We don't learn a lot about the Lady of the Green Kirtle's plot in The Silver Chair; her plot against Narnia is a rather hazy enterprise.

In spite of the disaster that the green mist turned out to be, the original idea was perhaps not so far off (aside from the fact that there needn't have been any villain at all) But the motivation for why she wanted to go up and take over Narnia, her attack of Caspian's queen as revenge, seems to be a possibility. At least, I wouldn't mind if they had gone/do go in that direction. They still could do it, I suppose, although it might be a lot safer to just bury that unseemly past.

What if the Lady of the Green Kirtle thought her own enchantment—being cursed with the form of a serpent—would be broken if she was crowned Queen of Narnia? Of course, that would require assuming that her serpentine form is some sort of a curse that can be broken, instead of her true/original form.

Do you mean you think it could be or that she only thought it? We know how people in real life can lie to themselves, until they come to believe their own deception. So either way, it would be possible.

In spite of the disaster that the green mist turned out to be, the original idea was perhaps not so far off (aside from the fact that there needn't have been any villain at all) But the motivation for why she wanted to go up and take over Narnia, her attack of Caspian's queen as revenge, seems to be a possibility. At least, I wouldn't mind if they had gone/do go in that direction. They still could do it, I suppose, although it might be a lot safer to just bury that unseemly past.

I do think that the idea of the Lady of the Green Kirtle desiring some sort of revenge against the House of Ramandu is very interesting. It doesn't make a lot of sense that she'd have any beef with Caspian or the Telmarines, but Ramandu had been around for a very long time and so has she, if we are to believe what Rilian said about the LotGK belonging to a divine race.

Do you mean you think it could be or that she only thought it? We know how people in real life can lie to themselves, until they come to believe their own deception. So either way, it would be possible.

It could go either way! The LotGK is so adept at making other people believe things that aren't true, one could guess that she would be equally talented at convincing herself of her own fantasies.

In some ways, this idea of the LotGK's serpentine enchantment being broken upon becoming Queen of Narnia reminds me a little of mermaids who would try to marry men in order to gain souls. (We see this in Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid.) I posted recently about the theory of the Lady of the Green Kirtle being some sort of naiad, and another famous naiad in classic literature is Undine, a water nymph who married a knight in order to gain a soul. And Rilian's a knight, so... hmmm.

Since George MacDonald considered Undine to be the most beautiful fairy tale, I'm positive Lewis was at least familiar with it. Whether or not he drew any inspiration in regards to the Lady of the Green Kirtle... I have no idea. (I've yet to read Undine, but on the face of it, the titular character and the LotGK seem to be very, very different characters.) It's an interesting thought to ponder, though.

It's an interesting idea to question the LotGK's strategy for taking over Narnia, but I would be careful about ascribing too much of a motive to her devices. If I remember right, I think it's Puddleglum who refers to her as part of a "bad sort." It's the same thing with Jadis/The White Witch - there really is no motive beyond her being downright evil and tyrannical.

With recent films like Maleficent, it's incredibly likely they'll try to sympathize with the villain as some poor, misunderstood character who received a hard lot in life. I doubt Lewis would have been comfortable with that - the point of Narnia is to highlight the difference between good and evil, and to encourage virtue in the story's readers.

That being said, those are some interesting parallels to Andersen's fairy tales - I'll have to read up on those some more.

Definitely an interesting idea. I have to say, though, that I have a hard time seeing transformations into animals as a curse, and more often just think how TOTALLY AWESOME it would be. XD I mean, she has a lot of power being able to turn into a serpent! She can charm people with her beauty and silver tongue as a woman, and when things turn rough, either turn into a serpent to escape, or fight someone off. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

I actually want the Lady of the Green Kirtle to remain as mysterious as possible - which is why the idea of naming her makes me uncomfortable. One thing that kind of bugs me in the book though is this one detail of her plot. The LotGK is planning on conquering Narnia by force and then putting Rilian on the throne as a brainwashed puppet king. This doesn't make sense to me. She has the crown prince of Narnia under her spell, so why doesn't she just let him enter Narnia peacefully after Caspian's imminent death. The Narnians will welcome him back as their king, not suspecting that he is under the LotGK's spell. The LotGK would then rule Narnia with no unnecessary bloodshed. If she wants to take Narnia by force, why does she need Rilian? She can just rule like the White Witch.

I don't mind the rest of her plan, motivation etc. being vague, because I think it's her mystery that makes her effective as a villain, but I would like this cleared up.

With recent films like Maleficent, it's incredibly likely they'll try to sympathize with the villain as some poor, misunderstood character who received a hard lot in life. I doubt Lewis would have been comfortable with that - the point of Narnia is to highlight the difference between good and evil, and to encourage virtue in the story's readers.

Lol, I really hope they don't Maleficent-ize her. At the same time, though, good and evil isn't always black-and-white in the Narnia universe. You have characters like Edmund, who did a lot of very bad things before finding redemption. Even though Jadis and the LotGK seem to be completely evil (and rather insane in their lust for power), I still find myself wondering how they got that way. What was Jadis like as a little girl? (Terrifying thought, isn't it? )

I think that, even within what we see in the Chronicles, we're witness to a little bit of progression with the White Witch's character: for instance, there is a slight flicker of humanity (or the Charnian equivalent) in Jadis when she speaks of the Deplorable Word and insists that her sister drove her to it, that it was her sister's pride that destroyed the whole world, not her own. If Jadis were completely and utterly depraved, I don't think that she would care about avoiding guilt for what she had done. Yet somewhere in the depths of her blackened heart, she seemed to know that what she had done was wrong, and thus had formulated a distorted perspective on the horror she wrought in order for her to emotionally deal with it.

Definitely an interesting idea. I have to say, though, that I have a hard time seeing transformations into animals as a curse, and more often just think how TOTALLY AWESOME it would be. XD I mean, she has a lot of power being able to turn into a serpent! She can charm people with her beauty and silver tongue as a woman, and when things turn rough, either turn into a serpent to escape, or fight someone off. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

That's very true... as long as you have control over it.

It's interesting to me that the LotGK told Rilian that he was going to turn into a serpent during his hour in the Silver Chair. Why would she do that? Is she just trying to confer her own reality onto him? Or is it possible that she bound him to the Silver Chair every night, knowing that he would remember nothing of what he said or saw during that time, in order to keep him from finding out the truth about her—that she was cursed to take on the form of a snake at a certain time every day? Could it be the LotGK's transformation into the serpent, when she had failed to enchant Rilian and the questers, wasn't a willful change but rather the natural progression of a curse?

On the one hand, it seems like an odd idea, but on the other hand... it might answer some long-standing questions about why she bound Rilian to the chair. I haven't really thought it through, though, so... I don't know.

One thing that kind of bugs me in the book though is this one detail of her plot. The LotGK is planning on conquering Narnia by force and then putting Rilian on the throne as a brainwashed puppet king. This doesn't make sense to me. She has the crown prince of Narnia under her spell, so why doesn't she just let him enter Narnia peacefully after Caspian's imminent death. The Narnians will welcome him back as their king, not suspecting that he is under the LotGK's spell. The LotGK would then rule Narnia with no unnecessary bloodshed. If she wants to take Narnia by force, why does she need Rilian? She can just rule like the White Witch.

I've always found this very mystifying as well and I honestly don't have a good explanation for it at the moment.

However, we do know that she's pretty much a psychopath and very, very good at manipulating people. I've considered the possibility that she's one of those psychotic girlfriend-from-the-underworld types that is so bent on utterly controlling Rilian, and on being the sole object of his affections, that she tries to destroy everything else that he holds dear: his mother, his father, his country. Having him be the one to kill his own father and invade his own country for her would just be another feather in her cap, theoretically.

While this theory seems kind of... weird, it's also fairly plain to see that, based on the effects of his enchantment, the LotGK was keen on completely dominating Rilian, emotionally and mentally, so maybe it's not completely off-base either. It's just so much wild speculation, though.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: if only Lewis were still around for interviews.

Hmm . . . this is just an idea, but what if the Green Witch is a blood relative of Jadis? Of course use another actress for her, but what if Lotgk was Jadis' long lost sister that had figured out a way to escape the Deplorable Word??? That would explain her lust for controlling Narnia, to prove that she could do something that her sister couldn't, to make her sister roll over in her grave so to speak . . .

Now that I think about it, I think I might like the idea of tLotGK targeting the house of Ramandeau if they are going to add in some extra motivation.

She has the crown prince of Narnia under her spell, so why doesn't she just let him enter Narnia peacefully after Caspian's imminent death. The Narnians will welcome him back as their king, not suspecting that he is under the LotGK's spell. The LotGK would then rule Narnia with no unnecessary bloodshed. If she wants to take Narnia by force, why does she need Rilian? She can just rule like the White Witch.

The Narnians would/should be loyal to the idea of what a good king is, not just the man himself. If Rilian came back as a tyrant, people would probably notice. It doesn't always work that way - e.g. Shift's twisting of Aslan's authority in LB - but with the recent history of Peter/Edmund/Caspian, their sensibilities should have been enough aright to prevent that.

Enchanting Rilian as a puppet king (even if force and bloodshed is necessary) also gives LotGK more legitimacy than the White Witch. Narnia is never right except for when a Son of Adam sits on the throne at Cair Paravel. That is what leads to the downfall of the White Witch's strong-armed rule.

there is a slight flicker of humanity (or the Charnian equivalent) in Jadis when she speaks of the Deplorable Word and insists that her sister drove her to it, that it was her sister's pride that destroyed the whole world, not her own. If Jadis were completely and utterly depraved, I don't think that she would care about avoiding guilt for what she had done.

Keep in mind that for Christians like Lewis, the beginnings of evil and man's original sin in Genesis begins with a very similar blame game. The serpent image is there too, even though Lewis' allusion conflates the two a little bit.

At the same time, though, good and evil isn't always black-and-white in the Narnia universe. You have characters like Edmund, who did a lot of very bad things before finding redemption..... What was Jadis like as a little girl? (Terrifying thought, isn't it? )[

Last part is a difficult question, but do you think we can point to some early explanation for characters with evil qualities like Edmund, Eustace, or even Jill Pole, though?

Hmm . . . this is just an idea, but what if the Green Witch is a blood relative of Jadis? Of course use another actress for her, but what if Lotgk was Jadis' long lost sister that had figured out a way to escape the Deplorable Word??? That would explain her lust for controlling Narnia, to prove that she could do something that her sister couldn't, to make her sister roll over in her grave so to speak . . .

Dr_Cornelius just started a thread about that very idea over in Talk About Narnia.

Keep in mind that for Christians like Lewis, the beginnings of evil and man's original sin in Genesis begins with a very similar blame game. The serpent image is there too, even though Lewis' allusion conflates the two a little bit.

That's a very good point! It sounds like it still shows progression of evil, though; a descent of sorts.

Last part is a difficult question, but do you think we can point to some early explanation for characters with evil qualities like Edmund, Eustace, or even Jill Pole, though?

Actually, yes. After Edmund has been healed by the cordial and Lucy sees him again, the book says that she found him "standing on his feet and not only healed of his wounds but looking better than she had seen him look—oh, for ages, in fact ever since his first term at that horrid school which was where he had begun to go wrong." In the case of Eustace, he largely seems to have learned how to be a bully and a beast from his time at Experiment House, before traveling to Narnia and meeting Aslan. Jill, on the other hand, became very focused on herself and her own needs/survival because she had been bullied so severely at that school.

That's not to say they weren't responsible for their actions because of the circumstances that led them to go astray; it just gives some context for why and how they began traveling their regrettable paths. Even with Jadis, we learn that she was born into a depraved culture, as seen in Lewis's description of the faces in the Hall of Images. That probably accounts for a good deal of her evil, skewed thinking, although Jadis also seemed to possess a tenacity and boldness that was unique to her own personality. There's a reason why she was the one who finally broke the rules and sought to discover the Deplorable Word.

It's interesting to me that the LotGK told Rilian that he was going to turn into a serpent during his hour in the Silver Chair. Why would she do that? Is she just trying to confer her own reality onto him? Or is it possible that she bound him to the Silver Chair every night, knowing that he would remember nothing of what he said or saw during that time, in order to keep him from finding out the truth about her—that she was cursed to take on the form of a snake at a certain time every day? Could it be the LotGK's transformation into the serpent, when she had failed to enchant Rilian and the questers, wasn't a willful change but rather the natural progression of a curse?

So you're saying that maybe the LotGK is the one who actually is forced to transform into a serpent during a certain hour, and that's the hour she bound him to the chair? And that's why she turned into the serpent? That just blew my mind. o__o At first I was thinking, like, it wouldn't make sense since she doesn't turn until later, but actually it's supposed to happen some time during that hour, and it does. Rilian is freed from the chair after only a few minutes, she tries to entrance them, and then she turns into the serpent. It's interesting to think about. I actually like the idea.

She has the crown prince of Narnia under her spell, so why doesn't she just let him enter Narnia peacefully after Caspian's imminent death. The Narnians will welcome him back as their king, not suspecting that he is under the LotGK's spell. The LotGK would then rule Narnia with no unnecessary bloodshed. If she wants to take Narnia by force, why does she need Rilian? She can just rule like the White Witch.

The Narnians would/should be loyal to the idea of what a good king is, not just the man himself. If Rilian came back as a tyrant, people would probably notice.

But if Rilian invades Narnia and kills all who oppose him, the Narnians would have even less incentive to accept him as the rightful king than if he accepted the throne peacefully and became a cruel king.

Enchanting Rilian as a puppet king (even if force and bloodshed is necessary) also gives LotGK more legitimacy than the White Witch. Narnia is never right except for when a Son of Adam sits on the throne at Cair Paravel. That is what leads to the downfall of the White Witch's strong-armed rule.

But the Narnians would accept Rilian back. There's no reason to invade by force. And Rilian still has his gnome army if the Narnians chose to rebel... which I'm not convinced they would. They seem to place almost childlike faith in the divine right of kings, the Talking Beasts at least.

Reepicheep775, the Narnians certainly are monarchists, I can't argue with you there. But I still think they respect the idea of kingship more than blood. It's the virtue of the man that makes the monarch either a king or a tyrant. Remember King Lune's speech to Shasta in HHB?

‘For this is what it means to be a king: to be first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat, and when there’s hunger in the land (as must be now and then in bad years) to wear finer clothes and laugh louder over a scantier meal than any man in your land’ - HHB ch. 15

Don't we as readers notice a difference in Prince Rillian's speech and mannerisms before and after the enchantment? People don't need to like a tyrant for him to have power. They do need to respect their king.

Rose, I forgot Lewis mentioned schools in Edmund's case too - that's a good point. What I'm trying to get at is sort of what Lewis was talking about in The Abolition of Man:

You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.

That's why I don't think it's a productive discussion to dig too deep into the motives or circumstances behind a villain. As much as the Narnia stories are about a conflict between good and evil, it's necessary that characters like Jadis/The White Witch or The Lady of the Green Kirtle actually BE evil. They are a character, yes, but they represent the concept itself.

So you're saying that maybe the LotGK is the one who actually is forced to transform into a serpent during a certain hour, and that's the hour she bound him to the chair? And that's why she turned into the serpent? That just blew my mind. o__o

Approximately, yes. Although a potential problem with this idea is that the two times when we see the LotGK in the form of a snake—when she bites Ramandu's daughter and later on when she battles with Rilian—appear to be at different points in the day: "in the warm part of the day" and nighttime, respectively. So there's that to consider. Of course, it could be that she can stay a serpent as long as she likes, but she can only remain human for a day before needing to revert to her "real" form.

Interesting to ponder, anyway. While it's entirely possible that Lewis only included the bit about Rilian turning into a serpent every evening in order to add more intensity to that particular scene, it still makes me wonder....

Rose, I forgot Lewis mentioned schools in Edmund's case too - that's a good point. What I'm trying to get at is sort of what Lewis was talking about in The Abolition of Man:

You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.

That's why I don't think it's a productive discussion to dig too deep into the motives or circumstances behind a villain. As much as the Narnia stories are about a conflict between good and evil, it's necessary that characters like Jadis/The White Witch or The Lady of the Green Kirtle actually BE evil. They are a character, yes, but they represent the concept itself.

Nice quote! I think I see the meaning: if you're so focused on figuring out the whys, you miss out on the whats—as in, what's standing right in front of you. If the filmmakers gave the LotGK some sort of sob story to explain what she's doing, then that could distract from the profound depravity of this woman/creature in the present time when our heroes encounter her.

Still, I think you could potentially borrow themes from something like Undine without turning it into a sob story or detracting/distracting from her role as conceptual evil. It could be that the entire reason she's cursed is because she did something evil in the first place. (A little like how Jadis was cursed by the apple, in a way.) The whole idea of a woman transforming into a snake—or even shapeshifting at all—is quite anomalous in the world of Narnia, so it really makes you wonder where that ability came from, and why. I'm expecting the filmmakers to expand her character in some way, but I don't know if that will simply mean more screen time or further developing her motives and/or plot against Narnia.

Reepicheep775, the Narnians certainly are monarchists, I can't argue with you there. But I still think they respect the idea of kingship more than blood. It's the virtue of the man that makes the monarch either a king or a tyrant. Remember King Lune's speech to Shasta in HHB?

‘For this is what it means to be a king: to be first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat, and when there’s hunger in the land (as must be now and then in bad years) to wear finer clothes and laugh louder over a scantier meal than any man in your land’ - HHB ch. 15

Don't we as readers notice a difference in Prince Rillian's speech and mannerisms before and after the enchantment? People don't need to like a tyrant for him to have power. They do need to respect their king.

This is true (love that quote from King Lune!). However, what I was saying is that if Rilian accepts the throne legitimately and then becomes a cruel king, there's a good chance the Narnians - or at least some of them - will be against him, but if Rilian takes the throne by force, the Narnians will definitely be against him. If Rilian wants to stay on the Narnians' good side to keep them from rebelling, then that would be the worst PR move ever.

I think his chances are better by accepting the throne legitimately, but even if his chances are the same and he'll have rebellious Narnians on his hands either way, I don't understand why he would take the far more difficult road of conquest when he could just walk in and take the throne without any resistance.