I think it's plausible because there was a real Tashbaan in there. 

I think there definitely would have been a real Charn as part of Aslan's country. To me, there's plenty of credible evidence that points in that direction and none that points the other way.

In the hall of images in Charn, as Digory and Polly look at the faces of the past kings and queens, we're given the impression that the rulers were "nice people" in the early era of Charn's history — that they were kind and wise. Gradually they become more solemn, and then more and more corrupted by evil, until of course they culminate in Jadis, who destroyed everything living thing but herself with a single word. We don't know anything about how and why that world's history unfolded as it did, or how different it might have been if those rulers (and presumably other people too) had made different choices down the centuries. But the implication is clear: Charn didn't start out evil.

More to the point — as we all know, the Chronicles of Narnia are written from a Christian basis. There is only one Creator / God in that worldview. In other words, Charn can only have been created by Aslan. And as we discover in LB, the mortal versions of Narnia and of our world were or are "only a shadow or a copy" of the "real thing" in Aslan's country.

There is no other logical conclusion, then, that the "shadow" version of Charn (which fell into utter corruption and was destroyed) must have its real, and entirely good, original counterpart in Aslan's country. Otherwise, that means there was at least one world that was created on some different basis — that didn't echo some part of Aslan's country — or that was made by some creator other than Aslan. Neither of those options would be acceptable from Lewis's religious standpoint.

Also, there's the scene near the end of MN where Aslan warns the children that their (our) world is "growing more like" Charn and that "It is not certain that some wicked one of your race will not find out a secret as evil as the Deplorable Word and use it to destroy all living things." (Obvious reference to nuclear weapons there.) That, I think, tells us two things:

1. Just because a world may become so overrun with evil that "some wicked one" manages to "destroy all living things", does not mean that that world doesn't have its entirely good and eternal version within Aslan's country. As we know from LB, our world does.

2. When it comes to the thorny questions of fate vs free will, Lewis clearly didn't believe in fate in the absolute sense. Even Aslan can't say for sure what our world's fate will be and whether or not it really will go the same way as Charn. Free will and human choice obviously play some part. And that in turn is more than enough indication to me, at least, that Charn too was not absolutely foreordained to become as thoroughly evil as it did and to end the way it did.

So, no, I don't have any hesitation in imagining Aslan's country as including the real Charn — as it was truly meant to be, without any trace of evil. I very much doubt Jadis ever got there, though, considering not only what she did, but also her attitude towards Aslan himself! 

I am definitely inclined to think there would be a "real" Charn within Aslan's Country - just like the other "real" worlds within and jutting off from Aslan's Country.  I think as @courtenay has given a very good answer as to why - so I'm not going to go too much into detail, but essentially, just like the other worlds in the Narnia books, there were good or "nice people" in the world too.  It seems to me in keeping with the Aslan's nature or (who He is in other worlds) is in keeping with Him accepting what is good and right etc in each world, and what is evil being destroyed and cut off.  Also for me - there is the fact that Aslan has good knowledge of Charn - knowing what happened when Digory & Polly were there and knowing its state etc - suggests that He had some sort of intimate knowledge of the world too and possibly even was there with another name too, just as He was in our world.

@courtenay that's an excellent (and rather profound) response to the question!

Posted by: @pete

Also for me - there is the fact that Aslan has good knowledge of Charn - knowing what happened when Digory & Polly were there and knowing its state etc - suggests that He had some sort of intimate knowledge of the world too and possibly even was there with another name too, just as He was in our world.

Yes, I think that would have to be the case. Not only could there not be any creator other than Him, but also, I can't imagine He would leave any world He created without any means of knowing Him and finding salvation. Lewis's whole premise in (sub)creating the character of Aslan was — I'm paraphrasing — "What if there was another world that needed saving, and the same Saviour who came to our world, came to it as well?" So it doesn't stand to reason that the one Creator and Redeemer would give our world and Narnia that opportunity, but not Charn.

And indeed, I just remembered, only a few paragraphs before Aslan explains to the children that they will meet him in their own world under another name, he makes the unambiguous statement (at the moment when he transforms from a Lamb into a Lion, near the end of VDT): "There is a way into my country from all worlds." All worlds. No room there for "... except for Charn, because they are just too thoroughly wicked and I've had enough of them."

Thanks all, That's really helpful  

I think my struggle is that I only see Charn after the use of the deplorable word, when all is dead on the planet. As Lewis describes it, there does not sound like there is much left to redeem from that world. Likewise, Aslan's comment at the end of the book that Charn no longer exists and this should serve as a warning to the race of Adam and Eve sounded to me to be quite different to Narnia's ending where the Last King stood firm for Aslan in spite of the compromising circumstances in which he was tested.

I had entertained the possibility that Narnia had gone bad after Tirian, Eustace and Jill entered the stable and that time in Aslan's country may be different to that of Narnia - maybe Narnia, Archenland and Calorman could have ended up as ruthless, evil and desolate as Charn. But given that Aslan refers to Tirian as 'the last king' that doesn't really seem plausible. And it doesn't seem at all what Lewis would have intended for The Last Battle.

Likewise, I wondered if Jadis' sister was really as evil as Jadis made her out to be. What if she was really more like Tirian and faithful to Charn's Aslan while Jadis opposed Him.  I don't think Jadis would notice the fidelity of her sister to the true deity of Charn, only that her sister was an obstacle to her own rule.  In my mind this does not seem like a likely scenario because as Digory & Polly walked through the Hall of Images, they saw a degradation in the people's character over time reflected in their faces. It is implied that Charn was degenerating into a more and more debased society.

So, I guess my struggle is that there seems to be no one left in the world of Charn who is good by its end (when Jadis and her sister were warring). There does not seem to be anyone left who still faithful to Charn's Aslan; Aslan is left without a witness there. (Again, given that the Hall of Statues is just the memorial to the leaders, I guess it is possible that there were 'ordinary people' who were still true there.)  I am probably reading way too much into a children's story and should not be pressing it that much. And if our world has a redeemer in spite of the possibility that we are evil enough that we could destroy it in a nuclear holocaust, I guess it is not impossible that Charn had had a similar redeeming event of its own too. 

As @Courtenay and @Pete both pointed out, Charn was not always like that (as shown by the nice people at the start of the hall of statues). In spite of its ending Aslan knew that world too and it was not outside of his rule.

Thanks again 🙂

Posted by: @davidd

I think my struggle is that I only see Charn after the use of the deplorable word, when all is dead on the planet. As Lewis describes it, there does not sound like there is much left to redeem from that world.

Maybe we're coming from different interpretations of Lewis's concepts of heaven and the afterlife? I don't read the book as suggesting that the "real" worlds that are part of Aslan's country are made up of leftover good bits that were redeemed from the "shadow" version of that world when it met its end. That would suggest that the "real Narnia" wasn't created until the "old Narnia" was destroyed — is that the way you're reading it?

To me, the problem with that interpretation is that the "real England" already exists within Aslan's country when our heroes get there. And the mortal England (and the rest of our world) hasn't come to an end yet. Nor was Lewis suggesting that it had, for the purposes of this story. Otherwise he wouldn't have assured young fans who asked him about Susan's fate, that she was still alive in our world and that she may still reach Aslan's country in her own way.

I've always read the ending of LB as implying that the "real worlds" in Aslan's country have always existed there, before and after the "shadow" versions of them began and ended. Another clue is that the Professor speaks of everything in the old Narnia as being "a shadow or a copy" of something in Aslan's country. For something to be a shadow or a copy, there has to be an original entity already existing for it to be projected or copied from.

As I was saying, I'm wondering if part of the issue here is differing theological ideas about life after death. I've encountered people before who insisted that the ending of LB means that our world must have come to an end too, for the Pevensies' parents to have entered Aslan's country as well (and so they read it as implying that Susan must be lost forever). It turned out this was coming from the theological position that those who have died are asleep until the end of the world — or in this case, the end of all worlds — and only then will the final judgment happen and those who are saved will be allowed into heaven.

But that isn't the teaching of the Anglican church and some other denominations, and this is the perspective Lewis was coming from. He has his characters enter Aslan's country as soon as they die (obviously also depending on whether or not they recognise and love Him when they meet Him there, as Emeth did). When we're reunited with all those people from earlier periods in Narnia's history, at the end of LB, they've implicitly already been in Aslan's country ever since their deaths in the shadow-Narnia; they didn't arrive along with the ones who came in through the stable door just before the end of the mortal Narnia. That's presumably why those who've only just arrived have to travel at least one level "farther up and farther in", into what turns out to be another Narnia within Narnia, before they meet up with those who lived and died longer ago in the shadow-Narnia's history, and so have been in the real Narnia for longer. (Although one gets the impression that time doesn't really mean anything in Aslan's country.) 

Posted by: @davidd

So, I guess my struggle is that there seems to be no one left in the world of Charn who is good by its end (when Jadis and her sister were warring). There does not seem to be anyone left who still faithful to Charn's Aslan; Aslan is left without a witness there.

My point here is — from Lewis's theological perspective, as far as I understand it, it doesn't really matter whether or not there were any "good" people left in the mortal Charn by the time it ended. Those in Charn's past who were faithful to that world's incarnation of Aslan — or who understood who He was and loved Him when they met Him face to face upon dying, even if they hadn't known Him before — will have been accepted into Aslan's country as soon as they died, and found their true home in the "real Charn" there. That will have happened whether they died during the early part of Charn's history when its people were still mainly good, or if they were among some few remaining faithful ones who were killed when Jadis spoke the Deplorable Word, or anywhere else in between.

That's how I understand what Lewis is getting at with his concepts of heaven — at least, going by the books, it makes sense to me.  

One wonders if there could be a good Charn just as if there could be a good Calormen.  If the new Narnia was created as it says at the end of The Last Battle then I guess there could be other countries that are much better and more hospitable than their counterparts in the previous world.  They would have good people living there too. I don’t think Lewis says much about the countries outside of Narnia in The Last Battle. But that cannot certainly mean that they aren’t there.  It is hard to picture a good Charn or a pleasant Tashbaan, but it is possible in a fantasy world.  We assume that life was pleasant as it was in Archenland, but I am not sure that Lewis would have included those other countries in the new Narnia.

@davidd One wonders if there could be a good Charn just as if there could be a good Calormen.

Of course, there could be, when Polly and Digory in the Hall of Statues came across the series of statues very richly dressed, with all of them wearing crowns. Polly was interested in the very expensive-looking clothes, all studded with precious stones. But Digory was more interested in their faces. At first the people were "nice" people. "Both the men and the women looked kind and wise, and they seemed to come from a handsome race" P.48 in my edition of MN, in the 4th chapter (The bell and the Hammer).

But after a few steps the faces looked different, more solemn etc, before the faces became less likeable, though they seemed strong and happy but cruel. And these statues deteriorated, when they were no longer happy despite being even crueller. Before the line ended with Jadis, herself. 

Posted by: @narnian78

 If the new Narnia was created as it says at the end of The Last Battle then I guess there could be other countries that are much better and more hospitable than their counterparts in the previous world.  They would have good people living there too.

As I said, though, Lewis is not meaning to suggest that the "real Narnia" within Aslan's country was created at the moment the "old Narnia" was destroyed — even though the Narnia within Aslan's country is referred to a few times as the "new Narnia". Going by the book itself (which I've just been checking — I didn't have it yesterday), the "real Narnia" was there already, before the "shadow" version of it was created. The same goes for all the other "real" worlds that exist within Aslan's country.

Again, for something to be described as a shadow or a copy, there needs to be an original existing beforehand. If it was the other way around, it wouldn't be logical for the Professor to use the description he does. He might instead have said something like "Everything that was good in the old Narnia has been saved and re-created in this new Narnia, which will never be destroyed." But that isn't what he says.

I've now looked up his exact words, and there's more definitive proof here than I was remembering...

"The Eagle is right," said the Lord Digory. "Listen, Peter. When Aslan said you could never go back to Narnia, he meant the Narnia you were thinking of. But that was not the real Narnia. That had a beginning and an end. It was only a shadow or a copy of the real Narnia, which has always been here and always will be here: just as our own world, England and all, is only a shadow or copy of something in Aslan's real world...."

So the same must go for all the other worlds, Charn included. The real Charn must also always have been there in "Aslan's real world", and must always have been entirely good, like everything in Aslan's country — despite what happened to its "shadow" counterpart.

@courtenay 

What do you think a good Tashbaan would be like?  I don’t think it could have been a crowded noisy city ruled by the Tisroc.  And could the people living there would say “May he live forever” referring to a good Tisroc? That seems rather inconceivable.  Or maybe there would be a good king instead of a corrupt ruler.  And maybe the people there would be like Emeth.  But then Lewis doesn’t say much about what countries outside Narnia would have been like in Aslan’s country so I guess we will never know much about them even though they were always there. All we know from the story is that the real Narnia always existed along with the other countries in the world of fantasy called Narnia.

The Calormenes are believed to be populated by outlaws from Archenland, and the co-pilot says that others might have come from a Middle Eastern portal in our world, much like the pirates who entered Telmar through a South Seas cave. 

Posted by: @courtenay

As I was saying, I'm wondering if part of the issue here is differing theological ideas about life after death. I've encountered people before who insisted that the ending of LB means that our world must have come to an end too, for the Pevensies' parents to have entered Aslan's country as well (and so they read it as implying that Susan must be lost forever). It turned out this was coming from the theological position that those who have died are asleep until the end of the world — or in this case, the end of all worlds — and only then will the final judgment happen and those who are saved will be allowed into heaven.  

It surprises me that you have come across people that have come to this conclusion, especially considering Lewis makes clear why the Pevensies' parents have entered Aslan's Country - namely due to Peter stating that their parents were on the same train as Lucy and the others.  Out of interest, I am curious to know how these people you mention, understand 2 Corinthians 5:8 also.

Something else comes to mind for me in regarding this topic, that being the biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham's discussion with the Lord about it, whether he would save the town for 50 righteous people and continuing to ask down to would the Lord spare the town for 10 righteous people, and the Lord confirming He would not destroy it for 10.  Basically - I think it would go against the nature of Aslan to create or allow for the existence of any country so devoid of goodness that not only must the place be destroyed, but also 100% of the people from all ages of it.  Just as the Lord was prepared to save those places in the biblical account even for 10 righteous, even in the corrupted state they were in Lot's time.

How particularly is this Sodom & Gomorrah account relevant to the Narnia & Charn scenario though - we see in the "real" Narnia that those good Narnians of every era of its history were present in Aslan's country, likewise although not stated, I assume this would be the case for those from surrounding countries in the world of Narnia, including Calormen, and to extend the imagery further, I would thus conclude that the good people of Charn whether leaders or just commoners, many or few would likewise be found to be in the real Charn, which one could assume had real beauty and none of the corruption that the mortal Charn  that we read of has been stained with.

@narnian78, I know your question in your most recent post was directed to Courtenay, but I might just take the time to answer this question also - for any tisrocs and or tarkaans and tarkheenas that would be in the "real" Tashbaan and Calormen, one could assume they would rather than think themselves higher and mightier than the rest of their fellow citizens of their country, but like Aslan tests Frank in MN (before he becomes king), they would have attitudes of being servants of the people and ultimately servants of the highest of all kings of their world - Aslan himself.  I am inclined to think there would be few of the ruling or noble class of Calormenes but not none at all - after all. the two we know made were received into the Aslan's Country were both of noble class.  That said, I would assume in general more of the common citizens would be there than the nobles and ruling class - and I am also inclined to think similarly of the people of Charn.  As with what I said about Charn in the previous paragraph, I think what you would also see is an entirely good Tashbaan unstained by the corruption the mortal city is presented with - probably even with a different name, considering the name of it in the mortal world gives honour to Tash.

@narnian78 I would guess that kings and Tisrocs and other worldly rulers don't have any position of rulership in the lands within Aslan's country, since everyone there (as a condition of being there!) acknowledges Aslan as Lord of all. Possibly they retain their titles as a courtesy (Peter is still referred to as High King in LB), but it wouldn't make sense for them to wield personal power and hold parliaments and so on. (Especially considering many rulers of the same lands from different periods of history must be there — including all or most of the Narnian kings and queens (probably NOT Miraz) — and how are all of them going to rule at once, or work out whose turn it is??)

I think it's implied that life in Aslan's country — in "the Great Story... which goes on forever; in which every chapter is better than the one before" — is beyond what we can comprehend from our mortal and temporal perspective, and there's a lot about it that we'll only really understand once we get there. That's how I think of it, at least.