Further Narnia Musings – Of Logic, Motives, and More Headcanons

I’m re-reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and noticing new details, even though I’ve read and loved the books for 17 years.  For instance, the other day, I dissected Edmund’s argument to Peter in Chapter Six:

“Hush!  Not so loud,” said Edmund; “there’s no good frightening the girls.  But have you realized what we’re doing?” … “We’re following a guide we know nothing about.  How do we know which side that bird is on?  Why shouldn’t it be leading us into a trap?”

“That’s a nasty idea.  Still—a robin, you know.  They’re good birds in all the stories I’ve ever read.  I’m sure a robin wouldn’t be on the wrong side.”

“If it comes to that, which is the right side?  How do we know that the Fauns are in the right and the Queen (yes, I’ve been told she’s a witch) is in the wrong?  We don’t really know anything about either.”

“The Faun saved Lucy.”

“He said he did.  But how do we know?”

Edmund’s arguments seem to hint that seeking evidence and understanding presuppositions is the realm of skeptics, and that blind faith the habit of religious people.  And his first point is sound—they knew nothing about the guide (and Peter’s counter-argument is not that strong).  But look closely at the rest of Edmund’s argument—and his motives for making it.

Edmund has already sided with the Witch.  In fact, he knows she’s a Witch and knows she is dangerous; yet he doesn’t want to admit he’s wrong or give up his desire for glory (and more Turkish Delight).  His argument that “we don’t really know anything about either” is incorrect.  Yes, the children could seek more information about the situation.  But Edmund knew what the Witch had promised him and what she wanted in exchange.  And Lewis later reveals that his “beliefs” about the Queen were just an excuse: deep down, Edmund knew the Witch is bad and cruel.

He goes on to say that the Faun “said he [saved Lucy].  But how do we know?”  This is also incorrect.  Lucy said the Faun had saved her.  And Lucy had told the truth about Narnia, and Peter and Susan testified to the professor that Lucy always told the truth.  The strength of her word should have been reason enough to believe that the Faun did indeed save her.  Furthermore, the children had found Tumnus’s cave destroyed and a note inside condemning him for harboring spies and fraternizing with humans—which corroborated Lucy’s account and provided the children with more information about who the Witch was.

Thus, Edmund’s argument appears solid, but he deliberately omitted some information and misrepresented the rest.  And yes, the children would do well to gather more information about the situation.  But they were not operating on blind faith.  They did have evidence—and the testimony of someone who never lied.

And I don’t believe Lewis implied that seeking proof is wrong.  Peter says only moments later to Mr. Beaver, “Not meaning to be rude [about determining whether he’s a friend] … but you see, we’re strangers.”  And to this, Mr. Beaver shows his token of truth: the handkerchief Lucy had given to Mr. Tumnus.  Lucy recognizes it, and if it had any monogram or distinctive feature, the others should also have recognized it as hers.  (In fact, it makes sense that there was some kind of identification on the handkerchief; a plain white one could belong to anyone, and that handkerchief had passed through a couple of hands already.  It must have had something that made Lucy recognize it as hers.)  It’s common sense to gather evidence and discern it—but in this case, Edmund simply didn’t want to admit that the Witch (and therefore himself), was wrong.

Even while under the sway of the Witch, however, Edmund put together an argument that at least looked solid—and he did have valid points about following a guide they knew nothing about and the chance of getting back home (although perhaps he wanted to weaken Peter’s faith in who was right, as Edmund intended to bring his siblings to the Witch, not back home).  This and other details scattered through the series created my belief that Edmund is the logical one, not Susan.  Susan is practical and sensible—but Edmund generally sees (and points out) what should be obvious.  He seems to be the thinker sort, but without being stereotypically quiet.  If anything, he speaks his mind and is incredibly straightforward.

Head canon set #4:

Caspian doesn’t lose his temper often, but he he does, it ain’t pretty. (Canon-based; see The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.)

He is easygoing by nature, but also stands firm when necessary.

Susan is what we call an “old soul”.   Lewis says she was “no good at schoolwork (though otherwise very old for her age).”

She also likes to dance, and she’s good at it.

Edmund couldn’t care less about this, so Peter usually dances with Susan when she wants to.

Susan is the tidiest of the four, and she gets frustrated with her siblings for leaving their stuff out.

Edmund, for instance, leaves his books and papers literally anywhere.

That said, he usually remembers where he puts his belongings.

When he forgets (or when somebody moves them), he gripes about the problem until the missing items are located.

Peter can’t be bothered to tidy all his stuff, though he’s often in a hurry or just preoccupied.

And he has a nasty habit of letting dirty socks pile up under the bed.

Needless to say, the boys’ room is a mess.

Which drives Susan nuts.

Lucy also makes a mess when she works on a project; she works best in creative chaos.

Contrary to the Pevensies, Caspian is actually rather tidy.

Lucy’s favorite color is purple: not dark purple, but a soft lavender shade.

2 thoughts on “Further Narnia Musings – Of Logic, Motives, and More Headcanons

I'd like to hear your thoughts! But please be polite. I will not approve comments with curses, insults, or lewd remarks.