Talk:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do:
This article is part of WikiProject Narnia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to C. S. Lewis' Narnia universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Narnia To-do:

Contents

[edit] Discussion

For previous discussions, see the talk page at The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. PatGallacher 17:26, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

That old talk-page link should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lion%2C_the_Witch%2C_and_the_Wardrobe –Smoken 21:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed excessive synopsis

I have removed most of this article which consisted of excessive synopsis of the book, and which was in several places inaccurate.

The pre-existing synopsis section is an adequate precis of the book for a Wiki article.

I don't know if someone has added more since this comment was made (it would have helped if a name had been left) but the synopsis of this is WAY too long. It might as well be rewritten. It's a long time since I read the book so it would be helpful if someone more familiar could begin it. --BigBlueFish 19:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree - I'll re-read the book and re-write the synopsis. Movie creep as well, IMHO.

--Tomandlu 08:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've written a more concise synopsis - hope no one is too upset, but the last one was way, way too long

--Tomandlu 10:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-christian reactions

Just a thought: has this or the other Narnia books ever been published in non-Christian countries, e.g. the Islamic countries, or India or Japan? If so, what did they make of it? PatGallacher 09:56, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

Well, atheist me loves these books. Islamic reaction would be interesting, but we know that Lewis went out of his way in TLB to be inclusive, with Aslan saying "All who do good in Tash's name do it in my name", or something like that. So I don't know that there should be any significant problem re Islam itself (although arabic people might find other Narnian things upsetting). Leeborkman 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abridged versions?

Fascinating. I had never realised there were abridged versions. Is this a matter of removing chapters, paragraphs, or simply odd words? I think this would be worth adding.

I have the boxed set from 1977. The set cost £3.60 then: how times change! I'll add ISBNs.

Telsa 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Film versions, etc.

I came to this article looking for a list of film/TV/whatever adaptations and was surprised not to find one. I later found the list (at The Chronicles of Narnia), but it seems somewhat inadequate to mention the new film in this article and not any of the others. (Especially since at this early date we have no way of knowing if the new film will be any more significant than the previous ones.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we give the Animated The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe it's own page? The reason that I bring this up, is because the film has quite the history, with the rushed animation, and two different voice casts (one british, one american). --LuminousSpecter 07:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed content on sexism

I removed the following to here because I don't know whether this is a new user who doesn't understand that we don't put contributors' names in articles; or whether it's someone borrowing the work of the person named at the end (in which case we need to be clear on copyright). I don't want to scare newcomers away by just silently deleting their work. However, I feel it needs substantial copy-editing and heavy referencing before a return to the main article is considered. To be honest, I think that the verifiable information is fairly scant, and we have it covered either here or in the main Lewis article anyway. --Telsa 16:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sexism Shown in C.S. Lewis’s work

Accomplished writer Clive Staples Lewis, who’s known mainly for his popular The Chronicles of Narnia series has often been criticized for being racist and sexist. Many writers of his time face the same criticism such as Earnest Hemingway, Morley Callahan, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Although 1950's The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe has a strong sexist influence, it has opened the doors to many fantasy novels. We cannot blame Lewis for being sexist. The feminist movement didn’t start to take effect until the late 1950's though to the 1960's. During his whole childhood, he was exposed to male figures who had little respect for women such as his grandfather and father. His mother was a house wife who was shown as little respect as most women in the 1920's. Lewis was also a man who could not hold a steady relationship. His fathers influence hurt his relationships with women. His strong Christian faith has also shaped him to be sexist. His devotion to his religion is seen by is use of biblical allusions in his novels. Women are seen as second to men in Catholic, and most Christian churches. His book The Screwtape Letters, outlines his Christian views. Some have argued that the influences of his time made him sexist, which made him a good writer.

Richard Dickason , University of Toronto

Weak writing: it talks of sexism shown in Lewis's work, yet it "shows" this only by repeating the charge a 2nd time (criticized for being racist and sexist) and a 3rd time (has a strong sexist influence), and then alluding to the charge as if three accusations was proof in itself. 4th time (cannot blame Lewis for being sexist). Followed by explaining the cause of this yet-to-be-illustrated fault (5th time: Christian faith has also shaped him to be sexist).
There is no substance to the charge despite the comparison to Catholicism ("Women are seen as second to men"). Meanwhile, anyone who's read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe knows that both the girls are Queens right alongside the two boys who are Kings. Even the talking animals give the girls equal homage: the phrase "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve" is repeated many times (first by the Beaver I think). Uncle Ed 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "It depicts the crucifixion of Jesus Christ"

I removed that bolded line from the opening 2 paragraphs. I think discussion about the allegory and the allusion to the sacrifice of Christ should be on the page, but it doesn't belong in the open like that. It certainly doesn't represent a NPOV because there is much debate about how closely it matches the Christ story. A statement like "It depicts the crucifixion of Jesus Christ" belongs in the open of an article on "The Passion" or something similar. -PK9 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed parallels

In light of statements from the author that the story is not an allegory, I found the insertion of bolded comments comparing it to the Jesus story a needless distraction from the synopsis. The parallels would be worth noting in a distinct section, but asserting within the synopsis that they are the One True Way to intepret the story is not only a direct contradiction of the Lewis's statement that it isn't an allegory but also completely non-encyclopedic. teucer 19:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with the removal of the christian parallels from the synopsis. They don't belong there, and certainly don't need to be in bold. In the other Narnia articles they are typically found as part of the Commentary section Lsommerer 20:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Current Synopsis of Book Correct?

I'll have to re-read the book, but it looks like there has been some creep from the movie. If anyone knows the book by heart, can they check? --Tomandlu 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
part is from the movie synopsis

[edit] Correction to history comment

Just to mention, my edit for 11:59, December 29, 2005 should have said "somewhat POV", not "somewhat NPOV".

--Tomandlu 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

You should use an image of Lucy from the motion picture instead of the videogame because it looks very vague and you can't even tell what it is a picture of unless you play videogames. 4.253.121.34 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)--4.253.121.34 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhh.. it's not from the video game - it's a raytraced image I made a few years ago. You'll get a larger version if you click on it. Feel free to use a larger version, or a different image - I can't remember the particular tag I'm afraid. Personally, I think a larger image would be distracting. BTW I'm against using images from the film or game - there's already enough plot-creep from the movie as it is ;) --Tomandlu 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd much rather a real illustration by Pauline Baynes, from the book. Baynes worked with Lewis to create the illustrations, didn't she, and certainly lewis spoke highly of her contibution. After all, this is a page about the book, and the illustration were very much a part of that book. Is there some copyright problem? Leeborkman 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Battle and sexism

I can understand the bit about Susan no longer being a friend of Narnia being in the Chronicles of Narnia article and the Last Battle article, but why is it here? Also, the section implies that there are other examples of Lewis supposedly regarding sexual maturity as bad, but, as far as I know, the Susan example is the only one. Joey1898 23:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite being mostly on the secular-side with regard to narnia, I largely agree. The current commentary seems to have mushroomed from a fairly speculative point about the children's return from narnia. There's enough material out there, especially in the wake of the movie, for a fairer and more precise article. --Tomandlu 23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed the modern perspectives bit, and added in a more general approach to the issue.
BTW the previous assertion regarding removing the children before they reached sexual maturity strikes me as wrong in its assumptions (or at least without verifiable basis). It may be correct that lewis felt the need to remove the children before they could consumate any sexual relationship in Narnia - but the alternative would have been to return them after they had had full (or implied) sex - presumably with their sexual memories intact. This, IMHO, would have been unacceptable to most readers, irrespective of their faith. --Tomandlu 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Israeli-Jew's Point-of-View

I have just seen the movie, and I am bothered with one aspect of it. As a child I read the book (a Hebrew translation) and saw a T.V. production, and as with the movie, the Story is fascinating, even magical. But now, as a grown person I could not ignore some Christian motives that portray the Jew in a negative manner: For example, while the Fox helps the three fugitive brothers, he is accused as being the same as the wolves who help the Queen. The Fox defends himself (I don’t remember the exact words) that although he is, for his misfortune, from the same race as the wolves are, he is loyal to Aslan (the Lion/Jesus). The Fox is of-course the Good Samaritan. But the most bothering example is the Queen. The Queen relies on tradition and thus demands the blood (Shylock?) of the traitor (Edmund=Judas). The Lion/Jesus sacrifices himself instead of Edmund (performing Christian Love) and says (again, I don’t remember the exact words), that the Queen relies on tradition but do not see deep enough to understand the true meaning of the words. The Queen, the all evil character in the plot, is of-course the Jew. It seems from the Story that for Christians to go back to the roots and be better is to meet, fight and win the ancient enemy – me. One may think that a theme of such a modern literary work will not portray one element of humanity as negative as in this story.

I can understand you're feelings, but you're making a common mistake. Lewis wasn't writing an allegory. He was writing a sort of alternate history. In his own words, answering the question, "What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?" However, even if it were an allegory, the Jews would have to be represented (at least to a Christian like Lewis) by the group of people from whom Aslan came. Or, if you prefer, they could be represented by the people he came to save. The White Witch doesn't fall into either of those categories, which is what you would expect as we're not talking about an allegory. LloydSommerer 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Just like in Tolkien's case, Lewis cannot be above such criticism merely by saying "this is an alternate world, I didn't mean any of this". Like Tolkien, he has some racial/-ist undercurrents. I was not aware of any Antisemitism, and if there is any, it is almost too weak to be detected. But if there is published literary criticism of Lewis along these lines, it would by all means be fair game to discuss them here. dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I buy the idea that any time you can find an allegory the author meant for it to be there (or perhaps I misunderstood and you weren't saying that). My understanding was that we were not discussing published literary criticism, and so I was just offering my own view on the likelyhood of an intentional representation. LloydSommerer 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the White Witch (or Queen) is not meant to portray a Jew. Rather, she is symbolic of evil. Edmund is an example of the person who falls short and makes a mistake but is brought back and saved by Christ. I believe I heard this on the radio station I listen to, Air 1 (go to www.air1.com), and I think they were talking about the actual letter C. S. Lewis wrote explaining the book before he died. I suppose this is up for debate, but I just thought you should know that Lewis was most likely not trying to condemn Jews; he was condemning evil. God Bless. 71.129.7.196 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense but I disagree the jews killed Jesus while he did nothing wrong and offcourse aslan got killed and he didnt do anything wrong, And also when Jesus died there was an earth quake and when aslan died the stone cracked in the middle

The witch is actually representative of sin, which according to Paul in the New Testament holds the power of death through the Law (written on Tables of Stone).Nolewr 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive Synopsis

This article has a tendancy to acquire a synopsis that rivals the length of the actual book... there have been several discussions about this. There is a dedicated Narnia wiki - wouldn't that be a better place for a long synopsis? For now, I've reverted to the last "short" version --Tomandlu 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted a new and, IMHO, excessive synopsis by User:AlexWilkes.

Discuss?

Tomandlu 21:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

Does anyone have a reference for: "As a child, C.S. Lewis used to sit inside a wardrobe and write stories."

It sounds a bit apoc. and searching for "lewis childhood cupboard" is not much use ;)

Maybe you should search for "lewis childhood wardrobe", then. Tex 01:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comma in title

It seems a bit odd to me that the title of the book, if written with a comma after "Witch" redirects to this title. I could swear that, if you lay hands on a copy of the book, the comma is there. The title of the article should include the comma. It has nothing to do with whether the comma is right or wrong in general, it's the way Lewis titled his book, and therefore it should be carried over into the title of the Wikipedia article. They seem to have left it out of the movie title, but that doesn't change the book title. There may even be editions for the American market without the comma, but I suggest the original title should be used in a work of reference.

Personally I don't care about the book enough to engage in the inevitable talk wars with any conviction. But perhaps someone else does.

Tex 01:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just checking my copies of the book, and I can't find that comma anywhere. These are Australia versions, which tend to follow the British language variations. Leeborkman 06:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book Order

Ok I want to add Book Infoboxes to this page and the others in the series. When stating previous books and subsequent book in the series, should they be given in publication order or the order in which they should be read? --NeilEvans 13:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard WikiProjectNovels is to list them in order they should be read. Grey Shadow 13:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You ask that as if there's a difference between publication order and (first) reading order. —wwoods 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


There is a difference between reading order and publication order. --NeilEvans 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Wwoods is getting at the fact that reading order and publication order are the same, but the current numbering on the books is different from those two. LloydSommerer 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok I realise that the books were originally published in a different order. The new order reflects the chronology of Narnia itself, so that's the way the books have been ordered in their respective infoboxes. --NeilEvans 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For consistancy I changed them to the published order. This is the order that has been used in the template and in the series article. We're probably all familiar with the arguments for each ordering, but we have to go with one of them. LloydSommerer 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at other comments, maybe a little more information is in order. See Chronicles of Narnia#Reading order for background. The consensus seems to be that the original publication order is the prefered reading order. But that is not the chronological order (which happens to be the current numbering order on the books). Gresham seems to be endorsing the original publication order with the choice of which movie to shoot first. But others have argued that the ordering of the movies only indicates which one they think would sell the series the best. Of course, that might also argue for the best reading order... Blah Blah Blah, it won't ever end. It's like the guys arguing over whether Lewis was Irish or English or Northern Irish or British. LloydSommerer 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


After reading Chronicles of Narnia#Reading order I am still unsure which order should be used. But I think of the Star Wars series of films they were not filmed in the order of their internal chronology, but they are listed on this site in that order. As to follow the story from one to six would show a natural progression of the characters. Although one can watch them in any order. If one watched the films in the order they were released one might wonder for example why Darth Vader became the way he did, which is explained in the earlier films, so they don't neccessarily need to be in any order, but on Wiki there should be a consesnus for these kinds of series.

--NeilEvans 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The rulers depart

What happens in Narnia after the four monarchs return to our Earth? Have they designated heir(s) to take on the leadership of the areas of Narnia which can be classed as their domains? (Otherwise there is likely to be a collapse of the system)

But then most science fiction/fantasy does not consider the economic and political infrastructures.

Jackiespeel 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References in pop culture?

Are these of interest? eg the Young One's episode "Flood". I am sure there must be many more. Leeborkman 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia in popular culture. There's a short introductory paragraph at The Chronicles of Narnia; perhaps the same sort of thing would server here as well? Of course, the article deals with all of the books, but I don't recall, off hand, that there are many that are not LLW references. LloydSommerer 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cover art

Can we get an illustrated bit of cover art, not one with the movie? This is, after all, the book, and I for a minute thought it was a rip-off DVD cover put in place of the book cover, until I read the text. How about a Pauline Baynes illustration? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was cover art, but all the modern books have the movie art on them too. I've gone hunting, and found something else, though perhaps not as good. --I hope you like it anyway. :) Patstuart 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I wasn't saying it wasn't cover art, just that it looked, at first glance, to be a movie cover. I was looking for original illustrated editions, not photos. I think what you uploaded was okay, but I have a HarperTrophy edition with a picture of Tumnus in a snow scene on the cover, which I think is original Pauline Baynes. Whatever, this is fine. We should try to keep the same editions' illustrations, though, for all of the book articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone, somewhere was enjoying a bit of irony when they chose the cover art for that edition. On a cover that advertises that it is 'now a major motion micture" they chose to illistrate with a scene that does not appear in the motion picture. LloydSommerer 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That cover looks kind of old; it may have been referring to the 1977 film (I think that's the year?). The animated one. Possibly. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
We need to try to find some original cover art. b_cubed 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the first edition cover art, best I could find... Despite that tear at the top of the dust jacket, that particular copy still costs about 12,000 tea leaves... And it was far from the most expensive that I came across. I moved the other cover further down in the article. -- Antepenultimate 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chapters

The articles on The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle include a chapter listing, although the others do not. Should the chapter titles be listed in the articles or not?--roger6106 20:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of a chapter listing? Is that kind of information of any use to anyone reading Wikipedia? Leeborkman 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. I think they should be deleted, but I want to give others a chance to say what they think.--roger6106 15:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say this type of information is definitely useful. However, it may be something not for here but a query for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I took care of it. It was an unneccesary inclusion. b_cubed 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dagger

From the edition I read, Lucy was also given a dagger by Father Christmas, but it's not mentioned here, has it been taken out because I do remember it not being in the succeeding books. Therequiembellishere 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Comment

Aslan means 'lion' in Turkish. 193.140.194.104 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Lion%2C_the_Witch_and_the_Wardrobe_4a20.html"