Prince Caspian

I can't remember the plot of the Prince Caspian book at all, but according to Ross the film version departed significantly from the book. So I can't say whether or not this objection applies to the book as well, but when I walked out of the theater I found myself badly disappointed by Aslan's proposed response to conflict between the Telmurines and the Old Narnians. Offering to transport Telmurines back to the island their ancestors came from in the distant past would make about as much sense as rectifying the unjust dispossession of the Native Americans by suggesting that present-day Americans all go back to the countries our ancestors immigrated from.

It doesn't make sense on a practical level (the Telmarines new neighbors aren't going to be happy with it at all) and it doesn't make sense on a moral level -- as best I can tell, your typical modern-day Telmarine (as opposed to the king and a small circle of high officials) hasn't done anything wrong. Putting this proposal in context of Prince Caspian riding to power at the head of an army of mythological creatures is just going to turn the Prince into a Quisling figure in the eyes of the human population.

Comments

Considering that Aslan is supposed to be the Narnian Jesus, you'd have thought he could have come up with a better solution.

Then again you'd think that Jesus, being the embodiment of God, could have magically intervened in the conflict without waiting to be asked by a 14-year-old girl.

I know C.S. Lewis was a product of his times, but you'd think that the guy widely regarded as the West's most prominent and accessible theologian could have addressed some of these problems, if indeed anybody could.

Posted by Chet | May 19, 2008 4:39 PM

Weel, thsi is apparently a place where the movie didn't quite get the book right.

In the book, the Telmarines are given the choice between remaining in Narnia, on condition that they recognize the Talking Animals as having equal rights, or returning to the island their ancestors came from, which is inhabitable but uninhabited.

Posted by SamChevre | May 19, 2008 4:42 PM

C.S. Lewis was an interesting person with insightful ideas about a certain range of topics, including some significant ones (personal ethics, for example), but about practical politics he was pretty clueless.

Posted by Karl Weber | May 19, 2008 4:44 PM

Liberia, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia#Settlers_from_the_United_States

Posted by Rob | May 19, 2008 4:57 PM

The book came out in 1951. The "transport [ethnic group destroyed by a war] back to the [place, more or less] their ancestors came from in the distant past" deal had recently been sought and accepted by a certain ethnic group that receives a bit of attention on this blog.

Posted by old guy | May 19, 2008 5:03 PM

Not Quisling, exactly. Caspian was the rightful inheritor of the Telmarine throne in Narnia -- his enemy was a usurper. So those who chose to stay wouldn't necessarily be unhappy with the result, other than having to share the land with a bunch of talking animals. And as Sam noted, their ancestral homeland back on Earth was at that time supposedly uninhabited.

Posted by wahoofive | May 19, 2008 5:04 PM

Old Guy--

Can I turn your observation on its head? The book didn't end with this comprehensive resettlement scheme. But I could see how the film's fundie backers might be interested in advancing resettlement as a solution for a more contemporary scenario involving the same piece of land (to join you in the Delphic locutions)....

And to meet Wahoofive on a related point of innuendo: "ancestral homeland...supposedly uninhabited" is conveniently close to the old "land without a people for a people without a land" barrel of laughs, no?

Posted by fargo north,decoder | May 19, 2008 5:23 PM

I haven't seen the movie, but it is perhaps worth bringing up that throughout the book version of "Prince Caspian," the Telmarines are depicted as foreign occupiers imposing their terrestrial mundane-ness on the magic-based land of Narnia.

Posted by James Gary | May 19, 2008 5:33 PM

As an Indian, I think this plan sounds awesome.

Posted by Adam | May 19, 2008 5:39 PM

I haven't seen the movie, but I wonder if it addresses the question of why Aslan waited 1300 years to do anything about the problems in his beloved Narnia?

Posted by RSA | May 19, 2008 5:43 PM

I agree, RSA. I've both read the book and seen the movie and am still annoyed at the heavy deus ex machina that Aslan embodies.

Posted by Kevin | May 19, 2008 5:53 PM

But is the movie worth seeing?

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | May 19, 2008 5:54 PM

I wonder if it addresses the question of why Aslan waited 1300 years to do anything about the problems in his beloved Narnia?

When I re-read "Prince Caspian" a few years ago, my thought was that Lewis must have had India in mind when he wrote it: after a generations-long foreign occupation, the colonialists leave and the land is, more or less, left to its natives to govern.

As others in the thread have noted, Lewis's attempts to square his narrative arcs with real-world logistics fall a bit short: Aslan always shows up at the end to do the heavy lifting, so why does he bother sending the children on their missions in the first place? (It's not quite so bad in some of the other Narnia books, where 'human free will" is the necessary component to resolving the problem and the children are less pawn-ish. Perhaps that explains why "Prince Caspian" was my second-least favorite of the Narnia series when I was a child.)

Posted by James Gary | May 19, 2008 5:58 PM

For Your Benefit:

The film also offers the option of staying and living in peace with the Narnians, or returning to the island the Telmarine ancestors originally entered Narnia from.

Posted by Bob | May 19, 2008 5:59 PM

For Clarification:

The film also offers the option of staying and living in peace with the Narnians, or returning to the island the Telmarine ancestors originally entered Narnia from.

Free choice is given.

Posted by Bob | May 19, 2008 6:00 PM

I saw the movie yesterday. He offered an uninhabited island on the world the Telmarines were from (our world) - not somebody else's island - and he offered only to transport those not willing to live with Narnians. Made sense to me. Why would Narnia want to keep 'em if they don't want to stay? Haven't read the book for 25 years, don't remember how that one ended....

Posted by chesapeakeblue | May 19, 2008 6:45 PM

It's a children's book, so the ending makes sense to kids. According to the book, the young Telmarine humans mostly stay and make friends with the talking animals, while the old fogey Telmarines who can't get used to sharing their world with talking animals mostly settle an uninhabited but habitable island back on Earth.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 19, 2008 7:41 PM

I too saw the movie yesterday. I actually enjoyed the details, some of which were original to the movie, some from the original novel.

When Miraz' wife reaches for a crossbow hidden in a secret compartment in the royal bed's headboard, I had to clench my teeth to avoid laughing out loud!

I don't remember that from the book.

Posted by Brahma | May 19, 2008 7:48 PM

James, I think a lot of people agree about Caspian being one of, or simply the weakest, of the series. But which was your least favorite? I am sure I could guess, but I'm always interested in people's reactions to the series.

Posted by Wrye | May 19, 2008 7:59 PM

But which was your least favorite?

The main draw of the Narnia books for me was the meta-concept of normal kids from contemporary Earth learning to operate in a fantasy world. Since The Horse and His Boy didn't deal with that at all (the English children only appear in walk-on roles) it was my least favorite. Top of the list, of course, was the extremely-meta The Magician's Nephew.

Posted by James Gary | May 19, 2008 9:11 PM

Odd. I too have no recollection of "Prince Caspian". I recognise the title. I remember the plots of the other books in the series. I conclude that Prince Caspian must be an extraordinarily boring book. I mean you didn't even read it very long ago, because you weren't born very long ago.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 19, 2008 10:32 PM

Top of the list, of course, was the extremely-meta The Magician's Nephew.

That one's tied for my favorite, along with The Silver Chair. Great use of fairy tale motifs - the warnings that are continually ignored to the protagonists' detriment, the wonderfully creepy villain and the equally wonderful setting of her underworld kingdom, and of course Puddleglum. And even Aslan is used just the right amount, in sparing bits as a device to spur the plot along rather than a sledgehammer to bring it to a halt.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | May 19, 2008 11:03 PM

Worst book of the series, hands down, was The Last Battle, filled with heavy-handed platonic moralizing, which looks a lot like today's fundie crap. You can read the other books as nice adventure yarns, but Battle is pretty much just a sermon with talking animals.

Posted by jimBOB | May 19, 2008 11:17 PM

Worst book of the series, hands down, was The Last Battle, filled with heavy-handed platonic moralizing, which looks a lot like today's fundie crap.

I remember deeply digging its apocalyptic quality at the age of seven, but when I re-read the entire series a few years ago, The Last Battle did seem like the worst of the lot.

For whatever it's worth, one thing I did love about the book, then and now, (spoiler alert) was that the Calormene (reads: Muslim) prince, having led a good life, ends up going to heaven despite having done his good works in the service of the "wrong" god. Today's "fundie crap," with its paranoid emphasis on acknowledging Jesus' divinity as a necessary precondition for salvation, is all the more offensive to me because it often lacks Lewis's basic understanding of what religion is--or should be--about.

For all the present-day snark about C.S. Lewis's undeniably-nutty born-again holy-rollerness, his writing generally exhibits an admirable moral clarity. I can't imagine the man would be anything other than appalled at the present-day American alliance of fundamentalist religion with big business and quasi-Fascist nationalism.

Posted by James Gary | May 19, 2008 11:49 PM

Quit giving away the plots of movies and books you monkey.I recorded the game tonight too so just shut up about that too.Next thing you know you will tell me who wins the Liberals or the fascists in Fat Mammas boys book.

Posted by jerry | May 19, 2008 11:51 PM

"For whatever it's worth, one thing I did love about the book, then and now, (spoiler alert) was that the Calormene (reads: Muslim) prince, having led a good life, ends up going to heaven despite having done his good works in the service of the "wrong" god."

As a Jew who literally learned to read with the Narnia books, I really liked that part too even though I didn't know the contrast with Christianity here on Earth until I was older.

Posted by aleks | May 20, 2008 5:45 AM

Scattered above were some of the many reasons his good friend J.R.R. Tolkien thought the books were utter shite. Prince Caspian was the second one written though, and had no clear allegorical theme, so that could be a reason you can't find the "meaning" you're looking for.

And of course, Matt missed everything about that in the movie. 1) Most were staying, and 2) where they were going was uninhabited.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 20, 2008 9:51 AM

Calormene (reads: Muslim)

There is a fine distinction to be made here. Calormene quite plainly = Ottoman, and the Ottomans were of course Muslims. But did Islam really have that much to do on the Ottomans' interactions with their neighbors? Lewis makes no effort to engage the actual content of Islam - the Calormenes are straighforwardly worshipers of a devil named Tash.

This is of course a distinction that will not be widely drawn if Walden, if it gets around to The Horse and His Boy, sticks with the book's scimitar-wielding, sherbet-sipping, turban-wearing villains. In fact, there will be hell to pay.

(By way of declaring a general position, The Horse and His Boy is my favorite Narnia. I disapprove of the books in principle for a whole lot of reasons, but find them compulsively rereadable in practice.)

Posted by roac | May 20, 2008 10:37 AM

I agree that The Last Battle was just execrable. Spoiler alert--the concluding apocalypse was just silly. I enjoyed the other books. I read or reread them as an adult after my children started reading them. No one has mentioned The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which is great. It drops out Peter and Susan, and has a new character, a boy named Eustace who is obnoxious, apparently due to his upbrining by rationalist atheist liberal parents. But the different allegorical lands they visit are wonderful, and the change in Eustace is neat to see. There is definitely a lot of annoying stuff in these books, but most of them have a good heart. Tolkien may not have thought much of them (but weren't Tolkien and Lewis friends and colleagues?), but Philip Pullman, who has raked both authors over the coals, actually has more respect for Lewis than Tolkien. He can argue with Lewis (especially his issues with women), but finds Tolkien hopeless.

Posted by Lawyer Bob | May 20, 2008 4:33 PM

My main problem with the entire series (I just re-read Caspian and Dawn Treader) is the feeling that I'm not in an imaginary world, but in a staged imitation of one, complete with painted cardboard backdrops that you could punch your way through, and see the 2x4s keeping the background scenery propped up.

When you're reading a story set in a decent fantasy world, it should feel like there's a lot more world out there, beyond the part you're seeing in the story. Narnia just doesn't have that feeling to it, at least IMHO.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 22, 2008 1:01 PM