@coracle 

I don’t hate The Horse and His Boy, but it isn’t my favorite either.  I remember that it was one of the first Narnia books read to me in elementary school.  I remember that when I read the story for the C. S. Lewis course in college I was just tired of it.  Calormen was such a dreary place.  The beginning of the story was quite interesting with Shasta’s running away with Bree, but getting further into it I didn’t care as much for it.  I actually liked the humor with Lasaraleen and her silliness was enjoyable, but that was all there was to it (not much depth to her). For me it was somewhat of a desert of a book (no pun intended).  🙂

Posted by: @narnian78

In The Horse and His Boy I disliked the city of Tashban (sic)....I thought C. S. Lewis had created a city which had almost nothing good in it at all.

I think the descriptions of the city were really cool. It sounded like a great place to tour with all the giant buildings and canals and fruit trees...as long as you're not sneaking through a crowded market in disguise. 

I don't really see how Calormen and the Calormenes are more unpleasant than the other bad guys in Narnia. I mean what redeeming point does the White Witch have? Or Miraz and the Telmarines? (Technically, Lewis does portray a lot more Telmarines sympathetically than Calormenes, but that's mostly because of plot purposes. Unlike the Calormenes who have their own country, the Telmarines had taken over Narnia and the author didn't want to end the story with the Narnians committing genocide. The tone describing them isn't that different from the descriptions of the Calormenes.) 

Posted by: @narnian78

I find that the darkness in the story does not work as well for me as it does in The Silver Chair. In that book there are no stereotyped villains like the Tisroc and the Grand Vizier

You mean like a stereotypical beautiful evil sorceress or stereotypical man eating giants?  

Posted by: @narnian78

The good vs. evil conflict (in The Silver Chair) is more realistic and complex (than in The Horse and his Boy.)

I don't see that at all. If anything, I'd HHB is more complex as culture is implied to have played a large part in making the antagonists evil. (I actually did a topic in this forum arguing that Ahoshta is a potentially more complex baddie than you'd think.) The Lady of the Green Kirtle is just evil because she's the villain. (Though, arguably, the giants of Harfang are also the product of a wicked culture.) 

BTW, I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to browbeat anyone into liking The Horse and his Boy (or The Silver Chair if  you prefer darker reading material.) I just thinking it's really interesting how some books strike people as being dark while not striking other people that way at all. (I'd love it if someone were to argue against my points about SC being darker than the average Narnia book.) I feel that it's good to backup your points when you're debating about art with someone, but in my internet experience, some people get offended when you do that. They feel like that's bullying. I really don't get the etiquette at all. IMO disagreeing with people and not explaining why is what's rude.

I agree 200% that it's The Silver Chair. As an adult, in retrospect, Jill is a VERY hard-put upon heroine. She isn't one of the favored ones like Susan and Lucy (she wasn't a Queen) and she doesn't have the prestige of being in Narnia at its beginning, like Polly. She experiences mostly the bad parts of being in an adventure -- the cold, hunger, physical exhaustion, danger. I think Lewis did this deliberately, to contrast with the earlier books. There's even a bit at the beginning where Jill is sitting all nice and cozy in her room at the palace, watching the sunset through the window, daydreaming of adventure, when she is yanked to reality by the arrival of the owl.

I guess I had always thought that The Silver Chair was the second darkest so when I saw this thread it really resonated! I didn't realize other people thought about what the second darkest was as well.  I'm honestly not sure I could rank anything beyond that though.  THAHB has more of the political intrigue and feels more complex in some ways but I never felt that it was 'dark'.  It had it's moments, as did all seven books, but the overall tone felt more adventurous. 

I do wonder at Lewis and how he portrayed Jill and her non-friendship with Eustace.  We even see some of the faults from VoDT rearing up in Eustace.  They are obviously smoothed over and his heart is much better than it was in the previous installment but in the hardships, some of the old habits did come back.  It's more realistic but feels differently from how Edmund was treated, for instance.  I guess you can't blame the children for having walls put up due to the nature of their school and how most of their peers would treat them.  It's sort of "I'll get you before you can get me" even with their allies. You don't really aspire to be these characters until you see them in TLB where they have blossomed more.  Most of the Narnia books seem to be about the glory of adventure and this one is more focused on when the fight is more wearisome than anything and you need to develop perseverance.  Maybe it's what made them the perfect candidates to come back and help Tirian in LB.  How would a Lucy, a Peter or Edmund or Digory or Polly handle the events there?

@col-klink 

I wouldn’t advise skipping The Horse and His Boy when reading Narnia, but it just isn’t my favorite. As for the Lady of the Green Kirtle in The Silver Chair, she is complex enough not to be a stereotype (she is much like the White Witch in LWW).  The giants in Silver Chair are not so much developed as characters, but they aren’t really stereotypes either. They do work as villains.  It’s kind of interesting how the lady giant almost regrets the Autumn Feast  (“It seems like such a pity”).  I’m afraid that Tashbaan was rather boring to me, but maybe it’s because I don’t like noise and congestion. I think Lewis intended it to be a bad place (one to escape from).  I don’t think there are any boring parts in The Silver Chair (even when Lewis takes us through the Underworld he makes a dull place interesting).  I think his writing is better in that book, but maybe it’s because my taste in books is different from yours.  I just like The Silver Chair better. The book always meant more to me (especially with the character of Puddleglum). 🙂

Posted by: @narnian78

As for the Lady of the Green Kirtle in The Silver Chair, she is complex enough not to be a stereotype (she is much like the White Witch in LWW).  The giants in Silver Chair are not so much developed as characters, but they aren’t really stereotypes either.

I don't really see how they aren't stock bad guys. The LOTGK is an archetypal evil enchantress. And the giants are all just as caricatured as the Tisroc and Ahoshta. If anything, they're even more played for laughs. I guess you could say they're nuanced in that some of the giants feel sorry for Jill. 

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with stock, caricatured villains. The antagonists of The Silver Chair are all really well written and there's no way I can see that Lewis could have deepened them without ruining the plot.

Posted by: @narnian78

 I don’t think there are any boring parts in The Silver Chair (even when Lewis takes us through the Underworld he makes a dull place interesting).  I think his writing is better in that book, but maybe it’s because my taste in books is different from yours.  I just like The Silver Chair better. The book always meant more to me (especially with the character of Puddleglum).

Can you explain to me where you're getting the idea that I dislike The Silver Chair? It's true that if I were forced to choose between them, I'd choose The Horse and his Boy. But I believe there's only a very minuscule quality difference. In fact, I believe the differences in the quality of the Narnia books in general are minute. When I describe The Silver Chair as the second darkest book in the series, I mean that as a neutral statement, not as criticism or a praise. The elements that I described as making it "darker" also give it a sort of hardy appeal. Sometimes a relatively dark Narnia book is exactly what I want to read. 

@col-klink

If you say a character is stereotypical it usually is negative description.  It could be taken as a negative criticism of the book if you had not explained further exactly what you meant. This is especially true of an important character like the Lady of the Green Kirtle.  The criticism even if neutral needed further explanation to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. I don’t happen to agree with what you said as I have said before, but at least you have now clarified your views. 

Why are stereotypes, especially when discussing fictional characters, necessarily negative?  "Archetype" may be a stronger word choice but that really is just semantics.  And even though this is a fan forum for CS Lewis and Narnia that doesn't mean the books are above reproach.   I believe critics have often said Lewis' female villains were stereotypes.  I guess it depends if they appeal to you or not.  Appeal?  Archetype!  Not appeal?  Stereotype! 🤣 

I think this is getting a little off track so I am trying to be careful how deeply I pursue this.  I think what adds to the charm and/or darkness of the Narnia stories is the seeming simplicity of the stories and characters.  There is so much room for the imagination to fill in the corners that it animates the characters and locations in a way only possible when your mind as the reader is actively engaged.  We recognize the basics of the characters, such as the Lady of the Green Kirtle, from other evil enchantresses in other stories so we have lots of "experiences" to help bring her to life.  We instantly know the threat she brings to our heroes. This simplicity also allows for more complex themes and ideas to be inserted in a way that is still palatable for kids. The "stereotypical" nature of the Lady of the Green Kirtle lets us jump right into the deep (and dark) idea of losing faith in what is real.  We as the reader know about evil enchantresses and spells so it's not as big a leap to wonder about what is really a big philosophical idea.

Of course, we know Lewis is no "simple" writer.  The simplicity is deceptive. He knows when a few words will work just as well as many.  Rereading the series with my kids has really given me far more appreciation for the genius that is in the pages which many cynical adults skip over.

And, like the arguably even darker LB, SC has the "joy in the morning" sort of ending.  Finding cheer, or as Puddlegrum miserably tries to do, "look at the bright side of things". 

@mrs-smooshy 

I am afraid that they usually are negative because they are based on generalized views of people and things. People will think that something fits a certain mold, which may not be reality. And then one wonders if the truth will be told. I don’t think Lewis would have used very many stereotyped characters since he was a respected author and would have avoided them.  If you want to discuss this further perhaps you should start a “stereotype” thread.  I think this discussion may be getting too far off topic. Anyway, I have now had enough of the subject of stereotypes.

I've read Narnia when I was about ten for the first time. I've fairly recently re-read The Last Battle, and I was surprised how dark and twisted it was, compared to the other books. There's a lot of heavy themes- Life and death, last days, False Aslan affair, Tashlan Conspiracy, manipulation. A lot of dark moments- Calormenes taking over Narnia, Tash in the stable, railway accident.

As for the second darkest book, it's tough to choose. A lot of these have dark moments.