The Writing Style (spoilers)

[The Red Fall]

I've just finished reading the first in the seven part trilogy in anticipation of a neat-looking film. Not to be overly critical or insulting, but Lewis seems to quite quickly graze over various events and the book feels more like a summary or outline more than anything. Granted, this is a children's book, and my thoughts may have been different if I were vastly younger, but comparing it to his friend Tolkien's 'The Hobbit', I'd have to prefer the latter. Although it was also written for children, Tolkien really settled into the events without, in my mind, summarily rushing to the end.

Are the rest of the books written in a similar style or does Lewis get more into the events and people as he goes? Maybe there's an expanded Chronicles I haven't noticed ;) It may once more come down to not having read this at a young age like most others, but it seems what should be momentous events; the death of Aslan, the great battle, the death of the White Witch, happen with little build-up and given little time to sink in before we're whisked off to Cair Paravel.

At the same time, the main land mass of Narnia seems to be quite small; granted, it would get tedious to read on and on about the journey to the Stone Table or Cair Paravel, but summarizing in a few sentences ends up, at least for me, giving a false impression of the distances. It's one thing to say in one line "and they traveled across an infinity of space, and then arrived", and another to go into a bit more detail.

(I hope it isn't too OT here to toss the following in here)
With all this said, I believe the filmmakers will have had many opportunities to embellish and go overboard with sights and sounds. Take the great battle, for example. In the book it's literally done and over in a few paragraphs (of course, we're travelling with Aslan at that time and only arrive after much of it has passed), and again, the Witch is killed with little anticipation. I look forward to seeing all of the events played out in a much slower-paced manner. If nothing else, for the first film anyway (as I've said, I've just finished the first book today, so on to the next!), they shouldn't have any problems fitting it in, whereas with The Lord of the Rings they had to cut cut cut and condense more and more as they went.

Let me once more repeat that I in no way wish to be insulting, especially as a newcomer and someone who has only now just got on the bandwagon. I'm curious about the other books, whether others who have recently read them (and who aren't quite young :p) get a similar sense of Lewis rushing through events, or if I'm alone in that regard.

The Red Fall.

[inkspot]

I believe the filmmakers will have had many opportunities to embellish and go overboard with sights and sounds. Take the great battle, for example ... they shouldn't have any problems fitting it in, whereas with The Lord of the Rings they had to cut cut cut and condense more and more as they went.
Welcome the Red Fall! I agree with you on several points -- and I look forward to seeing how Adamson does with the film, I think he is really going to bring a lot of life, imagination and excitement to it!

I think the comparison to LOTR is not exactly right because CON is a set of children's books. They remain in the same style throughout the series, written for kids, you know. But they are nonetheless packed with great stories, important symbolism, interesting characters and lands ... I read them as a youngster of course, but they have never lost that magic for me. Just let your imagination supply what Lewis doesn't supply in descriptions and details. :D

[GrayCloak]

^Lol, and just as I hit 'sumbit' Inky beats me to the punch, oh well...:D

First off, welcome to the site Red Fall, I hope you enjoy it. And thanks for being polite in your critisms, - I actually enjoyed reading your post. :)

The main thing to remember about the CoN is that they are children's books - if comparing Lewis's writing style reading 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe' to his adult fictional works like 'Out of the Silent Planet' you'll find such a difference in the length and depth of the words that you'll be amazed.

With that said, the size of the CoN books are perfect for their intended audience - my father read me the books at five and they were my all-time favorites. These were stories that I could sit down and listen to, and UNDERSTAND because the story flowed so easily and clean. I didn't pick up 'The Hobbit' until I was seven or eight, and even then the book was too 'deep' for me.

Furthermore, it's not really fair to compare Tolkien and Lewis, becasue they are different authers, and do adopt different styles. They are both wonderful in their own ways; IMO Tolkien for his poetry with words, and Lewis for his understanding and compassion in what he writes (There's a heart to all his characters I've rarly seen in other works). I've heard people complain about 'the Hobbit', for the same reason you complimented it - they've told me Tolkien expands parts of the books that could be condensed into two or three sentances, or paragraphs.

The true brilliance of the books is that for children there's a love and understanding for the stories, and for older audiences, they have a shere depth that transcends the writng. IMO Lewis could say in one paragraph what some people can't expand in entire chapters. I just re-read the books myself, and I was a little suprised by how much I'd forgotten, and how much depth (though not expanded by words) I had missed in previous readings.

As for any of the other books being longer, I think that some of the later books are a bit longer, but they all retain the same overall style.

I'm really interested to hear your take on the characters in the books, and their development. Did you like them?

[Gibby]

Hello Red Fall! Your right, it is much more simple reading than LOTR. One summary of the Chronicles that I particularly enjoy happens to be on the back of the condensed edition that I have and it describes CON as "deceptively simple". As a believer in Christ, I felt that the truths that CON communicated to me spoke directly to my heart; that's what was so awesome about the stories. I have read a few of Lewis' other works and I think he is a gifted writer that God used in many of his writings to speak truths of the gospel to the world in a way that is unique. His writing style is quite different in his books directed towards adults.

[holyboy]

Like you, I read the books at an older age, and I too felt the same way you do. I felt some parts were rushed and needed to be expanded upon. But the great thing about Lewis is he lets you expand on his thoughts. He has put many symbols in his books that allow you to branch off and discover more about the world of Narnia. His target audience was children. However, when you are older you can read CoN and find the symbols written into the books. I personally enjoyed this when I re-read them a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you should try this when you continue reading the books.

[The Red Fall]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Also, my sincere apologies for the thumbs down icon in the original post. I thought that was a question mark when I first wrote it, and only now realized my mistake!

I think the comparison to LOTR is not exactly right because CON is a set of children's books. They remain in the same style throughout the series, written for kids, you know. But they are nonetheless packed with great stories, important symbolism, interesting characters and lands ... I read them as a youngster of course, but they have never lost that magic for me. Just let your imagination supply what Lewis doesn't supply in descriptions and details.

Please don't misunderstand. If you'll notice, I mentioned LOTR only when speaking of the movies, and specifically how much they had to cut from the book, whereas with at least the first in the Narnia chronicles, I commented that they would have ample time to expand. The only comparison that I made at all in terms of literature, was to Tolkien's 'The Hobbit', which I think would be more appropriate than comparing to an adult-oriented book like the LOTR, and only then to say I preferred Tolkien's style.

With that said, the size of the CoN books are perfect for their intended audience - my father read me the books at five and they were my all-time favorites. These were stories that I could sit down and listen to, and UNDERSTAND because the story flowed so easily and clean. I didn't pick up 'The Hobbit' until I was seven or eight, and even then the book was too 'deep' for me.

I suppose you're probably right. I'm just somewhat sad that the first doesn't have the same magical effect on me as reading Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' does; mostly I'm criticizing his passing over important scenes in very few paragraphs which takes away from the impact those scenes should have.

Furthermore, it's not really fair to compare Tolkien and Lewis, becasue they are different authers, and do adopt different styles. They are both wonderful in their own ways; IMO Tolkien for his poetry with words, and Lewis for his understanding and compassion in what he writes (There's a heart to all his characters I've rarly seen in other works). I've heard people complain about 'the Hobbit', for the same reason you complimented it - they've told me Tolkien expands parts of the books that could be condensed into two or three sentances, or paragraphs.

Yes, of course. I was comparing them on the grounds of being friends, writing children's stories (at least with The Hobbit), and both arguably being the fathers of modern fantasy and inspiration for countless authors to date. I don't know.. perhaps a young reader would complain about the Hobbit not being fast-paced enough, but being an adult (despite being a young one), I find that it's very readable and innocently charming from that less serious point-of-view and smaller scale (than the LOTR, an obvious comment).

The true brilliance of the books is that for children there's a love and understanding for the stories, and for older audiences, they have a shere depth that transcends the writng. IMO Lewis could say in one paragraph what some people can't expand in entire chapters. I just re-read the books myself, and I was a little suprised by how much I'd forgotten, and how much depth (though not expanded by words) I had missed in previous readings.

Well, I have yet to experience this, in all honesty. As I said, the great battle in the first book seemed all-too-quickly over and anticlimactic with the quick work Lewis wrapped it up with, and the very quick journeys, as I mentioned in my original post, ended up making the world seem very small. Again, I realize it would get boring to drag on and on, but I thought it could've been a bit longer in those areas, not to mention the climactic events (as though I'd prefer he filled out the travelling and not the events!). Perhaps I'll experience this feeling in the other books.

I'm really interested to hear your take on the characters in the books, and their development. Did you like them?

Talk about being put on the spot ;) As I said, I've only just finished the first, and that taken with the brevity makes it hard to sense much development. It felt awkward when Peter pulled courage out of nowhere to slay the wolf Maugrim, for instance, and that's partly what I'm talking about with events being zoomed by too quickly (if it were The Hobbit... =P), and later in the great battle I thought something should be said of the development of valor in the boys; rather, we're told Edmund jumps into the fray like a wild beast and in the face of presumably much-larger monsters, doesn't blink an eye. Aslan was intimidating at first, then this quickly changed, and some comments of his just didn't seem like those a kind would make ;) Basically, I'm withholding judgment until I read more.

Hello Red Fall! Your right, it is much more simple reading than LOTR. One summary of the Chronicles that I particularly enjoy happens to be on the back of the condensed edition that I have and it describes CON as "deceptively simple". As a believer in Christ, I felt that the truths that CON communicated to me spoke directly to my heart; that's what was so awesome about the stories. I have read a few of Lewis' other works and I think he is a gifted writer that God used in many of his writings to speak truths of the gospel to the world in a way that is unique. His writing style is quite different in his books directed towards adults.

Again, I compared it to The Hobbit, not the LOTR ;) Guess I should've realized everyone would skim through my post and misread it.

Uh-oh, a Christian (just kidding). I have to admit that the allegory to Christian beliefs put me off somewhat as a non-Christian (I like Tolkien's approach. He was also a deeply religious man but didn't use any sort of Christian symbolism in his writings and vehemently detested allegory), but hopefully there isn't anything too Christian-specific or literal. Of course with 'Sons of Adam' and 'Daughters of Eve', as well as the description of the White Witch's origins, I am getting hints of Lewis's religion seeping into his words. Not a problem as long as the books don't end up being a form of propaganda to draw more converts. I find nothing wrong with recruiting for a specific religion, but I do personally feel fantasy stories are better off straying clear of that and other real-world issues. It'd be like writing a story set in a fictional world yet making clear statements in support or opposition about a political party or candidate.

And with that, I'm wondering: how many fans of Narnia are non-Christians? Is this like The Bible to some, do fundamentalists also embrace it, has it had wide success in traditionally non-Christian countries?

The Red Fall.

[Gibby]

And with that, I'm wondering: how many fans of Narnia are non-Christians? Is this like The Bible to some, do fundamentalists also embrace it, has it had wide success in traditionally non-Christian countries?

The Red Fall.


There are several non-Christians on this site I have noticed. What is your definition of a "fundamentalist"? I guess someone who believes in the Word of God and lives by it, I guess I am one. I enjoyed CON, but it is definately not the Bible! Some of the symbolism reflects truths contained in the Bible, however. I certainly would not use it as a substitute, if that's what you mean. Lewis himself admits (http://www.professionalserve.com/articles/ChroniclesLewis2.html)that he did not set out to write an allegory; the truths of the gospel bubbled to the surface because of what Lewis believed. I don't know of it's success in non-Christian countries.


This post sounds pretty random. I was trying to answer the questions above, sorry.
(This post is a corrected edition. The first one I published was done at 3 am after I got off of work and my brain was already in bed)

[inkspot]

Sorry, Red. I tend to lump Hobbit in with LOTR, and as you mentioned the movies, I got confused. I still think even Hobbit is written for an older audience than Narnia.

Tolkien and Lewis shared the same views on allegory, and Lewis said that CON was definitely not an allegory. However, I think you are mistaken when you think that Tolkien's writings do not have loads of symbolism of his Catholic faith, as he intended them to.

See this interesting thread for a beginner's look at that:
http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1080&highlight=catholic+allegory

It's just that in a children's story, the symbolism is more easy to -- read -- than it is in LOTR, but it is certainly there.

I do personally feel fantasy stories are better off straying clear of that and other real-world issues. It'd be like writing a story set in a fictional world yet making clear statements in support or opposition about a political party or candidate.
Don't you think an author's worldview is going to come through in any fantasy story? Lewis and Tolkien were joyful in their life in Christ, so that joy bubbled through their stories. That's a plus as far as I am concerned, not a drawback.

[Inklet]

Red Fall--

I understand what you mean when you say that certain passages in LWW feel rushed compared to the Hobbit. The Wind in the Willows or the Wizard of Oz--perhaps also Winnie the Pooh--are probably better stories to compare the Chronicles to, stylistically. The geography of Narnia is vague and all the details of its history were not hammered out prior to the writing of the stories, unlike with Tolkien's world. It's a different kind of fantasy.

Of course, none of that touches on the matter of pacing. Why does Lewis spend less time on what would seem to be pivotal events?

The defeat of the White Witch: I think he didn't want to traumatize his audience. When I was very young I read the Hobbit and was in tears by the end of the Battle of the Five Armies. Both Tolkien and Lewis fought in the first World War, and neither was able to "pretty it up" for his audience. Tolkien chose to present the glory and tragedy of war, and Lewis chose to skip the details in this first book.

The death of Aslan: I happen to think it's presented in about as much detail as most children can bear as it is, and to allow time to let it "sink in" might be too much.

Also, if you re-read the passage where Peter kills the wolf, it specifically says he did not feel brave. I think it says he felt sick.



All of that said, I think you'll be pleased with the rest of the series. All the books run around 100 pages, and now that the first book has introduced the Pevensies, Aslan and Narnia, minimal exposition is needed for the rest and more time is devoted to the story. Also, I think if LWW's Christian elements didn't bother you, you won't be concerned by the rest of the books either.

By the way, you made my day by calling LWW the first book. Darn right, it is!

[inkspot]

Well said, Inklet! :D

[Inklet]

Thank you.

Incidentally, Red Fall, I just finished a good book by Devin Brown called Inside Narnia (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801065992/qid=1127238696/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2005512-6161607?v=glance&s=books). It's a chapter-by-chapter literary analysis of LWW that, while not ignoring the theological elements, treats them the same as any other element in the story (e.g. allusions, perspective, character development). I bring it up because the day after I responded to your post, I was reading it and it brought up the topic of pacing! He's a fan of Lewis, so you can guess his position. If you're interested in picking it up, I wouldn't read it unless you've finished the whole series, as he frequently mentions events that happen in later books.

I'd really like to hear back from you as you read each one!