Talk:Till We Have Faces

Introduction

I just cleared out "facts" because i googled them and they appear to have originated out of a customer review. Not good enough rationale for me to consider keeping them in the article; as most were patently false. However, the article is now obviously aesthetically unappealing. I'm reading a few books right now on C.S. Lewis, including TWHF. I'll try to fill it in with info i learn or recall in the next week or two. b_cubed 01:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think we need to include a pronunciation for Orual. -(on a slightly different note, i do not think that a pronunciation explanation for 'psyche' is necessary. my main rationale being that 'psyche' is an actual word. if people need to know how to pronounce 'psyche' they can grab a dictionary.)- Various webpages show it as (OR-RULE). I think that is a little confusing. I was thinking Or-roo-al might work. any suggestions? b_cubed 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I swear I've read someplace why Lewis chose the name of Orual. I've spent an hour looking for it and can't find anything. Now that we're looking more closely at our heroine's name, it has only now occurred to me that it's hauntingly similar to Ariel, a masculine Hebrew that means אֲרִיאֵל "lion of God." Orual was portrayed as an ugly woman, perhaps with even androgynous attributes. Shakespeare's Ariel (Shakespeare), a sprite (creature) and servant of Prospero in William Shakespeare's play The Tempest, is also a potential source. Lewis was very well-versed with myths and legends, even before he converted to Christianity. He was certainly aware of how Shakespeare borrowed from myth, fairy tales, and legend. Sprites are like elves, like Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, and elves are almost always depicted androgynously, which is perhaps why various Peter Pan productions have casted females in the lead. By the way, I pronounce our heroine's name like Oreo, except with an "El" on the end, but that might not be correct. Does anyone have Lewis on tape describing the book? We'll have the answer if we have the audio. Piewalker 23:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cover Art

I feel we need to choose one cover art, esp. for such a small article. It is overwhelming with 3 different cover arts which, for the most part add nothing (the last one most definitely). I originally added the one with Orual and Psyche back to back simply because I thought it was helpful to see a picture of Orual wearing her mask (mainly to jog some memories) --no where in this article does it mention her wearing it!!-- definitely a crucial addition. The copy that i own is the second cover art (the one with classic art on it). Perhaps that's the one that should be used in the infobox. i didn't upload it simply because i figured it would be best to try to find older cover art for the book. If we can edit the article so that Orual's mask is mentioned. I vote to remove the first and third cover art. Move the second one into the infobox. Then delete whatever addendum is currently under the second cover art. --b_cubed 31 July 2006

I disagree. I think we should keep all three because each one adds its own unique perspective—and appropriately so—from three different artists who still remain unknown. The first is the mask. The second, the traditional Greek motif of the posturing Cupid, son of the goddess of love, Aphrodite. The third, the face of our heroine herself. Hers is not the most appealing face to grace a cover—it wasn't drawn to be, and yet there's a poignancy to her, a depth of character, an identity. Yes, the mask should be explained. I'll have to revisit the text to extrapolate its metaphorical and literal significance. Thank you for pointing it out—you're correct that it merits explanation. Your opinion alone can't make these three covers dissappear from this page. Let's see what other people think of it. Piewalker 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold today and I like what I see. I have no issue in adding in other cover art, my only governing rule is that the article must be long enough to merit it. I'm currently trying to fix it's lay-out. --B³ 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many direct quotes

This article's structure is hampered by the number of direct citations that are really unnecessary. If you observe the layout you can easily notice how it looks really choppy on the right side. Someone should simply paraphrase and then cite the original quotes. The article would look much nicer that way. --B³ 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've paraphrased and added some significant explanations to the quotes. Some quotes we need to keep verbatim because they were Lewis himself! I'm pleased with how this article is progressing; it's advancing the scope of everyone's understanding of this important novel. Piewalker 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Poorly done

This is a very mediocre retelling of either the novel or the myth.

Unfortunately I feel this still stands, i.e. Oruals Mask completely neglected. Failure to mention the Fox. --b_cubed 31 July 2006

Also, if anyone knows of a website that disects this book, it would be great if they put it on here--ADDED TO EXTERNAL LINKS

not out of print

Just in case any needs to know, the book isn't out of print, or at least isn't any longer. I bought a copy at Border's not too long ago.

---

Borders does not carry them normally. You have to order it from them.

fantasy?

I'm uncertain about the characterization of Till We Have Faces as fantasy. OK, the gods are characters, but their actions are ambiguous and largely off-screen. Nearly all the supernatural content is also presented ambiguously, often in the form of dreams or visions — arguably, in the same manner that supernatural content is encountered in the real world, subject to either rationalist or supernatural interpretation. And that's one of the novel's themes: the fact that whether the world is governed by rational laws or supernatural beings is partly determined by how we view it and what we allow ourselves to see.

Can anyone think of a better way to describe the novel? Perhaps "a historical novel with fantasy elements"? That's not ideal either, because the novel is really set in the murky realm between history and prehistory, and between history and myth. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a Theological-Psychological Mythological-Historical novel? Too complex. Maybe just "a novel." By the way, the story of Eros and Psyche evolved into the tale of Beauty and the Beast. Das Baz 16:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked what the (US) Library of Congress said. It has it classified as Fantasy Fiction. Is it slightly simplistic? Yes. Does it work? I think so. By mentioning the title of the book as "Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold," readers of the article will see it has to do with mythology. I would definitely put mythology under Fantasy; it's more or less a sub-category. Perhaps the Fiction part isn't needed, but to me at least, the Fiction part feels like it's saying, "this is no ordinary Fantasy where it's simply all dragons and pixies." I wouldn't label it chrisitan/theological either because from my last reading i don't recall any overwhelming christian message, albeit C.S. Lewis wrote it. --b_cubed 31 July 2006

I've slightly changed my mind. I still think we have to label it as fiction. However, I think it should be labeled Mythology/Fiction (instead of Fantasy/Fiction). In it's very title it says "a myth retold." Hence my rationale for it's current description. --B³ 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'm fine with that. Piewalker 17:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lewis and the Beast

Excellent addition to this article (with reference no less), Das Baz. It has illuminated this article and discussion. I'm sure Lewis himself was aware of the connection of Beauty and the Beast to the greek myth, though it'd be fascinating to find evidence of it, even if it takes a re-read of Till We Have Faces. Is not Orual the beast...who, in the end, is reconciled to her own identity, grows a face, becomes a real human, and nobly arrives face to face with the gods? --Piewalker 17:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the same idea was proposed by Gracia Fay Ellwood. Great minds think alike. Das Baz 16:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) I suppose you're gonna make me find this one? :) Flattered for the comment. Have a good weekend.--Piewalker 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclassifiable novel

I agree that TWHF cannot be described simply as fantasy. In some ways Lewis anticipated what is now called magic realism: the setting is intended to be a realistic (imaginative) setting, and is quite interesting in itself - the world on the fringes of Greece and Persia, with the new ideas just filtering through. It wouldn't quite be magic realism, as the question of the status of the supernatural is one of the issues.

It is Lewis's least typical book. I think the commentator who said it was a poor retelling of the myth is looking for the wrong things: Lewis did not intend to follow the original closely, only to use it as a basis. It is not a book for everyone, I think. I have found it full of profound ideas and have re-read it every few years, and usually found something new. In particular I find a great deal about the reconciliation of different sorts of truth.

Original research or unverified claims

the origin and evolution of titles needs referenced a bit. it reads like original research otherwise. b_cubed 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is fine as is. It makes no claims that readers can't find verification for from a thorough reading of the book. It's good, common-sense synthesis. It's what the book means. I wrote it originally to answer your call for building a context for the quotes regarding the original title Bareface, so they're not floating out there (the quotes). I have not published it elsewhere; therefore, it has no need of referencing, and no need of deletion since it's right on target. Regardless, this the first place it's been published, and it's in the open source community, verifiable, and very insightful. Not everything needs to be referenced, especially if it's verifiable by its primary source, in this case Till We Have Faces itself. Read the book again. Piewalker 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, try not using words such as perhaps. Also, you need to clarify the "Eve-Adam" correlation—or you can take that out as well. Anyone else that reads this article can clearly see that this is original research as it still stands. This could be easily remedied by referencing the evolution of the Bareface name. Besides, anyone that reads the book will see that C.S. Lewis never mentions a Bareface in the text specifically. b_cubed 04:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How does it look now? Piewalker 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, my main problem is twofold. However, to deal with the primary problem. No where is Bareface mentioned, in the book itself or in any of the many (bordering on excessive, in the article's current form) quotes you provide. Furthermore, regarding the fact that you wrote most of this, in response to my suggestion that it be paraphrased—I can see how I wasn't clear before. What I had envisioned was the citations be woven throughout the text, as is the norm. Lastly, simply leaving the sources of the article you found the quotes in the main part of the article hinders reading. I assumed that you knew how to reference things on wikipedia that way. (btw, I wasn't out to attack you, I'm merely posting things that could be worked on for whoever visits the page is looking for tasks needing to be done) b_cubed 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many Wikipedians have this silly phobia of "Original Research" and this grotesque notion that nothing can be said unless it has been said before in print. Plain common sense and obvious cocnlusions are shunned with horror if no printed quote can be found. The commonsensical and easily verifiable do not need to be exhaustively referenced. 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Das Baz 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy." Perhaps you should spend a few minutes brushing up on Wikipedia policy. b_cubed 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A Great Work of Literature

And what is this nonsense about "B-class"? Till We Have Faces is a classic, a great work of literature. Das Baz 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"B-class" simply refers to the article's quality, not the book. b_cubed 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Both b_cubed and Das Baz (among many others) have done good work to help us advance this article's quality. b_cubed, what else do you feel needs to be done to ratchet up the quality of Till We Have Faces? Piewalker 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)