatural and fantastic story itself, especially to non-believers. Is Lewis, through this story, maybe making a comment on the childlike faith it takes to accept the role of a somewhat supernatural savior in our lives? If nothing else, these stories make me appreciate just how amazing the story of Jesus truly is...

What's your favorite C. S. Lewis book?