Prince Caspian

Despite claiming I would wait awhile to read another Narnia book just two weeks ago, and despite being in the middle of three other books at the time, and despite being pretty disappointed with the series in general so far, I found myself pulling Prince Caspian off the shelf last night for no particular reason at all. I finished it in two sittings. I can honestly and thankfully say that it was much better than the previous Narnia book I had read, The Horse and His Boy. However, this doesn't mean it was a good book. As the second book published, this was the direct sequel to the most famous Narnia tale: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. But there's so much less to this book than there is to its predecessor. Character development is completely absent, as is the mysterious atmosphere provided by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The battle at hand this time around is even far less epic and meaningful, which is readily admitted by many characters in the story, who say, more or less verbatim, "The White Witch [last novel's antagonist] was ten times as evil and powerful as King Miraz [this novel's antagonist]." So, in a way, you're kind of left wondering what the point is. Why make a half-assed sequel? Furthermore, why would C. S. Lewis readily admit, via his own characters' conversations, that he did not even try to outdo himself? After being both bored and moderately insulted by The Horse and His Boy a fortnight ago, I can happily say that Prince Caspian offers a tad more excitement and far less bigotry than that book. Yet, still, it's not all that interesting, and it too has its moments where it seems like shameless Christian propaganda. The main conflict is over a civil war, of sorts, between Prince Caspian and his uncle, King Miraz. We are simply told that Miraz is a cruel and uncaring king, and we are shown nothing at all as evidence of this. So, from the get go, the antagonist and protagonist are declared, and we have "good guys" and "bad guys" who we are more or less assigned to root for. That's textbook poor storytelling. It's somewhat clear that Miraz and his people represent a secular and faithless society (not unlike the Western world today) but never once does Lewis show us an example where this lack of "faith" in Aslan the Lion (the series' recurring horrible attempt at an embodiment of Christ) leads to this society being corrupt or immoral, aside from the fact that Miraz killed Caspian's father to usurp the throne. But even in this case, we're hardly affected, as Capsian's dad was kind of an asshole anyway, based on the brief history of the Capsian lineage that we are given. So, in short, the "good" guys are the ones forcing religion down everyone's throats, while the "bad" guys merely don't believe in a lion-god. Sounds like an unfair portrayal to me. Of course, the book ends with Caspian reclaiming the throne after a bloody coup. Where's the Christianity there? Oh, and the book also includes a scene in which some of the talking animals justify that it is okay to kill and hunt other animals because they are "deaf and dumb" and cannot talk. All I gathered from this is that C. S. Lewis was a proponent of euthanizing the retarded and disabled, for in his eyes, or at least the eyes of his characters, intelligent beings are more worthy of life than retarded ones. Again, where's the Christian message here? Though I hate to give any credit at all to The Horse and His Boy, at least that book's main conflict was between a "free" nation and one of stringent caste systems, racially divided as they were. At least in that book I never found myself wondering why I as the reader was "rooting for" the Narnians to prevail over the other side. This series continues to frustrate me at every turn. Oh well. With four books down and three to go, I'm more than halfway through it. Thank the Lord - I mean, the Lion.