Point: Like I said above, Women who try to rule independently, or over other men, are depicted as villainous in Narnia. Jadis/the White Witch had no male consorts and the Lady of the Green Kirtle enslaved hers.

Counterpoint: When Jadis eats the forbidden fruit, it is meant as an allegory of Eve eating the forbidden fruit. Meaning that Lewis wasn't trying to be deliberately sexist, just trying to mirror a story from his religion accurately. I have no idea whether he knew about Jadis' actions in MN before he wrote LWW. Perhaps he just chose a White Witch because it seemed interesting and wrote in her origins later.

I find difficulty using this line of logic. We also see some truly ruthless male characters such as Miraz, Rabadash, Maugrim, the Tisroc, the man beating the child in PC whom Aslan turns into a tree, Rishda, Shift, etc....

In fact. . . there are far more male characters possessing evil traits than there are female characters.

Phelan, have you checked out the "Is Narnia Sexist and Racist" reading group that we held a few years back? The forum is locked now, meaning that you can no longer post there, but you might be interested in reading through it at your leisure. Here's the link to the forum.

Good to see you back around these parts

Oh, haha, I had no idea there was any discussion on that before. I missed a lot before I joined these forums, I guess.

You're right, there are many male villains, for sure. I think that point is just a combination of things for me--Jadis eating forbidden fruit, the Lady of the Green Kirtle transforming into a serpent, Aslan and Peter being the two most "rightfully" powerful figures in Narnia... To me, I got the feeling that Lewis was trying to say something about females in power. It was just the general impression I got, I felt like he was really trying to say something about the way women behave, and more specifically alluding to Eve. That was just the impression I got, I could be imagining it all because he says Son of Adam so often that I really started to see those similarities. I don't think it has to be read that way at all, but I do wonder why I get the distinct impression that a High Queen would NEVER have happened.

I wouldn't say that you're "imagining it," Phelan, because a lot of other people have come to similar conclusions. There definitely is something there in the text, but when you tease out all of the little details, I think most people come to the realisation that the Narnia series has a TON of strong female characters (especially for it's day. . . take Lord of the Rings for example).

Narnia just wouldn't be the same book series without Lucy, Aravis, Jadis, Jill, Polly, etc.... There are many males in the series whom I consider to be "stock characters" (enjoyable stock characters, but stock characters just the same ), and without whom the series would not lose its main thrust and action. . . but take out some of those females I'd mentioned above, and the series would not be as successful as it has been for the past 60 years.

I imagine the idea of Peter being "High King" is that it mirrored the way succession to the British throne was: the first male heir took precedence over the first female one, even if he was younger than her. Only this year have things changed, so that if Wills' and Kate's first baby is a girl, she won't be pushed aside in the order of succession by any younger brothers. But in the '50s, even if Peter had been younger than Susan he would still have taken precedence under British law, and Narnian law appears to emulate this - presumably because the first King and Queen of Narnia, Frank and Helen, were British.

I suppose it didn't irk me as much, reading the books as I was growing up in the Seventies, being male. Still, as I grew older, I did wince a bit at the way the boys did all the action stuff in LWW, PC and VDT while the girls stayed away from most of that - though they were no less brave. As regards Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, what annoyed me was the sheer incongruity of a married couple of beavers, not just acting like humans but also acting so terribly British; nothing wild or alien (which you might expect, seeing as they're in another Universe, as Uncle Andrew would say), but it was like the Pevensies had stopped off in the middle of their adventure to have tea with their Gran. It did answer the plot point that, had they not had tea with the Beavers, by the time they'd reached Aslan the children would have been fainting with hunger. (Another aside: why were the Beavers content with the names "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver"? They didn't expect the children to be called "Master and Miss Human"!)

I suppose the Walden team making Susan more of a "warrior princess" was to make the character more acceptable to modern audiences; they could accept Lucy as not being so aggressive because she was so young. But Lewis sows the seeds of Susan's eventual rejection of Narnia in PC, and in attempting to make PC PC , it may have knock-on effects should they ever make LB. Not that I think they will (or if they do, I expect I'll be dead by then ).

Still, I didn't think Narnia was anything like as sexist as some of the comics I read when I was a kid. I got a few copies of one of them ("Whizzer & Chips", from 1972) a couple of years ago on eBay, and re-read an adventure serial I enjoyed very much at the time, when I was 8. The serial was clearly targeted at boys and not girls, but it was horrifying how sexist it was (this was written 20 years after Narnia). The heroes of the story were a brother and sister, Johnny and Jenny, aged about 12 or 13 I think. Johnny was the brave, active one, and he thought out the solutions to all the problems, while Jenny just hopped from one foot to the other all the time whimpering, "Oh Johnny, what shall we do, I'm so frightened." Compared to that, Narnia was a paragon of equality!

Haha, absolutely, you're both right about the strong female characters and how they were especially good for their time. I don't think the Chronicles are sexist, but I do think it's interesting how they seem to paint a very specific picture of females in LWW, PC, and to some extent VDT, and then in SC and HHB you are just smacked in the face and realise you don't have the females in this series figured out. I just really enjoy talking about these books and I wondered if other people felt this same transition throughout the series.

I was really pleased when I first encountered Aravis and Jill. I loved the series already, but up until then Lucy was my favourite. Jill and Aravis really kind of dispelled the feeling of "aw, why?" I got when reading about Lucy and Susan not participating in the battles. When he makes a point of saying how Aravis gets infuriated by Lasraleen taking so long to pick out a dress, I definitely smiled. And Lewis shows us, also, in HHB that Lucy is not listening Father Christmas' warning. I have to wonder why he did this. Things in Narnia are so often black and white. If a good-guy authority figure says "battles are ugly when women fight", you kind of assume that's the way that world is. But he shows Lucy directly contradicting this. It makes me wonder why.

There are so many things that Jill does which I was happy about, both in SC and LB. She's confident and unafraid with the spooked horses in The Silver Chair. And of course, in The Last Battle, she says if she has to cry she'll at least not wet her bowstring. She keeps her head while she's fighting for her life, after she just saw her friends be killed or dragged off (presumably) to their deaths. That's bravery, and Jill really deserves to be depicted that way, far more than Susan does. The female character development that Lewis put in later on really helped the series for me...maybe it made me obsessed with it rather than just in love with it. XD

I think that the evolving nature of Narnian feminine characters might have more to do with C.S.Lewis' own life and times. Yes, he would be considered today to be sexist, before he met Joy Gresham and married her. Apparently, that relationship with a woman his intellectual equal, changed many of his attitudes towards women and girls, as shown by the strength of later characters like Polly and Jill.

And here comes my background historic rant. When C.S.Lewis was born in November 1898 both sexism and racism were respectable under Queen Victoria's Great Britain. It would be fair to say that at the turn of the 20th century, both religious people and atheistic people were equally culpable about these things. It would take the cataclysms of two world wars, both of which were heavily involved with both nationalist and racist issues, for both racism and sexism to be questioned and deplored. Those issues still hadn't been fully realised let alone fully played out, anywhere in the world, even in 1963, when C.S.Lewis died. Martin Luther King had yet to give his 'I dreamed a dream' speech, I think.

Perception of sexism was an equally long process. Though UK women got the vote after 1918, due to their wartime service, especially as nurses, teachers and the like, they still worked hard at domestic labour, paid or unpaid, if they weren't so fortunate as to get employment as low-paid office workers, hairdressers, factory workers and the like. I know that women had already become doctors, most often did well as nurses and teachers, and represented their communities in Parliament, well before WW2. But such women tended to be a minority, especially among married women who might find themselves excluded from the workforce. There are arguments that television or Internet has made the biggest change to world attitudes and expectations. But really, the most change has been due to the invention of washing machines, especially, and other household equipment, which freed up women's time and put thousands of domestic employees out of work, especially in Europe. Right. Historic background rant over.

Many of the good women portrayed in the Narnia series are really strong characters, not only Jill and Polly. Aunt Letitia is one, as is Queen Helen, transmitted to Narnia whilst in the middle of doing her laundry. I would say it is very much in the spirit of his admiration of such women that C.S.Lewis invented the likes of Mrs Beaver with her prized sewing machine, and her desire to see everyone was properly fed and equipped. Yes, the division of labour follows traditional lines, but the Beavers both beaver on, regardless. Whilst Tumnus, who treats Lucy to a lovely supper, is a bachelor. Don't forget also, C.S.Lewis' grief for his own mother.

There is no doubt that Polly, who lived through 2 world wars, is every inch the sort of liberated woman that gives the lie to some of the arguments made about Jadis, for instance, who of course, would have been too selfish and bad-tempered for a male consort. Even though Polly might have been young enough to be enticed by Uncle Andrew's rings, she showed considerable strength of character subsequently, both in resisting Digory's claims to be enchanted by the bell, by insisting he apologise for maltreating her, and for supporting Digory against both Uncle Andrew and the White Witch. Polly was never taken in by the White Witch's so-called beauty, unlike both Digory and Uncle Andrew. Though we aren't told what she did with her life up to Last Battle, other than that she didn't marry Digory, Polly must have spent it in a worthwhile way for her to remark about Susan as she did, whether she married or not.

Counterpoint: When Jadis eats the forbidden fruit, it is meant as an allegory of Eve eating the forbidden fruit. Meaning that Lewis wasn't trying to be deliberately sexist, just trying to mirror a story from his religion accurately. I have no idea whether he knew about Jadis' actions in MN before he wrote LWW. Perhaps he just chose a White Witch because it seemed interesting and wrote in her origins later.

This seems a fair point about Jadis, and possibly Digory, who knew to resist temptation a second time. And yes, that apple is a potent symbol, especially Jadis' scoffing one when she shouldn't have done. But why stop at Eve and the Apple? Of late, I find myself comparing C.S.Lewis' portrayal of Jadis, the White Witch, to the traditional portrayal of Snow White's jealous step-mother. Maybe C.S.Lewis even intended such a comparison. Disney put out a production of Snow White in 1938, the title character of which is still portrayed in other films, on tissue boxes, bath towels and on other merchandise, and which is seldom discussed in terms of sexism, unlike Jadis. Which portrayal would you say is the more sexist, Jadis or Snow White's step-mother?

Snow White's jealous step mother who consults a mirror to find out who is the fairest of them all? Who, when informed that Snow White has displaced her, seeks to kill her, only not succeeding because Snow White bit the apple but didn't swallow? Who transformed herself into an ugly witch to tempt Snow White with the apple? Whose worst traditional punishment is to dance at Snow White's wedding? Don't forget that C.S.Lewis was heavily into German and other mythology, like Tolkien.

Or Jadis, who killed her whole world to overcome her victorious sister? Who ate an apple, herself, thus becoming the pale as death White Witch? Who had a monumental sense of entitlement right up to her eventual destruction at Aslan's hands? I know that Jadis isn't the only Witch in Narnia, but it isn't her power-hungry persona that stands out, but her enslaving and exploitation of others that is so dreadful.

By the way, Lewis didn't reject beautiful women per se, even beautiful rulers. Didn't he mention in LB the Narnian Queen, Swan White, who was so beautiful that her reflection shone out of a lake for months afterwards?

I've never really thought about Snow White's stepmother in relation to Jadis, but I guess they do have their similarities. I would have to say that Snow White's stepmother is probably the more sexist portrayal of women, because she was motivated by envy of another woman's beauty, while Jadis was just power-hungry. I respect Jadis way more as a character, but I didn't really gain this respect until the Magician's Nephew. In LWW, to me, she was just a typical evil witch figure. But in MN, I don't know, she really took on a character of her own. There's something awesome about her, she's like an ancient force, and I was blown away by her. She's evil, but she's proud and strong.

You bring up a good point about Aunt Letty. Uncle Andrew was begging her to borrow money. I don't know if this was to show that she was independent and such, and a successful unmarried woman, or just to make Uncle Andrew seem even more contemptible by having to borrow from a woman. Maybe a bit of both? Don't get me wrong, I like Polly a lot, and I'm glad she was the one who called Susan foolish. It showed that she was intellectually mature and that she herself could see more to life than just the superficial things. I don't hate her for liking the rings, but I figured I had better put it down because I guess it could be argued for. That didn't bother me nearly as much as Lewis explicitly stating that she was not the sort of person who wanted to discover the unknown. I don't think that's really linked to her gender, but I kind of felt confused as to how anyone with the opportunity to travel to other worlds so quickly and simply as that would not be chomping at the bit to do so.

I didn't know that Lewis' view of women changed when he met his wife. I wonder how that lines up chronologically with the writing/publication of his books. (I'm hardly a Lewis scholar, I've learnt more about him since joining these forums. As much as I admire him for Narnia, I don't think I could read most of his other stuff recreationally.)

Just a few points. According to this Wikipedia article, C.S.Lewis met his wife in 1952, and later married her in 1956, in a civil ceremony, followed by a Christian ceremony in 1957. C.S.Lewis wrote a preface for Joy Davidman's own book, Smoke on the Mountain - William Lindsay Gresham being the name of Joy's first husband until they divorced in 1954. In 1956, after a fall, Joy Davidman was diagnosed with cancer which killed her four years later.

The Narnia Chronicles, the only children's books C.S.Lewis ever wrote, were written between 1949 and 1954, with the last one published in 1956. HHB was dedicated to Joy Davidman's two sons, David and Douglas Gresham. Even the other fiction he wrote was more for adults. That his portrayal of women changed after he met Joy Davidman was something I read in a book some time ago, and, given the time frame of the publication of the Narnia books, is quite possible.

Uncle Andrew was begging her to borrow money. I don't know if this was to show that she was independent and such, and a successful unmarried woman, or just to make Uncle Andrew seem even more contemptible by having to borrow from a woman. Maybe a bit of both?

Judging from my reading of MN, it was strongly suggested that Aunt Letty actually owned the house, rather than Andrew, either because she and her siblings had inherited property and money from their parents, and Andrew had wasted his share on his experiments. Or else, because Aunt Letty had been otherwise provided for, maybe through her own efforts, but maybe also as a widow. If both Andrew and Aunt Letty had inherited anything besides the house from their family, it might have been in the form of an annuity or pension to live on. Later on in the book, Uncle Andrew claims his people could be considered gentry, as was common in Victorian UK.

I can't imagine Uncle Andrew actually wanting to look after his dying younger sister, let alone her son. And he didn't show anywhere that he was interested in the running of the house. Also, I can't imagine him going out and getting a proper job, considering himself a cut above such ordinary pursuits. And this is just C.S.Lewis' point. Andrew habitually sponged on his sister's charity and hard work, having nowhere else to live. Frankly, that would be equally despicable today, Womens lib or not.

I don't hate her for liking the rings, but I figured I had better put it down because I guess it could be argued for. That didn't bother me nearly as much as Lewis explicitly stating that she was not the sort of person who wanted to discover the unknown.

Where exactly did C.S.Lewis state explicitly that Polly was "not the sort of person who wanted to discover the unknown"? The only thing I can remember in MN is Digory's taunts to Polly along those lines in Charn's hall of statues, when he sounded like his Uncle Andrew as he squabbled over his wanting to ring the bell. Polly was smart enough to want to leave it alone. She wasn't overly cautious when she was proved right.

Maybe Polly was attracted by the rings. But it was Uncle Andrew who gave her one. She would not have touched it otherwise. Thus also giving her a good reason later to be wary of the unknown. She was also very wary of getting into trouble from her own family, you notice in the book. Such as by getting dirty in the park, by being late for dinner, and by getting herself into adventures she couldn't get herself out of. Hence the meanness of Uncle Andrew in sending her somewhere he was too cowardly to go, himself.

Polly was adventurous enough to invent a pirate's den in her attic, and to participate in Digory's earlier explorations through the houses. But she wasn't into taking stupid risks. Such as by not marking the Earth pool in the Wood between the Worlds. Also, she had good reason to be wary of Digory, himself, after that row they had in Charn and the way he was pushing her into trouble.

Also, I wouldn't blame her for being spooked into wanting to get away from Charn. Polly was attracted to the rich clothing worn by the statues in Charn's palace. But she also took notice of the faces of the statues, didn't she? Noting their change of character from good to evil as time went by. By the way, as part of an overseas tour, the group I was in went to Auschwitz, a very evil place. Some people in our group couldn't take it, for which nobody should blame them. When I couldn't keep up with our tour group, I was glad to get back outside to the booking offices, such was the oppressive, menacing atmosphere of the place. I'd imagine that Charn might have a similarly horrible atmosphere, deserted as it seemed, and so no wonder that Polly wanted to go back to the Wood between the Worlds much sooner than did Digory.

By contrast, when Digory went to Narnia, Polly was quite ready to accompany him, even to the garden of the apples. When they were short of food, she was concerned she would not be able to get back if she went home to get some food. Well-meaning parents again. And yes, I would agree with your that Susan is a character whose caution is a byword. But I think that Susan, unlike Polly, was not the sort of person who habitually looked beyond fine clothing, pretty rings, appearances and character. That is why Polly might have thought Susan foolish. Sorry, another long post.

Look out everyone: there's a super long post coming in 3...2...1...

It's always surprised me that so many people have found the Chronicles to be sexist. I've never gotten that impression myself.

Onto the points listed in the first post...

Point: The portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver. Mr. Beaver is the stereotypical male provider, Mrs. beaver is the stereotypical domestic woman--he fishes and builds, while Mrs. Beaver cooks and sews.

I'm not sure what to say about this one, since I'm... not exactly sure what's sexist about having a married couple in the book where the man works and the woman is the homemaker. Now, if Lewis, or one of the characters in the books, made a statement that housework "was the only thing Mrs. Beaver could do, because she's female", then I would see the objection. But as it is, I don't see any insinuations that women are only cut out for housework just because that's the occupation Mrs. Beaver has. "Description, not prescription" as the saying goes. I personally know plenty of couples today who have those same roles, and I'm sure it was even more common in Lewis's day. Therefore, it would make sense to have such a couple in fiction as well, since fiction mirrors reality. If it exists in real life, it can certainly exist in a book.

Besides, there's nothing at all dishonorable about being a homemaker. Either that or I, and a lot of other people, have been lying to our mothers every mother's day. I think both roles of "homemaker" and "breadwinner" are equally admirable.

Point: Aslan is a dude. The Emperor Over The Sea, presumably, is a dude.

Aslan and The Emperor Over The Sea are also very directly based on Jesus Christ and Yahweh from the Bible. (So directly in fact that they are insinuated to be one and the same during the "There I have another name" scene in VDT.) And since Jesus Christ and Yahweh are both male figures in the Bible, their Narnian counterparts are going to be male also.

The people in the highest power are male.

Well, I don't know about that... Jadis is pretty powerful, and she's a woman.

Although, even if that were the case, there's nothing inherently sexist in having the rulers of a land in a story be all male, anymore than there's anything inherently sexist in having all the rulers be female. A lot of times it's just a creative decision/how the characters turn out. I wouldn't assume Lewis meant anything sexist by it unless he came out specifically and said it was because he believed women weren't meant to rule. There's really no way to know otherwise.

Point:Women who try to rule independently, or over other men, are depicted as villainous in Narnia.

In the books, there are women who are evil that become rulers. But that doesn't necessarily follow that Lewis believed women who rule are evil for doing so. I certainly would never have come to that conclusion from the books. And considering that, as other people have said, there are far more evil male rulers than there are evil female rulers, I highly doubt that's what Lewis was trying to say. Jadis and the Lady of the Green Kirtle were not evil because they were "mere" women trying to become rulers. They were evil because they did cruel things, and tried to conquer lands as a dictator.

One important thing to do, when analyzing the work of a male author during a specific time period, is not only to look into the psychology of males, not only to look into the psychology of the time period, but also look into the psychology of authors. I'm an author myself, as are most of the people I'm close friends with. And one very common problem I've observed is that the readers pay far more attention to the genders of the characters (as well as other factors) than we authors do. Neither I nor anyone else I know ever goes through our books and counts the ratios of whether there's more male rulers than female rulers, or if there are more evil females than evil males, etc. I can't speak for C.S. Lewis or anyone else of course, but the gender of the characters is something that rarely enters my mind. In fact, most situations boil down to inspiration rather than personal world view. For example, when I'm creating a villain, I never think about what "type" of people I would consider villainous, as relating to gender or any other factor. Instead, I go out and find inspiration. I'll be in a grocery store and there will be some woman or man there who catches my attention. If I find them interesting, I find myself asking, "I wonder what would happen if a villain in a story was like that person over there?" Then they become my inspiration, and my new villain is born. It's a matter of chance, usually. In some of my books, all the virtuous characters are male and all the evil characters are female. Sometimes vice versa. Sometimes a combination. It has nothing to do with my worldview or sexism; but rather, what people happen to inspire me/give me ideas while I'm writing the book. But you can bet that many of my readers won't see it that way. I'm sure while psychoanalyzing my books, there will be many different theories as to my opinions, psyche, and prejudices I supposedly have, based on characters and situations in my books which, in actuality, are the result of coincidence. That's why, when analyzing a work, one must take into account coincidence and simple creative decisions, and not be too quick to chalk a character's traits up to prejudices of the author. It is far too often a false assumption; and since it casts a bad light on the moral character of the author, it's better to give him/her the benefit of the doubt unless some further proof arises.

From what I've heard about Lewis's creative process, he had random mental images appear in his head, and then wrote about them. One of the mental images he received was of a woman in a sleigh. I find it far more likely that, needing a villain for his story, he found that woman in the sleigh so fascinating that he decided to make her the main antagonist; rather than it arising from any prejudice against female authority.

Point: Father Christmas explicitly states "Battles are ugly when women fight."

I've always attributed this to the mindset of "chivalry" one finds in most classic literature that takes place in a medieval setting, as well as the mindset of chivalry the author most likely had. It's very common to see the "knight in shining armor rescues the damsel in distress" situation in any story that has knights and damsels and battles and castles. And I'm sure it's something Lewis found appealing - especially since it's most likely the sort of story he heard as a child, in which case it would carry with it all the sentimental ties of his childhood.

The chivalrous attitude definitely can be sexist, no doubt. Especially if it results from a mindset of a man who wants to be a powerful hero, and who views women as being helpless without his aid. But this isn't always the case. There are many chivalrous men who view women as perfectly capable; but who do things for these women anyway because, in their heart, that's their way of showing honor toward them. It's an act of admiration through servitude. Very similar to how many people will do things for their favorite celebrity (or anyone else they happen to particularly admire) even when that person is perfectly capable of doing those things him/herself. Even many women show their love in this way. It seems to be part of human nature to want to "rescue" those we love. I've always found it rather sweet. And though we can't know for sure without asking Lewis himself which of the two types of chivalry he ascribed to -- the kind to help females because they're "weak", or the kind to help females out of admiration -- his creation of some stronger female characters (such as Aravis and Jill) have made me think he was most likely the latter.

Point: Peter and Edmund nearly kill themselves fighting in the Battle of Beruna. Susan and Lucy go for a joyride with Aslan.
Counterpoint: It was Susan and Lucy's own fault for waking up in the middle of the night and wandering off. If they had not followed Aslan and had stayed at camp, maybe they would have gotten the opportunity to participate.

From the way this is worded, it sounds almost like you think Lucy and Susan "missed out" or were somehow unlucky because they didn't get to fight in the battle. But I'd say they got the better deal. Regardless of gender, any soldier I've ever met would tell you it's a tragedy to have to fight and not an honor or glory. And there are also many plot-related reasons why this choice works much better than having all four Pevensies fight. For one thing, Aslan coming back to life, and Aslan bringing the stone statues back to life, are both very important plot points (the former probably being one of the most important parts of the entire book). Since the story is told through the eyes of the children, at least one or two of them had to be present to witness this.

Plus, if you had asked Lewis himself whose shoes he would rather be in, I'm sure he would have told you Susan and Lucy. Having seen the ugliness of war himself, I doubt he would have envied the boys. And since Aslan represented the greatest figure in his religion, I'm sure meeting him, talking to him, and going with him to bring dead friends back to life would have been much more than a "joy ride" in his mind. I'm also reminded of a Bible story where two women are in the house with Jesus Christ. One is doing all the hard work while the other decides to just have fun talking to Jesus. Guess which of the girls Christ thought was wiser? It sounds to me like this part of the book is more in favor of Susan and Lucy than against them.

Point: Lucy is in the stereotypical "healing" or "cleric" role with her cordial. She doesn't need any particular skill or even to think about what she's doing, the cordial does her work for her.

I'm not sure what to say about this one, since I wasn't aware the healer or cleric role was used as a sexist stereotype. In most of the fantasy stories I've seen or read, the one who heals people by potion is usually male. Such as a "medicine man". Though I have to say, without cordial, I doubt there would have been any "skill" any of them, let alone a child, could use to bring the half-dead back to life.

Point: In Prince Caspian, Peter nearly dies in single combat and the rest of the army ends up fighting the Telmarines. Susan and Lucy go for a joyride with Aslan.

This has nothing to do with gender as far as I can see. In a single combat, only the two people involved are allowed to fight. Not only women, but also other men besides the two would have been forbidden to participate. Even though it did end up with them all fighting, that was the result of cheating and treachery.

Point: In VDT, we're supposed to dislike Eustace. He talks about Caspian giving Lucy the best room because she's a girl, and Eustace replying that, as his mother says, that sort of thing really lowers girls rather than helps them. I found myself agreeing with Eustace. Is Lewis trying to insult people who think that way? It seemed like he was also trying to insult non-smokers, non-drinkers, and vegetarians through Eustace's parents, but I guess that's not relevant here.

I think the issue was more about intolerance on the part of the Scrubbs. If Lewis found out someone was a non-smoker, non-drinker, or vegetarian, I doubt he would care. However, Eustace's family was not the type to become a vegetarian, non-smoker, or non-drinker out of personal choice alone; but rather, it was a mindset that they would most likely impose on other people, and think themselves higher than those who made different choices than themselves regarding those issues. It probably wasn't the views themselves that Lewis objected to, but the elitist attitude that went with them in some cases. My guess was that Lewis, being a smoker, drinker, and meat-eater, probably met a few people like the Scrubbs who disapproved of him; and the bitter feelings that arose from that came out in his book. His views on chivalry were most likely disapproved of by some people as well, and so that also came out in the book.

Point: Only one female animal is called into the council with Aslan in MN. The female raven. And she is, of course, accompanied by her husband.

Honestly, I have no idea why Aslan picked the characters he picked for the Council. It doesn't really seem to have any rhyme or reason. Not just because of gender, but also because of number and species. He picked 7 creatures - a dwarf, a river-god, a tree, three birds, and an elephant. Why those? If it had been a dwarf, a river-god, a tree, and an animal, that would make sense. One for each species. But why three birds? Why also an elephant? What about other types of animals, like reptiles? Why were there no humans? I have no idea.

Point: In MN, Polly doesn't care about discovering the unknown, while Digory is passionate about it. She is also characterised as being won over by a bunch of shiny rings. The general impression I got was that Polly has no sense of adventure and Digory does, making me ask, why is the girl the wimp, yet again?

I actually got the reverse impression. To me, Polly always seemed like the cautious, sensible one, while Digory seemed kind of foolish and far too willing to take risks he shouldn't. Digory's "bravery" and sense of adventure didn't exactly strike me as a virtue. In fact, it led to a dangerous giant woman from another world being able to run loose and cause havoc in London; which then led to that same woman bringing evil to a new, pure world which she eventually conquered, causing an entire age of perpetual winter and fear. All the result of Digory's adventurous streak. Maybe he should have listened to Polly a bit more.

Point: Susan. Oh, Susan. Everything is wrong with Susan. Susan comes off as another attempt from Lewis to drive it home that women are fickle and easily tempted. Susan is superficial, self-absorbed, and air-headed. I'll never understand why she was depicted as a warrior princess in the Walden films. I never liked her in the books.

I noticed you said this was "another attempt" to show women are fickle and easily tempted. Has Lewis called women those things in other books or other parts of the Chronicles?

Anyway, while I have always viewed Susan's story to be tragic, I've never found it offensive. When talking about Susan, Lewis never says girls in general are shallow. He says that girl is shallow. Just because someone creates a character with two traits, that doesn't mean they're saying those two traits are linked in any way. Indeed, if Lewis really believed all girls were shallow, then he would never have created great female characters like Lucy, Jill, and Aravis.

Love her or hate her, Susan is a very real character. I know many people who are just like her. Shallowness is a common fault. And many young people who desire to be more "grown up" do so using very childish tactics. Some try to become more "grown up" by dabbling in substance abuse and other harmful activities. Others, like Susan, do so by becoming vain, thinking only of beauty or popularity or wealth, etc.

One very important factor when it comes to writing or analyzing books, is that the aim the author has should not be solely fixed on a cause, but in the crafting of an interesting story. That is to say, when designing the plot and character, one should be making decisions based solely on the story, and not based on aiding any cause. Creative decisions made for the sake of a cause almost always results in a poorly written book. That's why so many modern religious novels are turning out sub-par -- all the characters and plot points are crafted, not to enhance the story, but to preach the gospel message, causing the story to fall flat. Similarly, if one crafts a story or a character with the aim of strengthening some other message or cause besides religion, it will also result in poor story telling. Ensuring that all the female characters in one's story are admirable, courageous, etc. may help in the cause of dispelling stereotypes about women; but it does not aid in the cause of adding a good story to the world of literature - which is the actual cause one should be aiming for if one is an author. For a story to be good, it must reflect reality. And in reality, not every girl is a good role model for women. There are good women, strong women, cowardly women, shallow women, and cruel women; just as there are good men, strong men, cowardly men, shallow men, and cruel men. Literature needs to reflect that. And in my opinion, Lewis does quite a good job of it. There are characters of both genders in his books with a variety of strengths and weaknesses, which I find very realistic and well-crafted. And Susan is definitely one of them.

One thing I've noticed (and this isn't aimed toward any of the above points, nor to any specific person who has posted here; but rather, something I've observed over the years) is that the prejudices a reader finds in a book depends less on the time period the author wrote it and more on the time period the reader analyzes it. When we read a book, we tend not to focus on the points the author is trying to make as much as we focus on how the book portrays certain "hot topics" in our current culture, or issues that are close to our own heart. And oftentimes, the author isn't saying anything relating to those topics, but rather our lens accidentally or subconsciously creates it while we read. For example, I once saw a woman whose goal in life was to spread awareness about all the bullying that is aimed at overweight people; and what she got out of the Chronicles was that Lewis was prejudice against anyone who is overweight (because of the Bulgy Bears). Another girl I saw was a really avid environmentalist, and she said the main reason why Lewis wrote the books was because he wanted to motivate people to save the earth. Some other environmentalists I saw, who went into the books already disliking Lewis, said his books were anti-environment. So the saying is true, "We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are." And I sometimes wonder if the sexist allegations against Lewis would be as common if sexism itself wasn't such a hot topic in our culture.

One thing I found extremely interesting, and it helps prove the point, is to think about what discussions might occur if the Chronicles were the same but the world we lived in was different. For example, if Lewis was exactly the same in this hypothetical world as he was in the real one, and the Chronicles of Narnia were exactly the same, word-for-word as they are right now -- but the problem of sexism was reversed so that men were the ones stereotyped in society instead of women -- would the people in that world have any objections against the Chronicles, and if so, what would they be? If men in that world were stereotyped as being "stupid", "whiny", "shallow", "violent" or "cruel", what would the people of that world say about Lewis and Narnia?

My belief would be that, since sexism against men would be the hot topic in that culture, the Chronicles would be accused of sexism against men, just as it's accused of sexism against women in our current world. (And the fact that it was written by a male would not excuse Lewis from the accusation, since I know many female writers who are accused of prejudice against their own sex because of the way their female characters are portrayed.) When Lucy says that girls, unlike boys, don't carry a map in their heads because "our heads have something inside them", that would cause offence because Lewis would be supporting the idea that men are "stupid". When Digory twists Polly's arm when things aren't going his way, that would show that Lewis is spreading that horrific view that all men are violent bullies. Plus I notice whenever Digory does something annoying, Polly has to point out, "How exactly like a man!" And have you ever noticed how all the whiny shallow characters are male? Just look at how Edmund and Eustace are portrayed at the start. That clearly shows a bias against men! ( )

This is why I tend to lean toward the belief that the Chronicles of Narnia contain a balance of good and bad in both genders. But because we live in a society where sexism against women is a huge problem, and because that's what we expect to find in novels, we see the bad points the author gives the girls and the good points he gives the males, and sometimes tend to miss the other aspects that balance them out.

Food for thought. (And sorry for the super long post. )

~Riella

I think I see Phelan's point, that we never see a woman who is both good and in a position of authority, except being subject to a man (Helen is Frank's consort, Susan and Lucy are subject to Peter - as is Edmund. Though it's interesting that Aslan makes all four of them kings and queens. It's understandable that Miraz questions the validity of the story, as had things happened "normally", Peter would have been king, Edmund a prince and Susan and Lucy princesses.) I'd forgotten about the description of Queen Swanwhite in LB, but we never get to see her "in the flesh".

I can imagine that the story of Prince Caspian, for instance, wouldn't have been hugely different had he been Princess Caspiana; though she might have been constantly annoyed at well-meaning men, of any species, trying to be chivalrous and protect her when she wanted to get stuck in with the fight against Miraz.

Or in Silver Chair, the genders of the Lady of the Green Kirtle and Prince Rilian could have been reversed and everything else remained pretty much the same. But as Ithilwen says, maybe the inspiration just happened to strike Lewis the way it did, and that's all there is to it.

Ithilwen, you win the award of the longest post about anything I've ever seen on any forum. XD I don't mean that in a bad way, but I'm used to, from other forums and the internet in general, me being the one with long posts all the time.

Keep in mind that I don't necessarily believe all the things I put as points, nor do I necessarily believe all the counter arguments. I just put them down for the sake of discussion. I totally understand that sometimes things "just happen that way" in a story and people will pick you apart and try and say you're X, Y, or Z when really you had intended nothing of the sort. But sometimes decisions are based on the author's real opinions, and it's hard to tell those things apart from the things that are just coincidence.

About the Beavers, I understand that of course there's nothing wrong with being a housewife/homemaker. And I know it could just be what she happens to be, without further implications about women in general. But the thing is, I always think of an author as trying to convey something through what they write. I tend to overthink things when I write, so I might think about putting something in, but then be like "Oh...people might take this to mean this is my stance on something", and I might have to rework it. I think there is a stereotype about women just being the nurturers, etc., so I wouldn't want to enforce it, even if there are real women who fit every stereotype of a housewife perfectly. I don't know, hopefully that makes sense. It's like, we all know that women can be housewives, so let's see something we haven't seen before. I'm not saying Lewis was making a statement about women in general, just that I found it odd that the Beavers are sooo much like a traditional/stereotypical married human couple, and, well, they're beavers.

Yeah, I agree with you about Lewis intending for the Emperor and Aslan to mirror God and Jesus, but if you didn't know that, I think it would seem a bit patriarchal that it's like: Emperor > Aslan > High King Peter, and all three are males.

Ah, I see, you too are a writer. That's what I mean, sometimes while I'm writing, I'll think that people will misinterpret what I'm saying, or put more emphasis on something than is needed. I'm a female but my protagonist is male and is often protecting a female companion. It's not that I think females can't protect themselves, etc., but he's an animal and she's a human, and he is much stronger than she is. So basically, yes, I bet people would read it and be like "Oh, because girls can't look after themselves", but it's just that you're seeing things from his perspective and he feels a responsibility to protect her because he's a wild creature and can do so capably. So I know what you mean. I in no way feel that Lewis was this sexist pig, nor do I think that he was wholly uninfluenced by his environment and saw males and females as 100% equals. I'm sure as a person he was more complicated than that, I just wanted to see what other people thought of the various instances in the books that COULD be interpreted as sexist if you look at them that way. I just really enjoy discussing these books and I wanted to see how people felt about both sides of the situation, which is why I tried giving an argument and counterargument for each example. I like discussing these books and the forum seems inactive a lot so I wanted to stir up some talk, I didn't post because I think of them as sexist books. >_<

You know, I would not want to partake in a war, at least not in this world, but the thing is, I view Narnia differently. The battles are glorified, in my opinion, and knowing that when you die there is absolute proof that you go to Aslan's Country, well, dying just doesn't seem that awful. So in Narnia, I probably would want to partake in a battle. Along with the medieval mindset that brings chivalry also comes the emphasis on honour and loyalty. So to me, in Narnia, a battle is something special to be part of and whether it is bloody or not, it is better to be in it than somewhere else. In Narnia, it doesn't seem like this horrendous thing where people die senselessly, it really seems like a display of honour. The flashing armour, the charges, the swordplay, that stuff is definitely seen as glamourous from the fairytale point of view, and while it does have its downsides, I still think Narnia is a place where battles take on that role.

When you read about a battle in a fantasy story, it doesn't carry the same repulsive qualities as a war in real life. It's a different type of violence, and while I do understand that it's not all positive, it's shown as more of a difficult challenge to overcome than a gruesome atrocity. Therefore, if a battle is to be a display of honour and courage in Narnia, then women should likewise be allowed to participate and it should not be any more unpleasant for their presence. I think that's why the character of the girl in disguise as a soldier carries such a romance with it, because she's willing to do what is right and be as brave as her male counterparts.

The cleric thing may be coming from my experience in videogames, where often the main female character is depicted as the healer. This is also a thing in the culture of gaming, people always say (jokingly or otherwise) that girls like to heal because they're sensitive and don't like fighting, they like to take care of people, and so on. So I was probably biased by that with the cordial thing. If you've heard someone tell you 5400 times that healing is a girl's job, things go a bit wonky when it comes to girls and healing spells, lol.

I actually agree with you, I think these books do provide a good balance between the genders. I wouldn't have thought that if he had stopped writing after VDT, because I crave that female character who is willing to do anything the boys will do and who never calls attention to her gender for the sake of attention. And it's totally because that's what I identify with, I wouldn't deny it. I think that Jill and Aravis, and even Polly, really rounded things out extremely well. Aravis is noble, Jill is brave, Polly is sassy. But I still think that it's too bad there were no women in a really high rank of authority, not because I think that's necessary to make a story good, but because it seems like Aslan, Peter, Caspian, and Tirian are the most powerful, authoritative figures who aren't evil, and I would have liked to see some clear acknowledgement that women can rule in those positions of power in Narnia without being villains. When we really get down to it, the only thing that I find truly sexist is Father Christmas' remark, and whether out of "chivalry" or not, it's not the chivalry I can get behind. He didn't say "You are not meant to be in the battle because I care about you and don't want to see you hurt", but essentially because of the nature of their reproductive organs. Fie on Father Christmas, I don't want any presents this year anyway.

When we read a book, we tend not to focus on the points the author is trying to make as much as we focus on how the book portrays certain "hot topics" in our current culture, or issues that are close to our own heart. And oftentimes, the author isn't saying anything relating to those topics, but rather our lens accidentally or subconsciously creates it while we read.

Well, you never said a truer word. That also explains why the Press, which only seems interested in reporting what celebrities wear, even when they are walking the dog or caught speeding, would be so outraged about Hilary Mantel's Royal bodies speech a week or so ago. Suddenly, Kate Middleton, who, according to one newspaper comment from the Eurozone, had 'wasted her education' by marrying Prince William, became 'Our Kate'.

I've known someone say something similar before about someone else - oh yes, it was Polly's LB criticism of Susan, wasn't it? It all depends on how one wastes one's education, I suppose, whether it was failing to learn anything at all from it, as Susan appears to have done. Or whether a Masters degree in History of Art is wasted in being married to the Duke of Cambridge, who will be a participant in that history of Art in due course. And if people, as they often have, even in Women's Lib circles, consider an education is wasted if a girl 'only' gets married and has children. Or conversely, that girls don't need an education to get married.

And this is one reason why I don't agree with you that Susan is a tragic figure. Princess Diana was a tragic figure, who was expected to be a fairytale princess to please public opinion, and who lived and died under media spotlight. Hilary Mantel was probably also right about Marie Antoinette, as much a victim of having to keep up appearances in a viciously slanderous court as she was a victim of the revolutionaries. But I don't see a literary character like Susan as tragic. All C.S.Lewis said about her afterwards was that she had become vain and silly, but may change in her own time and in her own way.

Yes, I agree that losing all her family in a train wreck would be a terrible thing to happen, especially as she mightn't have known that her brothers, sister and cousin were on the train as well as her parents. But that circumstance was no worse than losing all one's family in a shipwreck (like Pi in The Life of Pi). Or in any other disaster, let alone the horrendous bloodshed of WW2. Susan's loss is unfortunate, her suffering real, if she still cared for her siblings. But it is how she survives subsequently which determines whether she is a tragic character or not. And none of us know that story, because C.S.Lewis didn't want to write such a story.

It seems as if Susan has taken a life of her own, because of literary criticism. She is the epitome of C.S.Lewis' alleged sexism, according to authors as varied as JK Rowling, Philip Pullman, or even, indirectly, Neil Gaiman, who wrote a short story about her called The problem of Susan. But I keep wondering if something else was intended by that criticism of Susan in LB. For example, if Susan had allegedly forgotten those 'funny games we used to play as children', how would she be able to discuss her life with her siblings afterwards, should anyone ask? And, having forgotten her adventures escaping Tashbaan with Edmund and Prince Corin, would she be more in danger of 'marrying in haste, and repenting at leisure'?

Would she, too, fall victim to 'keeping up appearances', like Marie Antoinette? Would she, too, 'drift with the tide', like Pi was forced to do, in the recent film? Or would she come to her senses and remember that 'once a queen in Narnia, always a queen in Narnia', and to bear it well?

I think I see Phelan's point, that we never see a woman who is both good and in a position of authority, except being subject to a man..I'd forgotten about the description of Queen Swanwhite in LB, but we never get to see her "in the flesh".

That is because Queen Swan White didn't cause any problems with her people who were so contented that presumably Narnian news publishers were put out of business. That was according to Poggin, I think it was, or maybe Jewel. I have heard of such a Queen in real life. Has anyone heard of a certain Queen Kinga?

About what Father Christmas said about girls and war: Yes, that has been a common opinion, until quite recently, not only related to chivalric ideas of women. But I also think it was mainly a way of showing the difference in response and character of the two girls, Lucy and Susan. Nursing was considered a suitable way of serving in battle for women as late as the Vietnam war, and yes, nurses were killed during wars. (Yes, I know...long post. )

About fickle women: King Edmund joked about vain and fickle women to Rabadash so as not to annoy him with Susan's outright refusal of his offer of marriage.

In my own personal interpretation of Susan, I don't think she is a sexist character at all. She's just an example of what can happen. Someone in another thread, I'm sorry I can't remember who, pointed out that girls in the 1950s were not really expected to do more than marry and mother, and Susan is an example of someone who let those societal prejudices and pressures get the best of her. She didn't care to enhance her intelligence or her creativity because society cared most about her looks. I actually really like Susan as a warning against letting your looks and charm carry you through life. Because this is as much a problem as ever with young girls...I have personally met young girls just like Susan who don't plan for the future and worry only about how popular they can become. They actually find learning dull and pointless, they have no creative interests because those too seem secondary to the ephemeral world of teenage drama.

I know she has also been discussed as the atheist lead astray, but whether Lewis intended that in her character or not doesn't matter much to me. If he did intend it that way I wouldn't be surprised, he wrote much of his religious beliefs into the stories, so no big deal.

(This goes back to the whole "people look for references to themselves" thing. When I asked for the opinion of atheists on another site about Narnia, many said they felt that Susan was Lewis' characterisation of a foolish atheist who could not force her faith. But many women see her as sexist rather than anti-atheist!)

I've always attributed this to the mindset of "chivalry" one finds in most classic literature that takes place in a medieval setting, as well as the mindset of chivalry the author most likely had. It's very common to see the "knight in shining armor rescues the damsel in distress" situation in any story that has knights and damsels and battles and castles. And I'm sure it's something Lewis found appealing - especially since it's most likely the sort of story he heard as a child, in which case it would carry with it all the sentimental ties of his childhood.

Also, keep in mind that Lewis was a medieval scholar. Chivalry and romanticized battles would have probably been some of his main areas of study. Narnia is a very medieval-esque world to begin with, and ideas that men should do the fighting and not women would fit in naturally. Besides, it's pointed out on more than one occasion that Susan hated fighting. To her, battles are ugly whoever is fighting even when they are necessary.

He talks about Caspian giving Lucy the best room because she's a girl, and Eustace replying that, as his mother says, that sort of thing really lowers girls rather than helps them.

It was probably also the only private room on the entire ship, which Eustace seems to have conveniently forgotten.

It doesn't really seem to have any rhyme or reason. Not just because of gender, but also because of number and species. He picked 7 creatures - a dwarf, a river-god, a tree, three birds, and an elephant. Why those? If it had been a dwarf, a river-god, a tree, and an animal, that would make sense. One for each species. But why three birds? Why also an elephant? What about other types of animals, like reptiles? Why were there no humans?

I think the type of creatures are probably important. He picked "the chief Dwarf" (the leader of his people), "the River-god" (again, leader of his people), an Oak, He-owl, both ravens, and the Bull-elephant. The first two make sense right away because they are the chief representatives of their particular group. As for the rest, aren't Oak trees generally considered wise in stories where trees have characteristics? And it's not clear whether the Oak is male or female, just that he/she is a tree. The animals are also ones that are often considered wise or clever. No idea about why both ravens and only one elephant or owl though. No humans were invited probably because none of them were official residents of Narnia yet. Reptiles though . . . are there any talking reptiles in Narnia? I don't remember any mention of them. Most of the Talking Beasts seem to be either mammals or birds.

Susan. Oh, Susan. Everything is wrong with Susan. Susan comes off as another attempt from Lewis to drive it home that women are fickle and easily tempted.

On the contrary, Susan is simply a product of the time period and a different sort of character than her siblings. Adventures in other worlds never really seemed to be her thing. In LWW she keeps saying "Let's go home" until they meet the Beavers. And in the conversation with Professor Kirke she is stuck on the point of "what are we going to do?" while Peter is excited about the prospect: "You mean there could be other worlds? Just around the corner like that" (not sure it that's an exact quote, but close enough). In PC she was the only one who didn't want to explore the ruin at night and she hated both killing and hunting even though she was a very good archer. In HHB she fell for a man who flattered her and made an impression but later, when she saw what he was really like, left as quickly as possible. Susan is the way she is because she is Susan, not Jill, not Lucy, not Aravis, and not Polly.

That's one thing I really like about the Narnia series. Lewis allowed each of the characters to be themselves. They all have flaws, but what human doesn't? I don't think there is any sort of agenda involved with any of the characters. They are all simply unique to themselves.