Movie Aristotle, nice rebuttal.

Honestly, who can remember everything they ever wrote?

I know I can't. I can't even remember everything I've read. The tricky thing about trying to remember everything one has written is that one usually has several ideas about what is going to happen. Not to mention revisions.

I especially agree that Lewis doesn't need to be fixed. I also want to point out that other writers have inconsistencies. Tolkien for one. Then again any myth has several versions so inconsistencies in a fantasy / myth like story are really not that big of a deal.

Also, before anyone tells me of Lewis' supposed planned "changes" I'll say that any alleged changes he was going to make to the books were doubtlessly inconsequential, so I'm tired of people using the excuse "Well, Lewis was going to change the books" as fuel for their own arguments.

I don't think this should be fuel for any argument either. If Lewis was planing on making changes I would assume it would be minor things - things like where the beavers say that humans had never been in Narnia before or mentioning that Aslan also restored the animals at the party back to life, maybe explaining how a dryad was awake to say the spell over Reep. I could be wrong, but I think the chronology is a little off in the Horse and his boy. I think there is a day where the Calormens activities are not accounted for / or the Narnians take an extra day to get there. Also, it said that the girls saw Peter and Edmund fighting but Ed should have already been wounded because Peter was fighting with the witch. Really, though I can explain away any of these "inconsistencies." What I can't however explain is how Trumpkin knew where to find Caspian, what the plan for the night raid was, and how even with the detour into Miraz Jr.'s room Susan and Peter came to Miraz's room later then Caspian. Notice I can explain the "inconsistencies" in the books but not the PC movie.

Yes, but eating an apple isn't cinematically very interesting is it? The book 'explains' the eating of the apple, and that's the problem. A description of someone eating an apple can be exciting and beautiful. Watching it on screen is dull. That's just an example of a cinematic decision they might make for good reason.

I disagree. The eating of the apple could be very dramatic. But whether it is or isn't, the book does not actually describe her eating it. In the book, Digory sees her throwing the core away and she looks at him and he sees the change in her face (for the direct quote, see my post on the previous page). We don't have to see her eating the apple, we just have to know that she ate one. And I think the changes not only in her appearance but also in her emotions will be very dramatic.

They've changed or played around with ideas when they've seen the change as necessary to the written story becoming a visually interesting film.

Ah! But is it necessary to have the White Witch in VDT to make a visually interesting film?

She nearly shows up in PC. Consistent with the book, the evil Narnians were going to bring her back. The movie built upon that premise a little bit. Edmund made sure they had it sorted; fitting that he did what he did. Thought that was cool.

I thought Edmund was cool in that scene, too. In fact, that's one of my favorite scenes.

I don't have a problem with her showing up in a nightmare of Edmund's - pure speculation on my part from what information I have is that is likely what will happen. She is not really back; just a very nasty dream.

This is where we differ. I do have a problem with her being in Edmund's nightmare. He already defeated her twice. He broke her wand in LWW and he shattered her in PC. Having her appear and torment him again is a little overkill.

We don't know about Silver Chair. Fortunately, the argument that LotGK is the White Witch is a HOTLY debated subject amongst C.S. Lewis fans (a topic banned on NWeb). While we may not like it, she "Jadis" could show up there. No, I don't like it either; but other fans would applaud that.

Well, we agree on that point at least. Since the topic is banned I won't comment further.

Whew! That is the explanation of "breathing room."

Okay. But just to clarify, I think things like bringing the Pevensies in earlier in PC because the storyline of the book is not linear qualifies as breathing room, but I don't think Suspian is breathing room (no offense Suspian fans).

I just cannot believe that it would even be under consideration that the White Witch will appear in all seven films. Her appearing in VDT is already getting repetitive, there's just no way around it. Aslan's prophecy said that when Adam's flesh and bone sit at Cair Paravel in throne, the evil time -- the Witch's time -- is over and done.

And just where did Aslan himself say that her evil will never truly die?

(edited)

I respectfully disagree. With a little imagination, the eating of the apple could be very cinematic. For example, they could show her taking a bite out of the apple and immediately the color starts washing away from her cheeks, and drains out of her face, and then, out of her body completely. It could be a very creepy moment in the Magician's Nephew film.

That's a fair point. Sure, they could dramatise it. But you understand that it would need more than what is given us in the book. And that's my point.

I also disagree when you say C. S. Lewis isn't known as a great fiction writer, but primarily for his scholarship. I think if you took a poll, most people would know Lewis from his fiction, not his scholarly articles.

Took a poll on this forum? Well, of course, most people on this forum love Narnia most of all, since it's a Narnia forum. Most everyday Tom, Dick and Harry? Probably, yes. Most families? Yes. But my point is that the Narnia books have become classical fantasy stories largely because of their stories... not their writing. As I said, there is a massive difference.

I'm largely talking about how Lewis is remembered in the literary world. Truth is, he has many many critics (and fellow writers) who see him as a charming, yet quite flawed writer of fiction. That's not my opinion, that's the overwhelming opinion of Lewis' literary critics. It just so happens that I agree with him.

Also, the Chronicles are studied in universities around the world as great fantasy stories. To deny that Lewis was a great fantasy writer is downright silly. Besides, if you agree that he was a great scholar (and expert) in his field, (which was literature) then he just might know a thing or two about novel structure, pacing, and writing technique that you don't. Yes, Lewis may have made some blunders while writing the Narniad, but since he's the Cambridge Proffesor and bestselling author and I'm not, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

No, I don't think it is 'downright silly. Fantasy literature doesn't take up the majority of his work. If he thought that he was a fantasy writer at heart, then it would. Where C.S. Lewis wrote fantasy fiction, those were books he had to write... there was a creative compulsion to write them because he wanted to deliver their messages to people. But I would argue that he saw himself as primarily as an academic, so that when those fantasy books were written, he was satisfied to leave them alone. There aren't many of them, that's for sure. Not considering the canon of other great fiction writers.

Your second argument is that because he was a great scholar in Literature, he's obviously going to be a great novelist too. This is a flawed argument I'm afraid, and one that has been disproved time and time again. Poetry critics don't always make the best poets. Literary critics/essayists/academics are often flawed novelists.

Lastly, this isn't about whether I know more about the techniques of writing than Lewis. Where does that come in? But I know my literature. I know my creative writing, having studied it, and been a published writer myself. Therefore, to argue that I need to be as good as Lewis to level any criticism against him is a 'straw man' argument. I know what CS. Lewis primarily brought to the table in the Literature canon. I know what he added to the world of writing.

He also brought these Narnia stories, which are wonderful children's stories of big imagination. But they are undoubtedly great STORIES (in the style of the old-English aural storytellers, who didn't give a fig about 'Literature', because nothing was written down). They are not undoubtedly great NOVELS, and there's a difference. The novel is an artform not perfected by Lewis.

That's not my opinion. Well it is, but only because I agree with the vast amount of people who've studied him, and whom I've studied.

Frankly, I'm tired of people saying the chronicles have "inconsistencies." Back when Tolkien read LWW he seems to have thought that having Father Christmas and fauns in the same book was an inconsistency.

Well I don't agree with Tolkein there. This is another 'straw man' argument though. I'm wrong, because one example you can give doesn't support what I said? There are novel-construction problems in Narnia. Fact. Not my opinion, fact. The average Joe Public loves them regardless, and they should. They are wonderful stories. But you have to wonder why C.S. Lewis isn't even our most remembered Fantasy writer in modern history, if he was such an expert. He isn't our most remembered. Tolkein pips him to the post, as do many others.

Just one example of a pacing issue in LWW is the fact that in the book, the battle only takes up a single page, as if for Lewis it's an afterthought/footnote, or doesn't matter. He spent more time on other events. Sure, you'd argue that the battle isn't SPIRITUALLY as important as other scenes. You'd be right. But as far as story-construction goes, the battle is so much physically larger in size and scale than another event, that the time given to it in the book should have reflected that.

It's a bit like putting a house-sized tomato next to a tomato-sized house, and arguing that that was completely fine. It isn't, unless you're writing something as zany and trippy as Alice in Wonderland. Scale and pacing is important, very important. It ain't all that important to us, but it is to the film-makers, who have to make a movie out of this. So I thought the decision they made with the battle was an excellent one. Can you imagine tacking a 5 minute battle on the end? Lots of very disappointed movie-goers.

Took a poll on this forum? Well, of course, most people on this forum love Narnia most of all, since it's a Narnia forum. Most everyday Tom, Dick and Harry? Probably, yes. Most families? Yes. But my point is that the Narnia books have become classical fantasy stories largely because of their stories... not their writing. As I said, there is a massive difference.

Of course not a poll on the forum. You have a point there. That would be incredibly biased. My idea would be to poll the "most everyday Tom, Dick and Harry" &/or "Most families." I'm beginning to understand your argument about Lewis as a storyteller vs. Lewis as a writer. I must have missed that part of your argument before. My apologies.

No, I don't think it is 'downright silly. Fantasy literature doesn't take up the majority of his work. If he thought that he was a fantasy writer at heart, then it would. Where C.S. Lewis wrote fantasy fiction, those were books he had to write... there was a creative compulsion to write them because he wanted to deliver their messages to people. But I would argue that he saw himself as primarily as an academic, so that when those fantasy books were written, he was satisfied to leave them alone. There aren't many of them, that's for sure. Not considering the canon of other great fiction writers.

Now that I understand your terminology, I'll change my statement to "denying that Lewis was a great storyteller is downright silly." Still, I think you have a flawed argument if you are saying that in order to be great fantasy writer then the majority of your works must be fantasy. I'd agree that Lewis saw himself primarily as an academic, but that doesn't mean that he won't be remembered for his storytelling ability as well.

Your second argument is that because he was a great scholar in Literature, he's obviously going to be a great novelist too. This is a flawed argument I'm afraid, and one that has been disproved time and time again.

Ah, but this is not my argument. I never said that good critics equal good writers. But since you bring it up, I will say that the more you know about literature (and the more you read) the more likely it is that you will be a good writer yourself. You seem to make this point yourself when you write:

But I know my literature. I know my creative writing, having studied it, and been a published writer myself.

Therefore, to argue that I need to be as good as Lewis to level any criticism against him is a 'straw man' argument. I know what CS. Lewis primarily brought to the table in the Literature canon. I know what he added to the world of writing.

touché. This is why we have discussion forums like NarniaWeb's, because anyone is able to join the discussion, or criticism as the case may be. Upon reflection I realize what I meant to say is that I think Lewis deserves more respect as a writer than most people give him credit for because he was such an avid reader and scholar. He knew his business. I can't quite forget that for years critics thought Lewis was an unskilled poet, until it was discovered that his meter was so complex that critics hadn't even realized it was there. Perhaps something similar is true in his fantasy writing, but I cannot build an argument on "perhaps" so I'll concede this point to you.

The novel is an artform not perfected by Lewis.

I suppose this argument hinges on what exactly the "perfect novel" is, and while we have some good rules of thumb, I think this is a debatable topic.

Frankly, I'm tired of people saying the chronicles have "inconsistencies." Back when Tolkien read LWW he seems to have thought that having Father Christmas and fauns in the same book was an inconsistency.

This comment was not directed toward you, MarkB. I wasn't making any arguments, just a comment.

Just one example of a pacing issue in LWW is the fact that in the book, the battle only takes up a single page, as if for Lewis it's an afterthought/footnote, or doesn't matter. He spent more time on other events. Sure, you'd argue that the battle isn't SPIRITUALLY as important as other scenes. You'd be right. But as far as story-construction goes, the battle is so much physically larger in size and scale than another event, that the time given to it in the book should have reflected that.

Again, this hinges on what an "ideal novel" would look like, which is a theoretical idea at best.

I've personally never been bothered by the shortness of the battle in the book, since this chapter is told from Lucy's perspective and she wasn't in the battle.

Scale and pacing is important, very important. It ain't all that important to us, but it is to the film-makers, who have to make a movie out of this. So I thought the decision they made with the battle was an excellent one. Can you imagine tacking a 5 minute battle on the end? Lots of very disappointed movie-goers.

I agree. The elongating of the battle scene was a brilliant move on the part of the filmmakers, although I wish that they had spent a little more time on Aslan's resurrection since thematically it is very important to the book. I'll agree with anyone who says that changes are necessary when adapting a book to film. But, it is my own personal opinion that the changes are often less necessary than Hollywood would like us to believe.

Please don't feel like I am picking on you specifically MarkB. You seem like a very knowledgeable person, and I enjoy discussing these sorts of things with people who like to think. Welcome to Narniaweb!

I am simply writing in response to Perry Moore's interview. His argument seems to be that since Lewis described Jadis two different ways, he must have made a mistake, and since he made a mistake the production has artistic license to add the White Witch into all of the movies. I think you'll agree that this is a flawed argument. From the previous pages of this thread I think we've well shown that Lewis did not make a mistake when he described Jadis two different ways. But whether he did or not, that doesn't mean the production has the right to change anything they want with the series. There is no cause to effect relationship between those two statements. The production does have the right to do whatever they want to the story (under Gresham's supervision), but this is because they bought the rights to the series, not because Lewis made mistakes while writing the series.

I think that this quote is one he didn't think that people would take so seriously into account, kinda like Mr. Gresham's comment about global warming (suddenly realizes the result of his comment...).
(chocolate please?)

But on a side note, what would be worse? Having a beautiful and seductive actress that can't act play the Lady of the Green Kirtle? or having Tilda reprise the WW in a different disguise? (seriously, both make me gag, 'cause I'm SICK of WW in EVERY SINGLE MOVIE!!!! )

They seem to be trying to have her in every movie.

They will probably try to please the fans who think she's the same as the Lady of the Green Kirtle and have her play in The Silver Chair.

They may even have her replace Tash as the main villain in the Last Battle (that would be horrible!).

Most of the people watching these movies have never bothered to read the books. Most of the people who have read the books don't think the WW=LotGK unless they've deliberately chosen to ignore the estate saying it isn't true or they've never heard about what the estate had to say. So no, Josh, I seriously doubt this has anything to do with them appeasing fans.

The green lady issue arose ONLY after the BBC made the mistake of using the same actress to play Jadis, the Hag in PC, and the LOTGK. She essentially played them the same way (like a panto Wicked Queen in Snow White), and she wasn't young or beautiful in the way that Lewis intended.

Then we have a whole generation growing up on BBC Narnia, thinking it was the truth, and one of those people became an editor in Harper Collins and wrote an intro comment in one or more printing of the books to say the two women WERE the same person.

But I can guarantee they will not see this idea in a Walden SC movie!

I expect that WW being in VDT is a downright nightmare. Which is where she might fit in, if at all. But surely she won't be the only nightmare voyagers might have... Aren't the Calormenes slightly nightmarish also?

Took a poll on this forum? Well, of course, most people on this forum love Narnia most of all, since it's a Narnia forum. Most everyday Tom, Dick and Harry? Probably, yes. Most families? Yes. But my point is that the Narnia books have become classical fantasy stories largely because of their stories... not their writing. As I said, there is a massive difference.

Of course not a poll on the forum. You have a point there. That would be incredibly biased. My idea would be to poll the "most everyday Tom, Dick and Harry" &/or "Most families." I'm beginning to understand your argument about Lewis as a storyteller vs. Lewis as a writer. I must have missed that part of your argument before. My apologies.

No, I don't think it is 'downright silly. Fantasy literature doesn't take up the majority of his work. If he thought that he was a fantasy writer at heart, then it would. Where C.S. Lewis wrote fantasy fiction, those were books he had to write... there was a creative compulsion to write them because he wanted to deliver their messages to people. But I would argue that he saw himself as primarily as an academic, so that when those fantasy books were written, he was satisfied to leave them alone. There aren't many of them, that's for sure. Not considering the canon of other great fiction writers.

Now that I understand your terminology, I'll change my statement to "denying that Lewis was a great storyteller is downright silly." Still, I think you have a flawed argument if you are saying that in order to be great fantasy writer then the majority of your works must be fantasy. I'd agree that Lewis saw himself primarily as an academic, but that doesn't mean that he won't be remembered for his storytelling ability as well.

Your second argument is that because he was a great scholar in Literature, he's obviously going to be a great novelist too. This is a flawed argument I'm afraid, and one that has been disproved time and time again.

Ah, but this is not my argument. I never said that good critics equal good writers. But since you bring it up, I will say that the more you know about literature (and the more you read) the more likely it is that you will be a good writer yourself. You seem to make this point yourself when you write:

But I know my literature. I know my creative writing, having studied it, and been a published writer myself.

Therefore, to argue that I need to be as good as Lewis to level any criticism against him is a 'straw man' argument. I know what CS. Lewis primarily brought to the table in the Literature canon. I know what he added to the world of writing.

touché. This is why we have discussion forums like NarniaWeb's, because anyone is able to join the discussion, or criticism as the case may be. Upon reflection I realize what I meant to say is that I think Lewis deserves more respect as a writer than most people give him credit for because he was such an avid reader and scholar. He knew his business. I can't quite forget that for years critics thought Lewis was an unskilled poet, until it was discovered that his meter was so complex that critics hadn't even realized it was there. Perhaps something similar is true in his fantasy writing, but I cannot build an argument on "perhaps" so I'll concede this point to you.

The novel is an artform not perfected by Lewis.

I suppose this argument hinges on what exactly the "perfect novel" is, and while we have some good rules of thumb, I think this is a debatable topic.

Frankly, I'm tired of people saying the chronicles have "inconsistencies." Back when Tolkien read LWW he seems to have thought that having Father Christmas and fauns in the same book was an inconsistency.

This comment was not directed toward you, MarkB. I wasn't making any arguments, just a comment.

Just one example of a pacing issue in LWW is the fact that in the book, the battle only takes up a single page, as if for Lewis it's an afterthought/footnote, or doesn't matter. He spent more time on other events. Sure, you'd argue that the battle isn't SPIRITUALLY as important as other scenes. You'd be right. But as far as story-construction goes, the battle is so much physically larger in size and scale than another event, that the time given to it in the book should have reflected that.

Again, this hinges on what an "ideal novel" would look like, which is a theoretical idea at best.

I've personally never been bothered by the shortness of the battle in the book, since this chapter is told from Lucy's perspective and she wasn't in the battle.

Scale and pacing is important, very important. It ain't all that important to us, but it is to the film-makers, who have to make a movie out of this. So I thought the decision they made with the battle was an excellent one. Can you imagine tacking a 5 minute battle on the end? Lots of very disappointed movie-goers.

I agree. The elongating of the battle scene was a brilliant move on the part of the filmmakers, although I wish that they had spent a little more time on Aslan's resurrection since thematically it is very important to the book. I'll agree with anyone who says that changes are necessary when adapting a book to film. But, it is my own personal opinion that the changes are often less necessary than Hollywood would like us to believe.

Please don't feel like I am picking on you specifically MarkB. You seem like a very knowledgeable person, and I enjoy discussing these sorts of things with people who like to think. Welcome to Narniaweb!

I am simply writing in response to Perry Moore's interview. His argument seems to be that since Lewis described Jadis two different ways, he must have made a mistake, and since he made a mistake the production has artistic license to add the White Witch into all of the movies. I think you'll agree that this is a flawed argument. From the previous pages of this thread I think we've well shown that Lewis did not make a mistake when he described Jadis two different ways. But whether he did or not, that doesn't mean the production has the right to change anything they want with the series. There is no cause to effect relationship between those two statements. The production does have the right to do whatever they want to the story (under Gresham's supervision), but this is because they bought the rights to the series, not because Lewis made mistakes while writing the series.

Well, I can't disagree with anything you've said here. I wasn't meaning to pick a fight either, and of course everything I said was debatable (that's the nature of creative writing). So, that was perhaps the quickest argumental truce I've ever reached on the Internet. Good job!

I have always thought, that one way or another Lilith got into Charn and set up a dynasty. I saw on the History channel that Adam told Lilith to "Be gone." Then Lilith was said to have vanished. I do not believe that Lilith was real, but her vanishing may have gotten her into Charn.

I haven't read this thread, but i don't see the inconsistency. Both things are true. Jadis is the descendant of Lilith (Adam’s first wife) and and a jinn/giant and she also came from the city Charn in another reality that you can only reach by going through the pools in the place between worlds.

We know people travel between worlds and realities, so it doesn't seem like a stretch.

We all know the origin of The White Witch, it is clearly shown to us in child Lewis's book about Aslan's creation of our world of Narnia.

Young Jadis is the last survivor of the once populous Charn, desolated at her own command when she spoke the Deplorable Word, thus killing every living thing on that world excepting only herself and my distant cousin the sun of Charn and even he is dead now after eons of slow deterioration.

The honoured Mr Beaver's recitation of her supposed origins are mere Narnian folk tales and old wives tales. Commonly held misconceptions are as prevalent among Narnians as they are among the people of this silent world whose children are so prone to leap to error.

However; and mark this well, the spirit of evil that drives the carriage of her shrivelled soul does not die, and will not die till the Emperor over the Sea calls all true-life to Himself and banishes all else to the outer cold darkness of eternal death. Thus it re-emerges from the deepest nether levels of all worlds that are so infected by the hands of man and finds itself a new, willing host in which to plague all peoples.

It's all in the books. I really wonder, what do they teach them at these schools?

It really annoys me that Perry Moore would so flippantly suggest that because Lewis flip-flopped on his own story, they can do the same. I mean, since they are endeavoring to bring Lewis' stories to life, he should have a bit more respect for Lewis himself and not say something which could be taken as insulting (even if he didn't mean it as such, which I'm sure he didn't).

Fact is, Lewis didn't flip-flop on the origin of the Witch. I've always believed that the story Mr. Beaver tells is nothing more than a myth or Narnian folklore; however, even if it were true, it still doesn't follow that the Lilith story is incompatible with the Charn story. It's totally possible that she could be a descendant of Lilith and still be from Charn. However I don't think that's the case.

Suffice it to say that interview annoyed me. Moore seemed very presumptuous and disrespectful; I'm sure he didn't do it intentionally, and I'll forgive him for it, but I'm just saying my first impression was one of annoyance.