Thoughts for the journey

Umm, thanks PrinceoftheWest for spending time responding. I think to better understand it, I'll have to think about what you wrote more and read it over.

Thanks again and I think the last paragraph helped me the most in understanding it. :)
 
Excellent response PotW, but my little sister (DeplorableWord) is only 14 :D. haha, even if she didn't understand everything, I have explained it a little more to her to clarify and present the info in a little bit simpler terms so she could understand better. But I think you gave a great response anyway!

I actually didn't make that connection at first either-that Lewis was referring to the idea of Plato's "forms" (at least in some sense) and offering somewhat of a rebuttal to the materialistic view prevalent in his time and ours. It's always interesting that at seemingly every turn, Lewis incorporates his philosophy and theology so elegantly in a "children's story."
 
Parthian King said:
I recently re-read it, and I am still tempted to say so, even though Silver Chair is a wonderful read full of spiritual insight. Comparing those two, in fact, makes for enlightening stuff. More on that later.

I found something that I have been itching to share concerning the close of DT, but before I do that I wanted to make some general remarks and see if anyone bites...
Well, there was some follow up discussion to this post, but I think some loose ends are still left, and although this has been an inactive thread for about 2 months now, I for one think it's high time these loose ends be tied up! What do you mean by comparing Dawn Treader and Silver Chair makes for some pretty enlightening stuff? Could you please elaborate. I'd be very interested to hear/discuss that...

And what the heck is it that you've been itching to share concerning the end of Dawn Treader?! :)
 
I think most of your original questions, Prince of the West, have been pretty well gone over in this thread except this one, so I guess I'll take a stab at it and then sit back and wait for others to blow me out of the water :)

The pool on Deathwater Island had peculiar properties. Once the voyagers discovered it, what character traits emerged with frightening swiftness? What might have caused Caspian to respond as he did? Edmund? What did it take to "shake them out of it"? What clear and immediate lesson were they missing?
I would say that the character traits emerging were greed and pride, and according to Lewis, greed is actually a natural consequence of pride, the great sin (c.f. Mere Christianity). The reason for such a quick turn around in Caspian's actions was that he was tempted with material greatness and power, such that no king of narnia had ever achieved before, and no one could ever hope to achieve again. In other words, by claiming ownership over the island, he could become "greater" than anyone else, and that incites pride like nothing else. It is also clearly seen from this passage that pride is by definition competetive; thus, Caspian and Edmund nearly break out into a duel over who deserves rightful ownership of the land, before Aslan intervenes and reveals himself to the party, opening Caspian's and Edmund's eyes to their petty selfishness. I suppose that the immediate lesson that they're missing was that they do not really "own" anything; all of narnia is really Aslan's possession, and they are simply stewards of what he has given to them for a time...was this kind of what you were getting at?

Okay, that's the best I could do at 2:30 am...I'm going to bed.
 
OK, this is what I was thinking about the end of Dawn Treader:

It seems clear to me that Lewis was (for probably the third time) wrapping up Narnia for good. He closely models the end of story, after Edmund, Lucy, and Eustace's journey through the sea of lilies and their good-bye to Reepicheep, after John 21.
But between them and the foot of the sky there was something so white on the green grass that even with their eagles' eyes they could hardly look at it. They came on and saw that it was a Lamb.

"Come on and have some breakfast," said the Lamb in its sweet milky voice.

They noticed for the first time that there was a fire lit on the grass and fish roasting on it. They sat down and ate the fish, hungry now for the first time for many days. And it was the most delicious food they have ever tasted.--The Voyage of the Dawn Treader Ch. 16

And so when they got out upon the land, they saw a charcoal fire already laid, and fish placed on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have now caught.” Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples ventured to question Him, “Who are You?” knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread, and gave them, and the fish likewise.--John 21:9-13
Here we see a close repetition of motifs: The disciples/children leave a boat, come ashore, and a disguised Christ waits for them with roasted fish grilled on an open fire, invites them to eat breakfast, and they sit and eat with Him. There is an element of mystery to the meal over the character with whom they eat, but it is a "disclosed mystery"--you know who it is in John, and you know who it is in Dawn Treader even before He transforms His image into the Lion. (Also, read John's description of the Risen Christ in Revelation 1 for the brilliant whiteness of Him.)

Next, there is the confrontation, and the telling of things as they will be, even though there will be difficult or uncertain at times:
"Dearest," said Aslan very gently, "you and your brother will never come back to Narnia"

"Oh, Aslan!!" said Edmund and Lucy both together in despairing voices.

"You are too old, children," said Aslan, "and you must begin to come close to your own world now."

"It isn't Narnia, you know," sobbed Lucy. "It's you. We shan't meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?"

"But you shall meet me, dear one," said Aslan.

"Are--are you there too, Sir?" said Edmund.

"I am," said Aslan. "But I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This is the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there there.

Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself, and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”--John 21:18-19
... but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.--John 20:31
OK, Lewis seems to be conflating (blending) some stuff not just from John 21, but a little from John 20 as well, which isn't too much of a stretch, since it is the spirit of the end of that Gospel: Believing and knowing God. But I think we still have some strong parallel here: Christ breaks some bad news, leading to an inner conflict on the part of the disciple/children that hear it. Lewis' statement of purpose for why the children Lucy and Edmund came to narnia (i.e., why the reader has been taken to Narnia) is nearly identical to the statement of purpose for John's Gospel in 20:30: That you may believe, and know Christ. I think this is a pretty strong declaration on Lewis' part about his series, since it is likely (as Prince of the West has pointed out) that he wrote each installment (at least int he early stages) fully intending it to be the last.
"And is Eustace never to come back here either?" said Lucy.

"Child," said Aslan, "do you really need to know that?"

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter therefore seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”--John 21:20-22
Here's the classic objection statement: Upon hearing bad news from the Lord, we look to our brother and ask about him/her as a reflection of our own loss. God's answer is "It's none of your business." This seems a favorite passage of Lewis,' since he refers to it on the third page of his preface to Mere Christianity.

So, my conclusion is:

1) At the close of the Dawn Treader, Lewis felt he was closing the series. This is evidenced by the crossing of Reepicheep into Aslan's Land, the finding of the end of the world, the last of the Pevensie's being "banned" from Narnia, and the use of "closing language" from a Gospel to communicate truths that Lewis felt were absolutes that could not be improved upon.

2) Lewis makes a clear statement regarding Aslan's identity, as strong as anything in LWW: Aslan appears as a Lamb (also John's powerful symbol in both his Gospel and in Revelation for Christ), then changes into a Lion (the two together being a symbol of eternal bliss). His actions and conversation mirror with significant subtlety the actions and words of Christ in from a Gospel. And He clearly says He is to be known by another name in Lucy and Edmund's own world. Hints like anvils are falling all over the place, and this is as close as Lewis comes to using the name of Jesus outright.

3) Lewis makes a statement of purpose that sets him apart from the work of Tolkien in that he says "you came to Narnia that you might know me." I take this as very pointed to the reader, and not merely a statement for Lucy and Edmund. We have been taken to Narnia, all of us, through the Wardrobe, by Caspian blowing Susan's ancient horn, by the painting on Eustace's guest room wall. Why? Not just to entertain, says Lewis. But that we may know Him "a little" in Narnia, whetting our taste for Aslan's breath that we may truly and deeply know Him here in our world.

This all might be very obvious to others, but I hadn't seen it posted, so I want to put it out there.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the response, Parthian King. Great stuff as always. Just a few quick comments on a couple things...

Parthian King said:
It seems clear to me that Lewis was (for probably the third time) wrapping up Narnia for good. He closely models the end of story, after Edmund, Lucy, and Eustace's journey through the sea of lilies and their good-bye to Reepicheep, after John 21.

Here we see a close repetition of motifs: The disciples/children leave a boat, come ashore, and a disguised Christ waits for them with roasted fish grilled on an open fire, invites them to eat breakfast, and they sit and eat with Him. There is an element of mystery to the meal over the character with whom they eat, but it is a "disclosed mystery"--you know who it is in John, and you know who it is in Dawn Treader even before He transforms His image into the Lion. (Also, read John's description of the Risen Christ in Revelation 1 for the brilliant whiteness of Him.)
That's a great insight, I certainly didn't see the connection to John 21 before. Also, it sure does seem like he tries to wrap it up each time in the first three books (except maybe PC in my opinion).

2) Lewis makes a clear statement regarding Aslan's identity, as strong as anything in LWW: Aslan appears as a Lamb (also John's powerful symbol in both his Gospel and in Revelation for Christ), then changes into a Lion (the two together being a symbol of eternal bliss). His actions and conversation mirror with significant subtlety the actions and words of Christ in from a Gospel. And He clearly says He is to be known by another name in Lucy and Edmund's own world. Hints like anvils are falling all over the place, and this is as close as Lewis comes to using the name of Jesus outright.
Yes, hints certainly are dropping like anvils. Another one is that Aslan calls himself "The Great Bridge Builder":
"But I will not tell you how long or short the way will be; only that it lies across a river. But do not fear that, for I am the Great Bridge Builder. And now come; I will open the door in the sky and send you to your own land."
I have always been particularly fond of that imagery. A loose connection can be made with this and the Israelites crossing over the Jordan river to get to the promised land (Joshua 3:14 - 17). Even though Aslan represents himself as a bridge builder and God stopped the flow of the Jordan river, the idea/motif of crossing a river to enter the promised land/New Narnia is still present.

3) Lewis makes a statement of purpose that sets him apart from the work of Tolkien in that he says "you came to Narnia that you might know me." I take this as very pointed to the reader, and not merely a statement for Lucy and Edmund. We have been taken to Narnia, all of us, through the Wardrobe, by Caspian blowing Susan's ancient horn, by the painting on Eustace's guest room wall. Why? Not just to entertain, says Lewis. But that we may know Him "a little" in Narnia, whetting our taste for Aslan's breath that we may truly and deeply know Him here in our world.

This all might be very obvious to others, but I hadn't seen it posted, so I want to put it out there.
More great observations...certainly sets him apart from Tolkien, and indeed, it does seem pointed to the reader as well. It certainly whets my taste for more of the Breath of Life.

And no, it definitely wasn't obvious (to me anyway)!
 
The symbolism is so strong in that scene but I never realized C. S. Lewis drew so heavily from the Bible. It is certainly a very powerful scene and always connects strongly with me when I read it. Later, reading the Biblical verses allows me to more readily grasp their meaning. Such is the talent of C. S. Lewis!

If I may join into the conversation with some of the earlier points. I believe Caspian made a good decision when he finally relented and decided to stay with his crew. With a duty, you might call it "God-given", Caspian should not abandon his crew for the sake of his own pursuits. Sometimes, performing your duty well and adhere to your responsibities is a form of worship.
 
Wow, good stuff here. I may copy some of these posts over into the Christian symbolism Thread if I can find it.
 
I'd rather be a pagan than accept the fact that God wants me to learn from suffering. Also, resisting frustration and impatience doesn't come easily to me either. Not everyone can be a believer.
Everyone can be a believer, though. Learning from suffering is very difficult to accept, yes, but it happens every day. Think about the fact that when you fall, you learn to get back up. Think about the fact that when you do something that leads to an injury, you learn to do something different so you don't get injured. Think about the fact that when you are hungry, you find something to eat. In each of those cases, you are learning from suffering.
 
I'm not a bad person but I can't stand so many rules. The only ones that make sense are "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal". The rest of it chafes me. So I turned my back on organized religion.
No. I refuse to learn from EMOTIONAL suffering. I'd rather have dementia and regress to a child's mentality than learn from EMOTIONAL suffering. I dropped religion for a reason, and I adamantly stand by that decision. Theology/organized religion makes me angry. I'm a nature-worshipping pagan and proud of it. And I love my all-or-nothing thinking. If God can't make life easy, he's not my friend. Even people are not my friends if they are strong-willed and bossy; I only like easygoing people. God is the bossiest being ever, and he's not my friend. He's just there, like an annoying neighbor who needs to leave me alone.
I understand that you turned your back on organized religion, because of the rules getting to you. We have to remember that rules aren't meant to hurt you. They're meant to help you, they are meant to guide you and keep you safe.

Has anyone ever told you that they stopped you from doing something because they love you and want the best for you? Because they are making a rule for you to follow to keep you safe.

Life isn't meant to be easy. God never said life would be easy.

And like it or not, you're going to have emotional suffering whether or not you believe in organized religion, or disorganized religion, or no religion, or a religion, etc. It's part of life. If you refuse to learn from it, that's your decision, but why refuse to learn? Why not allow yourself to grow? Why be a rock?

Why not allow yourself the opportunity to learn from others, to learn from things that happen to you?

Also, you didn't initially say emotional suffering, you merely said suffering and decided to change what you said because my examples were indisputable, right?

Well, when someone you know dies, or a pet, etc., or someone you know moves away, you'll have some emotional suffering. It also sounds like you're experiencing emotional suffering right now. If this is true, please please seek professional help.
 
Back
Top