Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

@Courtenay  You agreed about one connection, as below.   

I agree about more than one connection between Aslan and Jesus, as I think I may have made clear in previous posts.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

But I really should have pointed out that for both, not only the sacrifice was made but also both Aslan and Jesus came back to life.

I think that's clear enough, don't worry, from other things you've written and from this whole discussion in general. 

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

That is the real sticking point about Christianity, for the author of "The Problem of Susan", when the powers that be at the time, did not accept Jesus as the promised Messiah, definitely in Philip Pullman's case or, maybe even for Dr Hurd, despite her scholarship? 

The issue here, though, isn't whether or not Crystal Hurd, or Philip Pullman, or any other commentators on Narnia (positive or negative) personally believe in Jesus as the Messiah and count themselves as Christians. The point is that C.S. Lewis did, and he clearly and explicitly intended readers of Narnia to see Aslan as a representation of Jesus, as Lewis imagines Jesus might appear in a different form in a different world from ours. 

Dr Hurd's article takes the stance that Lewis conceived of Aslan as "influenced" by Jesus but not to be compared directly, and that it's "spiritual fans" of Narnia who are the ones interpreting Aslan as Jesus and therefore getting upset about the possibility of Aslan being portrayed as female.

As I keep emphasising, this is wrong, because it misrepresents Lewis's own clearly stated intentions, and subtly blames fans of Narnia for interpreting Aslan as Jesus when apparently we shouldn't really be doing so.

I'd say the same, by the way, if Lewis was being misrepresented on an issue other than this, or if any other author was being misrepresented on a significant issue — whether or not it was a matter to do with Christianity or indeed some other religion. 

I think in order to fully understand Lewis you have to know that Aslan is Jesus in another world and not merely a character that was influenced by Christ. Narnia may be a work of fiction, although some people might think it is reality, and they may have good reasons to think that way. But you can suppose that Aslan is really Christ in Narnia, and it does not matter that much if the world is real or created by C. S. Lewis. What really matters is that Aslan is Jesus in Narnia, and he is a Lion and not of a different gender than in the books. Aslan could not be anyone else.

@Courtenay , thank you very much for your posts about Dr. Hurd’s article! While we are merely hosting the piece, accuracy is extremely important to us. Thank you very much for the accountability.

My take on the areas of concern you highlighted:

For example, while The Chronicles of Narnia isn’t strictly allegorical, C. S. Lewis mentioned in his correspondence that Aslan is influenced by Jesus, not a direct one-to-one comparison, but a “supposition.”

The wording here is indeed a little confusing. But in context with the rest of the article, her main point seems to be that the Aslan-Jesus connection is undeniable. 

But she is raising questions about whether it makes sense to criticize making Aslan female simply because Jesus wasn’t female. After all, he wasn’t a lion either. He’s a supposition. Lewis using his imagination. 

Queen Helen is directly inspired by Helen Joy Davidman Lewis,

Lewis had known Joy for a few years by the time MN was published, so it seems unlikely that her name is a coincidence. But “directly inspired” the character, I agree, sounds like a bit much. I think the “fictional redemption” part is Dr. Hurd’s speculation.

For spiritual fans who interpret Aslan as a Jesus figure…

For fans with no religious preconceptions…

At this point, Dr. Hurd is focusing on how audiences might react to Aslan being female (regardless of Lewis’s intentions). She speculates that many people of faith would take issue with the change, while many of those without a faith background might not be bothered.

Hope that helps! Again, I much appreciate you sharing your concerns.

Posted by: @gp

But she is raising questions about whether it makes sense to criticize making Aslan female simply because Jesus wasn’t female. After all, he wasn’t a lion either. He’s a supposition. Lewis using his imagination.

 

 

At this point, Dr. Hurd is focusing on how audiences might react to Aslan being female (regardless of Lewis’s intentions). She speculates that many people of faith would take issue with the change, while many of those without a faith background might not be bothered.

The question is what would be the purpose of changing the gender of Aslan? There is obviously a motive and a reason to do so. There are no shortage of male voice actors so it is not that there is no one to play the part. The mere interest in changing Aslan or any other character is to change the message of the story. Thankfully the books are timeless now and there is no changing them. Movies will come and go with all the horrible adaptations from people who think they can bring something better, and without a doubt they will all fail miserably. Nothing can change the beauty and wonder of the written word direct from the author thankfully.

Hi, new NarniaWeb member here 🙂 I don't have a problem with Aslan being voiced by a female actor. With voice acting, the gender of the actor doesn't really matter as long as they can voice the character in a way that fits. But what I do have a problem with is this question, as @wonderings also asked, what would be the purpose of changing the gender of Aslan?

I don't have a problem with gender swapping in and of itself, but if it is just being done for the sake of diversity, or to give women more power within the story, then I don't think it is being done right. Yes, the books present some concepts about gender which don't necessarily hold up very well today, but that is a problem that should be addressed through storytelling and character development, not by fundamentally changing a character. A movie does not need to be woman-centered to address gender issues present within source material. There is plenty of room to give women more to do within the story, the three Narnia movies demonstrated that. Susan and Lucy are way more active in those movies than they are in the respective books. 

So yeah, if this were to actually happen, I would want to know the purpose behind it, and how it would change or improve the story. If it is for the sake of having a powerful woman character on screen, then you don't need to make Aslan a woman to do that. Susan in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe movie can hold her own much better than her book counterpart, but for a majority of the plot of the first and second movies, she's just kind of there. (Note: that is not to say she has zero effect on the plot, but I am of the opinion that she could have been given a little bit more to do in terms of her own character development and Caspian's character development). If they're looking to add an "I am woman, hear me roar" element to the movies, then add those elements to existing female characters. If they're looking to have more women featured in the movies, then add a couple of female side characters.

Posted by: @gp

My take on the areas of concern you highlighted:

For example, while The Chronicles of Narnia isn’t strictly allegorical, C. S. Lewis mentioned in his correspondence that Aslan is influenced by Jesus, not a direct one-to-one comparison, but a “supposition.”

The wording here is indeed a little confusing. But in context with the rest of the article, her main point seems to be that the Aslan-Jesus connection is undeniable.

Hmmm, well, no, that's not how I read it. From there on in she does take it that there is an Aslan-Jesus connection, and she makes some good observations on that basis. But she's putting it down to the fans who have supposedly made the connection for themselves that Aslan = Jesus in another form, while she (Hurd) herself heavily implies that this isn't exactly what Lewis meant. 

And that, based on all the evidence we have from Lewis himself, is completely wrong. I believe I may have said that at least once or twice already.  

But she is raising questions about whether it makes sense to criticize making Aslan female simply because Jesus wasn’t female. After all, he wasn’t a lion either. He’s a supposition. Lewis using his imagination.

True — I did pick that up from the article. A few weeks ago, in fact, I ran across another article somewhere online — I forget where, unfortunately, but it wasn't a specifically Narnia-related or religiously affiliated website — that used pretty much that exact argument: Jesus wasn't female, but then, he wasn't a lion either. And from that basis this author jumped to the conclusion that Lewis would have been completely happy with and on board with the idea of Aslan being female, precisely because he'd already done this radical thing of representing Jesus as a lion, so therefore he obviously wouldn't have any problems with swapping Aslan's gender either.

Which... shows so little knowledge of Lewis's personal theological beliefs and general mindset (even less than Dr Hurd shows) that it's just jaw-dropping.

I'm not denying that it would be possible — and it could be very interesting — for some author or film-maker to create a fantasy world with a Messiah-figure who is based on Jesus but is female. (Whether that character is incarnated in that world as human, or animal, or whatever.) I for one would be willing to read and/or watch a story like that and judge it on its own merits, or lack of same.

But what this issue boils down to is that it's Narnia. It's an already-created, very long-standing (70+ years), very well-known children's classic that has already been adapted for screen and stage and radio multiple times. Just about everyone who already knows anything about Narnia will be aware of Aslan as a male lion (with that distinctive mane). And a very good proportion of those people will be aware — whether or not they personally are Christians — that Lewis wrote Aslan as a direct representation of Jesus.

Not everybody likes that, of course, but nearly everyone by now knows it. Lewis didn't hide it, and legions of commentators and critics have discussed it over the past seven decades.

And that, to me, is what it boils down to. It's not about how fans "interpret" Aslan. It's what (and who) C.S LEWIS HIMSELF wanted fans to see in Aslan.

For sure, Narnia fans who are Christian (or who view Christianity favourably even if they aren't really committed to it) are a lot more likely to get upset about a gender-swapped Aslan. Narnia fans who are not Christian may view that change (if it happens!) positively, or negatively, or neutrally, but they won't be taking it as a religious insult.

But to many people — regardless of our religious views — honouring the original author's intention is absolutely vital in a screen adaptation of a book, even if there are some changes made. And one really doesn't have to read too much of C.S. Lewis's writings (Narnia and otherwise) to work out that:

• Aslan is not merely a character "influenced by" or inspired by Jesus, but is Lewis's imagined concept of Jesus himself as he might appear in another world; and
• Lewis's views on gender were rather conservative (as many would see it today, but in his time they would have been quite mainstream) and it is safe to assume he would not have seen a female character — of any species! — as an appropriate representation of Jesus.

And that is why — regardless of how individual fans feel about it — making Aslan female (or male but with a female voice) is unarguably a massive slap in the face to Narnia's author, not that he's here to receive it. It could only be done by a film-maker who either doesn’t understand what Lewis intended Aslan to mean, or who DOES understand that and is deliberately subverting it, for whatever reasons.

Now a parody of Narnia, or a satirical version, or a loosely-based modern-day reinterpretation, could get away with making Aslan female, whether for laughs, or as a critique of Christianity, or just to be “different”. But until recently (31st March to be exact), most of us were under the impression that Greta Gerwig and Netflix were planning to make a reasonably faithful and respectful adaptation. Precisely because it goes so squarely against the author’s intentions — not just against some fans’ personal interpretations — this purported change to Aslan is, for the majority of fans (I think it’s safe to say), a bridge too far.

Anyway — getting off my soapbox and back, briefly, to Crystal Hurd's article — maybe it'd be a good idea for items by guest writers published on NarniaWeb to include the common kind of disclaimer that "opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by NarniaWeb"...? Which would neatly cover those times when NarniaWeb publishes an article that not everyone in the community agrees with.  

@Courtenay  The point is that C.S. Lewis did, and he clearly and explicitly intended readers of Narnia to see Aslan as a representation of Jesus, as Lewis imagines Jesus might appear in a different form in a different world from ours.

I'd like to thank you, too, for your diligent replies, and agreeing with me in a way that I, at least, can accept. In all 7 books, Narnia is that different world, an imagined & insightful work of fiction, and within that series, Aslan is still just as fictional a character, however loved and admired. Thus, the fictional world Aslan creates, also belongs in the realms of imagination & inspiration. But according to the Gospels, Jesus, Himself, never claimed to be "the creator", and was careful to distance himself from any such claim, rather teaching us to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matthew 6:9 KJV), and saying at His trial that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). Thus, the quote below becomes a theological point, which can be discussed elsewhere on NarniaWeb & which I can't go into here. What Jesus did and say in AD33 or thereabouts, was all too real at that time & a matter of very real history, especially with Emperor Augustus, at that time, elevated by the Romans as a God, & whom I have also studied as part of a double major, in an ordinary common garden BA from UNE, part of my librarian qualifications. And yes, I agree with you, Courtenay, that we are told in history to go first to original sources, in this case, the Gospels, in preference to secondary sources, to read other people's opinions. 

@wonderings  Jesus as creator is in line with scripture, so Aslan as creator fits that as well. (p.15)

And that is why I deflected the discussion to Dr Hurd's opinion piece on Talking Beasts, and her comment about Narnia being a supposition, rather than allegory. 

@wonderings  The question is what would be the purpose of changing the gender of Aslan? There is obviously a motive and a reason to do so.

However, I think I can answer the quoted question when it hasn't been confirmed yet, beyond any doubt, whatsoever, that Meryl Streep has been cast as Aslan, who will be most likely a CGI character, whoever speaks his part, with or without help. Have you ever seen Peter Jackson's the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films, in which Andy Serkis stars as Gollum? Maybe as part of those films in the extended DVD editions, we were treated to what Andy Serkis had to do to get right the CGI representation of Gollum, to capture for the character, such as how Gollum moved, spoke and related to the other characters in the story. He was hooked up as well to body sensors to enable these clues to be captured for the CGI. For previous films or representations of Aslan, we had working models and goodness knows what, so even though Liam Neeson did a sterling job as Aslan, I'm wondering exactly what he had to do, in his role, in all three films. Even in VDT, Aslan at one point is a lamb by the seashore but at various points he also has to growl. How does he appear to Prince Caspian? In Coriakin's House? Or at the Deathwater or Aslan's Table sites? What about Aslan's "courage dear heart", whispered as a dove, flying through a beam of light at the Dark Island?

What is the role of Aslan in MN, anyway, besides creating Narnia, transfiguring Strawberry, & terrifying the daylights out of Uncle Andrew & yes, Jadis as well? I can see plenty of scope for Meryl Streep to contribute to bringing to life & film, even the depiction of the Male Aslan we all know & love, complete with a very hairy mane, even if a wig is made for the job. The singing bit alone in Magician's Nephew, is going to be demanding, and might take a whole choir of wannabe Aslans, whether lions or lionesses to cover the range. I can't sing soprano like a star in Narnia heaven let alone a star at Eurovision, let alone Emma Mackey as Jadis. I'm lucky enough to croak for hymns at church let alone the National Anthem . Nor can I growl like a lion or a lioness, myself, being asthmatic. But then, even my own "pet" husband couldn't roar like a lion, either, without cupping his hands around his mouth. And I wonder what even Glumpuddle & friends on Talking Beasts could come up with, themselves in a roaring competition.    Likely, as someone else has already said, there is a library of lion sounds, somewhere, and it is fun to think of how they sort these sounds, when I don't think the Dewey Decimal Classification number of 599.757 for lions would be at all useful for the job.   (599.756 for tigers)

@gp  But she is raising questions about whether it makes sense to criticize making Aslan female simply because Jesus wasn’t female. After all, he wasn’t a lion either. He’s a supposition. Lewis using his imagination

And thank you, Glumpuddle, for shedding some light on the problem. As you also say, At this point, Dr. Hurd is focusing on how audiences might react to Aslan being female (regardless of Lewis’s intentions). She speculates that many people of faith would take issue with the change, while many of those without a faith background might not be bothered.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

But according to the Gospels, Jesus, Himself, never claimed to be "the creator", and was careful to distance himself from any such claim, rather teaching us to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matthew 6:9 KJV), and saying at His trial that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). Thus, the quote below becomes a theological point, which can be discussed elsewhere on NarniaWeb & which I can't go into here...

I totally agree with you, being a non-Trinitarian Christian myself. And for that reason, obviously, I don't always agree with C.S. Lewis's theological ideas in every regard, him being a fairly standard Anglican. But I've always recognised (since I was very little), and innately responded to, the qualities of Godliness and Christliness that Lewis managed so brilliantly to infuse into the fictional / literary character of Aslan. 

To me, Aslan is essentially a combination of God and Jesus in leonine form, which is fine by me (especially since Narnia, again, is a fictional fantasy creation, not an attempt to preach theology!). To Lewis and other Trinitarian Christians (the majority worldwide), I guess Aslan combines the roles of God the Father, God the Son, and, well, the Holy Spirit doesn't really get a look-in (except in the famous "Myself" passage in The Horse and His Boy).

It's interesting that Lewis in the earlier Chronicles does differentiate between Aslan and his Father the "Great Emperor" — this is made a big point of in LWW especially. But by the time we get to MN and LB (which I gather Lewis wrote almost simultaneously and in fact completed MN last), Aslan is the only divine figure, playing the role of Creator as well as Redeemer and Judge, and there's no further word at all about him having a Father.

This isn't the place to go into theology, as you say, Wagga, and I'm not going to debate about the Trinity and whether or not the Chronicles of Narnia are an accurate representation of mainstream Christian doctrine (again, they're not meant to be read as a theological treatise). It's enough for me that Aslan is a fictional representation of God and/or Jesus in another world, and that is what Lewis fully intended to convey in that character. One doesn't need to subscribe to a particular theology in order to appreciate that.

What about Aslan's "courage dear heart", whispered as a dove, flying through a beam of light at the Dark Island?

An albatross, actually — possible literary nod to The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Coleridge, which I didn't get as a seven-year-old, but I do now.  

I can see plenty of scope for Meryl Streep to contribute to bringing to life & film, even the depiction of the Male Aslan we all know & love, complete with a very hairy mane, even if a wig is made for the job.

Er, yes, but as you said earlier, Aslan will presumably be CGI, so I don't think the physical appearance of the actor / actress doing his (or her?) voice will matter too much. And unlike Gollum as played by Andy Serkis, Aslan is not a creature with an even somewhat humanoid face or body shape, so I can't see any need for motion capture and digitalisation of a real actor's face or body movements in order to create a CG Aslan.

And thank you, Glumpuddle, for shedding some light on the problem. As you also say, At this point, Dr. Hurd is focusing on how audiences might react to Aslan being female (regardless of Lewis’s intentions). She speculates that many people of faith would take issue with the change, while many of those without a faith background might not be bothered. 

As I said earlier, that's a fair point. And as I was saying above, Aslan doesn't really fit any exact theological specifications of either Jesus as an individual or the traditional concept of the Trinity. But I'm still convinced that Lewis himself would not have agreed at all that Aslan could be made female, or given a feminine voice, and still clearly represent what (and who) Lewis meant this Lion to represent.

So in the end, if Netflix DOES make a version of Narnia with a female or feminised Aslan — and we still don't know if that's going to be the case — I will watch it, at least once, just to see what they've actually done. But I won't be able to accept it as a good and faithful adaptation of Narnia.

And to paraphrase what Glumpuddle and the Talking Beasts presenters all pretty much agreed in their podcast on the subject, if this new movie has a female Aslan but everything else about it (including Aslan's general character) is pretty much accurate to the book, they — and probably a lot of us — will be left thinking "Er, yeah, well, what was the point of that anyway??"  

@Courtenay  And for that reason, obviously, I don't always agree with C.S. Lewis's theological ideas in every regard, him being a fairly standard Anglican.

Which I also happen to be, when my grandmother thought that there was no need for her to commit to Catholicism just because both her first and second husbands were both Catholics. If both marriages were fine by the State, she said, (having been widowed the first time), they should be fine for the Church as well & never mind all that fuss about marriage being a sacrament.  

@Courtenay  To Lewis and other Trinitarian Christians (the majority worldwide), I guess Aslan combines the roles of God the Father, God the Son, and, well, the Holy Spirit doesn't really get a look-in (except in the famous "Myself" passage in The Horse and His Boy).

Not sure that you are right, when there was also how Shasta & Bree were chased into meeting Aravis & Hwin, earlier in HHB. Or Arsheesh finding Shasta in a boat & rearing him. Or Shasta's errand, as well as that of Digory to fetch the Apple, in the Garden. That phoenix for example.... What about the Apple magic, the Wardrobe, & Tumnus? Or the Pevensies being summoned by Queen Susan's Horn into an Apple orchard?  Or Lucy in the Woods before Aslan's appearance? Plus, Eustace, Lucy and Edmund re-entering Narnia through a seascape featuring a dragon boat? 

@Courtenay Er, yes, but as you said earlier, Aslan will presumably be CGI, so I don't think the physical appearance of the actor / actress doing his (or her?) voice will matter too much. And unlike Gollum as played by Andy Serkis, Aslan is not a creature with an even somewhat humanoid face or body shape, so I can't see any need for motion capture and digitalisation of a real actor's face or body movements in order to create a CG Aslan.

But that is just the point, that Meryl Streep, if she really is playing Aslan, herself, rather than backing up someone else who is doing the job would be playing a CGI character, whether the CGI character is male or female. And a good character actor or actress should be able to play the character, regardless of whether the character is male or female. We saw this in Shakespeare's plays at the Globe theatre, when in the 16th century, all parts male or female were played by men. More recently, the Late Barry Humphries, played the outrageously satirical Dame Edna Everage as well as a menagerie of male roles sending up politicians and others, as a satirising average housewife, heaps of gladioli at the ready for all the funerals she ends up having to attend, just like my own grandma, who was born in Sydney, not Melbourne, unlike her older sisters.  

The question is: Can the actor who played Lindy Chamberlain in Evil Angels with a passable Aussie accent, also play a lion, if necessary? Or Dame Edna Everage, if she wanted to do so? Or that slob of a hedonistic politician called Les Paterson?  And that applies, regardless of who does the job, Meryl Streep or the preferred male, in my book, which I'd file under 791.45/ASLAN.   And I hope the production of Magician's Nephew turns out fine, regardless of all this discussion. 

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

Not sure that you are right, when there was also how Shasta & Bree were chased into meeting Aravis & Hwin, earlier in HHB. Or Arsheesh finding Shasta in a boat & rearing him. Or Shasta's errand, as well as that of Digory to fetch the Apple, in the Garden. That phoenix for example.... What about the Apple magic, the Wardrobe, & Tumnus? Or the Pevensies being summoned by Queen Susan's Horn into an Apple orchard?  Or Lucy in the Woods before Aslan's appearance? Plus, Eustace, Lucy and Edmund re-entering Narnia through a seascape featuring a dragon boat? 

I'm not quite sure how any of those can be read as manifestations of the Holy Spirit, specifically. Shasta and Bree thought they were being chased by at least two lions, one on each side, whereas Aslan tells Shasta later, "There was only one lion... but he was swift of foot." Aslan also describes himself as "the lion you do not remember" who pushed the boat with the baby Shasta in it to where Arsheesh found him. At no stage are we given the sense that there is another manifestation, or person, of a triune God working in tandem with Aslan as the Son. Whereas the Emperor, when he's mentioned (he isn't in any of these later books), is implied to be a different person from Aslan.

Obviously one could argue that these various other manifestations of magic in Narnia are the work of the Holy Spirit. But that seems rather tangential and speculative, especially since we've got no evidence that this is how Lewis thought of those incidents. I don't think he ever answered — and possibly he was never asked — the question of how, or in what, the Holy Spirit is portrayed in Narnia. The only incident in the books that even implies the existence of a / the triune God is the triple "Myself" in HHB.

But all this is also quite tangential to the question of whether representing Aslan as female, or voiced by a female actor, is a good idea, or not, or what...

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

But that is just the point, that Meryl Streep, if she really is playing Aslan, herself, rather than backing up someone else who is doing the job would be playing a CGI character, whether the CGI character is male or female. And a good character actor or actress should be able to play the character, regardless of whether the character is male or female.

I meant, Meryl Streep (or whoever it ends up being, male or female!) will be voicing the character of Aslan. It's extremely unlikely that this person's face or body will be motion-captured and digitised into the visible character on screen, as Andy Serkis was in playing Gollum, which you were referring to before. Which is why I was a bit baffled about the (presumably jokey) comment about Streep possibly wearing a wig for the role.  

And also, to me, the debate is not about whether Meryl Streep could do a "good" job of voicing Aslan. The debate is over whether it would be right to have a female character voice a male Lion, OR for that Lion to be portrayed visually as a Lioness, especially when that Lion is explicitly supposed to be a representation of Jesus. I maintain that regardless of how good Meryl Streep or any other female voice actors are, it would be going totally against what C.S. Lewis would have wanted for this character. And therefore, no matter how talented the actress, it's really NOT a good idea.

Posted by: @courtenay

It's interesting that Lewis in the earlier Chronicles does differentiate between Aslan and his Father the "Great Emperor" — this is made a big point of in LWW especially. But by the time we get to MN and LB (which I gather Lewis wrote almost simultaneously and in fact completed MN last), Aslan is the only divine figure, playing the role of Creator as well as Redeemer and Judge, and there's no further word at all about him having a Father.

Not quite true, actually. Aslan's Father is referenced when Peter (I'm assuming it was Peter who was speaking) banishes Tash when Tirian first enters the Stable.

There's also the albatross flying to Lucy with a message of hope (Courage, dear heart) in VDT. Like, but unlike Aslan. 

Well, let's veer back into the main topic please?

Posted by: @coracle

There's also the albatross flying to Lucy with a message of hope (Courage, dear heart) in VDT. Like, but unlike Aslan. 

Yes, Wagga mentioned that earlier too — and thanks for the reminder of that reference in LB, @hermit, as that had slipped my memory. Regardless, there really is no explicit (let alone doctrinally based) representation of the Trinity in Narnia aside from that brief moment in HHB. 

Well, let's veer back into the main topic please?

Definitely. I think the way we got sidetracked a bit in the first place was with the question of whether Aslan as Creator in MN is playing an "Old Testament" role as opposed to the more-specifically-Jesus-like role he has in LWW with his redemptive death and resurrection. And therefore, if Aslan in MN is not representing the incarnate Son as he does in LWW, does that leave scope for Aslan in MN to take a different form, including possibly a female one?

Knowing what we do about Lewis's own theological beliefs and stances, I can still only say the answer is an absolute no. In some other fantasy universe, maybe, but NOT in Narnia, if it's to be a genuine adaptation of Narnia. 

@Courtenay The debate is over whether it would be right to have a female character voice a male Lion, OR for that Lion to be portrayed visually as a Lioness, especially when that Lion is explicitly supposed to be a representation of Jesus.

But as I keep on saying, however Meryl Streep is involved in the production, and as you agreed, yourself, Meryl Streep, herself, or the preferred male, may not be seen at all, when the CGI representation of Aslan is what viewers will see. I don't know why everyone is in such a lather, as most animals, if not all, who appear, will be most likely CGI, as well. There is a weakness in your argument, in that C.S. Lewis doesn't mention ALL possible Narnian animals, birds, mythical creatures etc that could be included in that list. No mention of Marshwiggles, for instance, but no mention of kangaroos or tigers, either, let alone koalas. And a thought, like a clap of thunder, did occur to me that whatever happened to lionesses, anyway, when yes, there was indeed another lion, most definitely, in Narnia, petrified by the White Witch, in her courtyard in LWW, decorated with spectacles by Edmund, and who wasn't Aslan, himself? 

As for the scriptural basis of C.S. Lewis, try Genesis 1, verse 27 (The Holy Scriptures, N.Y. Harkavy, 1951) "So God created man in his own image...male and female created he them". Compare with Genesis 1, verse 27 (The Good News Bible Australian text,1994). "So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female."  In other words, the Old Testament of the Bible, whichever edition it is, has the same meaning as the Jewish Torah, translated into English in my copy of the Taanach. And the command is just the same, in other places in that Genesis chapter, in both versions: to be fruitful and multiply. The difference between the Bible and the Taanach, is basically, that the "Jewish Holy Scriptures" don't include the New Testament, you see. And Jesus, Himself, as well as his AD 33 compatriots in Judea, however much they longed for the promised Messiah, would have been horrified to equate Jesus as the same as God the Father & Creator, instead of the foretold Messiah. (File this argument under 220? - forget the numerical breakdown. )

What has this to do with Narnia? Well, everything, when as Aslan says, himself, Narnia for that day was absolutely bursting with life, unlike poor, dead Charn, Jadis and all her works. Strawberry grows wings, whilst the Cabby wants his own wife to accompany him. And, unlike in VDT, he doesn't, himself, change into other shapes, (unless you discount the phoenix in the mountain garden) nor had he a long time in MN. 

And as Coracle said, "Well, let's veer back into the main topic please?"  

There is a place for a lioness in Aslan's creation, just not as Aslan, himself, is depicted. Why shouldn't he have a helpmate, to organise his Pride and take her part in the procession, maybe the first animal to emerge to recognise him as akin? He claims, himself, that Narnia was bursting with life. Aslan goes carefully from animal to animal to pick male & female from each kind who are selected to join his council, to organise the rest. But again, where is the lioness who could have been, at least, leading in Narnia's creation parade? 

Back in the day, when our state schools included religious instruction, we did learn about St Patrick and a trefoil shamrock, a kind of clover, which to this day, is the floral symbol of Ireland, C.S. Lewis' place of birth, as well as St Patrick's explanation of the Holy Trinity, pointing out the three aspects of God: Father, Son & Holy Spirit - which I understood, myself, as Agency, that is to say, The Almighty's Day (& night) Job. Evening & Morning.  

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

But as I keep on saying, however Meryl Streep is involved in the production, and as you agreed, yourself, Meryl Streep, herself, or the preferred male, may not be seen at all, when the CGI representation of Aslan is what viewers will see. I don't know why everyone is in such a lather, as most animals, if not all, who appear, will be most likely CGI, as well.

I'm not sure what's difficult about understanding "why everyone is in such a lather", given that this forum discussion has been going on since the start of April (nearly 7 weeks now) and lots of contributors have made much the same arguments over and over, nearly all of them on the "nay" side of the proposals outlined in the topic title: Meryl Streep as Aslan? Aslan will be a female lion?

However, I'll set it out as clearly as I can from my own understanding...

Aslan, as created and portrayed by C.S. Lewis in all seven of the Narnia books, is most definitely a male character, specifically a male lion. He is always referred to in masculine terms — not just he/him, but also "the King" and "the Son of the Emperor" and so on — and there are many, many references to his mane at key points in the stories, which is a feature that female lions do not have.

There is a rumour — not confirmed by anybody officially associated with the production, but not denied by anybody officially associated with the production either — that Meryl Streep is "in talks" to play the voice of Aslan in Greta Gerwig's upcoming Netflix adaptation of The Magician's Nephew, and that possibly this same movie will portray Aslan as a female lion.

(That last part (Aslan being female) was stated by the first website that reported the rumour, but not confirmed — though also not fully denied — by the second one, a reputable Hollywood news site that implied there was credible evidence for at least the first part of the rumour, that Meryl Streep was in talks to play Aslan. No further information has been forthcoming from any source so far.)

The fact that Aslan (and most likely all other animal characters) will be represented on screen through CGI, and that the actor playing Aslan's voice will not be seen in person, is not in dispute.

If, however, the rumour is true — and it's still if at this point — there are essentially two possibilities: 1) Aslan is portrayed visually as a male lion but with Meryl Streep providing his voice; or 2) Aslan is portrayed visually as a female lion, with Meryl Streep providing her voice.

If possibility 1 happens, we have the rather strange scenario of a male lion, with a mane and referred to by others as "he", speaking with a feminine voice. Meryl Streep is an absolutely brilliant voice actress (that is not in dispute either!), but Aslan's voice is described in the books as "deep and rich", as "the deepest, wildest voice they had ever heard". It inherently needs a full baritone and indeed bass range, which no female voice actor can produce convincingly and consistently.

If possibility 2 happens, then the choice of a female voice actor makes much more sense. But Aslan as a lioness would, for a start, have no mane — an absolutely central feature of the character in the books. (Not so much in The Magician's Nephew, but definitely elsewhere in the series, and this upcoming film is meant to be the first of potentially a series of Netflix adaptations of all seven books.)

What makes the issue MUCH more controversial, however, is that C.S. Lewis explicitly intended for Aslan to be a fictional representation of Jesus / the Christian God as He might appear in a world other than ours.

Regardless of all theological debates about the nature of God, Jesus is portrayed in the Christian scriptures as indisputably a male person. God in general is conventionally referred to by the vast majority of Christians as “He” and as “Father” (the name Jesus himself used for the one who sent him, the Son, to earth).

This is why (going by reactions online) the vast majority of Narnia fans who are Christians are not happy with the idea of Aslan being portrayed as either male but speaking with a feminine voice, or outright as female. Most such fans are very uncomfortable over this; some consider it downright blasphemous and deeply offensive.

At the very least, the (rumoured) choice of a female voice actress for Aslan, and the possibility of Aslan being portrayed as a lioness, would NOT be in line with what C.S. Lewis himself intended for the character, given his own views on theology and gender.

And that, basically, is "why everyone is in such a lather". 

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

There is a weakness in your argument, in that C.S. Lewis doesn't mention ALL possible Narnian animals, birds, mythical creatures etc that could be included in that list. No mention of Marshwiggles, for instance, but no mention of kangaroos or tigers, either, let alone koalas. And a thought, like a clap of thunder, did occur to me that whatever happened to lionesses, anyway, when yes, there was indeed another lion, most definitely, in Narnia, petrified by the White Witch, in her courtyard in LWW, decorated with spectacles by Edmund, and who wasn't Aslan, himself? 

This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, since it's not in dispute that there are lions other than Aslan in Narnia. The point of the discussion is whether it would be acceptable to portray Aslan as either female or having a feminine voice.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

As for the scriptural basis of C.S. Lewis, try Genesis 1, verse 27 (The Holy Scriptures, N.Y. Harkavy, 1951) "So God created man in his own image...male and female created he them". Compare with Genesis 1, verse 27 (The Good News Bible Australian text,1994). "So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female."  In other words, the Old Testament of the Bible, whichever edition it is, has the same meaning as the Jewish Torah, translated into English in my copy of the Taanach.

I'm very familiar with that particular Bible passage, as I belong to a denomination that takes it very much to heart — that both male and female are equally the image and likeness of God — to the point where we regularly refer to God as Father-Mother.

But C.S. Lewis came from a much more conservative theological tradition regarding concepts of gender, and even though I don't agree with him on absolutely all points, I can understand and respect his position. And the point here is that a film that represented Aslan as female, or used a female actor's voice for Aslan, would definitely NOT be respecting what Lewis believed about God / Jesus and wanted for that character.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

And Jesus, Himself, as well as his AD 33 compatriots in Judea, however much they longed for the promised Messiah, would have been horrified to equate Jesus as the same as God the Father & Creator, instead of the foretold Messiah. (File this argument under 220? - forget the numerical breakdown. )

I personally agree. But I'm a non-Trinitarian Christian — I don't believe that God is three Persons (one of them being God the Son) and that Jesus himself is fully God as well as fully man. The majority of Christians worldwide, however, do have this belief as a central feature of their doctrine (and this isn't the place to discuss when and how that came about). Including the Anglican communion, to which C.S. Lewis belonged and I think you said you do as well.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

There is a place for a lioness in Aslan's creation, just not as Aslan, himself, is depicted. Why shouldn't he have a helpmate, to organise his Pride and take her part in the procession, maybe the first animal to emerge to recognise him as akin?

Now that is getting rather off topic, because nobody has said that there shouldn't be any lionesses in Narnia — there must be, given that there are lions other than Aslan in Narnia, as we've already acknowledged. Interestingly, there's no word about them in The Magician's Nephew, perhaps so as not to confuse the issue of who Aslan is, but they implicitly must have been there.

But for Aslan to have "a helpmate" (further off topic: that word is a misunderstanding of Genesis 2:18, "I will make him an help meet for him" — "an help meet" being 17th-century English for "a suitable helper") would put Aslan in the position of Adam, not of God (or of Jesus). That most definitely was not Lewis's intention either, and it would completely obscure who Aslan is meant to be. No version of Christianity that I know of, including my own, sees God as having a wife!

And again, the question at hand is not whether or not there should be any lionesses in Narnia, one of whom could certainly be voiced by Meryl Streep. The question is: should Meryl Streep be the voice of Aslan (as is apparently being proposed), and should Aslan himself be a lioness? 

And I've just done my best to explain why, for (as far as we can see) the majority of fans of Narnia, the answer to both parts of that question is NO.