My Number 1 Favorite Literary Character

The opening line is the most impportant line you will write. I believe the best opening line ever to a book was this:
"There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it."
I am a major C.S. Lewis fan, and love a lot of his stuff, but the Narnia books have always held a special place in my heart. And my favorite character is Eustace Clarence Scrubb. Why? Well I guess because he turned out to be such a pleasant surprise. Now don’t get me wrong, I liked the other Narnia children, The Pevensies, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy, Digory Kirke and Polly Plummer, Shasta and Princess Aravis. However, for the most part they tended to have a just a bit too good to be true quality about them, although they did have their moments of unpleasantness (especially Susan, read the books if you want to know more). I know, you are going to bring up Edmund, but he seemed to be unpleasant because they needed an unpleasant character in the book. The why of it was alluded to, but never fully explained. I loved the plot of salvation of a sinner, but you knew he was going to reform eventually.
Eustace, on the other hand, was another kettle of fish all together and at first he stank just as bad. He was a nasty piece of work with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Why? Because he had been spoiled rotten by his parents. Brilliant, easy to understand, and easy to buy into. In the Voyage of the Dawn Treader he was mean, selfish and a major pain in the neck to everyone and I just bet he loved every minute of it. He was a drag on the whole story of adventure and friendship and you just loved to hate him. The first time my friends and I read the book (a long time ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth) we couldn’t wait for him to get his comeuppance. But then a funny thing happened, when that comeuppance finally came, you didn't feel any satisfaction, instead you found yourself feeling sorry for him. There’s just something about a crying dragon that tugs on the old heartstrings I guess. Anyway, he does reform, although he does have his struggles which makes it believable and satisfying.
Well from then on Eustace had me hooked. Through the rest of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader (major shout out to the Duffers, absolutely hilarious) you knew this kid was going to be a great force for good. In his other adventures in the Silver Chair and the Last Battle with Jill Pole, another complex child character, the stories were engaging and you really had to pay attention or you were going to miss something. I mean he rescued a lost prince and defended Narnia in what was, and was not, a lost cause. Don’t worry, it makes sense when you read it.
Now remember all of this is my opinion, I’m sure you have yours. But to this day, I love that boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb. I guess because he proves you can't give up on a character because he just might suprise you.
1 like ·   •  11 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 21, 2011 19:38
Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Susan (last edited May 23, 2011 06:02PM) (new)

Susan Good job Cindy. I know you never watched "Lost", but there was a "love to hate him" character on that show too. Benjamin Lionel. He was totally nasty, but no wait, he was good, no wait bad, no wait... In reality no human is all good, and probably most of them aren't all bad. There is a duality to all of our natures. Really good authors manage to capture that duality in a way that captures their readers.


message 2: by C.L. (new)

C.L. You are right, and I think Edmund fell into that category. In the book, he did evil stuff, betraying his family. The movie let him off way too easy. Still, it was clear from the beginning he would reform.
Eustace on the other hand was just a spoiled rotten brat, not evil just a pain in the you know where. Most authors usually don't bother to reform those types of annoying characters. C.S. Lewis just did a great job of reforming him and made it make sense. That's why I love him so much. God puts up with even us annoying people and makes us better.
I didn't see the movie of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I understand they did a major plot revision. I hate it when they mess with stuff that doesn't need to be messed with.


message 3: by Susan (new)

Susan Yeah, I hate that too, but it happens in almost every book you love that the movie makers get their hands on. I haven't seen any of those movies or read the books, but I did see the PBS version of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" eons ago. Question: why is Lucy always played by a homely little girl with great big buck teeth? Is that how Lewis wrote her?


message 4: by C.L. (last edited May 24, 2011 10:07PM) (new)

C.L. No, Lucy is described as Golden-haired, but Lewis doesn't go much into physical descriptions when she's a child. It is a short book after all. She has her moments of jealousy of her prettier sister Susan, but Susan tends to use the "you're just a child" bit on her a lot. That would drive anybody nuts. Of course Susan ends up worse than Eustace (sorry about that Sue) as she goes for the worldy and stops believing in Narnia. I saw the PBS series, which stuck to the books, so I liked them. I only saw the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe of the new movies. It was pretty faithful to the book. Except the Edmund thing which I have already described. I didn't go to the other two as they did major plot adjustments. Susan and Prince Caspian did not fall in love in the book, but then Prince Caspian is my least favorite book anyway. I couldn't bear to see one of my favorite books, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, "improved". Oh man, here I am rambling, but really THEY SHOULDN'T MESS WITH NARNIA!!!
There. I'm done.


message 5: by Susan (new)

Susan Well, you should have seen what they did to "Lord of the Rings", especially "The Fellowship of the Ring". Honestly, the movies were horrible and then they were so highly praised???? Awful, just awful what Hollywood can do to ruin a good book.


message 6: by C.L. (last edited May 27, 2011 08:53PM) (new)

C.L. You know how they are, throw in special effects and a bunch of noise and they have a "classic", never mind the plot. I only saw the "Fellowship" and even though I was never into Tolkien as much as you and Mel were even I could see they had sacrificed the plot for action. The Narnia movies did the same thing when they took out the Christian overtones. I mean Lewis was a Christian apologist and if people cannot see the co-relation between Jesus and Aslan well they just arne't looking very hard. Okay, rant done.


message 7: by Susan (new)

Susan Well, Tolkien was a Christian (in fact he led C.S. Lewis to the Lord) but he didn't like that kind of literature. He was first and foremost a scholar, and he was attemption to build a mythology, with a good storyline built into it!


message 8: by C.L. (last edited May 28, 2011 06:42PM) (new)

C.L. No disrespect meant to Mr. Tolkien. He was a great Christian and a great writer. His stuff just tends to go over my head. Although I did like the Hobbit, but then that was supposed to be a children's book. But then I also heard the King James Version of the Bible was written at the 5th grade level. Really?


message 9: by Susan (new)

Susan Uhhhh...5th graders from what century?


message 10: by C.L. (new)

C.L. Well it was first released in 1611 so that would be the 17th Century, right? I always get that confused. As for the fifth grade reading level, it's true. The Flesch-Kincaid and the Gunning-Fog systems, which are used to test the grade level readability of school text books, rates The King James Version of the Bible as an over-all 5th grade level book. It just uses words that are not in wide use now, but you just need a concordance to get around that. I'm sure there is disagreement on the point, there always is, but you can google it if you don't believe me.


message 11: by Susan (last edited May 30, 2011 11:18AM) (new)

Susan I believe you. I just don't believe a 5th grader would read the King James Version of the Bible and get much out of it. Just because you can read and understand the words doesn't mean you comprehend the meaning. And in the 15th century (sorry dear, you go back one not forward one) there were no 5th graders, and no one other than the very elite monarchy (MEN) and those in the upper eschelons of the church (MEN) could read. So for 21st century "systems" (I don't know what else to call them) to assign arbitrary grade levels to ancient texts, seems to me more than a bit ridiculous. I'm just saying...


back to top