Chronicles of Narnia (C.S. Lewis)

[DeerGlow]

It is implied she is, although she is never mentioned by that name in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. She is only called the White Witch there.

Some also think the Lady in the Green Kirtle is the same figure or an embodiment of her, but I disagree.

She's the one that destroys her own planet and all her people though.

 

[fantascey]

Is Jadis the witch? I can't remember it's been a while.

Yes, I do love the woods, and the description of how it all goes down. However, I cannot say that I enjoyed that book as much overall. I guess it just is about how evil the witch is. (Which i think is jadis...? i get confused it was a while ago now.) But it seems to me that she just was always that way. If there was ever a purpose to her evilness, a drive for her, etc. Then maybe I could understand or relate to her a little better. And really, the children at home dont seem to have as much basis/background as i would like? Maybe i just need a further explanation of character issues..

 

[fantascey]

It is implied she is, although she is never mentioned by that name in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. She is only called the White Witch there.

Some also think the Lady in the Green Kirtle is the same figure or an embodiment of her, but I disagree.

I dont know. I don't believe she is the same as the Lady in the Green Kirtle. I am pretty sure the magicians nephew book mentions a different color altogether, and of course in the lion the witch and the wardrobe, she is the White witch. But Lady in the Green Kirtle does make me think of some other myths and figures that I have read about... I will have to look it up and see if i can remember where...

 

[Kerensa]

What order would others recommend the series be read in? The Chronologic order or the order in which it was published, or another order entirely?

The previous post made me wonder, and I think it should start with the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, followed by Horse and his Boy, Prince Caspian, then Dawn Treader, the Silver Chair, Magician's Nephew and ending with Last Battle. This allows the characters to build upon one another, so that they aren't out of narrative sequence, but largely maintaining the themes. Putting Horse and his Boy earlier also helps set the tone for the mythical nature of Caer Paravel for Prince Caspian. Magician's Nephew is then read completely out of chronological sequence, like a flashback before the end of Narnia.

Any thoughts?

I'd definitely recommend The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe first, and of course The Last Battle last, but the rest of the ordering is fairly subjective and I guess everyone has their own preferences there.

It is implied she is, although she is never mentioned by that name in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. She is only called the White Witch there.

I originally thought so too, until I went back to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe some time later and found the White Witch IS called Jadis there once — at the end of the note that Maugrim the Wolf leaves in Tumnus's house after he's arrested.

Mind you, there's a little bit of "origin story" in The Lion that doesn't quite seem to fit with what we learn of Jadis in The Magician's Nephew, which was written some years later. In The Lion, she claims that Edmund's life is forfeit to her because, in her words to Aslan, "You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill." It's implied that the Witch was lawfully granted a sort of Satan-like role by the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea (Aslan's Father) when Narnia was created. Yet this never comes into The Magician's Nephew as far as I can remember; in that book she is of course the last queen of Charn who destroyed her own world and is brought into Narnia through Digory's actions. She isn't presented there as a figure whom Aslan and/or the Emperor intended to have there and to be given any legitimate part in governing Narnia. I've always wondered if Lewis slipped there a bit with his cosmology and forgot how he originally envisioned the Witch and her role in Narnia, but it doesn't spoil the stories for me.

Some also think the Lady in the Green Kirtle is the same figure or an embodiment of her, but I disagree.

I never thought she was the same figure, but I'm pretty sure (I don't have the book with me to check the exact quote) one of the owls in The Silver Chair states that they think she could be "one of the same crew" as the White Witch. So to me that suggests she's the same sort of being, perhaps even related somehow, but not literally the same person.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, I do love the woods, and the description of how it all goes down. However, I cannot say that I enjoyed that book as much overall. I guess it just is about how evil the witch is. (Which i think is jadis...? i get confused it was a while ago now.) But it seems to me that she just was always that way. If there was ever a purpose to her evilness, a drive for her, etc. Then maybe I could understand or relate to her a little better. And really, the children at home dont seem to have as much basis/background as i would like? Maybe i just need a further explanation of character issues..

Jadis was the Queen of Charn who refused to submit to her sister. Instead of just becoming a subject, she instead doomed her whole world. She is eaten by pride, which was seen as the sin of Satan in Mediaeval times. She wants to rule herself, to be 'like God' essentially. Her purpose was power and pride. She is not portrayed like Milton's Lucifer with such depth though, but in Lewis' defence, it is a children's book and he hardly wanted too much sympathy for his villain. You rather have sympathy for the creatures under her, than the Witch.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'd definitely recommend The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe first, and of course The Last Battle last, but the rest of the ordering is fairly subjective and I guess everyone has their own preferences there.



I originally thought so too, until I went back to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe some time later and found the White Witch IS called Jadis there once — at the end of the note that Maugrim the Wolf leaves in Tumnus's house after he's arrested.

Mind you, there's a little bit of "origin story" in The Lion that doesn't quite seem to fit with what we learn of Jadis in The Magician's Nephew, which was written some years later. In The Lion, she claims that Edmund's life is forfeit to her because, in her words to Aslan, "You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill." It's implied that the Witch was lawfully granted a sort of Satan-like role by the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea (Aslan's Father) when Narnia was created. Yet this never comes into The Magician's Nephew as far as I can remember; in that book she is of course the last queen of Charn who destroyed her own world and is brought into Narnia through Digory's actions. She isn't presented there as a figure whom Aslan and/or the Emperor intended to have there and to be given any legitimate part in governing Narnia. I've always wondered if Lewis slipped there a bit with his cosmology and forgot how he originally envisioned the Witch and her role in Narnia, but it doesn't spoil the stories for me.



I never thought she was the same figure, but I'm pretty sure (I don't have the book with me to check the exact quote) one of the owls in The Silver Chair states that they think she could be "one of the same crew" as the White Witch. So to me that suggests she's the same sort of being, perhaps even related somehow, but not literally the same person.

Yes, that backstory is not covered in Magician's Nephew. It was however written to be sort-of like Edith Nesbit's books as I recall, which would not really support a treason narrative very well.

I don't really see how such would have been written instead of a retelling of the Fall. Lewis already did something similar in Perelandra, where Ransom opposed the Bent One to stop the fall of its 'Eve'.

We jump around a lot in Narnia's chronology, skipping hundred of years. In the later books the Garden is absent, so some sort of fall occured, as Narnia is clearly also a Fallen world. This is perhaps where Jadis knew of this right of hers, and also explains why she is unaware of the 'deeper magic' of the Emperor.

 

[Kerensa]

I haven't read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe but I have seen the movie. Maybe you can tell me if the movie measures up to the book.

Hope no-one minds me harking back to earlier posts... I've seen the film of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and while it was an enjoyable film in itself and a very good piece of cinema, I didn't feel it captured the spirit of the original book. Of course film-makers often change various things to help make a written story into something that works well on screen, but in this case I thought they changed way too much — adding dramatic chase scenes and huge battle scenes and other such things that I couldn't help suspecting were there to make it more exciting and thrilling and more of a huge spectacle on screen, completely different to the quite gentle and understated nature of the original story. I know many viewers enjoyed it, but for me, it simply wasn't Narnia.

I haven't seen the later two films (the first one put me off!), but I once saw a clip from Prince Caspian and was glad I hadn't watched the whole film. One of my favourite scenes in all the Narnia books is from that story, when Lucy hears someone calling her name in the night and walks through the woods, where the spirits of the trees are starting to come awake again — it's a beautiful, mysterious, atmospheric sequence — until at last she finds Aslan, sitting silently and absolutely still in a clearing in the moonlight, and runs to him. In the film, or this part of it I saw, they have Lucy chased and attacked by marauding Telmarines until suddenly Aslan (and I'm afraid I find that CGI version of him so ugly) springs out of nowhere and despatches the Telmarines with some incredible ninja moves. I think that just about sums up the contrast between what Lewis wrote and what the film-makers thought would be better.

 

[Kerensa]

Yes, that backstory is not covered in Magician's Nephew. It was however written to be sort-of like Edith Nesbit's books as I recall, which would not really support a treason narrative very well.

I don't really see how such would have been written instead of a retelling of the Fall. Lewis already did something similar in Perelandra, where Ransom opposed the Bent One to stop the fall of its 'Eve'.

We jump around a lot in Narnia's chronology, skipping hundred of years. In the later books the Garden is absent, so some sort of fall occured, as Narnia is clearly also a Fallen world. This is perhaps where Jadis knew of this right of hers, and also explains why she is unaware of the 'deeper magic' of the Emperor.

I've always taken it that the "Fall" of Narnia was Jadis's entry into the world as it was created — "for though the world is not five hours old an evil has already entered it", in Aslan's words. Earlier in the story we see Digory succumbing to temptation ("Or wonder, till it drives you mad, / What would have followed if you had") when he strikes the bell and wakes Jadis in Charn; later there's the obvious symbolism of her eating the apple of life in the Garden. So there are allusions to or elements of a "Fall narrative" there, but as he himself always maintained, Lewis wasn't trying to retell the actual Christian/Biblical story in exact symbols or parallels, so I guess he doesn't take that theme as far as he obviously does in Perelandra (which I haven't read, so I can't compare them).

I never really thought about the Garden being absent in the other books; I guess I just assumed it's meant to be a sacred or magical place somewhere outside the bounds of Narnia, an obvious nod to Eden but (again) not exactly the same as it. In any case, I'm pretty sure The Magician's Nephew was actually the last Narnia book that Lewis wrote, though the second last to be published, so perhaps the reason for the Garden's absence from the other books was that he hadn't yet thought of it? We do of course see it again in Aslan's country at the end of The Last Battle.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I've always taken it that the "Fall" of Narnia was Jadis's entry into the world as it was created — "for though the world is not five hours old an evil has already entered it", in Aslan's words. Earlier in the story we see Digory succumbing to temptation ("Or wonder, till it drives you mad, / What would have followed if you had") when he strikes the bell and wakes Jadis in Charn; later there's the obvious symbolism of her eating the apple of life in the Garden. So there are allusions to or elements of a "Fall narrative" there, but as he himself always maintained, Lewis wasn't trying to retell the actual Christian/Biblical story in exact symbols or parallels, so I guess he doesn't take that theme as far as he obviously does in Perelandra (which I haven't read, so I can't compare them).

I never really thought about the Garden being absent in the other books; I guess I just assumed it's meant to be a sacred or magical place somewhere outside the bounds of Narnia, an obvious nod to Eden but (again) not exactly the same as it. In any case, I'm pretty sure The Magician's Nephew was actually the last Narnia book that Lewis wrote, though the second last to be published, so perhaps the reason for the Garden's absence from the other books was that he hadn't yet thought of it? We do of course see it again in Aslan's country at the end of The Last Battle.

You make some very good points. It is true Lewis saw Narnia as a supposition, not a retelling. It is "what would the Incarnation be like in a world of animals and fantasy?"

That being said, I don't think Jadis entering Narnia is its Fall. For as far as I can remember, no one joined Jadis in Magician's Nephew, although it has a lot of the imagery of the Fall. Satan was in Eden before the Fall after all, the mere presence of Evil does not make a world Fallen, but the choice of its inhabitants.

The way I see it, what happened to the line of King Frank and Queen Helen? It had gone extinct by the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Jadis was in control, with significant Narnian minions. So obviously at some point she turned previously good animals, by whatever trick or magic, and by so doing they betrayed Aslan. In essence, they fell, and then likely overthrew the lineage of Frank and Helen and Jadis ruled, until the Pevenseys arrived.

Thanks by the way for telling me Maugrim actually uses the name Jadis. That is very interesting.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Hope no-one minds me harking back to earlier posts... I've seen the film of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and while it was an enjoyable film in itself and a very good piece of cinema, I didn't feel it captured the spirit of the original book. Of course film-makers often change various things to help make a written story into something that works well on screen, but in this case I thought they changed way too much — adding dramatic chase scenes and huge battle scenes and other such things that I couldn't help suspecting were there to make it more exciting and thrilling and more of a huge spectacle on screen, completely different to the quite gentle and understated nature of the original story. I know many viewers enjoyed it, but for me, it simply wasn't Narnia.

I haven't seen the later two films (the first one put me off!), but I once saw a clip from Prince Caspian and was glad I hadn't watched the whole film. One of my favourite scenes in all the Narnia books is from that story, when Lucy hears someone calling her name in the night and walks through the woods, where the spirits of the trees are starting to come awake again — it's a beautiful, mysterious, atmospheric sequence — until at last she finds Aslan, sitting silently and absolutely still in a clearing in the moonlight, and runs to him. In the film, or this part of it I saw, they have Lucy chased and attacked by marauding Telmarines until suddenly Aslan (and I'm afraid I find that CGI version of him so ugly) springs out of nowhere and despatches the Telmarines with some incredible ninja moves. I think that just about sums up the contrast between what Lewis wrote and what the film-makers thought would be better.

I haven't watched the movies, but if that is the case, it is an appalling travesty. Books, especcially subtle and well written ones like Narnia, seldom make good movies, I think.

 

[Kerensa]

The way I see it, what happened to the line of King Frank and Queen Helen? It had gone extinct by the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Jadis was in control, with significant Narnian minions. So obviously at some point she turned previously good animals, by whatever trick or magic, and by so doing they betrayed Aslan. In essence, they fell, and then likely overthrew the lineage of Frank and Helen and Jadis ruled, until the Pevenseys arrived.

Now that's an interesting question to think about too (I don't think I'd ever really considered it before)... mind you, again it could have something to do with the actual order in which the books were written. I'm not absolutely sure, but I get the impression Lewis hadn't yet envisioned the events of The Magician's Nephew at the time he wrote The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. When the children are in the Beavers' house, Mr Beaver tells them "We've heard of Aslan coming into these parts before — long ago, nobody can say when. But there's never been any of your race here before" (emphasis added).

Of course it could be that the reign of Frank and Helen was so long before and their line had so long been extinct that all or most of the Talking Beasts had forgotten there had ever been any humans in Narnia. But I'm guessing it's more likely that Lewis simply hadn't thought up the "back story" of Narnia that would become The Magician's Nephew while he was writing the very first book — and by the time he did write about Narnia's beginnings, he might have forgotten he'd originally had a character state straight out that there had never been any humans in Narnia before the Pevensies.

I do remember reading somewhere that Lewis, in his last few years, spoke at least once of wanting to go over the Narnia books and write new editions that would clear up a few inconsistencies. If that's true, it seems he was aware of instances like these where his ideas of Narnia's history had changed over the time he was writing the series, but he never got around to doing the revisions before his death. Anyway, again, none of it spoils the books for me.

 

[Kerensa]

There is also an interesting theory that the 7 books mirror the seven classical planets. In the defence thereof, Lewis was a mediaevalist and well read on the subject.

Jupiter: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Mars: Prince Caspian
Sol: The Voyage of the “Dawn Treader“
Luna: The Silver Chair
Mercury: The Horse and his Boy
Venus: The Magician’s Nephew
Saturn: The Last Battle

The character of the books supposedly mirror attributes associated with these planets, like Martial Prince Caspian; or the End of Winter, return of the King, theme in The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe; or the Moon and the dark perpetual night of the underland in Silver Chair.
There are also colour associations and even name ones, like Silver Chair and the Moon, Dawn Treader and the Sun.

Quite fascinating. Lewis never said anything of the sort, but the speculation around it seems intriguing and certainly not beyond his fertile mind to do.

I've heard of that theory too and wouldn't mind looking into it some more, although I'm inclined to think it's a little far-fetched and reading a bit too much into things — again, because it doesn't appear that Lewis had such an overarching plan in mind when he wrote the first few books, at least. I gather he once stated that when he wrote The Voyage of the Dawn Treader he "felt sure it would be the last" in the series, but it turned out not to be.

(Apologies for the way I keep making vague references and semi-quotes with no sources, by the way... I have several books on C.S. Lewis and Narnia, but left them all back in Australia when I moved to England a few years ago, so I don't have much on hand that I can quote directly!! )

Anyway, going by that, it seems Lewis didn't start out with the intention of writing seven Narnia books, which would mean he couldn't consciously have been following the kind of scheme that that theory suggests. But it's still an interesting area to speculate about, I agree.

 

[Kerensa]

I haven't watched the movies, but if that is the case, it is an appalling travesty. Books, especcially subtle and well written ones like Narnia, seldom make good movies, I think.

Too right. There was another part of the movie of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where they didn't actually change the events, only the dialogue, but in a way that had me absolutely squirming. It's the scene where Lucy and Susan can't sleep and they go outside to find Aslan slipping away into the woods (going to his death at the hands of the White Witch, as they later find out). As they go after him, he turns and sees them. In the book — and this is one of the most poignant scenes in the whole story — his first words are "Oh, children, children, why are you following me?" In the film, his line — spoken just like an exasperated parent — becomes "Shouldn't you be in bed?" Aaaaargh!!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Now that's an interesting question to think about too (I don't think I'd ever really considered it before)... mind you, again it could have something to do with the actual order in which the books were written. I'm not absolutely sure, but I get the impression Lewis hadn't yet envisioned the events of The Magician's Nephew at the time he wrote The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. When the children are in the Beavers' house, Mr Beaver tells them "We've heard of Aslan coming into these parts before — long ago, nobody can say when. But there's never been any of your race here before" (emphasis added).

Of course it could be that the reign of Frank and Helen was so long before and their line had so long been extinct that all or most of the Talking Beasts had forgotten there had ever been any humans in Narnia. But I'm guessing it's more likely that Lewis simply hadn't thought up the "back story" of Narnia that would become The Magician's Nephew while he was writing the very first book — and by the time he did write about Narnia's beginnings, he might have forgotten he'd originally had a character state straight out that there had never been any humans in Narnia before the Pevensies.

I do remember reading somewhere that Lewis, in his last few years, spoke at least once of wanting to go over the Narnia books and write new editions that would clear up a few inconsistencies. If that's true, it seems he was aware of instances like these where his ideas of Narnia's history had changed over the time he was writing the series, but he never got around to doing the revisions before his death. Anyway, again, none of it spoils the books for me.

If you have a prophecy regarding Man, the chances are that you have some idea regarding them. Does this not suggest that there had been men there once? Similarly, the children are recognised as sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.

Lewis didn't plan to write a whole series, true, but the set-up of Aslan's return and the events of the book suggests interaction previously between our world and theirs. The 'knowing' nature of Professor Digory in the first book inherently suggests that men or at least a man, had previously set foot there. Mr. Beaver may just mean his area of Narnia, for certainly we don't know from where King Frank ruled, but if it is an inconsistency in the storyline, it is one already present in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as a stand alone book.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I dont know. I don't believe she is the same as the Lady in the Green Kirtle. I am pretty sure the magicians nephew book mentions a different color altogether, and of course in the lion the witch and the wardrobe, she is the White witch. But Lady in the Green Kirtle does make me think of some other myths and figures that I have read about... I will have to look it up and see if i can remember where...

She echoes the Lamiae. Specifically, her name comes from a line in Keats' poem Lamia.

The Lamiae were monsters that devoured children, hence a connection to Harfang, often partially serpentine. They were also seductresses, which fits the Lady's way of seducing and leading the Prince astray.

There are also allusions to Milton, on whom Lewis was an acknowledged expert. Most specifically in the scene where the Lady becomes the snake which mirrors Satan in Paradise Lost closely.

 

[Kerensa]

If you have a prophecy regarding Man, the chances are that you have some idea regarding them. Does this not suggest that there had been men there once? Similarly, the children are recognised as sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.

Lewis didn't plan to write a whole series, true, but the set-up of Aslan's return and the events of the book suggests interaction previously between our world and theirs. The 'knowing' nature of Professor Digory in the first book inherently suggests that men or at least a man, had previously set foot there. Mr. Beaver may just mean his area of Narnia, for certainly we don't know from where King Frank ruled, but if it is an inconsistency in the storyline, it is one already present in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as a stand alone book.

That's true and a very good point. I'd always picked up the hint (even before I read The Magician's Nephew) that the Professor in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe had somehow been to Narnia as well — which would make Mr Beaver's comment in that same book inaccurate, as you say. And the peoples/creatures of Narnia certainly do know about Man and have the prophecy about the four thrones, though we're never told (in either The Lion or The Magician's Nephew) exactly how that prophecy arose in the first place. It would be interesting to know if Lewis ever envisioned writing an "in-between" story to fill in the gap between those two books. But it's also nice, I think, to have some aspects of Narnia left a bit mysterious and up to the reader's own imagination, which perhaps is what Lewis intended anyway... hard to say for sure.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That's true and a very good point. I'd always picked up the hint (even before I read The Magician's Nephew) that the Professor in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe had somehow been to Narnia as well — which would make Mr Beaver's comment in that same book inaccurate, as you say. And the peoples/creatures of Narnia certainly do know about Man and have the prophecy about the four thrones, though we're never told (in either The Lion or The Magician's Nephew) exactly how that prophecy arose in the first place. It would be interesting to know if Lewis ever envisioned writing an "in-between" story to fill in the gap between those two books. But it's also nice, I think, to have some aspects of Narnia left a bit mysterious and up to the reader's own imagination, which perhaps is what Lewis intended anyway... hard to say for sure.

Lewis is a strong believer in the mythopoeic, in creating stories, myths, that are the soul of a work, merely clothed in words. This is different in his opinion from literature, in which the art of the written word is paramount.

So Narnia consists of books, but creates an underlying myth that transcends the individual books, that grant it a life beyond them, at least in my estimation.
To coldly write out the entirety of the timeline, all the little mysteries, would rob it of some magic.

I think it better to leave unspoken the events of the Telmarine conquest, for instance. How did they gain such a fear of the trees? Was there some massive dryad battle or guerrilla warfare? Where does Tash come from, for clearly there is such a being, is another such mystery? In like instance, keep the myths alive within Narnia, the unexplained prophecies, the strangeness of the lands and realms we see snapshots of. This is why there is such a long gap between the books, why Caspian is the 10th, why there are seven generations between Last Battle and Silver Chair. It allows the flourishing of imagination, which Lewis knew well in his youth with his 'Animal land'. It renders it a myth, as if we are seeing islands wrenched from the sea of its history, letting us taste it, experience it, without 'unweaving the rainbow'.

 

[fantascey]

Hope no-one minds me harking back to earlier posts... I've seen the film of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and while it was an enjoyable film in itself and a very good piece of cinema, I didn't feel it captured the spirit of the original book. Of course film-makers often change various things to help make a written story into something that works well on screen, but in this case I thought they changed way too much — adding dramatic chase scenes and huge battle scenes and other such things that I couldn't help suspecting were there to make it more exciting and thrilling and more of a huge spectacle on screen, completely different to the quite gentle and understated nature of the original story. I know many viewers enjoyed it, but for me, it simply wasn't Narnia.

I haven't seen the later two films (the first one put me off!), but I once saw a clip from Prince Caspian and was glad I hadn't watched the whole film. One of my favourite scenes in all the Narnia books is from that story, when Lucy hears someone calling her name in the night and walks through the woods, where the spirits of the trees are starting to come awake again — it's a beautiful, mysterious, atmospheric sequence — until at last she finds Aslan, sitting silently and absolutely still in a clearing in the moonlight, and runs to him. In the film, or this part of it I saw, they have Lucy chased and attacked by marauding Telmarines until suddenly Aslan (and I'm afraid I find that CGI version of him so ugly) springs out of nowhere and despatches the Telmarines with some incredible ninja moves. I think that just about sums up the contrast between what Lewis wrote and what the film-makers thought would be better.

i havent seen the movie in awhile; i would have to go back and watch it again, but i Do think that the scene in the woods where she walks through quietly and finds aslan there, happened in the movie. i think the chase scene where he shows up was later... if i remember right. unless im getting them all mixed up..

 

[Kerensa]

Ah, that's interesting and good to know. Well, I'm glad if they did keep that part in, but there does still seem to be a lot more emphasis on fighting/action scenes in the movies than there is in the books. Thanks, Fantascey.

 

[dms1972]

The movie is pretty faithful to the book, but again I personally prefer a particular animated version - this one:

I wasn't as crazy about the other cartoon version

I will say I was very disappointed with the other two movies Voyage of Dawn Treader and Prince Caspian. Dawn Treader they left the main purposes in but left out some of the cool, surreal stuff from the book. Prince Caspian they changed a lot for politically correct reasons and to add what they saw as more interest like internal battles in the group, which wasn't needed or written in the book.

I remember that animated version from childhood and liked it alot although the animation is quite basic compared with today, its really well done. I had not read the book at that point but later did and the other chronicles. I haven't seen Voyage of the dawn treader, the other two were ok but not great, LWW I thinks the best... i liked soundtrack, imogen heap and alanis morisette, and Regina Spektor on the Prince Caspian soundtrack. I'd prefer it though if they make any more films that they go back to animation.