That's a really good point, Puckling! And you're right; in Narnia, humans do seem to be privileged over all sentient creatures, in that Narnia *requires* human kings and queens. I'd honestly never noticed that before, to be honest - at least, I had not noticed it and been bothered by it. It's even worse that we are *shown* an animal ruling, in TLB, and his rule is shown to be corrupt and corrupting. That is disturbing.
Even so, there is a huge, quantum, difference between the way the talking beasts are treated in Narnia and the way the Muggles are in Hogwarts. Except for this question of kingship, (which is twice presented as a burden, and an obligation to serve the creatures "ruled" - though I can absolutely see why a reader would instead see it as a privilege) humans and talking and mythical creatures are equals. Animals are courtiers, friends, heroes, adventurers, warriors - they do everything the humans do, together with the humans. If humans see and treat them as inferiors, they are bad humans. In contrast, every single member of the wizarding world treats Muggles as inferior - because they are. Some are patronizing and protective; others are callous and cruel, but all of them are racist.
So I do think my point stands, at least in this regard. As Daniel Hemmens says in Ferretbrain, Lewis is presenting a coherent worldview, whether you agree with it or not. I don't, entirely (though I do mostly) and you don't at all. But the coherence is there. It's not to be found in Rowling, IMHO.
Will get to your second point later. This was a really good one, and I always hated that whole section with Shift and poor Puzzle. There are many reasons why I object to it - I never really articulated your point that it's specieist, though it certainly is - but the major one is that it's cruel and, as Jodel says, seems unnecessary. We're being asked to believe that the creatures have brought their doom on themselves by accepting a false ruler, and I just don't buy that.
Re: Part 1
Even so, there is a huge, quantum, difference between the way the talking beasts are treated in Narnia and the way the Muggles are in Hogwarts. Except for this question of kingship, (which is twice presented as a burden, and an obligation to serve the creatures "ruled" - though I can absolutely see why a reader would instead see it as a privilege) humans and talking and mythical creatures are equals. Animals are courtiers, friends, heroes, adventurers, warriors - they do everything the humans do, together with the humans. If humans see and treat them as inferiors, they are bad humans. In contrast, every single member of the wizarding world treats Muggles as inferior - because they are. Some are patronizing and protective; others are callous and cruel, but all of them are racist.
So I do think my point stands, at least in this regard. As Daniel Hemmens says in Ferretbrain, Lewis is presenting a coherent worldview, whether you agree with it or not. I don't, entirely (though I do mostly) and you don't at all. But the coherence is there. It's not to be found in Rowling, IMHO.
Will get to your second point later. This was a really good one, and I always hated that whole section with Shift and poor Puzzle. There are many reasons why I object to it - I never really articulated your point that it's specieist, though it certainly is - but the major one is that it's cruel and, as Jodel says, seems unnecessary. We're being asked to believe that the creatures have brought their doom on themselves by accepting a false ruler, and I just don't buy that.