Talk:The Magician's Nephew

Aslan, the Creator-Christ

From the article, as it stands GOD IS A AWESOME GOD.....

Aslan acts in the role of the Creator. There is no reference to the distant "Emperor over Sea" who had been paralleled with God previously in the series. Presumably this was a deliberate simplification by Lewis to keep the complexity at an appropriate level.

Or possibly Lewis was being thoroughly orthodox about all this?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:1-3

[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Col. 1:15-16

What I mean to say is Aslan acts in the role of Creator because orthodox Christians believe that God the Father created the universe by his Son. The "Emperor over the Sea" may well be parallelled with God the Father; but Aslan, parallelled with God the Son ought (by virtue of the analogy with Christian theology) to be the one by whom Narnia is created. Lewis did it because it's good theology, not because it's simpler this way.

Of course, all this is too abstruse for me to be able to work into a WikiArticle, but if someone else reads this and is able to, please have a crack. The worst that can happen is I come back and completely re-write it.  : D Wooster 20:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I do agree. If I find a way to restate it right off, I'll try to write this into it. If not, then, I'll leave it for someone else to do. -- D. F. Schmidt (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

My thanks to the IP-addressed editor who worked this into the article. I beefed up the Trinitarian aspects of the edit slightly (it never hurts) just to make it quite clear what Lewis up to. I also moved an ambiguous bracket to the correct position and removed the claim that Narnia was under British rule. I half-understand the motivation for that claim, but even in the books, the Crown doesn't recognise Narnia as one of its dominions. Rule by Brits is not the same as British rule. What else? Oh yeah, is it encyclopaedic to observe that similarities with Tolkien's creation myth will be because they both used the same source material for ideas? I'll bung it in; please remove if you think it's inappropriate. Wooster 16:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Aslan the Funny

I added a comment on "The First Joke," saying that it shows Christ's sense of humor. If someone minds, they can restate it, but it is important to me that it should at least be there in some form. As well, I don't have the book before me, so if I've misquoted, please correct me. -- D. F. Schmidt (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I love this bit. Yes, God has a sense of humor, and I know it from personal experience and the experience of others! :) I've adjusted the wording slightly to make it more accurate to the original; it's abbreviated (and should stay that way imo - it's not sufficiently vital to the section to justify verbose quoting) but accurate. Rosuav (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Social class

The present article states: "The reader is also left in no doubt about the precise social class of each of the English characters, with the implication that this matters to God; the cabby is of common origin and his wife is a washerwoman." This seems a decidedly eccentric reading. Social class was a hugely important reality of the era the story is set in, and was a pretty big fact of life in 1950s England when the book was published. But surely the calling of Frank the cabby to be king would indicate that it doesn't matter to God. Also, inheriting wealth as a form of happy ending was hardly invented by Lewis. Compare E. Nesbit, who was an influence on him. She used this sort of thing in her children's books despite the fact that she was a socialist!

A point that touches on class is that Lewis clearly favours the country over the town. You could make a case that the fact that Frank is really a countryman (and reverts to his real, good, country roots, leaving behind his nasty city coating) is something to do with class attitudes to the urban working class. Actually though I think it is probably mainly just Lewis's own prejudice about the country - in his writing the country is usually good and city bad. (His heaven is mountainous rather than a City.)

Suggestions?

I agree with you whole-heartedly; the article clearly needs to be changed a bit. Also, this section implies that Lewis was guilty of a certain Anglocentrism, which I highly doubt. He was actually Irish and said some fairly chauvinistic things about the English. Joey1898 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Commentary

I restored the "Commentary" section as it needs to be reworked to an NPOV rather than just excised in toto. There is some useful material in there. Ellsworth 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Rings

This is very poor quality. I would edit it myself, but I haven't read the book in years, so I think someone more qualified should handle it.

I've fixed the factual part of it. The book ought to have pride of place on my shelf, along with the rest of the series, but someone's gone and shifted it :( All the others are there, but not The Magician's Nephew. However, I know the rings are this way around (remember the mnemonic for the "homeward" (really "outward") rings - G for Green and R for Right, which are the first two letters of GReen). Rosuav (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Time setting

"The story begins in 1900 ..."; I've seen that date elswhere, but is there any text-evidence? This seems awfully late, since by Lion (1940?) Digory Kirke is a "very old man" (or seems so to the four children). All I can find to date the story is that "this happened when your grandfather was a child" and the reference to Sherlock Holmes and E. Nesbit's Bastable children, which I guess puts it in the 1880s or '90s. —wwoods 07:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also seen this repeated, but no sources. The Bastable reference would place it exactly in 1899 (The Story of the Treasure Seekers is set the year before The Wouldbegoods in 1900; ch. 10) and this tallies with Holmes in Baker Street, so if there are no sources forthcoming for 1900 or objections I'll change to 1899 and add a footnote explaining this as the source.

--xensyria^T 09:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The date 1900 comes from Lewis's Narnian timeline, published by Walter Hooper. -- Elphion (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting: thanks for the reference! After a little searching around, I've noticed a few other differences between the books and this timeline which I've edited into a more comprehensive Controversy section on Wikia's Narnia Wiki. Now, I know that at the moment, the scholarly consensus is that the book's set in 1900 as per the timeline, so I won't try to change the article, but it seems to me that the book's internal reference places it in 1899... which makes the timeline wrong! Hopefully this minor change will one day be reflected in a new generation of "Lewis scholarship"! --xensyria^T 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

The trivia section says:

• Of the seven Narnia books, The Magician's Nephew is one of the only two that does not feature the Pevensie children (the other is The Silver Chair). The Silver Chair however does mention them.

• The Magician's Nephew is arguably the only book that spends a significant amount of time in our world.

• Only during The Magician's Nephew do adults travel between worlds.

Some thoughts:

• Nephew mentions Lucy, although not by name.
• "Arguably"? Well, I guess so—Lion also spends (an unclear amount of) time in our world.
• At the end of Caspian, a whole lot of adults travel between worlds.

Is any of this worth keeping? —wwoods 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, I couldn't figure a way to get it in the article body so I left it in. And you're right - Eustace does briefly mention his cousins = "the two Pevensie kids" to Jill at the beginning of the Silver Chair, so I deleted that bit. Ellsworth 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In defence of the original points:

• The Magician's Nephew and The Silver Chair may mention, but don't really feature the Pevensies.
• By "a significant amount of time" I assume it means narrative time, that is, how long the book spends describing events in our world not how long they are supposed to have spent in it during the events described (and it says how long "the book spends" not how long the characters do).
• "Only during The Magician's Nephew do adults travel between worlds" is just wrong as you point out.

--xensyria^T 16:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Jadis

The article says that she changes colour and shape. She undergoes a colour-change but se doesn't change shape. It also says that she becomes less beautiful. It never says that. Just because your skin turns white doesn't make you any less beautiful. Some people might say it makes you more beautiful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.82 (talk • contribs) on December 10, 2006 at 10:18 (UTC)

Diggory's ill mother

I think mention should be made of the fact that Lewis lost his own mother to disease at the same age as Diggory; thus the scene in which Diggory is tempted to steal the apple to save his mother's life had tremendous resonance for Lewis; and is not just an additional episode in a story.

The idea that Jadis' life will be immortal but miserable because she stole the spell is repeated by J.K. Rowling in HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE, concerning Voldamort and unicorn blood. CharlesTheBold 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC) CharlesTheBold

esto apesta q

Citations needed

Much of the article, even the untagged portions, seem to contain a lot of original research. Accurate to be sure, but it'd be nice if someone familiar with the commentaries on Lewis' fiction could supply a few sources. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 01:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary Length

There have been some back and forth edits edits pertaining to the length of the plot summary for the last few days, and as I'm about to revert to the shorter version, I wanted to explain why. Plot summaries are meant to summarize the plot. This is different from summarizing the book itself. Here's the relevent section from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines

Plot summaries should be short and an integral part of the article. According to WP:NOT#INFO, "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

A plot summary should be no more than three or four paragraphs (for example, four paragraphs for a complex plot such as that found in Charles Dickens' Bleak House). Shorter novels and short stories should have shorter summaries. Plot summaries should not contain an explication of every subplot in the novel nor need they be told in the same order as the novel itself. Well-written plot summaries are extremely difficult to achieve and one of the ways to make your article look like Sparknotes rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry is to detail the plot of every chapter rather than to attempt to truly summarize the novel. A summary details the most important events and character relationships in the novel.

But maybe I'm missing something here; if you have a good reason why the plot summary should be 20 paragraphs instead of 6, let me know. LloydSommerer 12:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism in plot summary

The last section of the plot summary appears to have been copied from the end of the book. Especially noticeable in these sentences: "The lamppost which the witch had accidentally planted burned brightly through the generations until it was happened upon years later by a young girl in another story."

" Though he never discovered the magical properties of that wardrobe, someone else did and thus began the travels between Narnia and our world."

Why can't we just mention that that the young girl was Lucy? The fact that the last section appears to have been copied verbatim is one reason why the plot summary is too long. I don't think the fact that Uncle Andrew later boasted of what happened should even be noted. Cerberusc (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've redone the plot summary somewhat. How's that look? Rosuav (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Work on Article

I am planning to do some work on this article in the next few weeks.

As a reference to the kind of work I am considering (assuming the references I am sourcing at the moment allow me, it might all fizzle and pop if they don't), this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_War_of_the_Worlds&oldid=269890270 Ended up (together with useful contributions of other editors) as this unfinished, not entirely satisfactory, but certainly majorly revised and perhaps more comprehensive version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_War_of_the_Worlds&oldid=272947185

If anyone else is planning to do some work also, perhaps some discussion prior to major revisions might be useful. I just jumped in with The War of the Worlds, but I thought I might try a different tack this time as I felt like a bit of a new kid on the block bully steaming on in without discussing my intentions first in that case.

I am toying with the idea of providing some background to Lewis writing the novel, any publication information I can find, some context of the historical period in which the novel was published, some short analysis of childrens' literature prior and post (also with reference to previous Narnia novels), anything I can find that might allow some examination of the imagery in the novel which in my view is inventive and superb, some interpretations might be included if the sources provide solid grounding for it, materialist, Christian or otherwise. I do not intend to include anything that does not have a paper published secondary source behind it, excepting perhaps influences, which might be hard to find otherwise. I have no particular inclination as to what the novel means or does not mean I am just considering doing the work because I like the book best out of the series, and it was the first book read to me as a child. Mesmacat (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally happy with all of that. Only the "short analysis of children's literature prior and post" bit seems likely to more appropriate to the series article as a whole. However if there is anything particular to this "individual" novel then do include it. I would have thought however it is more likely series wide. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading order

I have added a reading order section to the article as part of a general expansion of the article, which I expect to continue for some time. This issue does appear in the general article on the chronicles. However. I think it is worth having this section in this article in reasonable detail, because this issue is very specific and relevant to this novel, was perhaps first raised as a result of the publication of this novel and is highly pertinent given it was commenced as a writing project immediately after The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe and as a result of issues and questions raised about the origins of Narnia by that novel. Of course other views are welcome, and I will respect consensus if it leans away from my approach. Mesmacat (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot summmary (again)

I am considering cutting this down by about half. More detail could be gleaned from the character summaries, which seem to work well in some articles if they give a bit of a sense of what the characters do in the novel and their significance rather than go into great details about the character, which can be picked up from the main articles. Perhaps a section of locations for Charn, Wood Betweeen the Worlds and Narnia would also help here and allow readers to gather information in digestable focused sections rather than piecing it together from the long summary section. I see however that this article has been down this road before with a expanding and contracting summary, hence my putting this suggestion to forum before acting on it. Mesmacat (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The current summary (May 2010) is almost an order of magnitude too long. The addition of 12 May 2010 more than doubled the size of the article. -- Elphion (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've restored the earlier, much more concise summary in keeping with guidelines. Doniago (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Adaptions

There is a play of this novel by Aurand Harris, which appears to have been performed quite a lot by smaller theatre companys, schools, etc, but I have not been able to find any references for it other than mentions of it being performed, does anyone know anywhere it has been written about? Mesmacat (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Asllan or Asland?

Ive heard it pronounced Asland, but seen it spelled Aslan. Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobgreen35 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Themes and Interpretations Section

The following two paragraphs have been in this article for a while and in my personal view are holding the article back in terms of meeting the expected criteria for decent quality articles in this medium. I left them in when I did a substantial rework on this article last year because I thought someone might be able to source them, but that hasn't happened in a year or so.

I couldn't find a source for this stuff, despite having nearly 10 books on CS Lewis and his work sitting beside me ranging from hardcore academic to Christian literary appreciation, while I worked, and having many more texts on Google books that had a decent partial view.

It seems about time for them to go, if they cannot be anchored in some kind of published commentary. Having said that, I know there are some folks who might be attached or feel considerable meaning is invoked in this kind of commentary on the piece and the fact no one has deleted them strikes me as odd, given they are pretty speculative in overall tone, even if one or two aspects, like the first sentence in the first paragraph and the last in the second, seem intuitively reasonable to me.

For unsourced Wiki statements these are persistant survivors and there may be a reason for that, so I am putting it to consensus before doing the deed.

"Apple of Life. Queen Jadis resembles the Biblical Satan, as Aslan describes her as the first evil brought into the Narnia and Jadis later tempts Digory to eat one of the forbidden apples in the garden, as does Satan, disguised as a serpent, tempt Adam and Eve into eating a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Unlike Adam and Eve however, Digory rejects Jadis's offer. Jadis's satanic elements are perhaps evocative of Satan in Islam, where Satan is called Iblis and is portrayed as one of the race of the Djinn, the same race as Jadis."

"Aslan acts in the role of the Creator. There is no reference to the distant "Emperor-Over-the-Sea" echoing God the Father previously in the series. This corresponds with the New Testament concept of Jesus (God the Son) being the agent of Creation; e.g. "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made," (Gospel of John 1:3 NIV, see also Epistle to the Hebrews 1:10 and Colossians 1:15–16). Aslan's personal selection of some Narnian beasts to become talking animals is also reminiscent of the Book of Genesis, where Noah chooses two of certain creatures to survive the flood."

So,what's the feeling folks? Mesmacat (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The second passage has little worth saving. Without some indication that Lewis was thinking about Aslan as God the Father in a sense different from the earlier books, it has no value (except possibly the observation that the Emperor is not mentioned in this book). The selection of talking beasts is not "reminiscent" of the story of the Flood -- the whole point of the selection is entirely different.

The first passage has some valid points: the reference (not resemblance) to Satan and Genesis is unmistakable, though the parallel is not very precise. (Satan, for example, is not after the apples for himself; and Digory's descendants do not populate Narnia, with or without Original Sin.) The episode refers to Genesis, but does not follow it -- indeed imagines how it might have played out differently. The references to Eblis (Iblis) and the Djinn are out of place without a reference showing that Lewis had that in mind. (This book, after all, makes clear that Jadis comes a long line of rulers from Charn, and is not a Djinn, as the rumor of LWW has it.)

-- Elphion (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Have taken out the second passage and removed the Jadis/Djinn sentence. Don't have time at the moment to do further work on this, but there is some commentary around pages 32-34 at http://books.google.com.au/books?id=4T7u3Lvh9CwC&pg=PA34&dq=jadis+satan&hl=en&ei=0mAdTNqtMMiwce-EwOgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jadis%20satan&f=false that could be used to source and elucidate paragraph on jadis and the forbidden fruit if anyone else wished to do so. Mesmacat (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would change your resemblance of Jadis as a comparison to Satan; certainly she resembles the serpent, certainly, but there is no reference to the serpent as Satan within the book of Genesis in the Bible in the strictest sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.11.114 (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed the reference to The Garden of the Hesperides as "a recurring image" in Lewis' work, since no evidence is given. Also, removed the claim that the Hesperides is associated with Aphrodite, which is incorrect. Cleeder (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This book is dedicated to "the Kilmer family".

Somebody, please place this sentence in it's right place. I'm trying to find my copy and see if there really is a dedication. Right now the sentence is squating at the end of the second or third par..--Jondel (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved it out of the introduction and into a spot I thought was right.CapBasics359 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Publisher and illustrator (dis)continuity

(cross-posted with appropriate changes at Talk: The Chronicles of Narnia)

This article should name the publisher and illustrator, perhaps in the lead paragraph, not only in {{infobox book}}.

Somewhere, not in the lead paragraph if a substantial explanation is possible, it should state that Bodley Head was a new publisher (and Pauline Baynes a continuing illustrator). Please explain if possible. Most important, did Lewis (or Lewis & Baynes, or Baynes) depart Geoffrey Bles for Bodley Head? Or did Bles go out of business? Or Bles join Bodley?

Finally, was there any physical change in the series at this point, such as quality of paper, font, etc?

The basic fact and the explanation, if any, should also be covered at The Chronicles of Narnia. Perhaps the explanation should be primarily in that article --something I can't judge; maybe no one can judge until the explanation is researched and written.

--P64 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Today I have cast the References in two columns (width 30em) and revised dozens of them.

For works referenced more than once I have introduced short references with supposedly full Citations below. --manually rather than by introducing new templates such as {{sfn}}.

I have completed needy references, primarily #34 to #39 which were bare URLs and bare webpagenames. Those six concern the adaptations; two are dead. It may be possible to replace some by more recent sources that provide update --at least re prospective Narnia feature films.
--at a glance I see that The Chronicles of Narnia (film series) cites two 2012 sources.

--P64 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces

  is an HTML entity which creates a non-breaking space. This is useful for such constructs as "Mrs Kirke" as it forces both words to be on the same line. It is a common typesetting feature, and encouraged on Wikipedia by MOS:NBSP. Elizium23 (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Magician's Nephew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131202222228/http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/30308-the-voyage-of-the-dawn-treader-most-inspiring-faith-family-and-values-movie-of-2011 to http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/30308-the-voyage-of-the-dawn-treader-most-inspiring-faith-family-and-values-movie-of-2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140501080821/http://www.aslanscountry.com/2011/10/gresham-confirms-waldens-contract-expired/ to http://www.aslanscountry.com/2011/10/gresham-confirms-waldens-contract-expired/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception

The final section contains links to two fuddy-duddies who didn't care for the book. Surely there have been some authoritative reviews of the book which give it the praise I, for one, think it deserves. Yes, I am biased. I could write a new review myself about how the book reverberates with the issues of today, as perhaps never before. Usually, a section "critical reception" contains links to a full spectrum of reviews. Richard Gill (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Charn and the Wood between the Worlds.

(moved here from my talk page) -- Elphion (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually should belong on the talk page for White Witch since that was where the edit was made.Romomusicfan (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Up until The Magician's Nephew (in writing order) the world that contained Narnia/Archenland/the Calormene Empire and Our World/England/Earth/(whatever term Lewis chose to use on any given day's writing) were presented as dichotomatic - one was either "here" in the real world or "there" in Narnia's world. The depiction of Charn and the Wood between the worlds breaks this pattern and shows us a third world unrelated to England or Narnia, an infinity of worlds of which "Our world", Narnia's World and Charn are but three of many, and an interconnecting dimension (the wood). Therefore it is worth emphasising that Charn is as separate from both Earth and Narnia's world as they are from each other.Romomusicfan (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and I don't object to adding that in. But equally, the fact that MN opens new horizons in the series for the first time by introducing new worlds beyond Earth and the Narnian world is an important narrative feature that should be underlined. The phrasing of your earlier edit drew attention away from that. -- Elphion (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll agree to differ. I felt my way made it clearer that Charn is as much different from either Our World or The World Of Narnia as they are different from each other. Romomusicfan (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

TMN as post-apocalyptic fiction

I was just reading the article on apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction and realized that, in a small way, this book fits, specifically in the section about Charn. In this case, the use of the Deplorable Word is the apocalypse event and everyone except Jadis is dead. Maybe a mention of this in the article? -- Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You'd need a source that talks about this book as an example of that genre. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. And since it's a rather small part of the book, it seems unlikely I'll find a source that says that. Still interesting to think of this book that way, I think. -- Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)