So yes, there are parallels. Garden = Eden, Jadis = Serpent, Digory = Eve. Both are tempted. One more parallel not mentioned above, both are told Aslan = God is lying to them by not telling the whole truth, which ironically is exactly what the evil character is doing.

Differences, the serpent never ate the apple, Jadis does. The curse is an unending cursed life instead of death. And Digory and Polly refuse the temptation whereas Eve and Adam do not. (And I like your point @icarus about Digory refusing here when he didn't with the bell.)

But your poster up above for The Lady Eve made my brain go in a really weird direction.

Prior to Lewis's LWW, I had never heard of the character of Lilith, Adam's first wife. I know absolutely nothing about that story, but for some reason that poster made that line from Mr. Beaver pop into my mind, and I couldn't help but wonder if Gerwig will somehow try to make that fit into the storyline, alongside Charn?

I think the other part of all this that piques my curiosity (and really, I'm not actually reliant on any connection to those two films above to support this train of logic, its just a happy coincidence that they do) is that if Digory is the "Eve" of Magician's Nephew in CS Lewis's book, despite the fact that he is a male character, then it is almost exactly the same gender-reversal that Greta Gerwig utilized in Barbie:

“Barbie was invented first. Ken was invented after Barbie, to burnish Barbie’s position in our eyes and in the world. That kind of creation myth is the opposite of the creation myth in Genesis.”

- Greta Gerwig, May 2003

For reference, a quick summary of Barbie's other biblical references to the story of Adam & Eve are:

• Barbieland represents the Garden of Eden as a utopian paradise.
• Ken (as the Eve) learns knowledge of the world outside and corrupts Barbieland.
• Barbie (as the Adam) meets her maker (Ruth Handler) in a scene which Margot Robbie has said is supposed to evoke Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam".

To some extent, these are only small elements of the overall film, and certainly no one is going to come away from Barbie thinking its a religious allegory. But they are also fairly overt references, that are fairly easy to see once they are pointed out.

This is the sort of line i would be expecting Greta Gerwig to tread with Narnia, but i definitely think Magician's Nephew opens itself up for Greta to explore these sorts of themes further and in greater detail, if indeed it is something that interests her.... therefore i could definitely see something like the "Lilith" reference in LWW as being something she might pick-up on to run further with, and go deeper into the exploration of the theme compared to Barbie.

As with everything about Greta's "Narnia" project right now though, there are so many things which appear to be hiding in plain sight, its just really difficult to say what any of it means, or where it might go.

Posted by: @icarus

I also don't think its unfair to say that, of the many other socio-cultural themes that Greta tends to weave into her movies (many of which we have already discussed at length on these forums, such as childhood, growing-up, and inter-generational dynamics) that feminism and the female experience of life are undoubtedly up there. I can therefore easily see that she would be drawn to the story of Eve and her role in shaping feminine identity,,,(Digory is) definitely the one who is tempted by a serpent in a garden with an apple.... although he notably rejects it. He does however succumb to his curiosity by ringing the bell and awakening Jadis, so maybe that's it?

All that makes me think Greta Gerwig directing The Magician's Nephew is a bad idea.  

While there are quite a few allusions to the story of Adam and Eve in the book, it's not really about gender (apart from the negative character of Uncle Andrew being sexist, as is Digory at his worst, but by that logic, you could also say the book is about class since Uncle A is also classist.) Digory is definitely similar to Eve, but he's not defined by his gender and even if he were, that gender isn't female. I know that there are readers who see gender as a big theme in the Narnia books and they're entirely entitled to their interpretation, but I've got to call 'em as I see 'em and I don't see that. A writer or director who's really interested in gender will probably put a lot of blather in their adaptation of the books that has nothing to do with their actual themes. 

Honestly, I don't think a filmmaker who wants to use their films to talk about their thoughts on social issues, whether that filmmaker is a liberal or a conservative, should make a Narnia movie at all. Not if they're English or American anyway. The books don't really fit into the overarching narratives advocated by either modern liberals or conservatives in those countries. (I like to think there are some other countries where the politics of Narnia are relevant.) Of course, since discussing politics is rightly against the rules of Narniaweb, I won't get into why I believe that but if anyone wants to know why I do, feel free to PM me. Suffice to say I think such a director would keep pausing the story for irrelevant PSAs. 

But...but I hold out hope. After all, I would have feared that Focus on the Family, being an explicitly political organization one or at least one that explicitly takes side on social issues, would have also cluttered up their Narnia adaptations with irrelevant messages. But their radio dramas were happily free of that. In fact, I'd say they're the best overall adaptations the fans have gotten so far. (There are aspects of other adaptations I'd say are better but I'm talking about overall quality and fidelity.) So there's that precedent. Maybe Narnia brings out the nonpolitical in artists who like to angst about social issues.  

Posted by: @icarus

For reference, a quick summary of Barbie's other biblical references to the story of Adam & Eve are:

• Barbieland represents the Garden of Eden as a utopian paradise.
• Ken (as the Eve) learns knowledge of the world outside and corrupts Barbieland.

If my memory serves, the subtext of the movie is that Barbieland is really just as unfair as the real world in its opposite way and that Ken is, on some level, right to rebel against it (even if the way he does so is wrong.) Of course, part of that may be just a side effect of Greta Gerwig not wanting to tell a story with clearcut heroes and villains but clearly believing one side of the culture wars is always right and the other side always wrong, leading her to make both sides stand-ins for her ideological opponents at different times. The most coherent interpretation of that part of the movie is that people with lots of influence are inevitably bad. (How she reconciles that with how much influence she has in the filmmaking industry is an interesting question. ) So I don't know why she wants to adapt a book that portrays kings and queens, like Frank and Helen, and an ultimate authority figure, like Aslan, as good. 

Posted by: @col-klink

Digory is definitely similar to Eve, but he's not defined by his gender and even if he were, that gender isn't female.

I don't necessarily think Digory's gender presents a problem in that regard, since as mentioned, Ken fulfils the Eve roll in Barbie. It's perhaps more the case that he doesn't have an opposing Adam to play off, which then negates any notion of gender commentary in the pairing.

In the two films that were on the potential GG/XCX list, the "Eve" elements definitely seem to be more in line with the idea of Eve as the temptress and seducer of Adam, and Eve as a symbol of feminine identity.... Which is definitely a much harder sell for a Digory character to pull off!

Overall, I don't think it needs to be too specific on the Biblical references - the ones in Barbie are pretty much just the broad strokes, and it would be easy enough to poke huge theological holes in them... but I do think that coming off the back of Barbie, and knowing a decent amount about GGs artistic background, I'd say it feels hugely unlikely she doesn't pick up on at least some of the Garden of Eden elements to run with as part of her "organising principles"

@fantasia: So yes, there are parallels. Garden = Eden, Jadis = Serpent, Digory = Eve. Both are tempted. One more parallel not mentioned above, both are told Aslan = God is lying to them by not telling the whole truth, which ironically is exactly what the evil character is doing.

The trouble with these arguments is that they don't include Adam as the tempted. The traditional Bible Story has Eve being tempted & then tempting Adam. There is a foursquare scenario, where Eden = Garden, Snake = Jadis, Eve = Digory or does he remain Adam? But Polly = a different sort of Eve, a true helpmeet when she helps Digory to stand up to temptation. Why wasn't Adam out hunting for his own food? Did he help Eve to resist temptation? Or did he just holler for his dinner?

And then there are the innocent King Frank & Queen Helen, appointed the King & Queen of this Eden. They don't take any part in this scenario, when, as icarus points out, it was Digory who caused the problem of Jadis by ringing the bell, even hurting Polly in doing so.  

Posted by: @col-klink

The most coherent interpretation of that part of the movie is that people with lots of influence are inevitably bad. (How she reconciles that with how much influence she has in the filmmaking industry is an interesting question. ) So I don't know why she wants to adapt a book that portrays kings and queens, like Frank and Helen, and an ultimate authority figure, like Aslan, as good. 

From what Gerwig herself has said, perhaps because she loved the Narnia books as a child and still does, and perhaps because she has a background in theology, specifically Christian (although she's not personally committed to either Christianity or any other organised religion as far as I can make out), and she's stated straight out how much she respects C.S. Lewis as a thinker — which necessarily means respecting him as a lay Christian theologian, since out of all he wrote, there's almost nothing of significance that isn't related to his faith...?  

I don't have the exact quote on hand — that is, I can't remember which book I read this in and whether it was quoting Lewis directly on this subject, or giving a general summary of what his beliefs were — but from what I can understand, Lewis himself was a supporter of democracy not because he felt it was good in itself, but because it was the least worst option for humankind. I gather his view was essentially that in an ideal / unfallen / untouched-by-evil world, absolute monarchy would work perfectly and would maintain peace and harmony and justice for all, in line with God's original plan. But in the world as it is, we can never trust any human beings to have too much power over others for too long, and so that's why democracy is preferable, because it prevents any one person or party from wielding absolute power over others. That may not be a 100% accurate summary of what Lewis said on the subject, but it's what I understand from what I've read about him, and one can see the logic there. (It's a bit like what Winston Churchill is often quoted, probably apocryphally, as saying — that democracy is the second worst form of government, after all the others. )

My point here is that Lewis presents Narnia as a world that's not completely free of evil, but for much of its history it's certainly less fallen or corrupted than the world we live in. And while Narnia is ruled by what is essentially an absolute monarchy, its monarchs are as much under the law as are all citizens, and the main job of the Kings and Queens seems to be to ensure that all Narnian creatures are able to live in peace and enjoy their lives without impinging on (or being impinged on by) any others. Perhaps it's because Aslan seems to have more of a direct influence over Narnia's rulers than he apparently has over our world's rulers...

Anyway, my thought here is that if Gerwig really does understand Lewis and have as much respect for him as her own words have repeatedly indicated, she'll have picked up on these ideas in the Chronicles — in particular, that Aslan is an "ultimate authority figure" who IS all good, and that those who truly follow him, as closely as they are able (and in humility rather than arrogance), will rule wisely and well. Gerwig herself has spoken of how touched she's always been by the concept of grace in Christianity — unearned forgiveness and unconditional love — and that in itself tells me she definitely "gets" something about Aslan. Which makes me a lot less fearful, so far, that she's going to take Narnia and turn it into some kind of personal political project. We don't know for sure exactly what she will do with it, of course, and I could be completely wrong, but nothing out of the relatively little she's said so far has set my own alarm bells clanging. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

The trouble with these arguments is that they don't include Adam as the tempted. The traditional Bible Story has Eve being tempted & then tempting Adam. There is a foursquare scenario, where Eden = Garden, Snake = Jadis, Eve = Digory or does he remain Adam? But Polly = a different sort of Eve, a true helpmeet when she helps Digory to stand up to temptation. Why wasn't Adam out hunting for his own food? Did he help Eve to resist temptation? Or did he just holler for his dinner?

And then there are the innocent King Frank & Queen Helen, appointed the King & Queen of this Eden. They don't take any part in this scenario, when, as icarus points out, it was Digory who caused the problem of Jadis by ringing the bell, even hurting Polly in doing so.

Here's another point I was wanting to make (thanks, Wagga) — while The Magician's Nephew certainly has echoes of the Adam and Eve story, Lewis, as always, is NOT attempting to retell Bible stories with different characters. Narnia is not allegory, which is one of the main things critics and even some positive commentators just don't seem to "get" about it. Apart from Aslan himself, absolutely none of the characters or scenarios in the Chronicles map one-to-one (or anywhere near it) onto Biblical characters and scenarios. There isn't an "Eve" character, or indeed an "Adam" character, or indeed an exact equivalent of Satan. There are echoes and allusions that may remind us of people and things in the Bible, but that's not the same as them actually being those same things. Digory gives in to temptation one time, with the bell in Charn, and this has huge implications for the new world of Narnia and for the whole plot of the story. But he redeems himself by doing Aslan's will, and he doesn't give in to temptation — to a much more personal and emotionally wrenching form of it, too — the second time, when Jadis tries to persuade him to take the apple for his mother. Eve, in the Bible, was never given any chance to redeem herself (and neither was Adam), to point out just one of the many differences between this episode and the scriptural one.

I really don't think we're going to be able to say anything for sure about how Greta Gerwig will handle the various theological aspects of Narnia until we find out more about what she's actually planning! At least now we know it's definitely in the works...

MOD NOTE: Several posts were removed from this thread as they were far too political and/or not family friendly and/or not respectful. And, because they replied to posts that had to be removed, perfectly good posts also had to be removed as well. If your post is missing from this thread and you would like a copy of it to repost, please let me know and I will PM it to you. 

Please remember to keep all your posts respectful and family friendly or it will be removed from the forum! Thank you.

Re: allegory - I have noticed that the use and definition of the word allegory has been changing in this generation, and even the Logos Theatre uses the word to mean 'representation' or 'symbol'. This is possibly more common in USA than England.

In my university English studies 50 years ago, our lecturers were emphatic that the word had a specific meaning. 
I understand that most people in the world did not get to attend my university and I'm sorry that they missed having that drilled into them!  

(I argued about this with a mod on a Tolkien forum I belonged to 20 years back, who said I was wrong and that she was a current lecturer at Oxford and knew better than me; she warned me not to disagree as she might ban me! still scarred!)

Posted by: @coracle

(I argued about this with a mod on a Tolkien forum I belonged to 20 years back, who said I was wrong and that she was a current lecturer at Oxford and knew better than me; she warned me not to disagree as she might ban me! still scarred!)

Ooer, gosh. I assume she wasn't a Lewis fan, or she might have understood what he actually meant by "allegory" and why he was adamant that the Chronicles are NOT in that category. I mean, he only wrote a whole dissertation on "The Allegory of Love" in medieval literature, so it's just possible that he knew what he was talking about...  

I find it irritating that "allegory" these days does seem to just mean "use of symbolism" to most people — well, I wouldn't find it irritating if I wasn't a huge fan of Narnia. But regardless of that (and we can't do much to stop language evolving), what I was getting at — and so, I think, was Wagga — is that, whether or not we call them "allegories", the Chronicles don't work in such a way that every single character and place and event corresponds with something in the Bible or in Christian theology.

So we can't look at the main characters in The Magician's Nephew — Digory, Polly, Jadis, Uncle Andrew, Frank, Helen — and say "Oh yes, well, this one is the Eve, this one is Adam, that one is Satan, except where this one plays a sort of combined role, and then..." I mean, we can try to do that if we want, but it's not a fair way of analysing the story when the author himself stated, many times over, that this is not how he wrote the Chronicles and not how he intended them to be read.

I don't know how much of Lewis's writings Gerwig is familiar with and whether she's read the various statements he made about the Narnia books and what he was and wasn't aiming to do with them, but I'm hoping she'll have some knowledge of all this and it'll have a bearing on how she handles the symbolic / Christian elements of the story. 

@Courtenay: So we can't look at the main characters in The Magician's Nephew— Digory, Polly, Jadis, Uncle Andrew, Frank, Helen — and say "Oh yes, well, this one is the Eve, this one is Adam, that one is Satan, except where this one plays a sort of combined role, and then..." I mean, we can try to do that if we want, but it's not a fair way of analysing the story when the author himself stated, many times over, that this is not how he wrote the Chronicles and not how he intended them to be read.

Of course, you are right, when C.S. Lewis said in his writings that the Narnia Chronicles were a supposal, and not an allegory at all. Some people are too literally minded, I think. From the sound of it I'm glad that I worked on my degrees by external study, books scattered in piles on the Lounge Room floor rather than having to attend university lectures, except in during school holidays. If you really have to have a human equivalent in Narnia for Adam & Eve, the best example would be King Frank & Queen Helen in my opinion. Narnia is a place for animals to live freely and enjoyably, but which only humans can legitimately rule, not wannabe "goddesses" like Jadis who believe they are above human rules. As C.S. Lewis also has said. I believe he also pointed out that if an eternal God really wanted a world to be made in a day HE would have done so. Whilst both Tolkien & Lewis used music in their ideas of what Creation might be like.

The creation of Narnia scene is also going to be tricky for all sorts of reasons, I think. I picked up a book in my library called Creation stories, and yes, the Bible story of Creation was in it as well as several other creation stories, including the Babylonian Enuma Elish, a similar, but polytheistic version of Noah's Flood. It annoyed me a bit, because I think that the book's approach was much too simplistic an angle to take, when the overriding theme of the Bible, & especially the Old Testament, is that there is only one God, from Genesis to Malachi, though the Douai/Rheims version has some of the apocrypha in it as well, whilst the Taanach arranges the books of the Old Testament differently, apart from the 5 books of the Pentateuch or the Torah, itself. 

Genesis Chapter 1, verses 1-11 never was a scientific treatise, I've realised. Comparing with different bibles and an English copy of the Jewish Taanach, the words might be similar, but some versions seem to miss out the Evening and Morning refrain, or did I just fail to read some properly, thinking a small refrain mightn't matter?  It is a song, the song of creation, & beautiful in its own right. Hebrew slaves might well sing it with love, when it guarantees their right to a day off on the Seventh day.  It is a chant and a song, with a refrain, eerily accurate to the order of evolution perhaps. And when you know that it was the Babylonians, maybe Nebuchadnezzar's Chaldeans, who worked out that there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, and why are there 24 hours in a day, the whole thing starts falling into place.

And yes, that is why we have the 4th commandment: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it". It is all about time management, & how & why a community paces its week, when nobody knew back then, HOW the world, itself, was put together, and WHEN. The Hebrews divined correctly that it is what one puts into the time allowed to us that matters, following God's leadership as our example. 

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

If you really have to have a human equivalent in Narnia for Adam & Eve, the best example would be King Frank & Queen Helen in my opinion. Narnia is a place for animals to live freely and enjoyably, but which only humans can legitimately rule, not wannabe "goddesses" like Jadis who believe they are above human rules.

Hmmm, but Adam and Eve are generally understood as the archetypal first two human beings who disobeyed God and messed everything up. Frank and Helen, in Narnia, don't fit that role at all. They're the first two humans to live in Narnia permanently, but they aren't put through any great temptation and they do what Aslan commands, and we're given to understand that they ruled wisely and well. If we weren't aware of any other Christian elements in this story, those two characters alone wouldn't make us think "Hey, this reminds me of something from the Bible..."

Whereas a few other characters in MN do suffer temptation and make choices that affect the rest of the story — I don't think anyone's mentioned Polly being persuaded by Uncle Andrew to take a yellow ring in the first place (though he simply offers it to her as a gift, without suggesting that it will have any kind of benefits for her). Digory of course gives in to the temptation to ring the bell. Jadis steals the apple from the garden, obviously having some awareness of what it will do for her, and becomes immortal, but is doomed to eternal misery because she took what wasn't meant for her. She then tempts Digory to take an apple to cure his mother instead of giving it to Aslan, but in this case, he successfully resists — even though it's a much more heart-wrenching temptation for him than ringing the bell must have been — and succeeds in the task Aslan gave him. And he's rewarded at the end, unexpectedly, by his mother being healed after all.

All those scenes could be said to have some echoes of the temptation of Eve in the Bible — and one of them even involves an apple in a sacred garden — but none of them are anything like direct parallels or rewrites of that story, and they're not meant to be. Trying to pick out any of them as Narnia's "Eve story", and making that a feature of the upcoming film, would just distort the whole thing into something different from what Lewis wrote. That's why I'm hoping Greta Gerwig has the wisdom not to do that, however else she may decide to handle the Christian elements of the story.

You know what, there are two curious things that sprang to mind when reading this thread.

Firstly is that the central question of "who is the Eve?" provides the perfect retort to anyone who suggests that Narnia is strictly allegorical, since the answer is "Sort of Digory, but maybe also Polly, and in some senses also Jadis, and superficially at least Helen... But also none of them".

Secondly I was struck by the irony of the notion that the biggest fear amongst Narnia fans is usually that the filmmakers will ignore the religious aspects entirely... Whereas here I almost have the fear that Greta Gerwig will actually double-down on the religious aspects and attempt to draw a deeper theological parallel with Eve which actually doesn't exist in the book

Anyway, an interesting debate for sure - very intrigued to see if it's a direction that Greta Gerwig ends up exploring!

Ok, this thread is a lot more involved than I thought. Here's my two cents: Jadis is likely the Eve character. We will likely get a flashback backstory for her in Charn that may even show a bit of her descent into evil. Though there is no serpent in the garden, one is not needed. Jadis is already corrupt, and the serpent is inside; it's her own greed, fear, jealousy, and desire for power that tempt her to take the apple after she hears of its existence. Another reason to view her as an Eve-like figure is the frequently dismissed reference in LWW to her being a descendant of a different wife of Adam. I hasten to add that such a person is unbiblical, mythical, and originated in the cultures around Israel first. Nevertheless, that reference could have caused Gretta to associate her with a fallen/evil Eve figure. 

@Courtenay: Hmmm, but Adam and Eve are generally understood as the archetypal first two human beings who disobeyed God and messed everything up.

Whereas King Frank, the erstwhile Cabbie and his beloved wife, Queen Helen were "messed up" by other people's actions, & were totally innocent visitors to Narnia, thanks to Strawberry's understandable desire to drink water from a neighbouring pool. Unlike Polly and Digory, who were in that situation because of their strong desire to return Jadis to the now destroyed Charn.

In that case, they are, both, the ones who have messed everything up, countermanding Narnia's creator's intentions, unless you want to include poor Strawberry, the Cabbie's horse, in the Adam & Eve vs Snake equation. Uncle Andrew, who should never have been messing with things he didn't fully understand, comes with them, but where does he fit in the Adam & Eve picture? Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Especially when misapplied by know-alls, like Uncle Andrew (er and maybe librarians as well? ) 

In Prince Caspian, Aslan tells the newly created King at the end that he is descended from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve, and that is enough shame to bow the head of the proudest Emperor, and enough honour to raise the head of the poorest beggar. Don't be too hard on the Lady Eve. Though she learned she wasn't to eat the fruit of the tree, from Adam, if I remember, correctly, rather than from God, directly, on her own, without Adam supporting her, by her side, she was unable to out argue the snake, unlike Digory. That is different from Polly & Digory, when it was Polly's presence which helped boost Digory's confidence to do the right thing, when he was tempted by Jadis. 

@icarus: Firstly, is that the central question of "who is the Eve?"provides the perfect retort to anyone who suggests that Narnia is strictly allegorical, since the answer is "Sort of Digory, but maybe also Polly, and in some senses also Jadis, and superficially at least Helen... But also none of them".

Or maybe all of the above, even though Helen was only there on her equally innocent husband's request. There are plenty of biblical references echoing in MN, without getting too involved in finding the "wicked" Eve to blame. Think St Paul's revelation on the way to Damascus, or the Biblical assertion that all have fallen short of the Glory of God, dragged down into sin, dating from Genesis  

@Anfinwen: Jadis is likely the Eve character. We will likely get a flashback backstory for her in Charn that may even show a bit of her descent into evil.

I see Jadis as the snake & temptress, rather than as Eve, but you are right about her getting to know about the Deplorable Word and finally, actually using it to get her own way, in sharp contrast to her ancestors. I guess Greta Gerwig will need to show in some form how Jadis on the terrace outside Charn's palace destroyed her sister's army, as well as the immediate aftermath. 

As a Harry Potter fan, I consider Jadis in MN is right up there with Voldemort in Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince where we learn how Voldemort, who murdered Harry Potter's parents, messed with horcruxes to make himself almost indestructible.