Escape Artists
Escape Pod => Science Fiction Discussion => Topic started by: FNH on September 11, 2007, 07:49:01 AM
-
I've just been given the set and am thinking of reading them all. Is it going to be worth the time? Are there any I should skip?
-
My advice is read them, but in the order they were published, not the order a lot of publishers put them in these days. Just look at the original publication dates. Start with LWW. Based on a letter written late in the author's life, which could be interpreted either way, most boxed sets have been numbered so as to put later-published prequels first (and only partly prequels, as in real-world time they do come after). It's like saying that someone coming new to Star Wars should start with Phantom Menace. Well, not exactly like that, as Lewis's later works were, well, good. More like reading When the Tripods Came before The White Mountains, though I guess that's a little more obscure a reference. Still, when the first book was written it stood alone fine without the background, and it should be allowed to stand on its own merits now.
-
We had a discussion before about the proper order for Narnia (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1022.0). The results were overwhelmingly in favor of the original order (the publishing order). The Wikipedia page has both orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narnia#Reading_order) and a recap of the arguement.
-
Definitely worth checking out, FNH. They read pretty quickly.
-
I've just been given the set and am thinking of reading them all. Is it going to be worth the time? Are there any I should skip?
I think the weakest of the set plotwise is Prince Caspian. It's a lot like the latest Harry Potter (and I don't consider this terribly spoilery), in which an inordinate amount of time is giving to wandering around and not much happening. Still, even Prince Caspian has some wonderful moments in it, though I think quite a few people consider it the weakest of the set in more ways than just barely plotted. I've noticed a number of complaints about "The Horse and his Boy" which as a child was my favorite because Hello! Talking Horse! so I think that you'll get a lot of different answers to your question. Theologically, I think The Last Battle presents the most interesting concepts, though some of the recurring themes from the whole series (specifically thinking about "not a tame lion" and "you only get your own story") give ample space for thought.
Overall I think they're worth reading. They're a fast read, as DKT points out. I know no shortage of people who, reading them as adults, were distinctly unimpressed with them, so don't expect to be transported and overwhelmed. On the other hand, references to the Narnia books, both overt and implied, run thick in every direction in F & SF, so it will make your other reading experiences richer.
-
I loved the books when I read them. I think they are well worth the read, however the Christian undertones grate on me in my later years. I did not notice them so much when I was first reading them at eight or so.
Personally I read them in publishing order, as that was also the order that my father provided them to me in. I could not finish the series however, as I found the first few chapters of The Last Battle too depressing; I just could not interest myself enough in the plot to get over how the content made me feel.
-
I've just been given the set and am thinking of reading them all. Is it going to be worth the time? Are there any I should skip?
Tough questions! They are not difficult reads, and at times their juvenile nature over rides the better themes, I don't think you should skip any..
-
Any you should skip? Why?
Technical answer is if you start with LWW, you must read PC, DT, SC, and LB for a complete story arc. You can get away with not reading HBB (heh), and MN contributes but doesn't tie in in quite the same way as the other five.
Alternatively you can start with MN, but... It personally rubs me the wrong way since I'm a fan of publishing order.
Read them all. It's not like they're that long or challenging.
You may not find them quite as entertaining as children do, as to most adults, some things are rather more obvious than they would have been as a child. This may be a factor of how many modern American children are raised, or the fact that Lewis's particular bone has been stated so often by so many people by the time you reach adulthood you are no longer innocent of it and know where to look.
I still enjoy them though. I'm in the process of reading them (in published order) to my girlfriend since she hasn't read them before.
If you're looking for more books-intended-mostly-for-children I would recommend E. Nesbit, since Lewis even mentions The Treasure Seekers on the first page of MN. I read scads of them as a child and still love them. Some are quite magical, others enjoyable in a more "ordinary" sense.
-
I loved the Narnia books, but I read them as a child, so I can only see them through the distortion of nostalgia. One mostly-for-children fantasy book that I have enjoyed as an adult is "Howl's Moving Castle" by DW Jones. It's a fun, smart fairy tale with excellent characters.
-
I loved the Narnia books, but I read them as a child, so I can only see them through the distortion of nostalgia. One mostly-for-children fantasy book that I have enjoyed as an adult is "Howl's Moving Castle" by DW Jones. It's a fun, smart fairy tale with excellent characters.
I liked the movie better than the book, mostly because I think Howl's is very visual. But I didn't dislike the book, either.
-
I loved the Narnia books, but I read them as a child, so I can only see them through the distortion of nostalgia. One mostly-for-children fantasy book that I have enjoyed as an adult is "Howl's Moving Castle" by DW Jones. It's a fun, smart fairy tale with excellent characters.
In my opinion, DWJ is one of the most underrated YA authors in existence. I adore her Chrestomanci books (and am all sorts of squeeful that she's still writing them)...they were lost books of my childhood (I could remember what shelf they were on in my library, dammit, why didn't that make me able to locate them again?) and when I re-discovered them as a post-collegiate adult I was thrilled that they took place in a magical world with MORE depth than I remembered instead of less.
I have not yet read a bad DWJ book, although there are some that I love and some that I just like.
Diana Wynne Jones: changing out the wicked stepmother for the evil uncle in every book.
-
I liked [Howl's Moving Castlethe movie better than the book, mostly because I think Howl's is very visual. But I didn't dislike the book, either.
The movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't anything like the story DWJ wrote. I'd have liked to see an adaptation of that story. One wonders why Miyazaki-san bothered to acquire the rights to the book at all.
-
Well here we are 6 months later and I've finished reading them all.
I did enjoy them all but I think my favourite was "Silver Chair" followed by "Lion Witch and Wardrobe".
Least fave' was the "Last Battle". Just seemed a bit low on plot and high on preaching. I'm not against preaching, but I like a book to have more plot. The story just seemed to amble rather than run.
All in all, I'm glad I read them.
So, is the film worth watching?
-
Well here we are 6 months later and I've finished reading them all.
I did enjoy them all but I think my favourite was "Silver Chair" followed by "Lion Witch and Wardrobe".
Least fave' was the "Last Battle". Just seemed a bit low on plot and high on preaching. I'm not against preaching, but I like a book to have more plot. The story just seemed to amble rather than run.
All in all, I'm glad I read them.
So, is the film worth watching?
Ah, Silver Chair was my favorite as a kid. I need to reread them all, I think.
The film is worth watching but there were parts of it that felt kind of hollow to me and overall I think it pales in comparison to the book. However, they really nailed some of the stuff -- like Father Christmas and casting Tilda Swinton as the White Witch.
-
Well here we are 6 months later and I've finished reading them all.
I did enjoy them all but I think my favourite was "Silver Chair" followed by "Lion Witch and Wardrobe".
Least fave' was the "Last Battle". Just seemed a bit low on plot and high on preaching. I'm not against preaching, but I like a book to have more plot. The story just seemed to amble rather than run.
All in all, I'm glad I read them.
So, is the film worth watching?
Ah, Silver Chair was my favorite as a kid. I need to reread them all, I think.
The film is worth watching but there were parts of it that felt kind of hollow to me and overall I think it pales in comparison to the book. However, they really nailed some of the stuff -- like Father Christmas and casting Tilda Swinton as the White Witch.
My picks (from most to least favorite):
1. Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe
2. The Silver Chair
3. Voyage of Dawn Treader
4. Magician's Nephew
5. Prince Caspian
6. Horse and His Boy
7. Final Battle
It's really a toss up between LWW and SC, but for original concept and being the first, I went with LWW.
Speaking of the movies, it was announced that they may stop making the movies after Dawn Treader. That makes me sad. I was hoping to see SC. I don't care about the rest.
-
They'd have to do major rewriting on Silver Chair as it's really just Eustace and Polly arguing with each other for the entire time. Similarly with The Last Battle, Darwin is naughty and breaks religion, so God breaks Narnia and Susan is a slut. It's hard to render that dramatically.
-
I read them in Publisher's Order as well, which is one of the reasons that I think MN was one of my favorites. It's been a good 15 years (at least) since I last read them, though. LWW would have to rank as #1, but I don't remember much about SC or PC. I remember Final Battle being dark and tedious, and HBB as being slow, and VDT as being odd but fun. I need to reread them, too.
I enjoyed the movie, though Aslan wasn't as big as I thought he should have been. Tilda Swinton as the witch (especially) and Skandar Keynes, Georgie Henley and Anna Popplewell (as Edmund and Lucy and Susan, respectively) were perfectly cast, I thought. William Moseley (Peter) was probably well-cast, too, but either the actor or, more likely, the director's handling of Peter seemed lame (specifically, any point where he wielded his sword—I don't expect him to be a whirling dervish, but geez).
-
They'd have to do major rewriting on Silver Chair as it's really just Eustace and Polly arguing with each other for the entire time. Similarly with The Last Battle, Darwin is naughty and breaks religion, so God breaks Narnia and Susan is a slut. It's hard to render that dramatically.
I think you mean Eustace and Jill? Polly is from The Magician's Nephew. And if they have no problem dramatizing Prince Caspian which barely has a plot, I don't see why they'll have any trouble with The Silver Chair which at least has some chances for wonderful visuals (the flying over Narnia from the end of the world [which apparently is such a good scene that Gaiman borrowed it for Anansi Boys], the parliament of owls, the attack on Rillian's mother by the green serpent, to inexhaustively suggest a few).
It's been a while since I read The Last Battle, but I don't remember anything about Darwin in it at all. I know Lewis wrote a lot about what he purported to be arguing against (and for) in letters and essays, but I haven't cared to look into anything that wasn't strictly story narrative textual. I'd be interested in seeing page references for what you mean by "Darwin is naughty".
-
My picks (from most to least favorite):
1. Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe
2. The Silver Chair
3. Voyage of Dawn Treader
4. Magician's Nephew
5. Prince Caspian
6. Horse and His Boy
7. Final Battle
It's really a toss up between LWW and SC, but for original concept and being the first, I went with LWW.
Speaking of the movies, it was announced that they may stop making the movies after Dawn Treader. That makes me sad. I was hoping to see SC. I don't care about the rest.
I wouldn't be too worried just yet. They've committed to doing Dawn Treader, and I think depending on how well that does, we'll see more movies. I'd expect them to do Silver Chair without letting too much time go by, because I'm sure they'll want Eustace to look close to the same age.
-
They'd have to do major rewriting on Silver Chair as it's really just Eustace and Polly arguing with each other for the entire time. Similarly with The Last Battle, Darwin is naughty and breaks religion, so God breaks Narnia and Susan is a slut. It's hard to render that dramatically.
I think you mean Eustace and Jill? Polly is from The Magician's Nephew. And if they have no problem dramatizing Prince Caspian which barely has a plot, I don't see why they'll have any trouble with The Silver Chair which at least has some chances for wonderful visuals (the flying over Narnia from the end of the world [which apparently is such a good scene that Gaiman borrowed it for Anansi Boys], the parliament of owls, the attack on Rillian's mother by the green serpent, to inexhaustively suggest a few).
It's been a while since I read The Last Battle, but I don't remember anything about Darwin in it at all. I know Lewis wrote a lot about what he purported to be arguing against (and for) in letters and essays, but I haven't cared to look into anything that wasn't strictly story narrative textual. I'd be interested in seeing page references for what you mean by "Darwin is naughty".
For that matter, there really isn't anything about Susan becoming a slut, either, unless you just choose to interpret her growing up to be synonymous with sluttery.
-
They'd have to do major rewriting on Silver Chair as it's really just Eustace and Polly arguing with each other for the entire time. Similarly with The Last Battle, Darwin is naughty and breaks religion, so God breaks Narnia and Susan is a slut. It's hard to render that dramatically.
I think you mean Eustace and Jill? Polly is from The Magician's Nephew. And if they have no problem dramatizing Prince Caspian which barely has a plot, I don't see why they'll have any trouble with The Silver Chair which at least has some chances for wonderful visuals (the flying over Narnia from the end of the world [which apparently is such a good scene that Gaiman borrowed it for Anansi Boys], the parliament of owls, the attack on Rillian's mother by the green serpent, to inexhaustively suggest a few).
It's been a while since I read The Last Battle, but I don't remember anything about Darwin in it at all. I know Lewis wrote a lot about what he purported to be arguing against (and for) in letters and essays, but I haven't cared to look into anything that wasn't strictly story narrative textual. I'd be interested in seeing page references for what you mean by "Darwin is naughty".
For that matter, there really isn't anything about Susan becoming a slut, either, unless you just choose to interpret her growing up to be synonymous with sluttery.
What does the text say? Something about her being very concerned with boys and make-up, or something, instead of Narnia? It's been a looooooooong time since I read that one, but after reading it and much more recently Gaiman's "The Problem of Susan," I took it to mean she'd just become materialistic and lost her belief to Narnia. But I can understand where you'd interpret that as "slut."
I really should reread that one, at least that bit, because I'm curious how Lewis reconciles that with "Once a king or queen of Narnia, always a king or queen of Narnia."
-
What does the text say? Something about her being very concerned with boys and make-up, or something, instead of Narnia? It's been a looooooooong time since I read that one, but after reading it and much more recently Gaiman's "The Problem of Susan," I took it to mean she'd just become materialistic and lost her belief to Narnia. But I can understand where you'd interpret that as "slut."
I really should reread that one, at least that bit, because I'm curious how Lewis reconciles that with "Once a king or queen of Narnia, always a king or queen of Narnia."
Relevant text is at the end of Chapter 12, Through The Stable Door, reproduced below (in what one hopes is fair use, though it's more than a couple of lines):
"My sister Susan," answered Peter shortly and gravely,"is no longer a friend of Narnia."
"Yes," said Eustace, "and whenever you've tried to get her to come and talk about Narnia or do anything about Narnia, she says 'What wonderful memories you have! Fancy your still thinking about all those funny games we used to play when we were children.'"
"Oh Susan!" said Jill, "she's interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up."
--
FWIW, I don't buy the slut argument, but I can see from whence it's made (unlike the Darwin argument which is all coming at me from nowhere). I think, theologically speaking, her falling away from Narnia is supposed to be apostasy led by materialism, which is the one Unforgivable, and which means not that Narnia is closed to her but that she closed herself to Narnia. So in terms of reconciling the 'once a queen', I think she would be still, if she believed, but lack of belief bars her from entry into Narnia.
-
They'd have to do major rewriting on Silver Chair as it's really just Eustace and Polly arguing with each other for the entire time. Similarly with The Last Battle, Darwin is naughty and breaks religion, so God breaks Narnia and Susan is a slut. It's hard to render that dramatically.
It's been a while since I read The Last Battle, but I don't remember anything about Darwin in it at all. I know Lewis wrote a lot about what he purported to be arguing against (and for) in letters and essays, but I haven't cared to look into anything that wasn't strictly story narrative textual. I'd be interested in seeing page references for what you mean by "Darwin is naughty".
FWIW, I don't buy the slut argument, but I can see from whence it's made (unlike the Darwin argument which is all coming at me from nowhere).
I think what Loz may be referring to is that it was an ape (Darwin = ape?) that schemed up the plot to have the the donkey impersonate Aslan and gain his power. The ape became powerful through his reason and manipulations of those "foolish" creatures who believed in Aslan. I don't know. It's kind of a stretch, but I remember thinking that when I first read the book, but then as I read on, I felt the ape actually represented the "subtle craftiness of men" rather than Darwin or evolution. The donkey (or jackass), though reluctant, represented the false Aslan or the Anti-Christ.
Like I said, this was my least favorite book, mainly because it seemed like it was written more as a strait allegory rather than a cool fantasy story with allusions to Christianity, or just a cool fantasy story period, as the others were.
-
They'd have to do major rewriting on Silver Chair as it's really just Eustace and Polly arguing with each other for the entire time. Similarly with The Last Battle, Darwin is naughty and breaks religion, so God breaks Narnia and Susan is a slut. It's hard to render that dramatically.
It's been a while since I read The Last Battle, but I don't remember anything about Darwin in it at all. I know Lewis wrote a lot about what he purported to be arguing against (and for) in letters and essays, but I haven't cared to look into anything that wasn't strictly story narrative textual. I'd be interested in seeing page references for what you mean by "Darwin is naughty".
Darwin was a character who set up a sort of 'AntiAslan'. In some ways (the characters are the same but the theology is very different) this is Lewis' version of Left Behind.
As I recall, Lewis was quite comfortable with the concept of evolution.
-
I think what Loz may be referring to is that it was an ape (Darwin = ape?) that schemed up the plot to have the the donkey impersonate Aslan and gain his power. The ape became powerful through his reason and manipulations of those "foolish" creatures who believed in Aslan. I don't know. It's kind of a stretch, but I remember thinking that when I first read the book, but then as I read on, I felt the ape actually represented the "subtle craftiness of men" rather than Darwin or evolution. The donkey (or jackass), though reluctant, represented the false Aslan or the Anti-Christ.
Darwin was a character who set up a sort of 'AntiAslan'. In some ways (the characters are the same but the theology is very different) this is Lewis' version of Left Behind.
Whoa, Shift as Darwin? F'real? That's a standard take? Just because Shift is an ape? When monkeys are often used as trickster gods in folklore? And Lewis' drawing upon mythology and folklore is well-documented in all of the books? Hmmm, not sure there's a lot of textual support for Darwin = Shift. I shall await direct references and take it under consideration.
-
Darwin was a character who set up a sort of 'AntiAslan'. In some ways (the characters are the same but the theology is very different) this is Lewis' version of Left Behind.
Whoa, Shift as Darwin? F'real? That's a standard take? Just because Shift is an ape? When monkeys are often used as trickster gods in folklore? And Lewis' drawing upon mythology and folklore is well-documented in all of the books? Hmmm, not sure there's a lot of textual support for Darwin = Shift. I shall await direct references and take it under consideration.
Damn, that's embarrassing. You're right, the ape's name is Shift, not Darwin. I've got no idea why I had that in my head, but it's been there since the subject first came up. In fact, if you'd asked me outside the thread what his name was, I would have said 'Darwin' as well.
Lewis allegorised, but he wasn't that blatant. Apologies to all.
-
sluttery.
LOL, thats knew word for my dictionary!
-
They'd have to do major rewriting on Silver Chair as it's really just Eustace and Polly arguing with each other for the entire time. Similarly with The Last Battle, Darwin is naughty and breaks religion, so God breaks Narnia and Susan is a slut. It's hard to render that dramatically.
I think you mean Eustace and Jill? Polly is from The Magician's Nephew.
Oh bumflaps! You are, of course, absolutely right. Serves me right for not going and doublechecking the names.
It's been a while since I read The Last Battle, but I don't remember anything about Darwin in it at all. I know Lewis wrote a lot about what he purported to be arguing against (and for) in letters and essays, but I haven't cared to look into anything that wasn't strictly story narrative textual. I'd be interested in seeing page references for what you mean by "Darwin is naughty".
Well, I always thought that Shift the monkey was a reference to Darwinism and 'modern times', what with his telling everyone that Aslan and Tash are the same.
-
Well, I always thought that Shift the monkey was a reference to Darwinism and 'modern times', what with his telling everyone that Aslan and Tash are the same.
I think it's more of a reference to Gnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism) (or, stated simply, everyone ultimately worships the same Diety, just by different references) more so than evolution.
-
Interesting, but wouldn't a Gnostic Shift tell everyone to ignore Aslan and Tash and material possessions?
-
I honestly don't know. My understanding of Gnosticism, which is probably incomplete or maybe even incorrect, is that it's the view that Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, etc. all ultimately worship the same god. Maybe "Gnosticism" isn't the proper term, so whatever that belief is called. I've always heard it referred to as Gnostic, though. I only skimmed over the Wikipedia entry because I'm at work and didn't have time to not so much read it but comprehend it, but from my skimming, it seemed to more or less incorporate this belief.
-
Ok, my theology might be off a little here, but if that's gnosticism, is that really what Lewis is criticizing? I mean doesn't the leader of the Calormenes also make it to "heaven," or wherever Aslan is leading them because of the way he served Tash? Everything you did for him you did for me, or something along those lines?
-
I would have to reread it to get the full context, because I honestly just don't recall it clearly enough. It's been a long time.
Edit:
So I did a little searching, because that really is curious. I found the passage you refer to, and there is a lot of contextual consideration to be had (i.e. there's huge implications in the last two lines alone)... well, make of it what you will (discussing this in a theological context would get exceedingly deep). It's very interesting:
"Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, 'Son, thou art welcome.' But I said, 'Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.' He answered, 'Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.' Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, 'Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?' The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, 'It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites -- I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?' I said, 'Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.' But I said also (for truth constrained me), 'Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.' 'Beloved,' said the Glorious One, 'unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.'"
--Emeth, the Calormene, describing his encounter with Aslan
-
"...'I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?' I said, 'Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.' But I said also (for truth constrained me), 'Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.' 'Beloved,' said the Glorious One, 'unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.'"
--Emeth, the Calormene, describing his encounter with Aslan
This is a great passage for someone like me, because Believers are constantly trying to "save" me by convincing me that I'm serving the wrong Master - which I find especially frustrating to me because I maintain that I don't serve a Master.
They expend so much energy trying to prove that theirs is the "Aslan" version of the truth, and that I am following some kind of "Tash" philosophy... and all I want is for them to leave me alone and let me fumble along and figure it out on my own.
This Emeth passage is also the logical flip-side of a concept that I find repellent about the idea of God's infallibility: all of my "goodness" is ascribed to God, but all of my "evil" is attributed to me and my flaws (since I don't buy into any external personification of my faults in the form of a "Tash/Satan" kind of construct). The way I see it, God only deserves the credit for my successful goodness if I don't have free will... and if I don't have free will, then what's the bloody point, anyway?
(This is "free will" as opposed to "predestination"... not to open another jar of kimchi to argue about...)
-
"...'I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?' I said, 'Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.' But I said also (for truth constrained me), 'Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.' 'Beloved,' said the Glorious One, 'unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.'"
--Emeth, the Calormene, describing his encounter with Aslan
This is a great passage for someone like me, because Believers are constantly trying to "save" me by convincing me that I'm serving the wrong Master - which I find especially frustrating to me because I maintain that I don't serve a Master.
I used this passage in a theology essay once. The lecturer had worked very hard getting us to argue a range of opinion, not just the one she was supposed to be teaching. Unfortunately, she didn't grade the same way. Personally, I think Lewis managed to say a very profound thing in a single paragraph here. In simple terms, I think at 'Judgment Day' (or however your theology describes the culmination of history) there are going to be a lot of surprises. Funny, Jesus said the same thing (Matthew 25, for example).
This Emeth passage is also the logical flip-side of a concept that I find repellent about the idea of God's infallibility: all of my "goodness" is ascribed to God, but all of my "evil" is attributed to me and my flaws (since I don't buy into any external personification of my faults in the form of a "Tash/Satan" kind of construct). The way I see it, God only deserves the credit for my successful goodness if I don't have free will... and if I don't have free will, then what's the bloody point, anyway?
(This is "free will" as opposed to "predestination"... not to open another jar of kimchi to argue about...)
A similar (but opposite?) thing happens in sport, at least here in Australia. If the team wins, they're a great bunch of team. If the team loses, sack the coach.
I don't think Lewis' passage necessarily arrives at that conclusion. This is all about free will. Emeth was being rewarded for following his conscience. It is more about the choices he made rather than which god made him live the way he did. He chose to live a good and moral life, but the only framework he had to describe it was the Tash religion.
As far as I can tell, there is room for this in Christianity (oh dear, I can feel this thread getting bumped as we speak!) John 14:6 might say the only way to the Father is through Jesus, but the details of how to find Jesus are surprisingly few. There is no mention of the sinner's prayer, and even simple things like baptism and church attendance are hardly hinted at in this context. Rather (again, see Matthew 25) the important factors seem to be how we submit to the reign of God in our lives. The moral code is simple (but hard): love God, love your neighbour as yourself.
Emeth discovered what Jesus said: Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. He could only respond to the answers that were given. He did so admirably; and the result was, in Christian terms, salvation.