Planet Narrnia

[Griffin NoName]

A BBC programme has alerted me to Planet Narnia with amazement that I managed to miss it's publication last March.

This is the theory of a third deeper layer to the 7 Narnia novels each relating to one of the 7 planets and based on CS Lewis's apparent love of and interest in the planets and tied into medieval "stuff" given that he was a medievalist (academic).

The BBC programme itself was ace until it finally revealed the planet theory in a flourish after the lengthy and excellent lead in, and thereafter descended into the usual Christian arguments. I was disappointed that they couldn't stay with the planets for longer without bringing Christianity into it all, though there was an attempt to truck with the Gods of the days of the week by the book's author which was quickly put to one side by the "narrator". Ok, Ok, I know that we have to accept the Christianity in Narnia, but why does it have to spill over all? I suppose that is a definition of Christianity - it spills over all. Alas, the programme never did go back and tie anything much of the lead in into the planetary revelations.

A glancing shot of The God Illusion and its ilk was topped by two highly important G-d boffins ranting about Science only asking answerable questions (OK I sound bitter but one of them once destroyed a 19th century rose garden of the most magnificant roses of massive meaning to me on a whim without consulting me and without any real knowledge of it, such is the power of over-endowed G-d-boffins) (and he ended by defining the world as a miserable place which G-d 's purpose was to transform to joy and beauty [I paraphrase] as usual having a hotline to G-d I presume or else how the hell does he know?).

And, lo, there at the Planet Narnia site I find yards and yards of Christian reviews (and not much else)........  surely the beauty of finding a third and ? deeper level would be to explore it separately? Maybe the book does, but I shan't be buying it to find out.

[beagle]

Never got round to reading the Narnia books, so it's all a bit of a mystery to me.

...he ended by defining the world as a miserable place which G-d 's purpose was to transform to joy and beauty [I paraphrase] as usual having a hotline to G-d I presume or else how the hell does he know?).

If he wants some un-answered questions refer him to Epicurus' ones:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

If he counters with the "Job" defence, "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" then say gods who evade questions make you nervous; too much like politicians.

[Swatopluk]

I read the books and found them lacking. Even his friend Tokien found them a bit of hackwork. Imo they are highly eclectic and lack depth beyond the "message".
To again use Tolkien as a comparision, Middleearth feels lived in and seems to have existence beyond the writer's/reader's range of sight, Narnia ends at the horizon (and a rather narrow one that is), if not just a stonethrow from the path*. Tolkien's world is a living organism, Lewis' a skeleton with hides pulled over it but no flesh.
Not talking here about Lewis subordinating the plot (and occasionally logic**) to the Christian message (he always does), he could do much better as a writer.
What I like about Lewis is that he wanted to leave as much as possible to his (child) reader's imagination. He might have liked the BBC adaption but would have hated the Hollywood spectacle. But there is a difference between leaving gaps for the reader to fill and just putting partially random pieces together with visible seams.
Occasionally he produces scenes that hint at a greater depth (like the Forest-between-the-Worlds in The Magician's Nephew) but they are far too rare.


*I feel reminded of adventure games on the computer with an automapping function that shows only those parts the player has already explored. Narnia leaves the impression that only those parts exist and that stepping off the path would just lead to empty space.

**Most notable in the (otherwise far better written) Ransom Trilogy, where actions of characters tend to be dictated by them being 'good' or 'evil' not by the situation. "The logical and easy way would be A but since we are evil, we must use way B, although it makes no sense. That is makes no sense is the point!"

[Griffin NoName]

*I feel reminded of adventure games on the computer with an automapping function that shows only those parts the player has already explored. Narnia leaves the impression that only those parts exist and that stepping off the path would just lead to empty space.

Surely empty space-time?  And isn't that truly imaginative. The child is encouraged not to rely on the written descriptive only to furniture their perceived world. Even if it is step of the path at your peril.

I have no idea why I am defending this. I was always happy to return via the wardrobe.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Meh! I'm happier with His Dark Materials...
 

[Swatopluk]

I think there is a difference between leaving space for the imagination and simply not thinking beyond the current plot line. These are not fairy-tales that do not require a mapped world (few decry the lack of a precise roadmap in small-bright-coulored-equine-movement-outfit and the pre-Snoopy canine). The Discworld started that way (as did Middleearth btw) but the basics of geography were filled in soon. I think even Douglas Adams, who self-admittedly did not care for consistency at all, left us a world that feels more  lived-in. Worse, Narnia began decently there and could have grown organically but Lewis was, it seems, unwilling to keep it up. Middleearth had to be expanded (and also implicitly contracted between the Shire and Rivendell btw) during the writing of LotR but the basic map was there from the start. Narnia was more like "We need another country here. Put it somewhere and connect it to the rest in a way that not totally contradicts the previous text. But don't put too much effort in it."
As I (and Tolkien) said, it could have been so much better, if the author would have taken a bit more time and effort.
Personally I also think that the general quality suffered while the series progressed (and I know that it was not written strictly chronologically).

[Aphos]

I started "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", but just couldn't get through it.  Too lightweight and too preachy for my tastes.  Lightweight doesn't necessarily bother me, except it was TRYING to be meaningful, and failing, IMHO.

[Darlica]

I got a Narnia book as a birthday sometime in my childhood, I think I read half of it, then put it down because the preaching bored.

I guess I gave it away soon after that.

[Aphos]

I got a Narnia book as a birthday sometime in my childhood, I think I read half of it, then put it down because the preaching bored.

I guess I gave it away soon after that.

I tried to watch Dinotopia when it was on TV a while back and had the same problem.  The morality play was handled in such a heavy handed fashion that it was very boring.

[Swatopluk]

I got a Narnia book as a birthday sometime in my childhood, I think I read half of it, then put it down because the preaching bored.

I guess I gave it away soon after that.

I tried to watch Dinotopia when it was on TV a while back and had the same problem.  The morality play was handled in such a heavy handed fashion that it was very boring.

The (long) movie or the following series?
I would not totally disagree but (unlike Lewis) Dinotopia is open to different viewpoints (neither the conformists nor the 'rebels' are completely right or wrong)

[Griffin NoName]

For me, and excluding th Christianity, the prof will be when th e "space" surrounding the Planets is provred siginificant in ways we cannot yet understand. Then Narnia may well come into its own. Also, my belief and aso exclding the Christianty, I think Tolkein and CS Lewis were on different planets.

Meanwhile, I continue to collect wardrobes

[Sibling Qwertyuiopasd]

I read them when I was younger, or had them read to me. I think I had almost all of them read to me, but I don't really remember the later ones very well. I do recall the first, second, third, and fourth very well...

1 - magicians nephew, sets up narnia & witch & deep magic bullshit
2 - lion witch, & wardrobe. - er, lion, witch, & wardrobe stuff.
3 - horse and his boy - I liked this one. climax might've been kind of disappointing.
4 - Prince Caspian - short and din't quite like it. too much of a hollywood attempted crowd-pleaser sequel. I do want to see the movie, since it's short enough that it might WORK as a movie.
5 - Dawn Treader - more Caspian, no idea what he actually did on his trip.
6&7 - um, something about giants? unicorns.... last battle something or other. sounded epic, but never got around to it.

I think I have 2&3 mixed up in placement, but whatever. I was too young to really get too much of the preachyness, so I was in it for just the cosmology of it all, which wasn't too bad, but yeah, in comparison to Tolkien, the world is so unbearably empty.

[Griffin NoName]

Perhaps I was lucky. I never compared them to Tolkein and regarded them as totally other than that. Also, and perhaps being Jewish, I was totally oblivious to the Christianity. The magic places and the magic satisfied me and gave me an alternative world to m crap one. (This is all in retrospect 50 years on).

My understanding of the Planet idea is that if one accepts it, many of the arguments about lack of joined upness, ad hoc add ins, etc, could be ditched by seeing it as a cohesive series based entirely around connecting the 7 planets. But, as I said, I haven't read the Planet book and don't intend to.

In any case, Tolkein is in a different league altogether and I don't see the point of putting them in the same paragraph even if they went to the pub together

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That's a testament to the test of time, at the time both books were of little literary interest, now Tolkien is seen at his proper stature, and perhaps due to the halo effect Lewis may be more appreciated than he should.

The religious tones of Lewis make me think of the literary value of most sacred texts, perhaps the humans two thousand years from now will be able to see them more impartially. 

[Griffin NoName]

........perhaps the humans two thousand years from now will be able to see them more impartially. 

If they have compatible DVD players they may......