Back when I read the Narnia books at the age of 11 and 12, I remember reading of lands and people other than Narnia as being portrayed negatively. Back then I did not know, who the lands were being referred to, but the more I started reading into other cultures, the more I found a strong resonance with the cultures of Iran and Turkey.
Turkish delight was served by the evil witch and it turned Edmund unto a spell. In other books, I cannot remember which one, but there is the story of being lost and traveling through other lands and falling into the control of shahs and pashas.
The Narnia books were C.S. Lewis's attempt at turning thinking, particularly child thinking, against the cultures found in the Middle East.
I am now perplexed with recommending or not recommending this book. It was a terrific joy for me, very much like Harry Potter is a joy for children these days.
I don't really see how Narnia was Lewis's attempt at turning thinking against the Middle East.
There is as much evil to be found within Narnia as there is to be found outside of it, over the entire series. There are quite a few evil Narnians, as there are also good Calormenes, such as Aravis in the Horse and His Boy, or Emmeth in The Last Battle.
I don't think that Lewis wouldn't argue that Turkish Delight itself is evil, but rather that evil can clothe itself in beauty (and I think he made that very point in some of his other writings).
Calormen is more used as "other", than merely "evil". It has both evil characters and good ones, and morally complex characters (like the Tisroc). As a nationality it's aims run counter to Narnian ones at times. But seeing as how it only really features in 2 out of the 7 books, I don't think C.S. Lewis was trying to use it's depiction to turn people against Middle Eastern culture. I think the worst that could be said is that Lewis was reflecting certain cultural sensibilities of his day.
EDIT:
That being said, if the prose is worth it, then one might take the book as an opportunity to talk about what those cultural sensibilities were, if one is recommending it to someone. Reading books that fall outside one's purview is not a bad thing, IMO.
You're currently being downvoted and I'm not sure why. However, I don't think you're quite right about Lewis' motives so that may be part of it.
Yes, he had a hidden agenda: the books are somewhat allegorical and intended to turn the child towards Christianity, not against a particular culture.
I'd assume that the negative portrayal arose out of the conventional thinking of his time far more than anything more sinister. Which is not to say that it's palatable now.
I too loved the books as a child, utterly failing to realise their subtext until much later in life and I too would hesitate about passing them on to a child unexplained.
He's being downvoted for the following unsubstantiated statement:
> The Narnia books were C.S. Lewis's attempt at turning thinking, particularly child thinking, against the cultures found in the Middle East.
What's more likely: that there's a cabal of staunchly xenophobic English fantasy authors or that foreign, unfamiliar cultures are great inspiration for fantasy stories?
The leap from a single author to a cabal is entirely your own.
That a single English fantasy author could be staunchly xenophobic is perfectly feasible and you could bring your own substantive sources to the party if you want to deny it in this particular case.
I used cabal to highlight that C.S. Lewis is hardly unique -- if you think he's a xenophobe I can't imagine what you think of Tolkein or even modern authors like George R. R. Martin.
Well, C.S Lewis was a Christian theologian whose other written works are overtly Christian apologia. Tolkien, on the other hand, was a professor of languages who was fascinated with ancient and constructed languages from a young age.
Knowing that, reading the various books it's hard not to believe that the Narnia Chronicles were written partly to promote Christianity, and the Middle-Earth works were written partly to explore fictional languages.
Sure, I don't disagree. I still don't see evidence for Lewis's plot to poison children against Middle Eastern cultures. Keep in mind Tolkein explicitly describes the dark-skinned, Eastern peoples as being seduced by evil. Does he get a pass for being less overtly religious?
You use words like "plot" and "cabal" to make it sound like its a bizarre conspiracy theory. But Lewis himself have written openly and at length about his use of Christian theology in the stories, and its pretty blatant, veering into preaching in some passages. And it is pretty clear he presents the "middle eastern" culture in a negative light, because they don't embrace "Aslan" but worship a fake God. I don't see what more "evidence" you could want?
So your argument is that because Lewis was a devout Christian he must have also been a xenophobe? He was also a renowned expert in medeival European history, isn't it more likely that's where the inspiration came from?
No, my argument is that the books deliberately show the "middle eastern" culture and religion in a negative light in order to present Christianity as the best and only true religion.
That whatever parallel you're trying to draw between Tash/Aslan and Christians/non-Christians doesn't really hold water. In fact I'd argue the message is the opposite -- that because the Calormen have a different culture, believe different things, and occasionally fight with Narnia doesn't mean they're bad people.
Don't you have to be well-versed in Christianity to recognise the allegory? How does that promote Christianity, perhaps to 'reinforce it for those raised as Christians'?
There's no doubting they were written in an overtly Christian context; does the author speak about using the allegory as a means of proselytising? Or, is that conjecture?
> Don't you have to be well-versed in Christianity to recognise the allegory?
Absolutely not. The books are incredibly in your face, even kids recognize it.
> How does that promote Christianity, perhaps to 'reinforce it for those raised as Christians'?
It is not promote christianity as in telling kids to become christians or much about god. It promotes christian values - how you should behave what you should think about situations. You may read the books or go to sermon and they boil down to pretty much the same thing.
The first, second and third focus of every story is moral lesson you are supposed to take out of it. Any other purpose (story, fun, world building, suspension, whatever) is somewhere after. That is why the books are so popular among christians, imo. If you remove moral teaching, not all that much is left.
You're not wrong in general about the blatant orientalism in the series, though I'm not sure the witch's use of enchanted Turkish Delight is a particularly strong example. I also wonder to what extent Lewis was actively trying to turn children against other cultures vs just portraying a simplified vision of the general sentiment in his time and place.
And I've always thought it was kind of neat that he makes the slightly universalist gesture of admitting a devout follower of Tash into paradise in The Last Battle.
Turkish delight was served by the evil witch and it turned Edmund unto a spell. In other books, I cannot remember which one, but there is the story of being lost and traveling through other lands and falling into the control of shahs and pashas.
The Narnia books were C.S. Lewis's attempt at turning thinking, particularly child thinking, against the cultures found in the Middle East.
I found a great article that connects a lot of the references and provides background behind C.S. Lewis. https://prunusdulcis.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/baklava-in-bea...
I am now perplexed with recommending or not recommending this book. It was a terrific joy for me, very much like Harry Potter is a joy for children these days.
Edit: corrected link.