The Narnia Tag
My pal, my buddy, my main slice Katie has passed me a Narnia-themed tag, because she's cool like that. I have a Deep & Abiding love for this world that Clive created, so let's jump in!
⸻
Rules
1. Thank the person who nominated you
2. Rate your degree of “Narnia fanatic” (nostalgic, serious, maniacal)
3. Answer the questions below
4. Tag 5+ bloggers
5. Have fun!
Scale of Fanaticism
1. Nostalgic Fanatic: You read the book and/or watched the movies as a child and the word Narnia gives you a warm feeling.
2. Serious Fanatic: You rediscovered the wonder of Narnia after you were older and have read the books and watched the movies.
3. Maniacal Fanatic: You have lived Narnia from childhood, hid in closets on more occasions than is healthy, have read and watched all the movies including the BBC version.
I read the books and watched both the BBC and the Warner Bros. movies as a child; the word Narnia gives me a warm feeling; and I constantly reread the books (and re-watch the movies) as an older person. So . . . as Bilbo would say, "All of them at once, I suppose."
Questions
1. Who’s your favorite Pevensie sibling?
It's Susan.
It just is.
I considered prevaricating for the sake of Conformity to the Fandom Order, talking about how "it's so hard to choose," mentioning how "they're all so wonderful in different ways" — which is both true and irrelevant — but I decided that flat and brutal honesty would be the best policy.
My favorite Pevensie is Susan and it always has been and it probably always will be. She's been my favorite ever since I was a little kid, relating to her so strongly in her struggle with religious doubt and her mom-friend personality. I knew on a personal level what it was like to have that risk-averse disposition, that compulsive commitment to safety / responsibility / order / seemliness which earns her the reputation of being a "tattletale" or a "spoilsport" with her siblings. As a child I felt (and sometimes still feel *cough*) Personally Attacked by the bad rap she gets (and the simultaneous adulation that Lucy receives but *cough 2nd* let's not go there). Are the grievances rational? Quite possibly not, but they're there and I ain't apologizing for 'em today. 😆
2. What is the most underrated Narnia book?
I think it's probably a toss-up between The Magician's Nephew, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and The Silver Chair. Possibly VotDT for the ultimate most underrated. (It's probably my least favorite, so I technically contribute to it being underrated, but like. I understand on an impersonal level that it's underrated. If that makes sense.)
3. Who is your favorite Narnian king?
FRANK.
Frank the Cabby, the first King of Narnia. He has a tremendous amount of both sense & sensibility, and I love him dearly, and I maintain that his contribution to the second half of The Magician's Nephew is invaluable.
"Glory be," said the Cabby. "I'd ha' been a better man all my life, if I'd known there were things like this."
4. Who is your favorite Narnian queen?
I mean, Susan. Obviously.
5. Which non-human Narnian do you like best?
PUDDLEGLUMMMMMM, oh my word. 💕💕💕 He's hilarious, heroic, and full of heart.
I mean to say. I MEAN TO SAY. Who doesn't love his iteration of Pascal's Wager (also known as, Monologue So Beautiful It Nearly Brings Tears to My Eyes)??
"One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things — trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."
6. Which book deserves a movie?
THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW.
Look, I already have a cast ready and waiting, see? I've literally done all that I can do, Cinema Gods. It's on you now.
7. What is the one thing you did as a Narnia fan that you do not regret?
I guess the "craziest" thing I've done as a Narnia fan has been committing to writing a novel about post-Chronicles Susan, to "fix" her ending. And I don't regret that at all. 😉
The first draft of the story was completed a year or two ago, but it's in need of s i g n i f i c a n t revision. I haven't returned to it yet, but I hope to do so before too long; I miss it. 💕 In the meantime, if you've a mind, you can check out the Pinterest storyboard and the Spotify playlist I've curated as inspiration while writing!
⸻
*dusts hands*
That'll do us for now! I tag Abigail (@ Novels, Dragons, and Wardrobe Doors), MovieCritic (@ Movies Meet Their Match), and anyone else who's a fan of Narnia and fancies filling out this tag. 😊
How do you feel about The Chronicles of Narnia?
Why, thank you, my buddy, my pal, my home slice ;) <3 And I love your answers here!!!
ReplyDeleteOKAY BUT CAN WE TALK ABOUT SUSAN AND LUCY SOME MORE.
I've always related to Lucy the most, and she's my favorite of the Pevensie sibs, as you know: but. But but but. Susan is really important to me, too!!!! And I don't like the way Narnia fans (encouraged by Lewis' clearly apparent attitudes, I would argue) praise Lucy at Susan's expense. Like, "look how much Better [heavy air quotes from me] Lucy turned out." Enough with the comparisons. Oy with the girl-on-girl hate already.
My mom pointed out that Susan is the ONLY character of the travelers-to-Narnia gang (ie, the Pevensies, Eustace, Jill, Diggory, and Polly, representing Redeemed Christians) who shows any active interest in sex or romance. In other words, it's NOT a coincidence that her romantic/sexual desires are painted as a major reason for her "fall" in The Last Battle. And suffice it to say, I haven't been the same since. *reels in Feminist*
I don't know if Lewis even consciously realized he was doing this; but given the way the kids' stories shake out, one can fairly come to the conclusion that once you've been "born again" (ie, travelled from our world to Narnia) you'd better swear off romance for the rest of your life, or else you're in danger of forgetting Aslan. Because there's literally zero counterexamples!!! The only people allowed to fall in love and pursue adult sexual relationships are the 'special' characters ACTUALLY BORN IN NARNIA--Caspian, Aravis, etc.
(I know Lewis said later that Susan eventually found her way back ... but to me, that doesn't count towards re-establishing good faith in this specific instance. Kind of like how an author or a film studio will tell reporters "oh yeah we totally intended X character to be gay, even though there's no textual evidence," and then expect you to give them brownie points for representation. If you didn't bother to include it in the TEXT of your story, if you didn't bother to WRITE it, then your audience has no obligation to recognized it as canon. You know? So in my eyes, if Lewis genuinely wanted to undo the damage he did with Susan ... he needed to write the dang book.)
Wow, that was, um, a lot. :P But ALL THIS TO SAYYYYYYYYYYYYY, I loved your thoughts in this post, and I continue to be greatly stoked for your Susan sequel story!!!!
*disappears in a shower of encouraging confetti*
I don't think the sex and romance fit or were mean to fit in with these children's books. The focus was on people from our world in Narnia and for them to marry a Narnian would mess things up, and to marry in our world wasn't really the focus.
DeleteAlso, I don't want to read Lewis on sex and romance, not sure many people, women at least would either. I've read some of his adult works and there are VERY weird sexual elements in them that CREEP me out. My sister who read some of the space trilogy thought it was weird too.
That's a good point! I can understand Lewis being unsure how to work romance/marriage into these kids' stories on a practical level. However, I still take Strong Issue with him portraying the mere desire for the attention of the opposite sex as a dangerous, corrupting influence the minute the kids return to our real world. I would have been more comfortable with him glossing over romance altogether, than him making Susan "fall" BECAUSE she started wearing lipstick and going to dances to meet boys.
DeleteAhhhhh! This is also a very solid point you make *cackles* I haven't read much of Lewis' adult stuff, so I must defer to your authority on the matter. If he didn't really know //how// to write healthy romance, that's understandable ... but regardless, "romance in the Real World can only lead you astray, especially if you're a woman" is not a great message to be sending young readers, whether intentional or not. And to me, that's the note The Last Battle strikes.
But that's just, like, my opinion, man. ;) ;)
OKAY YES LET'S.
DeleteSo, tbh, I was a leetle nervous about mentioning my whole History with Susan/Lucy. I'm very glad, however, that you took to it and expanded the conversation!
BECAUSE.
BECAUSE.
As you point out . . . what is with the girl-on-girl hate in the Chronicles?? Specifically as regards these two. I was thinking about it yesterday, as I published the post, and it hit me: no one pits Peter against Edmund as "the good one," while forever painting Edmund as "the bad one" or "the morally inferior one". No one. (That I know of, at least.) Edmund does Many Worse Things, from a technical standpoint, than Susan ever does -- yet we all accept his redemption wholeheartedly (as we should). We all accept him "back into the fold" of the "good" siblings, as it were, once he repents -- and that's a good and appropriate thing! But why is the same grace not extended to Susan? Why is she forever kept on a lower level of moral potential and moral worth than the others?
WHY, SIRS & MESDAMES. I DEMAND TO KNOW WHY.
And yep, yep -- Lewis paints Susan's interest in romance, make-up, and "feminine" things in a negative light. We're not really given a satisfactory reason why -- but I think it's telling that the same sort of thing happens in The Horse and His Boy, when Aravis is painted as more sensible/mature than Lasaraleen, who is also "only interested in parties and engagements".
To be fair, in my own personal opinion, I do think that the reason behind Susan's "fall from grace" is //primarily// that she stopped believing in Narnia/Aslan, and only //secondarily// that she then became *too* interested in make-up, glamour, parties, etc. That's not to say that I don't think there are flaws in Lewis's treatment of Susan -- and I know that we may also just disagree on some of this, which is Perfectly Fine. ;) But in fairness to my *own* opinions/interpretations, I do have to say that I don't personally think that his motivation behind the decision was, "I want to condemn all romantic/sexual interest in young readers". I definitely understand your frustration with the fact that that could be one of the end results, though, whether it was intentional or not.
Ahhh, thank you! *dances under the confetti* I'm so glad people are still excited for my Susan story!! :D <3
Oh, oh! And also! I forgot this little facet to the discussion of Susan "vs." Lucy:
DeleteI think a lot of my childhood *resentment* towards Lucy (because, essentially, that's what it amounted to, which is very sad so let's not think about it too much) came as a direct result of the fact that I did feel as though Susan was constantly being compared to her. I felt that the books and the readers were constantly measuring Susan's successes and failures against Lucy . . . and Susan was always coming up short in their minds. Which meant that, since I was essentially Susan, *I* was always being measured and judged by them. When they excoriated Susan for her flaws, they were excoriating me for mine -- while simultaneously holding Lucy out as some kind of purified Simba, some kind of Shining Beacon Wunderkins Angel Baby Child who was so much better than Susan.
I felt that there was pressure on me to become more like Lucy, which made me feel antagonistic towards her, even though I knew I "shouldn't".
And now -- now -- as a young woman myself -- I think part of the reason I've never felt "at ease" with Lucy is because I never thought I could love both sisters. I never thought I could love Lucy and her strengths **WHILE ALSO** loving Susan and hers . . . because, apparently, you couldn't recognize Lucy's good points without acknowledging that Susan was Utterly Devoid Of Any Redeeming Qualities Whatsoever.
I thought I had to choose between them, because they were always presented as such polar opposites on the moral spectrum. I thought that loving Lucy would mean needing to venerate her -- would mean needing to renounce Susan almost in her entirety -- would mean needing to relinquish any and all of the traits I shared with Susan that I felt were valid (or, at least, not as terrible as everyone was making them out to be).
Now, thankfully, I think I'm coming out of that damaged mindset. But it's interesting, no?
Oooooooooooooooh, yes, I love your point about Peter and Edmund!!! Spill that tea, sis! ;D
DeleteI think the answer is pretty simple (although sad): we're culturally conditioned to pit girls against each other, and build up one by tearing down another. And it's not--as you say--as if LEWIS HIMSELF doesn't encourage the "Lucy vs. Susan wars" by his own clearly demonstrated attitude in the books. He definitely favors Lucy over Susan, and uses Susan's downfall to make Lucy shine brighter by comparison.
*solemn head-shakes*
Yeppppppppppppppp. I'd lowkey forgotten about Lasalreen, but you're absolutely right: she receives the same kind of narrative scorn for being sexually confident and seeking social approval ("boys and clothes and parties") as Susan does. And I understand the potential counterargument, "well, maybe Lewis is only trying to say these two girls are TOO interested in this stuff, that they're out of balance," alright, but ...
What does a "balanced" interest in traditional feminine trappings look like for C.S. Lewis? What does a "balanced" interest in real-world romantic relationships look like for him? WE DON'T KNOW, because NONE of the other girls show those qualities. Instead, they hold themselves aloof from sexual desire while heaping scorn on poor Susan for her romance-loving, feminine nature. (I'm thinking in particular of Polly's and Jill's comments at the end of The Last Battle.)
As a media critic [GOSH that sounded pretentious :P] I'm always, ultimately, more interested in effect than intent. If that makes sense? I know there's always going to be fuzziness and debate about what Lewis meant with the way he treated Susan and his other female characters. But how does the text, standing on its own, affect those who read it in real time? That's always my biggest curiosity.
Also, if it's not clear enough from the above--I feel baaaaaaaaaaaaaad for the hurt you experienced through narrative attitudes and fandom reactions to Susan *soft hugs* Susan Pevensie has many wonderful, valuable qualities and deserves her own happy ending at the hands of a more sympathetic, more feministic author (erm, HINT, HINT ;))
For sure. There is a clear, emphatic attitude in Narnia -- both the books and the readership -- that Lucy is morally superior to Susan.
DeleteYep, I do think that Lewis was only trying to insinuate that Susan/Lasaraleen grew TOO preoccupied with outer beauty, glamour, etc. -- but I also agree that it's difficult to make a legitimate argument to that effect if you're unwilling to provide an example of ACCEPTABLE interest in outer beauty, glamour, clothes, etc.
Haha, I understand that. Where, for me as a media critic [*joins you in pretension*], I'm always interested in both intent AND effect, because intent (for me) often influences effect. (For example: Is it valid to criticize the 2005 Pride & Prejudice for it's "historical inaccuracy" if the makers have stated that they had specific intentions and specific REASONS for the perceived inaccuracies? That's how I tend to think about intent vs. effect.) I think part of it for me also has to do with the fact that the same text, even taken on its own, affects different people in different ways. The same text is interpreted in different ways, which makes the intent vs. effect debate trickier.
Awwww, thank you. *soft hugs back* I appreciate that, friend! (Ahahaha, HINT TAKEN. ;))
Oooooh I like this angle of the discussion! :D
Delete*pretension intensifies* xD I also really like you P&P05 example, as you know I will forever stan that movie ;) I think my own take on the intent vs. effect debate more applies to moral questions in storytelling? Things that have--or may have, depending on the interpretation--HURTFUL moral implications. So even if the author's intent can be proven to be totally blameless & guileless, if they wrote something which genuinely harms some of their readers, those readers still have a right to point that fact out. Saying, "regardless of the author's intentions, I interpret X as problematic, I found it hurtful, and I wish they had not included it."
Because that harmful effect is still real, even if it wasn't the original intent, and even if it didn't hit every reader the same. And acknowledging that isn't about assigning moral blame to the author per se, but about exploring the interaction between their story and their readers. Since it's a text that still Exists and is Out There, impacting folks' lives in both positive and negative ways.
*pretension subsides*
(GOOD, GOOD ;))
:D :D
DeleteI definitely understand that! For me, when it comes to intent vs. effect within the context of moral or social implications in stories, I absolutely agree that readers are entitled to share how THEY PERSONALLY have been affected by an author's decisions. They are entitled to share how they interpret a particular moral or philosophical facet of a story.
My (possible?) difference comes in the way that I insist on that acknowledgment that an author has not necessarily done something wrong in their story simply because a particular reader -- or group of readers -- dislikes it or has a moral or philosophical objection to it. Because that's the problem: all of fiction is intrinsically and objectively subjective, and two different readers with equally "healthy" moral compasses can have completely different reactions to the same theoretical moral question posed by the same story. So, while an individual reader can interpret a moral implication as problematic, it does not necessarily follow that the moral implication is problematic -- on an objective, universal scale. You get me?
Like, for example, we could examine the difference of moral opinion that you and I have when interpreting the character, decisions, story arc, and so forth of Steve Rogers in the MCU! ;D I, as you know, find him extremelyyyyyy morally objectionable, and I am Much Frustrate (TM) with the moral implications set forth by his presentation in the movies. You, meanwhile, love him and see no moral issues or problematic content in his character arc or the way he's presented in the movies.
It's just One Of Those Things, y'know? We have a difference of opinion on the moral identity of a particular story, and there's really no one to "judge between us".
So I think that's my take on it. I think every reader, viewer, and general story-consumer has the right to share their own perspective and be completely honest about their own interpretations, their own hurt, and how a particular story has harmed or helped them. But they need to do that while recognizing that their experience with a story is just their own experience, and that someone else's polar opposite experience with the same story can be equally valid from a "moral" perspective.
OH BUT ALSO: I want to make it *extreeeeemely* clear that I'm only talking about the moral implications which ARE "up for debate" in stories, here. I'm not talking, for instance, about objectively racist overtones (or undertones) in a particular book, movie, etc. I'm not suggesting that THOSE sorts of moral implications are "subjective" or that readers should "acknowledge that the author may not have done anything wrong" when it comes to THOSE sorts of issues. I'm sure you knew that, but I just Felt The Need to state it explicitly. For the Record. :-P
So, my Narnia opinions are about the opposite, I strongly dislike Susan, although I think that is more the movies, she was merely least favorite because least interesting in the books mostly I think, but the movies, man, you don't want to hear me on that.
ReplyDeleteAnd Dawn Treader is my favorite!
Narnia has such variety for different opinions. Several of my siblings love the Silver Chair, and I do not.
Yes! Like you say, Narnia has so much room for different interpretations, which is really pretty cool. Who would you say is your favorite Pevensie sibling? And/or just favorite Narnia character in general?
DeleteEdmund and then Eustace. They are genuinely redeemed characters, obviously obnoxious at first (although I relate to Edmund's type of obnoxiousness, there was unfairness towards him, the movies anyway, his older siblings, at least in the movie definitely favored Lucy), so their sweetness and honor seems to me to be genuine, with being bad first, I would feel some characters are too goody-goody.
DeleteEdmund and Eustace are both awesome characters. I love redemption arcs in stories.
DeleteOkay, but first of all, PUDDLEGLUM! I LOVE HIM.The Silver Chair is really good. It might be my favorite, actually, but choosing a favorite is so harrddddd.
ReplyDeleteSusan is really underrated. I've personally never related to her, but one of my sisters is a lot like her, and she definitely provides some, er, much needed common sense in our household. And I honestly don't know what I'd do without her.
I've, er, DEFINITELY rewritten stories so that a character I like has a better ending than what they were given.
Great job writing this. It's such a fun tag!
PUDDLEGLUM IS THE BEST. <3 It is!! It's so hard to pick a favorite.
DeleteAww, yes! It's need how many of us resemble different characters within the series.
Haha, you've gotta do it sometimes! Which stories have you re-written?
Aww, thank you! I appreciate that! It is, it's quite fun. :D <3
3 things:
ReplyDelete1. Hurray for the Voyage of the Dawn Treader! I love that story. <3
2. Yay for Puddleglum! He is certainly a family favourite of ours. Especially to read aloud. ;)
3. Dear, dear Susan. You are loved. <3
*all the hearts*
DeleteOk, that Lucy aesthetic at the beginning! LOVE.
ReplyDeleteI tend to identify most with Susan, too, but I still love Lucy the most...sorry Olivia. :) It's not that I don't *like* Susan a fair bit (her archery is so cool!), it's just that I like Lucy more.
Voyage of the Dawn Treader is 100% most underrated, but it is one of my very favorites, so...
FRANK FOREVER! He's so awesome and also very sweet. <3
Right??
DeleteHaha, it's all good. To each her own. :-P
FRANK IS THE BEST. <333
Aw, nice to see some Susan love. My favourite scene in the books is where she beats Trumpkin in the shooting contest - her main time to shine, haha. Although I think my favourite Narnia kid is Shasta :)
ReplyDeleteYes, haha! Honestly, the entirety of the Prince Caspian book is so important for Susan and I feel like people completely ignore all the development she has in that book.
DeleteShasta may very well be my favorite Narnian character, too! I love him so much. <3
I wish I had something grand and long to say here, but I lack the time and the words. So, let me just say that I loved this post, I cannot WAIT for your Susan story, and I really enjoyed reading everyone's comments too!
ReplyDelete(Also... all my friends seem to love Voyage? So I never thought of it as underrated at all?)
Awwwww, thank you!! <333
Delete(Huh, interesting! All *my* friends seem to love The Magician's Nephew, so I've never really thought of that one as underrated. It's interesting how different groups gravitate to different stories, isn't it?)
All of the Narnia goodness in this post makes me so happy!!! Lovely answers, gorgeous Pinterest boards (*heart eyes*), and thanks for the tag!! I'm going to have so much fun with it. :D Also, bravo to you and Katie in your discussion above! I would join in if it didn't take me years to articulate my thoughts...lol.
ReplyDeleteHOW HAVE I NOT SEEN THIS ON YOUR BLOG BEFORE?!?!?!
ReplyDeleteOMG THE FEELS!!!
The Magician's Nephew was my favorite growing up too ... more than any of the other books, it just made it feel like it could all be so REAL!! I guess my inner Puddleglum was attracted to it for that reason 😂 And btw, Silver Chair was a close second (probably tied sometimes). Also loved all the comic relief in TMG, thought that aspect was by far the best of the series ... I can still see Queen Jadis careeling through London and U.n.c.l.e Andrew being like wtf?!? after being so sneaky with his experiment 😂😂😂😂
They were all good except for parts of the Last Battle (so looking forward to reading your Susan novel when you're ready :-) , &, for some reason, I Never could get into Prince Caspian, idk what that's about 🤷♀️
Btw, I could've sworn The Horse and His Boy (also excellent) was your favourite for a while? Did I get that wrong or did your tastes change?
Please tell me your cast picks for The Magician's Nephew ... that one 1000% deserves a movie!