Does anybody have any idea what could be missing?

well to love someone you have to love and accept yourself. Maybe Orual feels that with the relationship she has, she's giving nothing at all, and only taking from Psyche. That's why she want all these different, deeper relationships. In them she's a different person, giving different things...maybe?

In fact, he's willing to sacrifice Psyche to fever, just for them to be appeased (a fact which I can't decide whether it's reckless or noble for a king to do).

it's reckless. He's only doing it b/c he knows if he doesn't appease the peasants, they will attack his castle and kill him. It's a purely selfish motive, at least from my point of view.

But your claim that his place was with Orual is a bit sketchy in my book. I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility, but I'd ask for some proof. Where do you see this throughout the book?

Hmm, well it's kind of an assumption. Just b/c it seems like he has an honest relationship with her and isn't being her teacher begrudgingly. This is my first time reading the book btw so I don't know how his character plays out yet .

In fact, the scene in which Orual first discovers that she is ugly (I can't find it right now, but if somebody else can, I'd be appreicative!) is one of the most heartbreaking scenes in the whole book.

This one?

"Need you ask?" said the King with one of his great laughs, jerking his thumb in my direction. "Do you think I want my queen frightened out of her senses? Veils of course. And good thick veils too." One of the toher girls tittered, and I think that was the first time I clearly understood that I am ugly.

This made me more afraid of the Stepmother than ever. I thought she would be crueller to me than to Redival becuase of my ugliness. It wasn't only what Batta had said that frightened me; I had heard of step-mothers in plenty of stories."

1. Clearly Orual believes that she is safe to say whatever she wants about the gods because there is nothing left that they can hurt her with. There is nothing at all left in her life that she takes pleasure in, so the gods can't destroy it in revenge for what she has said about them. She seems to bear a particular antipathy to this God of the Grey Mountain. He must have done some great wrong to her, although it's entirely possible the wrong exists only in her mind. We are only getting Orual's point of view here. Since she seems to hate and distrust the gods, she's definitely a biased narrator of their deeds. They could be perfectly benevolent entities, but did something to enrage Orual and cause her to develop bitter feelings toward them.

2. The king of Glome seems to me to be very much like an all-powerful toddler. He kills without thought or mercy, he send slaves and his subjects off to miserable fates without a second thought. He never stops to think about the consequences of his actions. His treatment of his children is the same as his general attitude toward the people surrounding him; they are only tools for him to prop up his throne with. His use of Psyche to placate the peasants lends credence to this; he doesn't care if she dies as long as she keeps the peasants from storming the palace and killing him.

3. I think the Fox doesn't try to escape partly because he is a very practical person. He has reasoned that it is useless to attempt to escape and any attempt to do so would only result in torture or death. I think his other reason is that he has genuine affection for Orual and enjoys teaching. Certainly he loves Psyche dearly, the book describes her as being like his own grandaughter.

4. The goddesses Aphrodite and Ungit do not seem to have much in common at all. The people of Glome sacrifice human being to Ungit and I've never heard of such a thing done in the name of Aphrodite. The Fox seems to be a bit of an agnostic and perhaps he means that all of the gods and goddesses worshiped by his people and the people of Glome are imaginary, just bits of rock that people pray to.

5. Humanity doesn't change very much, even in the 2000+ years separating our culture from that of Ancient Greece. Outer beauty is prized far more highly today than any sort of beauty and it seems to be the same in this past world of Glome. of course, there is the addition that a beautiful princess can be married off to a powerful neighbor, making her a very valuable bargaining chip. I think that what we are learning about Orual through the narration is that she has had very little to love in her short life and so she has invested all of the love that she has to give in her sister.

6. Though I think this is possibly the most beautiful passage in the first three chapters, it does not describe a healthy love at all. Orual's love for Psyche seems a sort of obsessive and possessive love.

If he truly cared about Psyche, he wouldn’t have let her go out and touch all those people.

Yes, but if he hadn't let her, then the counter argument that he didn't care about his people could also be made. It is a horrible double standard to which all kings are forced to submit. Should a king care more for his family, or for his people?

Well, I don't think he cares for his people either, but I see your point. Although I didn't say it, what I was really thinking about was that he let her stay out there when she was clearly passed her strength and did nothing to ease her load. He could have at least sent someone out to support her or arranged things so that she could sit and the people could come to her. After Orual said that it would kill her, the king says, "Then's more the pity. They'll kill us all if she stops." It just sounds kind of uncaring. I wonder if the people really would have killed them if they had brought her back in.

I suppose it depends on the situation whether a king should care more for his people or his family. He should definitely put both of them before himself.

This one?

"Need you ask?" said the King with one of his great laughs, jerking his thumb in my direction. "Do you think I want my queen frightened out of her senses? Veils of course. And good thick veils too." One of the toher girls tittered, and I think that was the first time I clearly understood that I am ugly.

Yep, this is the one for which I was looking. I think that the realisation at the end is just so empty that it's heartbreaking.

#2: I think he was a terrible king. After all, if you treat your family like that, how are you going to treat your people? I think possibly The King could have started out as a decent monarch, but his obsession with having a male heir became too much. It became the most important thing in his life and, as a consequence, he didn't pay any attention to anything else in his life, except to yell at it when it got in his way. Things just got worse and worse until he didn't care what he did, if he thought it would further his desire.

DiGs, I found your thoughts on this very interesting. I was glad to see a different view expounded on.

It's obvious that he doesn't have the trust in his daughters that he should

Trust? I don't think this was about trust. I'm sure the king distrusted his daughters, but he also insulted them, ignored them, and treated them like they were the filth of the ground. You make a good point that kings in ages past weren't always that favorable towards their female children, but goodness, this King took this a little too far. As I mentioned up a little, if you treat your children like that, how are you going to treat your people?
It's interesting looking at Lewis' requirements for a king; you indicated that you thought the King of Glome pretty much covered all of these. I'd have to disagree; maybe he cared about the crops and was eager to fight enemies, but you have to question why he'd be willing to do this. In his case, I hardly think it was out of the goodness of his heart or because he cared for his people. No way! He just wanted to make sure he stayed king and still had a people to rule over.

he certainly does have a RAVENOUS temper that consumes everything!) but I can't help but wonder what it springs from.

Could this tie in with my thoughts on his obsession with having a male heir?
That's my reading anyway. And once again, I'm really grateful to see a new approach on his character presented.
I like your thoughts on this too, Booky; they're quite logical, and make loads of sense in my mind.

#3: I have a different idea about the Fox. What if he simply had no back-bone? He certainly doesn't seem to have much. He gets pulled off to this new land, and instantly starts doing pretty much whatever is desired of him. As Orual herself noted, he made himself cheerful. He apparently was adaptable enough that whatever came along he could take in stride and go along with. And while that can be nice, can't it be a bad thing too? I'd argue that it could be.

#6. A healthy love? Perhaps not entirely. But surely natural enough. Orual could count on one hand the people who loved her. If you except the Fox, that makes a grand zero. But here was something that became hers entirely, to look after, to take care of, to love. If she'd had other people to love, and who loved her, perhaps her love for Pysche would have been a little more tempered. How can we blame her for wanting to make sure nothing could ever separate them?

Does anyone have any more thoughts on "the step-mother?" I felt sorry for her and liked what little we saw of her.

I'm really enjoying the discussion so far! I'm just sorry I don't have time to reply to every comment.

Orual places such a low value on herself time and time again, and only seems to give worth to herself through other people.

This is fascinating to me because my small group at church is currently studying what the Bible calls "the fear of man." The book we're reading (When People Are Big And God Is Small) is written by Edward Welch, a biblical counselor who rejects the tenets of secular psychology and turns instead to the Word of God because it is completely sufficient for all our needs.

One of the things Welch discusses is how we are controlled by other people because we need them more than we love them. We are controlled by what we need, and when we look to other people to fill up our (supposed) emotional needs, we basically worship them instead of God. We worship, seek, and work for the good feelings that other people's approval gives us. It's sick, really, when you really examine your thought patterns and see how much work you do to look good and get what you want from other people. I have been so challenged and convicted by the biblical principles in Welch's book.

But one thing that struck me throughout this chapter is that she never values herself for the person that she is.

This is where it gets tricky. According to what the Bible teaches, we are sinful creatures at the mercy of a holy God who is deeply offended by our disgusting ways. There is nothing good in us and our hearts are corrupted (Jeremiah 17:9), and therefore there is nothing that would justify us valuing ourselves for the people we are. The people we are — far from being something we should value — are worthy of nothing but punishment. Our sin corrupts every part of our being and there is no island of innocence in us. In reality, as a fallen creature Orual has no legitimate basis to value herself, because there is nothing good in her. Any semblance of good that is there is there by the grace of God, a broken fragment of His image in His creation. It is certainly nothing that she can take credit for and be proud of.

Secular psychology has had a huge impact on the church, and unfortunately we have swallowed so many of its teachings which directly contradict the message if the Gospel. Well-meaning therapists try to replace their patients' low self-esteem with a more positive view of themselves, but even if the patient starts to believe the positive things that the therapist is saying, the real problem is still there: dependence on the opinions of others for self-worth. We are worshipping other people instead of God.

Jesus didn't come to save His people from their bad feelings about themselves, to tell them that He "doesn't make junk," or to help us to be happy. On the contrary, we are to be disgusted with our sin (which permeates our natures completely) and run to the Cross. If I have good feelings about myself as a person, what need do I have to be dependent on Christ? I've got things under control; I'm a good person, right? If I have some kind of vague worth and value just by virtue of being created... it doesn't make sense and it doesn't drive me to a right relationship with God.

We need a new standard: Christ-esteem instead of self-esteem.

I just love tangents . I'll be back to talk about the king later. Short version: I don't think he has any redeeming qualities, and having the responsibilities of kingship is no excuse for his weak/selfish/prideful/cowardly actions.

DiGs, I found your thoughts on this very interesting. I was glad to see a different view expounded on.

It's obvious that he doesn't have the trust in his daughters that he should

Trust? I don't think this was about trust. I'm sure the king distrusted his daughters, but he also insulted them, ignored them, and treated them like they were the filth of the ground. You make a good point that kings in ages past weren't always that favorable towards their female children, but goodness, this King took this a little too far. As I mentioned up a little, if you treat your children like that, how are you going to treat your people?

My thoughts exactly. I'm sorry, but in no way, shape, or form can the King be a good person. A good king? Perhaps. He gives the people food anyway. But it is certainly not that he doesn't have trust in his daughters (though he doesn't trust Redival at all, but for good reason). It is that he has no love for them. They are worthless beings who are wasted potential. They were pregnancies who did not yield a male heir. He is misogynistic in the extreme and as far as I can tell, would rather have no children then a couple of daughters.

You are all very astute and since my views would just be repeating what has already been said, I will refrain from cluttering the thread.

2. I don't like the king. At all. I don't think he's a tyrant, but all he cares about his crown and having an heir to have the crown after him. I think he wants his kingdom to prosper, but he does not care about the people unless they can give him something.

3. At first, I think the Fox knew he couldn't escape and so didn't bother to try. After a time, I think he had less desire to escape. He has obvious affection for Orual and Psyche, and he enjoys teaching. And he's genuinely curious about Glome and its customs.

4. I think Aphrodite and Ungit appear to be opposites at first because Aphrodite was beautiful while Ungit was an ugly stone. But they are the same because they both (at least in Orual's mind) love jealously. I have read the tale the Fox told Orual about Aphrodite before, but I don't remember how it ended. I think Aphrodite kept the man with her, but eventually grew tired of him because of course he eventually got old and then was no longer handsome.

Does anyone have any more thoughts on "the step-mother?" I felt sorry for her and liked what little we saw of her.

I always felt sorry for her as well. She is almost the exact opposite of what Orual was expecting. Orual expected that her stepmother would be mean, vicious, and treat her and Redival badly. But her stepmother was far too innocent and frightened to be any of those things. The book doesn't say so, but I get the idea that Orual felt sorry for her.

This is where it gets tricky. According to what the Bible teaches, we are sinful creatures at the mercy of a holy God who is deeply offended by our disgusting ways. There is nothing good in us and our hearts are corrupted (Jeremiah 17:9), and therefore there is nothing that would justify us valuing ourselves for the people we are.

Oh, I'm sorry, but this isn't what I meant at all . What I meant was that she seems to have no self-esteem, and no belief in herself. Throughout this book it has been evident that she is a very strong and confident woman, and yet I don't think that she acknowledges this fact. To Orual, I think that she sees herself as the trembling little child who is dwarfed by those around her in different aspects of her life (Psyche for love, Redival for beauty (as well as Psyche), Fox for wisdom, the King for power, etc. . . ) She doesn't see that she herself posesses some of these attributes, because she constantly thinks that others are better than herself. It's really a kind of self-damaging humility that she has.

If I have good feelings about myself as a person, what need do I have to be dependent on Christ? I've got things under control; I'm a good person, right? If I have some kind of vague worth and value just by virtue of being created... it doesn't make sense and it doesn't drive me to a right relationship with God.

I can't help but wonder if this is a teensy bit of stretch. I mean even if one makes the argument that this story really happens in our world, rather than a fantasy world, at any rate, Christ hadn't even been born yet (as we can assume that it takes place sometime in the Greek empire time). So looking to Christ wasn't much of an option. Now looking to God is another matter entirely, however, no God is mentioned here save Ungit (and possibly Aprhodite). To me, if Ungit really is the way that she is portrayed in the book (bloodthirsty, selfish, childish, greedy, evil, etc. . . ) then I think it is a good thing that Orual has went against her supposed "God." And if you make the argument that she does (or I suppose we should say "did") inhabit our world, than it definitely is a good thing that she stopped her idolatry. (Now I feel as if I'm beginning to tangent myself ).

I think there's a very big distinction in valueing yourself as a human being, and valueing yourself as an eternal being. The two are somewhat different, although the line can be a bit blurry at times. To say that Orual (or any person) should never feel good about themselves is nonsense. You're correct to say that without God in our lives, we are nothing, and have no right to anything except damnation, but surely there are characteristics within human beings that do make us good people. Beings that have rejected God altogether are not incapable of accomplishing good deeds, but those good deeds mean nothing. To argue the opposite would be like saying that it is physically impossible for 90% of earth's population to walk a little old lady across the street, merely for the reason that she needed help.

Or perhaps I'm saying this: C.S. Lewis has given us no other god other than Ungit. To bring in The One And Only God might go against the original theme that he has at this point in the book. *does't think he said that very well, and knows that Amy is going to rebut it

They are worthless beings who are wasted potential.

I really don't think that the King views his daughters in that way. Even he can't be blind and dumb enough to think that they are worthless. If he didn't care about them, then he wouldn't have gone through so much trouble to avenge Redival's honour (even if she was the one who besmirched it in the first place). And if he would rather have had no children than had daughters, what was to stop him from just killing them? He certainly dislikes the fact that he feeds Fox without getting any results (e.g. a boy for him to tutor), so why should he feel any differently towards his daughters?

The King only values his children if they have a use. The King avenged Redival because he couldn't marry off a girl who wasn't a virgin. He stated pretty clearly that protecting her virginity was the only reason he punished the guard and made Orual and the Fox watch over her. When the Fox was sick and Orual had to fill in for him, the King finally realized she had her uses and then he sort of grudgingly treats her better. The King keeps his daughters around because he can marry them off in alliances or to gain wealth; it isn't because he secretly loves them.

As Destined-To-Reign said, I felt sorry for Pysche's mother too. She was just this timid little thing, and her new husband was definitely not comforting. I think Orual was sorry for her.
As for the humility question, I think that is best explained by a passage from The Screwtape Letters

Let him think of it, not as self-forgetfulness, but as a certain kind of opinion (namely, a low opinion), of his own talents and character...Fix in his mind that humility consists in trying to believe those talents to be less valuable than he believes them to be...By this method thousands of humans have been brought to think that humility means pretty women trying to believe they are ugly and clever men trying to believe they are fools. And since what they are trying to believe, may, in some cases, be manifest nonsense, they cannot succeed in believing it, and we have the chance of keeping their minds endlessly revolving on themselves in an effort to achieve the impossible.

And it does seem to me that the King only values people for the use they may be to him, and not for themselves. Pretty daughters are useful because he could marry them to another king to achieve an alliance, even Orual is useful to him because of her helping in the Pillar Room.

What I meant was that she seems to have no self-esteem, and no belief in herself.

Right — and I'm saying that we shouldn't have those things . All our good should come from God; we contribute nothing to it. If we believe in ourselves,we deny that we need to believe in God.

She doesn't see that she herself posesses some of these attributes, because she constantly thinks that others are better than herself.

But what about Philippians 2:3, that says, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves"? What should that look like in our lives? It doesn't really jibe with what the world would tell us about self-esteem and finding worth in the fact that we are better/kinder/smarter/prettier/whatever comparatively speaking (that is, compared to other people).

It's really a kind of self-damaging humility that she has.

The kind of humility that bemoans its own inadequacy and hates/despises itself (i.e. what we might call low self-esteem) is just another form of pride. It is an obsession with self, and the fact that it's a negative rather than a positive obsession doesn't change its unchanging, unvarying focus: the self. The goal is not high or low self-esteem, but no self-esteem, because then you aren't obsessed with self in any way.

I would say Orual is not really humble at all. Lady Haleth, thank you for quoting that passage from Screwtape! True humility is not low self-esteem (which is still obsessed with self); it's no self-esteem, because self is peripheral at that point.

I can't help but wonder if this is a teensy bit of stretch. I mean even if one makes the argument that this story really happens in our world, rather than a fantasy world, at any rate, Christ hadn't even been born yet (as we can assume that it takes place sometime in the Greek empire time). So looking to Christ wasn't much of an option.

I wasn't arguing that this story happens in our world; I am simply viewing this story through a biblical lens (as I should view everything) and applying biblical principles to what it is happening in it. Isn't that what I should do, if I am taking anything from this story into myself as guidance or wisdom of any kind?

Now looking to God is another matter entirely, however, no God is mentioned here save Ungit (and possibly Aprhodite).

Romans 1 makes it clear that even people who have never heard of Christ have no excuse for their sin, because God's invisible qualities have been evident from what has been made, and yet they sinned anyways. But Orual doesn't even have that excuse, inadequate as it is. Her constant companion and teacher, the Fox, was always presenting her with a very different picture of what he calls "the divine nature." Ungit was not the only deity she had ever learned about. No, Orual is like the rest of us... sinful.

I think there's a very big distinction in valueing yourself as a human being, and valueing yourself as an eternal being.

But where is this dichotomy mentioned in Scripture? Is there one truth we are to follow as human beings (what the world tells us about self-esteem, in this case) and another for our identity as eternal beings (we are sinful creatures with no good in us)? You can't believe both at once; they are mutually exclusive and to claim they are both true is illogical.

I really don't see how we can make a distinction in ourselves between "human" and "eternal." We have been created with both those attributes, and trying to divorce them so we can follow a different standard during our lives on earth is a dangerous thing.

To say that Orual (or any person) should never feel good about themselves is nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? We have to ask, where does this idea come from? Can you point me to a passage in Scripture that would support this? Or is it something that the world has taught us?

The truth is that Scripture never tells us anything that would bolster our self-esteem. Nowhere are we commanded to feel good about ourselves, or taught how to accomplish that. Actually it's quite the opposite.

You're correct to say that without God in our lives, we are nothing, and have no right to anything except damnation, but surely there are characteristics within human beings that do make us good people.

No, there aren't. We are bad people, all of us. The Bible says that all our righteousness (the good things we do and traits we possess, all of it) is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). The reason is because our standard is not each other, as self-esteem proponents would have it. Our standard is God. We are to be holy because He is (1 Peter 1:16). We are to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect (Ephesians 5:1). This should just be absolutely crushing to our self-esteem. We have never and can never measure to such a high standard.

Should this bring us guilt and sorrow? Yes. We need to know there is nothing good in ourselves before we will run to Christ, and only the Holy Spirit can bring that knowledge home to us.We have to feel the crushing burden of sin and the ugliness of our "righteous" rags before we will find relief in His taking our burden and providing a perfect covering for our nakedness.

To argue the opposite would be like saying that it is physically impossible for 90% of earth's population to walk a little old lady across the street, merely for the reason that she needed help.

Physical impossibility is one thing; spiritual impossibility is another. To argue that we can have pure motives, of ourselves, for any action would mean to deny the total depravity of man that the Bible teaches. While we do not behave as sinfully as we could at all times (restrained by God's grace), there is no part of us that is untouched by our disobedience in the Fall. Even when we do "good" things, our motives are never, ever pure because we are sinful creatures. All our righteousness is filthy rags; we just can't get around that.

Or perhaps I'm saying this: C.S. Lewis has given us no other god other than Ungit. To bring in The One And Only God might go against the original theme that he has at this point in the book.

But you're forgetting the hints we're already getting of a different God, via the Fox. And Romans 1... man is without excuse!

Even he can't be blind and dumb enough to think that they are worthless.

Why can't he? He's a depraved human being and there is no limit to how sinful we can be. He doesn't care about his daughters. All his motives in dealing with them are self-serving.

Wow, Amy. . .thanks for taking me to the cleaners and back . Remind me never to anger the empress of books

I can see some valid points in your argument (several actually), and I don't think that you and I have belief systems that are too different from one another (concering this issue at least).

To bring Screwtape into it again:

The main problem is that these humans are animals, and everything that they do with their physical bodies affects their souls

I am the first one to admit that without Christ I can do no good thing, and that I definitely shouldn't be proud of myself. But Orual seems to take this to an extreme. As is revealed throughout the rest of the book she seems to not only be lacking of any decent feeling, but seems to be clinically and psychologically depressed. The way that you have argued this point, Amy, makes it sound as if no happiness can be found outside of God. Now, while I accept the argument that no "true" happiness can be found outside of God. But happiness from God could better be defined as Joy rather than happiness. Orual has neither. But back to my Screwtape quote. . .

Your claim that nothing is good without God just cannot be true (in the manner that I am understanding you that is. You may mean something entirely different which would render this claim fruitless). When God created man, earth, everything He said, "It is good." Some things are "good" just because God created them. Take away the Godlike goodness that you are speaking of, and nothing else remains. . . not even existence. So, yes, there has to be some attributes of God remaining even in a fallen world, otherwise. . . there wouldn't be a world left to fall. Now, I don't want you to misinterpret me; I agree completely that we do live in a fallen world, and that man our hearts are desperately wicked, but I just have to disagree with you that an unsaved person can't do a good deed without being rewarded.

If a person makes a donation to a charity, or gives annonymously to a food bank, etc. . . . there certaily are people of this sort who do it for their own vain glory, saved or unsaved. But I have witnessed unsaved people who do truly good things for their communities, and for the downtrodden around them.

A thought just occured to me. . . Are you perhaps meaning "good" in the sense of God honouring things? Because that isn't what I was meaning at all. Goodness doesn't equate with Godliness, it can't otherwise good deeds would be enough to get one into Heaven. What I meant by "good" throughout this post, and throughout my previous posts was unselfish actions towards fellow man. I believe that non-Christians are capable of doing these sorts of things, because they have to have some sort of "goodness" (here used as Godly-goodness) left, otherwise. . . as C.S Lewis states:

No creature can obtain a perfect badness opposite of the perfect goodness of God. Because when you take away all of the positive attributes of God. . . there's nothing left, not even existence itself. God has no opposite.

To say that mankind is entirely devoid of even an iota of goodness, would mean that they opposite God; a fact that in which I simply don't believe.

But to tie this back in with the book, rather than the CRAP thread

I agree that Orual is a sinner, and I agree that she is a fallen human being (assuming that this story does take place in our world). I agree that she has no excuse just because she has never heard of the One True God.

And as far as reading this book through the lens of God's Word, I can commend you for doing such a thing. I can certainly see the way that one could read the story this way, and while I'm trying to read the story that way, I'm also trying to read it through the lens of literary criticism. My main focus with reading this story is to look at the story itself, and try to extract every bit of information from it I can, so that I can sit back at the end and see the whole portrait spread out in front of me, rather than to sit back and say to myself, "So. . . what did all of this mean?" Both are valid ways to read the story, and one is no better than the other. After all, trying to read the work of a man in whom there was no good (as you argue) through a lens that only reveals all things good (the Bible, God, etc. . .) is going to prove more frustrating then beneficial in the end. You can't see blue colours through red glasses.

*Waits for Amy to pounce on this post like a bird pounces on a worm*

2. At this point in the reading, I think the king is meant to be viewed as bad, but perhaps not as bad as we think. (For instance, after his murderous rage, he comes back to his senses and immediately wants to know "Who did that?" He evidently did care about the boy when he was sane, even though his temper had driven him into a crazed fit.) Yes, there are a few things that he does which are inexcusable, and I do think that he tends to judge people based on their apparent value to him, but I tend to think that most kings during this time period (in myth) were actually like this. However, I suddenly realize that my personal knowledge of mythology is rather lacking, so I will drop this topic now.

3. Everyone has had great comments on this so far so I'll add just a thought: I think there was a sort of bond between master and servant/slave in those days which we are totally unfamiliar with today. I think that Sam went with Frodo because he had a duty to him as a servant. Likewise I think the Fox recognizes his duties as a captured greek and a slave, and he forms a bond with Orual (as well as with the King).

4. I don't have much to say in the way of an answer, but I do have a question. The posts so far have been assuming that the Fox doesn't much believe in the gods. Did I miss a passage where Lewis explains this? So far I've only seen evidence that he believes in the gods more strongly than do any of other characters. The Fox always seems to be defending Aphrodite's character by distinguising it from the false impression given by "the poets." He also seems to believe that the gods are good and not "jealous" as Orual believes.

6. When I first read this part of the book I thought it was so strange that I had to read it again and try to figure out what Lewis was trying to communicate. I think I have it. In The Four Loves, Lewis talks about parental love (Storge), romantic love (Eros), brotherly love (Phileo) and the God-kind of love (Agape). I think what Lewis was trying to tell his readers is that Orual's love for her sister was so complete that she wanted to express it in all four ways; Storge: "I wanted to be a wife so that I could have been her real mother." Eros: "I wanted to be a boy so that she could be in love with me." Phileo: "I wanted her to be my full sister instead of my half sister." and Agape: "I wanted her to be a slave so that I could set her free and make her rich." Or perhaps what Lewis is trying to say is that Orual loves Psyche, but she wants to love her more deeply and believes that her current half-sister relationship with Psyche is inhibiting that desire.

In either case, I think I'm the only one so far to argue that Orual's love for Psyche as described in this passage is a good thing.

Excellent response to question 6, Movie Aristotle. The Four Loves has been on my reading list for some time, and I think it very likely that Lewis' thoughts from other books have flowed over into this one (or vice versa depending on which was written first). Thanks for bringing that up.

As for Fox's indecisiveness about the gods. . . that's just one of the many things that irk me about Fox. He says something along the lines (after his story of Aphrodite to the girls) about how all of the gods are poppycock invented by poets, and yet he still acknowledges their power, or at least mimes such things in front of the King. I don't think the book ever just blatantly says "FOX DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE GODS!" and I don't think we'll see Fox carrying around a "Down with Ungit" sign .