I remember when I was very small, the first time i read the last battle accepting quite happily that susan had been ousted from narnia simply because she had become girly, and liked silly things like lipstick (bleagh) nylons (bleagh bleagh) and invitations over amazing things like talking animals, sword fights and a ginourmous lion -this was before i even knew what symbolism meant.
I didn't read the books until middle school, though that was back in the mid-90s.
As I may have mentioned previously, I have often had a problem with readers inserting symbolism in a story where it was not needed, though possibly relevant. This mainly stemmed from high school English teachers who would say "what the author meant was..." and then say something that would be completely contradicted in the author's own words, provided you cared enough to learn about the author. (For example, the Chronicles are not allegory, they are suppositional.) However, the only purpose of this rant is to lead me to say I STILL have not grasped the purpose or merit of symbolism since I prefer to take books at "face value".
I do not argue, however, that such symbolism does not exist for those who wish to find it.
And now I have re read it several times I am still inclined to believe that she is ousted from Narnia for becoming girly. . It would seem that faith and feminity are mutually exclusive. The feminity I am thinking of isn't simply having 2 x chromosomes; it is being concious of the fact and flaunting it - not necessarily in a a lascivious manner I hasten to add. So I'm still going with the idea that the nylons are a symbol of sexuality. And I agree they can show commercialism and frivalry too. They are a driving force behind the desirabilty of women as objects. Grr.
I am confused by your line about faith and femininity being mutually exclusive. What do you mean by this? I consider myself a very feminine lady AND I relate primarily to Lucy as the sister I connect with most in the story (Susan drives me nuts). I don't think femininity itself was the cause for Susan's "downfall"...but the MISUSE of her femininity. The "fake" kind, based on nylons and makeup...The "worldly" femininity so to speak. This femininity tells women they must be tall, thin, and wearing the latest Prada in order to be a "woman". To argue it is femininity ITSELF that is bad is to say that Polly, Lucy, Aravis, Jill, and Caspian's Lady were not
feminine, which is a high insult since NONE of them acted
the same as the boys EVER. They may have fought or done daring things, but all in a way unique to them as girls (females). Perhaps this is what you meant, I don't know.
Also lending weight to this argument is Miss Polly Plummer. Possibly going with stereotypical old maid idea, but you could assume that she had avoided being sexualised, avoided feminity, and looks down on it, regarding it as very silly, foolish behaviour. It seems that susan is partly criticised for having reached adulthood without having reached maturity. She's yet to reach that -they don't necessarily come together.
When I read
The Last Battle I do not see a "typical" old maid! Look at it this way--whether or not she ever liked Digory enough to marry him, which I don't believe, obviously they were SUCH good friends that they'd rather be single and best friends than married to anyone else. This hardly makes Polly someone who "looks down on" sexuality. She was still a feminine woman, I am sure she viewed marriage as a positive thing, just not something she was able or willing to be a part of, for whatever reason. Choosing singleness does not in any way mean you think sexuality or marriage is "silly" or "foolish".
I DO think you nailed it HERE: "It seems that susan is partly criticised for having reached adulthood without having reached maturity. She's yet to reach that -they don't necessarily come together."
THAT I can agree with 100%. Susan is criticized for GROWING UP, she is not criticized for MATURING. Somewhere else, possibly here earlier or on another thread, we discussed the difference between being childISH and childLIKE. Digory, Polly, and honestly Peter himself were considered "adults" by Lewis, yet they are not "punished" for it, as Susan is. Susan's flaw is growing up TOO QUICKLY and loosing the child-LIKE faith of the others--including Digory and Polly who are VERY grown up, but not FAITHLESS. For Lewis, growing up and believing in Narnia were NOT mutually exclusive, but Susan TREATED them as such. Add all your symbolism to THAT idea and we may agree.
And I do think susan's behaviour is a bit daft , but at least it is given that there is the possibility that this obsession with lipstick and nylons is just a phase and she will cease to flaunt her feminity and mature - and presumably believe in narnia again.
There, you used the right word again--flaunt. A MISUSE of her femininity, not a fault of femininity itself.
I'm a bit of a stickler for this--she doesn't need to believe in
Narnia again, she needs to believe in
ASLAN again.
OK point taken about Rilian's mum. But the domestic role I meant was rather like anne's from the famous five by enid blyton. The little mother. Also slightly pathetic and always 'don't be so wet'. Rather like susan in llw and pc.
I've never read it, so I can't say. However, the "little mother" role has been done quite well without being like Susan. I'm thinking of
The Five Little Peppers and some other books I can't remember the titles of at present. I do believe though that Lewis made her "little mother" role the way it was to LEAD INTO her "growing up" too fast, not because of any great maturity on her part.
I'm beginning to confuse myself now. Meh.
It's alright to contradict yourself if it proves you're thinking.
