- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/27)
- Next Post »Robert Bruce
Book Review - Inside Narnia
- 03/27/07
- 21
Inside Narnia was one of the many books published in advance of the recent movie adaptation of C.S. Lewis's The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. In this book Devin Brown, a Lewis scholar and aficionado, offers a detailed look into the world of Narnia, digging far beyond the surface, and exploring this magical world. Having just read The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe with my children, I decided to read this as a commentary of sorts, to see what I had missed and what I would want to look for the next time I read the book.
Brown begins the book just where he should: with a rationale for the book's existence. There are, after all, many similar titles available. He replies that the strongest reason for any new work must be that it first takes an approach not taken before and then must cover ground that has not been covered before. He does both of these. His approach to the story is in the first place literary rather than primarily devotional. He moves through the book chapter-by-chapter, providing literary analysis and supplying "a good deal of supplemental information from Lewis's life and other writings." He also offers comments and opinions from a wide variety of other scholars. In many ways the book is a running commentary rather than a collection of essays. "My claim is this: although The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe can be simply read and enjoyed by a child, it can also be read seriously by adults because it is a work rich with meaning. Some of this meaning will be discovered simply by spending time with the text and paying close attention to what Lewis has written. Further meaning will be seen by drawing connections--connections not only to other passages within the novel but also to other works by Lewis, to the events of Lewis's life, and to the world of other writers who influenced Lewis. ... I contend that this twofold approach--first, a careful reading and the second, adding these kinds of connections--will result in greater enjoyment of an already enjoyable book."
Because this book is primarily a literary analysis, it does not contain a great deal of discussion about the story's religious elements. There are many other books that look at the story from that angle. Devin focuses instead on language, on consistencies and inconsistencies in this story and Lewis's other writings, and on the life experiences that stand behind the story. I really felt, as I read Inside Narnia, that the author was unlocking a great deal of the story to me.
Where Brown does deal with religious elements, he typically does so in a manner that is fair even if not thorough. He is careful to point out that this story is not meant to be an allegory for the story of the Bible. He writes "No topic surrounding the Narnia stories has been so misunderstood or has had so much written about it as the question of whether they are allegory." He ultimately turns to Lewis who affirms that the books actually stem from this kind of thought: "Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, because a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen." While there are certainly obvious parallels between the witness of Scripture and the story told in the Narnia books, they are not and were not meant to be true allegory. This means that we should not go looking too deeply in our quest to find religious significant under every rock and in every crevice in Narnia.
Interestingly, this book made me realize what it is about Lewis's world that kept me from falling in love with it as I did with Tolkien's Middle Earth. I think the real difference is in the completeness of the world. In The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe we see a world that very obviously has not been thought through to the extent that Middle Earth has been. Narnia has many clear and obvious flaws. Some of these were reconciled in further books, but many were just left unreconciled. There is much about Lewis's world that just doesn't make a lot of sense. I can see now that this kept me from believing the world as I did with Middle Earth.
All-in-all, Inside Narnia was a good and valuable read and one I enjoyed a great deal. It put to rest the haunting memories of high school level literary analysis that seemed to award not truth but originality in dissecting stories we knew nothing about written by authors we had never heard of. This book, on the other hand, represents the work of a man who has studied both the author and his work. It opens up the story and allows us to see what we certainly would not otherwise know. I definitely recommend it to anyone who has read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (21)
Actually, there are plenty of inconsistencies in Tolkien's Middle Earth as well. Even a cursory reading of The Hobbit shows how radically different it is in conception and objective (in Tolkien's letters he freely admits that LOTR is in no sense the children's story that The Hobbit was initially written to be) from The Lord of the Rings, to say nothing of The Silmarillion...and that's even after admitting the redactions that Tolkien made to The Hobbit (Bilbo's encounter with Gollum is radically different in the first edition) after he decided to write LOTR.
With that in mind, I don't think it's quite fair to judge Lewis' Narnia against Middle Earth, particularly if our measure of the latter incorporates LOTR and The Silmarillion, which are both products of many more years of reflection and redaction on Tolkien's part.
"...what it is about Lewis's world that kept me from falling in love with it as I did with Tolkien's Middle Earth."
For me, the difference between the two is that Lewis was attempting to re-tell a story (the gospels) through almost parabolic allegory; Tolkien chose to tell a story with much allegorical significance, but a story from his own imagination .
When Tolkien writes his own story, he tells of his own world, with his own (often Biblical) themes, it's the details that captivate us every time we hear it. Writing one's own story gives one the freedom to create unique themes, unique "truth" (not to be relativistic about it)...a writer's imagination can truly create something new and wonderful.
When Lewis tries to make a story that has such a constant one-to-one connection with the Bible...it loses steam in the details - he either has to connect everything perfectly to the gospel he parallels, or he becomes guilty of some sort of heresy. Either way, his imagination is stifled, as gifted a writer as he is.
I remember reading both when I was in middle school. CS Lewis remains my favorite author. It seems that he had more of a knack of communicating EXACTLY what he meant; it was easier to draw the parallels between biblical stories with Lewis than with Tolkien. At least, that is what I remember as a kid. When I read Tolkien it seemed more about the imagery and literature; with Lewis is seemed more about understanding what he meant when he wrote the stories. I don't know if that even makes sense, but that is what I remember:-)
"For me, the difference between the two is that Lewis was attempting to re-tell a story (the gospels) through almost parabolic allegory; Tolkien chose to tell a story with much allegorical significance, but a story from his own imagination ."
But I don't think that's quite accurate. Lewis didn't follow the biblical account rigidly. Had he done he would have had to, for example, have the rest of the children atoned for rather than only Edmund. There are Christian parallels but it can't be allegory since it would leave out too much of the biblical account.
Having just recently re-read the series and watched the movie, I was somewhat dismayed at the lack of redemptive emphasis actually contained as compared to all the hype I had heard from other Christians.
Sadly, The Chronicles of Narnia fail on almost all levels to adequately portray any effective comparison to Biblical truth, even that of the atonement.
I found the immense amount of magic and sorcery to be rather disconcerting. If anything, it seems that Lewis had an unhealthy attraction towards all things mystical and forbidden by scriptural commands. I found the reader was invited to enter a world of fantasy which crossed the defined borders of reality in any other setting. In my opinion, there was definitely a push towards universal acceptance of diverse lifestyles which could be interpreted today as pseudo-new age, emergent, or sexual deviance.
Lewis was definitely ahead of his time and the Chronicles of Narnia fit strikingly into a post modern Christianized western culture, while at the same time slightly veiling the fear of an agressive Islamic foe which if for any other reason exists only to create discordant tension.
While the Chronicles of Narnia does contain excellent writing, any attempt to spiritualize the content is in my opinion quite shallow and inaccurate to Biblical truth and character.
"i found the immense amount of sorcery to be disconcerting." Yeah, those were the bad guys.
Tim,Thanks for posting this review--I actually had the privilege of taking several classes with Dr. Brown while I attended Asbury College, one of them being a C.S. Lewis Seminar. He is an extremely gifted man and quite passionate about Lewis and his writings.
I have not read the books, nor would I condemn anyone who has, as they are great literary pieces. However, I would say there ought to be great caution in what one assumes about C.S. Lewis as a person, and his ability to correctly convey biblical truth in his works. There is strong evidence to support the fact that he was not a believer, and possessed some heretical notions of the God and His Word.Read the books if you like, but be aware.
"There is strong evidence to support the fact that he was not a believer, and possessed some heretical notions of the God and His Word."
Careful, now. Lewis definitely had some unbiblical beliefs, but I don't think we have much reason to doubt his salvation or to accuse him of being a heretic.
I find it odd that someone would question his salvation, even though they've never read his books. If the only book you read of his is Mere Christianity, you probably wouldn't think that anymore. It's considered one of the greatest defenses of the faith.
I love Lewis, as my bookshelves fair attest, but I agree with you that LOTR are better stories because the world is more complete. And of course there are inconsistencies, Tolkien was a fallable man, not our infallible Creator. He did what he could with what he was given. I think the difference is Tolkien was dedicated to his world and spent his life tinkering with it, whereas Lewis wanted to spin a good story, make people think, and then move on. Same thing with his sci-fi triology. And yes, Lewis held some beliefs just this side of orthodoxy, but he almost always prefaced those with a caveat like "what if" or "suppose" or "I like the idea (of purgatory, for example)." Now, we should ALWAYS go to the bible rather than what we "like the idea" of for our beliefs, but at least he wasn't preaching his error as orthodoxy.
Tim -
I am not alone on this brother. J. I. Packer and Dr. Lloyd Jones had issues with him too.
In fact, if you read C. S. LEWIS’S THEOLOGY: SOMEWHERE BETWEEN RANSOM AND REEPICHEEP you will find much that is shocking. If you don't want to read it all, here is a quotation (this article is not opposing him).
In speaking of the kenosis (Philippians 2:7) he contradicts his statement of belief in the diety of Christ, “I certainly think that Christ, in the flesh, was not omniscient — if only because a human brain could not, presumably be the vehicle of omniscient consciousness . . .” In another comment, bearing upon John 3:13, Lewis claimed “Christ’s divine nature never left [heaven] and never returned to it.”
There are many other statements in that work that are a little 'off', such as confessing sins to a priest and praying for the dead. There is also suggestion that he believed one could be saved without a knowledge of Christ.
I don't write this to deliberately condemn the man, I write it as a warning, tread with caution in your statements and views of Lewis.
Huh??? I should be in bed. I think I must have typed your name in instead on my own because I was addressing you!! lol
There are many other statements in that work that are a little 'off', such as confessing sins to a priest and praying for the dead.
Funny, the vast majority of Christians in the world would consider those perfectly Biblical. :)
Lewis certainly had some beliefs that leaned toward the traditional and were less common in the Anglican church of which he was a member. But to measure his theology using Reformed Protestantism as a yardstick seems to me to be straining at gnats. He made no claims to be a Calvinist, merely a Christian.
Let's see:>“I certainly think that Christ, in the flesh, was not omniscient — if only because a human brain could not, presumably be the vehicle of omniscient consciousness."
So, you are arguing that Jesus in his manhood, his human flesh, WAS omniscient? How is that biblical? Note I did not say theologically consistent with X's systematic theology, I said biblical. This of course is not saying that he could not at any time tap into his Christness, for lack of a way to express it, and google up anything he wanted or needed to know. Word of knowledge anyone?
“Christ’s divine nature never left [heaven] and never returned to it.”
So, you are saying that Christ's full divinity fully existed within a limited space and time in 2 meters or so of human flesh. Since his divinity is at all times omnipresent and all other attributes of Godhood, it would seem to be a problem of categories and limitations of understanding.
There is more to all this Pythagoras than exists in your logically constructed mindset. That doesn't mean it is illogical, but instead it is superlogical, just like it is supernatural.
There is so much time wasted arguing about the peripherals when so few even spend any time on the significant basics. Rather than worry about the spread of Christ's divinity across the natural-supernatural quantisphere, which to be honest cannot be addressed biblically, why not focus instead on the spread of agape across our daily decision making and example giving. Jesus did, after all, say explicitly and absolutely that they (those who matter when it comes to knowing) would know we were Christians by our agape, not our finely crafted theologies (while at the same time we stand firmly for the "faith once delivered").
Joel
Taking the title of 'Christian' does not make one in God's eyes, a Christian. I'm not talking about culture or upbringing, I'm talking about the biblical reality of being a child of God.
William
I have little to say other than what saith the scriptures?Colossians 2:9. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” That seems to sum up the divinity of Christ in a manner that is beyond human comprehension. Christ was 100% human, but also 100% God - he is/was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, any other idea is heresy to be quite frank.
Taking the title of 'Christian' does not make one in God's eyes, a Christian. I'm not talking about culture or upbringing, I'm talking about the biblical reality of being a child of God.
I am, too, Armen. I don't want to get into a tennis match over who is and isn't a Christian, but I do believe that Christian and Protestant aren't synonymous. There are practices among Christians that are alien to western Protestants, but not counter to the Bible or traditional Christian teaching. The two you mentioned are matters that are alluded to in scripture but not explicitly taught.
As for his personal practices, Lewis did confess with a priest in his last years, which can still be done in the Anglican church but isn't very common. I don't know that he actually engaged in prayer for the dead, but he recognized that it was a common practice in Christian history.
Armen,
Not to argue semantics but my point wasn't that the full nature of God wasn't in Jesus Christ but that at the same time he was also omnipresent, therefore, to quote Lewis "Christ’s divine nature never left [heaven] and never returned to it.”
If you take left as departed, the statement is true. He was always present in heaven, fully. He was also present in Jesus Christ, fully. Fully present in both and every place. My point is that he didn't abandon any other omnipresent position to be only present in the 2 meters of the body of Jesus Christ.
However, this is not a place to argue such points, only to point out that often we take people's positions (such as Lewis') and dismiss them too facilely because what they appear to be saying is contrary to our neat and often simplistic categories of understanding. It is not without reason that the story of Augustine's discussion of the Trinity with an angel along the beach, finds such purchase.
There is a reason the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are short and our books of theology and systematic theology are very long, sometimes many books long for one person's expression. What we can say with certainty is relatively short, but encompassing; some would argue all that needs to be said. What we want to say is very long and most often demonstrates our attempt to come to terms with what we think about what we believe. But that is a never ending struggle if you want to nail it down to a neatly tied up logical construct that fully defines, since, going back to Augustine, it can't be done by the tools and methods we possess. Yet we cannot resist the temptation.
It is not without import that Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." Yes, study to show yourself approved, but never leave the child behind, the simple, straight forward child.
I see your point William, and admit that you are correct. In many ways (unless there are more detailed documents) it may be difficult to fully assess Lewis' position.
Having said that, I still would not want to be representing him as a Christian author. There is enough in what he says to make one rather uncomfortable with declaring him to be a genuine believer.
>There is enough in what he says to make one rather uncomfortable with declaring him to be a genuine believer.
Fortunately that is in the hands of God, not you or me, or how would any of us be saved?
I am more charitable, since I believe salvation is not determined by absolute orthodoxy of belief, those errors often being the wood, hay, and stubble that will be burnt away, but by the Holy Spirit, God's sovereign designation, and our response. Lewis claimed as much.
I have seen nothing in Lewis pointing away from the sure sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins, indeed most of his work points adamantly to the cross. Many have I known brought to the feet of Christ by his words and works. So, charity first and foremost, careful criticisms after, but never denying what is genuine in another's heart unless sin shows the fruit to be obviously bad, which in Lewis' case I cannot find.
Grace and peace.
In my opinion, there was definitely a push towards universal acceptance of diverse lifestyles which could be interpreted today as pseudo-new age, emergent, or sexual deviance.
Jim, whether you’re referring to the Narnia books or the film, I find this a somewhat bizarre and baffling statement. It’s especially ironic given that Lewis and Tolkien still come in for a fair amount of bashing from certain sections of the intellectual elite who despise both authors for their Christian worldview! Narnia is clearly anti-occult and anti-New Age: the children are encouraged to look to Aslan as an example of godly wisdom and power, not to do spells and witchcraft and other such ‘rot’, as Lewis has them say in quaint 1950s slang.
Lewis was definitely ahead of his time and the Chronicles of Narnia fit strikingly into a post modern Christianized western culture, while at the same time slightly veiling the fear of an aggressive Islamic foe which if for any other reason exists only to create discordant tension.
I agree that Lewis said some prophetic things about culture, particularly in his theological books, but if I have a criticism of his Narnia stories, it’s that they are quite dated. Nothing wrong with that, and for me it all adds to the charm of the books, but I must say I’ve never seen Narnia described as ‘post-modern’ before!! For many of Lewis’s critics, he is anything but post-modern (which is a big point in his favour as far as I’m concerned). As for Calormene, I can find Lewis’s treatment embarrassing: sometimes it comes across like the good guys (Narnians and their allies) are mostly white and the bad guys (Calormenes) are mostly dark-skinned. Yikes. But still. The stories are good enough to stand the test of time, IMO!
While the Chronicles of Narnia does contain excellent writing, any attempt to spiritualize the content is in my opinion quite shallow and inaccurate to Biblical truth and character.
Jim, there is no need to spiritualise the content of Narnia as it’s already there for ‘eyes to see that can.’ My personal favourite is The Last Battle, into which Lewis boldly throws Anti-Christ, the Last Days, Armageddon and even the final Judgment! Extraordinary stuff, and a wonderfully thrilling children’s book to boot. This story thrilled me deeply as a child, and as an adult reader I find that the tale has lost none of its power. “Come further up and further in!”
On a more general point relating to Tim's review, I think it is unfair to compare Tolkien’s vast and magnificent Middle-earth mythology with the more childlike universe of Narnia. People who read Narnia expecting another Lord of the Rings will be disappointed. I had the best of both worlds, being introduced to the Narnia books and The Hobbit as a child, and adoring them. I then read LOTR in my early 20s (and The Silmarillion in my thirties). I’m glad I read these two wonderful authors in that order.