I guess I can't really speak for Lewis' writing style in general, since I've not really read much of his other work, but I've always thought of bits like you just described above as being a deliberate stylistic choice, designed to evoke the sensibilities of a Bedtime story.

Granted I've no contextual evidence from the author to support that belief, but I've always found part of the charm of the Chronicles of Narnia to be that they flow like a Grandfather reading a bedtime story to his Grandchildren - half-making it up as he goes along, and just generally rambling from one thing to the next, without necessarily having an overall masterplan in place. Aimed at kids for sure, with a friendly conversational tone, whilst managing to be neither patronising nor overly grandiose in its prose.

Posted by: @nicemice2023

As you see, just as the conflict of something is resolved, Lewis immediately jumps over to something else—without even starting a new paragraph! And it definitely doesn’t help that what he jumps to next is a run-on sentence. 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but that doesn't really bug me. When I read that part, it feels like the story moves on exactly as it should without dragging its feet. I can't think of anything meaningful that could have followed the scene with Reepicheep. Our interest in it is how will the problem with his tail be resolved. Once it is, I feel no need to linger with him and the mice. Prince Caspian is kind of an annoyingly slow-paced book at times as it is. A longer description of all the characters being rewarded in the end would have made that problem with it worse IMO. 

Posted by: @nicemice2023

If what I’m getting at still isn’t clear, take a look at how the PC movie handles the scene. Reepicheep sees his new tail, and tells Aslan how grateful he is. It’s a touching way to cap off the scene, and makes the moment it was building up to really feel meaningful

It's kind of funny you feel that way because, as a fan of the book, I mildly dislike the way the movie adapted the end of that scene because it makes Reepicheep more of a caricature than in the book. ("It will serve as a reminder of my huge humility.") I'd argue that while Reepicheep was comic relief in the source material, he wasn't a caricature and it's not even a very original joke. Ah, well. To each their own.  

Posted by: @col-klink

Posted by: @nicemice2023

As you see, just as the conflict of something is resolved, Lewis immediately jumps over to something else—without even starting a new paragraph! And it definitely doesn’t help that what he jumps to next is a run-on sentence. 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but that doesn't really bug me. When I read that part, it feels like the story moves on exactly as it should without dragging its feet. I can't think of anything meaningful that could have followed the scene with Reepicheep. Our interest in it is how will the problem with his tail be resolved. Once it is, I feel no need ot linger with him and the mice. Prince Caspian is kind of an annoyingly slow-paced book at times as it is. A longer description of all the characters being rewarded int he end would have made that problem with it worse IMO. 

I get that. It just felt like it ended a little abruptly (like I mentioned, it switches mid-paragraph), and without there being any reaction from Reepicheep it also felt a little empty. If it ended with a half-sentence showing his joy at having his tail again and a new paragraph started after, I wouldn’t really have a problem at all myself.

Posted by: @nicemice2023

If what I’m getting at still isn’t clear, take a look at how the PC movie handles the scene. Reepicheep sees his new tail, and tells Aslan how grateful he is. It’s a touching way to cap off the scene, and makes the moment it was building up to really feel meaningful

It's kind of funny you feel that way because, as a fan of the book, I mildly dislike the way the movie adapted the end of that scene because it makes Reepicheep more of a caricature than in the book.

I guess so. But having a reaction from RPC just made the part feel to me like it ended properly, unlike the book. 

But again, I didn’t create this thread to bash Mr. Lewis’s writing style. In this case, he made a choice I disagree with and the writers of the film made one I thought worked, but I don’t always feel that way. In the end, I guess there’s no such thing as perfect writing, because everyone’s going to disagree with some stylistic choices that others like.

I am not sure if it is a fault, but I wondered why Lewis waited until Voyage of the Dawn Treader to tell us that Narnia was not round but like a table with water up to the edge (the Eastern Sea). I don’t think this was mentioned in the first two books if you read them in publication order. At least that is how I remember the stories. Would it have been a mistake to not say something about it? People might think that Narnia was round like our world until they read Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Actually, he had the right to make his fantasy world in any shape or form that he wanted. But if someone read The Magician’s Nephew first how would they know that Narnia was not round like a ball or sphere?

I don’t really care that much if the Narnia books are not perfect. Since they were written by a human being who really cares if there are mistakes and inconsistencies in them?  They should be just loved for what they are, and those who find fault with them should appreciate them for being wonderful stories.

Posted by: @narnian78

I don’t really care that much if the Narnia books are not perfect. Since they were written by a human being who really cares if there are mistakes and inconsistencies in them?  They should be just loved for what they are, and those who find fault with them should appreciate them for being wonderful stories.

I don’t know if you were talking about me since I created this topic, but like I said, I’m not trying to bash Lewis’s writing still or the series, just look at some details that could have been improved upon in hindsight.

@nicemice2023 

Actually I would agree that the books are not perfect, but I was just saying that it doesn’t bother me that much if they have some mistakes and inconsistencies. Pointing out Lewis’ faults isn’t necessarily bashing him. If you find mistakes and want to talk about them, fine. But I wouldn’t get carried away with doing it. It’s not quite that important an issue when compared to Lewis’s great achievements in his writing. It doesn’t bother me that much that he wasn’t perfect.  

Posted by: @narnian78

I am not sure if it is a fault, but I wondered why Lewis waited until Voyage of the Dawn Treader to tell us that Narnia was not round but like a table with water up to the edge (the Eastern Sea). I don’t think this was mentioned in the first two books if you read them in publication order. At least that is how I remember the stories. Would it have been a mistake to not say something about it? People might think that Narnia was round like our world until they read Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Actually, he had the right to make his fantasy world in any shape or form that he wanted. But if someone read The Magician’s Nephew first how would they know that Narnia was not round like a ball or sphere?

It's definitely not mentioned in the first two books. I'm guessing the reason for Lewis not telling us about this earlier might well be that he hadn't thought about it himself, until he came up with the idea for a Narnia story involving a voyage to the edge of the world! The previous books don't have anything in their plots that gives us a reason to know what shape the world of Narnia is, so that's probably why we're not told.

Those of us who write, as well as reading a lot, often notice differences in style from how we ourselves would have written something. Fortunately, we don't have the right or ability to amend them! 
I wonder if our looking twice at the rushed ending is because we are also accustomed to the much more long-winded endings of Tolkien's books?

I thought Tolkien might have been nitpicking when he was critical of the Narnia books for putting in characters based other mythology and using different sources such as the ancient Greek stories.  I remember reading that he did not like Father Christmas in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe because it was from a different story and apparently the character didn’t work for him in Narnia. I liked that part of the book and the Christmas atmosphere of the story.  I think it was a very good part of the story.  Does it matter that much what Tolkien thought?  Tolkien was a very intelligent man, but I am not sure if he was right in his criticism of Narnia. I would say that it is the author’s right to be eclectic (use different sources) if it works for the story. It can be a good thing in creating a time or place in a work of fantasy. I wonder sometimes if Tolkien’s criticism had a little snobbishness in it.  But of course people have a right to dislike something just as much as it is their privilege to admire someone else’s work.

I’m honestly a bit surprised that I’m in the minority about the part I mentioned. 

Posted by: @col-klink

Posted by: @nicemice2023

As you see, just as the conflict of something is resolved, Lewis immediately jumps over to something else—without even starting a new paragraph! And it definitely doesn’t help that what he jumps to next is a run-on sentence. 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but that doesn't really bug me. When I read that part, it feels like the story moves on exactly as it should without dragging its feet. I can't think of anything meaningful that could have followed the scene with Reepicheep. Our interest in it is how will the problem with his tail be resolved. Once it is, I feel no need ot linger with him and the mice.

 

@nicemice2023 I'm actually autistic too FWIW.

Posted by: @col-klink

@nicemice2023 I'm actually autistic too FWIW.

Thanks for sharing that. But I’m surprised then that it didn’t bother you as well. 

@nicemice2023 Well, while it's true that autistic people are bothered by things, I'm sure you're aware that we're not all bothered by the same things. I read a lot of old books and I'm not bothered by a lot of things that were considered fine back in the day, but which are frowned upon by modern writing teachers (like run on sentences?) and I see no reason to pretend I think they're bad when I really don't. For example, it's considered bad storytelling nowadays to have the main problem be solved by supporting characters rather than the main characters. As often as not in the Narnia books, the main problem is resolved by Aslan's intervention, not by any action of the protagonists and in one of the exceptions to that, The Silver Chair, it's resolved by Puddleglum, not Jill or Eustace. And I'm just not bothered by that, especially as I suspect the "main characters must resolve the conflict" rule is a modern prejudice, not a universal law.

Lewis was very good at telling a story in a few words so no one could accuse him of excessive wordiness. Perhaps some characters (e.g. some of the talking animals) were in the stories too abruptly.  I guess anyone could find minor faults in his books, although I think the virtues far outweigh them. Why didn’t he have some good talking wolves and why weren’t there more talking birds (the avian world of Narnia had only a few characters)?  I think a robin is mentioned only once. A singing thrush or nightingale would have been so nice in Narnia. But I guess we can assume they were there and Aslan created them even if they aren’t mentioned in the books. At least there are robins and eagles although their appearances are very brief.