The most shockingly evil character in Narnia

Basilides

Basilides

New member
You think I am going to say it is the White Witch, Jadis. Maybe, in terms of damage done and an icy heart. But that is not shocking. If the White Witch is an allegory for Satan, as she well may be, it is no surprise that she is evil. We expect her to be. It would be strange indeed if she turned out well after all. No, that kind of evil is a constant.

The most shockingly evil character in The Lion, the witch, and the Wardrobe is little Edmund Pevensie, the second-youngest of the siblings. He's a cheat, a liar, a stuck-up envious grumbling prig, a quisling, and worst of all a traitor. When Lucy comes back from her tea with Mr. Tumnus, no one believes her, but it is Edmund who tortures poor Lucy. He brings up the matter constantly over the next few days to cause his sister to squirm. But it gets much worse.
3746993_main.jpg



His own trip did not end with Mr. Tumnus, though, did it? He met the Queen of Narnia, called by some of her detractors "The White Witch", but of course they are only jealous. And would Edmund like a cup of steaming cocoa? And would he like some magical Turkish delight? Please have some. Now, you said you had one brother and two sisters? Four of you, exactly? How nice. Have you been here before? No, but your sister has? Did she meet anyone? A Faun, you say? I think I know a Faun in these parts. I will have to thank him myself. Now, I should like it if you bring your brother and sisters all to my castle the next time you visit, that way between those hills. More Turkish Delight? I'm sorry, but you will have to wait until your next visit. I have rooms full of turkish delight in my Castle. But bring your brother and sisters. I shall be very cross if you do not. What a clever boy you are! In fact, I've been looking for someone to be Prince, who can be King someday after me. Perhaps you would like to? You would? That's wonderful. Oh yes, then you can eat all the turkish delight your heart desires. Good-by, and remember...BRING YOUR BROTHER AND SISTERS!!!!!!!!!!!

0060275162.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg



Lucy meets Edmund on the way back (she had tea again with Mr. Tumnus) and is thrilled that Edmund now has been to Narnia too. When they get back to the other side of the wardrobe, Lucy joyfully tells Peter and Susan that they had bothe been to Narnia. Is it true? they ask Edmund.

And now Edmund does a mean thing. He says that they were only pretending, that it was all made up. And Lucy is devastated.

I'm afraid it gets even worse. When they are all finally in Narnia, Edmund betrays them all to the White Witch. And in so doing, he dooms himself. Jadis will have Edmund's blood, and we all know he deserves it. He's a rat.

You have to keep this in mind, the lengths to which Lewis goes to show the bad heart of Edmund. It is very important. Because Edmund is me. Oh, and you also. Not through and through, mind you. Edmund is the part of us that has been mean to someone.

Hey, most of the lousy stuff you and I have done was because we couldn't help it, or it was a bad time, or we weren't ourselves, or whatever. We have excuses as long as our arm for ...that time. Ot the other thing...or...never mind about that. But even so, when all the excuses have been used up, there is a bit left over for which we have no excuse. A bit where we were selfish, or unfair, or cruel. Maybe, as in my case, more than a bit. And it is this bit that is Edmund, the inexusable, the blackguard in each of us.


But here's the thing.



It was Edmund that Aslan loved enough to die for.
 
Oh, this is so beautiful Basilides! You (like most of the ones who are always writing long posts) have a wonderful gift for words.

I didnt see it this way before! I knew Edmund represented me in general, when Aslan died for him, but now I see, the Edmund person I hated in the story, the villain Edmund.. he is me! It's like a first person account for me now...

Thanks!

Someone once posted here (forgot which thread) that there was a difference between Aslan and the Christ. Jesus died for mankind, but Aslan died for "one" man, the son of Adam.

Well, this puts it into perspective, doesn't it? The son of Adam was really "all of us".

I am glad I read this thread before going to bed...
 
Oh my goodness, Basilides, this is so appropriate. I just received a letter from my sister, who is reading LWW for the first time to get ready for the movie, and she wrote (pardon my french -- she swears like a sailor):

"I hate that Edmund-ass. I was ranting about that f***ing a**hole as he mocked the stone lion when he thought it was Aslan ... then it occurred to me tht Edmund is all of us in the allegory. Don't we all act in ways that insult our Lord every day? I had to admit: I am the person I hate!!"

What an awesome truth, and then for us, who disappoint Him every day, Christ laid down his life ... What a wonder.
 
TOTALLY AGREES!!!!!!
Yesh, i think Edmund is the most evil in LWW
He's a traitor to all of his siblings... :mad:
I've got a qs, is Edmund being controlled by the White Witch?
I mean after he ate the Turkish Delight she gave him..

~m2yu~
 
The turkish delight that he ate gave him the desire for more. That was the motive the white witch gave him to come back to her later, but he had motives of his own, too. I woldn't say he was being controlled by her, but she certainly planted the seeds of greed in him.
 
To me, the Turkish Delight is a superb poetic representation of the effects of habitual sin. The more you do it, the easier it is, the more you want it, and the less it satisfies you!

I understand the basic principle of this thread, but I would like to point out that what Edmund did, he did without full knowledge of what he was doing. Oh, he knew that he was doing something wrong, and did plenty of evil along the way, but he didn't have the scope of understanding that Jadis did. That made her much more culpable than him. It's also why we men are not beyond salvation, while the rebellious spiritual beings are - since they do things with full cognizance of their actions.
 
I agree with the sentiment, but I beg to differ on a bit of semantics. Edmund was not the most evil. He was the biggest sinner. But even as sinners, Aslan/Christ still loves us all and died for those sins to save us.

The White Witch was the greatest evil. She never wavers or approaches salvation in any of the stories, and she is always there ready to return if given the power.
 
Okay, I see where you're coming from. How would you differentiate the "greatest sinner" from the "greatest evil"? I'd say that in all space and time, Satan nee Lucifer is the greatest sinner, and the greatest evil. I'm honestly interested in how you're thinking when you differentiate the two.
 
Humans sin. But can be forgiven, and Jesus died for our sins. Evil is evil. It always is. Edmund is not evil, he is a sinner that strays from his family and from doing what is right by the temptation of Evil. Aslan dies for his sins to save him. Jadis IS evil. She is the greatest evil character in the series. Edmund is saved. Jadis is not, and cannot be saved.

A sinner can sin, yet still be good and be forgiven. Evil is the cause of sin. Jadis is the cause of Edmund's sins, thus she is Evil while Edmund is the sinner.
 
I'd have to get my theologian daughters to weigh in on this one, but I think what you're propounding is the idea that evil has an objective existence in its own right. There are some who say this is so, and others who say no, that evil is parisitic. It is simply the choosing of non-good - the turning away from the good into (ultimately) nothingness. This is sort of like saying there's no such thing as "cold", but rather only the absence of heat.

This has been the source of substantial theological debate over the years, and I think the side that says evil is parisitic is closer to the heart of orthodox Christianity. I could make a serious case that Lewis believed that.

On the other hand, you may instead (or also) be differentiating between total and absolute depravity. As explained to me by a Reformed theologian, "total" depravity means that no part of us is untouched by sin, but we are not completely corrupted, and thus still have an opportunity for salvation. "Absolute" depravity, means completely, thoroughly corrupted, without hope of salvation. Orthodox Christianity teaches that men are totally depraved, but Satan and his minions are absolutely depraved.

Am I understanding you?
 
Edmund was not the greatest evil; I don't think he was evil at all. He was a sinner that was tempted by evil. The temptor, or embodiment of evil in this story, is Jadis. I'm not sure I agree that there is in real life, actual embodiments of evil. I tend to believe that evil is not necessarily a tangible, centralized thing. The former Pope proposed that hell is not necessarily existing in the midst of pure evil, but rather existing without the power of God. I would tend to believe that evil is more of a lack of goodness and paraisitic.

But in stories, myths, and children's tales such as this, creating an embodiment of evil is an often used motif. Just as Aslan represents good and God's teachings, Jadis represents evil and the rejection of God's teachings.

The original thesis was that Edmund was the "most shockingly evil character" in the story. I disagree and counter propose that Edmund was not evil, but rather a sinner that was tempted and pulled away from good and his family and friends by evil. He is not inheriently evil. His actions are treacherous, selfish, and out of jealousy. Not because he has a cold heart or lack of goodness in him.

:D
 
Ah, I see. There's no question that Jadis was the center of evil in the story, and Nephew fleshes out her path to corruption beautifully.
 
The original thesis was that Edmund was the "most shockingly evil character" in the story. I disagree and counter propose that Edmund was not evil, but rather a sinner that was tempted and pulled away from good and his family and friends by evil. He is not inheriently evil. His actions are treacherous, selfish, and out of jealousy. Not because he has a cold heart or lack of goodness in him.
Click to expand...

I thought my point might have been a bit too subtle ;)

Of course Jadis is the most evil character in LWW. But that is no shock. As she represents Satan in my view, or a demon (I do not think Lewis would anthropomorphize evil itself into Jadis because that would be dualistic, and as per Prince of the West's comments below, Lewis belived evil was not a polar opposite to good, but good that had been twisted and spoiled). We expect Jadis to be evil. She is, after all, the villain.

Edmund's evil is shocking, however, because of the fact that his sort of evil is much closer to our own. Yes, Jadis tempted him. But the snivelling rotter was already present in Edmund well before he came into Narnia. Remember how he gleefully tortured Lucy before he stepped into the wardrobe himself. And Jadis could not have tempted Edmund to betray his siblings if the secret desire was not already present. In fact, at first Jadis was ont he wrong track, telling him how much she would love to meet his brother and sisters. When Edmund sulked "There's nothing special about them" I think the Witch began to mentally change her tactics. It is a shock that this little boy was willing to go to such lengths to betray his own family.

The reason I'm being so hard on Edmund is because I know Lewis intended me to see myself in the boy, and I do. I hope no one sees me like an Edmund, but I'm afraid there are plenty of things in my 39 years that have been very ...Edmundesqe. :( And I'm not going to make excuses for it. There are no excuses. What I have needed is forgiveness, Someone to take the punishment I deserve. And this is precisely what Jesus did for me.

Aslan loved Edmund, the shockingly evil me. That's my point. :)
 
Yeah, but I don't think he was evil, just a sinner. Any more than the average person is evil. We're all sinners, and we all have the ability to stray from our families, the path of good, and God's teachings. Yet that doesn't make us evil, just sinners. And Jesus died for all of us because of that. There's a difference between evil and sin. That's my point.

And frankly, I didn't find his sin to be shocking. But rather recognizable.
 
We must agree to disagree. I respect your view and I think I know what you mean, but I think the shock is to realize that the sin within us is in fact evil. "We're all sinners", far from lessening the shock, ought to be a wake-up call. If you prefer to call it "wickedness", as some Bible translations do, or "total depravity", as some theologians do, you certainly may; but I submit that if we sinners were not evil, there would have been no need for Jesus to die for us. There's no need to rescue people who are in a watertight craft, just a bit wet from seaspray.
 
I submit if sinners were evil, there would be no need for redemption. Because we are in fact not evil, but rather tempted by evil, Jesus died to redeem us. Were Edmund really to be evil, his redemption would not have been possible. And I think that is the point of the story. Jadis IS evil. She's the embodiment. Her redemption is not possible. Edmund is not evil, he is tempted by evil. He was predisposed to the evil temptations, yes, but he was not inheirently evil. He is inheirently good, sins, and is redeemed.

I am a sinner, but I am not evil. I stray from the path of good, but it's not because of the evil within me, but rather the temptation of evil without. I have the power to over come that, though, with Jesus and what he did for me. Jesus died for us not because we were evil, but because we are good and stray from the path of good because of evil's influence. Sin. That is the point of the story, that although we sin because of evil's temptation, we can be redeemed.
 
The thing to remember is that Edmund was redeemable, the White Witch was not. One of the most moving lines in the LWW is the discription of the Edmund when he became an adult. "Edmund was a graver and quiter man then Peter, and great in council and wisdom. He was called King Edmund the Just." Who knows what the lowest sinner in the world will become like in a glorifed state in Heaven.
 
HTML: 
Because we are in fact not evil
Jesus said this to His disciples -

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
 
Jesus died for us not because we were evil, but because we are good and stray from the path of good because of evil's influence.
Click to expand...

I think this is a case of each of us using slightly different definitions for the word "evil", Mtdman. I am using "evil" in the Luke 11:13 sense, as quoted by Mudpuddle, "twisted by sin". Or as in "a little leaven leavens the whole lump". Spoiled, tainted, marred by sin.

I gather you are using the term "evil" with the definition "irredeemable", applying to Satan and his angels, who have been twisted beyond all hope of recovery. I do not mean "evil" in this sense. My apologies for the misunderstanding. I'm glad you brought it up.

There is also a false definition of evil that C.S. Lewis shows the impossibility of, and that is evil as "the opposite of good." Lewis contends, rightly I think, that there is no such thing as "evil" which is a polar opposite of good, like yin/yang. He argues that even the most wicked person or fallen angel desires wickedness because of some pleasure they derive from it, and "pleasure", in and of itself, is a good thing. It is just that the means yto get that pleasure is rotten, twisted. If evil was the opposite of good, then evil beings would be doing wicked things because it brought them displeasure, or because they hated doing them, just doing them for evil's sake...which of course is nonsense. This insight proved to Lewis that Dualistic religions, such as Taoism, could not be true. I never thought of evil in this way until I read Lewis.
 
Yes, but what about the people who like displeasure, and that brings them pleasure in the long run? People who like pain and chaos over pleasure and happiness? I think there are just people out there that don't necessarily gain pleasure from pain and unhappiness, but are predisposed to pain and unhappiness over pleasure and happiness. I don't think they get pleasure from being evil, but rather pain, and that it's the pain and unhappiness they desire, not pleasure.

I agree that I think we are just on different pages with our ideas of evil. I have a pretty absolute concept of evil, it's hard to think of myself that way in being a sinner. I would hope that I, and all other sinners, have hope for redemption and salvation.

:D
 
Back
Top