Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

Unsourced material in Criticism section

I removed the following sentences, as while some of it is true (and some is not), all of it is unsourced. ALL criticisms and defenses of CoN require Notable sources. Ashmoo (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Calormenes are described as oily and dark-skinned people who wear turbans and pointy slippers and are armed with scimitars. This depiction has been cited as a blatant allegorical comparison to the traditional attire of Islam and Sikhism: turbans are worn by Muslim clerics and by most adult Sikh males; scimitars originated in the Middle East, and are highly symbolic of Islam; and the Calormenes worship the "false god" Tash, who is portrayed as a stereotypical Satanic being requiring evil deeds and sacrifices from his followers.

Without that block of text, however, the allegation seems unfounded and preposterous, giving the section a very POV feel. Besides, with some rephrasing, that is acceptable WP:OR because it is easily discernible fact that can easily be derived from the book. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

this book is coool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.133.62 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexism Critique Section

I would propose that this section be expanded beyond just discussing Susan. While most of the claims of sexism seem to focus on Susan, I would put forth that there are many other sexism allegations and rebuffs that look at all female characters. Specifically, I am noting the fact that the books seem to praise masculine characteristics in girls and look down upon girls who are overly girlish or beautiful. Most witches in the books seem to get ahead by their beauty and by entrapping men as opposed to things like wisdom or actual brilliance of plans. The most beautiful non-witch character is Susan, and we've seen the arguments about her personification. A specific example is the Green Witch in the Silver Chair and her seduction of Rilian as well as the White Witch in the Wordrobe who basically gets to Edward not only because of the sweets but because of her beauty (as well as her earlier temptation of Digory in MN). It seems that being overly beautiful and knowing it is a vice, for both the good and the bad characters. While it's important to point to those who argue that Lewis was speaking out against vanity (as many of the blog sources point out), it does seem that he only seems to personify women as being susceptible to vanity. True evil in Narnia always seems to be personofied in a woman. There are plenty bad guys who are men, but pure evil, are always female beautiful witches. Perhaps that's more suited to the discussion in the religion section as far as paralells to Adam and Eve and the temptation.--RossF18 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, except for the last sentence parallels to Adam and Eve are just a tad speculative and to my knowledge haven't been brought forth by any commentator. (Hope I don't seem overprotective as the primary author of the religion section.) However, it would be important to stick to known criticisms and defenses made by other authors such as the fellow who wrote "The Narnian" (defends Lewis) or the recent book by Laura Miller (50/50) or critics like Pullman, or the essays in the anthology "Revisiting Narnia". Important to keep POV out of it, but still I overall very much agree. --WickerGuy (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Adam and Eve thing was commented about in Narnia and Philosopy by a professor of philosophy. See the passage below. And it's fine being protective and I wasn't suggesting any unsourced addition. I was just hoping for an expanded section beyond just the Susan discussion. The Adam and Eve passage is:

The connection between the plight of Prince Rilian and the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise cannot be overlooked. The story of the Fall is a tale in which Eve, through beauty and charm, seduces Adam into a life of sin by tempting him to eat the apple, just like the Green Witch seduces Prince Rilian and condemns him to a life in the dark world of Underland. Except that in the Narnian version of the story, the woman and the snake are one and the same. Luckily, with the help of the children, Prince Rilian escapes from his curse and is able to kill the Witch in her serpent form. This is fortunate since it would not have suited Rilian's heart and honor to kill a lady, but killing a snake is much easier (SC, Chapter 13, p. 634). Perhaps part of the reason why he finds it easier to kill the snake is that the physical beauty of the Witch doesn't get in the way. Like all witches, the Green Witch uses her beauty, and connives in order to get what she wants, turning men away from the Christian cause of Aslan. Karin Fry. Chapter 13. No Longer a Friend of Narnia: Gender in Narnia. p. 161. The Chronicles of Narnia and Philosophy. The Lion, The Witch, and the Worldview. Edited by Gregory Bassham and Jerry L. Walls.

On p. 162, she continues by stating that:

Perhaps the most important allusion to the Fall in the Chronicles is the passage in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (LWW) describing the lineage of the White Witch. The White Witch is a descendant of Lilith, a female demon regarded in some strands of rabbinic literature as Adam's first wife, prior to Eve. The figure of Lilith reconciles an apparent conflict between the two biblical accounts of the creation of humanity, one which tells of Adam and his wife being created at the same time and another in which Eve is described as being created after Adam, from his side. To reconcile these conflicting narratives, Lilith was thought to be Adam's first wife, who was excluded from Eden due to her sin, which may have been to say God's name. Similarly, Jadis who later becomes White Witch, destroys all of Charn by saying an evil word, much like her ancestor, Lilith. In Jewish folklore, Lilith becomes a she-devil who mates with demons and is responsible for everyting from killing newborns and causing miscarriages, to causing men to have nocturnal emissions due to her influence in their dreams (Jocelyn Hellig, Lilith as a Focus of Judaism's Gender Construction, Dialogue and Alliance 12 (1998) pp. 40-47). The White Witch isn't related to Eve, and doesn't have "a drop of real Human blood," but she is related to the beautiful, evil, and even more corrupting Lilith (LWW, Chapter 8, p. 147). Lilith is described as one of the Jinn (L222, Chapter 8, p. 147). . . .

In Narnia, the model of corruption mirrors the Fall, where Eve is condemned for tempting Adam to eat the apple, just as the Witches seek to seduce the children towards sin. All women in Narnia are connected to this biblical history, since female humans are called "Daughters of Eve." This terminology associates women with Eve's behavior and shame, and distances them from whatever traits could be inherited from Adam. But at least the girls are not descended from Lilith, as the WHite Witch is. Whatever the problems with Eve, Lililth is clearly worse.

--RossF18 (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrific. I'm see a lot of those "___ and philosophy" books but didn't know there was one on Narnia.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a final passage in the interest of full disclosure. If anything, it's just interesting.

The World that Lewis creates finds femininity suspcious, deceptive, and closer to evil because it seduces and beguiles men, and indeed, has some power over them. Female beauty is condemned, and the women who happend to be beautiful or interested in their physicla appearance are reproached. Oddly enough, Susan is never described as being overly interested in her own beauty. In the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Lucy is said to be jealous of her sister's beauty, but Susan herself is never described as being vein, unless a connection can be made between her beauty and her interest in boys, parties, and fashion. Luckily, Lucy doesn't succumb to her desire to be beautiful, but one cannot help but wonder if Susan is somehow condemned for her beauty. Perhpas the problem with Susan is that she gets led astray by her own beauty, even though she is never described as conceited. WHat leads her astray is an interest in grown-up things and in boys, and these superficial interests harm her spiritual life.

--RossF18 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is inapropriate for a wikipedia article. I think and would constitute "original research." The purpose of the artice is to describe the novels in an accurate manner, not offer the reader amateur literary criticism. As a secondary objection, your point is a off-base. Susan's susceptibility to vanity is portrayed negatively. But so is Edmund's arrogance. Lucy's kindness toward's Mr. Tumnus on the other hand is given positive treatment. The distinction is not that one characteristic is "feminine" and the other is "masculine," but rather that according to Lewis's deeply Christian worldview, vanity and arrogance are vices and kindness and love are virtues. I would remind you that throughout the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Lucy is portrayed as the most pure and noble character whereas Edmund is quite literally the judas figure, betraying his family to indulge his gultony (the turkish delight) and ambition/vanity/arrogance (the prospect of becoming a prince). I would also point you to the ape character in the Last Battle, who is very literally a satan-figure. 65.35.244.1 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What would constitute original research? What would constitute amateur literary criticism? I don't think I was suggesting that editors personally comment on the book in the actual article or engage in their own personal literary criticism, which would rightly (most likely) be amateur. My point was that we should expand the section beyond discussion of Susan with actual authorities in the field who provide actual professorial level literary criticism if we keep the sexism section at all. The section is entitled Sexism after all, not sexism as it relates to Susan. Read my post again. It also seems odd that you would go on with your own rather amateur litarary criticism of the books whilst disagreeing with my own right to do so. But that point aside, this talk page is not a place to bash either of our points of view, only discussing ways to improve the article. This is not a fan site or a blog. That said, you provide no support for your points of view, while I was discussing a sited source which I provided extended excerpts from. My point of view might be no more valid than yours, but at least I have a source from which I draw my points and my goal in bringing this discussion up is to do exactly what you kind out touch upon, i.e., expanding discussion of sexism beyond just Susan, and pointing out how apparent sexism might have been something else or not. But again, all these things require sources. I have a source for my point that Lewis was trying to distinguish between feminine and masculine and if you have a source that would support your following assertion: "The distinction is not that one characteristic is 'feminine' and the other is 'masculine,' but rather that according to Lewis's deeply Christian worldview, vanity and arrogance are vices and kindness and love are virtues" well than that's great. And that's exactly my point. Experts disagree on the Lewis's writings and you can go ahead and remind me about Edmund and Lucy all you want (which is of course something I know well), but unless you have a source, your point is just as the amateur literary critique you accused me off, something that I wasn't even trying to do. I was trying to call fellow editors to expand the section with cited sources beyond just the "nylons" discussion of Susan, and bring up Lucy and Edmund. (By the way, although Edmund was a personification of Judas, he got into Narnia, while Susan was left out just because she was vaine. If that's not sexism, I don't know what is. Judas was a traitor who according to the majority of the Christian world betrayed Jesus, so if Edmund is a Judas figure, the fact that he got into Narnia/Heaven and Susan didn't just because she started to be vain at the end, is very sexist. And Lucy was potrayed as most noble and pure character, but she did act like a boy, wanting to go into battle, and she was never interested in thing Susan was interested in. So, that only serves to confirm the sexism points, in my opinion, which has nothing to do with what can go into the article since personal opinion is very different than a verified source)--RossF18 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Traditions

I am having trouble understanding the claim here. It is as if these traditions did not exist without the glory of Christ. Or was that just another attempt at taking undeserved credit and leading people back to the church? Can we just erase the Christian part already? They erased Lewis's story and put their own in place. And it has a spot in Wikipedia's entry for the film. Is there some way to keep these unnecesary edits out of the article as well? 66.74.131.101 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)SonicKuz

I can't make head nor tail out of most of this. This article is about the series of books by CS Lewis, not the films. Who then is the "They" that "erased Lewis's story" (which is arguably only true of the 2nd film anyway), and why would it matter for this article? As for your second sentence: whether the traditions are divine or human in origin does not directly impinge on the very important fact that Lewis certainly drew on Christian tradition in writing the novels and very heavily as well, and as such needs to be stated here. The third sentence/question of your post, I don't even understand what it means. What is the connection between "taking undeserved credit" and "leading people back to the church"? What is the connection between these two? Regardless, it is certainly necessary to state the Christian connection in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Planet Narnia

Michael Ward's book merits a section. In it he suggests that each book is based on the Seven planets - i.e. five plus the moon (Silver Chair) and the Sun (Dawn Treader). Kittybrewster ☎ 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So what's the book, who is Michael Ward, and what evidence does he present? Which book goes with which planet (and why)? Elphion (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Ward is Lewis scholar who was actually a kind of caretaker for Lewis' old house, The Kilns, for a few years. The book has a webpage "http://www.planetnarnia.com/". Ward draws on Lewis' long long interest in Elizabethan astrology as evidenced in his poetry, scholarship, and the science-fiction trilogy about Professor Ransom. As such, he makes a convincing case for hidden astrological symbolism in the Narnia books. He seems to have read the Lewis corpus quite thoroughly. There's also a podcast interview with him on the web somewhere. Of lesser note, he has a bit part in the James Bond film The World is Not Enough as an assistant of Q.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mercury - The horse and his boy.

Venus - The magician's nephew

Mars - Prince Caspian

Jupiter - Lion W & W

Saturn - Last battle. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a paragraph about it already in the Influences section. LloydSommerer (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

hidden meanings

I watched the documentary and while it could be said that Lewis used the Seven planets of the ancient world as a scaffolding for the Chronicles series, can we deduce that from a reading and does it really matter. There are a number of works that use such methodology. Paintings inspired by poetry, music inspired by paintings etc. I recall where some scholar deduced the order a work of music was produced in, by examining the watermark on each sheet. From this he could deduce the order the sheets came off a much larger sheet. Trojan work indeed, but does it really matter. Did the tune sound alright ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jz2qp/The_Narnia_Code/ emacsuser (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "scaffolding" and "method of composition" are one thing, while "hidden meanings" go beyond it. It's difficult to say which is what here. However, given that this ties is with other works in the Lewis corpus (with more overt appeals to Elizabethan astrology), it should be mentioned here. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

6.4 Internet domain

Does that really belong in controversy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the book, rather the estate of Lewis. It is confusing when really the article headings to find "internet" in a book that was established well before the internet exist. Is that event really notable? Should it be taking to another section consider it is not actually a controversy from the book, but rather a domain name registration. Schnarr 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)