I do not have much of any experience with the Chronicles of Narnia series. So, when I saw that The Horse and His Boy was paired with Said's Orientalism for this week's reading, I went into the text expecting racial, political, and social tension. I wish I had grown up reading these books so I could look back on my interpretation as a kid! I loved hearing about what people thought of the book when they were younger. I really appreciated Isabella's point of "reverse chivalry" during our class discussion. What is the point Lewis is trying to make through this odd portrayal? Bree's discussion of freedom at the end of chapter 10 depicts freedom as an existence which can only be attained by certain people. Bree submits himself to great shame and disgrace because of his "wretched sin." Obviously, the Calormen do not represent the ideals of freedom and goodness because of their sins. Yet, when Bree makes a mistake, he is protected by his status through Narnia. There is protection in freedom, but freedom does not seem to be an existence that is possible to earn; rather, it is "natural" to others and unreachable for those who are marginalized (the Calormen).
This is a really good point! It seems against the general Christian belief that people are just born with this freedom while others are not. I'm really curious to see what happens with Aravis. I'm assuming she is meant to be an example of someone being able to achieve freedom despite their Calormen status. But, it's still odd to me Shasta would just have some sort of birthright as a (possible) Narnian.
Really sharp analysis here! I'm wondering (and I'd need to do some deeper dives into Lewis' theology), but I suspect there might be something going on with how Lewis understands Justification. Regardless, I think you're right that this text makes very clear that only freedom is only natural to "some." And even exceptions to the normal boundaries (with someone like Aravis) are anomalies that seem destined to become Narnians (or Archenlanders).