Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

Main Characters

The section on main characters is missing a few. By any criteria Aravis is a main character of The Horse and His Boy, and I would argue Bree and Hwin are as well. I'd also argue for Trumpkin in Prince Caspian, Puddleglum in The Silver Chair, and Tirian in The Last Battle -- Tirian is indeed a viewpoint character for several chapters of that book. Jadis is included as a major villain, so what about Shift the Ape? Reepicheep may not get much of the action in Prince Caspian but he surely does in The Voyage of the "Dawn Treader". 139.80.123.40 (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

First order of business: defining what "main character" means. If it's simply a major character or a character that gets a lot of ink (analogous to screen time in a film), then you may be right. If it's a character whose thoughts or actions are central to a large portion of a book, then we probably should be more discriminating. Aravis meets my second definition because she's the protagonist of a significant, lengthy story framed within the larger novel. Bree is debatable; he's there with Shasta, the protagonist, for nearly the whole book, and we are privy to some of his thoughts, but his role is still somewhat subordinate to that of Shasta's. Hwin? Not so much so. I'd have to think about the rest, but I really don't think Reepicheep qualifies, despite the several lengthy passages in which he plays an important role. Curious to know what others think. Rivertorch (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible criteria for main characters might include the following:

Is one of the book's protagonists (child protagonists, in Narnia). Aravis qualifies in HHB.

Present during much of the book's action. Reepicheep and Drinian would qualify in VDT; Puddleglum in SC; Aravis, Bree and Hwin in HHB; Uncle Andrew in MN; Tirian, Jewel, and Puzzle in LB. Apart from LWW, Aslan would not.

A viewpoint character. This category would include Aravis (HHB), Uncle Andrew (MN, briefly and intermittently), Shift and Tirian (LB). Aravis and Tirian remain if we specify "a viewpoint character for at least a whole chapter". If we limit it to those who are viewpoint characters for the great majority of their respective books, then there aren't many main characters at all -- only Jill in SC would be undisputable.

Acts centrally, such that without her/his contributions the main meat of the story would have been entirely different. Let's exclude characters who merely support, guide, or mentor others.

LWW: Lucy, Edmund, Jadis, Aslan -- Lucy's and Edmund's main contribution is over by the time the Pevensies enter Narnia together. From then on their role is entirely passive. They exist to fill thrones, and in Edmund's case to be redeemed by Aslan.

PC: Miraz, Caspian, Peter, Aslan, arguably Bacchus, though also arguably not because he acts as Aslan's agent. Lucy's defiance of the others in obedience to Aslan takes up a lot of pages, but the point at issue (their choice of route) does not feel like something that couldn't have gone otherwise.

VDT: what is the main meat of this very episodic story, anyway? Pug and Caspian in the Lone Islands. Eustace at his endragoning, Aslan at his undragoning. Lucy and the Chief Dufflepud on the Island of the Dufflepuds. Aslan on the Dark Island. If accounting for the lost lords is the "main meat", then Reepicheep, because he volunteers to travel to the Utter East, thus breaking the curse on the last three.

SC: Aslan, because he gives Jill the mission; Jill-and-Eustace-and-Puddleglum, but they never act separately; the Green Witch.

HHB: Shasta/Cor, Bree, Susan, Tumnus (because he devises the escape plan), Rabadash, Aravis. Aslan intervenes but never centrally.

MN: Uncle Andrew, Polly (taking the ring), Digory (striking the bell and fetching the apple), Jadis, Aslan.

LB: Shift, Tirian, Rishda Tarkaan, Aslan.

Appears in more than one book, not counting the final section of LB when everyone turns up anyway. All the child protagonists except those of HHB, plus Tumnus, Jadis, Caspian, Trumpkin, Reepicheep, and obviously Aslan. Drinian, if you count Rilian's backstory in SC as an "appearance".

Memorable or "iconic" characters. Will vary for each reader, and also be biased in favour of LWW since it's the best known. Aslan, obviously, and Jadis; after that, for me, Reepicheep, Puddleglum, Tumnus, and Aravis.

139.80.123.42 (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know whether any reliable sources have seen fit to enumerate the major characters; if so, that should form the basis of what happens. If not, then it's down to consensus to make the call. You've certainly given this some careful thought. I'll drop any objection to your proposed additions, although I wish others would offer their opinions as well. Rivertorch (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Are those referenced? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ford in his Companion to Narnia (32) lists the following as major characters: Aravis, Aslan, Bree, Caspian, Digory, Edmund, Eustace, Hwin, Jill, Lucy, Peter, Polly, Puddleglum, Reepicheep, Shasta, Susan and the White Witch. LloydSommerer (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I like Ford's list very much, which biases my counsel to go with one authority rather than look further ;-)

I rearranged the navbox {Narnia characters} (current version) to display its list of links in three groups list pages in three groups informally separated by two blank lines: first, the two lists; second, Ford's 17 main characters; third, all others. Some of those others astonish me [but the films which i haven't seen may be influential on some points] and their sequence baffles me. (Literally, I moved 9 main characters up, in alphabetical order, to follow the 8 english children who were already displayed at the head of the list, and I inserted a blank line to separate those 17 from all the rest, whose sequence I did not disturb.)

--P64 (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

On the basis of Ford's list, I'm putting Reepicheep back in the text of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:C002:5700:E83D:8A32:A8FF:AA7F (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

But Aslan is the one who creates and guides Narnia. Missing him out would be like reading the hole book and then asking what is Narnia? Ari (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Reepicheep

Reepicheep doesn't currently have his own Wikipedia page -- links redirect to the list of Narnia characters. I'm drafting one if anyone here is interested in contributing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryRarelyStable (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot I'd signposted this. Reepicheep is now a Wikipedia page, in case anyone is interested in expanding it.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Of apostrophes and esses

Really, Walter Görlitz? Reverting and then making a POINTy edit over an 's'? Do I really need to explain why "books", a plural common noun, takes a different possessive form than "Lewis", a singular proper noun? In an earlier edit summary, I spoke of consistency. If you skim the article, you will see that I was referring to the name Lewis, not possessive forms in general. My edit promoted internal consistency within the article, was compliant with MOS, and followed common practice in modern written English; the same could be said for neither of your subsequent edits. Can we please not do this? Happy New Year! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I won't skim the article. I will seek consistency. Plural or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not consistency: the two cases are grammatically distinct. -- Elphion (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. When you say you won't skim the article, what I'm hearing is that you'll let the quality of the article suffer rather than exercise due diligence to determine what's what. I won't risk insulting you by quoting Emersonian adages about consistency. I will ask you this: are you truly intent on throwing both grammatical convention and logic to the wind in order to prove some sort of point? I don't get it. Did I somehow wound your dignity by reverting? It wasn't personal, you know; I'll undo anyone's edits, even Jimbo's, if I think they're detrimental to the encyclopedia. I have known you to be a highly constructive editor on this and other articles. To the best of my recollection, we have never been at odds before. I actually wondered if your account had been compromised, and then I thought to look at one of your logs...and I'm aghast. You are not behaving in a collegial manner. More worrying, you are sacrificing the quality of the article for some obscure reason that thus far you have declined to provide. Will you do so now or are you intent on ending the holiday season with pointless drama? This is unlikely to end well for you if you insist on digging your heels in. (Note: much of this is more appropriate for user talk, but after reading the advice on your talk page I have decided to post it here.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're hearing me incorrectly. What I should have made clear is that I trust that the possessive for Lewis is consistently used as "Lewis'". That they are grammatically distinct is not an issue, that they're consistent is. I'm not familiar with this supposed grammatical convention. Perhaps you can provide it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:POSS. It sets out the grammatical conventions for plurals possessives of singular and plural nouns fairly clearly. -- Elphion (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've changed the article to include the phrase "the books's perceived treatment". If you're unaware that "the books's perceived treatment" is contrary to grammatical convention, then I am at a loss. In the English language, one adds an apostrophe, not an apostrophe and an 's', to a plural noun to make the possessive form. If there is any variation to this, regional or otherwise, I cannot think of it. Are you saying there is? Or are you genuinely unaware of the convention? If so, I apologize for accusing you of being POINTy. This was a convention I learned when my age was still in the single digits, and I had assumed that any Wikipedians declaring themselves to be native speakers of English were similarly informed. So, as it stands right now, you have introduced a glaring error into the article, and when I fixed it, you reintroduced it. Do you intend to edit war to keep what is clearly a grammatical error in the article? When IPs repeatedly do that, I revert it as vandalism, warn them, and head to AIV if they persist.

I don't know what you mean when you say, "I trust that the possessive for Lewis is consistently used as "Lewis'". It's an example of unclear writing, and it really doesn't make sense. If you mean what I think you mean, then I'm thoroughly baffled. Not counting direct quotes and references, the article currently contains 24 instances of "Lewis's" and one instance of "Lewis'"; this last, the only inconsistency, was added by you. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

In short, I disagree with the use of "Lewis's", but you are correct in applying the apostrophe for "books'". I lost track of what I was arguing for. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Now about the question of "Lewis's" vs. "Lewis'". You're free to disagree with using the former, of course, and perhaps you could gain consensus to change it, although I rather doubt it. In any event, the article needs to be internally consistent, and now it isn't. Do you agree with that? If so, do you plan to correct it? If not, will you revert me if I correct it? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I recently read WP's article on the use of the apostrophe and was astounded, almost overwhelmed, by the number of rules (most of which I just take for granted in everyday writing). Over 20,000 words on a little punctuation mark! The generally accepted style rules are all in the article, including all the issues of plurals and possessives of words ending in "s" & "es", together with examples of some authors' (careful now!) non-standard usage. Great bed-time reading for philologue editors like me. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

There is a hidden note in the criticism section indicating that the section has been discussed at length on the talk page. I don't see that discussion anywhere. Has it been archived? Can anyone point me to its location? Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you check the four archives? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The criticism section is far too long. I also question the notability of the entire "Accusations of gender stereotyping" sub-section. It appears to fail WP:Fringe and WP:Undue, given that it contains extremist terminology like "gender stereotypes" to describe the ordinary behavior of adolescent girls, and it gives undue credence and weight to the fringe view that gender norms/roles are somehow bad, even though the vast majority of people in the world regard gender norms as a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chideegwen (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's one thing to disagree with a piece of feminist criticism, but the idea that the term "gender stereotypes" is "extremist terminology" reveals you don't have much contact with the world of literary criticism these days. I can assure you critiques of Lewis's ideas about gender in general are not few, and it shouldn't be surprising to find some attaching to the Chronicles. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

gender stereotypes were invented sometime in the 2000's to 2010's. before that, gender was a genetic thing. The film and books are not based on futurists. they are based on an old book. should they be whitewashed? Are you trying to change history? Autumn Wind (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There are so many confusions packed into this comment that I'm not going to bother untangling them. —VeryRarelyStable 12:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I was going to delete my stupid rant but I don't know if that would be rude/proper. Autumn Wind (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Planet Narnia

A fellow named Michael Ward believes he has uncovered a one-to-one mapping between the Narnia books and the classical/renaissance mythology of the planets (PhD thesis, published as “Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis “). Among many other persuasive ideas, this would anchor the book-order to the originally published order (beginning with The Lion, Ward’s “Jove”).

Tying Narnia to Lewis’s life-long immersion in Renaissance literature is, of course, a bonus. Jackrepenning (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There's already a Planet Narnia subsection in the article; if you think it needs to be expanded, feel most free. —VeryRarelyStable 01:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that there's essentially no evidence that Lewis employed such imagery intentionally, the section on Planet Narnia already borders on WP:UNDUE. It's a nice idea, and Lewis would have liked it, but the theory is basically built from whole cloth. (Not to mention that Lewis evidently thought about starting an 8th book.) -- Elphion (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would dispute the claim that there's "no evidence"; Planet Narnia itself marshals a considerable amount of evidence. I don't agree with everything Ward says but I am persuaded of his central thesis. I can even point to one or two things Ward himself doesn't notice but which support said thesis (such as Odinic resonances in The Horse and His Boy) – obviously I can't put such points in the article, because that would be WP:OR. If any other scholar has followed up Ward's ideas, then an expansion would be in order. If not, then I guess the existing subsection probably covers as much as there's warrant for by Wikipedia standards of notability. —VeryRarelyStable 01:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Further Up, Further In" by the Waterboys

So, every time I try to include the a reference to "Further Up, Further In" by the Waterboys, someone deletes it. Here is the most recent version that you deleted :

The song "Further Up, Further In" from the album Room to Roam by Scottish-Irish folk-rock band The Waterboys is heavily influenced by The Chronicles of Narnia, with the title coming from a passage in The Last Battle. C. S. Lewis is acknowledged in the liner notes as an influence.

The reason you gave was "Odd Linking." I don't know if you meant "discuss on Talk" here or on the page for The Chronicles of Narnia. I see now that the song "Further Up, Further In" does not have its own Wikipedia entry; I thought it did. The other links resolve so far as I can tell. I do not know how to cite the liner notes of a CD. (Actually, my earlier attempts to use the citation generation tools even for conventional books and journals have resulted in disaster.) The Wikipedia entry for Room to Roam does acknowledge C.S. Lewis as the source of the song title, and no, I did not write that entry.

I suppose it is improper to link to The Chronicles of Narnia within that article, and C.S. Lewis will have already been linked previously by this point. So, if I change the entry to the following, will you allow it to stand?

The song "Further Up, Further In" from the album Room to Roam by Scottish-Irish folk-rock band The Waterboys is heavily influenced by The Chronicles of Narnia. The title is taken from a passage in The Last Battle, and one verse of the song describes sailing to the end of the world to meet a king, similar to the ending of Voyage of the Dawn Treader. C. S. Lewis is explicitly acknowledged as an influence in the liner notes of the 1990 compact disc.

Pciszek (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My talk page says to talk on the talk page of the article in question, so I've moved this here. The linking looks good now and the copy is much more clear.

There are other works that are based on elements of the Chronicles. The Roar of Love is based on the first book, and there are other works. I'm not sure we want a WP:COATRACK of all works that are based on, quote from, or allude to one of the books, but I'll open if for discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that having the Narnia reference on the Room to Roam article is fine if displayed within the appropriate section. However, I would refrain from adding such cultural references to the The Chronicles of Narnia article unless it is of actual significance, rather than "based on, quote from, or allude to" as Walter Görlitz mentioned (WP:HTRIVIA). — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading order: Bracketed year

I have checked the Talk page archive, but could not find a reason for why in § Reading order, the Earth internal chronology for The Horse and His Boy is bracketed (though I could have missed it). I'm sure there's a reason why only this year is bracketed, but it is not obvious in the text as to why this article displays it as [1940]. Perhaps adding hidden text to the article would be a good place to explain this, if not in the visible article itself.

Is it because the four Pevensie children as a group, have not yet stumbled back out of the wardrobe, and so their frame of reference to Earth remains fixed to when they first entered Narnia as a group? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I suspect, rather, that the brackets reflect that the time frame in England is not mentioned in the book, since, unlike the others, the book takes place entirely in the Narnian world with no reference to events in our world. -- Elphion (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)