The Lamp-post: the Way to the World of Men

In our last, we asked how the White Witch knew that the door back to the 'World of Men' was past the lamp-post. The truth is, we could have asked the opposite question, why, of all possible places in the Narnian world, does the wardrobe open to the area of the lamp-post? 

But I think the answer is clear (like Michael commented on the last post). The lamp-post is the object in Narnia most belonging to our world (the World of Men), while the wardrobe is the object in our world, most belonging to Narnia. The connection between the wardrobe and Narnia is made explicit at the end of The Magician's Nephew. Digory takes the core of the apple he received from Aslan, plants it, and eventually uses the wood from the tree that grows from the core to construct a wardrobe. Lewis proves that the tree never forgot its Narnian roots by the fact that Lucy goes through the wardrobe back to Narnia.

The connection between the lamp-post and our world is just as explicit. The White Witch had ripped off part of a lamp-post in our world and, during the creation of Narnia, threw it at Aslan. The piece of lamp-post hit Aslan, fell to the ground and grew into a fully mature lamp-post. However, unlike the wardrobe, Lewis does not explicitly tell us that it retains any connection to our world. But it seems to - because when Lucy comes through the wardrobe the first thing she sees is the light of the lamp-post which she follows until she reaches the lamp-post itself. 

It seems that there is a resonance between the wardrobe and the lamp-post that between the two is the link between the worlds. Does this matter? Well, maybe, let's think about two more things and see if that helps.

1) The seed of the wardrobe was brought from Narnia to our world for the purposes of good - healing a dying woman. After that good was accomplished, the seed was honorably buried and even when the tree that grew from the seed was knocked down, it was cared for and built into something that would always be cared for. 

The seed of the lamp-post was plucked for evil, as a weapon for the White Witch. In Narnia it was used to attack an innocent being - who happened to be the creator of Narnia. It fell unceremoniously and no one took notice of it until it actually became a fully grown lamp-post. A forest grew around it (except for the small patch where it stood), and it remained, lit, apparently forgotten until a young girl from our world rediscovered it.

2) Edmund comes through the wardrobe and also sees the light. He too follows it until stepping out into an open place in the woods. But Lewis never says that Edmund saw the lamp-post! It may be that Edmund assumed the light was from the open area, but the lamp-post itself he never even notices - not at least until the White Witch points it out to him. 

I think it's worth pondering over this one and perhaps thinking of another strange light that appeared to a wandering individual on the cusp of a great redemption.    

Photo by Spencer Bergen on Unsplash

The Lamp-post: the Way to the World of Men?

Edmund's first visit to Narnia is, as we know, when he becomes entrapped by the promises and delights of the White Witch. Though, by the end of their meeting, Edmund is ready to follow the Witch anywhere, she insists that he go back and bring his brother and sisters. Edmund claims not to know the way back, to which the Witch replies:

"That's easy," answered the Queen. "Do you see that lamp?" She pointed with her wand and Edmund turned and saw the same lamp-post under which Lucy had met the Faun. "Straight on, beyond that, is the way to the World of Men..." 

It is not stated that Edmund ever noticed the lamp-post and he certainly said nothing about it to the White Witch. Neither Lucy nor Tumnus had spoken to the Witch at this point, so how does the Witch know the way to the World of Men? 

How is it so easy? 

Photo by Spencer Bergen on Unsplash

Must a Creator be Immortal?

In the previous post, I asked why the White Witch thought she could kill Aslan. She knew that he created Narnia (and presumably the universe of Narnia) so how could she not realize that he is immortal? 

Before we get to an answer we should note that a spirtual mistake of this sort happen another time in Narnia. The Narnians assumed that Tash was simply a false god, one that did not exsit. And they weren't the only ones: the Calormen of "The Last Battle" also did not believe in the existence of Tash and I think we can argue that the Tisrocs did not either. Remember this exchange: 

    "O impeccable Tisroc," said the Vizier. "In comparison with you I love neither the Prince nor my own        life nor bread nor water nor the light of the sun."

    "Your sentiments," said the Tisroc, "are elevated and correct. I also love none of these things in                   comparison with the glory and strength of my throne..."

The Tisroc mentions no love for Tash only for his own power. Strangely enough, the only character we know for sure believed in Tash was Emeth!  

As for the Narnians, only when Tash came into Narnia did they realize there was a spiritual evil that had possessed the Calormens and aimed to fight against Aslan on Narnian soil. 

Be that as it may, I think there's a reason the White Witch did not equate Creator to immortal, because she did not equate Destroyer to immortal. She was the great destroyer of Charn, yet not immortal. What is the difference between creation and destruction. In fact, destroying is far easier than creating. Only a truly intelligent and loving being can create, but any tyrant can destroy. 

The value of creation is underestimated, undervalued, and perhaps even vilified. Screwtape says, "At present the Enemy says 'Mine' of everything on the pedantic, legalistic ground that He made it: Our Father hopes in the end to say 'Mine' of all things on the more realistic and dynamic ground of conquest." Thus, the devil, the White Witch, Tash, the Tisroc, and so many others gain power and ownership through destruction. But in truth, only evil must be destroyed, ownership is attained via creation. And a true creator must be greater than what he creates. Thus, the creator of the world must be immortal.   

Killing Aslan?

Why does the White Witch think she can kill Aslan?

In the Christian Bible Pontius Pilate killed Jesus because he did not recognize Jesus' divinity. However, the White Witch saw Aslan create Narnia. She understood that Aslan is the Creator. So why does she think that he could die?  

I think the answer has to do with the asymmetry between Creation and Destruction. 

But let's think about it a bit more before we go on... 

Are You a Daughter of Eve?

Why, Daughter of Eve, that's what I brought you here for.
I'm to lead you where you shall meet him...

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

The creatures of Narnia look at their foreign visitors and ask what to the creatures is the most important of questions, "Are you a daughter of Eve?" It is the first question Tumnus asks Lucy, it is the musing of Trumpkin when presented with Eustace and Jill, it is moniker Mr. Beaver gives to Susan in the above quote. And perhaps what is most confusing, the children do not realize what it means.  

Well, what does it mean? 

On its surface the question of Tumnus is simply one of species identification. Are you really that species descended from Adam and Eve who I supposed to be looking out for. Perhaps instead you are a small giant or one of the jinn? Lucy, unsure why anyone would confuse a human for anything else, is understandably not able to process the question. 

But, as we see with Tumnus, there is more to the question, though perhaps at this point himself does not realize. Are you a Daughter of Eve? A descendant of the woman who, on the one hand, brought sin to the world, but is yet, "Little less than divine. (Psalms 8:5)" Are you of the kind that tore creation asunder, but is still a creator yourself, "the mother of all life (Genesis 3:20)"? Do you understand that coming from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve, "That is both honor enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth."

For only when you do, can you face the one God, the Divine Presence, the Creator of All.

Aslan brings the children to Narnia to get to know him, but to do that they first need to know themselves and where they come from.   

The Song of Spring

The coming of Spring is an essential element in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Its arrival indicates the coming of Aslan into Narnia and the breaking of the White Witch's power manifest by the unending Winter.  Spring thus indicates the coming of God, defeat of evil, and redemption of God's chosen. No doubt Lewis' model for this is the bible itself in which the Children of Israel are redeemed from Egypt in the month of Spring (Exodus 23:15 and Exodus 34:18). 

Interestingly, Passover, the Spring Festival, is graced by the reading of Song of Songs. Superficially, this may be because the context of that work which, beyond its ample use of metaphorical flora and fauna, is Springtime (Song of Songs 7:13), "Let us go early to the vineyards, let us see if the vine has flowered, if its blossoms have opened, if the pomegranates are in bloom." More so, Spring is an appropriate context for the budding relationship between the beloved (guy) and darling (girl), representing God and Israel, is Song of Songs. That relationship blossomed with Israel's exodus from Egypt. The verse, (Song of Songs 1:9), "I have likened you, my darling, to a mare in Pharaoh’s chariots," hints to said exodus, and the midrashic literature then likens ups and downs of the relationship described in Song of Songs to the events surrounding the Exodus. 

The Narnian creation story is thus at odds with the biblical saga. In Narnia, Aslan creates the world through song, but does not appear to sing again. In the bible God creates the world via speech, and the song, or the Song of Songs, is initiated and employed when a relationship is formed between God and His chosen people. 

I think this is worth some contemplation. The evolution from creation to God's people, capable of bringing His presence down to earth, is the process that goes from prose to poetry. What is the difference between prose and poetry? Well, prose is much more free form and mirrors the way we talk colloquially. We use prose to convey information, stories, or ideas and when we want to do so precisely. 

Poetry, is much more constricted as it requires rhythm and perhaps rhyme. However, that constriction demonstrates that there is more to the words than meets the eye. There is an emotion, a tune, that the words alone are unable to convey. Thus, poetry and song are used for joy and sadness, to communicate love and convey emotion. 

God creates the world with speech, the placement of the spheres, the growing of the trees, the exactness of the sciences. Love, however, requires a response. It must be humanity that will grow from just another facet of mundane earth into beings capable of relating to and loving God. When that has been fulfilled, when humanity recognizes God, not only as Creator, but as the engine of history and as Being with whom to form a relationship, then, and only then, can there be song. This threshold was reached at the time of the Exodus and its subsequent events through the giving of the Torah at Sinai. 

Thus, on Passover, the time of freedom, at the beginning of Spring, we read the poetry of Song of Songs. On the one hand this commemorates the miracles of the past and relationship between God and Israel that first produced song.  On the other, reading the Song of Songs demonstrates our commitment to and desire for a continued relationship with God. The relationship is ongoing, God is still singing, and so are we. 

On Moses' Savior and Aslan's Actor

Several years ago, I watched the first Harry Potter movie with my son...

I complained about it for a week: it wasn't true to the book, the drama was underplayed, some of the scenes were just horribly wrong... 

So, as you can imagine, when some time later I metioned to my wife that perhaps I should watch "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," just to see how it was done, my wife absolutely forbade it. After all, if it took a week of complaining about Harry Potter, can you imagine how long I would complain about "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"?

She was right, of course, and to this day, I have never seen those movies. 

So, when the news came out that Netflix was going to take its turn in transforming the Chronicles into movies, I didn't think much of it - I wasn't going to watch them anyway. But there's lots of news about these movies and some of the latest news got me thinking as to what would make a good movie.

In truth, there is a book much more important than any of the Chronicles, parts of which have been turned into movies several times. Of course, I refer to the bible itself. And it happens that, despite some disregard to the biblical narrative, I really loved The Prince of Egypt. The reason, I think, is that mostly the changes were superficial, Moses being lifted from the water by Pharoah's wife instead of daughter. The whole part of Tzipporah in Egypt and being offered as a wife to Ramses. I'm not quite sure why those changes were made, but it did not at all appear to be an attack on the source material, the bible. 

In fact, in some ways, making a movie of the bible is easier than making a movie about a book. Biblical stories are generally short, lacking explicit detail, and even internal emotion of the characters. Prince of Egypt capitalizes on this in portraying the evolving relationship between Moses and Ramses, inventing how Moses learned he was a Hebrew, and giving some time to Moses long stint in Midian. And of course, the bible is not a musical so Disney could add all sorts of songs without compromising the story.

Nonetheless, adding in these details can cause harm should they counter the main themes of the particular biblical story, somehow unmoor the story from the rest of biblical history, or undermine the biblical view of ethics and morality. For example, a vindictive Moses showing scorn to Pharoah as the Egyptian economy is deciamated, an authoritarian Moses chastising the Hebrews who question whether he in an emissary of God, a triumphalist Moses ridiculing Ramses as he is thrashing in the sea could have been inserted into the movie without violence to the biblical story. But doing so would have sharply violated Judeo-Christian ethics and morals and thus undermined the movie. I don't think the movie did that. Quite the opposite I think the details enhanced ethical and moral lessons of the story. But, there still is a lot of leeway in filling in those details. 

The Narnian stories are much more detailed than the biblical ones. That means there's a lot more material that, if changed, can be regarded as blasphemous in the eyes of the viewers. Of course, one can raise questions as to what is important in the stories themselves. For example, Lucy is clearly described as "golden-haired" in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Yet, I didn't hear any complaints that her hair was brown in the most recent movie. Now, in truth I might say Lucy's golden hair is not coincidental, but that it reflects Lucy's servitude to Aslan whose mane, fur, back, and even voice are described as golden throughout the Chronicles.   

Now, I'm not trying to make the color of Lucy's hair a complaint. I am simply noting that with more details come more potential changes from book to movie, and therefore more room for people to criticize changes in what they regard as integral to the books. 

So, the first step of a director transforming a book into a movie is to identify what is fundamental and what is not. What is important in the Chronicles of Narnia? 

As with the biblical stories, this question must resonate on a number of levels. There is the integrity of the story in front of us, the newest one being The Magician's Nephew, how that particular story fits in with the other Chronicles (and, being a prequel, this is most important), and a fidelity to the morals and and ethics of the story's source. And here, in this last level, is where most of the drama in the directing of the movie will take place. 

One can, in fact, forget the Christian allegory of the Chronicles. One need not be a Christian, or even a theist, to enjoy the stories. But it is difficult to imagine that one who does not have a basic working knowledge of Christianity and at least respects the values it represents can fully appreciate the stories for what they are. Thus, ignoring the Christianity of the Chronicles will fundamentally undermine the stories, making them less faithful to their original, less important to their audience, and, at the end, less enjoyable as a story.