The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe has long been regarded as a classic of
children’s literature. I
read it for the first time so obviously have a slightly different perspective than a child reading it, but I’ll do my best to be objective.
The formation of the
land of Narnia and the gateways from our world to it was described in The Magician’s Nephew, which was actually written later but in the chronology of Narnia comes first. Many years have passed since
evil was first introduced into that land and was vanquished, and no one from our world has since visited it. But evil has returned to that land, and since children from our world first introduced evil to Narnia (albeit unwittingly), a new gateway opens up and four children will ultimately be given the task of restoring
good to that land. The gateway this time takes the form of… a wardrobe.
Peter, Edmund, Susan, and Lucy are the four children in question, and find themselves transported from London during the war into a big house in the country, owned by an old Professor (being the boy who starred in The Magician’s Nephew many years on) who largely leaves them to their own devices. Lucy, the youngest, finds the gateway by accident but when she tells the others, they naturally don’t believe her – until they get to see Narnia for themselves. From then on it’s a tale of good vs. evil (good being the lion Alsan and his followers, bad being The White Which and hers) – but Edmund, being by disposition rather bad himself, is seduced by the White Witch. What will become of him – of Narnia – and of the prophecy that Narnia would be rued by 4 “Sons of Adam” and “Daughters of Eve”?
The characters in this
book are quite nicely portrayed, rather simple but then it is for children after all. There are many talking animals in Narnia, and they fall pretty directly into either the “Good” or “Evil” camps. The plot bounces along merrily and the action scenes are well described, and there are quite a few of them. The language used is kept simple most of the time, although occasionally there is use of language that today’s youngster would find hard to comprehend. (Due to today’s youth having a somewhat limited vocabulary compared to times when books were actually read by the majority of children, rather than Lewis using now outdated English, I mean.) Though I found the prose a little on the childish side (for the obvious reason that it’s meat for kids), it was not irritatingly so and was extremely comfortable to read.
The illustrations by Pauline Baynes are detailed line drawings that depict momentous or tense scenes from the book. These are very good quality but will, I fear, not be properly appreciated by the target age group. However at least for some they may instill an appreciation of art – it’s a far cry from Pokemon… The illustrations do add to the book – not greatly, but enough to make them worthwhile.
As with The Magician’s Nephew this book is very moralistic, teaching young children valuable lessons by means of the characters and events in the book, without them ever realising that they’re actually learning by reading this – especially in the way that Edmund is affected by his experience. The biblical themes are not so prominent here with the only one that really stood out being the resurrection. In general there is a lot less symbolism in this than the earlier but later-written Magician’s Nephew, and fewer flashes if wit and wisdom in the narrative. Given that Lewis’ writing style no doubt advanced over time this is hardly surprising. I may well get lynched for saying this given the high regard The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is held in by many, but the narrative drive and prose was somewhat bland. It read like a straight children’s book rather than a children’s book with extra substance for any adults who happened to be reading. That said it was quite an enjoyable light read, but it didn’t strike me as anything special. Lewis’ ability to set the scene brilliantly isstill there and the set pieces were effective, but nothing really excelled.
Overall it’s a good book for young children but, as you can see, Lewis himself admitted that it was only for younger children, not ones who’d grown up but were not yet old enough to realise they weren’t too old.