JRRT and C.S. Lewis

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I understand that C.S. Lewis and JRR Tolkien were good friends for a while and that they often shared work and ideas with the Inklings.
I learned to read on C.S. Lewis' children's books, The Chronicles of Narnia, so they have always been dear to me. After learning of the friendship, I read LotR again and this time I noticed some conspicuous parallels in these works. For example, the gift-giving scene is found in the Chronicles when Father Christmas presents the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve with the weapons and tools according to their abilities and desires. Later these presents are shown to posses certain powers that come in handy later on in the Chronicles. Obviously this can be compared to Galadriel's gifts to the Fellowship based on their respective affinities (i.e., Sam's love for gardening is met by the box of earth). Frodo's vial practically saves his life, just as Lucy's vial saves the lives of others with its healing powers. Susan receives a horn that, when blown, is sure to summon help in a moment of dire need, just like Boromir's horn. There are dwarves possesing similar qualities and attitudes in both sets, and dryads that can be readily compared to Ents.
Has anyone else noticed this? Also, there seemed to be an apparent change in attitude towards the role of women about halfway through the Chronicles. Where it was forbidden for them to fight in battle before, the King Tirian expressly asks young Lucy to fight with the Narnians against the Calormenes (who resemble the men of Harad). This reminds one of the unexpected role that Eowyn plays.
Does anyone else have ideas on this subject or comments on the the relationship between JRRT and C.S. Lewis?

Thanks,
Silver-shod Muse

Yes, I noticed that. I heard that J.R.R Tolkien and C.S Lewis with other writers meet for talk, and all this kind of books was first, just for play, and use ther minds. Then, they make better, and sometimes they published. I heard that.

[Olo Gamwich]

Yeah, you're right...there are lots of similar things about the two series. I've heard lots of stuff about Chronicles of Narnia having to do with the Bible, like Aslan represents God and such too.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Welcome to the Downs, Muse.

Tolkien and Lewis drew upon many of the same mythology and tales, from their discussions with the 'Inklings' as the group called themselves. The main difference is the Narnia Chronicles are consciously allegorical in intent, C.S. Lewis intended the Christian parallels. Tolkien on the other hand despised allegory and denied any such intention on his part in the Lord of the Rings. He unfortunately, although he and Lewis were good friends, didn't like the Narnia Chronicles for this very reason.

Although I like the Chronicles, I can see his point. Allegory has an agenda that subjugates the story to its purpose.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Aralaithiel]

But, despite use or nonuse of allegory, both are very excellent works. And, if it wasn't for C.S. Lewis prodding Tolkien, our favorite author would not have published them! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Thanks for the welcome Maril!

Is it true that the friendship between Lewis and Tolkien may have waned in their later years because of this "conscious allegory"? I agree with you in that allegory does have the effect of subjugating the story's purpose, but when I first read the Chronicles, I was too young to recognize the Biblical connections so Narnia will always exist as a world outside of parallels for me.

Even with allegory, there is much that can be done to illustrate the beauty in what one is trying to compare to (if that made any sense!) Narnia led me to comprehend the Bible's lessons and meaning because, as a young child (and even more now), I loved the idea of other worlds hiding in closets and around corners, and this interest opened up the way for the truth later on. The feel of Middle Earth and Narnia are similar in that they nurture a sense of inexhaustable discovery and yet simultaneously the presence of the anciencts left over from more prosperous times. Granted, LoTR is rather darker, but JRRT made it clear that it wasn't a child's bedtime story.

[Kalimac]

Muse, I'm like you [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] - I read Narnia very young and completely missed the allegorical aspect of it, but just enjoyed it as a very good story. And while I rather dislike conscious allegories, I can't knock one which is also able to stand up as a story by itself, which Narnia was able to do.

Tolkien and Lewis's friendship did wane in the fifties, unfortunately. I'm not sure why (is anybody?) but don't believe it was just about the writings; they'd been able to see past their differences on that subject before. From an admittedly quick reading of Tolkien's letters it seems that while that may have been a factor, the two drifted apart in other parts of their outlooks as well; plus Lewis's marriage could well have been a factor. Lewis married very late, to an American divorcee, and Tolkien (not to mention Mrs. Tolkien) may have found that distasteful, especially since the stigma on divorce was greater then, and let's face it, not every Englishman (especially an old-line type like Tolkien) is terribly enthusiastic about Americans. Just my guess.

[Child of the 7th Age]

One of the first reasons the friendship cooled between Lewis and Tolkien was their different response to Charles Williams. Tolkien seems to have been the kind of person who had a relatively small circle of friends but was incredibly loyal to them. Lewis was just the opposite. He had a very wide circle of friends. Sometimes he met a new person, and tried to quickly push this person onto his older friends. Tolkien didn't always appreciate this.

Charles Williams, who had already published about two dozen books, moved to Oxford for the duration of World War II. Lewis became very close with Williams; he even persuaded Oxford to give him a University appointment even though he didn't have a higher degree. Williams came to meet with the Inklings. A number of the Inklings had reservations about Williams whom they viewed as quite arrogant. Also, Tolkien didn't like Williams' writings probably because of his philosophy and subject matter. Williams was fascinated with mysticism and the occult and wrote fantasy novels with those themes. All this split Lewis and Tolkien apart.

Tolkien was also a little iritated by the rapid commercial success Lewis had with his books. Remember that in the forties Tolkien was struggling to find a publisher for the Silmarillion. Lewis' Screwtape Letters had sold about a quarter of a million copies, and he was churning out his fantasy and science fiction books at the rate of one a year. Lewis had publishers beating a path to his door, while Tolkien was struggling what to do in the aftermath of the Hobbit.

On top of all that came Lewis' friendship and eventualy marriage with the divorced American writer, Joyce Gresham. Lewis didn't even tell Tolkien when he got married. Tolkien found out about it from the newspaper, and he was very angry he hadn't been personally told.

Despite the friendship cooling in the forties, it's also true that Lewis consistently encouraged Tolkien in writing the Lord of the Rings, and many have said, without this ecouragement, the book would never have been finished or published.

It is sad that, when Lewis died, Tolkien declined all invitations to write an obituary or contribute to a volume of memorial essays. You get the feeling Tolkien had been personally hurt by his friends' actions, and the two never got around to making up.
[img]smilies/confused.gif[/img] sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[The Silver-shod Muse]

That's depressing. You'd hope that everything would've turned out okay with them in the end, just like Frodo and Sam at the Grey Havens, and maybe that was the way both of them wanted it, but they were just too caught up in themselves and their bitterness to fix anything.

A sad end... [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

P.S. Thanks so much for posting what you know here. I really appreciate it! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

I can see similarities in their works, and I also consider that they came from the same school, and were in the same group, right? Like all good friends, they probably bounced ideas off each other (my friends have helped me so much I will need lots of room for acknowledgements and dedications!). I, too, missed the allegorical part of Narnia (what? Allegory? huh?), and see how Narnia and ME have some similarities, but just some. ME is decidedly darker and more "adult", if I can be excused for saying so. Let's face it, Sauron is WAY scarier than the White Witch! And as for Ents being compared to dryads, I don't really think so. Apart from the tree thing, I mean.

[ElanorGamgee]

Those are some very interesting parallels between the works of Tolkien and Lewis, The Silver-shod Muse. I hadn't really thought of them, although I had noticed the use of mythological characters and magic by both authors. Also, both authors seem to have a love of nature, especially trees. Tolkien writes of the Ents and their persecution at the hands of Saruman, and Lewis mentions the death of Dryads after their trees are felled in The Last Battle. Of course, the prevalent theme of both authors' works is good vs. evil. Lewis also has magical rings in the book The Magician's Nephew that transport the wearer to a different world, but they aren't classified as good or evil, nor do they grant the possesser power. It makes me sad that Tolkien and Lewis weren't exactly on friendly terms toward the end of their lives. The literature of both authors is very special to me.

[greyhavener]

It is interesting that Lewis actually became convinced of the existence of God through his talks with Tolkien. It was disappointing to Tolkien, a devout Catholic, that Lewis chose to affiliate himself with the Church of England. Lewis and Tolkien had some serious theological differences. Tolkien felt Lewis had settled for less than the whole truth in acception Christianity but not Catholicism. I'm sure Lewis marriage to a divorcee was quite distressing to him.

As far as philosophical differences concerning writing, I do know that Tolkien was a purist where myth was concerned. He was deeply offended, not only by allegory itself, but by the very idea that Father Christmas could be in the same story as a faun. Lewis, on the other hand, said that since his stories were for children and children tended to mix characters in their own pretending that he felt it was entirely appropriate.

Giving all due respect to Tolkien, I don't think he was able (or necessarily intended) to avoid expressing his own faith in his work, he simply wasn't expressing it allegorically. Tolkien's traditional Catholic beliefs about good and evil, temptation, divine (or supernatural) intervention, and women to name a few are intwined in the mythology he created. He intended to tell a great story and to create a new mythology to go with the language he had already created. While his deliberate intention of convincing Lewis of God's existence reflects a concern to share his faith, I think he has a less overt evangelist. His beliefs about what is true about how the universe works, the divine, morality, good and evil are reflected in his writing as an unlying part of the mythology he created. What is true or reality in Middle Earth is that way because of what Tolkien as creator believed. Tolkien claims it wasn't deliberate, perhaps not, but his creation flows from who he is.

Lewis, on the other hand, intentionally expressed his faith. His motive was to tell a great story and to use it to evangelize. Having both motivations doesn't make him less of a writer, just less complicated. Lewis lays his heart out there for the reader. Tolkien's works requires the reader to strip off layer after layer to get to it's writer's heart.

I love them both.

[Halfir]

On a somewhat sour note I'm afraid I can't share some of the enthusiasm for Lewis. Lewis wore his Christian faith so openly on his sleeve that it subjugated his fictional works. Tolkien on the other hand - while clearly a devout Catholic - was also a philologist par excellence and a storyteller in the great bardic tradition, in which the story subsumes the mesage and not the other way round.

Indeed Tolkien makes that very point himself in Letter# 142: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like "religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world.For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I think that once Lewis really understood what being a Christian was all about he couldn't help but share the enthusiasm he had for his beliefs. I don't think that "wearing it on his sleeve" really subjugated anything in his work, I get the impression that it colored his work and imagination with a certain flavor.

Lewis strikes me as the sort of person who would want to spill out his feelings, while Tolkien would let them simmer for a while until they had matured. Neither style is wrong or right, they're just very different and use different means to come to an end.

[Kalessin]

From the point of view of "the creative act", I tend to agree with Silver-Shod Muse on this one. Whether an author is clearly allegorical, or blatantly proselytising, or subtly ambiguous etc., is in the end secondary to the actual quality of their work. There's no 'right' way, and no substitute for 'talent'!

Peace

[Halfir]

Silver-Shod Muse, Kalessin: Your respective points are well taken.

I particularly agree with the comment that Lewis would tend to spill-out the joy he had found whereas Tolkien would be more reflective. I also accept that whether blatant or balanced, allegorical usage at the end is secondary to the quality of the created product.

But I am afraid that is just the point I wished to make. I don't think the quality of creativity of Lewis as exampled in the Narnia series even begins to come near the genius of Tolkien in LOTR. And the main reason for this, in my view, is that Lewis's beliefs intruded so much into the storyline that they devalued the creative act of storytelling whereas with Tolkien it was exactly the opposite.

Oscar Wilde said that there was no such thing as moral or immoral art, just good art or bad art (Or words to that effect, I can't remember the actual quote). I doubt if either Tolkien or Lewis would have agreed with him,the one being a devoutly Catholic Christian, the other a devoutly Anglican one. However, it is a sentiment that strikes a chord with me, and I am afraid to say that on Wilde's criterion I think Lewis is bad art and Tolkien good art.

[littlemanpoet]

We have complementary threads on Tolkien and Lewis in both Book venues at the downs. I encourage you all to check the other one out, too. My thanks, Child, for the insight into Charles Williams. I had forgotten about that piece of the puzzle.

For C.S. Lewis' BEST work of art, read 'Till We Have Faces', a modern retelling of the Greek myth of Eros and Psyche - from the point of view of the jealous sister. Lewis' faith is woven into the fabric of this novel, rather than bleeding from it as in the Narnia Chronicles. ouch - the way that sounds you'd think I hated the Narnia Chronicles - not so, but Middle Earth just is better.

[Halfir]

One point I failed to mention in my criticism of Lewis is really one that belongs to Tolkien, who, as has been posted, was not a fan of the Narnia series.

In the Forewood to the FOTR - in talking about his dislike of allegory - Tolkien says:"But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied apllicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

That last point: "the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author", seems to me to sum up the crucial difference between Lewis and Tolkien. The freedom of the reader as opposed to the purposed domination of the author. Indeed, it is that freedom , as opposed to domination, which has made LOTR the universal work that it is, unbounded by religious shackles, although I do not dispute that religious belief abides in it.

As Yeats wrote:"How can we tell the dancer from the dance?"With Lewis, quite easily in the Narnia chronicles, with Tolkien not at all in LOTR. That is why one will disappear into the graveyard of literary history, and the other will endure beyond the circles of the world.

[Gryphon Hall]

<h3>Halfir:</h3>


Weeelllll... The Chronicles of Narnia seems to be doing pretty well, aren't they? We will just have to wait and see if they do die a literary death or something like that. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] </p>


Seriously, why shouldn't we take what Tolkien said about allegory as his opinion? What if the thing that is allegorized in the Chronicles (or any allegory for that matter) was true? And even if the author dominates a piece of work, why should that be so bad?
</p>


Anyway, just browsing around. I'll try to write something longer soon to address this fully.
</p>
<h3>Silver-shod Muse:</h3>


Yeah, I also found it depressing that Tolkien and Lewis never came around to patching things up. I liked them both, as well as their works.
</p>

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Welcome to the Downs, Gryphon Hall! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

Hi Gryphon, welcome [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Seriously, why shouldn't we take what Tolkien said about allegory as his opinion? What if the thing that is allegorized in the Chronicles (or any allegory for that matter) was true? And even if the author dominates a piece of work, why should that be so bad?

Of course Tolkien was stating an opinion, and there are some fine examples of apparently allegorical writing, by Steinbeck and others.

However, it makes no difference whether what is 'allegorized' is "true" (by which I assume you mean elements of, or all of, the Gospels) in a historical or empirical sense. An allegorical narrative is not necessarily well-written just because it contains a representation of fact or faith. It may be worthy, or imbued with Christian tenets, but it can still fail. There are plenty of bad or average writers out there of all denominations!

By the same token, I agree with you that if an author dominates a work that does not necessarily make it bad. To my mind, writers such as Faulkner and Joyce 'dominate' their text in a way that Tolkien does not, and that is simply part of what makes their work distinctive and memorable.

What is more likely is that an intelligent reader who is aware of 'allegorical' intent may be compromised in his experience of a work, so to speak, by constantly referring the story back to to its source material (consciously or not), and may therefore find it either mechanical or predictable (or both). The fairly well-publicised nature of Lewis' Chronicles is therefore perhaps a factor. If, for example, I discovered that Tolkien had indeed written LotR as a straightforward Biblical allegory, and that Gandalf "was" Jesus etc., I can guarantee my enjoyment and desire to re-read the story would be diluted. Not because of any prejudice against Christianity, but because my imagination would be sidelined. Thankfully (see Trilogy and Bible thread) I think we have sorted that particular bugbear out [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I think it's probably reasonable to say that in most cases allegory works best when it is subtle, or at least not revealed in all its glory on Page 1 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .

But, as ever, there's just no substitute for talent in all its manifestations. Talent, or good writing, makes reading worthwhile and rewarding whatever the form or literary devices present ...

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Luineglin]

i have only read part of this thread cause im lazy and just wanted to say that i belive that aslan is jesus not god and that the chroniceles of narnia are the second best book series ever written. guess what the first is

[Daniel Telcontar]

Luineglin, I believe you are right about Aslan (turkish for lion) is Jesus, which is easily discovered when reading "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". But I doubt that Narnia is a dying book. With the popularity of LOTR, Narnia has also received its share, since they are not far from each other. In Denmark, the Narnia Chronicles has just been republished, both in Danish and English.

C.S.Lewis and J.R.R.T. where good friends. Lewis was the first one J.R.R.T. showed the first drafts of LOTR, and together they agreed to write both a spece and time-travle adventure. Lewis was to do the space story (the space trilogy, if you have not read them do so) and tolkien gave up on the time travle story, saying the problem was he knew exactly where he wanted to go abd time trave meant it would take to long to get there.
they both had semelar ideas of how storys shold be written and agreed that there was not enough of whet they want in the story they read. so they would make there own.

[Mornie Alantie]

Im sorry if I haven't follow what your talking about but I didn't read it all

C. S. Lewis and JRR Tolkien were good friends. In fact JRR Tolkien was the one who brought C. S. Lewis to Christ! The both wrote fantasy but JRR Tolkien didn't want to write a fantasy like C.S. Lewis's "the cronicles of Narnia cause he kinda disliked writing metaphores or whatever they are called. Tolkien and Lewis would meet at "The Eagle and the Child" pub. I wanna go to that place sooooo bad it is in Oxford i think.

[Luthien_ Tinuviel]

I also read The Chronicles of Narnia very early.

Tolkien was instrumental in leading Lewis to Christ, you know.

I've heard that Charles Williams(I think) influenced Lewis when he was writing "That Hideous Strength", and Tolkien didn't like that.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Regarding JRR Tolkien being instrumental in leading CS Lewis to Christ:

The following quote is from an article called "True Myth: The Catholicism of The Lord of the Rings." The article, written by Joseph Pearce, appeared in the December 2001 issue of The Catholic World Report:

"When Lewis and Tolkien had first met, Lewis was beginning to perceive the inadequacy of the agnosticism into which he had lapsed, having previously discarded any remnants of childhood Christianity. By the summer of 1929 he had renounced agnosticism and professed himself a theist, believing in the existence of God but denying the claims of Christianity. Essentially this was his position when, in September 1931, he had the discussion with Tolkien and their mutual friend, Hugo Dyson, which was destined to have a revolutionary impact on his life. After dinner the three men went for a walk and discussed the nature and purpose of myth. Lewis explained that he felt the power of myths but that they were ultimately untrue. As he expressed it to Tolkien, myths were 'lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver.'

"No," Tolkien replied, "They are not lies."

"Tolkien argued that, far from being lies, myths were the best way of conveying truths which would otherwise be inexpressible. We have come from God and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic 'progress' leads only to the abyss and to the power of evil.

"Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien and Dyson went on to express their belief that the story of Christ was simply a true myth: a myth that works in the same way as the others, but a myth that really happened. Whereas pagan myths revealed fragments of eternal truth through the words of poets, the True Myth of Christianity revealed the whole truth through the Word himself. The poets of pagan antiquity told their story with words, but God, the omnipotent Poet, told the True Story with facts -- weaving his tale with the actions of real men in actual history.

"Tolkien's arguments had an indelible effect on Lewis. The edifice of his unbelief crumbled and the foundations of his Christianity were laid. Twelve days later Lewis wrote to a friend that he had 'just passed on from believing in God to definitely believing in Christ -- in Christianity. ... My long night talk with Dyson and Tolkien had a good deal to do with it.' "

-- Catholic World Report
December 2001

[piosenniel]

Thank you very much for this specific reference.

Do you know how Joseph Pearce referenced his article -- from letters of Lewis and/or JRRT?

I particularly liked this section:

Tolkien argued that, far from being lies, myths were the best way of conveying truths which would otherwise be inexpressible. We have come from God and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic 'progress' leads only to the abyss and to the power of evil.

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

Although I admit to not having read all of the lengtier responses, to which I am sorry, I would like to give my view on this. I am a Christian, and I like the idea of what Lewis did. He wrote many works to Christians and non-Chhristians supporting God. I've only read the Chronicles of Narnia, but I happen to know one of his other works, The Screwtape Letters, is about how Satan works. Tolkien wrote fantasy, albeit the best fantasy in the world in my mind, but Lewis wrote fantasy and Christian literature. Narnia was written as children's stories. I think he used it as an allegory (Lion/Witch/Wardrobe is the story of Jesus) to introduce children to God. Thanks for listening.

[greyhavener]

I think the second time I read both Tolkien's and Lewis'works was when I really began to "get" them with my heart. There is a moment in Lewis Chronicles (I think it's in Voyage of the Dawn Treader) when all these creatures turn toward the rising sun and begin to sing in these voices "so beautiful they break your heart." Tolkien has a similar scene in LOTR. Reading both the Chronicles and LOTR have that effect on me. Both writers make invisible truths tangible through invented myth.

I'd like to think that now that they both see the breathtaking reality their separate myths only hint at that they are friends again.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I didn't know that Aslan was Turkish for lion! Thanks for sharing that, Daniel.

Something that many people miss is that the Chronicles of Narnia are for children, and that the accuracy and consistency of the mythology is not important at all. They are not meant to be flawless portraits of a fantasy world, they are designed to reach children with God's word in a way that is easy to understand and to love.

I first became interested in the idea of Jesus and the Holy Spirit after reading the Chronicles. In fact, for a long time I imagined Jesus as Aslan because Lewis had made him so real and applicable to me. Though I was very young and just learning to read, the warm, gentle language and inviting descriptions captured me. I still think on the cool forest glades of Narnia and the golden smell of Aslan's mane when I'm lonely or bored. The very sweetest and saddest moment (it still moves me to tears) is when the children go through the door in the stable after losing the Last Battle and seeing all of Narnia torn and broken at the end of its time. They cry for what has been lost, but lo! they open their eyes and see that the land beyond the stable door really is Narnia, only greater, more vivid and full as an object is greater than its shadow.

The Chronicles are hardly even comparable to LotR. They were written for different purposes and excite different emotions and reactions entirely.

I love both of them equally, but in different ways, as a mother loves her children for different reasons. The Chronicles of Narnia were endowed by Lewis with the ability to move me as no other books that I have ever read, but the LotR books are beautiful in their complexity and truthfulness.

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

Well said, Muse.

[*Varda*]

Reading this thread just made me realise it's been years since i read The Chronicles of Narnia! I loved them when i was younger and hadn't discovered Middle Earth. LotR will always be my favourite, but i definitely want to reread the chronicles and take all these points into account when i read it, i'm really interested in the similarities now!

And i think Lewis and Tolkiens friendship waned for various reasons. One, i seem to remember, was Lewis's faith, and i think another main reason was Lewis's marriage to a divorcee. I think Tolkien disapproved of this. I couldn't remember all the details without looking up more, but that's what i remember from the research i did for an english talk.

[Laredith]

The Chronicles were not an allegory. Lewis said so himself. He considerd them to be a "supposition" (or however you spell it). Actually, according to Lewis, the whole Narnia thing began with an image of a faun in the snowy woods carrying some parcels, along with an umbrella, and a witch on a sledge (not verbatim, of course). All of a sudden, Aslan appeared, and he pulled the stories together. It did NOT appear as an attempt to teach children about God (acctually, Lewis hated the idea of writing "down to children"). Ok, just thought I'd clear that up (one last note: Tiran told JILL to go to battle, not Lucy. Lucy was acctually about 17 at the time, and therefore too old to go to Narnia again. Besides that, Aslan told her so).

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Laredith, when I said to children, I didn't mean down to, I meant for. The Chronicles are certainly designed for children, but Lewis wrote as one who was still in love with all the joys and troubles of childhood. Indeed, I can't imagine him writing otherwise.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Has anyone read The Dark Tower? It is something like Tolkien's Unfinished Tales in that they are the stories that Lewis never finished before he died. In my opinion, they are some of his best works. The breakoff point in the first one, which is amply long enough to completely ensnare you, is most grueling.

What Laredith mentioned about Lewis "seeing" the beginning of the Chronicles reminded me of a passage somewhere therein where one of Lewis's friends says that after Joy (his wife) died, he seemed to have lost the power of "seeing pictures". It was very sad.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]