Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Items in need of citations

Please place items here from the main article that are in need of citations. When citations are found they can be restored to the article. Lsommerer 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

From: Christian Parallels

  • Some say that the story is only as Christian as the person reading it, or that it is as much a work of paganism as it is Christianity, as some stories of the bible resemble that of pagan legends. Certainly the books overtly display many occult-style magic and mythological pagan creatures with the vague allusions to Christian stories. However, Christians usually do not oppose this, as the creatures and people in the series that use magic or divination are obviously evil forces (some very brief exceptions, such as a good centeur astrologist), thus not mimicking the "problems" found in Harry Potter, where Witchcraft is often portrayed good. Most Christians believe witchcraft and divination is entirely evil, and could not be used for good. Harry Potter somewhat encourages the reader into witchcraft, while the Narnia books do not.

I removed the preceeding paragraph after it was in the article for 5 days with a {{citeneeded}} template. If someone has a citation for this, feel free to add it back. LloydSommerer 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Many parts of the books may seem rather out-of-place, but make sense in light of the symbolism they carry. In the 5th book in the series, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Aslan turns from a lamb into a lion and tells the children that he brought them to Narnia to learn his other name on Earth. Christ was called the Lamb of God in the Bible, and it is almost certain that he meant the name Jesus. Also, in The Silver Chair, the dead King Caspian is brought to Aslan's terriritory, where Caspian lay in a river. Aslan commands Eustace to prick his paw with a thorn, and Aslan lets the blood drop on Caspian, who in turn comes alive. This is symbolic of how only Jesus's blood when he died on the cross could bring man to heaven (and give them life), and the water that purifies. The thorn is symbolic of the crown of thorns, and that Eustace pricked his paw is symbolic of how man put Christ on the cross. In the Bible, Jesus is also referred to as the Lion of the Tribe of Judea.

This paragraph needs (at least) a citation. I actually think that it doesn't belong in this article. It is good material, but it really needs to go in the articles about the specific characters that are addressed. Although I could certainly see keeping something like the first sentence as an example of sections of the series that are a bit cryptic without an understanding of Christianity. LloydSommerer 15:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello? That's why this part is so crucial! without a propr understanding of the background one can't really begin to get anything from the story at all!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.144.122 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 August 2006 UCT.

From influences on Narnia: Geography

From influences on Narnia: Name

  • There are two real places called Narnia, one in Spain and another in Italy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsommerer (talk • contribs) 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

From Cinema

  • The first movie, which was released in the fourth quarter of 2005, is also often compared to two other films: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (like Harry Potter, the Pevensie children are British and enter a magical realm), and Memoirs of a Geisha, which takes place at around the same time as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and that the Pevensie children are sold to another place, just as Chiyo, the geisha in the movie, was sold to another house.

I'm not at all certain that this paragraph adds anything to the article anyway. LloydSommerer 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (and the Pevensie children are evacuated, not "sold"!) — Matt Crypto 14:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - and just weird... --Tomandlu 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From Lead

  • (They had, for example, considerable success in their Israeli Hebrew translation.)

From: Influence on other works

  • Author J.K. Rowling says that Lewis's sentimentality about children gets on her nerves, and that she has big problems with some aspects of the books to the point where she has not bothered to finish reading the series. However, Cedric Diggory may have been an homage to Digory AKA Prof. Kirke.

Isn't a bit ironic that Rowlings admits she has not finished the series, but condemns Lewis in the criticism section for something that happened in the last book in the series? This seems to indicate her opinion doesn't count for much. Also these quotes seem to conflict as a result. Cyberdenizen 06:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really. If she read the series in the original order, she would have arrived at Susan's rejection before hitting the last book. Moreover, even reading a single book is enough to let her speak of how the sentimentality bugs her.Alienus 09:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, The Last Battle is the last book in either order. -Steven Fisher 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of the Rowling quote should be in the Influence on other works section. The Digory bit because it is not cited, and the other because it seems to show how she was not influenced by them. Also of interest, one of the references supposes that Rowling based her Susan quote on Pullman and not on reading The Last Battle. Lsommerer 12:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it could be considered criticism, hence placed near her quote about Susan. In fact, that's where it was originally. As for influence, it's arguable that she was influenced in the same way Pullman was, rather than directly inspired. But having said that, it still sounds more like criticism than anything else, so I'd support moving it back there.
As for the question of whether she personally read The Last Battle, I don't have any strong support for her having done so. Granted, even if she only read the first book and then found out through Pullman about Susan's fate, that would suffice to give her sufficient basis for an opinion, though perhaps not as strong a basis as if it were from a first-hand reading. Any way to find out? Alienus 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"If she read the series in the original order, she would have arrived at Susan's rejection before hitting the last book." That's incorrect. The Last Battle is always the last book - in the published order and the chronological order. Joey1898 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Carlton Cuse, the executive producer of Lost, is a big fan of the Chronicles of Narnia, and those works have apparently influenced the direction of the show.
  • The comic book series Pakkins' Land has been compared to the Narnia series with its inclusion of talking animals and other parallels, and writer/illustrator Gary Shipman has admitted to being influenced by C.S. Lewis' work.

Shipman and his wife have mentioned several times in the published "letters pages" appearing in the back of his comic series, both in response to queries from fans and in editorials, of the influence of CS Lewis (Narnia in particular) on his work. I'm happy to provide specific references, but how do you suggest this should be cited, as there is not a specific "internet/web reference" to point to? ----

It would be best if we had the quote from them; then the quote could be worked into that section. As far as referencing, we don't need a link to it, just where to find the information. We've been using Harvard Referencing in this article. To do that you put the citation after the quote: {{Harvard citation|Surname|year_published|pp=}} and then add the reference to the bottom of the reference list at the end of the article: {{Harvard reference |Surname=XXX |Given=XXX |Year=XXXX |Title=XXX| Place=XXX |Publisher=XXX |ID=ISBN XXXX |Volume=XXX |Issue=XXX |Pages=XXX |URL=}}. There are examples in the article, or just post everything here and I'm sure someone will write it up before long. LloydSommerer 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Abarat series, as authored by Clive Barker, is heavily influenced by the Narnia series. Barker wants Abarat to be his Narnia, as stated in an audio interview done in 2004.[citation needed]

From Critisism

  • It is clear that Lewis intended Susan to be the member of the family that puts "childish" things like Narnia aside in favor of the trappings of adulthood, and portrays that as a great loss. However, there is no indication that he singled out a female character based on a fear of or contempt for female maturity.

This isn't really supported by the articles currently cited in that section, so, after appearing for a week with a ((cite needed)) template, I have moved it here. LloydSommerer 12:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Other alleged examples of Christian (and specifically, Anglican) bias include the ape Shift, a character in The Last Battle who drapes a lion skin over the innocent donkey Puzzle, claiming that the donkey is Aslan and that only Shift can interpret the false Aslan's wishes. Shift's scheme is seen by some Catholics as a satire of the Pope's role as the interpreter and promulgator of God's will. Also, the characters of the Dwarves, industrious but greedy and easily corrupted, have been seen as representative of Lewis's opinion of Jews. The most direct parallel also occurs in The Last Battle, in which the Dwarves reject Aslan's offer of redemption and in fact cannot see the paradise to which Aslan leads other characters. The Dwarves' contemptuous rejection of Aslan comes through the statement "The Dwarves are for the Dwarves," which may encapsulate the views of many Anglicans at the time: that Jews consciously rejected Christ and favored an insular society where they pursued their own interests.

Just another uncited addition. Obviously, feel free to ad dit back with citations. LloydSommerer 04:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolute tosh. The dwarfs speak like English working class squaddies, and their hard-bitten refusal to be "taken in" (even at the cost of missing something good) is presented as a universal human characteristic. (An instance is the "Vigilant" school of anti-romantic criticism, see An Experiment in Criticism; another is the bolshy type always going on about their rights. He may even have been thinking of some of his own left-wing students!) Lewis has remarkably little to say about Jews in any of his works, which differs from his models Chesterton and Williams. (Note: Tolkien's dwarves are supposed to be something like the Jews, as Tolkien explains in a letter, but are portrayed favourably on the whole.) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems

Both the "Narnia's Influence on Others" and "Criticism" sections contain some serious NPOV issues. --Tim4christ17 12:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Such as? Alienus 15:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Narnia's Influence on Others" is written with biased language. The "Criticism" section contains many loaded terms, and focuses almost exclusively on accusations against Lewis (that are not backed up/explained in a substantial way) without only a minimal space for refuting the claims. Remember that "Criticism," when used in an Encyclopedia is very much akin to "Critique," and should present Criticisms both for and against Narnia.--Tim4christ17 22:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll have to give some specifics. You might also be interested in reading the archived discussions pertaining to that section. To me it seems like critisisms are raised and then responded to; maybe I'm missing something. LloydSommerer 00:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, you are. You see, Tim is for Christ and he's 17. So when he sees anything that isn't enthusastically pro-Christian, he protests. I'm removing the tag. Alienus 05:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one missing something. For one thing, I'm not 17.  :P My problem isn't that the article isn't "enthusastically pro-Christian" - encyclopedia articles aren't supposed to be "enthusiastically" or "pro-" anything. My argument is rather that this section isn't NPOV. If you want some examples, try these: "There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She's become irreligious basically because she found sex, I have a big problem with that." and ""[For Lewis] Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-coloured people are better than dark-coloured people; and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it." These are simply sound bites and cannot be refuted, as the evidence/reasoning (if any) behind them is not presented. --Tim4christ17 07:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the structure of this section of the article is such that the arguments against Lewis are given a prominent position and the refuting arguments, when presented, are buried in the article. Addition of sub-headings might fix this, but it would require a degree of re-writing to insert such sub-headings. --Tim4christ17 07:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

These aren't the arguments of any wiki-editor, they're quotes from notable critics, so there's nothing to "refute" because we're simply reporting what was said. You don't have to like the criticism but suppressing it is not an option. Do you have any constructive suggestions at this point? Alienus 14:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tim is suggesting that keeping these quotes is useless unless we give them more context, because they do not fully represent the criticisms from which they are taken, and so limit our ability to report the argument at hand. Also, he is pointing out a problem with a lot of Criticism sections throughout Wikipedia. Positive criticism should be given the same weight as negative, but Criticism sections on Wikipedia, for the most part, present negative criticisms as if they are the only kind, and the only positive criticisms presented are responses to the negative. Such is the case with this article, and that should be changed. Tim's suggestions seem very constructive to me. Ecto 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that either of us can speak for Tim, so I'll take these words as your own.
In any case, I don't see how you can justify the idea that these quotes "do not fully represent the criticisms from which they are taken". This seems to be an entirely unsupported accusation of quote-mining, and carries only as much weight as the evidence behind it. Go find evidence or you will have conceded this point.
While "criticism" can broadly mean any sort of literary response, it is normally understood in this context as being negative criticism, which is why the article concentrates such comments in this area. There is no shortage of positive comments elsewhere in the article.
In conclusion, neither his suggestions nor your interpretation of them are particularly constructive. In an effort to extend good faith, I will not promptly remove the inserted tag. However, if no stronger support comes in, I will eventually wind up doing so. Alienus 18:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Those quotes represent the conclusions of the criticisms, not the criticisms themselves. That is self-evident. The lack of the word because in final two of those statements is obvious, and in the first it does not make the reasoning clear. The absence of the reasoning behind these statements is limiting. Why didn't Lewis like women? Why didn't he like sexuality? Why was he frightened and appalled by the idea of growing up? How did Susan become irreligious because she found sex? How is Susan sexually mature? How was Susan lost to Narnia? What does that mean? Why did Lewis think boys are better than girls, death better than life, and light-skinned people better than dark-skined? The quotes do not cover the reasons behind those statements, and the context provided in the article does so, for the most part, inadequately, or not at all. For example, there are more extensive characterizations of Susan which are relevant beyond the two sentences quoted, and the situation in which those characterizations are given is not described. The article does not answer some of the questions raised by these quotes. This absence is evidence.
We are discussing whether ‘’criticism’’ should be considered under the broader definition, not whether it is. Why is the normal consideration better? Ecto 20:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are the critics summaries of their criticisms. A full explanation of all their reasoning is out of scope, which is why we instead link to the source of the quotes.

As for the broad definition, that's simply not the usage you'll find on biographical Wikipedia articles. Alienus 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few things about this section that concern me: It is not the author describing the character, nor the narrator, nor even Aslan but rather the other children. I've already made this change. But more importantly, Lewis has already answered this in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Given the choice of taking the children's opinions vs. Aslan's statements as Lewis' own opinions, I think it's fairer to take Aslan's statements. Narnia's own direct response to this criticism should be mentioned in the article. --Steven Fisher

Here are my concerns about the Criticism section. It presents J. K. Rowling and Philip Pullman as though they are some sort of supreme judges of what does and what does not constitute good literature. In fact, each of them has a bias, and their biases inform their criticism. J. K. Rowling might "have a problem" with Susan Pevensie being "lost to Narnia" (if in fact she is) because J. K. Rowling "has a problem" with Christianity itself. Pullman definitely does. In fact, while J. K. Rowling's religious attitudes are a subject of controversy, mostly centering on whether she truly is a Christian or not, Philip Pullman is an avowed atheist, and in his story arc, Satan wins against God. Therefore if you're going to quote either author as a critic of Lewis, then you ought to disclaim explicitly any suggestion that you regard them as "neutral." --Temlakos 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from this concern regarding the neutrality of the Criticism section, this article contains excellent summaries of the Christian and the pagan influences on the Narnia story arc, and of the concerns that many Christians (and non-Christians) have raised about the work. I also suspect that neutrality on this subject is impossible. The Bible clearly informs its readers that neutrality on the subject of God will never be possible.--Temlakos 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
How the hell is neutrality relevant? We're talking about the quoted opinions of critics here, not sound bites from Wikipedia editors. Jesus.--67.168.44.226 10:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that the criticism section of the article leaves something to be desired: while J. K. Rowling and Pullman may be a prominent memebers of the modern children's literature guild, they certainly fail to qualify as a literary critics. Rather than focusing on the petty arguments of modern authors, perhaps this section can be used to cite real sources that carry some merrit within the acedemic community... or at least attempt to. The problem with using the criticism section to state opinions about a single female character in one of the several novels in the series is that it places a distinct POV on the section. I am more inclined to believe that Emily Griesinger's work on Narnia in terms of the postmodern world play a more important role than that of Ms. Rowling or Pullman. I simply don't think that of all the criticism that has been written about Lewis in the past 80 years Rowling's thoughts are important enough to appear in this article. There are dozens of books and articles that discuss Lewis's views of Christianity, his use of mythic and religious symbols, and the Biblical allegory of Narnia; his treatment of women has taken the backburner in research because there is simply so little to study...it is silly that we should focus on it here. The criticism section is not meant to be an all-out attack on the author but more of a section that shows which parts of his or her works critics focus on in thier own writing...perhaps we should clarify that.Mrathel 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a non-stop call for someone to handle, even delete, the criticism section. The problem with the beginner's view of NPOV is the assumption that there are two legit sides to every issue. The news doesn't say "Two policemen were lost today in a tragic killing. But reasonable people may disagree. Here to argue why the killing was in fact not tragic, we bring you Osama bin Hitler." No. If a statistically significant number of people don't empathize with the non-notable Rowling and Pullman, there is no reason to include their non-notable quotes. Non-notable, non-notable, non-notable. Someone who knows all the rules and regs of the Wikipedia be an adult and remove the entire criticism section. --Mrcolj 17:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


rearranged, but needs big changes

I've re-arranged the section a little, but haven't changed the content (save for minor grammatical changes). However, what's principally wrong with this section is that half of it reads more like a Philip Pullman soapbox than an encyclopaedia entry. Pullman is well loved for his Dark Materials children's trilogy, and he's a competent author. However, as a philosopher or theologian, Pullman is a light-weight, and does more to harm the cause of atheism than he does to support it. This section of the article would be much better if we quoted more scholarly and respectable critics, or at jsut made it more succinct. The bulk of Pullman quotes belong to the Philip_Pullman article.

Some of the sandbox suggestions are great, but we should avoid emphasising that critics are authors (where they are) in case the reader implies that the criticism is of a literary nature, which it is not. Oliver Low 16:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I clicked onto the discussion section simply to see whether anyone legitimately believes any of the contrarian clutching-at-straws in the "criticism" section. I just figured it was a recent addition, partially because of what's said above, that it reads like an undergraduate paper grafted into a legit article. Obviously, with one author quoted repeatedly as the only one who believes that stuff, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, especially since Pullman is non-notable. Truly, I vote that the whole criticism section become 1-3 paragraphs. I don't have time right now, so someone be bold and make the hack.--Mrcolj 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pullman may be a competent author, but does that necessarily qualify him to be a literary critic? Even if it did, his outspoken views on athiesm certainly do not permit that anyone can view him as unbiased when it comes to the criticism of a work with thematically Christian material. Also, why would an interview with Pullman be considered grounds for his comments in this section, as opposed to real reviews from reputable reviewers who have given the matter much thought. Interviews are generally off-the-cuff personal opinion. I'm anonymous, and choose to stay that way. 22:50, 3 September 2007 (EST)

Colonialism

This article is well out of my usual wiki-territory, but I was wondering if anyone has any academic sources to support the claim that, along side the racial critique, there is a clear critique of this work as colonialist. Lewis's portrayal of the Duffers, for example, is highly colonialist. I obviously am not a reputable source, but perhaps someone has a reputable source to this effect? I'd hate to see important analysis like this missing from the article, if it's in the literature (and if it isn't, I would hope it shows up). Cheeser1 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of Lewis's works are highly anti-colonialist, for example Prince Caspian, where Narnia rebels against the Telmarines but allows friendly Telmarines to stay on. See also Out of the Silent Planet, where Lewis attacks the colonization of Mars by the Earth. Also, while Calormen is always trying to conquer Narnia, Narnia has no interest in colonizing Calormen. Narnia does acquire some islands such as the Lone Islands, but these seem to be feudal appanages rather than colonies in the modern sense. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am of course looking for opinions from references from scholarly literature or some other reliable source, since your analysis (like mine) is OR. I would of course disagree. His portrayal of unenlightened peoples of foreign lands, particularly those of small islands and what not, whose ways are backwards, and who aren't even necessarily human; that I see as highly colonialist, as if they need to be watched over by wise and all-knowing Christians (Narnians) at the behest of God himself (Aslan). Sounds like colonialism 101. In any event, both our opinions might be represented in scholarly (or other) work, but until we find actual references, I don't see how an as-of-yet unsupported assertion that Lewis is anti-colonialist (or colonialist) has any bearing. I was hoping one might provide more than an OR rebuttal to what I said, since I was actually only making the suggestion that someone more knowledgeable provide some insight into whether or not there is scholarly work on the matter. --Cheeser1 10:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know of any scholarly literature that discusses this one way or the other, though I could certainly provide plenty of anti-colonialist quotes from Lewis himself. I know you don't want more unsupported original arguments from me, but I think the Dawn Treader should be read in the same sort of way as Gulliver's Travels. That is, the "voyage among islands" genre is used to show each island full of people doing different ridiculous things, for humorous or satirical purposes. To read it as realistic advocacy for colonizing the islands is a misunderstanding of literary kinds.

As I read Lewis, he was an oddball of the same kind as G. K. Chesterton, combining a clear belief in European superiority and a somewhat repellent and chauvinistic dislike of other (and particulary Oriental) cultures with a Little Englander, live-and-let-live, approach to practical politics. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not not saying that Lewis wasn't necessarily being satirical or humorous, but that's part of literary criticism - why are there colonialist themes in the work? What kind of anti-colonialist critique is there about his work? etc. Because I think there clearly could be such work. *shrug* Cheeser1 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Just one Lewis quote to illustrate my point. In an essay called "Religion and Rocketry" (I think), about what would happen if we found intelligent life on other planets, he says "What we will do if we meet beings weaker than ourselves, the black man and the red man can tell. If we meet beings stronger than ourselves, we shall, very properly, be destroyed ... Later, we may try to do better. Perhaps we may send missionaries. But can even missionaries be trusted? 'Gun and gospel' have been horribly combined in the past, and the missionary's holy desire to save souls has never been kept quite distinct from the busybody's itch to 'civilize' (as he calls it) the 'natives' (as he calls them)." Clear enough?
If you want reasons why apparently colonialist themes appear accidentally, despite Lewis's actual opinions, it is probably sufficient to say that he grew up at a time when Rider Haggard and John Buchan were popular, and that he enjoyed both of them (without necessarily agreeing with either).
Yes, indeed, "that's part of literary criticism": unfortunately, lit crit does consist increasingly of heresy-hunting. If we allow ourselves to take it too seriously, we shall soon reach the stage where no one ever dares to write anything. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to attack colonialist (or feminist, or anti-racist) literary criticism. It's highly relevant and should not be lambasted as witch-hunting or anything of the sort. We must accept literary criticism, because that is a relevant field of study. We cannot allow a non-neutral dislike of such criticism to bias this article or any other. --Cheeser1 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anti-colonialist literary criticism as such, or questioning your right to raise the issue. The discussion is interesting, and I am glad you brought the thing up. Were it not for what I know of Lewis' other writings, I might even have agreed with you.

My argument (whether right or wrong, and I am not concerned with this at the moment) was that the apparently colonialist flavour you notice is a result, not of colonialist views on the part of Lewis (I could cite plenty more passages to show that he was anti), but of a purely artistic need to locate examples of silliness on remote islands in laboratory conditions, as in Gulliver's Travels. If you disagree, fine: that's just legitimate difference of opinion, and I don't want to have a prolonged slanging match about this. As you say, neither of us has located reputable critical sources one way or the other. So no worries so far.

Where I do begin to have reservations is where, in saying "that's part of literary criticism", you seemed to be saying that perhaps my analysis was right but that it is nevertheless part of the function of literary criticism to hunt out colonialist (or whatever) flavour even if it is there by accident and does not represent the author's views; in other words, that an author has the duty to self-censor. Maybe I have misunderstood your argument and this is not what you are saying, in which case I apologise. But I have come across this type of view elsewhere, and it is this, and not anti-colonialist (or whatever) criticism as such, that strikes me as overzealous and unduly inhibiting to creativity.

In the end, it comes down to the argument in Orwell's "The Prevention of Literature": if certain thoughts are forbidden, one reaches the point where anything that may even suggest the forbidden thought is self-censored out, and thus in the end independent thought in general. This is particularly inhibiting to imaginative literature: there is no possible way of describing imaginary races and species that will not suggest, to some readers, that the author is racist in concentrating so much on the otherness of the "other". (Even though the main theme of "Prince Caspian" was the right of the non-human races to equality with the humans.) By "heresy hunting" I meant something precise, it was not just mudslinging (as the use of "witch hunt" so often is).

I suppose I shouldn't complain. In Lewis' lifetime the situation was far worse, as every attempt at imaginative literature was taken as an invitation to psychoanalyse the author, and the psychoanalysis was invariably hostile. If I had any gift for imaginative writing (as it happens, I have not), either in the then climate or in today's I would simply not dare to exercise it. Is this a good thing? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW IS THE FIRST BOOK

!!!! So annoying. The lion, withc, and wardrobe is just the most popular. Magician's Nephew is the first book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.249.9 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 July 2007.

Only where fiction is truth. Alientraveller 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It is the first book, chronologically. In the order of publication, LWW came first. This is totally irrelevant, since both orderings are explained in the article. --Cheeser1 17:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The Magician's Nephew is a prequel. It is the story which is set earliest, but it is NOT the first book. Myopic Bookworm 10:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag

I think that to keep in-line with wikipedia standards, the flag should be changed beside CL Lewis' name to the flag of Ireland at the time of his birth, as is the norm. English, Scottish and Welsh celebrities are represented by the flags of England, Scotland and Wales, not the Union Jack. Have a glace at the page of Oscar Wilde.

It's far too contentious. (The Wilde page has the flag of Leinster. Lewis was born in Ulster, at a time when the whole of Ireland was in the United Kingdom.) The Union flag is probably under-used in the interests of excessive nationalist fervour by English, Scottish, and Welsh contributors. Myopic Bookworm 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section is unbalanced

Like Steven Spielberg and Star Trek, editors simply treat the "criticism" element as a playground for bashers. Critcism as a whole means every evaluation on the subject, positive or negative. Thus far, I read it and see little positive analysis on why Lewis' series is so popular. Alientraveller 08:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Influence from Mythology

"Drew Trotter, PhD, president of the Center for Christian Study, noted that the producers of the film version of The Chronicles of Narnia felt that The Chronicles of Narnia closely follows the archetypal pattern of the monomyth as detailed in Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces (Trotter 2005). Joseph Campbell himself felt that the New Testament adhered to the archetypal monomyth and was but "one version of mythic stories that can be found in many cultures" (Jacobs 2004). Both The Chronicles of Narnia and the New Testament contain Jungian archetypal imagery." I have several objections to this paragraph. First, the article quoted is in fact arguing against the idea of C.S. Lewis being influenced by mythology in the way that J. Cambell understands it. It seems inapproriate to reference something in order to assert something contrary to what it is arguing. At best it shows that the producers of the film were influenced by one type of understanding of mythology. The second sentence is even more off topic. It asserts that Christianity is a product of monomyth. But this assertion does not relate to whether C.S. Lewis shared this understanding of Christianity or whether this potential understanding influenced the writting of the Narnia series. If this argument is topical, then every work of fiction, movie, art should have a similar section on it's wiki, explaining that it is a product of monomyth. The last sentence could be applied to most works of fiction, et cetera. At the very least, it needs a reference to justify it's topicality. I love Cambell's work almost as much as I love Lewis'. And Lewis is undoubtably influenced by mythology to a much greater extent than the section currently explains. But I see no evidence to see that Lewis' understanding of mythology was in any way compatible with Cambell's. The paragraph seems to be the work of a Cambell fan-boy who has gone to great lengths to find a rational to add information about Cambell's opinions to this entry. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.77.83 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section is Unbalanced, II

I concur with the author of the paragraph "Criticism Section is Unbalanced" above; but for totally different reasons :-}

Balanced or unbalanced, it's kind of silly to give all that column space to people who push forth their own interpretations of Lewis but cannot cite any actual examples in his writing. If they want to call Lewis a racist on the basis of the Chronicles of Narnia, then they should be able to cite passages that show, e.g. stereotyping of minorities; or hate-speech against minorities; or racially motivated mistreatment of minorities, by the Pevensies or their associates; or their encouragement, tolerance or condonement of any of the above, or similar, actions.

They are merely projecting their own fears and fantasies about Christians as a group, IOW "stereotyping".

Bottom line, there's enough racism, homophobia and misogyny in the world that we don't have to hurt our eyes looking for it in the works of Dead White Guys.

Although I agree with your sentiment. Editors should not cite examples from his writing to prove he was a racist\sexist\whatever. That would be original research. Editors should cite notable critics who have done so. Ashmoo 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexism section: Unsourced opinion

I chopped this counter argument to the counter argument to the accusation of sexism because it is unsourced and seems like pure editor opinion.

However, it should be noted that both of those girls are repeatedly described as being tomboys and are portrayed as prepubescents, which undercuts the point (which is apparently against grown women acting feminine, rather than being against the female gender, which is normally equated with "sexism").

Ashmoo 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Allegory?

I chopped this para as it is unsourced and purely an editor's opinion. Even though it is quite reasonable (and probably true), we need to cite a notable scholar who has stated that it is not an allegory.

The Narnia series is not an allegory, because allegories have an overarching figurative level of meaning tied to the literal level, and the Narnia series has a literal level of meaning without any overarching figurative level, though there are figurative elements. The misconception that the Narnia series is an allegory is the result of the disjunction caused by the narrative taking place across parallel universes[citation needed]. There are similarities between the world of Narnia and our own, but these are literal manifestations of the same phenomena in multiple worlds, not allegorical abstractions. For example, the character Aslan is not an allegorical representation of Christ, but a literal representation of Christ only in another body, in another universe, and by another name. Aslan and Jesus are the same character in two different worlds. There is no allegory involved. As Lewis has Aslan say at the end of Dawn Treader, "There I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name."

Ashmoo 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with chopping this whole paragraph. There is certainly an unsourced sentence in there (the one that is marked), but it looks to me like it is an explanation of what Lewis himself wrote and not an attempt to expand on that. LloydSommerer 12:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem, according to my understand of WP rules, it that it is putting forward and argument (ie trying to refute the allegory claim) without providing a source for the argument. Although each individual fact is true (with reference to the primary source) the synthesis needs a notable source. WP isn't a forum and shouldn't be putting forth or refuting arguments. Ashmoo 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm reading it more as a definition of what allegory is and then explaining why Narnia doesn't fall into that category. I think I would have more trouble with it if I wasn't reading it as a restatement of the Lewis quote that appeared before it. LloydSommerer 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well then I think it is better to have the Lewis quotes and let them stand by themselves. Why restate something that has been quoted as a primary source? Ashmoo 11:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It should be sufficient to 1) quote and cite an example of a source calling the Narnia books allegories; and 2) quote Lewis' explanation of why they are not. Frankly, I think that at least some of them are more allegorical than he lets on, The Silver Chair in particular, and that he sells it short by denying that it is since it's a rare example of an allegory that's actually readable. Too bad I'm not a published critic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perfect Example of Why Wiki Is Biased and Suffers Negative Reputation

1,617 word criticism for the Chronicles of Narnia. Yet go to "His Dark Materials" and you see barely 3 sentences of criticism, and what little criticism there is in the "His Dark Materials" article, is fully answered and refuted. In fact, the criticism section of "His Dark Materials" spends 3 sentences on actual criticism, and 3 paragraphs refuting/defending the criticism. So where is the defense of Lewis? Why 1,617 words of harsh criticism? Do not dare think for one second that there does not exist numerous amounts of criticism for Pullman's series, yet it just 'magically' doesn't exist in his wiki article. And people wonder why Wikipedia suffers so badly in regards to the public perception of its so-called "neutrality". The secular atheists (wiki-hawks) have pounced on Lewis's trilogy while buffing up and protecting their favorite childhood author. This is why Wiki is a joke to so many people, and its reputation will only degrade over time as people with any intellectual capacity can discern the glaring bias that is so permeated throghout this so-called "neutral" encyclopeida. You have to fight to REDUCE the criticism against Lewis, and have to fight to ADD criticism to Pullman. That's the biased white-caucasion secular socialist atheist (a standard Wiki author) way. Pump up criticism for anything tied to Christianity or Christian morality, and protect anything tied to secularism. Either remove the nonsense criticism section in this article (which is nothing more than a lewis-hating playground) or give an equal amount of criticism to Pullman. That would be the fair thing to do...but Wiki is not about being fair anymore so I do not expect that to happen.

I don't know much about Pullman, and that's really has no effect on this article anyway. But it seems to me that each section of critism here is balanced with a refutation. LloydSommerer 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Lets be honest Lloyd. You are completely wrong that Pullman has no influence on this article as Pullman is the source for the majority of criticism in this article. And Pullman is mentioned 8 times in this article (not counting the reference section). So no, I do not believe you when you say you do not know much about Pullman. If it wasn't for Pullman, there would be no criticism section. Again, this is a perfect example of why Wiki suffers a negative reputation and is not considered neutral or objecitve.
If you think there's something lacking in the article on Pullman's works, the thing to do is to go add it yourself. Complaining about it on the talk page of an article edited by people who have no particular interest in the man will get you nowhere.
That criticism of Lewis exists is a fact, if for no other reason than that he's prominent. I don't know anything about this Pullman guy, but is it possible he's being used here to represent certain threads of criticism of Narnia because it's easily accessible and for no other reason? And isn't it just slightly likely that the corresponding section for Pullman is a bit thin because he's not so prominent and not so much criticism exists? As Wikipedia editors, we don't engage in criticism ourselves. We describe criticism that has been made by others. So if you want more criticism of Pullman in his article, find some and cite it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually meant (and I didn't say this well) that I didn't know much about the Pullman article. So it could very well be that that article needs some work in the area of criticism. It could very well be that too much of the criticism section here is based on criticisms voiced by Pullman, but they are sourced, and he is an award winning children's author. You could certainly argue that that doesn't make his criticism noteworthy. But it does get a lot of press. My own views on the matter is that he is more anti-religion than he is anti-Lewis, and that, recently anyway, he is using the renewed attention on Lewis to get some press for that. But I don't see that as a reason to take that criticism out of the article. If people are going to hear that criticism, then I would much prefer that they can also hear the response to that criticism from Lewis supporters. And I think if you read the section you will find that every criticism is quite well refuted by cited material. If anything, I think that section is heavy toward supporting Lewis, but I also think that that reflects the available material on the subject. LloydSommerer 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia suffers from a negative reputation because people come here and complain about things that they shouldn't be complaining about, instead of fixing it as needed (that or learn the rules and realize that it's not, in fact, biased). --Cheeser1 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

cut the nonsense. We all know these articles cannot be edited. Anyone that attempts an edit is reverted, reverted, then the ole '3 revert rule' threat is hung over their head. Wiki suffers a reputation of being biased, and this is a perfect example. His Dark Materials is the 'answer' to the chronicles and has nowhere near the amount of criticism that chronicles has yet is being made into a 150 million dollar movie complete with burger king promotions. If Wiki was fair, His Dark Materials would reference the ample supply of cricicism against pullman. Instead, we get a one-sided pullman criticism against Lewis. So stop your garbage nonsense about how people should contribute because the secular hawks that maintain bias in wiki will be the first to revert, along with issuing a reversion threat. Happens ALL the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.149.194 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually look like you've made any edits to an actual article page at wikipedia. Why don't you give it a try. If you want to start with the critism section of this artilce, feel free to do so. To help make sure your edits are not reverted you should make sure that they are verifiable, are not original research and are written from a neutral point of view. On this article, the section that generates the most controversy is the criticism section, so it would be a good idea to look at what people have said on the archived talk page as well (the bottom third or so). LloydSommerer 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And he shouldn't forget to cite his sources -- a subset of verifiability, but it's the single most effective way to forestall attempted reversions.
First time I've ever been called a "secular hawk". It's pretty funny, actually. In other places, the atheists say I have an egregious pro-religion bias. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

any literary criticism?

It seems like the "Criticism" section would be more properly called "Controversy". Isn't there anything to say about how the books were received when they were published and over time? I came to the page because my memory, having read the series as a child and not looked at them since, was that the first few were good but The Horse and His Boy and The Silver Chair were two of the worst books I'd ever read, and wondering if other people shared that view. Obviously I don't know enough to put it in myself, but if someone else is, it would be a good addition. Perhaps this kind of material would be better placed under the individual book pages, but there's nothing there either. KarlM 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's actually properly called criticism. Siskel and Ebert style criticism isn't the only kind of criticism. Example: feminist literary criticism. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism Section of this article should be moved to Pullman's article

The very lengthy criticism section should not be in this article. It centers entirely around the opinions of Phillip Pullman and not any sort of literary consensus. It should therefore be found in Pullman's article, not in the article on The Chronicles of Narnia.

Also, the J.K. Rowling's comment should not be included. It comes from a TIME article (to which it cites, thankfully) but in the following context:"Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn't even read all of C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot. There's something about Lewis' sentimentality about children that gets on her nerves. "There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She's become irreligious basically because she found sex," Rowling says. "I have a big problem with that." She has not read the Narnia series, and thus she is not qualified to comment on them. This is also a flagrant misrepresentation of that passage in the last battle, which is an indictment of materialism and preoccupation with earthly affairs (like sex). Lewis's attitudes on sex are clear from his other works, and in none of them does he express any opinion that sex is evil and will result from an exclusion from Narnia/Heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.229.78 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 18 November 2007

The section does not need to be moved. It does, however, need a lot of clean up (real clean up, not just deleting it), to refer to other sources. Collectonian (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why you think this is the case. It's by and large just Pullman's isolated ramblings. Surely the unsubstantiated claim "C.S. Lewis hated women" doesn't belong in an article about his books. Especially considering that Pullman is not a Psychoanalyst and has never met C.S. Lewis. It's like having a long section on Michael Moore in the wikipedia article about George W. Bush. Wikipedia should reflect the actual status of its subjects, and I guarantee you that when you ask someone (including literary scholars) about the Chronicles of Narnia series, they don't think "oh, those racist, sexist, paganist works that J.K. Rowling never read but felt free to bloviate on despite"
In response to your assertion that more is needed, not less, this is entirely untrue. The Chronicles of Narnia are simply not controversial. The fact that a few people may not like them does not make them controversial.66.57.229.78 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why balance and clean up is needed, not removal. Why are Pullman's ramblings the only ones there? Presumably because no other editors have suggested or found other things to include. I do think the issues brought up should be discussed, with more and better sources. Hence the need to discuss it and come up with a more neutral, balanced version. I personally have seen other discussions of the whole issue of Susan's not returning and its implications as being possibly sexist, with both sides presented. Darned if I can remember where, though I suspect it is one of my school books. Wish I could because I'm pretty sure it had Lewis' own reaction to the issue, and his explanation of it. Either way, I do think the section should stay, with massive clean up, rather than wholescale removal. While it may appear to be primarily Pullman's views from the way it is written, from checking some of the references, a wide range of sources are actually being used.
Your view that the Chronicles of Narnia have no controversy seems very non-neutral. There is controversy related to them. It isn't just a few people "not liking them," but legitimate disagreements. If it was just a few people, I seriously doubt there would be any news stories about it at all, nor whole books written in discussion of the series. Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
While there is a certain degree of controversy on every topic, there isn't enough surrounding the Chronicles of Narnia to include in their wikipedia article. Again, compare the treatment the criticism is given in this article to that given in the article on George Bush (which focuses on public perception and opinion numbers, rather than goofy statements by Michael Moore or Hugo Chavez, which would be analogous to Pullman's comments here) or, perhaps more appropriately, the Da Vinci Code. There was MUCH more controversy surrounding the Da Vinci Code than there is surrounding the Narnia novels, and yet there is much less discussion in the Da Vinci Code wikipedia article.
I don't think a few lines referencing a concrete critical paper or book by a literary scholar would be inappropriate, but to include Pullman's verbatim (and quite frankly borderline absurd) comments ad nauseum is unfair to the memory of C.S. Lewis and to the reality of the novels.66.57.229.78 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, not fact. That sources are available seems to refute that. Also, one can not compare the article on George Bush as he is a living person, hence any edits there fall under the strict guidelines of WP:Living. As I said, I agree the section needs clean up and editing, however your continuing whole scale removals are not appropriate at all. Collectonian (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a memorial - we don't have to do anything on the basis of what it does to the memory of CS Lewis. Also, do not continue blanking the criticism section until a consensus or compromise is reached. Until then, the version as it is now should stand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted several hours ago without realizing that 66.57.229.78 had already posted to the talk page. I think you were posting while I was reverting. I now see your reasons. I don't completely disagree, and I don't intend to revert again. But I do think that we should have some kind of criticism section, though not necessarily so long as the one we had. Mr Tumnus (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be other things wrong with the criticism section, but I don't see how you can say it is not written from a neutral point of view. Criticisms are given, generally by quoting the person who if doing the criticizing, and rebuttals are given, generally by summarizing rebuttals given elsewhere. This is certainly the case in the sexism and racism sections. I believe the racism section could be written a little tighter with all of the criticism coming before the rebuttal And the O'Conner paragraph has really fallen on hard times due to many small edit to improve it. Personally I wonder about the evangelism section. I don't know that Polly Toynbee is notable in this context. And the Paganism section is a greatly stripped down version from a while back. Apart from the unsourced middle paragraph I don't see that it is particularly biased either.
I don't see where any of this section is not Neutral Point of View. I agree that there are problems, but I would like for someone who feels that it is not written in a neutral manner to give some examples so that I can understand just what the Neutrality problem is. LloydSommerer (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Replying to myself here, sorry about that. I went back a few thousand edit to December 16, 2005[1] and took that as the basis for rewriting the critism section. I added sourced matterial that has been added since then and removed some redundant and some unsourced information. I also took out the "Evangelism" section as I believe it is covered in the "Christian Parallels" section. I do not believe I have addressed any NPOV questions, just cleaned the section up a bit. LloydSommerer (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture

When the Chronicles of narnia in Popular Culture article was deleted some time ago it was moved here and promptly slapped with a trivia tag. I attempted some months ago to rewite it in paragraph form to see if that would help, but I believe it didn't improve it any. I would like to see it on it's own page, because I think it is interesting, but I fully understand that many people find lists of this nature unencyclopedic. I have removed it from the article, and replaced it with a few examples of references from various areas. If you restore it, it's probably best to go with either a paragraph format or a list. The mixture wasn't working.

I found this information too interesting to lose entirely, so I copied it to a blog page. I won't be linking to it, but if anyone feels it belongs in External Links feel free. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The clean up you've been doing is quite good - thanks for putting the work in. Alot of those pop-culture mentions just aren't important or notable, and their mention added nothing to this article (a tiny side-joke in an episode of South Park has no relevance to this literary work). It's appreciated. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for spending so much time on the article today giving it some much needed clean up! It is already looking much better. For the Pop Culture section, I must admit, I personally hate such lists and find them useless and more trivia than anything else, so I'm glad to see it go. In particular, with Chronicles of Narnia, I think it could be possible to have one or two paragraphs discussing its over all cultural influences without a need for a list at all. Collectonian (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision of the Criticism Section

What about it? (This question is directed at the user who created this section with a header only.) --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas for the criticism section. I'm going to post them in separate paragraphs so they can be debated one by one. I'm willing to put real work into this section if these suggestions gain any approval, but don't want to waste my time if changes I make will simply be reversed. 66.57.229.78 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism to critical response

convert the "criticism" section into a "critical response" section This seems to be the standard for discussing the criticism and praise books have received on wikipedia. Additionally, it emphasizes the critical "response" of others, rather than emphasizing the criticism itself and encouraging the insinuation of article editor's opinions. See the Lord of the Rings and Satanic Verses pages for examples of what I mean.66.57.229.78 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" and "critical response" are 100% synonymous. There is absolutely no difference. Any "insinuation of the article editor's opinions" seems to be a problem outside the boundaries of how we write articles. Perhaps it's a problem on the "client side," as they say in computing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
then there will be no opposition if I change the title to bring it more in line with standard wikipedia style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drv208 (talk • contribs)
Are you the anonymous user 66.57.229.78, with a username now? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
drv208. just created an account. yes i was the anon. Drv208 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing the current section relabeled "controversies" and having a real literary criticism section added. My understanding of literary criticism doesn't really include what we currently have under criticisms, but I'm by no means an expert. Other than that, I agree with Cheeser1's responses. LloydSommerer (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is criticism. See a section or two up where I explained it. As for "critical response" vs. "criticism" - there's no rule either way. Wikipedia is not a monolith of absolute uniformity. Things that are completely synonymous can be used interchangeably. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is criticism. I'm just not certain that it is Literary criticism. LloydSommerer (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of literature. Example: A feminist analysis of literature is feminist literary criticism. It studies (among other things) sexism in a particular book. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Pullman is not a feministDrv208 (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why he wasn't mentioned in my hypothetical example. And you don't know that he isn't. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that there isn't any real controversy over the Chronicles of Narnia, other than what has been manufactured by Pullman. Pullman is the sole critical voice under the sexism section, if you discount the admittedly uninformed opinion of Rowling. Please compare the section on the controversy surrounding this (Isolated to one openly anti-christian author) to the section on the controversy surrounding Rushdie's Satanic Verses (which have earned him condemnation from broad swathes of the middle east and a death order by the leader of a major religion). Drv208 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that's why it's not labeled "controversy." --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This comment was in response to someone else's suggestion. Chill out. Drv208 (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think The Satanic Verses is a particularely good example to use. Although the criticism section only makes brief mention of the controversy surrounding it, there is a seperate article longer than the article for the book about the controversy. LloydSommerer (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia recognizes the negative connotation of the the word "criticism." It is thus not NPOV. Consider this passage from WP:NPOV : "The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." I am changing the title of this subsection to "Critical Response" to eliminate this POV problem.Drv208 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That use of the word "criticism" is an entirely different context. The term "criticism" is totally applicable here. Furthermore, you are not in charge of interpreting policy/guidelines - consensus is. When everyone else on this talk page says we don't need to change it, it's not up to you to decide what's best and then do it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In looking at the Fiction MOS and the Novel MOS, Criticism is the most appropriate title for this section. A Critical response section is also needed in this article (which would go under a larger section of Response), but that would address such areas as how it was received at the time (did it sell well, make any appropriate best seller lists if they existed then), how it is received now (still a big seller, continued reprints, etc), the reviews it received from literary critics, and a critical analysis of such things as writing style, plot set up, etc. They are different animals, at least for articles dealing with fictional novels and other fictional works. Collectonian (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Positive and negative responses

Include both positive and negative response The Chronicle's of Narnia books were very well received and continue to be published and widely read to this day. Literary criticism involves both positive and negative response. Under the criticism section in this article there is nothing but negative response in the form of allegations of bigotry and counter arguments to those allegations. This is very strange for a book series as positively received and as well-loved as the Chronicles of Narnia. An excellent example of a balanced literary criticism section can be found in the wikipedia articles for the Lord of the Rings and Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses. I would propose beginning the section with a discussion of how well the books were received at publication, any criticism they met at that time, any awards they have won, and then moving on to modern day revisionist critiques like the allegations of racism/sexism/etc. that currently dominate the section. 66.57.229.78 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to introduce meaningful, properly sourced, notable criticism of the work. However, much of that information is properly placed in other parts of the article. While "criticism" is not necessarily a negative term, the negative criticism doesn't fit anywhere else in the article but positive criticism (or "positive reception," book sales, praise, etc - which is what you seem to want to talk about) often belongs elsewhere. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The last time we made major changes to the criticism section we found it useful to actually write several new sections so that other editors could see what various editors were trying to accomplish without messing around with the article. Some of that took place on the talk page, and some on user pages like User:Lsommerer/Narnia. You might find people more receptive to your changes if we could see what the final product would look like for this article. That also tends to keep things civil because can discuss large changes without immediately changing the article. This is not particularely standard wiki policy, but has worked well for us here in the past. The best recieved rewrites have kept in mind what other people were saying even, believe me, when the author didn't agree with all of them. LloydSommerer (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Change Racism and Sexism to "Allegations"

change the subsection titles from "racism" "sexism" etc. to "allegations of racism" or "concerns over sexist themes" This serves two purposes: 1)it is simply grammatically correct. "racism" isn't a criticism, it's a world view. "allegations of racism" is a critique. What do the critics do? They do not do "racism" they "allege racism" or "express concern over racist themes." 2)more accurately expresses that these allegations are far outside the mainstream.66.57.229.78 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless semantics. Racism is a criticism - it's a type of criticism, hence the subsections. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"allegations of racism" gives more information and is more true to the content of the subsection (allegations followed by rebuttal). What reason is there for not using that title? Drv208 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What reason do you have for changing it? "Racism" and "sexism" are types of criticism. Calling it an "allegation" is actually less true to the content. It sounds like an attack on Lewis (what you might seem to think it is) rather than literary criticism (what it really is). --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove Rowling Quotes

Remove the quotation by J.K. Rowling In the Time Magazine article from which this quote is drawn, it is admitted that Rowling hasn't read all the Narnia book and is unfamiliar with C.S. Lewis's body of work. Therefore the quote seems of dubious authority and relevance. 66.57.229.78 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance is obvious, authority is not necessary (Rowling is a highly respected author - literature is her field), and it is clearly a reliable and notable source. I don't see the problem. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
of course authority is necessary. Even an expert must review data before he can comment on it. The message of the article from which that quote is culled is that Rowling is unfamiliar with the work of most authors she is compared to. It boggles the mind that her comments on that work are assigned any value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drv208 (talk • contribs)
An author as renowned (if not more renowned) than Lewis - and she has no literary authority? Furthermore, authority is judged based on whether something is published, not whether you think it's right or whether you like the person who said it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
then it goes to relevance. Karl Rove has been published many times saying that Hillary Clinton was ridiculous for keeping a full length vanity mirror in her white house office. Yet, this has no place in a wikipedia article about Hillary Clinton, because (while it is criticism) in the scheme of things it is insignificant to the person of hillary clinton. Similarly, Rowling's offhand comment on a book series she admits she hasn't read is too insignificant to include in this article.


Pullman's sexism quote

Remove the quotation in which Pullman says that Lewis dislikes woman Pullman is not a psychoanalyst and has never met C.S. Lewis. The source is a 9 year old opinion column. The quotation is of dubious authority and relevance. 66.57.229.78 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pullman's criticism is properly documented. A degree in psychoanalysis is not required. The age of a source is irrelevant, and it's not just an opinion column (which, by the way, is not necessarily a problem). It's supported by the publication of his opinion in other places - outside the "opinion column" section. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In order to make statements about someone's opinions or character that carry any weight, some degree of authority is required. Pullman has none in this instance. The Guardian may be willing to publish his comments because people are interested in what he has to say, but encyclopedia articles are held to a higher standard. Drv208 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Once again, publication is how we decide who's reliable. See WP:RS. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
can you source me to the authority for that statement? I'm somewhat new to the wikipedia game. This standard seems to allow for the lengthy quoting of OpEds by Karl Rove in an article about hillary clinton, which doesn't seem terribly NPOV to me.Drv208 (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The policy I just cited: WP:RS. A noted author commenting on literature in a published work (supplemented by a piece he wrote and had published) - as far as I can see, it'd hard to argue that this isn't a reasonable source. And Karl Rove, as far as I know, doesn't write opinion pieces (or at least they aren't published). --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The policy you just cited demands "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." Opinion Editorials are not fact checked for accuracy and thus do not meet the conditions required for this term.Drv208 (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Second, though it's not particularly relevant here, Karl Rove has written countless OpEds and they appear everywhere from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to Newsweek to the Washington Post. Here is an example from this week's Newsweek:[2]
Read my comments thoroughly, and why don't you take some time to read policy thoroughly, since you are admittedly new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the relevant guidelines and policies? The piece that you allege is an opinion piece is actually a piece of literary criticism published in a newspaper. I see no indication that it is an opinion piece, and the fact that it's his opinions is trivial - all literary criticism is the "opinion" of the critic (even if it appears in the "opinion" section). A published piece of literary criticism in a newspaper meets the policy. Furthermore, it's supported by another piece by an uninvolved journalist about Pullman's criticism. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference between this and true "literary criticism" of the academic variety is that the latter is subject to scholarly standards and peer-review. Opinion editorials are not, and are therefore an inappropriate source. Please compare the criticism section of this article to the criticism section of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. There, the criticism was made by a respected academic at a respected academic conference and was subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. Also, The Heart of Darkness criticism was significant and groundbreaking and yet is confined to one paragraph with no direct quotations. The criticism section of the Chronicles of Narnia should be held to the same standard.Drv208 (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. Policy provides for journalistic sources and sources published in many different forms. And please ditch the irrelevant Rove analogy, it's an absurd strawman at best. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Opinion Editorials are by definition not journalism. The Rove analogy is highly relevant as it points out what a serious liability it is to confuse OpEds and columns with newspaper articles.Drv208 (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, by all means, point me to where it states that this is even an op ed, because I don't even see that, exaggerated/irrelevant examples aside. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If we had the original newspaper or even a link to the guardian version I could. But we don't. Which, quite frankly is another sourcing problem. This is clearly an oped because it is not written by a reporter and it contains opinion. This is the definition of an op ed. I'm a graduate of New York University's Journalism school, I spent 4 years analyzing this stuff, I can tell the difference between a OpEd column and a news article. and to be honest, any one who has read a newspaper regularly over the course of 3 months would be able to as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drv208 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. So it doesn't count as a source because you can't find it online? But you yourself are allowed to be a source of information because we're going to take your word for it? Because you tell us you have a bachelor's degree? No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Please familiarize yourself with policy, like everyone has asked you to. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're being out of line here. I'm not putting anything on the page that is my own original resource, which is what wikipedia forbids. The fact that there are two kinds of newspaper items, opinions and articles, is common knowledge that seems to have passed you by. Also, I was not saying it doesn't count as a source because I can't find it online. The source as cited and linked in the article is to a third party Pullman fan page that reproduces the article, thus we don't have the original context, which would likely be delineated "Opinion" or "Editorial." That's all I'm saying. For what its worth, it's also the person who cites the article to carry the burden of finding a legitimate copy of the article. It should be there linked to a third party reproduction as it is. 66.57.229.78 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding consensus, best I can tell there are only 3 other people, yourself included editing this page. That means my opinion, individual as it is, is 25% of the discussion, which is significant. Moreover, there are three other people who share my vies in above posts who seem to have given up out of frustration.66.57.229.78 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is established for the version that exists. Changes to the article require consensus support. Your changes have no such support. Please learn Wikipedia policy, which you admittedly are unfamiliar with, before engaging in these irrelevant discussions about how you hold a 25% share of consensus. Please also keep in mind that there is nothing in WP:RS that says "opinion pieces are forbidden." The opinion of a person whose career is in literature is certainly valid, and if published in multiple sources (some journalistic pieces, some "opinion" pieces), it is well within the guidelines. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Pullmans' racism quote

Only the Pullman racism quote should be removed, as it is out of context and non-specific. It cheapens both Lewis and Pullman. Other than that, the criticism section is fine, I think the tag can be removed. --Knulclunk (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How is it out of context, and what would you suggest that we do to properly contextualize it? Also, what exactly do you mean by "cheapens"? I'm unaware of "cheapening" being a concern we deal with when writing Wikipedia (except perhaps for biographies). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Pullman quote dose not explain why Narnia is racist, it is not "critical" at all. It sounds like an off-the-cuff opinion. Context would be Pullman saying "when C.S.Lewis writes ____ in the Narnia series, it shows racism" or Children's book author Phillip Pullman discussed the racist undertones of the Narnia series in an interview by saying "the Calormenes and their gods, blah blah, blah..."
The other three quotes reference specific parts of the Narnia books, giving the Wikipedia user the opportunity to investigate further and address or ignore what the critic has to say. The Pullman racism quote, because it is out of context, sounds immature and uneducated, which is below Pullman and unfair to Lewis.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see how Pullman's analysis need be spelled out in our article. Analysis is analysis: if Pullman has a critical (in the literary sense) opinion of the book, it doesn't matter if a particular newspaper article (or our article) spews out his entire line of reasoning (especially since the point of a criticism section is to be relatively short). It's also not out of context: it's the same amount of context as in Pullman's short piece that he himself wrote. "Out of context" indicates unambiguity or impropriety caused by lifting a quote out of the context supplied by the original author. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it this way then. As it is included now, Pullman's analysis is crap and less than useless. Who gives a gives a rat's ass what Phillip Pullman thinks? He admits he is an agenda driven atheist. Evidence here indicates he finds all of Narnia offensive drivel. How does he feel about the band McFly? If we can't expand his criticism into something useful, we should eliminate it altogether.--Knulclunk (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
An opinion doesn't have to be reasonable to be notable. Pullman's analysis may be ill-thought out but the fact that his opinions on Lewis are repeatedly printed in notable media outlets shows that people do care what he thinks. And he is a hugely successful children's author, writing in the same vein Lewis, which I think makes his opinions relevant her. For instance, if Oasis repeatedly attacked McFly in print, I think that would qualify for inclusion in the McFly article. Again, WP doesn't require 'useful', 'reasonable', just 'Notable' and 'Sourced'. Ashmoo (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Our opinions of Pullman's analysis (or any other content) are irrelevant - we're not the judge of who's right and who's wrong. Publication is our standard, and Pullman's analysis has (repeatedly) met that marker. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Leaving this quote in, the way it is, bad news.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to explain that? Saying "bad news" doesn't help explain to us your concerns, and it doesn't help advance the discussion on how to improve the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm letting your arguments: "WP doesn't require 'useful', 'reasonable', just 'Notable' and 'Sourced'" and "we're not the judge of who's right and who's wrong. Publication is our standard..." sink in a few minutes. Perhaps I'll get back to you after a drink or two...--Knulclunk (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you refer to WP:RS - these aren't really "my" comments. Also, I'd ask that you not participate in this discussion if intoxicated to any degree (presuming I understand "a few drinks" correctly). --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of wikipedia policy was that we were required to be intoxicated to a certain degree. LloydSommerer (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but not from drinking. You're thinking of WP:DRUNKWITHPOWER, the sixth pillar of Wikipedia. :p --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
A possible solution would be to divide the criticism by critic as opposed to topic. That way Pullman's especially vitriolic opinions can be grouped together, giving them context. Rowling's quote, which seems to have it's own controversy, could be independent. Other critics, especially about his portrait of the Calormen and their god Tash, could then be included. It is implied in the Tash article that there was concern about ethnic sensitivity even when the books where written in the 1950s. Sadly this is not sourced :( --Knulclunk (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, it's not up to us to decide that a particular opinion is "vitriolic" or otherwise bad. We don't get to quarantine or corral opinions that we don't like. Other content can be included, the fact that it's split up as it is now is not a barrier to expansion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think dividing the section by critic instead of topic would prove problematic. Supporters of Lewis do not necessarily respond to a specific critic. I worried that we would be duplicating both positive and negative views if we went that route, and increasing the size of the section without increasing the amount of useful information. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to add. The Pullman section needs context. It is doesn't work the way it is written now. I have offered several solutions, yet you have opposed them. Do you have any suggestions? --Knulclunk (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, "delete it" is not a suggestion. I asked you how it was out of context, and you explained something that wasn't how something is characterized as out-of-context. Reorganizing things doesn't make much of a difference - the exact same content would be there, and again, this is a suggestion based on the fact that you consider the comment "vitriolic." Which is irrelevant. My suggestion would be to let it go, unless you have a substantial claim as to why a verifiable criticism from a reliable source (more than one actually) must be deleted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"fostering racism"? So I've read through the Pullman editorials again. Are you sure this is the right term? --Knulclunk (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to change the word to something you find more appropriate, be bold. Wording issues, grammar, etc are the kinds of things you tidy up - they don't really affect the broader issue at hand here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sources in Criticism section

There are several dubious sources in the Criticism sections that are not up to Wikipedia's standards of acceptability WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia requires that articles "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[3]Sources that do not meet these standards should be used only in articles about themselves [4]. I will itemize the list of dubious sources for discussion.Drv208 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pullman quotation: "Susan, like Cinderella, is undergoing a transition from one phase of her life to another. Lewis didn't approve of that. He didn't like women in general, or sexuality at all, at least at the stage in his life when he wrote the Narnia books. He was frightened and appalled at the notion of wanting to grow up." [5] This is an Opinion Editorial[6] and is not scrutinized for fact checking and accuracy. Though literary criticism is usually opinion, legitimate criticism of the type appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article and which satisfies the above mentioned source standards is published in scholarly journals and is subject to extensive peer-review.Drv208 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pullman quotation: "[For Lewis] "Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-coloured people are better than dark-coloured people; and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it." [7] is from the same editorial as the above example.Drv208 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your deal with Pullman? This is the second section on this very talk page in which you demand the removal of a source that meets reliability policy. It's an author with plenty of literary authority, who's writing criticism in a published source - supported by an Op-Ed, but drawn from an article by a journalist that's about his criticism. There is nothing wrong with these sources. The fact that you don't think Pullman's opinion is up-to-snuff isn't relevant - you're not a publisher, and someone who is has already published his opinion and a news article about his opinion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're confused as to the standards of verifiability and relevance, neither of which I think these sources meet. Providing a forum for discussion of this issue is not out of line. Are there any other opinions? Drv208 (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Not an hour ago you asked me to point you to WP:RS because you had never read Wikipedia's policy before. Now you're telling me that I'm confused about the standards, as if that settles the matter in your favor?? And I'm simply commenting on the fact that you've started two separate sections within an hour to try to get Pullman's criticism (despite being published in a newspaper as a piece of journalism) removed from the article. -Cheeser1 (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Drv208, I left a warning on your page, but wanted to also state it here for the record and so the other editors can be aware of this. Your continued efforts to change the headings and content of the article despite consensus from all other editors on this article and multiple editors undoing your change is a reportable and blockable offense (see three revert policy, edit warring policy, and disruptive editing guidelines). At this point, your edits could, and probably should, be considered vandalism. You were cut a lot of slack earlier with your multiple attempts to cut out whole sections of the article against consensus. All of the editors on this article have been extremely lenient in your continued attempts to change the article and in trying to discuss the issue with you. You did succeed in giving the article a needed "kick in the pants" to get that section the updating it needs, however, your disruptive behavior will not be tolerated indefinitely. I strongly suggest you step back and read up on basic editing guidelines and read the multitude of comments here that have tried to inform you as to proper Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Collectonian (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And when someone gives you a vandalism warning, that's not an invitation to use it on someone who happens to disagree with you (you, who stand as a singular objection to consensus) like you did here. That's extremely inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That vandalism warning was given before mine, actually. It came after you reverted a change I made to the subject title despite 1)suggesting the change on the talk page (which is honestly quite an appropriate thing to do. I do not understand your hostility to creating "two section on the talk page in an hour") 2)engaging in discussion 3)being told that they were "100% synonymous" and observing the wikipedia thinks "criticism" is an NPOV word and 4) declaring an intention to change it that met no explicit opposition.Drv208 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
your reference to "consensus" here is overblown. There are three other posters here who have expressed opinions similar to mine in the past, and there are two or three that disagree. The problem is that the three of you are the only ones who have continued to stick around. The others have given up.Drv208 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you're digging in your heels to fight until you get your way, I suggest you rethink what you're doing. Consensus is as consensus does. You're the only one advocating these changes, which don't have support from policy, precedent, or consensus. You can clamor all you want about your your opinions are right, how you represent some silent "consensus" of other editors, or how I'm a vandal because I reverted your unnecessary/inappropriate/unsupported changes, but that's not going to change anything. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Henshen reference is not cited to any actual source. It cites to a Discovery Institute website with two by lines and an explicit declaration that "The published source of this article is unknown"[8]. All the more confusing is the fact that the Discovery Institute is a Seattle Based think tanks devoted to the promotion of Intelligent Design[9]. This reference should be shelved until a legitimate source can be found. Drv208 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That source was reprinted (see the citation just above the one you're citing as unknown). --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the fighting, but my understanding of wikipedia policy, from what I've been reading, is that you can cite prominent people's commentaries as long as you portray it as just that: their commentary, and not a flat fact. Therefore Pullman's and Rowling's criticism should be acceptable, because they are accomplished authorities in their fields, and they weren't attempting to assert objective, universal facts.VatoFirme 06:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism : Sexism

I chopped this whole paragraph as it is rife with Weasel Words, provides no attributions for any one the arguments and and the end degenerates into an obvious opinion of a WP editor. Please reinclude with sources from notable critics.

It is claimed that the reference to "lipsticks, nylons, and invitations" were intended to represent temptations of the "grown-up" world. However, many oppose this view, arguing that the quote is taken out of context, and that Susan does not go back to Narnia in The Last Battle specifically because she no longer believes in it. It is not stated that Susan is permanently excluded; at the end of the story, she is still alive in our world with her destiny not yet fully revealed. Moreover, in The Horse and His Boy, an earlier work, Susan's adulthood and sexual maturity is portrayed in a positive light. In fact, in the same scene of The Last Battle, Polly Plummer—a woman many decades her superior—specifically states, "I wish she WOULD grow up." Thus, many argue that it was not the feminine lifestyle that was problematic, but that Susan let it become the larger part of her life—even allowing it to derail her faith in Narnia. Defenders of Lewis also cite the positive roles of women in the series, like Lucy Pevensie and Aravis Tarkheena, who are main characters in the The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and The Horse and His Boy, respectively. It is asserted that Lucy is the most admirable of the human characters, and that in general the girls come off better than the boys through the stories.

Ashmoo 11:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to restore a previous version of this paragraph from before some relatively recent problematic editing. This paragraph has three sources, and they all appear at the end of the paragraph, because there is a lot of "cross talk" between them. Feel free to seperate them out and put them with the respective points, but in my experience it makes the paragraph hard to read. LloydSommerer —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I think we do need to insist on explicitly attributing each criticism/rebuttal to a source. This stops editors coming in and adding there own unsourced opinions. Something the Criticism section is currently rife with. Ashmoo 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that I could edit this page myself, but I am not sure how to do what I think should be added to make it still look right. I came to wiki to gather a little info on this series before I go buy it and I read a little here and there and get a spoiler... I think there should be a warning as this spoiler is HUGE! Here is the section that I am reffering to, "the end of The Last Battle the other children die and join Aslan in the Narnian afterlife. Susan remains alive, her ultimate fate unknown." After reading that I feel gypped as I now have had the end of a book ruined for me. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordVeovis (talk • contribs) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)