Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Summary of Archived Critisism Discussion (NPOV)

Could someone who has been around since the Critisism section blewup write a summary of what we've reached consensus on? It will be a bit before I can do it. Until then I'll paste the last consensus item as a stop-gap measure. Lsommerer 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When Editing the Critisism section of the article, please follow these conventions:

• all information should be cited (critisisms and defences) as per Wikipedia:Cite
• it is preferable to quote critics verbatum when short self contained quotes are available
• context should be provided for those not familiar with issues (Susan junk)
• defenses should be brief summaries

There is also a Sandbox for The Chronicles of Narnia Critisism Section where you can show people larger edits that you would like to make (often easier than describing them). This allows us to reach a consensus without reverting the article back and forth.

i pretty much tried to handle the "susan junk" but i dont know how effective i was at this, someone please review this?

I know some of you are going to hate me for this, and I accept that. The Lewis page is too long. I've moved material there that covered criticism of Narnia to this page. I put some Pullman material first because it touches on a variety of topics (i.e., didn't fit under one subsection or another). I put the emotional sadism stuff later because it seemed to be a separate topic from sexism and racism. But it's before the "everyone likes Lewis anyway so kiss off you atheists" paragraph because that seems like the last word on the topic. Jonathan Tweet 16:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Narnia universe

I added The Narnia universe section mainly as a way to call attention to the fact that there is a wealth of other information on Narnia available on wikipedia. This section is not meant to duplicate that information, and certainly shouldn't present spoilers. I don't know that it is in the right position in the article. But I think the way to fix the position is to create a new The Books section above it that very briefly summarizes each book. Lsommerer 17:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Chronicles of Narnia had short 'cut scene' on Family Guy (EP 104 - Mind Over Murder)

Peter is doing the laundry, and notices he only has one sock. He walks into the dryer, and tumbles though to see a Mr.Tumblesworth welcoming him to Narnia. Peter yells for his sock back, while Mr. Tumblesworth holds the sock with both paws (hands?) runs off.

Movie Quote

"Narnia director Andrew Adamson has hinted that he is already planning on making a sequel." Oh come on! We're just rehashing studio press releases if we write this. Never since Harry Potter has there been a movie for which it was so certain that there would be a sequel. The only astonishing thing is that they aren't shooting it already. DJ Clayworth 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I made a few changes recently and wanted to provide a rational for them... LloydSommerer 03:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Added The Books section after the introduction. Nearly all articles on series have a summary of the books in the series. The ones that don't have seperate articles for the books tend to have longer summaries. I figured we didn't need much here, but should have something. I could be wrong. I don't think they are good summaries, but someone will either fix them or make them worse in the future.
• Combined the Influences section with a summary of the Pop-Culture section and moved the ever-growing-pop-culture-list to its own page (it can be truely huge there). I debated including a few examples from the list, but thought that would only encourage a new list to grow. If you think a few examples are in order, by all means add them (I would do well known examples).
• Changed the The books: publication and reading order to a Reading order section. The publication order was covered in the new Books section and the rest of it was just reading order stuff anyway. I also combined the two lists into one table. That's probably a matter of taste, but I like the look and the fact that the page is not quite so long.

LloydSommerer, I changed the heading for the LWW summary to make it linkable and deleted the distracting subheading (which still appears under all the other titles). If you think it looks better I can do the same for all the rest of the summaries (or someone else can). Endomion 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Shoot, I changed it back before I read the talk page. Sorry about that, Endomion. I mainly changed it back because only one was done, but I see your reason for that now. My own view is that it is easier for new wiki users to recognise that there are other articles if we use specific "main article" links. But it causes articles to take up more space vertically, and some people just don't like the way it looks. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) doesn't support either of those options, and suggest linking from within the first sentence. It's probably hard to miss that the books have their own articles, but the fact that Narnia, the movie and pop-culture do is a lot easier to miss. LloydSommerer 15:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some working at cross-purposes. I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia page to possibly become the central point from which we can pull all the Narnia material together rather than doing it from this article. Perhaps others can jump in to help organize that project page. Endomion 05:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on recent edit summaries

• 23:32, 25 December 2005 Alienus (→Criticism - nonfactual/misleading: bloggers don't qualify as "authors" in this context, and the only author mention admitted to the racism).

Agreed, I didn't know most citations were from bloggers when I wrote it.

• 23:36, 25 December 2005 Alienus (→Criticism - Added supporting O'Connor quote and removed "it's noted" since that's passive weaseling.)

The way I see it, the use of passive voice when the source of the information is clearly cited in the text can't be considered passive weaseling. (But maybe you are right, since I’m not a native English speaker and my idiom -Portuguese- is known to use the passive voice more extensively than English.) --Leinad-Z 15:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "pullman.. outspoken atheist" to "agnostic" (not logged in, hence IP address), which seems to fit with comments by pullman. Specifically, he has said that, when he considers the sphere of the known, he finds that he is an atheist, but when he considers the larger sphere of the unknown, he finds that he is an agnostic. Tomandlu 12:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting… by the comments it seems that he is both, an outspoken atheist and an outspoken agnostic. (Those categories are not mutually exclusive.)

While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position. (from the Agnostic atheism article)--Leinad-Z 15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

True - but probably self-evident. An agnostic viewpoint should, by definition, include the possibility of an atheistic universe. That said, you are correct in that Pullman makes the distinction himself in relation to the known and unknown... btw here's a source http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,1487296,00.html --Tomandlu 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet, an agnostic person may be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position. So, I don't think Pullman's atheism is self-evident when you say he is an agnostic. I'm an agnostic theist, by the way. --Leinad-Z 16:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"agnostic - endorsing neither" for me ;). Hmmm, I can understand the concept of an agnostic theist and an agnostic endorsing neither, but the concept of an agnostic atheist confuses the hell out of me - how does that differ from a plain atheist? Time to read the agnostic article I guess... --Tomandlu 16:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

okay - read the article. Makes sense - sort of. There is one aspect of the article that looks like an error. It lists 3 statements, and says that an agnostic atheist will sign up to one or more of them. However, while that is valid for 2 or 3, I would say that 1 on its own looks more like plain ol' "agnostic - endorsing neither". Am I missing something? (1 is something like "has no knowledge of the existence or non-existence of deities") --Tomandlu 16:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Many atheists define atheism only as the absence of belief in a god, in this broader definition a person holding the position "1" would be considered an weak atheist (wich is a very reasonable position ,IMO) --Leinad-Z 18:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Gopnik

Dropped:

New Yorker essayist Adam Gopnik recently suggested that, as a strict Christian allegory, the The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe is not especially accurate. Specifically, he points out that

"a central point of the Gospel story is that Jesus is not the lion of the faith but the lamb of God, while his other symbolic animal is, specifically, the lowly and bedraggled donkey. The moral force of the Christian story is that the lions are all on the other side. If we had, say, a donkey, a seemingly uninspiring animal from an obscure corner of Narnia, raised as an uncouth and low-caste beast of burden, rallying the mice and rats and weasels and vultures and all the other unclean animals, and then being killed by the lions in as humiliating a manner as possible—a donkey who re-emerges, to the shock even of his disciples and devotees, as the king of all creation—now, that would be a Christian allegory. A powerful lion, starting life at the top of the food chain, adored by all his subjects and filled with temporal power, killed by a despised evil witch for his power and then reborn to rule, is a Mithraic, not a Christian, myth" (Gopnik 2005)

This is getting away from a discussion of the Chronicles and into one critic's rather idiosyncratic view - which has been much dissected of late. Ellsworth 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A little harsh, IMHO. It's a valid point, as any direct reading of the NT shows. There is nothing humble about Aslan. How is this dealt with in the article? The rather martial faith shown in the chronicles at least deserves a mention IMHO --Tomandlu 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a good addition when it was first added, but I have to agree that it does show that a "strict allegorical" reading doesn't work very well. That particular point was part of the article for sometime, but was edited out within the last month or so. I think it is worthwhile to keep this. Having said that, I have exchanged messages with the person who originally added it and --at the time-- we came to the agreement that it probably belonged in the Aslan article as it deals specifically with Aslan. LloydSommerer 23:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely wrong for the following reasons.

1. A strict allegorical reading of Narnia is inappropriate and unnecessary since Lewis explicitedly said that Narnia was not an allegory in the strict sense.

2. The lion is a symbol of Christ in the Bible (Revelation 5:5 for example).

3. The donkey is neither a symbol of humility nor a symbol of Jesus. Jesus arriving on a donkey is one of the most misunderstood symbols in the Bible. As strange as it seems to our culture, the donkey was the Kingly animal in ancient Israel and a sign of royalty (Zechariah 9:9 for example). Jesus (and the Kings of Israel) rode on it as a sign of his royalty, not his humility. And, while Jesus expressed something about himself by riding it on Palm Sunday, the donkey is not, strictly speaking, a symbol of him.

4. Humility is one aspect of Christ, but not the only aspect. Mark's Gospel emphasizes Christ's humanity, while John's Gospel emphasizes his divinity. Luke's nativity story is one of humility and lowliness, but Matthew's nativity story is very much a royal birth, complete with royal lineage and kingly gifts. (We often conflate the two stories.) Joey1898 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good points from all sides - however IMHO the criticism section should at least mention the rather martial aspect of the series, and how this is hard to reconcile with NT theology. It's not a criticism confined to one particular commentator. And whatever Lewis may or may not have said regarding allegory, he does explicitly state in both PC and VOTDT (iirc) the aslan and jesus are one and the same. --Tomandlu 09:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you miss the point. The martial imagery is not hard to reconcile with NT theology; the NT is filled with martial imagery, which some people simply choose to ignore. (See, for example, Matthew 10:44, Luke 22:36, Romans 13:4-12, Ephesians 6:10-17, and pretty much the entire Book of Revelation.) Now, I grant you that the NT does not use martial imagery for a martial cause, but the same is true for Lewis. He is using martial imagery for the same reasons as the NT. The ill-informed who are unaware of the NT's martial imagery think that they have scored points against Lewis for using it, but their criticisms are absolutely frivolous. (Just to be clear, I'm not criticising you Tomandlu, I'm criticising Gopnik.) -- Joey1898 19:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely the point is not whether the NT includes martial imagery or not - more whom employs it (I have to say I consider Revelations largely irrelevant - fascinating and extraordinary as it is). AFAIK, unless I missed the gospel according to St. Bronson, JC was not the instigator (excluding one snit in the temple).

I don't think this excludes Aslan from being a christian symbol - it's just he resembles more the God of the OT, rather than JC of the NT. No, in all honesty, those who draw attention to Aslan's deficencies as a christ-symbol have a point. Bare in mind that the article need not (nor should) endorse such a view, but I don't see any harm in calling attention to it. It only needs a careful sentence.

As a final point, the chronicles are not, last time I looked, part of the gospel. Valid criticism of the chronicles in relation to their christian-allegorical aspects does not require either a secular or christian viewpoint. --Tomandlu 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken:

1. You cannot simply dismiss the martial imagery in the NT - the Book of Revelation, the cleansing of the Temple, Matthew 10:44 (where Jesus very much is the instigator), Luke, Romans, Ephesians, etc. - and then say that it is not there or somehow irrelevant.

2. According to the NT and orthodox Christianity, Jesus is the God of the OT ("one in being with the Father" as the Creeds say). (See John 1:1-18, John 10:30-39, Romans 9:5, Phillipians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:1-14, as well as the articles on the Trinity, Jesus and the Incarnation.)

3. You seem to hold the popular view that the OT is all law and judgement while the NT is all sweetness and forgiveness. That is a misleading simplification. After all, the expression "love your neighbor as yourself" comes originally from the OT (Leviticus 19:18), while the doctrine of an eternal Hell is found only in the NT - from Jesus himself (Matthew 5:22-30, 10:28, 16:18, 18:9, Mark 9:43-47, Luke 12:5, 16:23, James 3:6, 2 Peter 2:4, etc).

4. The criticisms are not valid because they are based on a lack of Biblical knowledge. One cannot say that, from a NT point of view, a lion is a faulty symbol for Christ; the NT uses a lion as a symbol of Christ. One cannot say that martial imagery is hard to reconcile with the NT; the NT uses martial imagery (and uses it in the same way and for the same reasons as Narnia). Saying otherwise represents neither a secular point of view nor a Christian point of view, it is simply incorrect on the facts. -- Joey1898 21:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

point-by-point:

1. Firstly, I do largely ignore revelations - it's probably the section of the NT that i've reread most often (for pure pleasure), but it does stand outside the gospels. Outside of rev. it's hard to find anything promoting war (in the martial sense). I would grant, given the White Witch's position, that paralles can be drawn with the NT (pigs and devils?), but it's quite a leap.

2 Well, yes, the trinity is one - but, if one does not view them as distinct, then why bother having a trinity? Lewis makes the distinction explicit with ref. to the emporer over the sea and the lamb at the end of VOTDT, so why not hold him responsible for it? Bottom line, would you agree that within the context of the trinity, that aslan is more like jehovan that JC?

3 Isn't it the concept of hell (as punishment) and heaven (as reward) that allows the transition towards accepting hardship? I'm not nitpicking here - it's the way even secular society works. You give up the right to individual conflict (which we would now call vigilantism) in return for a higher authority administering justice fairly. Tolkein had a point - lewis should have left theology to the professionals ;)

4 the lion is an obscure symbol of christ, and anyway it's not really the point. Martial imagery is present in all war films - it does not follow that all war films are pro-war. Would you contest that apocolype now makes coppola a war-monger? One does not have to be wishy washy to view the NT gospels as a pacifistic philosophy (don't knock it - it's whats allowed jaded agnostics like me to identify with the NT).

Isn't this beside the point? The consideration that the chronicles are somewhat confrontational is worth mention - the only question is finding something concise and NPOV enough to reflect its relevance (suggestions to follow... ;). --Tomandlu 23:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand everything that I have said.

1. It is irrelevant whether or not you choose to ignore the martial imagery in the NT; it is there whether you like it or not. (Matthew 10:44, Luke 22:36, Romans 13:4-12, Ephesians 6:10-17, Book of Revelation) You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

2. The Persons of the Trinity are distinct in some ways, but not in their character (see John 14:7-14).

3. I'm not bringing up the doctrine of Hell in order to criticize it, but to point out that the discontinuity between the OT and the NT is largely a popular misconception, which the NT itself rejects. There is law and grace in both the OT and the NT.

4. We are talking about martial imagery in both Narnia and the NT, not a defense of war. Neither Narnia nor the NT is pro-war, whatever that means. (At best, they present war as a necessary evil.) Peter's army, in the LTWW, is a stand in for the Church struggling against the devil (the witch) and the forces of evil. On this side of the wardrobe door, fighting in Peter's army can mean opposing a particular war.

Bottom line (to borrow your phrase), saying that Narnia is 'a poor allegory for the NT because it uses a lion to symbolize Christ and is full of martial imagery' is wrong on all points:

a) Narnia is not an allegory

b) the NT uses a lion to symbolize Christ,

c) the NT is full of marital imagery.

BTW - the NT is at least as confrontational as Narnia. Joey1898 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want people to take your views seriously, it would help if you didn't state your opinions as facts.

External links

I would like to propose a cleanup of the external links section, some of the websites listed seem to be a bit spammy. --Ariadoss 09:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing v. publishing

The intro states: "Written by Lewis between 1950 and 1956,...". LWW was published in 1950, but if my memory serves me correctly, Lewis began writing it years earlier. I'm not sure how to reword this, other than maybe replacing "written" with "published". --NoahElhardt 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Edmund help

Recently, a Wikipedian known as IrishGuy is putting negative trademark on Edmund Pevensie's article on purpose, labeling him as a villainous character who betrayed his siblings to the White Witch. I need someone to watch the article, and talk to him when he pulls this nonsense. 65.103.86.243

In actuality, I am reverting it to the original language (which I didn't write) because 65.103.86.243 continues putting his own views into the article. IrishGuy talk 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, IrishGuy, I kindly ask you to stop calling them personal views. They are facts. They aren't written in the book, but they're there. It's all in how the characters really are. I'm just saying who Edmund is deep down inside. 65.103.86.243

It isn't your job to play armchair psychologist. If, as you yourself admit, it isn't expressed in the book, then it doesn't belong in the article. Those are your own personal views and therefore unencyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stop this discussion. It has already been resolved thanks to Steven, and the article is fine the way it is. 65.103.86.243 (71.38.17.143)

Pagan Influences

I trimmed a paragraph of this article by cutting out the claim that the New Testament could be derived from pagan sources. This is a highly debatable claim first of all, and secondly it has little to do with the mythological influences on Narnia or Lewis' writings at all.

Wikipedia rules --Gaiusknight 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty reasonable claim, actually, as many elements of the NT have clear correspondences with earlier pagan sources. However, you're absolutely right that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand; I'd probably have yanked it myself if this wasn't my first visit to this page.

Septegram 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Music

I propose expanding the music section of the article. Not everybody will know this, but there was another CD done for the Narnia movie besides the score. It is called Music Inspired by the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It features artists like Steven Curtis Chapman, Jars of Clay, and tobyMac. All of the songs have to do with Narnia, specifically about the movie. I would like to add something about this CD, since it is relevant to the article.--Chili14 (Talk) 01:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Publication dates

What are the correct publication dates for the books. Some of the articles about the individual books have dates which don't match those given here, maybe someone should correct them.

--NeilEvans 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The publication dates given here match the copyright dates from the books I have here. LloydSommerer 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't match those given in the individual articles.--NeilEvans 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed them, but the opening paragraphs of the book articles aren't consistant. Maybe someone could write them well (or write one of them well and someone could replicate them). LloydSommerer 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Example Character Article

I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia/Character article example as a starting point for discussion of what the articles for major characters should look like. In my opinion the Peter Pevensie article was in the best shape, so I used it as a starting point. My purpose was not specifically to improve that article, but to have a spot to talk about, in general, how we want to format articles on Narnia characters. It can also be used as a "template" for other characters by cutting and pasting information. The text in the example in italics are suggestions for using the example as a template.

Make any changes you like to the example; perhaps discussing major changes on the talk page first. LloydSommerer 16:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Should we approach this the same way The Lord of the Rings does by sending all non-book adaptations to a single page? I think the top of the article looks messy now, and there are adaptations that we haven't linked to yet. LloydSommerer 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Critism (J.K. Rowling)

I'm wondering if it should be mentioned that inaddition to the comment allready in the article, J.K. Rowling also said something about allways having to pick up a Narnia book and read if it's in the same room. It might be a good example of being both critical and enjoying the Narnia series or maybe it would just take up too much space; hence the reason I'm asking. --Romulus 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We've had a little blurb about Rowling linking the books in before, but no one can seem to find a citation for the quote. LloydSommerer 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

recent changes to criticism section

I recently restored two items to the criticism section and thought I should explain why here

1. The O'Conner quote was removed because "according to the note to editors: 'defences should be short summaries rather than quotes'". This does not necessarily mean that there should be no quotes in the defences, and it happens that the quote is as useful as a summary of the quote would be (and probably shorter).
2. The last paragraph of the section was recently changed with the note: "(What is needed here is a source using H&P's atheism as an argument against their criticism , not ones merely verifying that they are atheists.)" The quote from Jacobs (which is sourced in the preceding paragraph) is where he discussed H&P's criticism in realationship to their atheism. The external links to cite H&P's atheism should probably be references instead (or maybe don't need to be cited?). LloydSommerer 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Lately the lead has been shrinking by a sentence here and a sentence there and if this keeps on I can see us going back to a three sentence lead. Since a reasonably sized lead is considered a Good Thing, this doesn't seem like a trend that should be encouraged. I originally expanded the lead, and I harbor no notion that it is either well written or comprehensive, but it does (or rather did) at least touch on all of the main sections of the article. If you are inclined to simply remove something from the lead it might be better to rewrite it so as to maintain that aspect of the article in a better form LloydSommerer 02:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're well short of having anything to worry about yet; it's still a sizeable lead. (As one of the deleters of lead content, I think I was well justified; I don't believe it's essential to have every section of the article touched on, especially since sections can change over time, or be promoted or demoted; the reading order specifically is one section that I don't find it essential to mention in the introduction; and I found its implied link to recent critical responses odd, to say the least.) -- Perey 14:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it...

Everytime I add a footnote saying "'The Horse and his boy' was writren before 'The Sliver Chair'" it gets removed? Its a fact. His stepson said it when he was hosting FoF radio serries of the books. (1st disc of the Horse and his boy)

Probably because (a) you don't give a clear enough reference and (b) the dates of writing and publication of each book are given explicitly anyway. Myopic Bookworm 13:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the person who removed it, and it was simply because the information was already present in the section that covers the books. But, the information is only present in that other section because you added it previously. The only "nice" ways I could see of including that information (the footnote just didn't format well) was to add a new collumn to the table or include the information elsewhere. My thought was that it worked in nicely with the "The Books" section, and would have made the table too wide on some monitors. LloydSommerer 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Any other known novels set in the Narnia universe?

I once came across a pick-your-path-adventure type of book set in the Narnia universe and using some of the Narnian characters in it. IIRC, it said on it, probably on the back cover or such, that it had been authorized by the C. S. Lewis estate at the time. It was probably some time in the 1980s that I had this book. I can find no reference to it at Amazon.com, though, so evidently it is long out of print. I haven't laid eyes on this book in years, and would have to turn my house upside down to find it again before I could tell you the title... so I can't help you there right now.  :-D Were there ever any other books, written by different authors than Lewis, that were set in the Narnia universe? -- Nomad Of Norad 00:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nomad, see Home of the Underdogs for more information on the series of four books you're referring to. They were published by Iron Crown Enterprises and are titled Return to Deathwater, The Sorceress and the Book of Spells, Leap of the Lion, and The Lost Crowns of Cair Paravel. Also see The Giant Surprise, a licensed storybook (apparently not a very good one, from the customer reviews).

Prince Caspian title

Is "return to narnia" really part of the official title? I've never seen this before... Tomandlu 13:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was the original title, when it was released. However, it's most commonly known as Prince Caspian. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

hi

hi i am doing mi omwork and i wanted to ask c.s lewis where he got his idea of the lion the wicth and the wardrobe from so plz can u tell me plz!!Italic text--82.15.239.196 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)'Bold text

C. S. Lewis has been dead over forty years. However, if you read the Wikipedia article on The Chronicles you'll see there's a section called Influences on Narnia – look for some info there. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a buffin?

O.K. this is way out. I was doing a new recipe from a muffin cookbook, and there is a section on buffins. So, what are they? A Google gave the link that I have just added to the end of the 'references' section, in which a buffin is identified as a giant, in 'Lion, Witch ...'. But nothing in the article, or in the other two refereance, or the links for 'characters' and so on, mentions buffin. Is that ID real, or not??? --Dumarest 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a giant called Rumblebuffin; maybe the Buffins were his family.

Reordering sections

I'd like to hear what people think about reordering the sections of the article. The current ordering just sort of happened over time, and maybe isn't the best way to present the material. I'd like to propose the following order for sections:

1. The books
2. Influences on Narnia
3. Narnia's influence on others
4. Christian parallels
5. Criticism
6. Narnia in other media
7. Reading order
8. The Narnian universe

The main change is moving reading order nearly to the bottom and moving other media up a notch. I think nearly everything here is more important than reading order (though it is a topic I'm personaly rather rabid about) and I believe we're being more professional if the Narnian universe section is the last item covered. It was originally included as a way to point readers toward the wealth of other Narnia related articles that exist, and I think that's still a valid reason to include it, but I think other media should come first in an article about the series of books. (I don't feel very strongly about this second bit).

Just for reference, the current order is:

1. The books
2. Reading order
3. Christian parallels
4. Influences on Narnia
5. Narnia's influence on others
6. Criticism
7. The Narnian universe
8. Narnia in other media

What do you think? LloydSommerer 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the books and reading order come first as it's the story, before going to the influences, parallels and critisism as it details the literary aspect. Universe and other media are more "related" to the actual subject so they should go last. Wiki-newbie 19:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With regards the "Further Reading > On the Philip Pullman versus Narnia controversy" section

This section certainly doesn't give an NPOV to a reader since both articles are from the same writer, who holds a very definite POV against Pullman and for Lewis. It is important to reflect both sides of a debate on Wikipedia, so if anyone knows of any relevant articles that take an opposing view, they ought, I feel, to be added to this section.

• Personally, I don't see the point in having articles worried about Philip Pullman in its own section of the Narnia page. Does anybody else think it's ok to remove it? Murderbike 21:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. After reading some of the articles, I can't see the point of including a section solely consisting of external links to articles attacking Philip Pullman. Murderbike 22:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam

The article says that Calormen (or elements of its culture) is an "allegorical comparison to" and "highly symbolic of Islam". . .

This interpretation is indefensible. The Horse and his Boy is clearly a retelling of the Exodus story. Shasta is guided down the river in a basket as a child, just like Moses. He escapes across the desert (a stand in for the Sinai desert), past the tombs of the kings (a stand in for the pyramids), meets Aslan on the top of a mountain (just as Moses met with God) and escapes first to Archenland (a stand in for Midian) and then to Narnia (a stand in for the Promised Land). . .

While the imagery for the Calormenes is drawn from the Arab world, Persia, and India, allegorically/symbolically the Calormene Empire is ancient Egypt and more broadly polytheism/paganism. After all, Islam (and Sikhism) is monotheistic and worships the same God as Christianity, as Lewis certainly knew, while the Calormenes are polytheistic. (Actually, since the Midianites are related to the Arabs and were monotheists like the Hebrews - as Lewis certainly knew - Archenland would logically be the symbol for Islam, not Calormen.) Joey1898 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on some points you made. But I agree that Lewis probably had a positive view of Islam. According to this course I listened, he considered it one of the most "advanced" religions. --Leinad-Z 02:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joey, except in one minor respect. Tash is not depicted as a "false god" like the article currently claims, but a straight-forward devil, so the Calormenes' religion represents something similar to Satanism or Lucifarianism (I forget which is the real one), not Islam and Sikhism, or, like Joey claims, general polytheism and paganism (though it is polytheistic). The Calormenes' paralles with Muslim societies are superficial and insignificant when the differences between the Calormenes' religion and Islam are considered. Lewis knew the difference between Islam and Satanism, and he would not equate them. The Calormenes' worship of Tash is a shot at Satanism, not Islam. Lewis had a positive view of Islam (I remember he praises it in Mere Christianity for its emphasis on submission to God). Lewis' views of Islam should be made clear in the article, in order to give this criticism context. Ecto 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Calormen might well be inspired by Carthage as depicted in Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man": a combination of hard mercantile bargaining, mean unimaginativeness and human sacrifice.

As far as Islam is concerned, it may be intended to suggest, not the real Islam, but Islam as imagined in the Middle Ages. This was curiously bifurcated. On the one hand, scholars such as the Victorine monks and Thomas Aquinas knew pretty well what the real doctrines of Islam were, and it is depicted positively in the travels of Sir John Mandeville. On the other, there was a huge underground mythology about it as an evil idolatrous religion worshipping Apollo, Termagant and Mahound, and this occurs as late as Ariosto. So Lewis, as a professor of medieval and Renaissance literature, may have been reproducing the "bogey" image of Islam as a literary trope, without in the least suggesting that the real Islam is like that. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Lewis's depiction of the religion of Calormen (not its culture, which is a traditional western image based on Ottoman Turkey) is influenced by the Old Testament, in which foreign religions are frequently presented (probably inaccurately) in terms of the worship of a single alternative god (Baal/Bel, Dagon, Moloch) instead of the God of Israel, and usually involving the use of idols. It is not far off the practice of Hinduism, in which most devotees worship one god, though acknowledging the existence of others. Myopic Bookworm 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. The religion of Carthage was a branch of Canaanite paganism. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da)

Narnian universe section expaned

I summarized the main sections on the Narnia article under the The Narnian universe section. They are meant to be short summaries; I tried not to duplicate the sections from the main article. If you add anything to them remember that they shouldn't really contain any spoilers. There are a few things that are not done yet:

1. A few spots need sources.
2. Lots of links could be added.

Feel free to do either of those if you'd like. LloydSommerer 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Visitors to Narnia observe that the passage of time while they are away is unpredictable. For example, if one year had passed since one left Narnia and returned, a whole century, or perhaps only a week, could have gone by in Narnia. "

Is this true? I thought that time always passes faster in Narnia than in England, although not nessesarily at a constant rate. At least I can't think of any examples of the opposite being true. Stevecudmore 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In The Last Battle, after the King has calls on the children and has been plunged into a vision where he sees them at supper, he then waits about ten minutes before Jill and Eustace appear. A week has gone by in their world, from the supper party to finding the rings, to the train crash. ElinorD (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning

In the article it states, "Pullman's series favours science and reason" implying that the Narnia books don't. I thought that C.S Lewis was famous for his reasoning skills and parts like Lucy trying to persuade the others that Narnia exists at the start of the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe are reflecting the reasoning behind Christianity. Does Philip Pullman's series favour reason more than C.S Lewis' series and if not should this sentence be rephrased?

When I read that line I thought that it was drawing distinctions between "science and reason" on one hand and "religion and faith" on the other. I realize that these are not necessarily opposites, and I haven't read the Pullman books, but that's the impression that I got. LloydSommerer 21:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Would a better way to put it be as follows: "Pullman's series favors scientific materialism"--Okieinexile 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Pullman favours scientific materialism. The world of the Dark Materials series, however, is just as full of the spiritual and the supernatural as the Narnia books, the difference being that the beliefs in question are Gnostic rather than Christian. (He even cites St Paul on the constitution of the human mind/body/spirit.) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pagan influences

I removed these two paragraphs from the "pagan" section of "Influences" sub heading, stating that they were irrelevent in context. My changes were reverted on the basis of Lewis "defending himself himself".

First of all, I assume when we're talking about "pagan" influences we're talking about the influence of mythology as literature on Lewis' writing, not paganism as a theology, whether Lewis was a pagan, or if the books "promote" paganism. The section should probably be retitled "Ancient Mythology" if that is the case.

• A: CS Lewis himself stated in an essay called Is Theism Important?:

“When grave persons express their fear that England is relapsing into Paganism, I am tempted to reply, ‘Would that she were.’ For I do not think it at all likely that we shall ever see Parliament opened by the slaughtering of a garlanded white bull in the House of Lords or Cabinet Ministers leaving sandwiches in Hyde Park as an offering for the Dryads. If such a state of affairs came about, then the Christian apologist would have something to work on. For a Pagan, as history shows, is a man eminently convertible to Christianity. He is essentially the pre-Christian, or sub-Christian, religious man. The post-Christian man of our day differs from him as much as a divorcee differs from a virgin.” (Lewis 1994)

This is irrelevent to this section. We're dealing with facts. There is an influence from mythology on these books, there is no reason for a defense. The section does not discuss whether or not mythology promotes paganism, or if that was Lewis' intent. It's more appropriate in the criticisms section, if it's appropriate on this page at all.

• B: In Lewis’ Space Trilogy the Christian God and Satan appear and take a large part in the plot (especially in Perelandra) but so do the Roman gods Mars and Venus. Lewis solves this apparent contradiction by making clear that these are not really gods but angels who have always been loyal servants of the real God, and it was only ignorant humans who mistook them for gods. As stated in his non-fiction book The Discarded Image, an Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (1964), this was not Lewis' invention but was derived from late medieval philosophers.

While this reinforces the influences of Roman mythology on his work as a whole, it doesn't state he intended any of the mythological creatures in the Narnia series to be angels. What's the point? maxcap 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Historically, this was a few lines in the critisism section. Later it was greatly expanded and moved to its own section. After that it was paired down a bit and moved to a newly created Influences section (by me). But I have never thought that it belonged in this article. It seems out of context here, and should, in my opinion by removed. LloydSommerer 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article has almost no inlines, which would really help. Otherwise, view these suggestions:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 08171dg, use 08171 dg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 08171 dg.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it is claimed
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't, didn't, didn't, Don't, isn't.
• You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Go through these and clean it up, then renominate. DoomsDay349 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Lost Book

Your articale is well written but,you forgot to add the Magician's Nephew. Please add this. Thanks,Angel

??

What era or... year do these books take place? Whats a question? 02:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the four Pevensie children are evacuated to the Profs house, so that places the majority of the books around the 1940's. But the the Magicians Nephew will have taken place during the late 1800's since that is when the Prof would have been a boy. Wild ste 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading Order

What happened to the Reading Order section? It seems someone recently deleted it without any explanation. I would prefer it back unless there's a good reason otherwise. 76.8.200.101 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone did some valdalism and removed 3 sections, one at a time. The person who corrected the vandalism didn't notice and only reverted the last edit. It's back now. LloydSommerer 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The reading order section cites that the books were only first published with reading order numbers on in 1994. This is not true. I have a set published by Fontana Lions (William Collins Sons & Co) in 1980 that features the reading order numbers rather than by date of first publication. 81.140.37.119 (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Anna Jenkins. 19.03, 26 December 2010