Book Review: Prince Caspian

[osprey_archer]

I've been sitting on this review of Prince Caspian for a while, because Prince Caspian was and remains the solidly "eh, it's fine" Narnia book for me, which is the hardest thing of all to review. It's easy to go on for pages about something you hate, and somewhat more difficult (but still, usually, doable) to go on and on about something you love, but what is there to say about fine?

However, even a meh Narnia book is better than most other books, and has some wonderful bits. I love the beginning, where the Pevensies find themselves on some random island, and as they explore it slowly dawns on them that these are the ruins of Cair Paravel.

I also love the bit at the climax where Lucy and Susan go off with Aslan and the dryads and the maenads and go coursing across Narnia, setting people free from Telmarine tyranny and generally spreading joyful anarchy across the land. (Lewis's festival anarchy scenes are always fantastic.)

This scene exists to a certain extent to get Lucy and Susan away from the battle (just as Lucy and Susan are the ones to free Aslan at the Stone Table in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe partly to get them away from that battle), and in both cases it's striking that Lucy and Susan's part is so much more fun and exciting than the boys'. This is usually not the case in children's book where the girls get shunted off to the side! But of course Lucy and Susan aren't being shunted off: they're taking part in the main action, whereas the boys' battle is necessary (God helps those who help themselves!) but also kind of a side issue; God/Aslan is the one doing the real work.

Also AMAZING feast scene afterward, good work Lewis, I too want to sit around a giant bonfire feasting with all my talking animal friends until we are all so happy and tired we fall asleep where we sit.

I do sort of wonder how the Telmarines are going to adjust to their uninhabited island back on Earth (which is where Aslan sends the unreconstructed Telmarines at the end of the book), but as with the question of "what are the psychological effects of being a grown-up king or queen and then going back to England to be a schoolchild?", this is not something that Lewis is interested in.

Plus of course this is the book where we meet Reepicheep, a fearless doughty warrior who is also, inconveniently for him, a mouse. LOVE Reepicheep. Reepicheep will truly come into his own in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (I've been so dilatory about this review that littlerhymes and I have almost finished Dawn Treader!), but I love him here too. The scene where all his companion mice are willing to cut off their tails because Reepicheep has lost his tail... ah, that's the good stuff.

Comments

[silverusagi]

It's easy to go on for pages about something you hate, and somewhat more difficult (but still, usually, doable) to go on and on about something you love, but what is there to say about fine?

This is where I am with a lot of books I read lol.

[osprey_archer]

It's a real problem! Although I see that in this particular entry I managed to go on for about six paragraphs after all.

[rachelmanija]

I agree with you about absolutely everything. The sequences of the Pevensies exploring the ruins of their own past, and the glorious anarchy of the maenads, are marvelous. Caspian's own story is... fine.

There is one bit I love from his story though, which is the Wer-Wolf's terrifying monologue:

"I'm hunger. I'm thirst. Where I bite, I hold till I die, and even after death they must cut out my mouthful from my enemy's body and bury it with me. I can fast a hundred years and not die. I can lie a hundred nights on the ice and not freeze. I can drink a river of blood and not burst. Show me your enemies.”

[osprey_archer]

Yes the Wer-Wolf's monolog is amazing. That whole scene is so tense, Nikabrik confronting Caspian with two allies who might be able to win the war for them... but at what cost?

And then a little later on, Caspian gets bitten by the Wer-Wolf! And this never comes up again! I guess in Narnia, that's not how Wer-Wolfism gets spread. (Although I sure hope someone has written a story with werewolf!Caspian, it's just sitting on the ground begging to exist.)

[kore]

As a kid I thought FOR SURE that meant Caspian would become a werewolf, and was rather puzzled when he didn't!

[osprey_archer]

Right!! Is this more modern werewolf lore, which Lewis might not have known? Or is he simply flagrantly ignoring well-known werewolf facts for funzies? (One imagines Tolkien burying his face in his hands with a groan. He gave up on this series back when Father Christmas showed up but the lack of follow-through on the werewolf bite STILL torments him.)

[kore]

I remember actually reading a long analysis of the differences in Tolkien's and Lewis's worldbuilding -- it was either a short book or a couple of chapters in a longer one -- and it was about syncretism vs. Tolkien's view of subcreation, where the creator is literally making a world, and is basically God in miniature. So his view of writing, creation, is connected to his religiosity -- he converted Lewis with that weird (at least to me) insistence that myths are true, and the myths humans make lead them closer to God. But that stuff gives me major MEGO so I probably got some wrong. -- Altho then it is also a bit weird that Tolkien denied allegory so completely (altho he compares Gollum to the stone the builders rejected IIRC), and Lewis just flat out does the crucifixion, mourning and resurrection, and even harrowing of Hell with the Witch's castle, but with a giant magical lion! But I always thought the Hobbit was a lot more like the Narnia books -- I seem to remember it has some modern references, and it's very much an older narrator telling the story to a young audience, with all kinds of asides and annotations. Maybe Tolkien's disapproval of Lewis was not jealousy, exactly, but seeing the road not taken, one that he couldn't take because of what he believed.

Tolkien disapproving of Lewis's everything-and-the-neighbour's-kitchen-sink literary approach also kind of reminds me of how he hoped Lewis would become a Catholic, but instead he returned to his roots and was an Ulsterman, and that was another way in which they seemingly were joined (in faith) but in reality had very different views.

[osprey_archer]

Yes, The Hobbit definitely has the same kind of asides to the audience, and IIRC (it's been a while since I read it) some of them involve modern references to help clarify the image for the reader. So it's interesting that he turned against that approach so completely in Lewis's work.

But I think also that it wasn't the asides or even the modern references that he objected to as much as the slapdash nature of it all - even in The Hobbit, Tolkien is much more internally consistent than Lewis ever bothered about in Narnia. Like, Hobbit Gollum and LotR Gollum didn't match, so he rewrote the Gollum parts in The Hobbit so they fit together. Meanwhile Lewis is over here cheerfully writing his prequel, where he introduces Jadis who is supposed to be the same character as the White Witch, and she really doesn't feel like the same character at all! But Lewis bops along unbothered.

[kore]

I find this book interesting because it's so reflexive -- it was originally subtitled Return to Narnia, and it almost reminds me of the second part of Don Quixote, where Sancho and the Don read the book about themselves and it changes them. The Pevensie children are mythic figures and have to prove their actual existence to Trumpkin, Trumpkin himself is a figure in the story he's telling them, Caspian's old nurse (with her great return, healed by Aslan, near the end) raises him on old stories....We even get "it has been told in another book called The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe how they had a remarkable adventure" from the narrator at the very beginning. (“You tell us your story first," Peter says to Trumpkin, "and then we’ll tell you ours.") The children remember their old skills, and royal lives, and tell each other about their old lives too.

I wonder if the reason you're kind of meh on Caspian is that his story is, well, pretty familiar -- it's the fantasy of the child who knows his real parents are different, and he has a grand Destiny, and gets to claim his rightful place. (Y HLO THAR Harry Potter) Caspian himself is in the same position the children were in during Wardrobe, someone very young who is thrust into a position of power and responsibility. His meeting the Old Narnians is delightful (and Reepicheep is of course pure chivalry) but a lot of his journey is rather cod-Arthurian, without the trippy anachronisms and delightful sense of discovery of the first book. He doesn't have much personality yet, that's in the third book (my personal favourite).

(The real reason I can't love the book as much as the others is that it depends so much on faith -- I hate it when Lucy gets denied by the others, and we get "Susan talking like a grownup," and then Aslan MAKES her try to convince the others to come back the right way with him, and again Susan is "the worst" of them all. Lewis draws on Cupid and Psyche, and it's significant Edmund is the one who believes and supports Lucy in her faith. Susan confesses to Lucy that she feels she could have seen Aslan, and Aslan tells her she was afraid. The older two can never come back to Narnia, and this is the true beginning of Susan's exile from it. I know there was a lot of emphasis on belief in the first book, but I guess what gets me about this one is the proselytizing note gets louder? IDK. And of course I hate it when children grow up and can't return to the fantastic lands.)

[osprey_archer]

Yes, I think part of it is that Caspian just doesn't have much personality yet - he's a placeholder hero, loyal and brave and true etc., but without a lot of individuality in this book. And structurally the book is odd: the Pevensies arrive in Narnia, then their story stops dead as we catch up on what's happening with Caspian, then there's a lengthy trek through the wilderness before they even meet Caspian! Because Lewis is Lewis, it never drags, but it also doesn't have the some propulsive "gotta read one more chapter!" force as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe or The Horse and His Boy.

And although Aslan's final anarchic romp is amazing, his earlier appearances in this book are perhaps the most frustrating in the series. Why can only Lucy see him? Why does she have to get everyone up in the middle of the night and frog-march them on? Surely there was a better way to stage-manage this, Aslan. And yes, already setting up Susan for her ending in The Last Battle...

I don't know that Lewis and Arthur Ransome ever read each other, and really the only connection here is that both their groups involve a family of four children where the second oldest child, who is the oldest girl and the Cautious One, is named Susan... But I did like that Ransome always took care to point out when Susan's caution was warranted, and that the reason the adults let them all go on these adventures in the first place is that they know Susan is responsible and they can rely on her. Narnia Susan is sometimes presented just as a spoilsport.

[kore]

And although Aslan's final anarchic romp is amazing, his earlier appearances in this book are perhaps the most frustrating in the series. Why can only Lucy see him? Why does she have to get everyone up in the middle of the night and frog-march them on? Surely there was a better way to stage-manage this, Aslan. And yes, already setting up Susan for her ending in The Last Battle...

Yes, that's what I meant about the emphasis on faith being offputting -- from what I recall, in Wardrobe the children don't believe Lucy because, well, she sounds daft, and Edmund actually lies to undermine her and Peter's outraged when he finds out. But then they're all in Narnia, with her, and that happens again in Caspian, only that doesn't seem to be at all in her favour? Lewis claims in Til We Have Faces that "The central alteration in my own version consists in making Psyche’s palace invisible to normal, mortal eyes – if ‘making’ is not the wrong word for something which forced itself upon me, almost at my first reading of the story, as the way the thing must have been," which entirely changes the whole theme and point of the story, and allows him to make it an allegory of Christian faith. In Caspian, Aslan forces Lucy to be Lewis's version of Psyche. He only appears to her, she has to proselytize and convince everyone that he's actually there, and he actually gets pissed at her when she says it'll be all right now because he'll go back with her and show them. (And he doesn't like her complaining that they didn't believe her, either. WTF, Aslan.) And then he even pretty much blames her for not leaving them and following him alone! It's clearly a test as much of Lucy as it is the other children, and that really aggravated me as a kid. I don't recall anything like this in the Bible where Jesus shows up only to one person (I could be wrong, I am not terribly familiar with the Bible). And it's not like God says to Isaac, "Okay, now you have to convince your dad not to kill you, I'm just going to watch you do it."

Interestingly, when they're all put to the test, Edmund believes Lucy, Peter doesn't really but is more convinced by what happened at the gorge, Trumpkin is all "lol I abstain" and Susan is outnumbered. And when Susan says to Lucy, "What do you think you saw," Lucy insults her with "Don't talk like a grownup" -- older people who are patronizing, dismissive, disbelieving. I hate the "lipstick and nylons" bit as much as anybody, and old Jack does have a real streak of misogyny, but it seems pretty clear Susan's desire is to put away childish things, so to speak (lol) -- as the eldest sister she's constantly the negative mother figure, and the others are always criticizing her for it. And Aslan doesn't harshly rebuke Susan; he says she was afraid, and tries to give her more courage. But Susan becomes an example of the harsh, nagging, deflating maternal stereotype even though she's a twelve-year-old in the first book.

[osprey_archer]

Yes, it is odd that they don't believe her about seeing Aslan once they're all in Narnia and have at previous times seen Aslan for themselves etc. Is it odd that he's not showing himself to all of them, yes, but also they know Narnia operates by Narnia rules, so you'd think they would just go with it.

[kore]

Yes! It's like how they have to keep remembering their own past Narnia selves -- they don't even know where they are at first (although Lucy, typically, feels some kind of vibes) and have to piece together the clues like the dais and the chessman. Then finding their gifts again makes them remember more, and there's the tests with Trumpkin (who is a complete empiricist, lol). Peter becoming kingly again, dictating the letter and fighting Miraz and so on, is like the end of Wardrobe, when they've become completely Narnian (and the tone and diction reminds me a little bit of Once and Future King, somehow). They're back, but it takes them a long time to return, if that makes sense.

[asakiyume]

I got into my feelings about this book in a digression on your post on ... I think The Magician's Nephew? Overall, I'm not very fond of it, though there are, as you say, some lovely moments.

In addition to what I said in the other entry, I think I felt mad as a kid that Narnia, which the Pevensies had rescued, had gotten all yucky again, with all the good and magical things in hiding, etc. etc. And somehow this time it was worse: last time it was an evil magic; this time it was just schools and shoes and things.

I appreciate how well you *do* talk about it, even thought it's only just fine.

[osprey_archer]

Yes, it is a bit like the Star Wars sequel trilogy, isn't it! In the last story, Our Heroes saved the world... only no they didn't, it's all icky again, all good and magic back in hiding, etc. etc.

That really bothered me in the Star Wars sequels - it just gave me a feeling of futility, I guess? But not so much in Prince Caspian, for whatever reason. Funny how differently one can react to a similar situation in different pieces of media.

[asakiyume]

Absolutely. Maybe because even if the things are ostensibly similar, they *feel* really different to us (and maybe actually there are a lot of differences--a lot is a matter of what things we highlight. And then it can be how engaged you feel with the thing, etc. etc.

[lucymonster]

Prince Caspian was always one of my favourites as a kid, but on reread I was surprised by how much the girls' and boys' stories feel like two virtually unrelated narratives. Even before the live action movie made it All About the Battles, my favourite parts were always the ones involving Caspian and Reepicheep and Trufflehunter and the Dwarves - but as you say, that subplot is really kind of peripheral to the main business of Lucy and Susan accompanying Aslan on his family-friendly Christian bacchanal to reenliven Narnia.

Looking forward to your thoughts on Dawn Treader - that one was always my favourite favourite, and yes, Reepicheep is such a highlight!

[osprey_archer]

Yes, the stories super branch off when the battle nears. The girls are so far away on their bacchanalia that they may or may not be aware that a battle is even happening.

Dawn Treader is also my favorite! Although saying so feels disloyal to The Silver Chair... But how could any other book measure up to the book where you have a star who has been retired from stardom for STAR CRIMES?

[kore]

(Dawn Treader is BEST, it's always been my fave from the first time I read that great opening with the picture of the ship!)