1. Especially with the popularity of the Harry Potter books and movies (although that fad may have waned), the role of magic in The Chronicles of Narnia is somewhat controversial. (Mind you, I haven't read the Harry Potter books.) In addition, the role of magic in The Chronicles of Narnia intersects with the role of myth.
2. Consider stock characters from Greek mythology (e.g. satyrs, centaurs, minotaurs, dyads, naiads, Baucchus, Silenus). That's a lazy creative shortcut. These creatures belong to a different fictional world history. They are products of Greek mythology. They belong to the fictional universe of our own world. It would be preferable for Lewis to invent characters that reflect the implied world history of Narnia.
Lewis might counter that in the world of the story, what's mythical in our world may be real in another world. In principle, that's a legitimate approach for a fantasy writer to take. Even so, there needs to be a consistent backstory to explain their existence in another world. They can't just be abducted from our world, then stuck into another world. These creatures arise in a polytheist or animist context.
3. That said, this isn't entirely ad hoc on Lewis's part. He may well include these characters to illustrate his view that in divine providence, pagan mythology is a preparation for the Gospel.
Of course, that sympathetic outlook is at variance with how the Bible views pagan mythology, but my immediate point is that from Lewis's perspective, this isn't just a creative shortcut but a matter of principle–even if his principle is misguided. A considered judgment on his part.
The relation between (2) & (3) exposes a point of tension in Lewis. He sacrifices artistic consistency at this juncture to illustrate myth becoming fact.
4. In defense of Lewis, consider the character of Tumnus. When a satyr is the first character Lucy encounters, this shows Lucy, as well as the reader, not only that the wardrobe is a portal to another world, but a different kind of world. If what she discovered was an alternate Oxfordshire or parallel London, where everything belongs to the same kind of world, then that wouldn't have the same effect. Making Lucy meet a satyr on first contact is an economical way for Lewis to show the reader that Narnia is truly out of this world. In a way, he makes the same point with talking animals, but the satyr adds an exotic visual touch.
5. In the world of Narnia, magic isn't equivalent to witchcraft. What is magic in our world is natural in Narnia. It's a different kind of world with different laws.
The White Witch is no exception, because she's an intruder from another world. Her kind of magic wasn't native to Narnia. Rather, witchcraft is like an invasive species.
And, of course, the world of Narnia has a Christian subtext lacking in the Harry Potter novels. So it's not comparable in that respect.
6. In fairness to Lewis, we should judge the novels by the standards of children's literature. They don't have and can't have the same literary sophistication as adult novels like Until We Have Faces or Perelandra.
In addition, Lewis was learning the ropes when he began the series. Honing his craft as a fiction writer. Moreover, he was breaking new ground in the genre. So they have a certain experimental charm that would be lost if he wrote them after gaining greater experience in the art and craft of fictional narration.
Well, I think there's quite a bit more to it than this. Arguably, Lewis has more of a self-consistent back-story than implied. As explained in the Magician's Nephew, Narnia is part of a multiverse; but all the worlds within that multiverse have the same creator. Ours is one, the world containing Charn is another, Narnia is another and its implied that there are many others; but Aslan moves through them all, and they all ultimately anticipate aspects of the ultimate, reality of the true, final Narnia. But Aslan is not the only figure who has power to move between worlds; Father Christmas is one other (prevented by the Witch for a long time, but able to enter again when her power breaks). So, there's no prima facie objection to overlap between the worlds, and moving between them is not always evil as in the witch's case - on the contrary, it seems to be something Aslan desires (he calls people between worlds). And this is surely tied up with Plato (what do they teach them in these schools?) - the shadows of the ideals are inevitably cast into all the worlds. Yes, Lewis has leveraged other peoples' creations, but which fantasy writer doesn't?
ReplyDeleteYou yourself have argued that the Christian reality, being the ultimate reality, will determine a lot of the parameters of all other realities we can imagine. I think it's going to far to say that Lewis was being lazy, or hadn't honed his craft; having created a multiverse in which the worlds overlap, I think that he thought it was part of the fun to bring known (to schoolchildren in those days, anyway!) characters from other worlds into Narnia. As you say, this is children's fiction. Yes, the appearance of Father Christmas feels incongruous. But I think that, in context, it's because Aslan has a sense of fun and Lewis would think that literary critics who take exception to that need to broaden their minds a bit.
The fact (within the world of the story) that Aslan or even Father Christmas can move between worlds doesn't mean satyrs, centaurs, dyads, naiads, Baucchus, and Silenus can move between worlds. And Lewis didn't have the Chronicles all plotted out before he started writing. There was lots of improvisation (which is fine).
DeleteI blame the Londoners who were present at the founding of Narnia for contaminating it with their psychic baggage, including mental imprints of the Earth animals and myths they are familiar with. Note that Narnia doesn't have non-European mythical creatures that the early 20th-century Londoners wouldn't have been familiar with like kappa, taniwha or quetzalcoatl.
DeleteRelated note: It's very hard work replacing every familiar Earth plant and animal with fantasy equivalents. This is why you inevitably end up with horses to ride on in Narnia, LotR, Warhammer, Warcraft, Dungeons & Dragons, or The Legend of Zelda. An example of a setting utilizing a straightforward direct swap-in is Final Fantasy with its chocobos.
--5. In the world of Narnia, magic isn't equivalent to witchcraft.--
Even in our world, what separates miracle from magic is not the end result, but the source - YHWH turning Aaron's rod into a snake vs. the Egyptian magicians copying the feat, Moses & Elijah appearing to Jesus vs. a medium calling up the spirits (of the dead, or of demons faking it).
By the way, this post is an excellent example of Watsonian vs Doylist explanations.
Deletehttps://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WatsonianVersusDoylist
Q: Why are there Earth-myth creatures present in Narnia?
Doylist (author's reason): CS Lewis as a budding fiction writer didn't have enough time/experience to avoid letting his Eurocentric influences colour his worldbuilding. In addition, the entire Narnia concept stems from his inspiration of a faun in the woods.
Watsonian (in-world reason): The Londoners who were intruding upon the founding of Narnia influenced the kinds of creatures that would arise through the myths and stories imprinted in their memories.