Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

Christian criticism

Would be interesting if there was more on this. Broadly speaking I understand this to include the following:

• Magic/sorcery/witchcraft
• Universalism
• Supposed satanic overtones - Tumnus as Pan as Satan.
• Use of non-Christian mythology.
• Astrology.
• General doctrinal quibbles.
• Narni as an occult centre.

-MacRùsgail (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a bit of this among some ultra-traditionalist Christians, except I think that criticisms of Universalism are mainly targeted at other works of Lewis- it's certainly not a dominant theme in his works.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the article has this sentence "The Chronicles have, consequently, a large Christian following, and are widely used to promote Christian ideas. However, some Christians object that The Chronicles promote "soft-sell paganism and occultism" due to recurring pagan imagery and themes."--WickerGuy (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to go into a bit more detail, either here or on the religion article. It makes an interesting counterpoint to the feminist/multicultural deconstruction. Although both are essentially heresy hunting.

Walter, its a little of both. Its just pointing out why the sexist critiscm makes no sense. That's actually the actor who played Lucy holding the sword so it would at least be a viable image to stick in the production section. Susan is comparable to Katniss. I can hardly imagine Lucy trying to run around and killing things with that sword. DYD interesting trivia; I took Turkish as my foreign laungage credit and the word for lion in Türkye is Aslan. So they're quite literally calling him lion. In fact the fact they use a Turkish name for one of the most powerful characters actually portrays the ottoman culture or semetic or whatever er the other criticism was about in a good way. I think the critism doesn't have any real basis in reality ShadowHawk555 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. Jack liked a beer or two, with the Inklings as well. They don't like that either.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Jack, that's probably just the puritans. Definently ain't the Irish Christians! ShadowHawk555 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thing that occurs to me as a link between Aslan and Jesus is that Jesus (we are told) is a descendant of the House of David, and the insignia of that tribe was a lion. Nuttyskin (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Anyone more familiar with the series than I care to add it to this list?

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would probably qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to raise this at Talk:Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction, but since you raised it I'll say a little here. It's a problematic list and, while The Chronicles of Narnia appears to fit its inclusion criteria, it's beyond me how the particulars of the Lewis series could be shoehorned into some of those table cells. For instance, what would one put for "Setting"? If it's Narnia proper, then out go the dragons. But afaik there isn't an all-encompassing term for the world Lewis wrote about (which includes Archenland, Calormen and so on, as well as Narnia itself). I also have a problem with "Human magic users". The Narnia books have actual human magic users. Polly and Digory, the four Pevensies, and arguably every other human who arrives in Narnia does so via magic, whether or not the journey is inadvertent. The table lists witches as "human magic users", but in Narnia they most certainly are not. (Humanoid yes, human no.) The whole exercise seems messy, if not sloppy. In some ways I guess it's a cool list, but it doesn't strike me as especially encyclopedic. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Chronicles of Narnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515201654/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2005%2F12%2F11%2FNARNIA.TMP to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2005%2F12%2F11%2FNARNIA.TMP
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051201%2FLIVING%2F512010303%2F1007
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051201%2FLIVING%2F512010303%2F1007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 2 December 2017 (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)

What happened to the "cameo" distinction in the table of main characters?

It was meaningful -- every character in the table reappears in the closing scenes of LB except Jadis and Susan, but some of them are merely mentioned as being present (and were previously listed as "cameos"), whereas others have things to do and say in those final scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:C002:5700:E83D:8A32:A8FF:AA7F (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)