Narnia is a very powerful and moving allegory. Unfortunately, most commentators, not being trained in the skill of close reading, are unable to divine the true meaning of the allegory. [NB: I will not care about the nuances of Turkish delight as written about in the book, but will confine myself to the limitations of the medium from which most readers, myself included, will be most familiar with the source material.]


Reality and delusion

First and foremost, one has to remember that Narnia was purely in the realm of imagination.

Nothing that happened in Narnia affected the real (outside) world. Time spent in Narnia did not pass in the real world. And those who visited Narnia were unchanged physically; even after spending what must have been 2 decades in Narnia, the children emerged into the real world as they left it - clear proof that it was all in the children's minds (since that's the only thing in the real world which changed).

So even if you are bored, unfulfilled and unloved in the real world, there is no use retreating into a fantasy one of make-believe, since that is just self-indulgent imaginal masturbation (or any other type, if you like) in a vacuum; no matter how happy you might be, it's all a lie. Sinking into delusion could even lead to unnecessary grief (think of what would have happened if Aslan and friends had not been triumphant).

Be that as it may, we can still draw many morals from the children's foray into Narnia, even if it were fictional even in the context of the story.


False trichotomies

The Professor commented to Susan that if Lucy was not lying or crazy (about her visit to Narnia), she must have been telling the truth. Unmentioned is the possibility that she is mistaken - perhaps she bumped her head in the wardrobe, or maybe it had been too long since the thing was claned out, and she breathed in spores from hallucinogenic mushrooms*. Of course, the depiction of the Professor commiting such a glaring logical fallacy is meant to be a commentary on how having a PhD and being a Professor doesn't necessarily mean you're smart, since you can still fall afoul of basic logic.


Moral issues with betrayal

Edmund betrayed his siblings, but this betrayal came about because he was bullied and mistreated by the rest - they have themselves to blame for inciting the betrayal. Furthermore, those who are the agents of salvation are capable of mistreating even their kind: what more their lessers? Also, one might consider that without his betrayal, there would have been no victory in the end: therefore to imbue his treachery with moral undertones is most unfair**.


Free will

The Pevensie siblings feature in a prophecy, and despite their initial reluctance to fulfill it, they are swept along by the river of fate in the end and play out their preordained roles. This shows that there is no room for free will when supernatural are at work, human agency is helpless, and makes one wonder how much they deserve the accolades poured onto them. For example, if the siblings had numbered three, no matter how brave, noble and good they were, they would not have been able to prevail, for by definition the Prophecy must be fulfilled (or it would be a false one, surely one of many, but then that's another issue).


Semi-deification of Aslan

All the (good) characters have an unthinking, almost sheep-like regard for Aslan, looking up to him all the time and generally fawning over him. However, no one asks why he left the land of Narnia in the first place - if he hadn't left, the land and its inhabitants would not have suffered so greatly (and for a long 100 years) in the first place. In the intervening time, Aslan must have been hibernating, chuckling in his sleep about how the inhabitants of Narnia were suffering so and daily growing more eager for his return. At the end of the movie he is also shown walking off into the sunset, and he has obviously done that before - he is not a very reliable lion, not always being there for his people and disappearing often according to his whims.

Much is made of Aslan's sacrifice, but as is obvious from the story, it's not much of a sacrifice if one dies, only to be resurrected after half a night (and knowing that one will be resurrected to boot, resulting in one having no fear of death). Furthermore, Aslan was present when the "great magic" - the underlying magical laws of the land (or some shit like that) - were written. Presumably he had some say in their formulation. So why is it portrayed as tragic when he has to be sacrificed in accordance with these same laws that he had a hand in formulating? I can sympathise with how Aslan felt when he was shaved, though - why, just the other night (or thereabouts) I had a nightmare about the same happening to me.

History is written by the winners. If the White Witch and her minions had won, the story would read very differently, and a diametrical spin would be put on Aslan. For example, the treacherous scum violated the spirit, even if not the letter, of his agreement with the White Witch (then again, he did do that, even with a neutral reading of events).


Primacy of human agency

Although Aslan is glorified and raised to the status of a demi-god, in the end it is through the pivotal actions of humans that Narnia is saved, and they are all crowned Kings and Queens, ranking above him. The story is truly a glorification of the power of humans to change their environment and the seminal role they play in the great events of our time - even if you are a talking lion who can resurrect yourself, who cares? Without the humans you'd achieve nothing.


Conclusion

CS Lewis has been radically misread for decades. Luckily I've unearthed just how naughty he was (then again, see the previous post).


Endnotes:

* - Luckily there was a direct chain of transmission. If Lucy had told Edmund, who told Susan who told Peter, her original story (perhaps having dreamt of entering Narnia) could have been distorted, as anyone who's played the game "Broken Telephone" would know. Alternatively, Lucy could have said that her friend 'Bob' had been to Narnia and told her about it - in this case 'Bob' could neither have been telling the truth, nor lying nor mad, since he wouldn't have existed in the first place.

** - Some might argue that without Edmund's betrayal, victory could still have come, and at a lower price to boot. To fully address this objection, a dissertation on battle tactics and teleology (was what happened the only possible way it could have happened?) would be needed.

Also:

i) I liked the sneaky commentary about global warming and its perils (the melting river and how the children almost died). The Bush administration must be wroth.

ii) If you are ugly, you must be evil. If you look noble, you must be good. Excellent message to take home.