Narnia Chat

I haven't thought about that before. Even now that you mention it I can't feel very bothered by it. I feel like the question of age has more to do with a departure from a make-believe age and an entrance into a more rational-based age. I think it's like children stop spending their time making things up about the world around them, and start talking about what other people have made up.

It's not as though there is a specific age at which children are no longer allowed in (no such age is mentioned, to my memory): its simply that their horizons are broadening and new opportunities are opening up before them in the regular world. Their focus is shifting from child-things to adult-things. Susan is obviously the best example of this, as by Prince Caspian she even begins to deny partaking in their adventures in Narnia. 

For these reasons I disagree with the statement:

"I know the end game of this rule is that Lewis wanted to have different characters go to Narnia, but if it was that important, I think he should have thought things through a bit more."


Difference characters may be part of Lewis' motivation, but the theme of "growing too old for Narnia" ties into the whole nature of Narnia to begin with. Think of how Lucy has such trouble at first persuading the others of the existence of her magical land. From a meta-perspective, a possible reason for Lucy and Edmund growing too old for Narnia faster than Peter and Susan did is because the latter had younger siblings to help them remember what it was like to be children. While the former have two siblings pulling them towards adulthood.




As for various adults making their way into Narnia, I agree that the Telmarines making their way in does not follow the logic very well, but then adulthood didn't keep anyone from entering Narnia at its beginning in The Magicians Nephew. The cabbie (his wife was it?), and Uncle Diggory certainly entered just fine. 


The whole Telmarine thing I chalk up to a world-building slip-up, or negligence, or whatever. The same way that we don't know where Archenland or Calormen came from (I don't think?) or what they were up to during the events of Prince Caspian and The Lion the Witch, and the Wardrobe. 

But then, worldbuilding is certainly not the strength of the series. And not why people read it.

bungobaggins wrote:The only returning character for TSC would be Eustace, I think.   

The Pevensies don't return until TLB when they are adults. Although I think they make an apperance in THAHB, but then again I think they were older here as well.

Frankly, if the next Narnia film is like the last two I won't really give a rat's arse about it.

Agreed on the quality point (except that I'd still go see it if only to see who they have fill the shoes of Tom Baker's Puddleglum).

There will be no returning characters, however, I've heard that confirmed by... well someone associated with the project.

Damnit, search results of "Trumpkin" are showing up Donald Trump's face on a pumpkin.  


Anyway, I just wanted to say that I always think of Peter Dinklage's role in Prince Caspian (the film) as Trumpkin as the precursor to his appearance in Game of Thrones.  




I wonder how he looks back at the role? It certainly feels like a less... empowered role? I guess? For a dwarf actor. I mean, for a dwarf actor to actually play a dwarf or a.. whatever the little ones are called in Willow, can feel kind of exploitative. 

Here's him and Warwick Davis together in the film:




At the same time, casting dwarf actors as various fantasy miniature humanoids has a feel of nostalgia to it. The aforementioned Willow, for example, is one of my favourite films of Warwick Davis'.

Forest Shepherd wrote:I haven't thought about that before. Even now that you mention it I can't feel very bothered by it. I feel like the question of age has more to do with a departure from a make-believe age and an entrance into a more rational-based age. I think it's like children stop spending their time making things up about the world around them, and start talking about what other people have made up.

Not sure I understand that last part. In any case, I wouldn't say I'm bothered by it so much as it's one of the things that make it not hold up so well.

It's not as though there is a specific age at which children are no longer allowed in (no such age is mentioned, to my memory): its simply that their horizons are broadening and new opportunities are opening up before them in the regular world. Their focus is shifting from child-things to adult-things. Susan is obviously the best example of this, as by Prince Caspian she even begins to deny partaking in their adventures in Narnia.

I could be wrong but I don't think that's in Prince Caspian. I think that's mentioned in The Last Battle.

Difference characters may be part of Lewis' motivation, but the theme of "growing too old for Narnia" ties into the whole nature of Narnia to begin with. Think of how Lucy has such trouble at first persuading the others of the existence of her magical land. From a meta-perspective, a possible reason for Lucy and Edmund growing too old for Narnia faster than Peter and Susan did is because the latter had younger siblings to help them remember what it was like to be children. While the former have two siblings pulling them towards adulthood.

Possible but never explained or implied in the least bit. I have to wonder if it's there for Lewis to say something about his religion. It happens when a lamb (a pretty obvious symbol) who has made them some fish (another obvious symbol) before turning into Aslan. The kids are saddened by the statement but the real reason for their dismay is that they won't be able to see Aslan anymore, to which he tells them they will, just in a different form.

Forest Shepherd wrote:

At the same time, casting dwarf actors as various fantasy miniature humanoids has a feel of nostalgia to it. The aforementioned Willow, for example, is one of my favourite films of Warwick Davis'.

I've only seen bits and pieces of this movie but I might watch it just to see how Dinklage handles Trumpkin. I have to wonder why they made him a blond instead of a redhead, though.

Radaghast wrote:

Forest Shepherd wrote:I haven't thought about that before. Even now that you mention it I can't feel very bothered by it. I feel like the question of age has more to do with a departure from a make-believe age and an entrance into a more rational-based age. I think it's like children stop spending their time making things up about the world around them, and start talking about what other people have made up.

Not sure I understand that last part. In any case, I wouldn't say I'm bothered by it so much as it's one of the things that make it not hold up so well.

Well, basically, I meant that teens and young adults don't spend much time playing make-believe. Instead, they talk about movies they've seen (someone else's make-believe), music they like, school stuff, etc. 

It's not as though there is a specific age at which children are no longer allowed in (no such age is mentioned, to my memory): its simply that their horizons are broadening and new opportunities are opening up before them in the regular world. Their focus is shifting from child-things to adult-things. Susan is obviously the best example of this, as by Prince Caspian she even begins to deny partaking in their adventures in Narnia.

I could be wrong but I don't think that's in Prince Caspian. I think that's mentioned in The Last Battle.

I think you're right!

Difference characters may be part of Lewis' motivation, but the theme of "growing too old for Narnia" ties into the whole nature of Narnia to begin with. Think of how Lucy has such trouble at first persuading the others of the existence of her magical land. From a meta-perspective, a possible reason for Lucy and Edmund growing too old for Narnia faster than Peter and Susan did is because the latter had younger siblings to help them remember what it was like to be children. While the former have two siblings pulling them towards adulthood.

Possible but never explained or implied in the least bit. I have to wonder if it's there for Lewis to say something about his religion. It happens when a lamb (a pretty obvious symbol) who has made them some fish (another obvious symbol) before turning into Aslan. The kids are saddened by the statement but the real reason for their dismay is that they won't be able to see Aslan anymore, to which he tells them they will, just in a different form.

It's true that it's explained in that manner at any point, but I think my example of how it is Lucy who draws the others into Narnia suggests the idea that having a younger sibling who shares your interest in Narnia would help you stay there longer. 

I mean, in regular-life terms, I'm 25 and I sure don't play make-believe with my older siblings or my parents, but I sure do whenever I have to babysit or when I'm hanging out with my nephews and nieces. 

Anyway, I did always think the part of the story where Aslan talks about how the children know him in the other world, but under a different name, was an example of Lewis making it quite clear that, in the story, Aslan is to Narnia as a redemptive saviour is to our world. By context we know, of course, that Lewis is talking about Jesus. Parts of the book like this are probably rather divisive. On the one hand, people like me thought they were pretty awesome. Here's this book that is basically saying that the relationship the children had with Aslan was one that I could have myself with the Jesus that they talked about in church and that my parents talked about. 
But, on the other hand, readers who have a negative response to Christianity would dislike having a character like Aslan that they liked being associated with something they did not.

Radaghast wrote:

Forest Shepherd wrote:

At the same time, casting dwarf actors as various fantasy miniature humanoids has a feel of nostalgia to it. The aforementioned Willow, for example, is one of my favourite films of Warwick Davis'.

I've only seen bits and pieces of this movie but I might watch it just to see how Dinklage handles Trumpkin. I have to wonder why they made him a blond instead of a redhead, though.

I watched the whole thing a couple times, but I don't remember much about Dinklage in particular as this was several years ago now. I'm sure it would be hilarious to re-watch it now, knowing the actor as well as I do thanks to GoT. 

The hair is a bit light, but it's still rather reddish in the movie itself.

Dinklage was the best thing about that film. His eyes said more than words.

I take back what I said about The Silver Chair being one of my favorites. I can't imagine why I ever thought so. It's not a terribly good story and the protagonists are really rather stupid.

I read and enjoyed the first three books, but A Horse And His Boy just...bored me, stopped reading about 50 pages in.

I've forgotten most of that one as well. I'm not too hopeful that it will hold up any better than the others. There is a quality to Lewis's writing in these books that sort of cloys and annoys that I'd never noticed before.

The Horse and His Boy is one of my favourites...

Forest Shepherd wrote:


The Horse and His Boy is one of my favourites...

I wasn't a fan of the books or films growing up (though I have very vague memories of reading TLTWATW as a child) and I only picked up a set of the books because they were going very cheap, whilst the first three books had a wonderful sense of fun and adventure about them, Horse and his Boy just seemed to meander along with no real 'wow' moments, admittedly I didn't get too far into the book before giving up, but the old fashioned 'And Lo he beheld' type dialogue got kinda grating after a while.

I'll probably give it another chance eventually.