Talk:Aslan

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: Narnia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Chronicles of Narnia task force (assessed as Top-importance). Animals in media (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media Children's literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Persians and Turks are two completely different ethnic groups, and the Persian Empire was never ruled by Turks. True, Seljuk Turks ruled Persia at one point, but the Persian Empire refers mostly to the Achaemenid and possibly the Sassanian dynasties. I've gone ahead and removed those three words of the article to prevent misinformation.

I sure hope that picture is public domain. Absolutely none of Lewis's work is, and I doubt that any "supporting" material such as artwork is.

What picture? Just because an image isn't public domain doesn't mean it can't be used. It's preferrable to use non-copyrighted images, but not always necessary to. I think I'll add a fair use image.

Theshibboleth 01:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that Aslan is not an "allegorical Christ figure" - he is Christ. -- Paul A 05:38 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

No, Aslan is definitely not Christ. Christ doesn't look like a lion. Aslan is meant to represent Christ, though, which is exactly what the phrase "allegorical Christ figure" means. Similarly, Tash is not Satan, Narnia is not Earth,... —ajo 9 Feb 2005

Aslan is indeed an allegorical figure. Just because Lewis said he wasn't doesn't make it true. Theshibboleth 01:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

actually I do believe that even Aslan himself says that he is known under another name in our world, which even I assumed meant that he was actually Christ in our world, but the lion in Narnia.

What C.S. Lewis wrote in a letter to a young reader is telling:

As to Aslan's other name, well I want you to guess. Has there never been anyone in this world who

(1.) Arrived at the same time as Father Christmas.

(2.) Said he was the son of the great Emperor.

(3.) gave himself up for someone else's fault to be jeered at and killed by wicked people.

(4.) Came to life again.

(5.) Is sometimes spoken of as a Lamb....

Don't you really know His name in this world. Think it over and let me know your answer! (Dorsett 32)

How much Aslan is an allegory/representation/symbolism/reincarnation/image or another version of Christ, or how much he 'is' tautosymous to Christ, and to which levels each, can't be explained by anyone, since Narnia's nature related to our world, can't be defined. The following explanations are equally possible:

• There is ONE original Christ that comes to every world in its own version (Aslan in Narnia, Jesus in Earth)
• Jesus himself was reborn in Narnia as Aslan
• Aslan is 'twin' to Jesus, but not the same person.
• Aslan is the son of Narnia God, which is different to ours, whose son is Jesus, so it's just the Narnian homologous to Jesus
• Jesus is the original and Aslan just a lesser copy to fulfill his own plans

I believe it is pretty apparent that Aslan is supposed to actually BE Christ, the second person of the Trinity in Christian theology, but in a different form. In his space trilogy, Lewis also explores the idea of Christ's presence in other world that we know nothing about, such as on Mars, which in "Out of the Silent Planet" is called Malacandra, where he is known as Maleldil to the resident populations. Only, Malacandra is an unfallen world and thus Christ has never directly interviened in its history as he did on earth, and in which angels, known as Eldils, handle things. Earth is called Thulcandra or "the Silent Planet" and is considered by the native population to be "enemy occupied territory" under assult by a rebel Eldil (Satan), and even the Eldils have never heard anything about it except that. Narnia, in this way, is like earth, fallen because the seeds of sorrow have been sown in it by the White Witch, who was only brought there because Digory succubed to the temptation to ring the bell in Charn that woke her up. Likewise, Christ appears in a physical form to the Narnians from time to time because Narnia, like earth, needs Him.

Aslan is a fictionalization of Christ; Just like Mel Gibson's Christ "is" not Christ, it is a representation of Christ. The same goes for Aslan. Hell, even the gospels are an account of Christ, and thereby an "artist's impression". This is true regardless of whether you hold that Christ has an independent historical and/or spiritual reality. Aslan "is" Christ exactly as far as Narnia "exists" (i.e. he "is" Christ in as far you can accept fantasy as some sort of reality, as per On Fairy-Stories. dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Given the multiverse depicted in The Magician's Nephew, it seems clear to me personally, as a fan, that Aslan is the corporeal embodiment and incarnation of the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, in the universe of Narnia, as Jesus of Nazareth is in the universe of Earth. Parallel incarnations, with the same soul/controlling entity/mind. Though multiversal speculative fiction was not expounded much during Lewis' time, his reasoning was consistent. If God is omnipresent, does that mean He can be multipresent, if He so wishes? This matches the appearance of The Father as the Emperor Beyond The Seas in Narnia and Eru Ilúvatar in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. As for Aslan's presence at creation and lack of depicted parents weakening the parallel, one could argue that since Narnia never had a specific Fall From Grace event (again, see The Magician's Nephew), the separation from God never occurred, and Aslan was not required to come in the flesh of a promised bloodline. BlueNight 19:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

As a Theistic Christian writer myself, I have noted that in all my own, and others, writings that God is God no matter where you (the reader) go. In other words, if there are other worlds, then God created them. Otherwise God would be finite in a way, being God of some realms but not others, and not truly be the Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent being that Christian Theology makes Him out to be. So yes, in C. S. Lewis's writing, Aslan is God incarnate, aka The Son of God. It sure gets complicated if you go deep enough, lol. Doncroft 20:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't prove that Aslan is God incarnate. "J.L. Cowan attempts to resolve the paradox in "The Paradox of Omnipotence Revisited." He proposes the following:

  1. Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.
  2. If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question).
  3. If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question).
  4. Therefore God is not omnipotent.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), Thus Aslan can't be God incarnate.

Well, my take on it is that Aslan may very well be The Great Deceiver. If you think about it, the kid's are being used as guinea pigs in some horrible mind game. Aslan is the one egging them on. Every time Aslan is unhappy with the current ruler, Aslan sends the kids after him.24.56.247.13 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone above said that we don't know how the world of Narnia relates to our own. Take a look at this: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/119609 This should explain how it and other worlds we've encountered in the books relate to one another. A bit simplified, but it seems to check out based on what's in the books. There's even a visualisation. --Luka1184 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lewis is known to have responded to a great many enquirers who wrote to him asking of the origin and identity of Aslan. Invariably, he responded; "Who do you believ he is". It is left entirely to the imagination of the reader. There is, therefore, no diffinitive answer. All be can be reasonably sure of is that Aslan was a character created and named by the author C. S. Lewis and he, exclusively, appeared in each of seven books. The other six books give less or no speculative support to the premise of Aslan being Christ. Either you like the book, don't or are indifferent. You can read into it what you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInteroceter (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Aslan, as variant of Arslan, "the Lion" is notable as an Ottoman/Turkish title. In the interest of dispelling the impression that this is "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built", I propose we move this to Aslan (Narnia) and make this the dab page, or at least put the Turkish "etymology" right at the beginning. dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are a few assertations lacking sources, such as the last line in the opening paragraph referring to "a paper published later in his life." Also, there are a few quotations which I assume were taken from the books that haven't been cited.

Also, I don't see the relevance of mentioning Qui-Gon Jinn in the Portrayals... section. The whole article seems a touch rambly without a clear purpose. It's been a long while since I've read the books, so I'd just like to bring that up if anyone else is qualified and willing to organize the article. --Keitei (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did Aslan actually appear in all books? I know he was _mentioned_ in "The Horse and His Boy", but my understanding was that he didn't actually show up in that one. My copy has wandered, or else I'd have checked this already. --Christopher Thomas 05:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Aslan appears in the last half of Chapter 9 of "The Horse and His Boy." --Jobongo 14:20, 14 Jun 2006 (UTC)

…when he tells Shasta that it was he who was the cat and the lion who attacked Hwin and Bree, et. al. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Aslan was my first vision of a higher power, as a child, and now in midlife, I have returned to Lewis' creation when I reach for the concept of my higher power. This page is both factual and respectful to those of us who do so (and I don't think I'm the only one).

This article does dreadful justice to Aslan, barely covers his role in the books and instead lingers on the allegory. I think involvement in each of the stories is a priority in this article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll expand the article. First, however, could people tell me what should be included, and what is too trivial for the biography section?

You might look at this CharacterTemplate that we're working on at WikiProject Narnia. It should work for any Narnian character, but Aslan is "the" Narnian character, so perhaps some changes will be in order. LloydSommerer 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This whole article is pretty bad, especially the section on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. I don't know enough about Narnia to really clean it up, but I cleaned some of the bad spacing, and I'll go and get the grammar errors if I get a chance

That would be much appreciated. The Narnia universe really needs a tune up as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --Doncroft 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

From the Prince Caspian section: "Aslan is shown as a guide for the Pevensie children to Prince Caspian as a test of faith only appearing when they really try to see him right way to Caspian by Aslan, and find their faith tested as Aslan does not appear to them until they really try to see him." - It's been a while since I read the book so don't feel qualified to correct this, but I can't figure out what the writer is trying to say here. 109.174.138.142 (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good catch. I've copy-edited that section. -- Elphion (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I might have something to do with that when it comes to my trimming of the sections but I didn't really changed much when it came to wordings I do believe. It was always poor quality though and I appreciate it when somebody helps out. I am also hoping for more sources as well in the near future. I am pretty sure this character is notable but we are not doing a good job proving that though. A reception section might be nice. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would you really consider Aslan to be the main character from all the stories? Certainly he (He, whatever) has appeared in all the books, but he doesn't truly possess the qualities of a main character. He usually doesn't engage in the story's conflict, the stories' events don't center around his actions, and he usually only makes an appearance near the end of the books. An important, and powerful character, but not suitable as the protagonist of the The Chronicles of Narnia as a whole. --Wikiwow 14:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, not the protagonist, but certainly the most important. He employs other characters, children, to lead theaction for him. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alright, alright, I could see Aslan as important, even the most important character in the series, but there is a difference between the main character and a vital character. If I may, note the Wikipedia article for protagonist:

The protagonist or main character is the central figure of a story.
The protagonist is [also] characterized by his/her ability to change or evolve. Although a novel may center around the actions of another character, as in Herman Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener", it is the dynamic character that typically allows the novel to progress in a manner that is conducive to the thesis of the work and earns the respect or attention of the audience.

Aslan doesn't do that much changing or evolving throughout the stories, whilst you see the children from every individual book growing and gaining maturity and qualities of heroes and all that...Furthermore, Aslan's actions aren't truly the center of the novels, as they usually revolve around the quests of other heroes, andit is their actions that allow the story's plot to progress. Aslan is more like a--what's the word--like Obi-Wan from Star Wars (I know, stupid comparison, but it makes sense): both of them tutor and/or guide the main characters along while remaining prominent figures (I never actually saw the first 4 Star Wars movies, but my friend told me about them), but not main characters. A little more convincing? I'm not doubting Aslan's importance, only his role as protagonist in the story. --Wikiwow 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What happened to the Category of Fictional messiahs? Has it been deleted or re-named.

Anon

Aslan is the central figure of the Chronicles of Narnia in exactly the same way God/Jesus is the central figure of the Bible: each individual tale focuses on different human protagonists and their relationships with God or Aslan, and with the protagonists' conflicts in the world. (Aslan is cast in the mythic role of mentor to the heroes in addition to His theological importance in the story.) One might say (from a Christian perspective) that the Bible is the canonical Chronicles Of Earth, its creation, fall, salvation, and ultimate fate. The difference in the Chronicles of Narnia is that it is fiction explicitly set in a multiverse (see in Magician's Nephew). --BlueNight (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

(From article)Lewis often capitalises the word Lion, to convey the reverence the characters feel toward him.

It is my understanding that it is specifically TALKING animals that are capitalized. Aslan is capable of speech, and thus is a Lion instead of a lion. BirdbrainedPhoenix 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is my understanding, too. I seem to recall a line or two that actually clarified the distinction within the text, possibly in The Silver Chair, but it's been a while. Lilitou 04:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was puzzled by the frequent changes to this reference, so I looked up the credits on IMDB and found that the character is listed as the "White Witch". I haven't seen the movie, but perhaps someone could summarize what happens so that we can come to a consensus on what should be reported on the main page. Dfmclean 12:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the IMDB trivia page for The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe, no real lions were used on the film, but the current version of this page states that Aslan was portrayed by a lion named Zion from a New Zealand zoo. Perhaps the zoo lion was a model for the CGI character? LaoKtn (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that the original statement (The power of his song) is more specific and, therefore, meaningful. Unless there is an objection, I intend to change it back. Dfmclean 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

So has it been decided to use British spelling in this article, then? Is there a policy for making this decision? Dfmclean 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

We're actually using British spelling on all of the Narnia articles (whenever someone who knows what it is decides to change it and until someone who didn't have any idea that that is what we're doing changes it back). The general rule is that British subjects get British spelling and American topics get American spellings. Here are some references:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
• Wikipedia:Spellchecking
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)

This final sentence is completely superficial, and exists only as a spot to which a signature may be attached. LloydSommerer 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

the word "Aslan" is used too in caucasus, and the caucasian nations are much more ancient than turkic nations, and turkic nations were nomadic tribes, which the nomad life influenced their language too by "borrowing" words from other nations, it is known that turkic nations once occupied the caucasus, so it can be that the word "Aslan" came from native caucasian tribes.Andynapso (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article currently states:

(Aslan later explains that his treatment of Aravis is punishment for a previous action. When she ran away from home, she left while her servant was sleeping, with no thought about the punishment the servant would receive. The cuts on her back were equal to the damage done when the servant was whipped.)

As I recall, she specifically caused the servant to oversleep; it was an active crime, rather than a passive one. I can't think how to word it to compass that concept accurately and briefly, though. Rosuav (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The word 'aslan' is turkish for both 'lion' and 'king of beasts'. It might be persian also, but this should be added as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.47.141 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

we know? This article should really be at Aslan (Narnia), since the primary meaning is clearly the Turkish name, google counts notwithstanding. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article says "in the film, he is portrayed by Zion, a lion who lives in a zoo in New Zealand." I was pretty sure the audio commentary implied he was computer generated. I think this part is either wrong or unclearly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Got to agree, I am removing it as the special features of Prince Caspian talk A LOT about making Aslan appear more realistic so he is not a real lion but CGI.Wild ste (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

In The Lion Man it says that Zion was used as Aslan for the non-speaking parts The C of E (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

why do they have to put 'persian' or 'iranic' in everything reletad to turkish...

this persian bullcrap is increasing rapidy.

Arslan or Aslan is a turkish name which simply means lion in turkish/latin alphabet is written 'ASLAN' not in arabic or runic and nothing to do with persian. it might be in persian too but its originly turkic. in addition the author simply loans this word from the guardians of ottoman rulers(KHAN or Padishah). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.28.200 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can see this word in Orkhon script as Arslan. Turks use this word now as Arslan or aslan. --88.224.91.1 (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This section needs some clarification, the precis of the storyline makes mention of Lucy and Peter but does not explain how they even come to be involved. My knowledge of the story is a bit rusty but someone who knows it well should be able to add a sentence or two to better explain what transpires toward the end of the novel? BlakJakNZ (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Charlotte Cory --a "good friend" of the illustrator; later, author of her obituary for The Telegraph-- wrote in 1998:[1]

"Although he [Lewis] always praised her work to her face, Pauline later discovered that he had been openly critical about it to others. He told his biographer, George Sayer, that she could not draw lions. Considering how much her pictures (especially the lions) have contributed to Narnia's popularity, this was ironic as well as hypocritical."

--P64 (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have tagged the article for multiple issues. It was already tagged for needing additional citations; I added tags for original research and excessive detail. I also tagged the "Role in The Chronicles of Narnia" section for being completely unsourced (at over 30 paragraphs, no less), consisting of original research, and containing unimportant content. I tagged the "Christian interpretation" section for needing additional citations and containing original research.

I have also rephrased the lede, removing material that was lifted directly from other sources without quotation marks or references.

I believe that the contents of the "Role in the Chronicles of Narnia" section should be removed in their entirety, as they are unsourced, are probably original research, and generally consist of detailed summaries of Aslan's involvement in the plot of each Narnia book. I believe that the "Christian interpretation" section should be trimmed if sources can't be found for the text. I found one article that might be helpful as a secondary source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24865379). SunCrow (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have made significant edits, removing the unsourced material that appeared to be either original research or unattributed material from some other source. SunCrow (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It needed to be shortened but, dude, I think you've gone a bit overboard. Since when is it wrong to use the texts in which a character appears as sources on Wikipedia? And there's tons of scholarship out there on Aslan's identity and resonances, not to mention lots of discussion of him in Lewis's own writings. The time and effort you put into this could have been better spent finding sources and judiciously abbreviating than this hack-and-slash job. As it stands now, Aslan – the central figure in the series – now has less of a Wikipedia presence than Puddleglum or Reepicheep. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

VeryRarelyStable, I respectfully disagree that this was a "hack-and-slash" job. The material I removed appeared to be either original research or unattributed material from some other source. I stand by my edits. However, I will take another look at the deleted material to see if there is anything worth re-adding. Also, I would be more than happy to work with you and other editors on adding relevant, sourced material to this page. Which of Lewis's writings do you think would be helpful? Which other scholars's writings? SunCrow (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

VeryRarelyStable, in response to your concerns, I have reinstated a condensed version of the "Role in The Chronicles of Narnia" section. SunCrow (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Policy WP:NFCCP clearly states that a non free image *must*, not *should*, meet all ten criteria for inclusion. Making the article look pretty by having the image in the info box, when it is not discussed in the article proper means that it fails

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

The image does not significantly increase readers understanding of the article topic (one would assume a reader would know what a lion looks like). The only way the image could pass check number 8 would be if the specific adaptation that was being discussed needed illustrating, and even then to keep within context it would need to be inline with the discussion and not in the info box, as this article is about the Character Aslan - not the character from the film. GimliDotNet (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

A file used to show what a character looks like in its own article passes WP:NFCC#8. Now that a discussion has been started, I am adding back the fiel to the article per WP:BRD until there is a consensus. Aspects (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No it doesn’t. Especially when the article in question is not about the specific version of the character that has been chosen. If this article were about the film adaptation then you might have a point, but as the article is about the character from a book, with different adaptations discusses section 8 fails. The image and specific details about the version doesn’t appear in the article text, therefore it needs to go. GimliDotNet (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lewis have before in letters to fans directly expressed the fact that Aslan isn't just a parallel to Christ or an allegory, but that he is literally Jesus Christ. He even told one girl who wondered what the "other name" for Aslan was that was mentioned in the books, the one used for him in our mortal world, and once again he directly stated that it was Jesus Christ, although he did it in the form of a very simple children's riddle: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/117792/in-universe-is-aslan-actually-jesus

I guess going by the definition that an allegory can be viewed as a hidden meaning that can be interpreted from a work makes him an allegory, but he is not one in the sense that he's a symbol. I mean, it is symbolic that he's a lion and called Lamb and all those other things. Of course it is. I mean, Lewis chose these things to symbolize to us that he is in fact Jesus Christ. However, in the internal fictional universe of Narnia, it isn't just allegorical but a fact.

Also, for anyone who's interested, here is a great explanation of Narnia's fictional universe cosmology too, which shows how the worlds are ordered cosmologically and also explains how (Christian) Heaven, Aslan's Country, Narnia and our Earth is connected: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/119609 Even has a diagram for visualization. --Luka1184 (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I came here hoping to find a little more about the mythology of Narnia, but it seems as if everyone is so caught up in the "Aslan is Christ" thing that they can't actually talk about the books without referring to the Bible. Is there any article or reference that covers how all the characters and magics fit together, without referencing external mythology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.199.98 (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Try and read the above. I have something like that at the end of my post. I guess my post is a waste, though, since apparently the first bit of my post (the one to do with Aslan is Jesus Christ) is already addressed, though in a rather simplified and sad way, I think. Anyway, the link at the end of my post shows how the worlds connect cosmologically, for instance! Hope you enjoy reading that and like the diagram. By the way, I am not Christian myself. --Luka1184 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

If there were such a thing, I'm afraid this wouldn't be the place for it. Wikipedia is based in the real world and isn't supposed to delve into the mythology of fictional worlds except insofar as they are directly referenced in real-world media.

Also, I tried to put together an analysis along those lines once – not on Wikipedia – and found that I could not. C. S. Lewis was not J. R. R. Tolkien and, although he greatly admired Tolkien's world-building, did not indulge in that kind of work himself. There is just not enough material in the Narnia books, and what there is is not consistent enough from one book to the next, to construct an underlying mythology.

—VeryRarelyStable 06:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply