What would have happened

Loyal as a Badger

Loyal as a Badger

New member
This technically covers several books, but I'm putting it here because it's MN that makes it interesting. I don't know if this has been discussed before; I couldn't find a thread for it, but I'm still pretty new so forgive me if I'm incompetent! Same goes for the mods: if I've been an idiot and put this in the wrong forum, thread, universe, etc., please delete it/lock it/launch it into outer space. Also, sorry if this is convoluted. It's late. Okay, end disclaimer.

The idea that no one is ever told what "would have happened" has been bugging me for awhile now. For most of the Chronicles, Aslan refuses to tell anyone what the consequences of a different action would have been.
In Prince Caspian, Lucy asks Aslan if things would have turned out well had she left her family and Trumpkin to follow him. ‘ “What would have happened, child?” said Aslan. “No. Nobody is ever told that.” ’ (PC, Ch.10)

And in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, after Lucy has eavesdropped on her friends and she asks if they would have gone on being friends otherwise, Lewis writes: ‘ “Child,” said Aslan, “did I not explain to you once before that no one is ever told what would have happened?” ’ (VDT, Ch.10)

The only exception (that I've found) is in The Magician's Nephew. Aslan tells Digory that if he had stolen the apple to heal his mother, it would not have brought him joy. “That is what would have happened, child, with a stolen apple.” (MN, Ch.14)

I don’t think this can be an oversight on Lewis’ part. The fact that Aslan always addresses the child as “Child” each time, the italicizations, and the fact that the exact words are used each time, suggests that it must have been a deliberate echoing. Yes, the VDT episode is an echoing of the incident in PC, but even that is an echo of the conversation with Digory in MN (or vice versa, depending on your preferred order...it doesn't really matter, for my purposes). And I don't think it's simply a case of Aslan lying.

The only thing I can think of to explain this is that in both cases, when Aslan refuses to tell Lucy what would have happened, he has just been chastising her. Maybe he realizes that her guilt is strong enough without compounding it with the knowledge of what she has lost by the mistake. With Digory, it is more of a cautionary tale; he has done well to avoid temptation, and Aslan wants to ensure that he realizes the risk he ran. A knowledge of the negative effects of sin might encourage obedience, and in this case (unlike with Lucy) the extra knowledge would not torture Digory. For some reason, this explanation doesn’t quite satisfy me, and I was wondering if anyone had other (better?) ways to explain this. Am I reading too much into it, or does this interest you guys too?
 
It does interest me, in fact. There are at least a few places in Scripture where "would haves" ARE given. In Second Kings 13, for instance, in Elisha's final prophecy before he died, he rebuked King Joash for half-hearted performance of the symbolic actions Elisha had instructed Joash to perform. Elisha told Joash that IF he had done the actions right, God WOULD HAVE permanently relieved him of suffering trouble from Syria.
 
That's a good point, and it didn't occur to me to make direct connections to the Bible in this context. I was mostly embedded in the Narnian world. In a sense, any justification for punishment is like that: if the Israelites hadn't broken the covenant, they wouldn't have been taken into exile, etc. So in that case, and in the example you brought up, the "would haves" make sense of a events that otherwise looks like arbitrary spite. But in the Chronicles, you get Aslan saying that no one is told what would have happened, and yet at one point someone is told... well, at least there is a precedent now for Aslan's comments to Digory! Even though Elisha's is a rebuke, and Aslan's isn't, in this case.

And I'm glad I'm not just missing something obvious...if it was only me who was interested, I would have been a little worried!
 
Maybe the reason why Digory WAS given a "would have" was because, in his case, disobedience on Digory's part to Aslan's orders might have affected MANY persons besides himself.
 
That would make sense, yes. And it made me think of something else that might have been a part of it.

Digory's conversation with Aslan, unlike Lucy's, takes place in public. Aslan charges the Narnians to guard the tree which Digory had planted from the apple, and his remarks to Digory afterwards are still in the midst of that crowd. So maybe Aslan wanted the Narnians, as well as Digory, to understand the implications of disobedience. The Narnians, after all, will have to live with the tree in their land for ages. So they had better understand what it would mean to pluck an apple "unbidden," as Aslan says. But now it's moving into the realm of what will happen (if they disobey in the future), instead. So Digory's actions have a wider influence than Lucy's in more ways than one. I think you're right about that difference, but I'm just running with it.

Mmmm speculation.
 
Your posted saying:

>> Reality is for the illiterate.

--reminds me of what a Navy buddy once told me:

"Reality is a crutch for people who don't have the guts to face fantasy."

That actually has an application, since there are people who hide their heads in present-moment experiences, trying not to think about ANYTHING alien to their ordinary routines.
 
Loyal as a Badger said:
That would make sense, yes. And it made me think of something else that might have been a part of it.

Digory's conversation with Aslan, unlike Lucy's, takes place in public. Aslan charges the Narnians to guard the tree which Digory had planted from the apple, and his remarks to Digory afterwards are still in the midst of that crowd. So maybe Aslan wanted the Narnians, as well as Digory, to understand the implications of disobedience. The Narnians, after all, will have to live with the tree in their land for ages. So they had better understand what it would mean to pluck an apple "unbidden," as Aslan says. But now it's moving into the realm of what will happen (if they disobey in the future), instead. So Digory's actions have a wider influence than Lucy's in more ways than one. I think you're right about that difference, but I'm just running with it.

Mmmm speculation.
Click to expand...

This makes me think of a quote from Perelandra about the consequences of sin...and the corresponding greatness of redemption. The text below refers to the character Ransom, who has been sent to Perelandra to prevent its fall. Just another take on the subject :).


"If he now failed, this world [like Earth] would hereafter be redeemed... [But] not a second crucifixion: perhaps -- who knows -- not even a second Incarnation... some act of even more appalling love, some glory of yet deeper humility. For he had seen already how the pattern grows and how from each world it sprouts into the next through some other dimension. The small external evil which Satan had done [on Mars] was only a line: the deeper evil he had done on Earth a square: if Venus fell, her evil would be a cube -- her Redemption beyond conceiving." (126)
 
Copperfox said:
"Reality is a crutch for people who don't have the guts to face fantasy."

That actually has an application, since there are people who hide their heads in present-moment experiences, trying not to think about ANYTHING alien to their ordinary routines.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll admit that my signature wasn't meant to be quite as deep as all that... er, I mean, yes, that was my plan all along... :p

Inkling said:
This makes me think of a quote from Perelandra about the consequences of sin...and the corresponding greatness of redemption. The text below refers to the character Ransom, who has been sent to Perelandra to prevent its fall. Just another take on the subject :).


"If he now failed, this world [like Earth] would hereafter be redeemed... [But] not a second crucifixion: perhaps -- who knows -- not even a second Incarnation... some act of even more appalling love, some glory of yet deeper humility. For he had seen already how the pattern grows and how from each world it sprouts into the next through some other dimension. The small external evil which Satan had done [on Mars] was only a line: the deeper evil he had done on Earth a square: if Venus fell, her evil would be a cube -- her Redemption beyond conceiving." (126)
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, I've never read Perelandra, but it looks like I ought to. Thanks for the quote! It's thought-provoking. And really, Digory's disobedience might have had consequences across both Narnia and our world. Maybe not in the same sense or on the same scale as your quote, but it is a way to impress the seriousness of sin on a younger audience.
 
When Aslan talks to Lucy, it is always about her actions. She wonders what would have happened if she had gone without her family and trumpkin, she wonders what would have happened if she hadn't eavesdropped on her friend. What Aslan is trying to impress into Lucy is that one can't know what would have been. It would drive the person crazy to know that an alternative course would have been much better.

In Digory's case, it was not actions that they were talking about but the nature of the apple. They had already been warned at the entrance of the gates of the garden about entering through the gates and not stealing of the fruit. Digory and Polly merely asked about what happens if someone does eat of it unbidden. Aslan explained why and how it would work for Jadis and that it always works that way when eaten in that way.

You can always know the nature of things and what could happen if you take a course of action, but you can never know what would have happened had you deviated from a course of action that you already took.

MrBob
 
Your comments made me suddenly think: the warning to Digory is much like what Gandalf says to Denethor in the book of "Return of the King"--a speech that was given to Faramir for the expanded version of the movie, as a little compensation for the way Faramir was pushed into the background at other points. Gandalf told Denethor that it was FORTUNATE that Boromir never had possession of the Ring, because then he would have ceased to be the honorable, decent man he had been.
 
MrBob said:
It would drive the person crazy to know that an alternative course would have been much better.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I thought too, but I probably didn't word it as well.

I like your analysis of Aslan's response to Digory. That's a difference that I didn't see before. Still, in this case knowledge of the nature of the apple did lead to knowledge of what "would have happened"...but at least it didn't have the same effect as that knowledge would have in Lucy's case.
 
Welcome, Loyal. I did not see you post before. Your thread was quite thought provoking, and after 30 years as a Narnia reader, I had not noticed that before! I kind of like Mr. Bob's explanation, and your own, that the "would have been" in TMN was more a general teaching for everyone of what happens with willful disobedience, whereas the other cases were private refusals to reveal specifics.
 
I agree Ink, that and Narnia was a new world and its inhabitants needed to be taught more about what was right and wrong with the stealing..then totally apart from that to mention the fact that they should heed waringings on gates and other places as Digory didn't in Charn.
 
that is a very interesting thought, loyal, and i agree with youer opinion on the subject. i never really thought about that.
 
Aslan tells Digory "what would have happened"

Aslan is always telling people that no one is ever told what would have happened, i.e. he tells Lucy, Shasta, Aravis (I think), Jill, etc. However, in MN, after Digory has planted the Tree of Protection, Aslan tells Digory "what would have happened" twice: by telling him that if some Narnian had planted the Tree unbidden, it would have protected Narnia but turned it into a cruel empire like Charn, and also that if he had stolen an apple for his Mother, she would have lived, but they both would have regretted it. Odd sort of inconsistency, don't you think?
 
Maybe it's because this is an instance where Digory actually did the right thing, and Aslan was rewarding him for it. Whereas with Lucy, Jill, and Aravis, they did the wrong thing and then wanted to know how much easier it would have been for them if they'd obeyed in the beginning.

Also, did Digory actually ASK, or did Aslan volunteer the information? Because that could make a difference too.
 
This discussion can be found here.

My conclusion is that Aslan can tell what something does if used one way or another, but not what would have happened had someone done something differently.

In other words, Aslan told Digory how the apple would have affected Narnia, his mother, or him if used incorrectly, but Lucy wanted to know what would have happened had she done something differently. You can know the nature of how something works but not an alternate reality.

MrBob
 
Aslan says something when it does more good than harm. Aslan refrains when it does more harm than good. Remember the three reasons: circumstances, circumstances and circumstances.
 
Back
Top