Hmm, yes, I don't think Lewis was out to get dark haired people. Sure, he might have been influenced by what was around him but I don't think, by principle, that fair-haired Narnians = good and dark-haired Narnians = bad. (you presented many examples, wagga) I definitely do not think that Lewis was trying to propagate anything. The things I noticed in HHB were not so much the hair, but other minor things here and there, where I understood a little of what PhelanVelvel said. (I'll have to reread the books to give the details of what those are)

So I think there's less racism in Lewis' books than some people think.

That's what I think, too. I don't feel uncomfortable reading them at all, and I feel like the characters are unique people with relatable character development. That one reason for what I enjoy the books for.
Wagga, I appreciated your point of view. Thank-you for sharing it.

It didn't seem to be until the 1980's or 1990's and thanks to Phillip Pullman, who wrote his anti-Narnia trilogy (Golden Compass, Subtle knife and Amber Spyglass) that C.S.Lewis books were considered religious propaganda. Before that point, the Chronicles of Narnia were considered by and large just another fantasy series about the struggle between good and evil.

Huh, interesting. I never considered that.

Do you know, I've more than an inkling that maybe if C.S.Lewis had portrayed Calormen otherwise than he did, he would have been considerably more offensive than he was to the primarily English-speaking readers he wrote for. Where in the world do you have only one traffic law: that those who are less important should get out of the road of those more important? Is that really only a feature of India, Arabia or Ottoman Turkey? Somehow I think not. Plenty of other places, some of them European, might say the same. Could it be that particular traffic rule at times is just as applicable to uptown New York, Paris or Old Sydney Town?

Thank-you for saying that. When I was referring to Calormen, I wasn't talking about the systems such as the ones you mentioned above. (like you said, Aravis left for many reasons) I more meant the way some things were initially portrayed, not necessarily the evils portrayed. Exactly like you said, evils are the same in every country. Prejudice is in every society, though the objects of it and reasons to justify it differ. I believe that and thank you for explaining it very concisely. I was mostly addressing how the overall culture of the Calormenes was portrayed, and many things about it, I feel, were done well (like Aravis' storytelling, like I had mentioned above) and certain dress and grandeur. (Lasarleen's entourage, etc) And I think that Lewis depicted Emeth very poignantly, as well.
Yes, as far as slave trade and prejudice went; indeed, that penetrated and applies to every society. The White Witch, Miraz, Tash - they are some of the most active oppressors. I don't think that villainy was exclusive to any one group in Narnia.

I disagree that Tolkien was 'more mature'.
[...]

Tolkien, whose works have endured somewhat less scrutiny than those of Lewis, felt that Lewis threw his works together, with bits of this and that. Whereas Tolkien created a whole world separate from the real one. By contrast, Lewis' four Pevensie children, their friends, relatives and fellow Narnia visitors are very much part of this world. Which happens to be England during the WW2 evacuations and subsequently. Since Lewis died in 1963, I don't think it is fair to judge him by civil rights movements which had not taken place prior to his death.

I think, in your post, you expanded on why I expressed the "maturity" thing about Tolkien. I admit I said that as a hypothesis of mine with very little intentional research but based on some things I had seen here and there; it was mostly that Tolkien spent his whole life on certain things and also, lived into the 70's (where as Lewis died in 1963), and so I think Tolkien was able to avoid some mistakes that, not only Lewis, but also many writers of that period fell to. I should note that I am no Tolkien expert (haven't even read the whole LotR. ) I should have stated that before saying the maturity thing. Like I said, when forced to choose between Tolkien and Lewis, I do choose Lewis.
Ah, that is another good point - Lewis used the real world, where as Tolkien created his own world (offering considerably more flexibility) and also what you mentioned about living through the civil rights.

Thank you for your lovely post, AslanistheBest.

It could just be what Lewis fancied, I suppose. I know that in HHB it's a way to show that Shasta is an outsider and stuff, but the way it was done, the way Anradin calls the Narnians "beautiful but accursed" (as if their particular features, whiteness and blondness, make them beautiful and Anradin is jealous), just stuck out to me as somewhat prejudiced. Why didn't he just call them accursed, or even insult their white skin?

Anradin was the guy who dyed his beard crimson, a particularly unsuitable shade of red for human use. I could get away with a blue-rinse, being of that age group, but if I went down the road with hair coloured green or purple I'd look a bit unusual, too. I doubt that Anradin would comment about white skin unless the white skin was really out of the ordinary, as with the White Witch. On the other hand, C.S.Lewis does comment about the Duke of Galma's daughter having freckles and a squint and also about Caspian's Aunt Prunaprismia who had ginger hair. Not to mention a ginger cat that misbehaves in Last Battle.

The emphasizing of the Narnians' fair hair in Calormen I guess is done to point out their Northernness as much as anything else. I'm Norwegian, and we're supposed to be blonde Vikings, aren't we?* The Northern "barbarians", as the Calormenes often named the Narnians, would be seen a bit similar

Yes you are absolutely right. And those Vikings were considered barbarians when post Roman Britain became "England", back before 1066, Hastings and the battle of Stamford Bridge, weren't they? But I'd better get back to the books.

What made the Narnians beautiful, in my opinion, was living naturally and without too much worry. That is also why the Calormenes regarded them as 'accursed', since, like many first peoples, they did not have the 'advantages' of a highly bureaucratic, militaristic, competitive and hierarchical sort of society like Calormen.

Oddly enough, in 1788 and subsequently, Watkin Tench, a British officer who explored the Sydney area, was wont to say similar things in his diary about the local Dharuk people. For instance, he said he saw no evidence that they had laws or religious beliefs, and yet Aboriginal groups like the Dharuks most definitely did have laws and religious beliefs. Instead of using pen and paper, they shared that sort of information around by dreamtime stories and rock paintings. Apparently the Dharuk idea of tribal lands, land use and fishing permits were starkly different from those of the white people who settled in 1788. And so Aboriginal and British people got off to a bad start when British people thought it was okay to poach game without so much as an if you please to native elders, and without sharing the proceeds with the Dharuks, which was their tribal law.

That is one reason why I think that if C.S.Lewis had made Calormene society a highly Europeanised culture, HHB would be somewhat more uncomfortable reading than it seems to have been to modern day literary critics.

And even as a child I could not help noticing that Nikabrik and Griffle, both black-haired dwarfs, end up being traitors! I'm telling you, he has it out for us dark-haired people! Between that, and wolves being enemies in LWW as well as the mention of a traitor wolf in The Last Battle, this dark-haired wolf therian felt very bewildered!

I was watching a program about Wales, which has a strong and long-standing connection with mining, especially of coal. It interested us, since that is also my husband's Scottish family background. Not unlike those Narnian dwarves. There was also a similar breakdown between the more extremist 'black' coal-mining Welsh and the more rural 'red' Welsh. The so-called 'black' dwarves said they were well-treated under the White Witch who would find them very useful indeed. Any state would. Hence her preference for these undeniably hard-working dwarves. After the White Witch was overthrown they were no different from any other dwarves. Are we told what sort of dwarves Rogin, Duffle and Bricklethumb were in HHB? When Caspian met Nikabrik the latter was embittered by years of ill-treatment, hiding from the Telmarines and Miraz, in particular.

And so, when his hopes in Caspian didn't materialise immediately, he turned to the sort of people who hung about with the White Witch, seeing her as a real power. Caspian, Dr Cornelius, himself a half-dwarf, and Trumpkin were horrified by this, as unlike Nikabrik, they could see that exchanging Miraz's tyranny for that of the White Witch was no solution. That is like changing one bully for another.

Griffle was not necessarily a bad dwarf, either. He was well aware he had been lied to, and so he was so afraid of being taken in that he could no longer appreciate what was good and what wasn't. You might say the 'black' and 'red' dwarves represent two different shades of opinion: Black and white versus well-read and informed.

Seems to me reminiscent of something you see today, sometimes people of one race wanting to emulate characteristics of another, even if there is some contempt by the emulator toward the emulated

.

The sort of contempt you mention is probably typical of racism, I agree. Racism has been around for centuries in many societies whenever there has been conflict and rivalry, plus people who are vain and arrogant for one reason or another, and however such an opinion is justified. Darwin visited Australia in 1835, in his great voyage in the Beagle. His findings explain a good deal about why Australia has such a hugely different flora and fauna from anywhere else. Some rejected the implications of his findings when he published them, but that did not stop those people engaging in slavery, or treating badly those people whom they regarded their inferiors. It took people like William Wilberforce in UK and Abraham Lincoln in USA for slavery to be abolished, for instance.

Others thought that Darwin was 'onto' something, and so some people engaged in science and medicine in the late 19th century thought it was okay to seek out characteristics that 'proved' how less 'evolved' people from Asia or Africa were. Thus medicine and science as practised by some colonial powers became tainted with prejudice, despite the undoubted gains made against disease. Such unethical behaviour also heralded the atrocities of WW2 under the Nazis and explains the dislike shown to such colonial powers, especially after the war. I also think that at the time of WW2 that even people on the Allied side of WW2 did not really appreciate what exactly they were fighting for, apart from everyone's survival, until events like the trial of Eichmann in 1962, or the USA civil rights movement in 1964 and subsequently, opened their eyes.

HHB is my favourite Narnian story. I do not accept that C.S.Lewis was intending to be racist in his depiction of Calormen, whatever any of his critics say. I don't think it is racist to dislike HHB characters like Anradin, Arsheesh or the Tisroc. Or Shift, Rishda and Ginger in LB.

Trust me, I'm on your side! I'm the last person to cry racism for no reason, I think the word is thrown around far too often nowadays. I should have clarified better in my first post. I don't honestly know whether he was racist or not, because I can't get inside his head and find out. I don't know what he thought, unfortunately. However, to me, it did not seem that he had racist intent. I do think he was subconsciously influenced by certain ideas floating around during that time, but I don't think he was trying to be hateful.

Nowadays, however, people read it and interpret it as racist more easily because of the world we live in now. Today, the idea of "well this nation is generally evil and militaristic and they happen to be dark-skinned" kind of sticks out badly among all the "politically correct" stuff you typically see. I don't think that makes Lewis racist, I just think it seems racist to a lot of people. Even though there is Aravis and Emeth, I think some people still kind of see it as "Okay...so 98% of the good guys are white...and there's a whole nation full of dark-skinned people..." Because they aren't getting into the story enough to see that it's not really like that. Frankly, the fact that Lewis actually made Aravis a hero is pretty forward-thinking of him, isn't it? How many white authors of the 1950's had genuinely heroic characters who weren't white?

A lot of people are probably used to a cast of characters having people of diverse skin colours, races, cultures, etc., so getting into this book series may come as a shock. It just comes off as "Here are the white English heroes...oh yeah there are also Calormenes, they're like arabs and they're bad." It's a lot for some people to accept. I also see it as "This kingdom just so happens to be full of bad guys, has nothing to do with what they resemble culturally." But putting all in one paragraph that they have "dark faces and long beards" and also "they wear robes and turbans" and also "wise, wealthy, courteous, and cruel", and then on top of it we learn that they're in the slave trade... I'm just saying, read that given the current cultural climate, and it's kind of...questionable, at least for someone who isn't familiar with Lewis or the stories. I wouldn't throw a book away over something like that, but there are people who would just be too busy being offended to research it. Even if there are things elsewhere in the series, and details and things that are obvious if you take a close look, that's not what a lot of the "Narnia-haters" are seeing. They're just seeing one basic idea: dark-skinned people are the bad guys.

Never knew that bit about the coal-miners in Wales...that's interesting. I wonder if he was alluding to that with the dwarf pairs?

No, I didn't know that about Wales either before watching that particular program, which went into considerable depth about Welsh history at the hands of their English neighbours, including an explanation about a Welsh nationalistic group called Rebekah's daughters whose activities were very much in tune with the dwarvish mantra "The Dwarves are for the Dwarves". In the LB description of Griffle's dwarves are we told which of them were red or black, by the way?

And, come to think about it, I could see Griffle, Trumpkin, and even Nikabrik, as representing the proletariat in the Narnian scheme of things, and maybe Lewis' best way of showing shades of opinion, rather than identifiable sociological traits like hair colour, which for people of Celtic origin can be anything, whether black, brown or ginger, the last of which are particularly prone to getting sunburn, melanomas and freckles, which is why they would be associated with cold, cloudy climates and less exposure to sunlight as in the North.

Today I was browsing the Internet and found this interesting item on the BBC, which was discussing the fashion in beards in Egypt, where it seems that some men also dye their beards like Anradin did in various shades of red. Ouch, after all I said about Anradin! But I didn't know that either before today! And, because the men wearing such beards were likely either children or even not born yet in 1963, I'd be very amazed if C.S.Lewis had the sort of knowledge about the nuances of wearing beards as the author of this article obviously has. Lewis had rather a busy life in the 1950's, looking after his dying wife, Joy Gresham, who, before he married her, had been Jewish by upbringing and in her first marriage. After her death he also suffered from ill-health.

Nowadays, however, people read it and interpret it as racist more easily because of the world we live in now. Today, the idea of "well this nation is generally evil and militaristic and they happen to be dark-skinned" kind of sticks out badly among all the "politically correct" stuff you typically see.

I can only reply to what you say in terms of World War II and its aftermath, since that was the era which influenced both Lewis and Tolkien and much of that generation of British children's writers. World War II was a deeply racist war, where the German army represented a loathesome ideology, held by the Nazis which called for the extermination, especially of Jews but also many others, including Poles, Russians and Gypsies. I agree that there is a sore point about a fair-haired, fair-skinned Nordic look because of the Nazis, but how many of the leaders of this organisation actually conformed to it, themselves? Hardly any, if you look at old pictures.

But it would be just as racist to tar everyone or even every country who fought on the Axis side in WW2 as racist or as evil as those Nazis were. Hungarians, who speak a language unrelated to most European languages, fought on the German side in the hopes they would regain some of the territory they lost after WW1. Until they were themselves taken over by Germany, they did not transport their Jewish citizens to Auschwitz. Finland, who did rather better in that regard, as far as I know, and who speak a language related to Hungarian and not at all to German, Polish or Italian, fought on Germany's side because they had been attacked by the USSR. The Finns, like the Poles the Germans wanted to get rid of, are just as likely to be as fair-haired and have milky skin as any Norwegian, whilst over in Norway, occupied by the Germans, and whose citizens were, according to the Nazis, the epitome of being Nordic, can be dark-haired as Varnafinde already mentioned a few posts previously.

The trouble is, that any army can be evil, depending on the purpose of the military action, who is the aggressor and who is being victimised by it, and why. Just 'happening' to be dark-skinned or dark haired is rather irrelevant to whether an army is evil or not. Just as being terrorised by a bunch of skinhead Neo-Nazis doesn't make that bunch of people good because of the lack of dark hair. There were some excellent Afro-American G.I's who served in the US army in Europe and there were also Aborigines who served in the Australian army in both World Wars.

I don't think that makes Lewis racist, I just think it seems racist to a lot of people. Even though there is Aravis and Emeth, I think some people still kind of see it as "Okay...so 98% of the good guys are white...and there's a whole nation full of dark-skinned people..." Because they aren't getting into the story enough to see that it's not really like that. Frankly, the fact that Lewis actually made Aravis a hero is pretty forward-thinking of him, isn't it? How many white authors of the 1950's had genuinely heroic characters who weren't white?

Actually there were quite a few, including Harper Lee's To kill a Mocking Bird, or even Ian Serrallier's The Silver Sword, where an Afro-American GI helps some children escaping from Poland and journeying through Germany to reach Switzerland after WW2. But that is just the point of those books; the characters were only dark-skinned where they were dealing with issues relevant to the story. And in the 1950's, when C.S.Lewis wrote the Narnia series, it was probably less common to have British citizens from Jamaica or Nigeria than is the case now.

It just comes off as "Here are the white English heroes...oh yeah there are also Calormenes, they're like arabs and they're bad." It's a lot for some people to accept. I also see it as "This kingdom just so happens to be full of bad guys, has nothing to do with what they resemble culturally." But putting all in one paragraph that they have "dark faces and long beards" and also "they wear robes and turbans" and also "wise, wealthy, courteous, and cruel", and then on top of it we learn that they're in the slave trade...

Well, Saudi Arabia, which, like the next door state of United Arab Emirates, could be described as wealthy to this day, didn't sign the UN anti-slavery conventions until 1965. So that, too, is an unfair criticism of C.S.Lewis, especially as that particular description, even if it was true at the time is not true now. Especially as people in the Arab world can be just as fair-skinned and fair-haired as any British born person. You can't judge literature anachronistically.

And I would not describe even the Calormenes as automatically "bad guys" from the HHB descriptions you quoted. Would you have said that Aravis' maid was a "bad guy"? The secretary who helped Aravis, or Lazaraleen? Of her step-mother? Her father, brother and cousin? The people in the Tashbaan crowd, who behaved just like people everywhere do when caught in a crowd at a parade?

Do you think that people would jump to the same sorts of conclusions you refer to if Lewis had described Calormen in the same paragraph as having pale faces and bristling moustaches, and also wear blue coloured trousers and tall hats with enormous brims (not to mention those hysterically high heeled boots?) And also "wise, wealthy, courteous, and cruel"? Or would they be more upset if instead of "wise, wealthy, courteous, and cruel", the description ran to foolish, dirt poor, rude and just as "cruel"?

Yes, the men could sound dreary according to Shasta, but he saw them as like Arsheesh, whom Shasta found he could not love as a father as he should have done, and who was in the habit of beating him. To assume the Narnia-haters are justified by what you say, shows they have only given the novels a cursory, inaccurate, and maybe a second-hand view of them.

I could offer another criticism of the Chronicles of Narnia which is more to the point, more likely to come from an adult point of view, and which I read a couple of years ago. The reviewer of VDT said he could have done without the doings of a bunch of English toffs or a lion-delivered sermon. Given the "current cultural climate" I strongly suspect that at least some Narnia-haters who make such accusations might also be anti-monarchist and anti the original British, basing their opinions accordingly.

To assume what you say is cursory, inaccurate, and a bad reading of the novels.

That's exactly what I mean. Some people just read two sentences about the Calormenes and are like "Wow, that's racist." Done. That's all the chance they give it, in their mind now it's a racist book. I don't think it's fair, but going along with what you said, if they're already kind of put off by the main characters being white and British, they're going to find those initial descriptions of the Calormenes more glaring. I think HHB would be the best book to read to NOT get the impression that it's racist, because of the different Calormene characters we are exposed to, and how the government and aristocracy there works.

I certainly agree with DawnTreader07. Anything with true Christianity receives criticism. It's sad but true.

The people and friends I talk to don't hate Narnia itself it's just that they don't like fantasy films or they lost interest in it. I've never seen or heard someone say that they hated Narnia.

At the risk of being controversial, I wonder whether one reason why some people hate Narnia is because of some Christians' attitude: they (the Christians) see the stories as a "marvellous opportunity to evangelise, especially to children", and really shove the Christian message down people's throats, instead of letting people just read them and make up their own minds. I first read the books when I was 6 but I didn't make any connection to Christianity until I was at university and I started reading his books for adults such as "The Great Divorce". If some Christian had "pounced" on me after spotting me read the books when I was little, it could well have put me off Christianity for life.

Fair point. But I've also met Christians who disapprove of the Narnia stories. Though I think this was more common when I was a youngster, myself. Another reason is the Narnia stories' emphasis on Kings and Queens. Yes this was part of the medieval period of European history, but today the very concept of monarchies seems to be associated with elitism and privilege rather more so than when I first read the Narnia stories.

That's a good point, King_Erlian, although I have never come across anyone before who has used the Narnia stories as platforms to "shove the Christian message down people's throats". But there may very well be people like that and I could see how that could turn a person away from Christianity. No one likes something forced upon them.

I find it interesting that you didn't make the connection with the Narnia stories to Christianity until years after you had read them. It also interests me that the way you made that connection was by reading other books by Lewis like The Great Divorce.

I once had a friend who knew someone who had a similar experience with the Narnia stories as you had (not making the connection between the Chronicles and Christianity right away)—but my friend said that this person had grown up in a Christian home. This puzzled both my friend and I, for while The Chronicles of Narnia do not point overtly to Christianity, there are numerous parallels between the two.

And perhaps that is why some people dislike the Narnia stories: they are too close to the Christian message. And the Christian message points to us submitting to Christ as God—who is a power far beyond mankind—and since humans generally want to be in control and not have anyone be 'above' them, then this concept of a higher being far more powerful than they are, requiring submission, scares some people and repels them from both Christianity and Lewis' Narnia stories. And hence, in my opinion, there are two types of people who like the Narnia books: those who see the deeper spiritual meaning of the stories, being humble enough to admit that there is a God over them, and those who simply enjoy the books as pure works of fantasy, not having made the connection between the tales and Christianity yet.

I don't know too many people who hate Narnia, but most people I know are pretty apathetic to it. I think there are three main reasons for that.

One is that most people have only heard of LWW. Because of that, they never get a chance to read the other books in the series, and experience the overall story as a whole.

The second reason is that LWW - like Charlotte's Web, Matilda, Wind in the Willows, etc. - is one of those books that most people view as a simple children's storybook. And although good children's storybooks should be just as good when you're an adult, a lot of people don't look at it that way. When they reach a certain age, they start reading things only for their own age group. Or they simply get interested in new things, and the stories they read long ago get forgotten.

Thirdly, people who like Narnia are going to be in the minority because, sadly, avid readers are the minority to begin with. Bookworms, and people who love sci-fi and fantasy, have been stereotyped as "social outcasts" for a long time. Most people will think it's "uncool" to be interested in that sort of thing (especially to the level we're interested in it), or they are just more interested in other things. Kids play sports and video games, teens go to the mall and to parties, adults are wrapped up in their careers, etc., and stories of adventures in magical lands just don't hold any place in their lives.

~Riella

One is that most people have only heard of LWW. Because of that, they never get a chance to read the other books in the series, and experience the overall story as a whole.

The second reason is that LWW - like Charlotte's Web, Matilda, Wind in the Willows, etc. - is one of those books that most people view as a simple children's storybook. And although good children's storybooks should be just as good when you're an adult, a lot of people don't look at it that way. When they reach a certain age, they start reading things only for their own age group. Or they simply get interested in new things, and the stories they read long ago get forgotten.

Or is it that when those people who do condescend to read, they prefer to read things about the current era, and the realities of the 21st century? The books you mention can all be considered children's classics, and Ithilwen, you are right to say most people are familiar with LWW but not the other six books. But even if people did go and read those other six books, there would still be this sense of something most people are familiar with, that people have seen at school, and that at least some of these books come from an era that thanks to TV programs like Hogan's Heroes, Dad's Army, and 'Allo, 'Allo, or endless footage of WW2 battles, that the mid 20th century has been 'done to death'.

In 1997, we were hit with the HP series, which was credited with getting people to read again. However, this was a series, that, although still conservative to some degree, was also addressing more contemporary thinking, from 1980 to 1997, a time that many of us would still remember.

I only met one person in my life who actually hated Narnia, and well...he was kind of special. The reason why he hated Narnia was because it made you believe that Narnia existed when it actually didn't. He said that when he was a kid he actually believed that Narnia existed, and when he was older and realized that Narnia didn't exist, he started to hate it.
Everyone else I met, while maybe didn't LOVE Narnia, but agreed it was a great book and broght them back many happy memories.
I don't know what it's like in different countries, but here in Russia people read quite a bit. So here bookworms are not considered "social outcasts". So I've met a lot of people who read Narnia and liked it. The only reason why some people didn't like it was because of a bad translation (there are several, and one of them is horrible). But overall everyone agrees that it's a great series with great stories

I hope it's okay to pull this up, because I've wanted to respond to it since I first started reading the boards a couple of months ago. (I had to wait to register because I was moving and only using my Ipad for the internet and I couldn't get my email to work for registration). But I found a response to this that I knew you guys would love.

My grandmother was a devout Christian and I figured she would love the Narnia stories because of all the symbolism, but she never liked reading. So when LWW came out on DVD in 2006, I was so excited to finally bring it over to her place and show her after all the years I'd talked about it. She ended up not really being crazy about it, and I asked her way, thinking it was because of the violence or maybe the magic elements (she grew up in the generation that really frowned on that in Christian novels). She was fine with that because she knew C.S. Lewis was a Christian and she didn't think the movies were that violent, at least compared to Lord of The Rings. What she didn't like was that the animals talked, because she said that wasn't realistic.

I pointed out she loved all the Disney movies like Bambi, with talking animals. And one of her all-time favorite characters was Garfield, a talking cat. She said those were okay because they were animated, but it just looked too unnatural seeing real live-action animals and it creeped her out.

Everyone will always have differing of opinions. In our day and age stories of great battles and knights and magicians and talking animals seems for children. It feels like today, every video game, movie, and story has fast paced action the whole way. With rarely any theological or deep storytelling woven in to the story. In my experience with family and friends they never gave the books or the movies even a chance.