I reread all but one of the Narnia series on our weekend getaway we did for our anniversary in early September. In publication order, of course. It was and remains a delightful journey. Some of Lewis's adult women in his other books are a bit dubious, but his children, boys and girls, are uniformly real. (One of my favorite lines, ever since I *was* a child, was the exclamation "We can pretend we are Arctic explorers!" upon entering an entirely alternate world unphased. To be a child is to live in a world where everything is both wonderful and possible.)
There seems to be some controversy these days about ethnic diversity in fantastical fiction, though whether there is any real controversy or just a few trolls and bots is always impossible to say. (We will soon reach the point where social media is entirely taken over by AI talking to itself and then we can all go play outside again.) This seems wrong-headed to me on either end of the spectrum.
On the one hand, there is nothing at all wrong with people telling their own stories, even if they happen to be white people, and any fantasy rooted in folktales is going to reflect its place of origin and also humanity's intrinsic ethnocentricity. There is nothing offensive about all the characters in *Monkey King* being Asian and let's remember that Westerners tend to cast Aladdin as Middle Eastern but the Middle Eastern tale sets it in China, and how they tell it in China I don't know but I bet it's somewhere far away from there. If we want more diversity the thing to do is encourage and read stories by all different kinds of people.
On the other hand, anyone who really loves a story should think it a great compliment if it can work in different times and places or with people of different origins. That's a testament to its power and universality as a story. A prime example of this is Shakespeare. While quasi-Elizabethan performances are common, so is every possible kind of racial swapping, gender swapping, setting swapping, and while not every production is great there is no doubt that Shakespeare works in so many settings that Shakespeare himself could never have visualized, and very few people get huffy about it.
Anyway, supposedly Calormen is one of those areas that is problematic in Narnia and why *The Horse and His Boy* has never been cinematized even though it is a perfectly cinematic story. But on re-read I don't see *The Horse and His Boy* version of Calormen to be offensive. Lewis did not put much effort into worldbuilding, it's true, but then nobody at all did that I can think of before Tolkien. He simply mashes together a bunch of fairy-tale settings and Calormen is simply an Arabian Nights setting. Sure, it's a dictatorial society but then let's not forget the worst tyrant of all in Narnia is the *White* Witch so there is hardly a racial monopoly on such behavior. It's also a far more civilized place than Narnia and nobody looks askance at intermarriage. (It's actually *The Last Battle* that has far more offensive references to Calormen, but at that point Narnia is an occupied country and that does tend to make even the best people testy.)
But in contrast to that, I would like to point out something that nobody, not even Lewis particularly, seems to remember, which is that canonically, the Telmarines are at least 50% Pacific Islander in origin, and the rest of their heritage could and should be a pretty fair racial mix because it was a crew of pirates, who were not fussy about such things. And as far as I can tell all of the human population of Narnia is Telmarine from Caspian forward. I suggest someone cast The Rock as Lord Berne, the reclaiming of the Lone Islands could be a great little action episode.
I think my favorite of the series is *The Silver Chair*, partly because it's simply a great straightforward quest story about holding on to hope in the dark and the cold, partly because of all the children I identify most with Jill's mix of down-to-earth grit and occasionally being a show off or breaking down, and partly because Puddleglum is just the absolute best.
Other books I read or didn't as the case may be:
*I Cheerfully Refuse!* by Leif Enger: Enger is one of the very few current authors I make an effort to read new books more or less as they come out (I'm still slow). This is set in a not-so-distant dystopia and built on a tragic loss, and yet it's full of light and joy and laughter and the joyful defiance of friendship. love, and literature in the teeth of cruelty and ignorance.
*Elder Race* by Adrian Tchaikovsky. I enjoyed *Children of Time* so much I decided to check out some more, and this one was also great. It's a very quick read but it still manages to delve into the "science as magic" theme with great depth and also a thought-provoking exploration of the power and limits of dissociation as a coping method.
*In the Kingdom of Ice* by Hampton Sides. I have not finished this yet, but I intend to even though it is quite overdue. I still seem to be on a high seas adventure kick, and this one, about an unsuccessful attempt to find the "Open Polar Sea" has got perils, hubris, scientific advancement and follies, and the danger of taking a crewmember who is addicted to puns. After this I will probably need a Shackleton book.
And some I did not finish:
*In the Kingdom of the Sick*. Despite the promising title, this was not nearly as interesting, being about how being chronically ill sucks and nobody gets it, especially doctors and insurance (public or private). While that is a valid point, I already could write several books on the topic so I don't see a point in finishing.
*The Dutch Wife* This was the current book club selection which I usually try to finish even if it's not my cup of tea (which realistic historical fiction seldom is) but I just couldn't do back to back chapters of rape, torture, and then more rape. For me anyway the graphic physical descriptions diminished rather than increased empathy so I called it quits.
