(Posted in two parts because I had so much to say):

When I read the Narnia books (well, actually had them read to me by my mother) when I was young, I remember that I wasn't bothered too much by the fact that Susan didn't appear. And I thought she was on that train and dead. I accepted the fact that she had lost her faith, had turned apostate (although that word was unknown to me at the time) and since Narnia was a world ruled at the whim of a lion (who was by no means a tame lion), of course she couldn't come if she had offended him.

What bothered me were the dwarfs. They had behaved horribly and ended up beyond the end of the world because they had been thrown there, not because they wanted to go. But I never understood why that prevented them from seeing what was around them. I had seen nothing in the book previous to this that had given me any indication that they could not see what was around them, so this just felt wrong. Added to that, the fact that Aslan, the all-mighty could not fix these problems with their physical senses when they had no reason to desire this, when they would have been happier with being able to see the physical world around them as it was broke the book for me. Aslan was diminished, if he could not correct such a simple flaw. Their beliefs he could not change, but a mental illness, a problem of the eyes and nose, that should be well within his power. I could not believe that a person, no matter how stubborn or stupid could will themselves to believe things other than their sense told them. I later read 1984 and this opinion changed, but I think that isn't relevant here, as the circumstances are completely opposite.

At the time my knowledge of Christianity came from just the Gospels (and not Acts, or any of Paul's letters) (before Narnia, my mom had read those to me, although there were arguments when I insisted that there had to be parts of the book that contained Jesus' life as a teenager and young adult, which is part of why I believe that we never made it to the further books), so I didn't seen the allegory. Later on, as a teen I did, and being in a particularly rebellious stage, I was one of those who felt cheated and lied to. I've since calmed down and come to appreciate the books for what they are.

Susan bothered me upon the revelation that Narnia was heaven, but I found myself less distressed when I realized that she wasn't dead. The dwarfs continue to bother me, although I can see the anvil that Lewis was dropping here, although I feel my childhood objection still has some merit. (Similarly, the apostle I respected the most was Thomas, but that's a different essay/comment)

(Part two:)

I'm a huge fan of Gaiman, and found this essay through a link from a google search. His intention, which no one here has mentioned, was to write something troubling. He wanted to plant a seed in the minds of all who read this, of a different view of Narnia (he's done this with many fairy tales in the past- Snow, Glass, Apples is perhaps his most effective, although I have a fondness for Troll Bridge myself). I could try to explain more, but I'll just quote from his introduction:

"I read the Narnia books to myself hundreds of times as a boy, and then aloud as an adult, twice, to my children. There is so much in the books that I love, but each time I found the disposal of Susan to be intensely problematic and deeply irritating. I suppose I wanted to write a story that would be equally problematic, and just as much of an irritant, if from a different direction, and to talk about the remarkable power of children's literature."

From reading the story, it doesn't seem that Gaiman has the same objections that Rowling and Pullman do. Instead it seems that he views the vanity as insufficient grounds for her rejection from heaven. Added to that the fact that Susan doesn't know that her brothers and sister are now in Narnia, and simply thinks them dead, well, that does make Aslan look rather cruel, from one point of view. And so he reverses things, to make her the fortunate (at least for a while) survivor. (As one of the commentators thought, the comment is a couple of years old.) It's not about Susan's sexuality, it's about appropriate punishment for a loss of faith.

One last thing to note- Lewis' characters know that Susan is no longer welcome in Narnia well before they talk about her no longer being its friend.

"But the High King Peter has them," said Tirian.

"Yes," said Jill. "But we don't think he can use them. When the two other Pevensies - King Edmund and Queen Lucy - were last here, Aslan said they would never come to Narnia again. And he said something of the same sort to the High King, only longer ago. You may be sure he'll come like a shot if he's allowed."

Susan is completely left out of the discussion here, something I only noticed in re-reading The Last Battle in order to reply to you. I don't know if it signifies anything, but I found it interesting, that there was no thought in excluding Susan, she simply is no longer relevant.

Thank you for your wonderful essay. It's helped me understand better the why behind Susan's inability to enter heaven, ironically, pushing me back to my early understanding of Narnia. I suspect the dwarfs will bother me for a very long time, as someone who wishes he could believe in anything outside of the physical world, but is simply unable to. (Faith in the untestable fascinates me, and is something I find myself envying in others from time to time.)

I've read & re-read the Chronicles of Narnia since I received them over 30 years ago when I was 10. I've always felt so sorry for Susan and Peggy when they become so caught up in themselves rather than being open to life in all its many wonders - including the world of Narnia - or any other world for that matter.

I've often gawked in amazement when people say Lewis was a chauvinist and hates women. How so when the main character that starts the series is a "daughter of Eve"?!? The reverence awarded to the "first woman" by that statement alone should tell people this is more than just a "girl does good" story.

Having first read the series at so young an age, I pondered and studied the books. The are all very well worn (yes, I still have my original hardbacks!) but well preserved - even than I knew not to write in these books. They opened my narrowly educated mind and had me asking questions at my (Catholic) school that made the nuns and priests very uncomfortable. Eventually, they found out I had read (and was re-reading) the CoN, and I was "expelled for disruptions and foul thoughts in class." In actuality, I had asked that if Eve was the "only woman", how so could Cain & Abel have had children... incest was wrong. Unless.. of course... there were other women (and here I referenced Jadis had come from another world - and perhaps the same was here. Maybe even a giantess... like Jadis...)

Oh! The deductions of a young girl's mind!

I never felt that Lewis was negative in his portrayal of women in his books. He may have had opinions of females in general, but I love how he portrayed females as being ever-changing; growing and showing aspects of themselves no matter the situation. From Lucy to Jadis to Susan and Peggy - Lewis has covered much of women and honestly gives a healthy portrayal of woman-kind.


For myself - his books taught me to keep my eyes open and observe. That is how one learns.

What a lovely and insightful essay! I always believed, as a child, that Susan could be redeemed, but you've put a lot of half-thoughts of my own into clear words and concepts.

This reminds me of the "Hell" card in the Robin Wood Tarot deck; two people, a man and a woman, are in a tunnel, with exits clearly visible. They are free to go. The "treasure"--their desire--is the only thing that is chained there, in the darkness. They could leave...but they won't. Damnation--seperation from Love/God/The Divine--is a choice, and a perpetual choice at that.

Thank you for sharing this!

Thank you for your comment! That is an apt analogy.

I haven't read all of the comments on this essay, but I agree with so many who have praised its worth. I always felt very sad that Susan dropped away in TLB, but I never had put this together with Lewis' rather obvious problem with women...a problem that his marriage no doubt helped him to resolve. Decades ago my first wife was a leader in her youth group, and they all watched that horrible movie "Thief in the Night" about the persecution of Christians during the end times. After the movie, many of them wondered what sort of persecution might take them away from the Savior Whom they loved so much. It turned out that all of them (I believe) has fallen away from their faith, and not because any of them were persecuted. In fact, they all decided to live as the world lived and not in The Way that Christ showed us. I'm not some religious cult member, but I know how the things of the world are anathema to the things of Christ. My first wife, even though she had experienced many proofs of the love of Christ and even of His miraculous actions, decided she didn't want God or Jesus in her life anymore. She told me that, after doing so, she "didn't miss him." One of the reasons she sought divorce from me was because I was "all about Christianity" and she knew that she was not. So many people have fallen away from the faith of their youth because what the world had to offer was "better" in their estimation. Susan's chasing after the world and its pleasures (shadow things for Lewis) is, indeed, a sad but all too common occurrence.

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post and may have been mentioned by others whom I didn't read.

I don't really like the Harry Potter books for many reasons I can't clearly justify. In my negative bias, however, I would venture to wonder about The Problem of Harry in that Harry is JKR's version of a male character. Couldn't one also pick apart her treatment of Harry Potter...perhaps of other male characters as well...as showing her anti-male bias? Doesn't she seek to dominate that male figure somewhat by being that male figure's author? Has she subdued or tamed the male Harry by the changes her plot put upon him? Perhaps this is a stretch, but I doubt that C.S. Lewis was aware of the prejudices under which he labored because he lived before the 60's revolution. In the same way, JKR thinks she is free from those kinds of incorrect thinking only to be bound by the prejudices of our generation, especially vis-a-vis sexuality.

A critic can always find something wrong about something if he looks at it long enough.

After much pressure, I have finally read Gaiman's The Problem with Susan, followed by an interview where he explains his intent in writing such a piece. As I take it, he wrote it simply to get people to think. Not to condemn Lewis for abandoning Susan, or to chatise those who are taking this too far. To think about the possible further explanations, instead of going and blindly raging at the world for ruining Susan. But I digress...

What stood out to me the most in all of your excellent post/article is the fact that we as the reader are angry because Susan represents our own failings and doubts about our acceptance into Paradise. But Susan, at least to me, is a metaphor for a believer who has lost her way. It is very easy to do, especially in this day and age, yet the fact that all the Friends tried to get her to come back into the fold that encourages me. Susan is not banned from entering, she chose (if not consciously) to leave. The only low point that I can see is that, at least from my experience. non-believers, when faced with such an overwhelming tragedy such as Susan's, tend to stray further from God, not closer. So it may take Susan quite a while to realize the truth, if she ever does.

I have personally always felt that comments lining Susan and sex were made by people who jumped to erronous coclusions. i have read the books many times over and have not once come accross anything that has made me think that Susan is banished from Narnia because she grew up. in my opinion it is quite the opposite. I think that this essay points out many things that should not be overlooked when it comes to the problem of Susan.

Thank you for writing that. I'm surprised authors like Gaiman and Rowling do not see the progression of Susan's character through the novels. Even as a young reader, I sensed Susan's growing ambivalence towards the world of Narnia. Thank you for writing about it so carefully and thoughtfully.

The greater lesson to be learned is an important one, of not allowing the trivialities of the world to overshadow the commitment to spiritual growth. Susan's defection is painful to read precisely because it mirrors our own pain in seeing that we also value the trivialities of the world over our spiritual faith.

I have to tell you what an amazing essay this is! I've been doing some research into Neil Gaiman's "The Problem of Susan" and found this link while searching for that story. I was listening to the Chronicles of Narnia podcast that is distributed by the Narnia Fan Fiction Revolution (NFFR) and they discussed Gaiman's views about Susan's exclusion from Narnia.

I'm thrilled to have found your essay and I agree with you completely. Lewis never intended sex to be the reason why Susan was left out. It was, as you said, her vanity and lack of faith in Aslan.

It is a great essay and I will recommend it to others.

I could write an essay on Susan too, but my problem with what happened to her is completely different from the one you argued. I never felt that she was punished for growing up, or even for forgetting (yeah, sure she forgot), but rather because she made her own place and became happy here in her own world, the world she was banished to.

Honestly, the entire set-up of Narnia feels like Lewis is saying 'look, they forgot the details of Narnia, so obviously they won't be sad about being kicked out!' and then saying 'isn't it a wonderful thing they all died' and that it was good that they had no ties to bind them to this world. There is something extremely wrong with seven people spending somewhere around seven years doing their best to remember adventures in another world they've been banished from. It's sad and heartbreaking, and that's the worst part of the stories.

That sounds more like fanon than canon to me, honestly -- the idea that the Friends of Narnia were miserable and had no lives on earth apart from talking about Narnia and wishing they could be there all the time. I don't get that sense of empty despair and loss from any of the Pevensies, or the grown-up Digory (when we meet him as the Old Professor) either. Certainly they all remember Narnia fondly and would love to go back, but they also seem perfectly capable of functioning in and even enjoying the good aspects of "our" world as well. (Edmund's "I'd had a sore knee from a hack at rugger" comes to mind; it's difficult to imagine a young man wasting away with despair for Narnia would be so enthusiastically caught up in playing rugby.)

I also don't get the impression that the Friends of Narnia had any difficulty remembering the things that had happened to them there and were gathering together in a frantic effort to hold on to those memories. That, too, sounds more like fanon than canon to me.

I've just re-read the relevant parts of TLB and it appears that the only reason all the Friends got together in the first place is because Digory had an "odd feeling" that something was up regarding Narnia and they ought to discuss it -- so it wasn't as though they were all in the habit of moping about together lamenting "O Narnia, Where Art Thou?"

So I'm afraid I'm not seeing this idea of everyone's lives being blighted because they were cruelly banished from Narnia and can think of nothing else but getting back. It seems more like a really fantastic holiday that you remember for the rest of your life -- of course you'd like to go back if you could, and you love to get together with other people who've been to the same place and talk about the fun you had there, but you're also aware that "real" life must and does go on.

Edited at 2009-07-28 05:52 pm (UTC)

It is fanon, to an extent, but it's fanon that's taken almost directly from canon. In The Last Battle, they say that 'whenever we speak of Narnia' as if it is a regular occurrence. Polly and Digory never married, either of them, which doesn't feel like a coincidence to me. They are thinking/talking about Narnia at the beginning of PC and Dawn Treader, and it is said that they have talked about it often enough that Eustace has overheard. They appear to have gotten together at least a few other times before this as well - the 'I have a bad feeling' just made it more urgent, apparently. (Regarding the memories, it definitely is canon that in one world the other fades. Fanon-wise I tend to ignore that, because I can't imagine them forgetting, but that they forget the details at least is canon.)

Also, the it was just a fantastic holiday argument. I've heard that many times and it has never held any water with me. For Eustace and Jill and Polly and Digory, perhaps it was just that. A fun escapade from the real world, an adventure and then back home. But the Pevensies ruled Narnia for fifteen years, during which there had to have been wars, battles (it is given in canon that Calormene is always scheming against Narnia and Archenland) and even if Calormene is the only other country given, Telmar had to be out there somewhere and there were doubtless other countries that would just love to have a slice of Narnia with it's child-kings and child-queens. If you're trying for realism at all, there would have been assassination attempts, treason, wars (the wars against the Giants is also canon), diplomatic trips, suitors, and the entire business of ruling a kingdom to go about. I can't imagine them ruling Narnia for fifteen years without concluding that they must have been deeply in love with the country. The fact is that they spent longer in Narnia than they had in their world. That is canon. Also canon is many instances of them remembering.

And honestly, I don't think Susan actually forgot. I think she moved on, and saying she thought it was a game was her only way to make the others stop saying 'do you remember?' to her.

(I will note that my wariness of Aslan's actions as an omnipotent and kind god does color my perception of Narnia. I don't like Aslan and feel that he's a bit cruel and capricious, and not a very good stand-in for Jesus.)

JK Rowling criticizing CS Lewis? Absurd at best and certainly not worthy of consideration, being more tuned to publicity than any valid literary concern. But the problem of Susan may indeed seem vexing to any unfamiliar with christian doctrine. We are all human, hence sinful, and as such may experience times when religious doctrine seems less than important, even silly and childish. Even christ himself, fulfilling his fate on the cross, doubted for a moment; "Father why have you forsaken me?". He was at that time indeed human and so likely subject to our failings and fears to some degree. He died so that we may be forgiven and Susan, who is left time to come around, is no exception.

While I don't think the reason she was evicted was exactly why people are saying, I do think that her treatment was harsh. She may get to live her life, but she is left alone, with everyone she cares about dead. There is no suggestion of closure or getting to see them one last time. She is only a teenager, at a time when she is trying to figure out who she is. She shouldn't be punished - yes, punished - for this.

I think you hit it right on the head. There is plenty of foreshadowing to mitigate Susan's defection. If it had been any of the others, I would have had problems with believing it, but for Susan it made sense. I mean think about it: Peter was a skeptic at first, but once he saw Narnia, he very practically accepted it and never looked back. He didn't always do everything right, but he always acted within the realm of reason. And once he saw Narnia, it would have been unreasonable to say he hadn't.
Edmund not only saw Narnia, his life was profoundly changed--and saved--by Aslan. The significance of the place and the Lion to him would have been too great for him to simply turn away from it.
Lucy, from the very beginning, was the faithful. She is cast in different roles at different times, but always she is the faithful messenger. She believes in Aslan when nobody else does. She resolves to follow him even if no one else will. One might even dare to say she loves him more than any of the others do. Lucy's faltering moments are few, far between, and literally just moments. Her faith is truly like that of a little child, and it would have made no sense for that faith to spontaneously go away.

Susan was skeptical at first, like Peter. She was always kind and compassionate, but often selfish, prone to listening to her fears rather than being faithful, and quite self-conscious about her beauty. Being altogether more wrapped up in herself and worldly things than any of her siblings, imagine what it would have been like for her: to be a queen for a lifetime, and then be suddenly relegated back to being a schoolgirl. Perhaps she simply wanted to recreate the admiration and sophistication she must have experienced as a Queen of Narnia. All in all, it's very sad for Susan.

Dear Ms. R. J. Anderson,

First I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Jam and I'm still very much in love with the Chronicles of Narnia, despite it being a childhood read. I agree when readers say they appreciate the chronicles more as they grow older, as themes that may have been overlooked or not understood while reading it as a child certainly make sense now during early adulthood.

I've read many reviews of late about N. G.'s short story "The Problem of Susan." I found them most disturbing, and made me ask: why would he write such a piece? Of course he gave his reasons (answered in blogs and interviews). But it also made me wonder if the allegations other notable "figures" have written about Susan were of any basis.

Does the mention of "nylons, lipsticks, and invitations" in her top list of interests cause her to be "kicked out of Narnia" so to speak? I had to delve deeper, search for a reason. Mr. C. S. Lewis isn't here to tell his side.

I found many blogs, journals, and other write-ups on this topic. Some ok, some disturbing.

But yours...it gave me hope.
I don't think it fair that they would "cast the stones" on Susan, so to speak. Everyone has faults, weaknesses. But perhaps because she was excluded from the train-crash made people gang up on Susan.

But I believe in this:
God sees what we don't see.
And if Aslan is the version of God in Narnia, then his exclusion of Susan in the train-crash and Last Battle must have been part of a bigger plan that we mere humans don't see. Maybe even Peter, Jill, and Eustace don't see the "big picture."

I guess we'll never know what Lewis had in store for Susan. We can only indulge that idea with speculation, theories, our own adaptation of the chronicles (fiction, fan-fiction) and other works / publications inspired by the chronicles.

Thank you so much for this journal entry.
All the best,
Sincerely,
Jam.

P. S. May I post this url to my Facebook page?
Thank you.

Certainly you can post the URL to Facebook! Thanks for the comment, I'm glad you appreciated the essay.

Made many things clearer to me. Thanks a lot, this is surely a website I'll visit very often.

Although the Narnia series were written when I was a child, I hadn't read them until the last few days. (I'm 65 now.) I had purchased the set in a boxed paperback edition sometime in the early 70's but they just sat around until I got to thinking about them because of the upcoming release of the third story in film. I had seen the other two and am anxiously awaiting for the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. So, on finally reading them, I was disappointed with the way Lewis handled Susan and was curious if there was any information about this. I was surprised to find out how much of a controversy there is. I think you probably have hit on the solution.

One thing you didn't mention was the gnomes? (I've forgotten for the moment which group they were) that couldn't see they were in light but believed they were in darkness in The Last Battle and the magician who couldn't converse with Aslan because he couldn't get his mind wrapped around his situation and denied it was happening to him in his own mind in The Magician's Nephew. Aslan wouldn't, couldn't force someone to believe because their mind was not receptive to him. I think something like this had happened to Susan from what you are saying. Unbelief is a problem still with us.

David

Hi!

I stumbled on your essay after finding out how big an issue this was. Your in-depth analysis and explanations for Susan's exclusion from Narnia in the last book is right on the mark in my opinion. This was a gratifying read from start to finish. A breath of fresh air in a polluted atmosphere of criticism over her tragic yet realistic reasons for abandoning Narnia in the last book.

Maybe Lewis should have written something more on her to give us the satisfaction of knowing she would end up alright in the end but this is something we will never know and always have to wonder about.

Again, great essay! Gave me more than enough closure on this subject.


Tyrone

I really like this. you've raised some good points.
I totally agree with you that in the end it was Susan herself, not anybody else, who kept her away from Narnia.
but CS Lewis said that there was still hope for Susan, and perhaps she gets to Aslans country in the end, by another way. i really do hope so.

There's also the point that the comment about lipstick and nylons and wanting to be grown-up is not C.S. Lewis's comment, but a comment of one of his characters - Jill, who is much younger than Susan. The older and wiser Polly, on the other hand, sees Susan's fault as immaturity.

Also, the problem is not that she thinks about lipstick, nylons etc, but that she thinks about nothing but them.

Passing through on a rec from a friend. I very much enjoyed this essay. It addresses the issue from a very thoughtful and grounded perspective.