Sorry for the long wait for a response. I had to write a paper on the thirteenth century for finals. *headdesk* Anyway, I'll try to do this the same way you did.
My basic problem with TLB is that in order to see it as an emotionally satisfying and ethically acceptable ending, you must agree to some tacit assumptions that I cannot agree to: namely that this particular crisis is self-evidently insoluble in a way that previous crises weren't... and that it is good and admirable for Aslan to call down the end of all things, divide all souls into the saved and the damned, and go home without a qualm.
I had always taken the crisis as one they were expecting to solve in some way. I believe there's talk, after the Calormenes take over Narnia, that Tirian and the others would rescue the Narnians near the stable and wage a guerilla war such as happened in Prince Caspian. Basically those Narnians at the stable were the only hope for the continuation of Narnia. And once Narnia fell completely, the world fell: because Aslan originally created the world for Narnians, with humans kinda sneaking in here and then. And, really, all that is good about that world doesn't really die, but is experienced as it 'should have been' had evil not entered into the world.
the great sorting of souls does not simply leave those who don't love Aslan alone. Instead of coming into the stable and being allowed to ignore Aslan's presence, the Talking Beasts cease to be Talking Beasts which always felt, to me, as if Aslan were taking away...their very souls...Furthermore, all those who fear and hate Aslan...swerve off into Aslan's shadow, which has a terribly ominous feel; either they are immediately transported to hell, or they remain in Narnia and die in ice shortly thereafter, or they are unmade as the Talking Beasts have been un-souled.
I can see where you're coming from here. But I don't see how the swerving of the creatures into the shadow deviates from what I said previously. They all came and looked into Aslan's face. Than they made a choice, to either stay with Aslan or go into the shadow. It was their choice, Aslan did not force them to go either way. As for the 'dumbing' of the Talking Animals...I'm not sure where to go with that, actually. There's no Christian theology that I know of that indicates anything of the sort happening at the end times. Possibly Lewis was postulating that, since Talking Animals were created differently from humans, their end would be different as well. Perhaps it was even meant as a kindness: instead of letting them go into the shadow, they can live eternally as regular beasts. Perhaps that's what they wanted. I agree, it's hard to take sometimes, though. I'm the first to admit, Lewis isn't perfect.
I think the implication of finality bothers me most: the idea that you get only one choice, and must abide by it for the rest of eternity, as if you will never learn or change but will be fixed from that moment onward. Lewis implies...that hell is forever. That is a denial of life and free will, and I find it ethically unacceptable.
I do not see how a final choice denies free will and life. People freely choice to spend eternity away from God. I think it highly unlikely that people will change their minds once they reach eternity. Of course, that's due to my perception of hell. To me, hell is a place where people are allowed to be their sinful selves, without the light of God that sometimes pierces the darkness of this world. Lewis' The Great Divorce shows this idea, actually, though I warn you it's a hard read and I don't understand about a third of it. Actually, the Great Divorce is interesting in that it postulates that people are given a chance to 'visit' heaven from hell and that some, very few, choose to stay: Lewis implies that, to those who choose heaven their time in hell was Purgatory. I don't have solid views on the existence of purgatory, but it seems a plausible explanation.
Plus, honestly, would you truly like a fluid eternity? It would just be an extension of this life and would cause heart-break and darkness. I would find an unsettled eternity unbearable, always wondering who might change their mind. It's hard enough in this world. A fixed eternity allows for joy.
Re: on theology, ethics, and authorial intent, part 1
My basic problem with TLB is that in order to see it as an emotionally satisfying and ethically acceptable ending, you must agree to some tacit assumptions that I cannot agree to: namely that this particular crisis is self-evidently insoluble in a way that previous crises weren't... and that it is good and admirable for Aslan to call down the end of all things, divide all souls into the saved and the damned, and go home without a qualm.
I had always taken the crisis as one they were expecting to solve in some way. I believe there's talk, after the Calormenes take over Narnia, that Tirian and the others would rescue the Narnians near the stable and wage a guerilla war such as happened in Prince Caspian. Basically those Narnians at the stable were the only hope for the continuation of Narnia. And once Narnia fell completely, the world fell: because Aslan originally created the world for Narnians, with humans kinda sneaking in here and then. And, really, all that is good about that world doesn't really die, but is experienced as it 'should have been' had evil not entered into the world.
the great sorting of souls does not simply leave those who don't love Aslan alone. Instead of coming into the stable and being allowed to ignore Aslan's presence, the Talking Beasts cease to be Talking Beasts which always felt, to me, as if Aslan were taking away...their very souls...Furthermore, all those who fear and hate Aslan...swerve off into Aslan's shadow, which has a terribly ominous feel; either they are immediately transported to hell, or they remain in Narnia and die in ice shortly thereafter, or they are unmade as the Talking Beasts have been un-souled.
I can see where you're coming from here. But I don't see how the swerving of the creatures into the shadow deviates from what I said previously. They all came and looked into Aslan's face. Than they made a choice, to either stay with Aslan or go into the shadow. It was their choice, Aslan did not force them to go either way. As for the 'dumbing' of the Talking Animals...I'm not sure where to go with that, actually. There's no Christian theology that I know of that indicates anything of the sort happening at the end times. Possibly Lewis was postulating that, since Talking Animals were created differently from humans, their end would be different as well. Perhaps it was even meant as a kindness: instead of letting them go into the shadow, they can live eternally as regular beasts. Perhaps that's what they wanted. I agree, it's hard to take sometimes, though. I'm the first to admit, Lewis isn't perfect.
I think the implication of finality bothers me most: the idea that you get only one choice, and must abide by it for the rest of eternity, as if you will never learn or change but will be fixed from that moment onward. Lewis implies...that hell is forever. That is a denial of life and free will, and I find it ethically unacceptable.
I do not see how a final choice denies free will and life. People freely choice to spend eternity away from God. I think it highly unlikely that people will change their minds once they reach eternity. Of course, that's due to my perception of hell. To me, hell is a place where people are allowed to be their sinful selves, without the light of God that sometimes pierces the darkness of this world. Lewis' The Great Divorce shows this idea, actually, though I warn you it's a hard read and I don't understand about a third of it. Actually, the Great Divorce is interesting in that it postulates that people are given a chance to 'visit' heaven from hell and that some, very few, choose to stay: Lewis implies that, to those who choose heaven their time in hell was Purgatory. I don't have solid views on the existence of purgatory, but it seems a plausible explanation.
Plus, honestly, would you truly like a fluid eternity? It would just be an extension of this life and would cause heart-break and darkness. I would find an unsettled eternity unbearable, always wondering who might change their mind. It's hard enough in this world. A fixed eternity allows for joy.