This is a fascinating analysis. I have one caveat, though. That caveat is based on what Tolkien called the "eucatastrophe" -- the sudden event that leads to a happy ending. Eucatastrophe figures prominently in both LOTR and the Narnia books. The question is, what makes a eucatastrophic ending satisfying? What saves it from being a disappointing Deus Ex Machina?
I think the answer lies in the way in which the ending of a story is merited. Today we are used to heroes meriting their triumph through competence. This could be scientific competence as in an SF story, or military competence, as in a thriller or war story. But in the fairytale tradition, particularly Arthurian tradition from which Lewis and Tolkien were drawing, the heroes merited their triumph through virtue. Thus Sir Gawain survives the blow of the Green Knight by refusing the advances of his seductive wife, though he receives a nick for his deception over the lady's sash.
Thus it is Frodo's mercy to Gollum which merits the destruction of the ring, even as Frodo succumbs to its corrupting influence. Similarly, most of Lewis's characters merit their triumphs by virtue, not competence. Aslan saves the day as a reward for their virtue.
So I can't quite accept the idea that those books in which the characters play a larger or more direct role in the outcome are thus better plotted. Rather, I would suggest that the plots are classic fairytale plots in which the eucatastrophic ending is merited by virtue rather than competence.
I've read the Narnia tales once, (except for the first book.) It just isn't a good read to me. Other kids books I've read more than once; All of A.A. Milne, Wizard of Oz, Wind in the Willows, The Borrowers.
The Lord of the Rings is an all time great, and as you say in the league of adult books.
This is a fascinating analysis. I have one caveat, though. That caveat is based on what Tolkien called the "eucatastrophe" -- the sudden event that leads to a happy ending. Eucatastrophe figures prominently in both LOTR and the Narnia books. The question is, what makes a eucatastrophic ending satisfying? What saves it from being a disappointing Deus Ex Machina?
I think the answer lies in the way in which the ending of a story is merited. Today we are used to heroes meriting their triumph through competence. This could be scientific competence as in an SF story, or military competence, as in a thriller or war story. But in the fairytale tradition, particularly Arthurian tradition from which Lewis and Tolkien were drawing, the heroes merited their triumph through virtue. Thus Sir Gawain survives the blow of the Green Knight by refusing the advances of his seductive wife, though he receives a nick for his deception over the lady's sash.
Thus it is Frodo's mercy to Gollum which merits the destruction of the ring, even as Frodo succumbs to its corrupting influence. Similarly, most of Lewis's characters merit their triumphs by virtue, not competence. Aslan saves the day as a reward for their virtue.
So I can't quite accept the idea that those books in which the characters play a larger or more direct role in the outcome are thus better plotted. Rather, I would suggest that the plots are classic fairytale plots in which the eucatastrophic ending is merited by virtue rather than competence.
I've read the Narnia tales once, (except for the first book.) It just isn't a good read to me. Other kids books I've read more than once; All of A.A. Milne, Wizard of Oz, Wind in the Willows, The Borrowers.
The Lord of the Rings is an all time great, and as you say in the league of adult books.