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.

No offense, but really? It felt kind of cold how quickly it switched. I’ve tried to make my point since, but no one has paid any attention to it, which makes me feel like I was wrong to think it in the first place.

Posted by: @nicemice2023

It felt kind of cold how quickly it switched.

Well, it might be you were more attached to the character of Reepicheep than I was. (By the end of Prince Caspian, I mean. Since he plays a bigger in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, I might relate to your feelings more if the scene came toward the end of that book.) I wasn't really moved reading about his wounds since I knew Lucy could heal him with her cordial and I was even less moved by the loss of his tail-except to laughter, of course. To me, this part of the book was a very fun, interesting little scene but not something super dramatic or important. Your mileage may vary.

@col-klink Oh, that makes sense! Well, thank you for clearing that up. I personally do find the scene rather meaningful, but I guess in the long run it’s something that isn’t mandatory since Reepicheep isn’t as big of a character in PC. 

And I’m so, so sorry if it sounded like I thought you were coming across as cold for agreeing with the text. It’s just been something that had kinda bugged me for years so I was a bit surprised that there weren’t more people who agreed, lol 

Posted by: @nicemice2023

No offense, but really? It felt kind of cold how quickly it switched. I’ve tried to make my point since, but no one has paid any attention to it, which makes me feel like I was wrong to think it in the first place.

I don't think you're "wrong to think it" at all — everyone responds differently, in their own way, to a story or any other good piece of writing, and there's really no right or wrong about it. I don't find that particular passage jarring, and perhaps not many others do, but that doesn't mean you're "wrong" in not liking the way that part is written. It just shows how important Reepicheep is to you as a character and how you would have liked Lewis to pause a bit longer there and give Reepicheep a chance to show his gratitude, and give us a chance to appreciate the moment longer, before getting on with the story. Definitely nothing wrong with that.  

Incidentally, I don't know if it's different in some editions, but in every copy of the book I've owned (three so far, I think), there is a paragraph break after "... you shall have your tail again." "Before Aslan had finished speaking the new tail was in its place. Then, at Aslan's command..." starts on the next line, rather than following directly after Aslan's speech without a break as it does in the quote you posted originally. That doesn't change the fact that the action moves directly from "the new tail was in its place" to Aslan's next actions, without paying any more attention to Reepicheep, but it doesn't read quite as awkwardly as it does in the original post in this discussion. Are there some editions of Prince Caspian where that paragraph break is left out altogether? Just wondering, because that does make some difference.

I think there are quite often little details of the stories that aren't described in the text and we're most likely meant to imagine them for ourselves — given what's just happened, and the meaningfulness and emotion of Aslan's speech as he explains why Reepicheep and his followers have "conquered" him, I doubt we're meant to think that after restoring the Mouse's tail, Aslan moved straight on to other business without actually giving Reepicheep any chance to say thank you. It's years since I last watched the BBC TV adaptation (which didn't do Prince Caspian very well in general) and I don't quite remember this part of it, and I haven't seen the Walden film, so those aren't a direct influence on how I think of this scene. But the way I see it playing in my head as I read the book, Reepicheep looks down as Aslan says "you shall have your tail again" and sees his tail reappearing — then he looks up at Aslan and simply bows deeply, too full of awe and gratitude to say anything. Which is an easy "in-universe" explanation for why he's not quoted as saying anything in the book! And really, it's a moment where no more words need to be said, and Aslan of course would understand that. Then (in my mental picture) Reepicheep simply steps back respectfully and lets Aslan go on with having Peter bestow the Order of the Lion on Caspian and so on.

Perhaps Lewis assumed we as the audience would imagine the details of that scene for ourselves and it would be too heavy-handed for him to spend time describing it — or perhaps he didn't stop to think that some readers might have liked to linger on it for a bit longer! But that's how I fill it in for myself when reading it, which is perhaps why I don't take so much notice of the fact that Lewis doesn't describe it in words.

There are a few other parts of the books like that. The one that springs to mind for me is in LWW, where the Witch discovers the little Christmas dinner party, and when the revellers tell her that Father Christmas gave them these things, she turns them into stone. It's an important moment for Edmund's character development, because we're told that he "for the first time in this story felt sorry for someone besides himself." But Lewis goes on to add — implicitly describing Edmund's growing feelings of compassion — "It seemed so pitiful to think of those little stone figures sitting there all the silent days and all the dark nights, year after year, until the moss grew on them and at last even their faces crumbled away." Which is a great contrast for the same boy who, only the previous night, drew glasses and a moustache on a stone lion and mocked it, but it leaves us with the impression that those "little stone figures" at their dinner party really will be left there forever until they crumble away — and they're never mentioned again, so we never find out what happened to them.

I read somewhere (I think it's in one of my Narnia books that are still back in my family's home in Australia!) that Lewis received a lot of letters from young readers wanting to know what happened to those stone creatures, and he assured them that Aslan brought them to life again. He actually wrote somewhere, perhaps in one of his letters — I'm paraphrasing, as I don't have the actual quote — "I thought readers would naturally assume that Aslan put them right again. I see now I should have said so." He did say shortly before his death that he'd like to bring out a second edition of the Chronicles, with some edits to things he was aware of that didn't quite add up, so that's possibly one thing he would have addressed, making it clear somewhere that Aslan did find and restore that little group at the dinner party. 

If I were directing a new screen adaptation of LWW, that's something I would definitely address. Since the dinner party was somewhere along the way from the Witch's house to the Stone Table, I would make it that as Aslan and the girls are leading their army of former statues from the Witch's house — after Aslan has brought them all back to life — then along the way, they pass that group of stone creatures, and Aslan stops the march for a moment and breathes on them as well. So we see them all coming to life, crying out with delight when they see Aslan there, and happily joining the throng as they head for the final battle with the Witch. Again, little or no extra dialogue necessary if it's done well.

Posted by: @nicemice2023

And I’m so, so sorry if it sounded like I thought you were coming across as cold for agreeing with the text.

Well, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was criticizing you for using the word, cold. There are certainly different ways readers can interpret the scene and I don't think yours is "wrong" per se. It's interesting to read the different takes on it in fan forums like this.

Posted by: @courtenay

Posted by: @nicemice2023

No offense, but really? It felt kind of cold how quickly it switched. I’ve tried to make my point since, but no one has paid any attention to it, which makes me feel like I was wrong to think it in the first place.

I don't think you're "wrong to think it" at all — everyone responds differently, in their own way, to a story or any other good piece of writing, and there's really no right or wrong about it. I don't find that particular passage jarring, and perhaps not many others do, but that doesn't mean you're "wrong" in not liking the way that part is written. It just shows how important Reepicheep is to you as a character and how you would have liked Lewis to pause a bit longer there and give Reepicheep a chance to show his gratitude, and give us a chance to appreciate the moment longer, before getting on with the story. Definitely nothing wrong with that.  

Incidentally, I don't know if it's different in some editions, but in every copy of the book I've owned (three so far, I think), there is a paragraph break after "... you shall have your tail again." "Before Aslan had finished speaking the new tail was in its place. Then, at Aslan's command..." starts on the next line, rather than following directly after Aslan's speech without a break as it does in the quote you posted originally. That doesn't change the fact that the action moves directly from "the new tail was in its place" to Aslan's next actions, without paying any more attention to Reepicheep, but it doesn't read quite as awkwardly as it does in the original post in this discussion. Are there some editions of Prince Caspian where that paragraph break is left out altogether? Just wondering, because that does make some difference.

I think there are quite often little details of the stories that aren't described in the text and we're most likely meant to imagine them for ourselves — given what's just happened, and the meaningfulness and emotion of Aslan's speech as he explains why Reepicheep and his followers have "conquered" him, I doubt we're meant to think that after restoring the Mouse's tail, Aslan moved straight on to other business without actually giving Reepicheep any chance to say thank you. It's years since I last watched the BBC TV adaptation (which didn't do Prince Caspian very well in general) and I don't quite remember this part of it, and I haven't seen the Walden film, so those aren't a direct influence on how I think of this scene. But the way I see it playing in my head as I read the book, Reepicheep looks down as Aslan says "you shall have your tail again" and sees his tail reappearing — then he looks up at Aslan and simply bows deeply, too full of awe and gratitude to say anything. Which is an easy "in-universe" explanation for why he's not quoted as saying anything in the book! And really, it's a moment where no more words need to be said, and Aslan of course would understand that. Then (in my mental picture) Reepicheep simply steps back respectfully and lets Aslan go on with having Peter bestow the Order of the Lion on Caspian and so on.

Perhaps Lewis assumed we as the audience would imagine the details of that scene for ourselves and it would be too heavy-handed for him to spend time describing it — or perhaps he didn't stop to think that some readers might have liked to linger on it for a bit longer! But that's how I fill it in for myself when reading it, which is perhaps why I don't take so much notice of the fact that Lewis doesn't describe it in words.

There are a few other parts of the books like that. The one that springs to mind for me is in LWW, where the Witch discovers the little Christmas dinner party, and when the revellers tell her that Father Christmas gave them these things, she turns them into stone. It's an important moment for Edmund's character development, because we're told that he "for the first time in this story felt sorry for someone besides himself." But Lewis goes on to add — implicitly describing Edmund's growing feelings of compassion — "It seemed so pitiful to think of those little stone figures sitting there all the silent days and all the dark nights, year after year, until the moss grew on them and at last even their faces crumbled away." Which is a great contrast for the same boy who, only the previous night, drew glasses and a moustache on a stone lion and mocked it, but it leaves us with the impression that those "little stone figures" at their dinner party really will be left there forever until they crumble away — and they're never mentioned again, so we never find out what happened to them.

I read somewhere (I think it's in one of my Narnia books that are still back in my family's home in Australia!) that Lewis received a lot of letters from young readers wanting to know what happened to those stone creatures, and he assured them that Aslan brought them to life again. He actually wrote somewhere, perhaps in one of his letters — I'm paraphrasing, as I don't have the actual quote — "I thought readers would naturally assume that Aslan put them right again. I see now I should have said so." He did say shortly before his death that he'd like to bring out a second edition of the Chronicles, with some edits to things he was aware of that didn't quite add up, so that's possibly one thing he would have addressed, making it clear somewhere that Aslan did find and restore that little group at the dinner party. 

If I were directing a new screen adaptation of LWW, that's something I would definitely address. Since the dinner party was somewhere along the way from the Witch's house to the Stone Table, I would make it that as Aslan and the girls are leading their army of former statues from the Witch's house — after Aslan has brought them all back to life — then along the way, they pass that group of stone creatures, and Aslan stops the march for a moment and breathes on them as well. So we see them all coming to life, crying out with delight when they see Aslan there, and happily joining the throng as they head for the final battle with the Witch. Again, little or no extra dialogue necessary if it's done well.

Wow, what a long and thoughtful response! Thank you so much! 

I agree that the fate of dinner party should have been addressed, especially since it’s an important moment in Edmund’s character development. But I have heard about Lewis receiving letters about it. I didn’t know he planned to revise the series, though. That’s cool!

Posted by: @col-klink

Posted by: @nicemice2023

And I’m so, so sorry if it sounded like I thought you were coming across as cold for agreeing with the text.

Well, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was criticizing you for using the word, cold. There are certainly different ways readers can interpret the scene and I don't think yours is "wrong" per se. It's interesting to read the different takes on it in fan forums like this.

No, no, not at all. I’m sorry if I made it sound like I was associating the word with you. You didn’t do anything wrong.

Posted by: @nicemice2023

I didn’t know he planned to revise the series, though. That’s cool!

I've seen it mentioned in more than one place that near the end of his life, Lewis gave an interview to Kaye Webb, the then editor of Puffin Books (the children's division of Penguin), who was planning to bring out the Chronicles of Narnia in paperback for the first time. Lewis apparently remarked to her that he was aware of some inconsistencies and loose ends within the books and he'd like to make some revisions to the texts for the new editions. But he didn't go into any details, and unfortunately he passed away shortly afterwards — I think I read somewhere that his death was only two days after that interview, but I'm not sure if that's accurate — and so we'll never know what changes he was thinking of making!! It's kind of fun and frustrating, at the same time, to wonder...

I wish I could find where the reference to that interview is, but I've read so many books on Narnia and Lewis that they start to blur into each other a bit — and as I said, some of my books are over the other side of the world, which doesn't help! (I grew up in Australia and now live in northern England.) If I ever do find it, though, I'll quote it properly.

Posted by: @courtenay

I've seen it mentioned in more than one place that near the end of his life, Lewis gave an interview to Kaye Webb, the then editor of Puffin Books (the children's division of Penguin), who was planning to bring out the Chronicles of Narnia in paperback for the first time. Lewis apparently remarked to her that he was aware of some inconsistencies and loose ends within the books and he'd like to make some revisions to the texts for the new editions. But he didn't go into any details, and unfortunately he passed away shortly afterwards — I think I read somewhere that his death was only two days after that interview, but I'm not sure if that's accurate — and so we'll never know what changes he was thinking of making!! It's kind of fun and frustrating, at the same time, to wonder...

I have found a reference to that interview in one of my books - Green and Hooper's biography of C.S. Lewis, on the second last page of the book (page 307 in my copy, which I've made sure to have around now).

Posted by: Green & Hooper

His last visitor was Kaye Webb, editor of Puffin Books in which The Chronicles of Narnia were appearing. 'We had a nice talk on Wednesday,' she wrote to Green, who had arranged the meeting. 'What a very great and dear man. How I wish I'd had a chance to know him well, but how grateful I am that you "introduced" us to each other. He promised to re-edit the books (connect the things that didn't tie up) and he asked me to come again ...'

That Wednesday was indeed two days before his death. He died on Friday 22 November.

We don't know whether he had done any thinking about how he would make those revisions, or whether he was only aware that they were needed. But it seems that he had at least thought about where those 'inconsistencies and loose ends' were, so he could promise to work on them - perhaps he meant to discuss the details with her in a later meeting?

We will indeed never know - and I agree that it's fun and frustrating to wonder ...

Oh thanks, @varna ! I had seen that conversation with Kaye Webb referred to in at least one of my other books, but didn't have the original quote — which I now know is in Green and Hooper — so that's great to know and nice to confirm I was remembering it correctly, even down to it being only two days before Lewis's death.

Yes, it is fascinating to wonder whether he had planned out any specific changes or was just generally aware there were some elements of the books that could possibly do with revising. I expect he'd at least taken note of things that young (and maybe not-so-young) fans had asked him about, like the fate of the stone dinner party. It's nice to know that he did keep on thinking about the Narnia books well after he'd written them and was clearly willing to take up suggestions for improvements, rather than getting defensive when anyone pointed out "things that didn't tie up"!

I think I would be more forgiving of Lewis’s mistakes than other authors.  If he stereotyped people of certain races such as certain characters in The Horse and His Boy he also balanced them with good people such as Emeth. He was living at a time when other authors had many more flaws in their characters. His portrayals were not so biased as those of Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was not such a talented author as Lewis. I think Lewis made fewer mistakes as an author than many other writers of his time. It doesn’t seem necessary to criticize him for much. I wonder if his critics like Phillip Pullman were jealous of Lewis’ achievements and popularity.  I don’t think Pullman’s books are loved as much as Lewis’s Narnia.

Like others here, I don't think I could fairly describe any part of the Narnia books as "poorly-written", but there are occasional oddities in them that bug me a bit (never to the point of spoiling the enjoyment of reading them, though!), and I've just thought of another, from The Magician's Nephew, at the start of the second-last chapter, "The Planting of the Tree" (emphasis added):

"Well done, son of Adam," said the Lion again. "For this fruit you have hungered and thirsted and wept...."

Ummm... well... in fact, Digory's quest for the fruit lasted less than two full days; there was no great physical hardship for him or Polly, as they were riding on Fledge all the way; they certainly were hungry by the end of the first day, but they had Polly's toffees, which were "a poor meal" but "better than nothing", and the next day they found the piece they'd planted had grown into a toffee tree with delicious fruits; they had a mountain river to drink from as well as bathe in; and as for "wept" — well, Digory's encounter with Jadis in the garden was probably one of the most emotionally wrenching conversations of his life, but he didn't literally weep, as in cry actual tears, during it as far as we're told. So, going by what actually happened, for Aslan to describe Digory as having "hungered and thirsted and wept" for the apple is... a bit of an exaggeration, at least.