Why Lewis’s Vision Must Be Preserved

Good Morning Everyone! Over 1600 signatures today!! Thank you to everyone who has signed and donated! Today I would like to reiterate an explore some of the issues with the new series and what exactly it is we are fighting for. 

1. The timeline changes undermine Lewis’s historical and symbolic context.

Placing The Magician’s Nephew in 1950 removes much of the historical context underlying Lewis’s symbolism. Frank’s transformation from a London cab driver into a King of Narnia reflects Lewis’s commentary on Edwardian class distinctions and his belief that character, rather than social position, determines a person’s worth. Strawberry’s transformation into Fledge reinforces this symbolism further.

The Edwardian culture reflected in characters such as Uncle Andrew had largely disappeared by 1950, while hansom cabs had already become increasingly uncommon decades earlier. Consequently, the historical circumstances underlying Uncle Andrew’s character, his hubris, and the symbolism surrounding Frank are substantially weakened. Likewise, removing the Second World War from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe removes the circumstances that shaped the Pevensie children’s development. Their forced maturity, caution, resentment and hope was rooted in the realities of wartime Britain. As an example, Peter could reasonably fear that his father might die in combat, that his mother might die during the Blitz, and that he might become responsible for his younger sisiblings, resulting in his protective nature, forced maturity and feelings of direct responsibility. Lewis himself experienced the First World War and later sheltered children in his home during the London Blitz. These experiences are part of the historical and personal foundation from which his storytelling emerged. These changes therefore do more than modernize the setting. They remove historical circumstances that give meaning to Lewis’s characterization, symbolism, personal experiences, and theological themes.

2. Changes to characterization introduce interpretations that are inconsistent with Lewis’s original descriptions.

Lewis’s Witch is described as extraordinarily tall and imposing, with long hair and elaborate, brightly colored robes adorned with flowers and strange creatures. Replacing these defining characteristics with armor, short hair, and a substantially different physical presentation changes the visual and symbolic language of the character.

The issue is not simply that the character has been redesigned, but that characteristics central to Lewis’s original description have been replaced with contemporary interpretations of femininity, strength, and power that were not part of his characterization.

Narnia is a work created within Lewis’s own moral, philosophical, and theological framework. Its characters should therefore not be substantially reinterpreted according to ideas external to that framework at the expense of the author’s original characterization.

3. Alterations to Aslan risk obscuring one of the central theological foundations of Narnia.

Aslan is not merely a fantasy character; Lewis deliberately created him as a representation of Christ. His identity, character, actions, death, and resurrection are fundamental to the Christian framework underlying the series. Consequently, significant alterations to Aslan’s presentation—including modeling his appearance after David Bowie and having him voiced by a woman—risk obscuring the intended parallel between Aslan and Christ. This is particularly significant because the Christian symbolism of Narnia is already subtle enough that readers unfamiliar with Lewis’s theology may not recognize it. An adaptation should not make the author’s intended theological meaning more difficult to discern. Regardless of an individual reader’s personal religious beliefs, Lewis’s Christian framework is an established and fundamental component of the Narnia series and deserves to be preserved.

4. Lewis’s own understanding of literature places authorial intent at the center of interpretation.

C.S. Lewis consistently emphasized the importance of understanding a work from the author’s perspective before imposing one's own interpretation upon it. He rejected the idea that personal interpretation should simply replace the author’s intended meaning. An adaptation therefore has a responsibility to understand the world of Narnia through Lewis’s eyes before reinterpreting it through the values of a modern filmmaker.

These concerns do not require audiences to reject women, oppose female characters, or resist modern filmmaking. They concern the preservation of historical context, characterization, theological symbolism, and authorial intent.

C.S. Lewis devoted his life to developing the ideas expressed through his literature. The Narnia series should not merely retain its characters and settings while removing the historical, philosophical, and theological foundations that gave them meaning.

Netflix has an opportunity to preserve that legacy for future generations. The remaining six books deserve a director who understands that adapting Narnia is not simply an opportunity to reinterpret Lewis’s work, but a responsibility to faithfully preserve the vision that made it enduring.