Skip to main content

Is Narnia high or low fantasy?



I had a query about what genre of fantasy does Narnia belong to- high or low. Wikipedia says that



High fantasy is defined as fantasy set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world, rather than "the real", or "primary" world



while low fantasy is



defined as fiction where magical events intrude on an otherwise normal world




What type of fantasy would Narnia be? Surely most of the narrative takes place in Narnia which is a secondary world but since the main characters basically live in the primary world it can be considered an 'intrusion'.


So what is its official genre?



Answer



As pointed out in the comments to this question, there can't be a definitive answer because genres are a fluid thing. I wasn't aware that some commentators regard the idea of a link between the real world and the magical one as archetypal of high fantasy, and I'm not sure why,as for me at least, the distinction between high and low is about the dichotomy between a focus on heroism or realism, either of which can be present regardless of a real world link.


I would say that the difference between high and low fantasy is tonal. High Fantasy takes its inspirations from the historical epics, by way of Tolkien, which of course drew on classical literature heavily for many of its tropes. Low fantasy is more gritty, and in some sense a response to the limitations of the kind of stories that can be told in the high fantasy mould. It involves elements of the lives of ordinary people, moral compromise/shades of grey, and a low key and/or low magical setting. The two genres are not entirely distinct and some works may have elements of both.


Lewis was writing at the time of Tolkien, and was in fact friends with him, so it would not be surprising if there were some stylistic similarities. I would argue that Narnia is in fact high fantasy because



  • the narrative focuses on mighty world changing deeds in the epic style and the central characters are frequently heroic or villainous in an uncomplicated way

  • Magic is commonplace - White Witch, Aslan, talking animals


  • The key characters frequently are or become rulers


There are, however, some factors that might support the idea of low fantasy



  • some parts of e.g. "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" focus on the plight of the common people under a tyrannical witch vastly superior in power to them

  • arguably there aren't that many actual magic users in Narnia - although the talking animals are in some sense magically imbued by Aslan, there is a sense in which that's more a part of the background to the world than active magic within the context of the story.

  • Much of "The Magician's Nephew" in particular focuses on characters without magic or power caught up in a struggle with a force beyond their comprehension (although this does lead into the epic events of the creation of Narnia).


On balance, I'd say that the epic/mythical nature of the Narnia stories places them more naturally withing the realm of High Fantasy, and perhaps this in unsurprising given the historical context in which it was written.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...