A bit late to the Party here, but a friend of mine proposed that Susan could be a Self-insert for C.S. Lewis himself. C.S. turned away from God for a good chunk of his life and returned later on. It kind of puts a different spin on Susan. I like it.
@@jamesgravil9162 Lewis was raised in a religious family (Church of Ireland). Became an atheist in his teenage years. In his own words he said that he was paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing". He was in his late twenties when he met Tolkien. They used to stay up late into the night having deep discussions about theism and faith. And that's what eventually converted him back to the faith. He joined the Anglican Church, even though Tolkien wanted him to join the Catholic Church.
I literally said this in my comment lol to Lewis I think Susan was given the gift of time to accept the truth again. But it's a horrible road for her and I don't think he'd want to force a child to imagine the pain of loss and how it brings you to whatever faith you have. For some that's religion, and I think we have to always view narnian books through that lens as truth since it was the authors belief and intent
There is a great book called “What I Learned in Narnia” by Doug Wilson, in that book he makes a very interesting argument along these lines. He says that if someone believes that in the farthest in and farthest up Narnia Cair Paravel there are only 3 thrones, or that one of the thrones will be empty, then they obviously read a different series. I like this train of thought, it is very hopeful and, I believe, very Narnian.
Has it occurred to anyone that Aslan excluded Susan for her own good? She was in denial of Narnia and her childhood memories. Had she entered the final judgement of Narnia at the stable gate, she would have turned away from Aslan to the utter darkness. So he gave her more time to find Him in her own world, as he told she and Peter some time before. In a way, this is how the real world works. In the real world, most happy endings are somewhat bittersweet.
This is pretty much exactly what Lewis said in a letter, that Susan, because she is still alive, may very well find her way to Aslan's Country in her own way.
That was the way I always interrupted it too! She lived, therefore she had more time to turn to God in her own world and be reunited with her family in heaven!
On a more minor note, being left alive at the end not only means more time to come back to the truth and remember who she is, it also means she has time to fall in love and have children of her own, and pass on stories of Narnia so that they’re not forgotten on earth after she’s gone (all things that none of the Friends had the chance to do).
I don't know if it's on the DVD commentary or somewhere else, but I remember hearing a quote from Anna Popplewell somewhere where she said she was aware of what happened to Susan at the end of the series and decided to put an element in her preformance from the start that hinted at her not really wanting to be in Narnia. If this quote is true, then I applaud the actress for thinking ahead.
@@yelsahblah3270 I did watch the first movie again a short while back and I DID notice that Anna Popplewell is putting on an unhappy expression most of the time, so there might be some truth to it, but like I said, I can't remember where I found the confirmation of that. Either in the commentary or on the Prop Wars episode on Disney+.
My head canon(whether true or not) is that since Susan wasn’t on the train to begin with, it wasn’t her time to die. She gets to live the rest of her life fully, fall in love, have a family of her own, and then when it time for her to pass as a rip old age with her children and grandchildren (maybe even great grandchildren) surrounding her, she will awaken in Narnia in her prime and take her rightful place as High Queen. After all, one a king or queen of Narnia - always a king or queen of Narnia
My thoughts are similar. -The lives of the others children are cut short but Susan has a lot of years a head of her besides there may be still some lessons she has to learn bevor joying the others.
It’s important to note that none of the Friends had the chance to fall in love or have children of their own - and so their stories of Narnia die with them. Susan staying alive not only means she gets to live a full life, it also means that she’s able to make sure Narnia isn’t forgotten on earth when it’s her time to return.
One thing that doesn't really seem to be covered very much is the siblings' reaction to Susan's absence. It's an old question when discussing Heaven: Can a truly good person ever be happy knowing that others are suffering underneath Paradise? How can Lucy, Peter, and Edmund ever be truly content while one of their own is separated from them, suffering the trauma of their loss, perhaps condemned, maybe forever? How could any of them consider that a happy ending? It always seemed especially cruel to me since Susan had already grown up once before. In Narnia she was a noble queen, her best self, and then she went back to Earth and lost all that and apparently did much worse the second time around. It's daunting.
For my two cents i never interpreted it as Susan going to hell in the first place. Susan is left alive, to endure the tragedy of loss, that will hopefully snap her out of her momentary shallowness and get her her own story of "getting further in". Everybody has their own road to follow.
For the reactions of the others I feel like they know she'll get there eventually. Even in Prince Caspian she eventually saw Aslan herself, and knew he was there longer. They have faith in their sister. Its not goodbye to them, its until she's ready to be queen Susan again. I wonder if they don't consider at that moment what's awaiting her meantime. I mean if you woke up in heaven would you spend your first couple of hours thinking of the pain that awaits a loved one. They did establish no-one was currently in physical pain, then it's excitement and seeing old friends lost to them, and new adventures. I'm sure they did feel that pitty and pain for Susan after the quick glance of the aftermath we got in the book
When your heaven is actually a hell. And it's like the age old question.. why does bad thing happens to good people? Susan put away childish things when as an adult she lost her ENTIRE FAMILY! For someone to tell someone who lost their family to a horrible tragedy "oh they're in a better place and you'll see them again" is disgusting and vulgar. It's disgusting to tell survivors of the Holocaust or the Rwandan massacre that. That's the problem with xianity.
@@creativewriter3887 maybe it's just me but C.S Lewis came across as very preachy. I also don't appreciate the idea that one has to suffer through utter hell and pains to rediscover or deserve heaven and happiness.
@@iamai_iggs Catholics ultimately believe in redemption. If you do wrong, you will be forgiven, but only if you are truly remorseful. So, some people think that this means you must suffer to be redeemed. There are other schools of thought, of course.
Didn't Aslan send her back to her world with these words, "I am known in your world by a different name. You must seek me out and find me there." You are not only correct that Susan is the correct choice, but her happily ever after happens here, not in Narnia.
He actually said that to Lucy in The Dawn Treader, but I'm sure he'd also said it to Susan and Peter in the private conversation at the end of Prince Caspian where he let's them know off-page they won't be coming back to Narnia. No doubt that this is Susan's path to 'finding Aslan in this world.' And who knows, really, how long in middle life Polly and Digory may have strayed from Narnia before returning in their old age? Polly's stinging reference to 'the silliest time of her life' COULD indicate past experience she wishes Susan didn't share . . .
@@cmm5542 Ooh, your comment about Polly and Digory possibly straying got me thinking. I always thought that the Professor laying out a logical argument to Peter and Susan for believing Lucy rather than just telling them he knows Narnia is real was simply because Lewis wrote the Magician’s Nephew after The Lion. But what if, in-universe, he and Polly really had come to think of Narnia as a figment of two lonely children’s imaginations decades ago, and it was the Pevensies’ stories of their adventures that made them start to remember?
It annoys me everyone said Susan was left behind. No Susan was given her life to live and learn to be better. She was brought to narnia as a child, loved and was loved by aslan, then allowed herself to be corrupted in a way by the real world. To deny herself the truth. She could have chosen truth any time but refused to. If she'd went to narnia at the time of TLB she'd have been as the blind dwarfs, so aslan gave her hope in a trial by fire. She had to live through the aftermath of the accident, the loss of her family and choose love and faith again by the end of her natural life in her own world. It is a cruel kindness to me Ps I'm not really religious but I get the significance here. I think in order to really annalise these books you have to take the mindset of the true believer. I've lived enough life to understand that sometimes it's the hardest things that bring you back to your truest self, and I think a man of faith after going through war would have that message in his mind too, especially as I believe Lewis was brought to his branch of Christianity after the war. In some ways perhaps he sees Susan's story as a parallel to his own
It wasn't until later, but you can see this argument have a stronger possibility as well when you consider the grief and trial Lewis went through when his wife died. If you haven't, I'd recommend reading "A Grief Observed"
Agreed. Also, as I just commented on another thread, Susan would only have felt grief over the loss of her family if she were still Narnian at heart, in which case she'd find her way back and be comforted on the journey by the knowledge her family were safe with Aslan. If she had fully rejected that belief, she wouldn't have been personally affected by what happened to her family. I'm not saying she would not have cared about their dying; but if she really had chosen such a different path in life from her siblings, they would have no longer had anything in common, she didn't need them in the life she had chosen, and she wouldn't have particularly missed them. So either way Susan would never have had to suffer in a deeply personal way.
Wow, thank you for sharing your insightful interpretation. I relate to Susan. I was raised in a loving Christian home, but as a young adult I let the world turn my head a make me forget about the most important things in life. It was going to some amazingly difficult trials that made me refocus on my faith. This also makes me have "hope" for Susan as well.
yes.. you are right Laura. the others were taken to Narnia forever during the train wreck. Susan was not on the train. She was still alive. It would be interesting to follow her life after losing her parents, siblings, cousin and the Professor all at the same time.
Great video. I want to add three things: 1. Susan walked with Aslan to his death. She comforted him with Lucy and wept. She cried over his dead body and kissed it. She saw him come back to life. Aslan is the Christ-like character, so this would be akin to saying one of the holy women, such as St. Mary Madgalene won't be saved. She who was at the foot of the cross, wept at the tomb, and brought spices to anoint Christ's body, only to see Him risen. 2. Susan lived for several decades as a noble Queen of Narnia. She passed the test and then was sent back to our world. Kinda seems unfair. 3. Last, but not least, this doesn't imply that Susan, upon hearing of her siblings deaths and being flooded with memories, doesn't repent and make it to Heaven. And remember, C.S. Lewis conects Narian heaven to the actual Heaven in his wonderful novels. I like to think they'll see Susan later.
I believe Lewis said something along the lines of Susan did find her way back to Aslan eventually and basically gave his blessing for someone else to write that story and that it wasn’t for him to write
Susan was anxious to grow up and do grown up things. It got in the way of faith. I can see an older Susan one day being reminded of her brothers and sister Lucy and letting go of herself just enough for a door to her former faith to open. Then maybe she will find it again in this world.
Exactly. It's easy to be deafened to the call of Jesus when you're surrounded by the wiles of materialism. It has happened to many a Western Christian - some temporarily, others permanently (such as Ex-vangelicals and others with similar stories). In my observations and experiences, it can swing either way, depending on whether the person chooses to put their pride away for even a moment (Lewis even makes a point of this in his allegory "The Screwtape Letters," and a few other works).
Susan as a character always had the problem of wanting to be too grown up, with the other siblings often complaining that she was "trying to be like Mother". And as Aslan warns, once you get too grown up, you can't come back to Narnia. So her path to redemption will be a more "adult" one. Aslan also warned that they were brought to Narnia in the first place so they could know him in *this* world, where Susan remained.
Susan's falling away was not intended as something to offend readers, but to give them food for thought. Nor was it meant to imply that Susan was damned; as a young woman of twenty-one who has lost her entire immediate family, a cousin, and three friends in a railway accident, she would have had much to work through and would more than likely find herself seeking Aslan, which is to say Christ, to deal with her grief. She might well have found her way back, and once having departed the Shadowlands, was reunited with her dear ones.
@@nickmullen2830 It wouldn't be canonical because the physical Narnia was destroyed. The only way for Susan to get to the True Narnia would be to die with faith in Christ
"Trumpkin has the irony of being a fantastical creature who doesn't believe in other fantastical creatures." That reminds me of the silliness of the Maesters in _Game Of Thrones_ not believing in the White Walkers, while they're discussing the literal dragon invasion that's taking place on their doorstep!
I think it depends on the world lol, it's like when the platypus was discovered. Yeah we have narwhals and echidnas and possums and all these weird wild animals, but a mammal with a bill that lays eggs? Crazy! It's just about what the denizens are used to
Except that makes a lot of sense...They know dragons exist, because they have literally lived with a family who raised them...what is difficult to beliegve is magic and ice men that raise the dead, specially if you never saw anything remotely similar happen before.
To be clear, I don't think it's silly of Trumpkin. I mean, it's literally dramatic irony (or possibly situational irony or both?), and CS Lewis is having a bit of fun. It's no accident. One of Tumnus' books is called Is Man a Myth? He likes these perspective taking exercises and turnings things on their head. (Prince Caspian came out of wondering what it would like to be a genie and suddenly be summoned from wherever and whatever you were doing to be of some assistance.)
@@Pas5afist "One of Tumnus' books is called Is Man a Myth?" That's one of the things about Narnia that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Tumnus remembers what life was like before the White Witch seized power, only a hundred years ago, _when humans were running the kingdom!_ There are humans in Archenland, Calormen, and the Lone Isles. The Pevensie children visit these countries only a few short years after defeating the evil queen. Man clearly is not some mythological creature at this point in Narnia's history, which begs the question: what were the other humans doing while Jadis was in charge, and why didn't they try to fulfil the prophecy themselves?
@@jamesgravil9162 I didn't pick up on Tumnus being older than the reign of Jadis, I figured his stories were from his father or the books on his shelf. That particular 'Myth' book seems intended as a joke, but Tumnus does express having never met a human himself and, not being young himself, it's entirely possible that his Narnian peers similarly have no personal recollection of humans and, with Jadis in charge, might doubt that real humans ever actually existed, as Jadis seems to be trying to re-write Narnian history to maintain her power. As to the legend, why would any outside the country of Narnia know about it? In 'A Horse and his Boy' (iirc), they mention not wanting to invade Narnia while the Witch was in power and fear of the lion besides, and we don't get an explanation of what is going on in Archenland but likely they too are unable or unwilling to mount an invasion to defeat Jadis. So Narnia is isolated for 100 years. But a simpler explanation is that Lewis didn't care as much about a cohesive narrative across multiple books as Tolkien did, at least not with this first one. *shrug*
I've always lived in hope that Susan will in time find her own way back to Narnia. It was time for Lucy, Edmund, Peter, and everyone else to go and rejoin Aslan, but not for Susan. She still had work to do. But I think, in time, Susan will rediscover her faith (I headcanon that Susan will someday tell the story of Narnia to her children and, later, her grandchildren as just that, a story, but that will begin her journey to remembering), and will reunite with her siblings and the rest of her Narnia family. Once a Queen of Narnia, always a Queen of Narnia.
Well Trumpkin is a dwarf and symbolically dwarfs basically are an embodiment of earthly practicality since they are "children of the earth". One thing that I like about Lewis is how he was able to capture the mythological/symbolic essence of the beings which inhabit Narnia quite accurately.
I would argue heavily that it doesn't actually matter who did or did not arrive in Narnia for The Last Battle from the original four or the oldest two... The whole point of who did or did not make it is based ENTIRELY on the occupants of the rail carriages involved in the accident. There is NOTHING in the text that says Susan won't make it eventually...after all, she is still alive, and still has time to believe and come later. She is, during the timing of the books, going through the extremely traumatic experience of losing her entire family in one go...and as Aslan says, we are not told everyone's story. When you die, you go to see those long departed...but you also leave loved ones behind. Do not worry excessively about their story...your own has enough trouble.
I agree with you @dclark. Everyone makes it out to believe that she doesn't believe and that's why she isn't there. She never got on the train. I think the parties and suppression for now are to help her deal with the loss of her siblings. I thoroughly believe she believes and she will see them later.
@@micheldesjardins9174 predestination is a false doctrine which strips men of their agency. God's knowledge of how things will play out does not make them play out as such.
People who are mad about Susan not making it clearly don't understand what it actually means. It is clearly an allegory for how in Christianity, people who once believed get lost over time. You may not agree with the message, or you may think Susan's loss of faith and her sibling's reaction was somewhat superficial, but you cannot deny the reality it is trying to portray. It has nothing to do with sexism or whatever other modernist ideas people try to read into it.
A channel called Into The Wardrobe also goes into detail about Susan in one of his videos. It helped me understand more and gave me hope that it was possible that she could someday go to Narnia again.
Yes, this was not something I understood when I first read The Last Battle. I think I assumed because Narnia had ended, Earth had as well- probably because not only were all the children in Deeper Narnia, but also their parents. But even after cluing in that, no, it was only because of the train crash at the beginning of the book that everyone was present, I still kept the belief Susan was permanently out. It took until years later that it finally dawned on me that because Susan was not on said train, she still had the opportunity to change her mind. There is still hope for Susan :)
I have not watched his video on Susan, but one thought that did enter my mind when watching this one is that Susan’s fate is not known. Lewis himself lost his faith and given he later repented and let God in I doubt he ever thought her fate was sealed.
And I believe he gave us the answer already, in his last book of Till We Have Faces. Through the character of Orual. Orual could be the mature and complex answer to the problem of Susan. Orual's redemption could be Susan's salvation. Both were great queens of their lands, both experienced a divine presence, and both had younger sisters who had a close relationship with a divine figure. And like Susan, Orual behaved arrogantly toward her young sister Psyche, condescendingly treating her like a child. We may never know Susan's fate, but Orual reunites with her sister in the afterlife.
It's been a long time since I last read the Narnia books. I had already forgotten about the passage you quoted. So thanks for this interesting and in-depth analysis. I would love to see more Narnia videos on your channel in the future
Thank you. I'm glad to hear it. :) I've got a few videos planned that branch out from Narnia (thus staking out territory that this isn't a Narnia exclusive channel). However, I have a number of video analysis ideas for Narnia. I think the series often gets overlooked in the modern era, so while my first love will always be Lord of the Rings, I'd love to see CS Lewis rehabilitated.
In many ways I see similarities between Susan and ,ironically, Peter Pan from Hook as played by Robin Williams where Peter grew up in the magic of Neverland but gave it up for the girl he ended up marrying. He only regains his "old" (or should that be "younger"?) self when he starts to believe and even then it takes a last push.
Why do all of you having this argument forget that in the books Susan is not denied heaven she isn’t dead yet. I mean her parents aren’t mentioned as friends of narnia but they get in C.S. Lewis stated in a letter that her path in led a different path from narnia
Peter is the Paragon, Edmund is the Redeemed, Lucy is the Innocent. Susan was the obvious choice, even if only by elimination. But as you point out, Lewis established her character, if subtly, to be the one "left behind." And I think this was the plan all along. ='[.]'=
That is how the story was written. If people don't like it, they should not try to change. Either put it aside or write their own. It is not an open source set of data. It is a published and closed work of literature that must be respected as it is and within the context of the time and people who authored it.
"or write their own." This is very often the most productive response. As storytellers, you will come across stories that you do not like, but then it generates new ideas: 'What if..." and then we benefit from a new story. I don't mind if people dislike Narnia in part or in whole (preference is what it is). All I ask is that the dislike be based an accurate interpretation of the text and not on someone else's misinterpretations.
Critique isn't "trying to change it." Can no piece of media be criticized ever? Critique the criticism, provide different interpretations, show it's unfounded etc. (like this video has done), but it's silly to say to just respect it or write your own.
Okay here is the thing. Just finished your other video and while I still do not like the way they deride Susan in the end (and how we're just going to ignore the Why of gee why might someone who was thrust into maturity at a young age due to a giant war, then grew up into a full and wonderful adult, then had her life undone and was thrust back into childhood before getting tossed as a child again into ANOTHER war, want to grow up in the Fun and Carefree sense where she is allowed to do frivolous adult things without having to worry about the baggage of her past), I think you are correct about what Lewis INTENDED his point about Susan to be. BUT your point here relies on "IF it is necessary to sacrifice someone for the sake of depth" and I fully disagree that this was a choice that should have been made. Not only does the scene in which they bring up the lack of Susan undermine itself by refusing to allow the characters in-universe to feel terrible about the loss of their sister, possibly for eternity if she never comes to Aslan's Country, but it just. It just doesn't work the way you say it is meant to? The Loss in LotR works because we see everything Frodo goes through, we see the wonder of the Elves, we see and experience and go through everything that leads up to that Loss and makes us understand on an intimate level why it is this way and why it could be no other way thanks to these events. But here? Susan leaves Narnia for the second time and she and we are told that she and Peter will never come back to Narnia again because they are too old (and this is not presented as a lack of faith, this moment and the same happening to Lucy and Edmund later is presented as being very literal). So we're primed to never see these characters again and THAT is sad. And in the next few books they do not show up, just like we were told, and they aren't really brought up because we already know they're not going to be in these stories or influencing anything. And then the final book comes out and suddenly oh hey here's all the kids and the cool adults we knew and liked and they're all getting to go to Heaven together! ...except Susan. For reasons. Reasons that have largely happened off screen and we have no emotional connection to. After we were already told we wouldn't see her again anyway. This isn't emotional impact. This isn't the loss of a beloved character we were yearning to see or a happy ending we knew was coming and were denied because the reality of the events that transpired were too tragic to allow it. This is the kind of confusion and disappointment that comes from being given a surprise box of chocolates that somebody else has already gone through and removed their favorites from.
I agree with this znalysis; but I would argue the choice of Susan wasn't the problematic part of the story. It was how the characters in-book spoke dismissively about what she had become and pointed specifically to make-up and other feminine qualities.
It's been a while since I read the books, but I believe those points may gave been brought up to signify the bigger issue of her focusing more on vanity and material things. Being more "worldly" so to speak. Not that makeup or femininity is inherently bad, but that in Susan's case they were indicative of a deeper problem.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, this reading assumes the other characters knew they were in Heaven without Susan, which they did not. They only knew that Susan was the only one who had selfishly refused to do her part in coming back to save Narnia. Of course they're annoyed at her for going to a party instead of coming along to help! I don't understand why anyone thinks someone having fun at a party while their family and friends are off fighting a life-or-death battle is in need of anyone's sympathy, frankly.
I haven't read the books, and it's been a while since I've seen the movies, but based off of these analysis videos my thoughts are this: The way Susan was handled was not "bad writing". As you've explained, there is a lot of narrative precedent for her character to take this direction, and as I was watching the videos it was not lost on me what her allegorical role likely was. I'd say her narrative role is to be an illustration of "The Doubter", and her characterization seems to be consistent with that narrative. I'd say that qualifies as "good writing" on a technical level, as it fulfills its intended goal. However, I think what the issue *really* is is not that the writing is poor, or that it is doing a bad job at conveying a message; it seems to convey it pretty well. It's that people take issue with the message itself. For example, Susan admitting that she "knew deep down", but suppressed that belief, is pretty clearly a statement via allegory that "Disbelievers (in Christianity) know the truth, but are refusing to acknowledge it, for whatever reason they may be". Many will disagree with this assessment about nonbelievers. In fact, although Susan's characterization and arc may be internally consistent and airtight logically, you may see Susan's character as "untrue" because she doesn't seem like a proper representation of "The Doubter" if it is inconsistent with your experience and worldview. It's a little difficult trying to articulate the point I'm trying to make, but to summarize, I think that even when giving the text a fair evaluation, regardless of the technical aspects of writing, disagreement in terms of worldview can be reason to dislike the writing (not that it makes it less worth engaging with or analyzing). It is simply that the message is considered objectionable, which, in a well written work, is a pretty inherent part of it. (for an attempt at analogy, if you wrote a story in which, say, horseshoes were made by magic, if you had the magic system responsible for horseshoe making be a well written and consistent system, you could make a well written story in this odd setting. However, it would still be a lousy representation of the actual horseshoe making process)
I can see that. People get distracted by the lipstick, but ultimately they could be having visceral reaction to the idea itself, no matter the execution. If I were bring to a parallel example: I remember reading, I think it was Songs of a Distant Planet by Arthur C Clarke and in it, the story proposed that they had ended jealousy by ending marriage... and this to me fundamentally misunderstands where jealousy comes from. For that reason I found the book (though it is hard sci fi) to be less realistic than a space opera like Star Wars because it so badly misunderstands human nature (at least from my own world view.)
I disagree. Susan had faith and she's abandoned it to seek worldly things and approval. This is a very particular sort of doubter being discussed through the story. It hits just fine for an audience of kids raised with faith who are seeing peers and siblings slip away. But material and worldly pleasure focused people don't take kindly to being pricked about their likely very real obsession with a false adulthood, so instead of relating to the other children they feel defensive about what's happened. Many who were more religious as kids are probably especially uncomfortable with the implication that they might be Susan. Others who weren't religious are uncomfortable with being confronted with the idea that they might be or once were wrapped up in a false adulthood. And the notion that others might actually have been wiser than them and not fallen into the same trap.
Objecting to the message should usually open up discussion and interesting debate in regards to the core theme (like this video's author's experience with one of Clarke's works). What's going on is that the core theme is (more than likely) being purposely ignored because it is a highly uncomfortable topic and one that the author has personal authority on as Lewis - when one knows his religious background- seems almost to be describing himself. And the general knowledge about him is usually the following: grew up in christian home, lost faith, met a christian friend, regained faith. Again, not a comfortable topic to explore; especially if a person has a similar background. Therefore, they criticize the surface level misunderstandings and bad takes on Lewis' story because that is comfortable.
Building on the last comment we must remember what Lewis' life was before being brought back to faith, and the parallels with Susan at the end of the last battle. He fought in a war. Saw friends and family list to him, probably saw terrible things. As we can understand from The Problem With Susan she was to be faced with similar duties after the accident. And Lewis' own writings that Susan's journey was one "far too adult than any story I (Lewis) wanted to write". Put all that together and I think it's safe to say she faces his journey even if that was not his intent when beginning the first story. Sometimes the best arcs are character led not predetermined
Each of the kids is supposed to represent kinds of faith in people that CS Lewis saw in the Christian community. Peter (named after the apostle)- is supposed to be a person who believes but struggles with following their beliefs. Edmund - the person who was led a stray but eventually believes and is a stronger believer for it. Susan - starts out believing but as life goes on, out grows her faith and ends up losing it. Lucy- the youthful faith. Has room to grow and is the first to accept the seemingly impossible and discovers their own beliefs. Eustace - the prosecutor who repents. Jill - the converted skeptic, the person who's shown how to believe but struggles with their fears (similar but different to Susan's Arc) You have to remember that Narnia was created to teach Lewis's niece (Lucy Cook, later Barfield) about Christianity.
only discovered your channel really today, but something that stuck out to me in your excerpt from Prince Caspian is that at the beginning of the chapter, right before Peter speaks it describes him as having stared until his eyes were sore. In other words, he had faith in Lucy, and so he eagerly looked and looked to find Aslan (eagerly might be the wrong word choice, but I think you get my point). Been a while since I've read the books so I can't recall other examples off the top of my head, but I think that's a small point further illustrating why Peter wasn't the best choice to have a loss of faith.
There are other hints too. If memory serves, correct me if I’m wrong, in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader we learn that Susan was thought to be the pretty one, perhaps hinting that vanity was a sin that called to her. I will agree your example has more pertinence. Peter and Edmund were skeptical but willing to have faith without seeing. Susan was only willing to believe until her faith had been proved. Lewis was not a hack writer. When he breathed life into characters and gave them personalities he let them have free will of a sort. Every good writer does this and the greats do it consciously. I cannot prove it since Lewis has been dead going on 70 years, my how time flies (it was less then two decades when I was born), but I doubt he was surprised when Susan lost her faith. I could talk forever on this subject and many others. In fact, probably the only drive for me to create a UA-cam channel would probably be to ramble on with other creators about things I’m interested in.
I never saw Susan as vain. I just saw her as a product of the post-war expectation of women.. women had to grow up and get married and have kids. And having LOST her entire family later on in the series (ironically surviving the WAR but dying in a senseless crash) who wouldn't lose faith after this? The same for Holocaust survivors, WWII survivors, etc. That's the problem with xianity. its polemics are so black and white.. but life is NEVER that clear cut and it's vile to think that to have no faith is seen as the ultimate sin.
@@creativewriter3887 You don't understand Christianity if you think it's 'black and white.' Black and white would be 'good (on this arbitrary definition of good) goes to Heaven; evil (on equally arbitrary definition of evil) goes to hell.' Faith is not this simplistic polemic. It is growing and developing relationships (with both God and other humans) and reacting sensitively to different circumstances and following along an ever-developing path. It is complex in action but requires only love of the person you have faith in and who has faith in you to succeed. Saying bad things happening is a reason to lose faith in God is like saying bad things happening is a reason to stop trusting your mother or true love or best friend. Using mere circumstances as a reason to destroy relationships just hurts everybody, and that is what Christianity guards against. What matters in life is making relationships work, not following some set of rules or everything working out perfectly, because it won't. But people who have good relationships based on faith in one another, and love and hope as well, are beyond the power of adverse circumstances to harm them. We are all going to die. Who cares if it is in a war or a crash or how many precede or follow us? What matters is that those relationships can transcend the grave, and only love can do that. And for Christians, God is love. Heaven isn't a 'reward' for faith or hell a 'payout' for disbelief. Heaven and hell are the result of one's capacity for and receipt of love, nothing more or less. I hope you can find it in your life, because nothing else besides love matters in the end.
@@cmm5542 I do know xianity. I used to be an evangelical xian. So I don't need a polemic, missive or a display in polemic acrobatics. You can do back bends all you want, but it boils down to the basics... that Jesus is the Promo code by which even the most reprehensible of people can get into heaven while the most righteous of people are sent to hell by this supposed loving god for not having had that "promo code" belief. Being a good person doesn't count. And if that weren't sick enough... Xian doctrine places ALL of humanity on the same footing thanks to the bogus notion of Original sin. so that the atheist moral grandmother who all her life baked cookies for her atheist group, participated in social causes and was generally a nice, warm person .. because she didn't believe in Jesus is on the same footing as the Pedophile, the rapist and the serial killer . if that repulses you (which it SHOULD) then congratulations, there's still a modicum of decency within you and you're more moral than Original sin doctrine and xianity. But this IS the legacy of xianity. Which is why xians will sidestep the ENTIRE issue of sex abuse cases within their own churches and claim that gays, drag queens and trans people are the threat to kids.
@@creativewriter3887 As I just replied to you on another thread, ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUALLY EVIL. Every human being on earth, including you and me, is selfish and hypocritical and thinks whatever hurts THEM and their chosen friends should be an unpardonable sin, and everything they do to hurt others is forgivable. You clearly don't recognize how AWFUL the things you are saying are, how much hurt you are causing - you don't care if you hurt OTHERS, only what hurts YOU or the very small collection of people you care about, which is of course mostly selfish for all of us because the people we love are friends and family who do things for us 🤷♀️ - it's certainly not altruistic. And you have no OBJECTIVE reason for thinking sex offenders are any more evil or have caused any more harm than any other evildoer. No one doubts that it's wrong, but what's REALLY sickening is this idea that it's okay to pick one kind of sin to demonize, to deny the humanity of the perpetrators, and let everyone else off scot-free even though their actions may well have caused far more damage. You don't know what's hurt the most people in the 'worst' way. It's just popular to condemn sexual sins of that sort nowadays and that's why you're disgusted by it: if we lived in the Victorian Age you'd accept the prevailing belief that premarital sex was the worst - you're not basing your disgust on any evidence that one crime/sin is objectively worse or harmful than any other. And you're trying to compare apples to oranges: even the worst and most revolting earthly crime can only hurt a person during the VERY short period of mortal lifespan. This cannot compare to hurting someone for eternity by denying them its existence. Someone tricked into believing atheism has now lost eternity, because for them it does not exist. No temporal suffering can POSSIBLY be compared to the loss of eternal life! I'm not talking about hell here - for atheists neither hell nor Heaven exist - I'm talking about being robbed of immortality by someone who convinces you it's not real. You can't enjoy something you've convinced yourself is illusory. And suffering a little less pain during this infinitesimal and ALWAYS painful mortal life, does not make up for losing an eternity of REAL happiness! This idea of yourself that YOU should get to decide who is 'good' and gets to go to Heaven and who is 'bad' and should go to hell, is not only arrogant but foolish on your part. Your narrow perspective of reality simply does not give you sufficient knowledge to know what is good or bad, so you cannot logically judge an omniscient Being who of course WOULD know what is good and bad in a reality He CREATED. You have no authority to decide 'actions bad; beliefs irrelevant' because you have NO IDEA how much more harm beliefs could cause than actions on the long run (though a quick look at history or human relationships that have gone through rocky times but survived due to their faith in LOVE could tell you). Your problem is that you can't stand that God knows better than you do and that you are not always right while He is. You can't accept you need forgiveness like everybody else, because you're not the great person you think you are. Believe me, I've been there and it's awful. I hope you don't stay there forever - because that would literally be hell. Not some medieval superstitious eternal-fire version, but the very real pain you are clearly suffering from all this burning hatred and unkindness and bitterness inside you. You're never going to create a heaven for yourself out of that; there's only the real one and if you can't accept reality you won't enjoy it even though it's right there. I hope you find true love and happiness someday; it's really sad that you chose to live in such misery when you don't have to.
@@cmm5542 First of all stop your projection and your gaslighting apologetics. Second, your entire missive clearly shows how utterly wretched, wicked, wanton and whole EVIL your world view of humans are. And it's that kind of view that has led to every evil done by xians in the name of their god. What you can't stand is the evil and wanton genocide done by and continues to be done by your co-religionists. So rather than deal with that morality, you put EVERYONE on all fours and claim everyone.. the perpetrator and the victim are evil, from the newborn baby to the elderly and everyone in between.. no matter who they are, what they suffered or even what they do to better society. Everyone is evil in your world and what's sick is that no one can be held responsible but more importantly, no one can. And then that makes everything so nice and neat doesn't it? You don't have to think, wrestle or champion to build a better world because in the end someone else will do the work for which you and your friends will try to claim credit for. It doesn't need to address how amoral, wicked, vile, putrid, disgusting, and utterly despicable your religion is.. that you can do the most vile things.. from rape, pillaging, molestation, murder, theft and even genocide and yet you can get into heaven BUT WORSE, claim some sort of moral superiority or some "purpose" and "design". You don' t have to DO or BE anything. And if you , god forbid are caught.. you cop two answers: "Oh they weren't real xians" or " Hey! only god can judge me and I'm a sinner saved by his grace so you can't touch me or charge me( read: Hold me accountable)!" Again, the Jesus promo code for absolution and no accountability... AND That is YOUR problem. So anyone who challenges your rancid morality is seen as "hurting", "sad" "pathetic" "miserable" "joyless" etc. You love to be the projectionist, gaslighting manipulator because the truth is there are millions are who are more moral than both you and your god was, is, or could ever be. You can project and genuflect all you want but the fact is, your religion cannot wash this away. The blood you bathe in isn't jesus'.. it's the millions of victims it claimed both yesterday and today. So genuflect, misdirect, project, sit on your psychological "Sit and Spin" and whirl out excuses.. but it changes nothing. And I DO have joy in my life.. but comes from REAL relationships with REAL people who are more moral and more loving than either you, your god and religion. And the pursuit of truth and justice for ALL free from this nonsense IS a purposeful life and a "higher calling".
I personally think Jack Lewis gave us the answer to Susan's problem already, not in the Chronicles, but in his last book, Till We Have Faces, through the character of Orual. Orual can be seen as the mature and complex solution to the problem of Susan. Orual's redemption could be the answer to Susan's salvation. Both were great queens, bot witnessed a divine experience, and both behaved like arrogant grownups to their younger sisters (Lucy, Psyche) who had a close relationship with a divine figure (Aslan, Cupid). We may never know Susan's fate, but Orual's ending is a happy one, where she reunites with her sister and comes face to face with the Divine.
Wow. I find this incredible. I read the books when I was about 10-11. One of my best friend's dad was one of the production team for the BBC TV adaptation for the books, and he liked my attitude. So I was in the running to be Reepicheep. The BBC brought in a team to voice-check me at school one day. But was 10-11, and "not gruff enough". Spending time with my friend Tom Spalding, at his family house, every room was filled with props from the 90s BBC production - giant pillows & huge apples from the Silver Chair, shields & armour, banners & swords - that house was amazing to visit. And I COULD have been the first on-screen Reepicheep. But aged 10, I didn't have the gravitas to portray a dueling fighter with a deathwish. Fair enough.
Susan gets there after living as an adult. ( Probably traumatic due to loss of entire family ) "Once a king or queen, always a king or queen..." Takes her awhile to realize her mistakes maybe.. But yeah, it would be her. Can't be Ed.. after what Aslan did for him... never. Can't be Lucy. She was closest to Aslan. Peter was high king. Digory with his mom as well as polly.. not to mention seeing creation. Like you said Can't be Eustace or Jill... Susan was always the least into things. Esp in Caspian...after seeing what happened at stone table she was least in faith. But not because of her wanting to be girly girl...Probably just internal stuff which she would hopefully work out living her life here. So you're probably on point .
Damn j love these hot takes. Here’s my own - Susan wa star only one given a good ending. The kids didn’t choose to die - they didn’t find a slam in their own world, so they died when narnia did. They all should have survived and had long, great lives in this world. But Aslan, in some twisted logic that narnia believers have to die right that instant (along with a bunch of other people), took everyone but Susan. Aslan isn’t evil, but he makes bad decisions sometimes, and this was one of them (or maybe it was deep magic and not himself that caused the train to crash). I think this series reads so much better when you read Aslan and the emperor over the sea as imperfect - like narnia, they simply try their best. And yeah everyone should have lived, it’s odd that so many ppl when talking about Susan treat her family’s early deaths as the “good ending”. Like bro the could’ve rejoined narnia in 60 years, what was the rush?
Yes, exactly. I read "The Last Battle" quite late in live (when I was 17 or so) and for me the worse thing is not that Susan dosn't go to Narnia heaven right now but the fakt that all the other charakters I liked so much died. Narnia Heaven is hardly a comnfort. -Susan at least has the chance to live a full live.
Iirc, there was no indication she was never going to be a part of paradise, she had just lost her way. I also think that C.S Lewis mentioned it was possible for her to enter into paradise in a letter to fan, she would just have to go through her own story, presumably putting faith in Aslan again.
I thought the Susan Controversy rather odd - she explicitly rejects Narnia. As an aside, I had no idea until watching this video that Peter Dinklage was Trumpkin.
But it did not add that bitter-sweetness, sense of longing or complexity. It came off as baffling and mean spirited. The way they talked about her in the last battle was flippant and without a hint of love. It made these characters that i had grown to love sound suddenly snide and soulless. It could have been fixed with a few lines. "She will come in due time, but she has trials still." or "She remains in your world for now." After weeping over Aslan's corpse, untying him so he would have some dignity in death, and seeing him return to life, just to be excluded and dismissed by her siblings in the end of things. No, it sent the message "the doubters will be punished and afforded no sympathy." It was an ending that has bothered me for decades, and the end of my adoration for the series.
But they didn't know they were dead at that point! All they knew was that they were back in Narnia, and Susan was being a spoilsport and wouldn't come along. I'm sure she'd been invited to go after the rings, and she just wasn't interested. So of course her siblings are flippant and hastily smooth over her absence - they don't want to give Trinian the idea his problems weren't worth the intervention of ALL the kings and queens of Narnia; Susan's just shirking her responsibilities so it's not a reflection on Trinian. They're actually quite generous to her if you think of historical royal precedent - it's a huge snub that she doesn't think visiting a fellow monarch is worth her time and they could have condemned her betrayal of the Narnian cause a whole lot more strongly, but instead they generously accept that she doesn't HAVE to come to Narnia if she doesn't want to. That's what gets me, really - everyone saying 'poor Susan, being left out' when she DIDN'T WANT TO COME and the others were just respecting her wishes even if they felt hurt by her rejecting them. And then when they briefly express that hurt and frustration but quickly get over it and move on because it's not for other people to define our happiness any more than us theirs, THEY'RE blamed for not being 'upset enough' that Susan doesn't want to be with them? Weeping and wailing would hardly make Susan change her mind, and it would be extraordinarily cruel to have HER choices determine the rest's fate when they made different choices. The point is that different choices lead to different places; not that Susan is being PUNISHED by not having to go somewhere she doesn't want to go! That's bonkers: FORCING her to go to Narnia which she no longer enjoys would have been a punishment.
@@cmm5542 I see that you missed my point entirely. my point is, excluding Susan at all did not have the impact that the video maker is proposing was the intent. If that was what Lewis was going for, then he failed to pull it off for me. C.S Lewis was very capable of including Susan, he was also very capable of writing her exclusion in a way that didn't come off so jarring. The brothers and sisters could have been written to know they had died, and said "I hope Susan does not grieve too hard for us, or let the guilt of surviving darken her soul." I am saying that the author, C.S Lewis, screwed up here. The siblings did bicker, and rub each other the wrong way, but were always written with a clear love for each other. Even when Edmund was under the influence of the White witch's food, he didn't stop loving them, as he reacted in horror when he learned they were really in danger and not just ignoring the person he thought was nice because he was mind manipulated. But in this case it was " silly Susan, disagreeing with us and trying to live a normal life." and i remember not a hint of the nuance i saw in them before. They didn't feel like the same characters, and that is ALL on the author. I say again for clarity, i am not blaming the characters, i am blaming the author. This part of the trilogy was written in a way i found utterly unappealing, and to child me, seemed to imply rather unkind things. i am just calling it like i see it, a bad ending.
It was never a surprise for me that she was not with them, because her interestes were different at that time. (But I didn't like Susan that much anyway.)
Excellent takes on the videos you've produced so far. You've earned yet another subscriber. 👍 Keep the grind going; I predict you're gonna break through.
I think Peter, as a King David type, would have been a good choice to have not a crisis of faith, but a failure of conscience. Where he failed to do the right thing for his own selfish reasons, but when called out is able to recognise his failure and fully repent. But that would need to be on the pages, not off the pages.
I think CS Lewis had 3 reasons to leave Susan out 1. It does fit her moving away from Narnia Ark 2. It left the door open to having sequels follow future generations of this bloodline and finally Aslan exists in the normal world so perhaps it's her fate to find him their first
This is my first time ever hearing of feminist and misogyny critiques of Susan. I haven’t read the series since I was in high school over 20 years ago, but I never thought she was given a misogynistic treatment. This video has made me want to reread the series now that I’m older and theoretically wise enough to appreciate a lot of the deeper messages embedded throughout the series.
Grief is a teacher. Susan may find her way back. We aren't 21 forever. The sad part for me was not Susan's absense, but the presence of the other Pevensies, violently, senselessly taken. None of the Pevensies got to live a full life on earth. Only Susan. That's sad.
Nobody is going to care how long or short their mayfly existence on this pretty miserable planet was when they have an eternity of perfect happiness afterward - infinity plus 12 and infinity plus 80 are both still just infinity . . . simple maths . . .
@@cmm5542 that's a toxic ideology. If life is so bad, shouldn't we all rush to death? Why is suicide even a sin if life is such a burden? Life is good. God left paradise to live on earth and he did not regret it. He also did not want to die, even if he knew it was his destiny. So yeah, it's still sad that the Pevensies all died violently and young.
@@mookosh Life is a journey to eternity. If you aren't spending it preparing for eternity; it's a journey to nowhere and utterly meaningless. I'm not saying you can't enjoy the journey - though many people don't get the option of having a good life in this world - but that it is utterly irrelevant how long the journey lasted once you get where you were actually going! Especially in the extremely likely scenario that the journey was difficult and wearisome far more often than it is enjoyable. And it is easier to get through the trials and enjoy the rare moments of bliss on the journey when you know where you are going and it won't be long till you get there! There is nothing 'toxic' (whatever this new negativity buzzword means precisely) about that. No one in Heaven, Christ Himself included, is bothered about how short their life on earth was! It's senseless anyway because getting all upset and angry about death doesn't alter its inescapable reality, so there's literally no point. Might as well complain about sweating - not going to stop it from happening so we just have to deal with it. I'm not scared of death in any way. Every moment could be my last, so I live life to the fullest while I've got it and don't worry about the pain it also ALWAYS contains because it will all be over soon.
@@cmm5542 A live spend not preparing for enternity can still be meaningful of course! It's up toe ach end everyone to give live some meaning weather you believe in afterlive or not! I hate sentecenes like that!
Yeah, I don't know why people jumped straight to sexism in this instance. I was raised Christian (I'm no longer practicing) and at the perfect age for this series when the movies were releasing so reaching the end and seeing what happens to Susan felt more of a cautionary tale of faith then "girly girls are bad" like it wasn't the act of gravitating towards makeup and socializing that failed her, it was putting those things above her faith. Like the Narnia series is soaked in Christianity and Christians love when women are traditionally feminine. Like there's a sexist element to the series as a whole but in the case of Susan I think it's just a matter that CS needed an impactful showcase of what happens when you lose faith.
So it's been like 10 years since I read the book the I don't remember the ending exactly, but don't they all die in the end, it's like the whole victory with loss but without the actual victory part
Susan survives, she wasn't on the train with the rest. The rest are killed in the train crash. When they are fighting The Last Battle in the last book, they are fighting for their souls and the soul of Narnia.
They all go to HEAVEN and don't even know they died. The point is that death doesn't matter but what comes afterward. I find our modern terror of death as the worst possible ending very disturbing, because it is the ending we will all have. So regardless of individual beliefs, people need to stop making death out to be such a big deal - it's just reality!
It would have been very interesting if CS Lewis had given us a Peter Crisis of faith arc where he deeply questions his past and whether he truly believes but comes out of it
I have always thought that it was good for Susan to stay on Earth at the end, because the other kids always seemed like their hearts were still in Narnia, Susan moved on, she had a life was starting a family. Because I think that part of Susan’s character is her motherliness and even though she got to grow up in LW&W she never got to be a mom. Peter didn’t have a family, Edmund has no girlfriend, because that isn’t important to them, Narnia is important to them, Susan will be just fine. Because she hasn’t lost her faith, she just moved on from Narnia.
Yes, I mentioned that there is still hope for Susan in my previous video and so didn't go over it again here. In retrospect, I suppose I could've reiterated it. However, I am trying very hard to be succinct to avoid belabouring points I've already made.
And losing her entire family in that train wreck may be the catalyst to make her seek Aslan again. As the professor stated, “Once a King in Narnia, always a King in Narnia.”
also to add Edmund's points why it couldn't be him: He has a lot of guilt for what he did in the first book. In Prince Caspian, he wanted to believe Lucy because he wanted to redeem himself. Overall, Edmund just wants to redeem his characters so there's no way he will go back to his old ways.
wasn't th 2 older siblings told that they were to old 2 come back into narnia? javnt read the books for years but i got a vague memory of that plis i have a vague memory that there were plans for a story of susans return to narnia but it was scrapped for some reason
No, it's because Susan chose not to believe. That's the biggest sin. Edmund is forgiven for being a traitor, but Susan can never be forgiven for her non belief. She's denied Heaven because of that, and her siblings seem to be quite happy about it. Of course Lewis couldn't just make the sin not belief - because even in the 1950s that could seem to be too harsh- he had to make her an empty headed wall flower too, exluding her for frivolous reasons, and that's not how she was portrayed earlier. So no, it didn't have to be Susan - it didn't have to be anyone. It's just another example of a believer damning an unbeliever in the most cynical way possible. It's not good to damn Susan in this way. It is quite arbitrary, and Susan's sins are really quite minor and shallow, they are not really justified against the punishment, especially when you look at the other characters sins. Susan has never been as bad. But then it's religion, where non belief is the most unforgivable sin. The worst sinner in the world is going to get to heaven before an unbeliever.
My trouble with losing Susan is it seems in doing it, Lewis is going back on the statement he put in Aslan's mouth: "Once a King or Queen of Narnia, always a King or Queen of Narnia."
@LimeGreenBunny can't confirm for myself, but I've many times from different people that Lewis always intended to write another book about Susan finding her faith again and joining the others in Narnia. Unfortunately he died before he could. I personally belive that Susan does come to believ again before she dies, that's why she wasnt on the train,she needed more time.
The question is not so much ''who'' would be the one to turn away from Narnia (and Aslan?) but WHY? The reasons given for Susan's rejection of Narnia is contingent with the challenging prospect that Aslan gives to Lucy and Edmund at the end of Prince Caspian. Aslan tells the younger pair that their siblings are now too old to be allowed to stay. Later, at the end of The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader, Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund; ''"You are too old, children... and you must begin to come close to your own world now." The reason for Susan's apostasy is given in The Last Battle; her interest has shifted to ''nylons, lipstick and invitations''. This makes it appear that it has everything to do with sex, but this is only HALF correct. There are many instances in the Narnia chronicles where fully-grown adult males and females enter the world of Narnia and populate various regions. So... wanting sex is NOT the problem with Susan. It is her wanting to have it in Narnia. For some reason, C. S. Lewis made that a no-no for the children. The problem is that it is not in the destiny of; the Pevensies, Digory Kirke, Polly Plummer, Eustace and Susan Pole to STAY in Narnia and have children THERE. It was for Frank (the ex-cabby) and his wife, Helen.... it was for those Pirates who stumbled through a portal with their stolen women/wives and inhabited the deserted realm of Telmar.... it might have been for others... BUT NOT FOR THE CHILDREN. The Pevensies are accorded 15 years to re-establish and enjoy the redeemed Narnia... but they DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN. Susan's temporary infatuation with Rabadash of Calormen comes to nothing... the many suitors of Lucy, never have their affections returned. The Pevensies remain virgins - and the three who are finally embraced into the ''Heavenly'' Narnia remained so... as did, we might surmise, Digory and Polly. I'll leave it to others to ponder WHY Lewis made this so for those children who help Narnia in her most grievous times.
There is literally no connection between lipstick and sex. I don't know where this interpretation comes from. If Susan had gotten married and had kids, either in the regular world or Narnia, she could have just brought them with her! As your post references, PLENTY of Narnian characters have sexual relationships, Lewis didn't have a problem with that! But he doesn't define his characters by their sexuality, and apparently readers have a problem with that because they don't believe you can be 'complete' without a significant other or something 🤷♀️ Susan is going to parties and dressing up to be part of the 'in-crowd' and discarding her old friends without so much as a fond goodbye, that is all. There's not the slightest mention of a boyfriend or suitors - which there were when she was a queen in Narnia, so surely Lewis would have mentioned it if she had had any in The Last Battle. But it's the 50s and young people had lives outside of getting married and moving in the 'right circles' (for which dressing up was required) was how you advanced socially, not who you dated/married so much any more. People would wear, and still in fact do wear, lipstick for JOB INTERVIEWS, for crying out loud! Susan is just trying to 'get ahead', and that would be fine if she weren't trampling on her family and everything else that used to be important to her to get there. Edit: And there's no need to look for some deep spiritual reason why the main characters don't marry or have kids. It's a KIDS' BOOK and the characters have to be relatable! As soon as characters grow up, marry, and turn into 'Mum and Dad', kids get bored with the story! They want to read about OTHER KIDS, but those kids doing 'adult' things and having adventures real kids can only enjoy vicariously through them. They don't want characters taking on adult struggles and responsibilities the child readers neither want nor even understand. Lewis knew what young readers wanted and gave it to them.
I really don't get why "lipstick and nylons and invidations" are an indicator for sex. Isn't it obviouse that those items are more likely an indicator for vanity and beeing a little selfcentered?
I can understand Lewis's rational for having Susan become "no longer a friend of Narnia," and why he failed. Bilbo, Frodo and the Elves leaving Middle Earth, Saruman's corruption, Boromir's death, Denethorn's madness, the peaceful Hobbits being forced to take up arms, these were clear consequences of the War of the Ring, the price Middle Earth paid for Sauron's greed and malice. What was the cause of Susan's becoming "no longer a friend of Narnia" other than her losing interest? For her departure to have had meaning, there would have had to have been a clear connection between it and the conflict of the story. Can you or any of Lewis's supporters explain how events in any of the Narnia books would have connected Susan's falling out with those who loved her?
It's very simple really! People do it all the time in the real world - get more interested in careers, money, being part of the 'popular' crowd and material possessions, and discard or damage their relationships with those they love to get there. There doesn't need to be some big 'falling out.' Susan has simply decided that people are not, in fact, more important than things and is pursuing what she wants and putting no effort into maintaining relationships with her siblings. She hasn't just lost interest in Narnia; she mocks and insults them for still BEING interested. If she had just said, 'Yeah, I love you guys and Narnia, but I've got some stuff to do so make my apologies to Trinian, okay? After all, Aslan DID tell us to find him in this world and I've got a job to do here now . . . ' her siblings would have said 'Sure, catch you later when you've got time. But we'll miss you!' Susan and Peter hadn't come with Lucy, Edmund, and Eustace on the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and that wasn't shown as damaging their relationship. The 'problem' with Susan is that she's lost interest in having a relationship with her FAMILY, and they've accepted that (doubtless after many painful efforts to reach her have been rebuffed) and drifted apart. After people refuse to go places with you long enough, you stop asking them to come. Susan isn't in Narnia because she doesn't want to come with the others and they can't force her to come if she doesn't love them enough to join willingly; she's not being punished or 'left out.' But the point is that if you ignore people they WILL learn to enjoy life without you, and you may find your lonely life full of stuff but no relationships wasn't worth rejecting them for 🤷♀️ Edit for spelling.
I have long viewed Susan as having been lost to her Narnian family forever. I have heard that Lewis left her alive in the end to provide the idea that "As long as there is life, there is hope." That being said, I feel that Susan's character arc, finally being described as not a friend of Narnia any more, placed her firmly outside the path toward redemption, andI have never heard anyone give good evidence from the basis of the story as to why this opinion should not hold.
This option would not hold because Aslan said “once a king or queen of Narnia, ALWAYS a king or queen”. So either Aslan was lying, or Susan will end up with him in the end. I believe Aslan to be telling the truth in all he says. I don’t think he would ever lie. So Susan must end up with him in the end.
@@analuiza001 I think that it holds. She is a queen of Narnia, but she has rejected her kingdom. She may return at will, but she is not required to do so. Thus, she may forever voluntarily forfeit her position without having it taken away.
@@jayt9608 what happens when she dies? You can reject any position you want and the benefits that come with that position, which she is doing, which is why didn’t get to go to Aslan’s country yet. But her identity remains. So when she does die, as his child and a queen, this means she must at that point go to her home with Aslan.
Susan would make a good "fall storyline, after finding out her siblings have died, but then later discovers everyone else that had been to Narnia has mysterious passed away as well. Driving her to look for them, maybe use the pools. Also she could be working under a false impression that she was rejected by asland. (Maybe full circle it all and make her ending up being Janus sister crazy fan fiction I agree.
The Horse and the Boy shows even as an adult Susan has faith difficulty in Narnia. In addition to being weak in Aslan, she forgets that Narnians also have faith in themselves and others-for a bit Edmund was a damsel in distress but bore it because it was his fault. As a queen her damsel in distress moments she forgets there are capable people right in front of her and unlike the others still has some worldly attachment-even though she expresses displeasure in marrying Radagash its implied she does want that despite Aslan and Narnia clearly not caring about that.
From a theological pov this fits with one interpretation of the “ sin against the Holy Spirit” as KNOWING the truth yet insisting on refusal to acknowledge or follow
12:22 Just because Susan is "the best choice to keep from getting into Narnia Heaven", doesn't mean it was executed well in the series, or should have happened at all. You gave the example of how they drastically changed Luke's character between Return of the Jedi and The Last Jedi, off screen, and how it was bad. You can point to this with how Susan is treated between books and say the same thing. There's a reason why most people interpreted what Lewis did to Susan was negative, just like his views on Muslims with the Calmorians. Yeah there may be "explanations in the text", but it's really not hard to read between the lines with his works. 🙄
I've heard conflicting information, with no reason to believe one is greater authority than the other. It makes sense that Jack at some point was wanting to make another book with Susan. Further illustrating the struggle of faith and growing up. It also makes sense that there would be a fan that asked him a question, which he then gave them a concise and yet not entirely complete answer. There is a simplicity when you are witnessing an excuse by an artist to not continue their work. I have started working on Susan of Narnia. It will not have retcon, " bring a new", or reimagine. One saving grace is that it does not have to be, and will not be, a member of The Chronicles. The childhood world has passed, so has her family, and so will Susan. Good meal, tasteful dose of fear, and Susan finding her way. The elements that are needed to be stitched together. A happy ending is suppose to he God's promise. A somber journey, however, is what some must suffer. I always found Peter to be a narcissist that took over the play time, so it would have been less compelling to reveal that after he was among those left behind. Instead it is good that Susan is still alive, at a ripe age of 97, so that her story can get worked out.
Totally agree my friend, glad to see such a video as I had plans for my own of this nature hahahaha. Hope you keep making some more videos of this nature! X)
Did i miss something in the story ? I saw both movies so where is it that Susan wasn't allowed in ? Last I was she was with the other 3 kids the whole way, or are we speaking of another chapter of the story ?
Now I can't help but imagine a sequel series or movie in which Susan is all grown up and through her children, she is able to rediscover Narnia. Like an inverse of her first adventure all those years ago. And... whoever owns the rights can make a but ton of money
@@grahamstrouse1165 yes because at the beginning of Breaking Dawn there was this poem by Robert Frost that goes like this “Childhood is not from birth to death but rather at a certain age the child puts away childish things”
Just my thoughts: People forget the Lewis was not like Tolkien in that Lewis was a converted Christian who wrote the Narnia stories as firmly based Christian stories - whereas Tolkien was a life-long Christian who wrote stories based on Christian ideals etc., but he wrote out love for cultural and linguistic elements. Tolkien wrote for everyone, not just for Christians. (I know there's more to it than that but I'm just summarizing). This is important because of the belief in Christianity that in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one's faith must be "like that of a child". This is why it had to be Susan. Faith "like that of a child" is represented by Lucy; it's not that she does not question but that she willingly accepts what is given. Susan tries to rationalize everything. Everything has to be logical, have its explanation and its reason. What the passage above shows is that without this, Susan cannot bring herself to believe. Rather, because she's too focused on how illogical or irrational something may be she represses her beliefs and therefore cannot see Aslan. Its the difference between firm faith and those who only believe what they can explain. If that makes any sense...
Susan makes sense, in that she's growing up. Or more to the point, she's already passed puberty, before they first entered. Her values are shifting. Safety matters most, because maternal instincts are honing within her, and Narnia... isn't safe. And Peter's rambunctiousness is going to be their undoing. Peter... longs for Narnia, for all the wrong reasons, but he thrives in it, it's an adventure, and he's a man of action, he leads from the front. It says a lot about him, that he dragged out the duel, for the sole purpose of buying Lucy time to do what she needed to do. The duel was his from the get-go, but they all knew the army was NOT going to honor the outcome.
I did a little bit of thinking and something came to my mind. -It seems to me as if Susan is seen as the only "girly girl" or faminine girl by the critics. Susan is descriped as beautiful but in my opinion Lucy is even more feminine. In the movie "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" she seems like a tomboy but that's not book-Lucy. Book Lucy is very gentle, goodnatured and kind, sometimes a little shy. She is the only one with the ability to heal and shows compassion to people/creatures even to those who don't even deserve it (for example Eustace before his dragon redemtion). She is angry from time to time but easy forgiving. While Susan has got a bow which is an offensive weapon Lucy's own weapon is a dagger which is more a defensive weapon. Beside it always seemed to me as if Lucy and Caspian are having a crush on each other in "Vojage od the Dawn Treader" and that's part of the reason he dosn't want them to leave (The Caspian in my head is slightly older then Edmund not yet completely grown up).
It feels like a lot of the nay-sayers haven't even read the books. Unless my memory of them are completely wrong, Aslan even suggests that Susan will go back to Narnia, eventually, in the Final Battle. The reason she had not with the others, was because of the accident. She wasn't a part of it. It's almost simple to see if you have a basic understanding of what Lewis believed. Susan was called, and so she would appear. But she stepped away from the others, so didn't die at the same time as them. But she would be back. Any argument saying Susan was done dirty is moronic. If you want to read it as anything, is that it took her a little longer to sort through what happened to her, so she was given more time to get there. If anything, that should be seen as a polite and good thing by antitheists. But whatever.
Absolutely. It also emphasizes the very good and kind message that neither Susan nor anyone else is FORCED to come to Aslan's Country if they don't want to or before they're ready.
I know it's exactly against the point of the series, but could you imagine how hard a faith-lost Eustace would be? I think Lucy, Edmund, or Eustace would be the best choice if you really wanted to just crush the reader's heart and tell some negative story, but the whole point of Eustace overcoming his selfish nature in Voyage of the Dawn Treader and beyond would just make it heartbreaking if the character who has changed the MOST, introduced the MOST, imo, the MOST important character, it would be just awful lmao. I would never want that unless it was a story that made 100% use of that to still tell a meaningful message, but I just thought it was fun to think about.
Now having watched both narnia videos, first i agree with your assessment for Susan's story arch, second i understand how someone would write a story as a counter argument to some of Narnia's story, i just think it's funny that this is what they latch to instead of breaking it down to it's core arguments about Christianity, then create your core counter arguments and build your story around that.
A well made video. I enjoyed it. I haven't seen any of the articles claiming sexism as a reason Susan was chosen, but I think your analysis fails a little bit, at least it might, depending on WHEN C.S. Lewis made the decision to leave out Susan. Your argument could very well be moot if C.S. had written Peter as the one who had the character of "dragging his feet." I suppose, to your point a little, that doesn't make sense for a typical eldest child. Regardless, I think the impact of choosing Peter might actually be quite akin to what happens often in realms of the Christian faith. There are no small number of pastors, once seemingly so "solid," who eventually step away: a leader becomes unrecognizable. Now of course, we have that with Susan as well, but I guess what I am saying is that Peter being High King doesn't and shouldn't make him a bad choice. And now I actually think C.S. should have chosen Peter instead, haha. In the end, I do not think (or at least hope) that C.S. choosing Susan was based in sexism and I agree that Susan was a logical choice, indeed. One that I felt the loss of as a child.
I don't understand what anyone could mean by "Believe but suppress." That's in illogical claim, outright. If there is something to suppress, you believe. Check the box, end of story. If there is nothing to suppress, then you wouldn't be able to do so, so you do not believe. Check THAT box, end it there. It's like in the Tale of Job; he never stops believing in God. He believes that God exists through to the end as the omnipotent immortal all-powerful creator being. He simply questions the reasoning, seeing his life drag in all directions as God plays with his life to win a bet with Lucifer. Yet God treats him like he lost faith...He didn't. He still believed in the deity as he believed that sand was under his feet. Is there a contextual form of these terms I'm not getting? I mean, she's met Aslan before, right? She understands he exists. How is that not belief in him? She questions why something is so important. She questions his mysterious present state. But that he was a creature of Narnia? She's literally looked him in the eye! This makes no sense to me. Did she forget (It's been years, forgive me if I'm missing something like amnesia or whatever) ?
The only logical way to deal with reality is to recognize its ILLOGIC. People deny the evidence of their own eyes all the time. Like insisting your teacher 'doesn't like you' when it's right on your test paper that you failed because you answered half the questions wrong! People will deny any reality they don't WANT to believe no matter how illogical it is. And that's why Susan's fate is so realistic and cuts WAY too close to home for some.
As my brother said when I told him about this video: 'It had to be her because she's everyone's least favourite character.' 😅 I'm sure she was SOME readers favourite of course, though I imagine much of the interest in her was later generated by the films which gave her a romantic interest not in the books. And probably the reason the filmmakers decided on this character assassination of both her and Caspian (who loved someone else entirely in the books), was because they had to think of SOME way to keep the audience's attention on her as well as the others. For from a literary standpoint, speaking as an English teacher, Susan is never the main character in any of the three books she's in and the story is never shown from her POV. We don't have a picture of her inner thoughts to be able to identify with her like Peter, Lucy, or Edmund. Jill is only in one other book but it's almost entirely shown from her perspective. Susan was simply the only one C.S. Lewis could 'get away with'; and he had to leave at least one out or people would have complained it was an oppressive message that Christian children are being taught they don't have the option to leave the faith if they wish, which Susan provided in a frankly very nice way. She isn't living some miserable life: she's got friends and is going to parties and apparently not missing the others at all. Kind of a stretch to even call it 'the PROBLEM of Susan', in my mind - she got what she wanted. Fair enough.
I always thought Susan didn't go into Deeper Narnia because she was enticed by the world's wealth and pleasures. She was so consumed and distracted by the world she forgot about Aslan and Narnia. This is a teaching in Christianity and throughout the Bible. Material wealth isn't inherently bad; I would say it's good only if used properly. However, wealth can become a hindrance to our relationship with God. It can distract us from the true wealth and beauty of God. Susan put wealth and luxury as a priority and forgot about the love and wonder of Aslan and Narnia. This is why she didn't go into Deeper Narnia, not because she was excluded.
But wouldn't it be the same case of the trope Aesop amnesia to have Susan fail when she had apparently learned and grown in Prince Caspian? It seemed to me excessively harsh to do this on her character specially offscreen. The offhanded manner im which her siblings talk about it doesn't help either. Seems to me the character was done a disservice in order for the writer to make a moral or religious allegory.
Only one character missing out is a very optimistic view of the author. In a more realistic story, there probably would be only one who made it to the end, because life isn't about faith but the acts of living itself: Narnia is gone and far away from the most of the kids' normal life, of course they would go stray. Went back to their old ways and developed into the logical next step.
as a kid reading the Narnia stories I always took Susan as the most emotionally stable and adult of the other children. she didn't "miss out" she aged out and already adulted. the other children (and adults) had more development to be had into the end of Narnia.
Tolkien's series was based on the idea that the Little People used to live with Mankind, but our day came, and they had to leave. C.S. Lewis used his stories to tell his grandkids about God and the idea of Christianity, and the Narnia stories are mostly retellings of Biblical Stories or Moral examples of the Scripture. I was never that into C.S. Lewis enough to study exactly what all the "transliterations" were, even though I read the entire Narnia series, but I was really into his treatises on Christianity and Philosophy.
A bit late to the Party here, but a friend of mine proposed that Susan could be a Self-insert for C.S. Lewis himself. C.S. turned away from God for a good chunk of his life and returned later on. It kind of puts a different spin on Susan. I like it.
I thought Lewis was an atheist at first and it was Tolkien who converted him?
@@jamesgravil9162 He certainly played a part in motivating him for conversion.
@@jamesgravil9162 Lewis was raised in a religious family (Church of Ireland). Became an atheist in his teenage years. In his own words he said that he was paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing". He was in his late twenties when he met Tolkien. They used to stay up late into the night having deep discussions about theism and faith. And that's what eventually converted him back to the faith. He joined the Anglican Church, even though Tolkien wanted him to join the Catholic Church.
I literally said this in my comment lol to Lewis I think Susan was given the gift of time to accept the truth again. But it's a horrible road for her and I don't think he'd want to force a child to imagine the pain of loss and how it brings you to whatever faith you have. For some that's religion, and I think we have to always view narnian books through that lens as truth since it was the authors belief and intent
There is a great book called “What I Learned in Narnia” by Doug Wilson, in that book he makes a very interesting argument along these lines. He says that if someone believes that in the farthest in and farthest up Narnia Cair Paravel there are only 3 thrones, or that one of the thrones will be empty, then they obviously read a different series. I like this train of thought, it is very hopeful and, I believe, very Narnian.
Has it occurred to anyone that Aslan excluded Susan for her own good? She was in denial of Narnia and her childhood memories. Had she entered the final judgement of Narnia at the stable gate, she would have turned away from Aslan to the utter darkness. So he gave her more time to find Him in her own world, as he told she and Peter some time before. In a way, this is how the real world works. In the real world, most happy endings are somewhat bittersweet.
This is pretty much exactly what Lewis said in a letter, that Susan, because she is still alive, may very well find her way to Aslan's Country in her own way.
That was the way I always interrupted it too! She lived, therefore she had more time to turn to God in her own world and be reunited with her family in heaven!
On a more minor note, being left alive at the end not only means more time to come back to the truth and remember who she is, it also means she has time to fall in love and have children of her own, and pass on stories of Narnia so that they’re not forgotten on earth after she’s gone (all things that none of the Friends had the chance to do).
@@anonymoussaga8723 Well said!
I don't know if it's on the DVD commentary or somewhere else, but I remember hearing a quote from Anna Popplewell somewhere where she said she was aware of what happened to Susan at the end of the series and decided to put an element in her preformance from the start that hinted at her not really wanting to be in Narnia.
If this quote is true, then I applaud the actress for thinking ahead.
It's good and smart for the actors for familiarize themselves with the content they are creating. Stuff like this is a perfect example of it is true.
@@yelsahblah3270 I did watch the first movie again a short while back and I DID notice that Anna Popplewell is putting on an unhappy expression most of the time, so there might be some truth to it, but like I said, I can't remember where I found the confirmation of that. Either in the commentary or on the Prop Wars episode on Disney+.
Well.. she did look like some1 who doesn't wanna be there but I'm not sure it was acting 😂
@@lefcso Oh, I can assure you she loved making those movies.
Good thinking on her part, shame her character was easily the most forgettable one of the group
My head canon(whether true or not) is that since Susan wasn’t on the train to begin with, it wasn’t her time to die. She gets to live the rest of her life fully, fall in love, have a family of her own, and then when it time for her to pass as a rip old age with her children and grandchildren (maybe even great grandchildren) surrounding her, she will awaken in Narnia in her prime and take her rightful place as High Queen. After all, one a king or queen of Narnia - always a king or queen of Narnia
Aww :")
My thoughts are similar. -The lives of the others children are cut short but Susan has a lot of years a head of her besides there may be still some lessons she has to learn bevor joying the others.
It’s important to note that none of the Friends had the chance to fall in love or have children of their own - and so their stories of Narnia die with them. Susan staying alive not only means she gets to live a full life, it also means that she’s able to make sure Narnia isn’t forgotten on earth when it’s her time to return.
One thing that doesn't really seem to be covered very much is the siblings' reaction to Susan's absence. It's an old question when discussing Heaven: Can a truly good person ever be happy knowing that others are suffering underneath Paradise? How can Lucy, Peter, and Edmund ever be truly content while one of their own is separated from them, suffering the trauma of their loss, perhaps condemned, maybe forever? How could any of them consider that a happy ending?
It always seemed especially cruel to me since Susan had already grown up once before. In Narnia she was a noble queen, her best self, and then she went back to Earth and lost all that and apparently did much worse the second time around. It's daunting.
For my two cents i never interpreted it as Susan going to hell in the first place. Susan is left alive, to endure the tragedy of loss, that will hopefully snap her out of her momentary shallowness and get her her own story of "getting further in". Everybody has their own road to follow.
For the reactions of the others I feel like they know she'll get there eventually. Even in Prince Caspian she eventually saw Aslan herself, and knew he was there longer. They have faith in their sister. Its not goodbye to them, its until she's ready to be queen Susan again.
I wonder if they don't consider at that moment what's awaiting her meantime. I mean if you woke up in heaven would you spend your first couple of hours thinking of the pain that awaits a loved one. They did establish no-one was currently in physical pain, then it's excitement and seeing old friends lost to them, and new adventures. I'm sure they did feel that pitty and pain for Susan after the quick glance of the aftermath we got in the book
When your heaven is actually a hell. And it's like the age old question.. why does bad thing happens to good people? Susan put away childish things when as an adult she lost her ENTIRE FAMILY! For someone to tell someone who lost their family to a horrible tragedy "oh they're in a better place and you'll see them again" is disgusting and vulgar. It's disgusting to tell survivors of the Holocaust or the Rwandan massacre that. That's the problem with xianity.
@@creativewriter3887 maybe it's just me but C.S Lewis came across as very preachy. I also don't appreciate the idea that one has to suffer through utter hell and pains to rediscover or deserve heaven and happiness.
@@iamai_iggs Catholics ultimately believe in redemption. If you do wrong, you will be forgiven, but only if you are truly remorseful. So, some people think that this means you must suffer to be redeemed. There are other schools of thought, of course.
Didn't Aslan send her back to her world with these words, "I am known in your world by a different name. You must seek me out and find me there." You are not only correct that Susan is the correct choice, but her happily ever after happens here, not in Narnia.
He actually said that to Lucy in The Dawn Treader, but I'm sure he'd also said it to Susan and Peter in the private conversation at the end of Prince Caspian where he let's them know off-page they won't be coming back to Narnia. No doubt that this is Susan's path to 'finding Aslan in this world.'
And who knows, really, how long in middle life Polly and Digory may have strayed from Narnia before returning in their old age? Polly's stinging reference to 'the silliest time of her life' COULD indicate past experience she wishes Susan didn't share . . .
It wasn't to Susan, and that wasn't in the last book.
@@cmm5542
Ooh, your comment about Polly and Digory possibly straying got me thinking. I always thought that the Professor laying out a logical argument to Peter and Susan for believing Lucy rather than just telling them he knows Narnia is real was simply because Lewis wrote the Magician’s Nephew after The Lion. But what if, in-universe, he and Polly really had come to think of Narnia as a figment of two lonely children’s imaginations decades ago, and it was the Pevensies’ stories of their adventures that made them start to remember?
It annoys me everyone said Susan was left behind. No Susan was given her life to live and learn to be better. She was brought to narnia as a child, loved and was loved by aslan, then allowed herself to be corrupted in a way by the real world. To deny herself the truth. She could have chosen truth any time but refused to. If she'd went to narnia at the time of TLB she'd have been as the blind dwarfs, so aslan gave her hope in a trial by fire. She had to live through the aftermath of the accident, the loss of her family and choose love and faith again by the end of her natural life in her own world.
It is a cruel kindness to me
Ps I'm not really religious but I get the significance here. I think in order to really annalise these books you have to take the mindset of the true believer. I've lived enough life to understand that sometimes it's the hardest things that bring you back to your truest self, and I think a man of faith after going through war would have that message in his mind too, especially as I believe Lewis was brought to his branch of Christianity after the war. In some ways perhaps he sees Susan's story as a parallel to his own
It wasn't until later, but you can see this argument have a stronger possibility as well when you consider the grief and trial Lewis went through when his wife died. If you haven't, I'd recommend reading "A Grief Observed"
Agreed.
Also, as I just commented on another thread, Susan would only have felt grief over the loss of her family if she were still Narnian at heart, in which case she'd find her way back and be comforted on the journey by the knowledge her family were safe with Aslan. If she had fully rejected that belief, she wouldn't have been personally affected by what happened to her family. I'm not saying she would not have cared about their dying; but if she really had chosen such a different path in life from her siblings, they would have no longer had anything in common, she didn't need them in the life she had chosen, and she wouldn't have particularly missed them. So either way Susan would never have had to suffer in a deeply personal way.
Wow, thank you for sharing your insightful interpretation. I relate to Susan. I was raised in a loving Christian home, but as a young adult I let the world turn my head a make me forget about the most important things in life. It was going to some amazingly difficult trials that made me refocus on my faith. This also makes me have "hope" for Susan as well.
yes.. you are right Laura. the others were taken to Narnia forever during the train wreck. Susan was not on the train. She was still alive. It would be interesting to follow her life after losing her parents, siblings, cousin and the Professor all at the same time.
How do you know she chose love and faith again at the end of her life in her own world? I don't remember CS Lewis ever saying anything like that.
Great video. I want to add three things:
1. Susan walked with Aslan to his death. She comforted him with Lucy and wept. She cried over his dead body and kissed it. She saw him come back to life. Aslan is the Christ-like character, so this would be akin to saying one of the holy women, such as St. Mary Madgalene won't be saved. She who was at the foot of the cross, wept at the tomb, and brought spices to anoint Christ's body, only to see Him risen.
2. Susan lived for several decades as a noble Queen of Narnia. She passed the test and then was sent back to our world. Kinda seems unfair.
3. Last, but not least, this doesn't imply that Susan, upon hearing of her siblings deaths and being flooded with memories, doesn't repent and make it to Heaven. And remember, C.S. Lewis conects Narian heaven to the actual Heaven in his wonderful novels. I like to think they'll see Susan later.
I believe Lewis said something along the lines of Susan did find her way back to Aslan eventually and basically gave his blessing for someone else to write that story and that it wasn’t for him to write
Susan was anxious to grow up and do grown up things. It got in the way of faith. I can see an older Susan one day being reminded of her brothers and sister Lucy and letting go of herself just enough for a door to her former faith to open. Then maybe she will find it again in this world.
Exactly. It's easy to be deafened to the call of Jesus when you're surrounded by the wiles of materialism. It has happened to many a Western Christian - some temporarily, others permanently (such as Ex-vangelicals and others with similar stories). In my observations and experiences, it can swing either way, depending on whether the person chooses to put their pride away for even a moment (Lewis even makes a point of this in his allegory "The Screwtape Letters," and a few other works).
Why did no one write a story where an older Susan went to Naria in her 50s?
@@shinigamimiroku3723 I'm deafned by the fact that he's never around but whatever.
@@falconeshield Lewis did wish to do what would be an adult story. Be great idea for another writer or as a fan fic
Susan as a character always had the problem of wanting to be too grown up, with the other siblings often complaining that she was "trying to be like Mother". And as Aslan warns, once you get too grown up, you can't come back to Narnia. So her path to redemption will be a more "adult" one. Aslan also warned that they were brought to Narnia in the first place so they could know him in *this* world, where Susan remained.
Susan's falling away was not intended as something to offend readers, but to give them food for thought. Nor was it meant to imply that Susan was damned; as a young woman of twenty-one who has lost her entire immediate family, a cousin, and three friends in a railway accident, she would have had much to work through and would more than likely find herself seeking Aslan, which is to say Christ, to deal with her grief. She might well have found her way back, and once having departed the Shadowlands, was reunited with her dear ones.
If Narnia were to ever be rediscovered, doing it through Susan would be an amazing canonical way to do it.
@@nickmullen2830 It wouldn't be canonical because the physical Narnia was destroyed. The only way for Susan to get to the True Narnia would be to die with faith in Christ
"Trumpkin has the irony of being a fantastical creature who doesn't believe in other fantastical creatures."
That reminds me of the silliness of the Maesters in _Game Of Thrones_ not believing in the White Walkers, while they're discussing the literal dragon invasion that's taking place on their doorstep!
I think it depends on the world lol, it's like when the platypus was discovered. Yeah we have narwhals and echidnas and possums and all these weird wild animals, but a mammal with a bill that lays eggs? Crazy! It's just about what the denizens are used to
Except that makes a lot of sense...They know dragons exist, because they have literally lived with a family who raised them...what is difficult to beliegve is magic and ice men that raise the dead, specially if you never saw anything remotely similar happen before.
To be clear, I don't think it's silly of Trumpkin. I mean, it's literally dramatic irony (or possibly situational irony or both?), and CS Lewis is having a bit of fun. It's no accident. One of Tumnus' books is called Is Man a Myth? He likes these perspective taking exercises and turnings things on their head. (Prince Caspian came out of wondering what it would like to be a genie and suddenly be summoned from wherever and whatever you were doing to be of some assistance.)
@@Pas5afist "One of Tumnus' books is called Is Man a Myth?"
That's one of the things about Narnia that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Tumnus remembers what life was like before the White Witch seized power, only a hundred years ago, _when humans were running the kingdom!_ There are humans in Archenland, Calormen, and the Lone Isles. The Pevensie children visit these countries only a few short years after defeating the evil queen.
Man clearly is not some mythological creature at this point in Narnia's history, which begs the question: what were the other humans doing while Jadis was in charge, and why didn't they try to fulfil the prophecy themselves?
@@jamesgravil9162 I didn't pick up on Tumnus being older than the reign of Jadis, I figured his stories were from his father or the books on his shelf. That particular 'Myth' book seems intended as a joke, but Tumnus does express having never met a human himself and, not being young himself, it's entirely possible that his Narnian peers similarly have no personal recollection of humans and, with Jadis in charge, might doubt that real humans ever actually existed, as Jadis seems to be trying to re-write Narnian history to maintain her power. As to the legend, why would any outside the country of Narnia know about it? In 'A Horse and his Boy' (iirc), they mention not wanting to invade Narnia while the Witch was in power and fear of the lion besides, and we don't get an explanation of what is going on in Archenland but likely they too are unable or unwilling to mount an invasion to defeat Jadis. So Narnia is isolated for 100 years.
But a simpler explanation is that Lewis didn't care as much about a cohesive narrative across multiple books as Tolkien did, at least not with this first one. *shrug*
I've always lived in hope that Susan will in time find her own way back to Narnia. It was time for Lucy, Edmund, Peter, and everyone else to go and rejoin Aslan, but not for Susan. She still had work to do. But I think, in time, Susan will rediscover her faith (I headcanon that Susan will someday tell the story of Narnia to her children and, later, her grandchildren as just that, a story, but that will begin her journey to remembering), and will reunite with her siblings and the rest of her Narnia family. Once a Queen of Narnia, always a Queen of Narnia.
Well Trumpkin is a dwarf and symbolically dwarfs basically are an embodiment of earthly practicality since they are "children of the earth". One thing that I like about Lewis is how he was able to capture the mythological/symbolic essence of the beings which inhabit Narnia quite accurately.
Ive always thought he meant the dwarves to rep the priesthood on the ground.
I would argue heavily that it doesn't actually matter who did or did not arrive in Narnia for The Last Battle from the original four or the oldest two...
The whole point of who did or did not make it is based ENTIRELY on the occupants of the rail carriages involved in the accident.
There is NOTHING in the text that says Susan won't make it eventually...after all, she is still alive, and still has time to believe and come later.
She is, during the timing of the books, going through the extremely traumatic experience of losing her entire family in one go...and as Aslan says, we are not told everyone's story.
When you die, you go to see those long departed...but you also leave loved ones behind. Do not worry excessively about their story...your own has enough trouble.
Ah, now THAT is an argument about the dogma of predestination, and that thar can has some ugly worms in it.
@@Exiled.New.Yorkerpredestination is a truth sullied only by the doctrine of hell. Hell is not real, predestination is okay.
I agree with you @dclark. Everyone makes it out to believe that she doesn't believe and that's why she isn't there. She never got on the train. I think the parties and suppression for now are to help her deal with the loss of her siblings. I thoroughly believe she believes and she will see them later.
@@micheldesjardins9174 predestination is a false doctrine which strips men of their agency. God's knowledge of how things will play out does not make them play out as such.
That was it, couldn't rememeber how the rest died, makes perfect sense sending the only one that survived back to the real world....
People who are mad about Susan not making it clearly don't understand what it actually means. It is clearly an allegory for how in Christianity, people who once believed get lost over time. You may not agree with the message, or you may think Susan's loss of faith and her sibling's reaction was somewhat superficial, but you cannot deny the reality it is trying to portray.
It has nothing to do with sexism or whatever other modernist ideas people try to read into it.
A channel called Into The Wardrobe also goes into detail about Susan in one of his videos.
It helped me understand more and gave me hope that it was possible that she could someday go to Narnia again.
Yes, this was not something I understood when I first read The Last Battle. I think I assumed because Narnia had ended, Earth had as well- probably because not only were all the children in Deeper Narnia, but also their parents. But even after cluing in that, no, it was only because of the train crash at the beginning of the book that everyone was present, I still kept the belief Susan was permanently out. It took until years later that it finally dawned on me that because Susan was not on said train, she still had the opportunity to change her mind. There is still hope for Susan :)
I have not watched his video on Susan, but one thought that did enter my mind when watching this one is that Susan’s fate is not known. Lewis himself lost his faith and given he later repented and let God in I doubt he ever thought her fate was sealed.
Lewis was going to write a book called Susan of Narnia to reveal what happened to her, unfortunately he passed away before he could write it.
And I believe he gave us the answer already, in his last book of Till We Have Faces. Through the character of Orual.
Orual could be the mature and complex answer to the problem of Susan. Orual's redemption could be Susan's salvation. Both were great queens of their lands, both experienced a divine presence, and both had younger sisters who had a close relationship with a divine figure. And like Susan, Orual behaved arrogantly toward her young sister Psyche, condescendingly treating her like a child.
We may never know Susan's fate, but Orual reunites with her sister in the afterlife.
It's been a long time since I last read the Narnia books. I had already forgotten about the passage you quoted. So thanks for this interesting and in-depth analysis. I would love to see more Narnia videos on your channel in the future
Thank you. I'm glad to hear it. :) I've got a few videos planned that branch out from Narnia (thus staking out territory that this isn't a Narnia exclusive channel). However, I have a number of video analysis ideas for Narnia. I think the series often gets overlooked in the modern era, so while my first love will always be Lord of the Rings, I'd love to see CS Lewis rehabilitated.
In many ways I see similarities between Susan and ,ironically, Peter Pan from Hook as played by Robin Williams where Peter grew up in the magic of Neverland but gave it up for the girl he ended up marrying.
He only regains his "old" (or should that be "younger"?) self when he starts to believe and even then it takes a last push.
Why do all of you having this argument forget that in the books Susan is not denied heaven she isn’t dead yet. I mean her parents aren’t mentioned as friends of narnia but they get in C.S. Lewis stated in a letter that her path in led a different path from narnia
Exactly! It's a moot point really.
Peter is the Paragon, Edmund is the Redeemed, Lucy is the Innocent. Susan was the obvious choice, even if only by elimination. But as you point out, Lewis established her character, if subtly, to be the one "left behind." And I think this was the plan all along. ='[.]'=
When answering a letter CS Lewis said I never said Susan could not get back into narnia.
That is how the story was written. If people don't like it, they should not try to change. Either put it aside or write their own. It is not an open source set of data. It is a published and closed work of literature that must be respected as it is and within the context of the time and people who authored it.
"or write their own."
This is very often the most productive response. As storytellers, you will come across stories that you do not like, but then it generates new ideas: 'What if..." and then we benefit from a new story. I don't mind if people dislike Narnia in part or in whole (preference is what it is). All I ask is that the dislike be based an accurate interpretation of the text and not on someone else's misinterpretations.
Critique isn't "trying to change it." Can no piece of media be criticized ever?
Critique the criticism, provide different interpretations, show it's unfounded etc. (like this video has done), but it's silly to say to just respect it or write your own.
And then Amazon studios come along and flip the bird
Fanfic is a thing, deap with it
Published works are not irrefutable. They can always be discussed.
Okay here is the thing. Just finished your other video and while I still do not like the way they deride Susan in the end (and how we're just going to ignore the Why of gee why might someone who was thrust into maturity at a young age due to a giant war, then grew up into a full and wonderful adult, then had her life undone and was thrust back into childhood before getting tossed as a child again into ANOTHER war, want to grow up in the Fun and Carefree sense where she is allowed to do frivolous adult things without having to worry about the baggage of her past), I think you are correct about what Lewis INTENDED his point about Susan to be.
BUT your point here relies on "IF it is necessary to sacrifice someone for the sake of depth" and I fully disagree that this was a choice that should have been made. Not only does the scene in which they bring up the lack of Susan undermine itself by refusing to allow the characters in-universe to feel terrible about the loss of their sister, possibly for eternity if she never comes to Aslan's Country, but it just. It just doesn't work the way you say it is meant to? The Loss in LotR works because we see everything Frodo goes through, we see the wonder of the Elves, we see and experience and go through everything that leads up to that Loss and makes us understand on an intimate level why it is this way and why it could be no other way thanks to these events. But here? Susan leaves Narnia for the second time and she and we are told that she and Peter will never come back to Narnia again because they are too old (and this is not presented as a lack of faith, this moment and the same happening to Lucy and Edmund later is presented as being very literal). So we're primed to never see these characters again and THAT is sad. And in the next few books they do not show up, just like we were told, and they aren't really brought up because we already know they're not going to be in these stories or influencing anything. And then the final book comes out and suddenly oh hey here's all the kids and the cool adults we knew and liked and they're all getting to go to Heaven together! ...except Susan. For reasons. Reasons that have largely happened off screen and we have no emotional connection to. After we were already told we wouldn't see her again anyway. This isn't emotional impact. This isn't the loss of a beloved character we were yearning to see or a happy ending we knew was coming and were denied because the reality of the events that transpired were too tragic to allow it. This is the kind of confusion and disappointment that comes from being given a surprise box of chocolates that somebody else has already gone through and removed their favorites from.
I agree with this znalysis; but I would argue the choice of Susan wasn't the problematic part of the story. It was how the characters in-book spoke dismissively about what she had become and pointed specifically to make-up and other feminine qualities.
It's been a while since I read the books, but I believe those points may gave been brought up to signify the bigger issue of her focusing more on vanity and material things. Being more "worldly" so to speak.
Not that makeup or femininity is inherently bad, but that in Susan's case they were indicative of a deeper problem.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, this reading assumes the other characters knew they were in Heaven without Susan, which they did not. They only knew that Susan was the only one who had selfishly refused to do her part in coming back to save Narnia. Of course they're annoyed at her for going to a party instead of coming along to help!
I don't understand why anyone thinks someone having fun at a party while their family and friends are off fighting a life-or-death battle is in need of anyone's sympathy, frankly.
I haven't read the books, and it's been a while since I've seen the movies, but based off of these analysis videos my thoughts are this:
The way Susan was handled was not "bad writing". As you've explained, there is a lot of narrative precedent for her character to take this direction, and as I was watching the videos it was not lost on me what her allegorical role likely was. I'd say her narrative role is to be an illustration of "The Doubter", and her characterization seems to be consistent with that narrative. I'd say that qualifies as "good writing" on a technical level, as it fulfills its intended goal.
However, I think what the issue *really* is is not that the writing is poor, or that it is doing a bad job at conveying a message; it seems to convey it pretty well. It's that people take issue with the message itself. For example, Susan admitting that she "knew deep down", but suppressed that belief, is pretty clearly a statement via allegory that "Disbelievers (in Christianity) know the truth, but are refusing to acknowledge it, for whatever reason they may be". Many will disagree with this assessment about nonbelievers. In fact, although Susan's characterization and arc may be internally consistent and airtight logically, you may see Susan's character as "untrue" because she doesn't seem like a proper representation of "The Doubter" if it is inconsistent with your experience and worldview.
It's a little difficult trying to articulate the point I'm trying to make, but to summarize, I think that even when giving the text a fair evaluation, regardless of the technical aspects of writing, disagreement in terms of worldview can be reason to dislike the writing (not that it makes it less worth engaging with or analyzing). It is simply that the message is considered objectionable, which, in a well written work, is a pretty inherent part of it.
(for an attempt at analogy, if you wrote a story in which, say, horseshoes were made by magic, if you had the magic system responsible for horseshoe making be a well written and consistent system, you could make a well written story in this odd setting. However, it would still be a lousy representation of the actual horseshoe making process)
I can see that. People get distracted by the lipstick, but ultimately they could be having visceral reaction to the idea itself, no matter the execution. If I were bring to a parallel example: I remember reading, I think it was Songs of a Distant Planet by Arthur C Clarke and in it, the story proposed that they had ended jealousy by ending marriage... and this to me fundamentally misunderstands where jealousy comes from. For that reason I found the book (though it is hard sci fi) to be less realistic than a space opera like Star Wars because it so badly misunderstands human nature (at least from my own world view.)
I disagree. Susan had faith and she's abandoned it to seek worldly things and approval. This is a very particular sort of doubter being discussed through the story. It hits just fine for an audience of kids raised with faith who are seeing peers and siblings slip away. But material and worldly pleasure focused people don't take kindly to being pricked about their likely very real obsession with a false adulthood, so instead of relating to the other children they feel defensive about what's happened. Many who were more religious as kids are probably especially uncomfortable with the implication that they might be Susan. Others who weren't religious are uncomfortable with being confronted with the idea that they might be or once were wrapped up in a false adulthood. And the notion that others might actually have been wiser than them and not fallen into the same trap.
Objecting to the message should usually open up discussion and interesting debate in regards to the core theme (like this video's author's experience with one of Clarke's works). What's going on is that the core theme is (more than likely) being purposely ignored because it is a highly uncomfortable topic and one that the author has personal authority on as Lewis - when one knows his religious background- seems almost to be describing himself. And the general knowledge about him is usually the following: grew up in christian home, lost faith, met a christian friend, regained faith. Again, not a comfortable topic to explore; especially if a person has a similar background. Therefore, they criticize the surface level misunderstandings and bad takes on Lewis' story because that is comfortable.
Building on the last comment we must remember what Lewis' life was before being brought back to faith, and the parallels with Susan at the end of the last battle. He fought in a war. Saw friends and family list to him, probably saw terrible things. As we can understand from The Problem With Susan she was to be faced with similar duties after the accident. And Lewis' own writings that Susan's journey was one "far too adult than any story I (Lewis) wanted to write". Put all that together and I think it's safe to say she faces his journey even if that was not his intent when beginning the first story. Sometimes the best arcs are character led not predetermined
Each of the kids is supposed to represent kinds of faith in people that CS Lewis saw in the Christian community.
Peter (named after the apostle)- is supposed to be a person who believes but struggles with following their beliefs.
Edmund - the person who was led a stray but eventually believes and is a stronger believer for it.
Susan - starts out believing but as life goes on, out grows her faith and ends up losing it.
Lucy- the youthful faith. Has room to grow and is the first to accept the seemingly impossible and discovers their own beliefs.
Eustace - the prosecutor who repents.
Jill - the converted skeptic, the person who's shown how to believe but struggles with their fears (similar but different to Susan's Arc)
You have to remember that Narnia was created to teach Lewis's niece (Lucy Cook, later Barfield) about Christianity.
only discovered your channel really today, but something that stuck out to me in your excerpt from Prince Caspian is that at the beginning of the chapter, right before Peter speaks it describes him as having stared until his eyes were sore. In other words, he had faith in Lucy, and so he eagerly looked and looked to find Aslan (eagerly might be the wrong word choice, but I think you get my point). Been a while since I've read the books so I can't recall other examples off the top of my head, but I think that's a small point further illustrating why Peter wasn't the best choice to have a loss of faith.
There are other hints too. If memory serves, correct me if I’m wrong, in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader we learn that Susan was thought to be the pretty one, perhaps hinting that vanity was a sin that called to her.
I will agree your example has more pertinence. Peter and Edmund were skeptical but willing to have faith without seeing. Susan was only willing to believe until her faith had been proved.
Lewis was not a hack writer. When he breathed life into characters and gave them personalities he let them have free will of a sort. Every good writer does this and the greats do it consciously. I cannot prove it since Lewis has been dead going on 70 years, my how time flies (it was less then two decades when I was born), but I doubt he was surprised when Susan lost her faith.
I could talk forever on this subject and many others. In fact, probably the only drive for me to create a UA-cam channel would probably be to ramble on with other creators about things I’m interested in.
I never saw Susan as vain. I just saw her as a product of the post-war expectation of women.. women had to grow up and get married and have kids. And having LOST her entire family later on in the series (ironically surviving the WAR but dying in a senseless crash) who wouldn't lose faith after this? The same for Holocaust survivors, WWII survivors, etc. That's the problem with xianity. its polemics are so black and white.. but life is NEVER that clear cut and it's vile to think that to have no faith is seen as the ultimate sin.
@@creativewriter3887 You don't understand Christianity if you think it's 'black and white.' Black and white would be 'good (on this arbitrary definition of good) goes to Heaven; evil (on equally arbitrary definition of evil) goes to hell.'
Faith is not this simplistic polemic. It is growing and developing relationships (with both God and other humans) and reacting sensitively to different circumstances and following along an ever-developing path. It is complex in action but requires only love of the person you have faith in and who has faith in you to succeed. Saying bad things happening is a reason to lose faith in God is like saying bad things happening is a reason to stop trusting your mother or true love or best friend. Using mere circumstances as a reason to destroy relationships just hurts everybody, and that is what Christianity guards against. What matters in life is making relationships work, not following some set of rules or everything working out perfectly, because it won't. But people who have good relationships based on faith in one another, and love and hope as well, are beyond the power of adverse circumstances to harm them. We are all going to die. Who cares if it is in a war or a crash or how many precede or follow us? What matters is that those relationships can transcend the grave, and only love can do that. And for Christians, God is love.
Heaven isn't a 'reward' for faith or hell a 'payout' for disbelief. Heaven and hell are the result of one's capacity for and receipt of love, nothing more or less. I hope you can find it in your life, because nothing else besides love matters in the end.
@@cmm5542 I do know xianity. I used to be an evangelical xian. So I don't need a polemic, missive or a display in polemic acrobatics. You can do back bends all you want, but it boils down to the basics... that Jesus is the Promo code by which even the most reprehensible of people can get into heaven while the most righteous of people are sent to hell by this supposed loving god for not having had that "promo code" belief. Being a good person doesn't count. And if that weren't sick enough... Xian doctrine places ALL of humanity on the same footing thanks to the bogus notion of Original sin. so that the atheist moral grandmother who all her life baked cookies for her atheist group, participated in social causes and was generally a nice, warm person .. because she didn't believe in Jesus is on the same footing as the Pedophile, the rapist and the serial killer . if that repulses you (which it SHOULD) then congratulations, there's still a modicum of decency within you and you're more moral than Original sin doctrine and xianity. But this IS the legacy of xianity. Which is why xians will sidestep the ENTIRE issue of sex abuse cases within their own churches and claim that gays, drag queens and trans people are the threat to kids.
@@creativewriter3887 As I just replied to you on another thread, ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUALLY EVIL. Every human being on earth, including you and me, is selfish and hypocritical and thinks whatever hurts THEM and their chosen friends should be an unpardonable sin, and everything they do to hurt others is forgivable. You clearly don't recognize how AWFUL the things you are saying are, how much hurt you are causing - you don't care if you hurt OTHERS, only what hurts YOU or the very small collection of people you care about, which is of course mostly selfish for all of us because the people we love are friends and family who do things for us 🤷♀️ - it's certainly not altruistic.
And you have no OBJECTIVE reason for thinking sex offenders are any more evil or have caused any more harm than any other evildoer. No one doubts that it's wrong, but what's REALLY sickening is this idea that it's okay to pick one kind of sin to demonize, to deny the humanity of the perpetrators, and let everyone else off scot-free even though their actions may well have caused far more damage. You don't know what's hurt the most people in the 'worst' way. It's just popular to condemn sexual sins of that sort nowadays and that's why you're disgusted by it: if we lived in the Victorian Age you'd accept the prevailing belief that premarital sex was the worst - you're not basing your disgust on any evidence that one crime/sin is objectively worse or harmful than any other. And you're trying to compare apples to oranges: even the worst and most revolting earthly crime can only hurt a person during the VERY short period of mortal lifespan. This cannot compare to hurting someone for eternity by denying them its existence. Someone tricked into believing atheism has now lost eternity, because for them it does not exist. No temporal suffering can POSSIBLY be compared to the loss of eternal life! I'm not talking about hell here - for atheists neither hell nor Heaven exist - I'm talking about being robbed of immortality by someone who convinces you it's not real. You can't enjoy something you've convinced yourself is illusory. And suffering a little less pain during this infinitesimal and ALWAYS painful mortal life, does not make up for losing an eternity of REAL happiness!
This idea of yourself that YOU should get to decide who is 'good' and gets to go to Heaven and who is 'bad' and should go to hell, is not only arrogant but foolish on your part. Your narrow perspective of reality simply does not give you sufficient knowledge to know what is good or bad, so you cannot logically judge an omniscient Being who of course WOULD know what is good and bad in a reality He CREATED. You have no authority to decide 'actions bad; beliefs irrelevant' because you have NO IDEA how much more harm beliefs could cause than actions on the long run (though a quick look at history or human relationships that have gone through rocky times but survived due to their faith in LOVE could tell you).
Your problem is that you can't stand that God knows better than you do and that you are not always right while He is. You can't accept you need forgiveness like everybody else, because you're not the great person you think you are. Believe me, I've been there and it's awful. I hope you don't stay there forever - because that would literally be hell. Not some medieval superstitious eternal-fire version, but the very real pain you are clearly suffering from all this burning hatred and unkindness and bitterness inside you. You're never going to create a heaven for yourself out of that; there's only the real one and if you can't accept reality you won't enjoy it even though it's right there. I hope you find true love and happiness someday; it's really sad that you chose to live in such misery when you don't have to.
@@cmm5542 First of all stop your projection and your gaslighting apologetics. Second, your entire missive clearly shows how utterly wretched, wicked, wanton and whole EVIL your world view of humans are. And it's that kind of view that has led to every evil done by xians in the name of their god. What you can't stand is the evil and wanton genocide done by and continues to be done by your co-religionists. So rather than deal with that morality, you put EVERYONE on all fours and claim everyone.. the perpetrator and the victim are evil, from the newborn baby to the elderly and everyone in between.. no matter who they are, what they suffered or even what they do to better society. Everyone is evil in your world and what's sick is that no one can be held responsible but more importantly, no one can. And then that makes everything so nice and neat doesn't it? You don't have to think, wrestle or champion to build a better world because in the end someone else will do the work for which you and your friends will try to claim credit for. It doesn't need to address how amoral, wicked, vile, putrid, disgusting, and utterly despicable your religion is.. that you can do the most vile things.. from rape, pillaging, molestation, murder, theft and even genocide and yet you can get into heaven BUT WORSE, claim some sort of moral superiority or some "purpose" and "design". You don' t have to DO or BE anything. And if you , god forbid are caught.. you cop two answers: "Oh they weren't real xians" or " Hey! only god can judge me and I'm a sinner saved by his grace so you can't touch me or charge me( read: Hold me accountable)!" Again, the Jesus promo code for absolution and no accountability... AND That is YOUR problem. So anyone who challenges your rancid morality is seen as "hurting", "sad" "pathetic" "miserable" "joyless" etc. You love to be the projectionist, gaslighting manipulator because the truth is there are millions are who are more moral than both you and your god was, is, or could ever be. You can project and genuflect all you want but the fact is, your religion cannot wash this away. The blood you bathe in isn't jesus'.. it's the millions of victims it claimed both yesterday and today. So genuflect, misdirect, project, sit on your psychological "Sit and Spin" and whirl out excuses.. but it changes nothing. And I DO have joy in my life.. but comes from REAL relationships with REAL people who are more moral and more loving than either you, your god and religion. And the pursuit of truth and justice for ALL free from this nonsense IS a purposeful life and a "higher calling".
It's a retelling of the Parable of the Sower - he had to get it in somewhere, and I think you're right about who he chose.
I personally think Jack Lewis gave us the answer to Susan's problem already, not in the Chronicles, but in his last book, Till We Have Faces, through the character of Orual. Orual can be seen as the mature and complex solution to the problem of Susan. Orual's redemption could be the answer to Susan's salvation. Both were great queens, bot witnessed a divine experience, and both behaved like arrogant grownups to their younger sisters (Lucy, Psyche) who had a close relationship with a divine figure (Aslan, Cupid).
We may never know Susan's fate, but Orual's ending is a happy one, where she reunites with her sister and comes face to face with the Divine.
Wow. I find this incredible.
I read the books when I was about 10-11.
One of my best friend's dad was one of the production team for the BBC TV adaptation for the books, and he liked my attitude. So I was in the running to be Reepicheep.
The BBC brought in a team to voice-check me at school one day.
But was 10-11, and "not gruff enough".
Spending time with my friend Tom Spalding, at his family house, every room was filled with props from the 90s BBC production - giant pillows & huge apples from the Silver Chair, shields & armour, banners & swords - that house was amazing to visit.
And I COULD have been the first on-screen Reepicheep.
But aged 10, I didn't have the gravitas to portray a dueling fighter with a deathwish. Fair enough.
The Narnia books had a lot of thought put into them, fuelled by a deep hope for the children of tomorrow
I didn’t know Bo Burnham was a Narnia fan!
Susan gets there after living as an adult. ( Probably traumatic due to loss of entire family )
"Once a king or queen, always a king or queen..."
Takes her awhile to realize her mistakes maybe..
But yeah, it would be her. Can't be Ed.. after what Aslan did for him... never.
Can't be Lucy. She was closest to Aslan.
Peter was high king.
Digory with his mom as well as polly.. not to mention seeing creation.
Like you said Can't be Eustace or Jill...
Susan was always the least into things. Esp in Caspian...after seeing what happened at stone table she was least in faith. But not because of her wanting to be girly girl...Probably just internal stuff which she would hopefully work out living her life here. So you're probably on point .
Damn j love these hot takes. Here’s my own - Susan wa star only one given a good ending. The kids didn’t choose to die - they didn’t find a slam in their own world, so they died when narnia did. They all should have survived and had long, great lives in this world. But Aslan, in some twisted logic that narnia believers have to die right that instant (along with a bunch of other people), took everyone but Susan. Aslan isn’t evil, but he makes bad decisions sometimes, and this was one of them (or maybe it was deep magic and not himself that caused the train to crash). I think this series reads so much better when you read Aslan and the emperor over the sea as imperfect - like narnia, they simply try their best. And yeah everyone should have lived, it’s odd that so many ppl when talking about Susan treat her family’s early deaths as the “good ending”. Like bro the could’ve rejoined narnia in 60 years, what was the rush?
Yes, exactly. I read "The Last Battle" quite late in live (when I was 17 or so) and for me the worse thing is not that Susan dosn't go to Narnia heaven right now but the fakt that all the other charakters I liked so much died. Narnia Heaven is hardly a comnfort. -Susan at least has the chance to live a full live.
Iirc, there was no indication she was never going to be a part of paradise, she had just lost her way. I also think that C.S Lewis mentioned it was possible for her to enter into paradise in a letter to fan, she would just have to go through her own story, presumably putting faith in Aslan again.
I thought the Susan Controversy rather odd - she explicitly rejects Narnia.
As an aside, I had no idea until watching this video that Peter Dinklage was Trumpkin.
But it did not add that bitter-sweetness, sense of longing or complexity. It came off as baffling and mean spirited.
The way they talked about her in the last battle was flippant and without a hint of love. It made these characters that i had grown to love sound suddenly snide and soulless.
It could have been fixed with a few lines. "She will come in due time, but she has trials still." or "She remains in your world for now."
After weeping over Aslan's corpse, untying him so he would have some dignity in death, and seeing him return to life, just to be excluded and dismissed by her siblings in the end of things.
No, it sent the message "the doubters will be punished and afforded no sympathy." It was an ending that has bothered me for decades, and the end of my adoration for the series.
But they didn't know they were dead at that point! All they knew was that they were back in Narnia, and Susan was being a spoilsport and wouldn't come along. I'm sure she'd been invited to go after the rings, and she just wasn't interested. So of course her siblings are flippant and hastily smooth over her absence - they don't want to give Trinian the idea his problems weren't worth the intervention of ALL the kings and queens of Narnia; Susan's just shirking her responsibilities so it's not a reflection on Trinian. They're actually quite generous to her if you think of historical royal precedent - it's a huge snub that she doesn't think visiting a fellow monarch is worth her time and they could have condemned her betrayal of the Narnian cause a whole lot more strongly, but instead they generously accept that she doesn't HAVE to come to Narnia if she doesn't want to. That's what gets me, really - everyone saying 'poor Susan, being left out' when she DIDN'T WANT TO COME and the others were just respecting her wishes even if they felt hurt by her rejecting them. And then when they briefly express that hurt and frustration but quickly get over it and move on because it's not for other people to define our happiness any more than us theirs, THEY'RE blamed for not being 'upset enough' that Susan doesn't want to be with them? Weeping and wailing would hardly make Susan change her mind, and it would be extraordinarily cruel to have HER choices determine the rest's fate when they made different choices. The point is that different choices lead to different places; not that Susan is being PUNISHED by not having to go somewhere she doesn't want to go! That's bonkers: FORCING her to go to Narnia which she no longer enjoys would have been a punishment.
@@cmm5542 I see that you missed my point entirely. my point is, excluding Susan at all did not have the impact that the video maker is proposing was the intent. If that was what Lewis was going for, then he failed to pull it off for me.
C.S Lewis was very capable of including Susan, he was also very capable of writing her exclusion in a way that didn't come off so jarring. The brothers and sisters could have been written to know they had died, and said "I hope Susan does not grieve too hard for us, or let the guilt of surviving darken her soul." I am saying that the author, C.S Lewis, screwed up here.
The siblings did bicker, and rub each other the wrong way, but were always written with a clear love for each other. Even when Edmund was under the influence of the White witch's food, he didn't stop loving them, as he reacted in horror when he learned they were really in danger and not just ignoring the person he thought was nice because he was mind manipulated. But in this case it was " silly Susan, disagreeing with us and trying to live a normal life." and i remember not a hint of the nuance i saw in them before. They didn't feel like the same characters, and that is ALL on the author.
I say again for clarity, i am not blaming the characters, i am blaming the author. This part of the trilogy was written in a way i found utterly unappealing, and to child me, seemed to imply rather unkind things.
i am just calling it like i see it, a bad ending.
It was never a surprise for me that she was not with them, because her interestes were different at that time. (But I didn't like Susan that much anyway.)
This just became my new favorite channel. I was literally talking about this with my gf last weekend.
Excellent takes on the videos you've produced so far. You've earned yet another subscriber. 👍
Keep the grind going; I predict you're gonna break through.
I think Peter, as a King David type, would have been a good choice to have not a crisis of faith, but a failure of conscience. Where he failed to do the right thing for his own selfish reasons, but when called out is able to recognise his failure and fully repent. But that would need to be on the pages, not off the pages.
"as sulkily as possible"
Edmund is my spirit animal
I think CS Lewis had 3 reasons to leave Susan out 1. It does fit her moving away from Narnia Ark 2. It left the door open to having sequels follow future generations of this bloodline and finally Aslan exists in the normal world so perhaps it's her fate to find him their first
Rian Johnson did Luke really dirty.
Yep-I cannot fault your analysis. It is a shock, no doubt about it ,when we learn that Susan is left to carry on after her entire family has passed.
This is my first time ever hearing of feminist and misogyny critiques of Susan. I haven’t read the series since I was in high school over 20 years ago, but I never thought she was given a misogynistic treatment. This video has made me want to reread the series now that I’m older and theoretically wise enough to appreciate a lot of the deeper messages embedded throughout the series.
Grief is a teacher. Susan may find her way back. We aren't 21 forever. The sad part for me was not Susan's absense, but the presence of the other Pevensies, violently, senselessly taken.
None of the Pevensies got to live a full life on earth. Only Susan. That's sad.
Nobody is going to care how long or short their mayfly existence on this pretty miserable planet was when they have an eternity of perfect happiness afterward - infinity plus 12 and infinity plus 80 are both still just infinity . . . simple maths . . .
@@cmm5542 that's a toxic ideology. If life is so bad, shouldn't we all rush to death? Why is suicide even a sin if life is such a burden? Life is good. God left paradise to live on earth and he did not regret it. He also did not want to die, even if he knew it was his destiny.
So yeah, it's still sad that the Pevensies all died violently and young.
@@mookosh Life is a journey to eternity. If you aren't spending it preparing for eternity; it's a journey to nowhere and utterly meaningless. I'm not saying you can't enjoy the journey - though many people don't get the option of having a good life in this world - but that it is utterly irrelevant how long the journey lasted once you get where you were actually going! Especially in the extremely likely scenario that the journey was difficult and wearisome far more often than it is enjoyable. And it is easier to get through the trials and enjoy the rare moments of bliss on the journey when you know where you are going and it won't be long till you get there! There is nothing 'toxic' (whatever this new negativity buzzword means precisely) about that.
No one in Heaven, Christ Himself included, is bothered about how short their life on earth was! It's senseless anyway because getting all upset and angry about death doesn't alter its inescapable reality, so there's literally no point. Might as well complain about sweating - not going to stop it from happening so we just have to deal with it. I'm not scared of death in any way. Every moment could be my last, so I live life to the fullest while I've got it and don't worry about the pain it also ALWAYS contains because it will all be over soon.
@@cmm5542 A live spend not preparing for enternity can still be meaningful of course! It's up toe ach end everyone to give live some meaning weather you believe in afterlive or not! I hate sentecenes like that!
Yeah, I don't know why people jumped straight to sexism in this instance. I was raised Christian (I'm no longer practicing) and at the perfect age for this series when the movies were releasing so reaching the end and seeing what happens to Susan felt more of a cautionary tale of faith then "girly girls are bad" like it wasn't the act of gravitating towards makeup and socializing that failed her, it was putting those things above her faith.
Like the Narnia series is soaked in Christianity and Christians love when women are traditionally feminine. Like there's a sexist element to the series as a whole but in the case of Susan I think it's just a matter that CS needed an impactful showcase of what happens when you lose faith.
Upvoted for knowing Thomas Covenant.
3:02 I heard Thomas Covernant, more lore on The Land please
So it's been like 10 years since I read the book the I don't remember the ending exactly, but don't they all die in the end, it's like the whole victory with loss but without the actual victory part
Susan survives, she wasn't on the train with the rest. The rest are killed in the train crash.
When they are fighting The Last Battle in the last book, they are fighting for their souls and the soul of Narnia.
They all go to HEAVEN and don't even know they died. The point is that death doesn't matter but what comes afterward.
I find our modern terror of death as the worst possible ending very disturbing, because it is the ending we will all have. So regardless of individual beliefs, people need to stop making death out to be such a big deal - it's just reality!
Also, if I remember correctly, she was the only one left alive at the very end, hence not getting to deep Narnia.
It would have been very interesting if CS Lewis had given us a Peter Crisis of faith arc where he deeply questions his past and whether he truly believes but comes out of it
I have always thought that it was good for Susan to stay on Earth at the end, because the other kids always seemed like their hearts were still in Narnia, Susan moved on, she had a life was starting a family.
Because I think that part of Susan’s character is her motherliness and even though she got to grow up in LW&W she never got to be a mom.
Peter didn’t have a family, Edmund has no girlfriend, because that isn’t important to them, Narnia is important to them, Susan will be just fine. Because she hasn’t lost her faith, she just moved on from Narnia.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Susan wasn't on the train, right? So, she still lived and a had another chance to change.
Yes, I mentioned that there is still hope for Susan in my previous video and so didn't go over it again here. In retrospect, I suppose I could've reiterated it. However, I am trying very hard to be succinct to avoid belabouring points I've already made.
@@Pas5afist makes sense
And losing her entire family in that train wreck may be the catalyst to make her seek Aslan again. As the professor stated, “Once a King in Narnia, always a King in Narnia.”
also to add Edmund's points why it couldn't be him: He has a lot of guilt for what he did in the first book. In Prince Caspian, he wanted to believe Lucy because he wanted to redeem himself. Overall, Edmund just wants to redeem his characters so there's no way he will go back to his old ways.
wasn't th 2 older siblings told that they were to old 2 come back into narnia? javnt read the books for years but i got a vague memory of that plis i have a vague memory that there were plans for a story of susans return to narnia but it was scrapped for some reason
I was in love with Susan growing up
Very well done examination and criticism.
Susan didn’t go to heaven because Susan didn’t die: full stop. She wasn’t in the accident.
You are budget schnee but with broader interests, and I am 100% here for it.
"Budget schnee" I'll take it! I love that guy's analysis.
No, it's because Susan chose not to believe. That's the biggest sin. Edmund is forgiven for being a traitor, but Susan can never be forgiven for her non belief. She's denied Heaven because of that, and her siblings seem to be quite happy about it. Of course Lewis couldn't just make the sin not belief - because even in the 1950s that could seem to be too harsh- he had to make her an empty headed wall flower too, exluding her for frivolous reasons, and that's not how she was portrayed earlier. So no, it didn't have to be Susan - it didn't have to be anyone. It's just another example of a believer damning an unbeliever in the most cynical way possible.
It's not good to damn Susan in this way. It is quite arbitrary, and Susan's sins are really quite minor and shallow, they are not really justified against the punishment, especially when you look at the other characters sins. Susan has never been as bad.
But then it's religion, where non belief is the most unforgivable sin. The worst sinner in the world is going to get to heaven before an unbeliever.
My trouble with losing Susan is it seems in doing it, Lewis is going back on the statement he put in Aslan's mouth: "Once a King or Queen of Narnia, always a King or Queen of Narnia."
She’s still a queen in narnia but she doesn’t believe that she is 🤷🏻♂️
@@monolith94 perfect response, is not Aslan who casts Susan away from Narnia, is Susan who casts Narnia away from her
Some see that statement as proof Susan will return to Narnia one day.
@@monolith94 Amazing truth!
@LimeGreenBunny can't confirm for myself, but I've many times from different people that Lewis always intended to write another book about Susan finding her faith again and joining the others in Narnia. Unfortunately he died before he could. I personally belive that Susan does come to believ again before she dies, that's why she wasnt on the train,she needed more time.
The question is not so much ''who'' would be the one to turn away from Narnia (and Aslan?) but WHY? The reasons given for Susan's rejection of Narnia is contingent with the challenging prospect that Aslan gives to Lucy and Edmund at the end of Prince Caspian. Aslan tells the younger pair that their siblings are now too old to be allowed to stay. Later, at the end of The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader, Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund; ''"You are too old, children... and you must begin to come close to your own world now." The reason for Susan's apostasy is given in The Last Battle; her interest has shifted to ''nylons, lipstick and invitations''. This makes it appear that it has everything to do with sex, but this is only HALF correct. There are many instances in the Narnia chronicles where fully-grown adult males and females enter the world of Narnia and populate various regions. So... wanting sex is NOT the problem with Susan. It is her wanting to have it in Narnia. For some reason, C. S. Lewis made that a no-no for the children.
The problem is that it is not in the destiny of; the Pevensies, Digory Kirke, Polly Plummer, Eustace and Susan Pole to STAY in Narnia and have children THERE. It was for Frank (the ex-cabby) and his wife, Helen.... it was for those Pirates who stumbled through a portal with their stolen women/wives and inhabited the deserted realm of Telmar.... it might have been for others... BUT NOT FOR THE CHILDREN. The Pevensies are accorded 15 years to re-establish and enjoy the redeemed Narnia... but they DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN. Susan's temporary infatuation with Rabadash of Calormen comes to nothing... the many suitors of Lucy, never have their affections returned. The Pevensies remain virgins - and the three who are finally embraced into the ''Heavenly'' Narnia remained so... as did, we might surmise, Digory and Polly.
I'll leave it to others to ponder WHY Lewis made this so for those children who help Narnia in her most grievous times.
There is literally no connection between lipstick and sex. I don't know where this interpretation comes from. If Susan had gotten married and had kids, either in the regular world or Narnia, she could have just brought them with her! As your post references, PLENTY of Narnian characters have sexual relationships, Lewis didn't have a problem with that! But he doesn't define his characters by their sexuality, and apparently readers have a problem with that because they don't believe you can be 'complete' without a significant other or something 🤷♀️
Susan is going to parties and dressing up to be part of the 'in-crowd' and discarding her old friends without so much as a fond goodbye, that is all. There's not the slightest mention of a boyfriend or suitors - which there were when she was a queen in Narnia, so surely Lewis would have mentioned it if she had had any in The Last Battle. But it's the 50s and young people had lives outside of getting married and moving in the 'right circles' (for which dressing up was required) was how you advanced socially, not who you dated/married so much any more. People would wear, and still in fact do wear, lipstick for JOB INTERVIEWS, for crying out loud! Susan is just trying to 'get ahead', and that would be fine if she weren't trampling on her family and everything else that used to be important to her to get there.
Edit: And there's no need to look for some deep spiritual reason why the main characters don't marry or have kids. It's a KIDS' BOOK and the characters have to be relatable! As soon as characters grow up, marry, and turn into 'Mum and Dad', kids get bored with the story! They want to read about OTHER KIDS, but those kids doing 'adult' things and having adventures real kids can only enjoy vicariously through them. They don't want characters taking on adult struggles and responsibilities the child readers neither want nor even understand. Lewis knew what young readers wanted and gave it to them.
I really don't get why "lipstick and nylons and invidations" are an indicator for sex. Isn't it obviouse that those items are more likely an indicator for vanity and beeing a little selfcentered?
Please don't tell me they want to remake this series again for the billionth time?
I can understand Lewis's rational for having Susan become "no longer a friend of Narnia," and why he failed. Bilbo, Frodo and the Elves leaving Middle Earth, Saruman's corruption, Boromir's death, Denethorn's madness, the peaceful Hobbits being forced to take up arms, these were clear consequences of the War of the Ring, the price Middle Earth paid for Sauron's greed and malice. What was the cause of Susan's becoming "no longer a friend of Narnia" other than her losing interest? For her departure to have had meaning, there would have had to have been a clear connection between it and the conflict of the story. Can you or any of Lewis's supporters explain how events in any of the Narnia books would have connected Susan's falling out with those who loved her?
It's very simple really! People do it all the time in the real world - get more interested in careers, money, being part of the 'popular' crowd and material possessions, and discard or damage their relationships with those they love to get there. There doesn't need to be some big 'falling out.' Susan has simply decided that people are not, in fact, more important than things and is pursuing what she wants and putting no effort into maintaining relationships with her siblings. She hasn't just lost interest in Narnia; she mocks and insults them for still BEING interested. If she had just said, 'Yeah, I love you guys and Narnia, but I've got some stuff to do so make my apologies to Trinian, okay? After all, Aslan DID tell us to find him in this world and I've got a job to do here now . . . ' her siblings would have said 'Sure, catch you later when you've got time. But we'll miss you!' Susan and Peter hadn't come with Lucy, Edmund, and Eustace on the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and that wasn't shown as damaging their relationship. The 'problem' with Susan is that she's lost interest in having a relationship with her FAMILY, and they've accepted that (doubtless after many painful efforts to reach her have been rebuffed) and drifted apart. After people refuse to go places with you long enough, you stop asking them to come. Susan isn't in Narnia because she doesn't want to come with the others and they can't force her to come if she doesn't love them enough to join willingly; she's not being punished or 'left out.' But the point is that if you ignore people they WILL learn to enjoy life without you, and you may find your lonely life full of stuff but no relationships wasn't worth rejecting them for 🤷♀️
Edit for spelling.
I have long viewed Susan as having been lost to her Narnian family forever. I have heard that Lewis left her alive in the end to provide the idea that "As long as there is life, there is hope." That being said, I feel that Susan's character arc, finally being described as not a friend of Narnia any more, placed her firmly outside the path toward redemption, andI have never heard anyone give good evidence from the basis of the story as to why this opinion should not hold.
This option would not hold because Aslan said “once a king or queen of Narnia, ALWAYS a king or queen”. So either Aslan was lying, or Susan will end up with him in the end. I believe Aslan to be telling the truth in all he says. I don’t think he would ever lie. So Susan must end up with him in the end.
@@analuiza001
I think that it holds. She is a queen of Narnia, but she has rejected her kingdom. She may return at will, but she is not required to do so. Thus, she may forever voluntarily forfeit her position without having it taken away.
@@jayt9608 what happens when she dies? You can reject any position you want and the benefits that come with that position, which she is doing, which is why didn’t get to go to Aslan’s country yet. But her identity remains. So when she does die, as his child and a queen, this means she must at that point go to her home with Aslan.
The Thomas Covenant reference. Haven't read those books in YEARS!
Susan would make a good "fall storyline, after finding out her siblings have died, but then later discovers everyone else that had been to Narnia has mysterious passed away as well. Driving her to look for them, maybe use the pools. Also she could be working under a false impression that she was rejected by asland. (Maybe full circle it all and make her ending up being Janus sister crazy fan fiction I agree.
The Horse and the Boy shows even as an adult Susan has faith difficulty in Narnia. In addition to being weak in Aslan, she forgets that Narnians also have faith in themselves and others-for a bit Edmund was a damsel in distress but bore it because it was his fault. As a queen her damsel in distress moments she forgets there are capable people right in front of her and unlike the others still has some worldly attachment-even though she expresses displeasure in marrying Radagash its implied she does want that despite Aslan and Narnia clearly not caring about that.
From a theological pov this fits with one interpretation of the “ sin against the Holy Spirit” as KNOWING the truth yet insisting on refusal to acknowledge or follow
12:22 Just because Susan is "the best choice to keep from getting into Narnia Heaven", doesn't mean it was executed well in the series, or should have happened at all.
You gave the example of how they drastically changed Luke's character between Return of the Jedi and The Last Jedi, off screen, and how it was bad. You can point to this with how Susan is treated between books and say the same thing.
There's a reason why most people interpreted what Lewis did to Susan was negative, just like his views on Muslims with the Calmorians. Yeah there may be "explanations in the text", but it's really not hard to read between the lines with his works. 🙄
Oh yes, very easy to read between the lines, egged on by your own prejudice and bigotry.
I've heard conflicting information, with no reason to believe one is greater authority than the other. It makes sense that Jack at some point was wanting to make another book with Susan. Further illustrating the struggle of faith and growing up.
It also makes sense that there would be a fan that asked him a question, which he then gave them a concise and yet not entirely complete answer.
There is a simplicity when you are witnessing an excuse by an artist to not continue their work.
I have started working on Susan of Narnia. It will not have retcon, " bring a new", or reimagine. One saving grace is that it does not have to be, and will not be, a member of The Chronicles. The childhood world has passed, so has her family, and so will Susan.
Good meal, tasteful dose of fear, and Susan finding her way. The elements that are needed to be stitched together. A happy ending is suppose to he God's promise. A somber journey, however, is what some must suffer.
I always found Peter to be a narcissist that took over the play time, so it would have been less compelling to reveal that after he was among those left behind.
Instead it is good that Susan is still alive, at a ripe age of 97, so that her story can get worked out.
7:31 Plus Peter is supposed to be Peter. Like, the Apostle Peter. He’s the leader of the Twelve, like Peter is the High King of the 4.
Totally agree my friend, glad to see such a video as I had plans for my own of this nature hahahaha. Hope you keep making some more videos of this nature! X)
Did i miss something in the story ? I saw both movies so where is it that Susan wasn't allowed in ? Last I was she was with the other 3 kids the whole way, or are we speaking of another chapter of the story ?
This happened in the last book of the series that was never put to film
@@tinabaker925 ah
Now I can't help but imagine a sequel series or movie in which Susan is all grown up and through her children, she is able to rediscover Narnia. Like an inverse of her first adventure all those years ago. And... whoever owns the rights can make a but ton of money
I think it’s like the beginning of the last Twilight book At a certain point we do put away Childish things
Having not read Twilight, I will have to take your word for it :)
Like Twilight?
@@grahamstrouse1165 that’s what he said..
@@grahamstrouse1165 yes because at the beginning of Breaking Dawn there was this poem by Robert Frost that goes like this “Childhood is not from birth to death but rather at a certain age the child puts away childish things”
Just my thoughts: People forget the Lewis was not like Tolkien in that Lewis was a converted Christian who wrote the Narnia stories as firmly based Christian stories - whereas Tolkien was a life-long Christian who wrote stories based on Christian ideals etc., but he wrote out love for cultural and linguistic elements. Tolkien wrote for everyone, not just for Christians. (I know there's more to it than that but I'm just summarizing). This is important because of the belief in Christianity that in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one's faith must be "like that of a child".
This is why it had to be Susan. Faith "like that of a child" is represented by Lucy; it's not that she does not question but that she willingly accepts what is given. Susan tries to rationalize everything. Everything has to be logical, have its explanation and its reason. What the passage above shows is that without this, Susan cannot bring herself to believe. Rather, because she's too focused on how illogical or irrational something may be she represses her beliefs and therefore cannot see Aslan.
Its the difference between firm faith and those who only believe what they can explain. If that makes any sense...
Neil Gaiman did a great short story called The Problem with Susan that covered this from Susan’s point of view.
Another great analysis...thank you! Keep up the good work 👍
Susan makes sense, in that she's growing up. Or more to the point, she's already passed puberty, before they first entered. Her values are shifting. Safety matters most, because maternal instincts are honing within her, and Narnia... isn't safe. And Peter's rambunctiousness is going to be their undoing.
Peter... longs for Narnia, for all the wrong reasons, but he thrives in it, it's an adventure, and he's a man of action, he leads from the front. It says a lot about him, that he dragged out the duel, for the sole purpose of buying Lucy time to do what she needed to do. The duel was his from the get-go, but they all knew the army was NOT going to honor the outcome.
I did a little bit of thinking and something came to my mind. -It seems to me as if Susan is seen as the only "girly girl" or faminine girl by the critics. Susan is descriped as beautiful but in my opinion Lucy is even more feminine. In the movie "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" she seems like a tomboy but that's not book-Lucy. Book Lucy is very gentle, goodnatured and kind, sometimes a little shy. She is the only one with the ability to heal and shows compassion to people/creatures even to those who don't even deserve it (for example Eustace before his dragon redemtion). She is angry from time to time but easy forgiving. While Susan has got a bow which is an offensive weapon Lucy's own weapon is a dagger which is more a defensive weapon. Beside it always seemed to me as if Lucy and Caspian are having a crush on each other in "Vojage od the Dawn Treader" and that's part of the reason he dosn't want them to leave (The Caspian in my head is slightly older then Edmund not yet completely grown up).
It feels like a lot of the nay-sayers haven't even read the books. Unless my memory of them are completely wrong, Aslan even suggests that Susan will go back to Narnia, eventually, in the Final Battle. The reason she had not with the others, was because of the accident. She wasn't a part of it. It's almost simple to see if you have a basic understanding of what Lewis believed. Susan was called, and so she would appear. But she stepped away from the others, so didn't die at the same time as them. But she would be back. Any argument saying Susan was done dirty is moronic. If you want to read it as anything, is that it took her a little longer to sort through what happened to her, so she was given more time to get there. If anything, that should be seen as a polite and good thing by antitheists.
But whatever.
Absolutely. It also emphasizes the very good and kind message that neither Susan nor anyone else is FORCED to come to Aslan's Country if they don't want to or before they're ready.
I know it's exactly against the point of the series, but could you imagine how hard a faith-lost Eustace would be?
I think Lucy, Edmund, or Eustace would be the best choice if you really wanted to just crush the reader's heart and tell some negative story, but the whole point of Eustace overcoming his selfish nature in Voyage of the Dawn Treader and beyond would just make it heartbreaking if the character who has changed the MOST, introduced the MOST, imo, the MOST important character, it would be just awful lmao.
I would never want that unless it was a story that made 100% use of that to still tell a meaningful message, but I just thought it was fun to think about.
Now having watched both narnia videos, first i agree with your assessment for Susan's story arch, second i understand how someone would write a story as a counter argument to some of Narnia's story, i just think it's funny that this is what they latch to instead of breaking it down to it's core arguments about Christianity, then create your core counter arguments and build your story around that.
'Doubting Thomas' was ultimately saved. Don't worry about Susan yall.
A well made video. I enjoyed it. I haven't seen any of the articles claiming sexism as a reason Susan was chosen, but I think your analysis fails a little bit, at least it might, depending on WHEN C.S. Lewis made the decision to leave out Susan. Your argument could very well be moot if C.S. had written Peter as the one who had the character of "dragging his feet." I suppose, to your point a little, that doesn't make sense for a typical eldest child. Regardless, I think the impact of choosing Peter might actually be quite akin to what happens often in realms of the Christian faith. There are no small number of pastors, once seemingly so "solid," who eventually step away: a leader becomes unrecognizable. Now of course, we have that with Susan as well, but I guess what I am saying is that Peter being High King doesn't and shouldn't make him a bad choice. And now I actually think C.S. should have chosen Peter instead, haha. In the end, I do not think (or at least hope) that C.S. choosing Susan was based in sexism and I agree that Susan was a logical choice, indeed. One that I felt the loss of as a child.
I don't understand what anyone could mean by "Believe but suppress." That's in illogical claim, outright. If there is something to suppress, you believe. Check the box, end of story. If there is nothing to suppress, then you wouldn't be able to do so, so you do not believe. Check THAT box, end it there. It's like in the Tale of Job; he never stops believing in God. He believes that God exists through to the end as the omnipotent immortal all-powerful creator being. He simply questions the reasoning, seeing his life drag in all directions as God plays with his life to win a bet with Lucifer. Yet God treats him like he lost faith...He didn't. He still believed in the deity as he believed that sand was under his feet.
Is there a contextual form of these terms I'm not getting?
I mean, she's met Aslan before, right?
She understands he exists.
How is that not belief in him?
She questions why something is so important. She questions his mysterious present state.
But that he was a creature of Narnia? She's literally looked him in the eye!
This makes no sense to me. Did she forget (It's been years, forgive me if I'm missing something like amnesia or whatever) ?
The only logical way to deal with reality is to recognize its ILLOGIC.
People deny the evidence of their own eyes all the time. Like insisting your teacher 'doesn't like you' when it's right on your test paper that you failed because you answered half the questions wrong! People will deny any reality they don't WANT to believe no matter how illogical it is. And that's why Susan's fate is so realistic and cuts WAY too close to home for some.
it isn't so much that it "had to be her."
it was her all along.
As my brother said when I told him about this video: 'It had to be her because she's everyone's least favourite character.' 😅
I'm sure she was SOME readers favourite of course, though I imagine much of the interest in her was later generated by the films which gave her a romantic interest not in the books. And probably the reason the filmmakers decided on this character assassination of both her and Caspian (who loved someone else entirely in the books), was because they had to think of SOME way to keep the audience's attention on her as well as the others.
For from a literary standpoint, speaking as an English teacher, Susan is never the main character in any of the three books she's in and the story is never shown from her POV. We don't have a picture of her inner thoughts to be able to identify with her like Peter, Lucy, or Edmund. Jill is only in one other book but it's almost entirely shown from her perspective. Susan was simply the only one C.S. Lewis could 'get away with'; and he had to leave at least one out or people would have complained it was an oppressive message that Christian children are being taught they don't have the option to leave the faith if they wish, which Susan provided in a frankly very nice way. She isn't living some miserable life: she's got friends and is going to parties and apparently not missing the others at all. Kind of a stretch to even call it 'the PROBLEM of Susan', in my mind - she got what she wanted. Fair enough.
I always thought Susan didn't go into Deeper Narnia because she was enticed by the world's wealth and pleasures. She was so consumed and distracted by the world she forgot about Aslan and Narnia. This is a teaching in Christianity and throughout the Bible. Material wealth isn't inherently bad; I would say it's good only if used properly. However, wealth can become a hindrance to our relationship with God. It can distract us from the true wealth and beauty of God. Susan put wealth and luxury as a priority and forgot about the love and wonder of Aslan and Narnia. This is why she didn't go into Deeper Narnia, not because she was excluded.
But wouldn't it be the same case of the trope Aesop amnesia to have Susan fail when she had apparently learned and grown in Prince Caspian? It seemed to me excessively harsh to do this on her character specially offscreen. The offhanded manner im which her siblings talk about it doesn't help either. Seems to me the character was done a disservice in order for the writer to make a moral or religious allegory.
To Trumpkin the high kings and good humans were a fantasy too not just other fantastic creatures and talking animals.
Only one character missing out is a very optimistic view of the author.
In a more realistic story, there probably would be only one who made it to the end, because life isn't about faith but the acts of living itself: Narnia is gone and far away from the most of the kids' normal life, of course they would go stray. Went back to their old ways and developed into the logical next step.
as a kid reading the Narnia stories I always took Susan as the most emotionally stable and adult of the other children. she didn't "miss out" she aged out and already adulted. the other children (and adults) had more development to be had into the end of Narnia.
It's also the case that she survived the crash. And it isn't our story so it isn't our problem to worry about.
When is that going happen in next fickle
Tolkien's series was based on the idea that the Little People used to live with Mankind, but our day came, and they had to leave. C.S. Lewis used his stories to tell his grandkids about God and the idea of Christianity, and the Narnia stories are mostly retellings of Biblical Stories or Moral examples of the Scripture.
I was never that into C.S. Lewis enough to study exactly what all the "transliterations" were, even though I read the entire Narnia series, but I was really into his treatises on Christianity and Philosophy.