Narnia! Good call! Good review, too. But where do you stand on the thorniest question raised by the Chronicles: should the books be read in order of their publication, or in the order of their internal chronology? The Star Wars movies raise a similar question, but there the answer is simple: pretend the last 3 movies never happened.

You can't seperate the religios-ness from the books - even the first one. The whole series is meant to teach the principles of christianity through allegory. Aslan is not only a metaphor for Christ - as we find out in later books - he is Christ. Only, in the world of Narnia, he chooses the incarnation of a lion rather than a man.

I didn't suggest separating the religiosity from the books. I just said that it's more overt in some of the books, and that, on a per-book basis, the obviousness of the religious allegory negatively correlates with enjoyment.

Note: Edited for tone

Awesome review! I agree...I'm reading the Narnia series for the third time. I read the series first when I was a child. Now that I'm older and more cynical, I suppose, I get an eerie feeling from reading them. Their devotion, as you mentioned, borders on creepy. I also noted the racial insensitivity as well and it saddened me, especially since the series is read around the world. Thanks for such a great review!

Monsoor, Thank you for this review. I've mentioned it in a thread at my goodreads book group: ====>
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Best regards,
Joy H.

As Rick noted, the Christian message is an essential part of all of the books in the Narnia series. We all react to fiction based partly on how we feel about the message(s) it conveys, and that's appropriate; readers whose view of Christianity, or of religion in general, is highly negative could hardly be expected to give the Narnia series unqualified praise. (The converse applies, of course, to books like the His Dark Materials series by Philip Pullman, who avowedly seeks to be the "anti-Lewis;" it isn't surprising that his work is less appreciated by readers who hold a very negative view of militant atheism.) That's a subjective assessment, and fair enough as such; but some of Mansoor's other criticisms are more in the objective realm, and can be debated.

If the series "has no real conflicts" because Aslan can exercise miraculous power to resolve them, then the theistic view of real life is that it has no real conflicts either, since God has miraculous power to resolve them. But no theists that I'm aware of view real life in that way, least of all Lewis, as his other writings indicate (and insights from all of his writings are valuable in interpreting the Narnia books, since his thought was highly unified). As his writings on miracles make clear, he believed that God can intervene in the natural order miraculously --but doesn't do so very often, because intervening on a wholesale basis would negate the predictability of natural law (and leave us unable to recognize a miracle when one did happen!) And, very importantly, God doesn't make people's choices for them; they exercise free will, which requires that their choices have meaningful consequences --good or bad. So in Narnia, as in the real world, Aslan doesn't intervene very often; and most readers observe quite a bit of conflict. Bad things happen, and they aren't always deserved; evil isn't automatically and instantly punished; and good characters suffer and inevitably die, some well before their time. And characters experience a good deal of conflict in struggling to decide on the right course of action --or on whether or not to do what they think is right, when all the rewards would appear to gained by doing wrong. In one of Mansoor's two examples, Eustace is indeed changed back from dragon to boy --but only after he learns a lesson about the value of human friendship; and that doesn't come easily to him. And in the other, yes, Aslan will be resurrected after giving his life for Edmund --but his death is still an awful experience that he undergoes for someone whose welfare, viewed from a coldly objective standpoint, is nothing to him; most of us wouldn't undergo it, even with the guarantee of resurrection.

Like most non-vegetarians, Lewis views eating of meat as appropriate when the meat is that of a non- rational, nonthinking creature; eating a being who can speak is cannibalism, no matter what that being looks like. Whether or not one regards that as a significant distinction, or how significant it's seen as being, is a matter of opinion; but it is a genuine distinction between humans and, for instance, cattle.

Probably the most significant criticism here is the accusation of ethnocentrism and racism in the portrayal of the Calormen. Calormen are darker in color than Narnians; their culture differs from the Narnian one; and their government is a despotic empire that would like to add Narnia to its domains. (Neither Narnian nor Calormen culture are identical with any culture in our world, though like all fantasy writers Lewis uses this world's cultures as a grab-bag from which he can pull various features. Calormen is mostly desert, but its polity is much more Turkish than "Arab-like," and the idolatrous cult of Tash doesn't resemble Islam.) Some readers assume that any mention of dark skin means that the people so depicted have to be racially inferior; that race and culture are the same thing, with the former dictating the features of the latter, and that the character of a government mirrors the character of a people; and that if Narnia and Calormen's governments tend to be hostile and suspicious toward each other, that must mean that everything Narnian is good and everything Calormen is evil. But there are good reasons to think that Lewis didn't share these assumptions, nor want to convey them.

Two of the most sympathetic and positively treated characters in the series are the Calormenes Aravis and Emeth. Aravis is a strong, gutsy and capable heroine; she winds up marrying Prince Cor, and their son grows up to be Archenland's greatest king. And Emeth (whose name, not coincidentally, is the word for "truth" in Hebrew) is readily welcomed by Aslan into heaven, having amply demonstrated his moral worth. This certainly suggests that Lewis judges, and wants his readers to judge, Calormen "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." It's also instructive that a character in That Hideous Strength, Lord Feverstone, advocates "liquidation of the backward races" --but he's a spokesman for the anything-but-nice N.I.C.E., whose social program represents everything Lewis detested.

In the latter novel, closer to the end, Lewis lays out a theory of human cultures in which all of them, at their best and truest, are unique and distinct embodiments of moral and social truth, making a kind of truly multicultural mosaic in which the differences are respected and appreciated. This idea is reflected in The Last Battle, where Aslan's true country is made up of the Platonic ideal of every created country --including Calormen, where Lucy sees the towers of the true Tashbaan. So Calormen's cultural differences from Narnia can be viewed in this light --there is no reason to think Lewis' view of "shoes turned up at the toe, scimitars, suffixed phrases of praise, 'son-of' lineage declarations" was "unfavorable." The latter are found in the Bible (a book Lewis certainly viewed favorably!), and some of his writings suggest that he rather liked stately formal courtesy in social interactions. He contrasts the Calormen oral story-telling tradition favorably with English teaching practices; and if Calormen culture is called "cruel" in one place (which, Lewis would say, is a deformation caused by sin), it's also called "wise." Finally, King Miraz and his gang --who are all white-- aren't viewed as any more benevolent than the Calormen Tisroc and his toadies; the actions of both are due, not to race and nationality, but to the common experience of human fallenness.

Well, I didn't mean to write a book here! My criticism is only meant as constructive food for thought, and I hope it came across that way.

Thanks for the food for thought, Werner. Interesting reading.

Werner, some incredible insights here, tackling areas that I have grappled with as an adult. Growing up, Narnia was the world I escaped to when troubled, but upon re-reading as an adult, my destination of choice has changed considerably. Your extrapalations provide much food for thought and I think it's time to take a step back and revisit Narnia with these new perspectives...thank you.

You're welcome, Jeanette! Always glad when I happen to share a thought that's worthwhile for somebody. :-)

I kind of disagree on two parts of your review. One is how you say the books use too many obvious references to religion. Even though that may be true, that's the whole idea of the series. Also, it is for children, so it is made for twelve year olds to enjoy it. The whole point was so children could identify the characters with Christianity, not for them to decipher the cryptic messages of the books and never understand the relationship to Christianity. It needs to be on the obvious side.
The second is how you say the consequences are not lasting to the characters. With Aslan sacrificing himself for Edmund in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardobe, you said it didn't matter because Aslan had a "backup" life. In Christianity, when Jesus was crucified he didn't have a "backup life." He had faith and was resurrected, it certainly didn't mean that it didn't matter because the consequences only lasted a couple days. Still, I do see how it could be seen as Edmund getting off the hook and Aslan taking all the consequences, but then he comes back to life anyway. "Backup life" was just a bad comparison. Other than that, I agree with the majority of what you said in your review.

No good word for the quality of the writing? It seems to me you were overly caught up projecting your own prejudices about religion and children's literature onto the book to enjoy it. You missed out.

The series was meant to be overtly religious. That's the whole point!!

I think it's good that there's religious themes in it. Isn't that the point?

Like others have said, Narnia was written with the purpose of portraying Christian themes. No hidden agenda. But your review does seem a little biased, in the sense that because you see the Christian themes, you dislike it regardless of the quality of the books themselves. It would be like someone saying that they dislike the Harry Potter series because of their themes of witch craft and paganism, and not even judging the books based on how good they actually are.

Matt wrote: "Like others have said, Narnia was written with the purpose of portraying Christian themes. No hidden agenda. But your review does seem a little biased, in the sense that because you see the Christi..."

Hi Matt, my review doesn't mention a hidden agenda. It mentions 1) talking, fighting animals making it feel like a children's book, 2) obvious ethnocentrism--that may be a product of the time it was written, but you can't expect minority readers to appreciate the literary merit of stereotypes and 3) the negative effect that a deus ex machina has on the enjoyability of a story (regardless of who or what the deus is).

great review! I understand where your coming from!

I completely agree with you that The Magician's Nephew is the best out of all. It's one of my favourite books. So underrated.