Blog #12 - A Myth Retold: Lewis's Changes to the Psyche-Cupid Myth - Vickie GG
In "On Fairy-Stories," Tolkien argues that a similarity between two myths does not make one of those myths more or less true / real or better than the other. For Tolkien, myth similarities - including myth retellings - are simply "new bits added to the stock" of the "Pot of Soup, the Cauldron of Story" that "has always been boiling" (53-54). If we follow this metaphor, though, it can be important and interesting to ask what each addition or subtraction from the story soup does to a particular myth's flavor profile.
Specifically, I'm interested in the effect of Lewis's changes to the Psyche-Cupid myth in his re-rendering, Till We Have Faces. What does he change? How do these changes alter the truths this particular myth imparts?
In his final "Note" (311-313), Lewis provides a brief summary of (one version of) the original Psyche-Cupid myth. He notes that "the central alternation in my own version consists in making Psyche's palace invisible to normal mortal eyes." Lewis notes three effects of this change: 1) "a more ambivalent motive," 2) a different character for my heroine, and 3) to "modify the whole quality of the tale" (313).
Lewis certainly achieves with this change his first and second desired effects. In the initial tale, the sisters are simply jealous of their beautiful sister's god-husband and beautiful palace and thus "plotted to destroy her happiness" (312). This is a reductionist plot device that limits the sisters to one-dimensional "evil" characters, pitted against a one-dimensional "good" character (Psyche). Lewis's decision to make the palace invisible not only allows him to create Orual as a complex character who readers cannot easily judge as innocent or guilty for suggesting her sister look at her lover's face but also helps him deepen Psyche complexity as a character.
But he also goes beyond changing the "quality" of the tale to changing its motifs and messages as well. One focus of Lewis's new version is an exploration of faith. The invisible palace stands in for an invisible deity, and thus Lewis's tale asks readers to consider questions such as "what is faith?" and "what evidence, if any, is reasonably required for one to have faith in or trust a deity"? The moment when Orual IS briefly able to see the palace (132-133), and her musings and discussions thereafter about its existence, suggest to readers that one must have faith with or without "direct evidence" because, even when we're provided it, we still don't necessarily believe it. The Fox likewise acts as a foil for discussions of faith, as someone who doesn't believe in the gods but then states at the end that he was wrong (296).
Another theme emphasized further in Lewis's version of this myth is beauty vs. "ugliness." This dichotomy is highlighted by making Orual physically as ugly as Psyche is beautiful. And yet, we see throughout Lewis's myth that the focus of the story is assessing each person's beauty or ugliness of spirit. (Yes, it is a kind of trite / overhashed idea, but it still adds something a little different to Lewis's version.) And, of course, the debate over whether Psyche's god-husband is a hideous monster or a beautiful being further underscores this theme, as does the fact that Aphrodite - said to be the most beautiful of the goddesses - acts in ugly ways, with jealousy and hatred toward Psyche (who is good).
Relatedly, the addition of the King character also changes the tale, since readers must consider how environmental factors in one's life develop their spiritual beauty or ugliness and thus to what extent each individual is culpable for those aspects of themselves. (I say more on this in Blog #11: Judgment of Orual.)
One of my favorite changes in Lewis's version is his use of meta-narration by including yet another version of the Psyche-Cupid myth within his own retelling of the myth (241-247). This inclusion is a unique way of addressing the "myth vs. history" debate that we've considered within our course. Orual says that the Priest "was telling the very history of our Istra," which we as readers know are actual events that literally transpired (242). However, Orual takes issue with certain things in the Priests version of the story, specifically the idea that she (Orual) was jealous of Psyche and that this jealousy was the motivation for trying to get Psyche to look at her lover's face (245). And yet, is it perhaps the case that the Priest's version of the myth revealed to Orual a literal truth she herself was unaware of (and didn't want to face)?
Also, the fact that Orual says this moment in the Priest's story was "the moment I resolved to write this book" (244) causes us to consider authors' motivations for retelling myths. Lewis tells us what he changed in his versions and how he hoped readers might think differently about Psyche's sister as a result. But he doesn't tell us why he decides to retell this myth specifically and in the ways he chose to. Asking this question makes me think of another myth retelling I recently read, Madeline Miller's short story, "Galatea." In this case, it is pretty obvious that Miller retold the Pygmalion myth to feminist it up. (We know this not only from analyzing the text but also because she basically says so herself at the end, in her note about why she wrote the story, as well as from the goals of her corpus of myth retellings.) When I wrote my own story addition for the Narnia universe, I sought to do a combination of what Miller did (i.e. to feminist and queer it up) but also of what Lewis did (to disrupt the banal "good vs. evil" dichotomy) by giving complexity to and perhaps even a sympathetic view of the Witches of Narnia.
While there's much more to explore re: the differences between Lewis's version of the myth and the "original," I think I'll leave it here for now.
Specifically, I'm interested in the effect of Lewis's changes to the Psyche-Cupid myth in his re-rendering, Till We Have Faces. What does he change? How do these changes alter the truths this particular myth imparts?
In his final "Note" (311-313), Lewis provides a brief summary of (one version of) the original Psyche-Cupid myth. He notes that "the central alternation in my own version consists in making Psyche's palace invisible to normal mortal eyes." Lewis notes three effects of this change: 1) "a more ambivalent motive," 2) a different character for my heroine, and 3) to "modify the whole quality of the tale" (313).
Lewis certainly achieves with this change his first and second desired effects. In the initial tale, the sisters are simply jealous of their beautiful sister's god-husband and beautiful palace and thus "plotted to destroy her happiness" (312). This is a reductionist plot device that limits the sisters to one-dimensional "evil" characters, pitted against a one-dimensional "good" character (Psyche). Lewis's decision to make the palace invisible not only allows him to create Orual as a complex character who readers cannot easily judge as innocent or guilty for suggesting her sister look at her lover's face but also helps him deepen Psyche complexity as a character.
But he also goes beyond changing the "quality" of the tale to changing its motifs and messages as well. One focus of Lewis's new version is an exploration of faith. The invisible palace stands in for an invisible deity, and thus Lewis's tale asks readers to consider questions such as "what is faith?" and "what evidence, if any, is reasonably required for one to have faith in or trust a deity"? The moment when Orual IS briefly able to see the palace (132-133), and her musings and discussions thereafter about its existence, suggest to readers that one must have faith with or without "direct evidence" because, even when we're provided it, we still don't necessarily believe it. The Fox likewise acts as a foil for discussions of faith, as someone who doesn't believe in the gods but then states at the end that he was wrong (296).
Another theme emphasized further in Lewis's version of this myth is beauty vs. "ugliness." This dichotomy is highlighted by making Orual physically as ugly as Psyche is beautiful. And yet, we see throughout Lewis's myth that the focus of the story is assessing each person's beauty or ugliness of spirit. (Yes, it is a kind of trite / overhashed idea, but it still adds something a little different to Lewis's version.) And, of course, the debate over whether Psyche's god-husband is a hideous monster or a beautiful being further underscores this theme, as does the fact that Aphrodite - said to be the most beautiful of the goddesses - acts in ugly ways, with jealousy and hatred toward Psyche (who is good).
Relatedly, the addition of the King character also changes the tale, since readers must consider how environmental factors in one's life develop their spiritual beauty or ugliness and thus to what extent each individual is culpable for those aspects of themselves. (I say more on this in Blog #11: Judgment of Orual.)
One of my favorite changes in Lewis's version is his use of meta-narration by including yet another version of the Psyche-Cupid myth within his own retelling of the myth (241-247). This inclusion is a unique way of addressing the "myth vs. history" debate that we've considered within our course. Orual says that the Priest "was telling the very history of our Istra," which we as readers know are actual events that literally transpired (242). However, Orual takes issue with certain things in the Priests version of the story, specifically the idea that she (Orual) was jealous of Psyche and that this jealousy was the motivation for trying to get Psyche to look at her lover's face (245). And yet, is it perhaps the case that the Priest's version of the myth revealed to Orual a literal truth she herself was unaware of (and didn't want to face)?
Also, the fact that Orual says this moment in the Priest's story was "the moment I resolved to write this book" (244) causes us to consider authors' motivations for retelling myths. Lewis tells us what he changed in his versions and how he hoped readers might think differently about Psyche's sister as a result. But he doesn't tell us why he decides to retell this myth specifically and in the ways he chose to. Asking this question makes me think of another myth retelling I recently read, Madeline Miller's short story, "Galatea." In this case, it is pretty obvious that Miller retold the Pygmalion myth to feminist it up. (We know this not only from analyzing the text but also because she basically says so herself at the end, in her note about why she wrote the story, as well as from the goals of her corpus of myth retellings.) When I wrote my own story addition for the Narnia universe, I sought to do a combination of what Miller did (i.e. to feminist and queer it up) but also of what Lewis did (to disrupt the banal "good vs. evil" dichotomy) by giving complexity to and perhaps even a sympathetic view of the Witches of Narnia.
While there's much more to explore re: the differences between Lewis's version of the myth and the "original," I think I'll leave it here for now.
Comments
Post a Comment