Puckling, for several reasons it took me awhile to get to your second point, and I'm afraid I won't be able to give any answer except - "Yes, you're partly right, but", and "Yes, we see things differently".
You see, what I'm afraid of is (possibly) igniting something like faithfail. When you tell me that Lewis makes you feel excluded, it does no good at all for me to say, "Oh, but he didn't mean that!" I truly don't believe he did mean that, but that in no way invalidates your feelings. To that extent, Lewis actually has excluded you, and that is a real weakness in his work. But here is my "but".
I feel excluded and insulted by Philip Pullman - and by Rowling, for that matter. There are lots of authors, and lots of books, that sneer at my beliefs. But my beliefs are a choice. They represent (I hope) my true self; they are dear to me, but they are not like being born with brown skin or blue eyes or freckles or tightly curling hair. So I can also choose to take what I find good in those authors and leave the rest, if you see what I mean? Though I'm not sure that's helpful. What I mean is, if you make anything that is truly yours, it will express your principles. And, in Gaudy Night, Lord Peter says, "The first thing a principle does is to kill someone." Which quote, needless to say, always bothered me. It needs a lot of thinking about. But what it comes down to is that, if you invent a secondary world that is coherent and reflects who you really are, someone else will be troubled or offended by that work. Because that work will reflect your principles - whatever they are. And principles do exclude. So we have Pullman, and you, deeply offended by Lewis, for reasons I can understand. We have me and many other readers offended by J.K. Rowling. (Though I do wish her work had at least been coherent!) We have others censoring Madeleine L'Engle and Alexander Key (both of whom I love!), for being Un-Christian. And the worst responses aren't yours or mine, but those of the censorers and book burners, obviously.
Which is a lot of rambling. To get back to your actual argument, I don't agree that humanity and personhood are different things in Lewis. It's also not canon that Narnia post- Last Battle is the ultimate Paradise. Paradise - Aslan's country - is the ultimate paradise, and, as I said, it incorporates Narnia and Archenland and Calormene and England, too. Once they reach Aslan's country, the children leave Narnia behind. If, eventually, Susan does go to paradise, she will find Narnia again, true, but she will find more than Narnia. As I said, I don't really like the Susan thing, either. But I don't think it's quite as dire as you imply.
Otherwise, as to the acceptance of Aslan being necessary - yes. It is. And I can see why that bothers you. In this regard, I guess you could say that you simply reject the story that Lewis was telling, just as I reject the story Rowling was telling after DH. There's really no more to be said, is there? You have every right to reject a story that offends you, and there is nothing I can say that will make you like it any better, because you have your own good reasons for feeling as you do.
Speaking of offense, I do truly hope I have given none. As I said, I don't really accept all of your premises. I don't see, for example, that biological distinctions are drawn between who is worthy and who is not. But I do accept your main point - that, as an adult, you read the Narnia books as rather heavy-handed Christian allegory, and that this is necessarily problematic for a non-Christian. I agree. You're right as far as that goes, and there is nothing more to be said.
Re: Part 2
You see, what I'm afraid of is (possibly) igniting something like faithfail. When you tell me that Lewis makes you feel excluded, it does no good at all for me to say, "Oh, but he didn't mean that!" I truly don't believe he did mean that, but that in no way invalidates your feelings. To that extent, Lewis actually has excluded you, and that is a real weakness in his work. But here is my "but".
I feel excluded and insulted by Philip Pullman - and by Rowling, for that matter. There are lots of authors, and lots of books, that sneer at my beliefs. But my beliefs are a choice. They represent (I hope) my true self; they are dear to me, but they are not like being born with brown skin or blue eyes or freckles or tightly curling hair. So I can also choose to take what I find good in those authors and leave the rest, if you see what I mean? Though I'm not sure that's helpful. What I mean is, if you make anything that is truly yours, it will express your principles. And, in Gaudy Night, Lord Peter says, "The first thing a principle does is to kill someone." Which quote, needless to say, always bothered me. It needs a lot of thinking about. But what it comes down to is that, if you invent a secondary world that is coherent and reflects who you really are, someone else will be troubled or offended by that work. Because that work will reflect your principles - whatever they are. And principles do exclude. So we have Pullman, and you, deeply offended by Lewis, for reasons I can understand. We have me and many other readers offended by J.K. Rowling. (Though I do wish her work had at least been coherent!) We have others censoring Madeleine L'Engle and Alexander Key (both of whom I love!), for being Un-Christian. And the worst responses aren't yours or mine, but those of the censorers and book burners, obviously.
Which is a lot of rambling. To get back to your actual argument, I don't agree that humanity and personhood are different things in Lewis. It's also not canon that Narnia post- Last Battle is the ultimate Paradise. Paradise - Aslan's country - is the ultimate paradise, and, as I said, it incorporates Narnia and Archenland and Calormene and England, too. Once they reach Aslan's country, the children leave Narnia behind. If, eventually, Susan does go to paradise, she will find Narnia again, true, but she will find more than Narnia. As I said, I don't really like the Susan thing, either. But I don't think it's quite as dire as you imply.
Otherwise, as to the acceptance of Aslan being necessary - yes. It is. And I can see why that bothers you. In this regard, I guess you could say that you simply reject the story that Lewis was telling, just as I reject the story Rowling was telling after DH. There's really no more to be said, is there? You have every right to reject a story that offends you, and there is nothing I can say that will make you like it any better, because you have your own good reasons for feeling as you do.
Speaking of offense, I do truly hope I have given none. As I said, I don't really accept all of your premises. I don't see, for example, that biological distinctions are drawn between who is worthy and who is not. But I do accept your main point - that, as an adult, you read the Narnia books as rather heavy-handed Christian allegory, and that this is necessarily problematic for a non-Christian. I agree. You're right as far as that goes, and there is nothing more to be said.