Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Chronicles of Narnia was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 18, 2007
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] Paganism, sexism and Racism

I really don't get the critisism C.S Lewis is getting here, how can including 'Calormenes' in the story be attack on Islam?! Calormene has human sacrifice and worship 'Tash', that is nothing to do with Islam!

And how can saying Susan is "no longer a friend of Narnia" and being interested "in nothing nowadays except lipstick, nylons and invitations". Be sexist? I know someone just ike that, they do occur in real life you know! Saying a boy likes things that are more commonly preffered by boys isn't sexist, why a girl? Sure, it's a little stereotypical, but FAR from sexist.

The thing that I hate the most, though, is the paganism bit, how can Christian (and probebly other non-heretic) people say that taking references from pagan religions is wrong becuase it 'soft sells' pagan religions! Christian's preach, and teach their religion all the time, how can those same people have the nerve to say that even showing them a glimpse of something to do with other religions is wrong becuase it 'influences people'! No one complains when references to Christianity come up! Blast! Sometimes you have a film of Jesus' life story on the TV, no-one complains do they?!

You talk about these religions as if they are devil-worshipping or something!

And all they have to do is see reference to...say a dryad, and BOOM. You people are a shame and embarresment to other Christians! (And non-heritic religions everywere) Religious people are supposed to encouage people into your faith by showing them that your religion is the best,no, not by preaching,but by showing them you are not ignorant fools but inelligent,kind people that can be trusted! "You don't feed a deer by stuffing it's head into a bucket of food, you feed a deer by putting the food down and waiting for it to come." - A proverb I heard somewere.

(I know other that other non-heretic religons have a bash aswell, so I'm talking to you as well! Oh, as for heretics...Please don't follow their example and bash them, they are waiting for you to strike back so they have a reason to fight you even more, and you really don't want to sink down to that level. People should really give people a break, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.21.215 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Removed this line from Criticism, subsection on Racism because it did not fit the subtopic

According to Boston Globe writer Alan Jacobs, "Those who dislike Christianity itself can be far more harsh: thus the English novelist Philip Hensher chastised Lewis a few years ago because his books 'corrupt the minds of the young with allegory,' and suggested (only half-jokingly, I think) that parents should give their children Last Exit to Brooklyn to read rather than a Narnia tale." (Jacobs 2005)

Maybe it can be reintegrated into the article somewhere else.

Perhaps we can add a section after racism and prior to paganism that discusses criticism of the allegorical aspects of the books. The Hensher quote would fit under that as well as many Philip Pullman's opinions. The is no doubt that secularists have have spoken strongly about the Christianity represented in the books... could be considered criticism. --Knulclunk (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why does it needed to be added at all? Are these criticisms being added simply because Lewis chose to reflect his faith in his works and that's it? Why is that a valid criticism? Why not then criticize every author of every book ever written for writing a book in a way they wished to write it? I could see if Lewis misrepresented Christianity in his works criticizing that, but that he included the faith period - that's a valid criticism? It's not. It's opinion. It's a matter of personal taste. Nevermind the fact that Lewis denied the Narnia books are allegory. We clearly need another section of so-called criticism. I'm interested in seeing if this much attention to criticism is given to Phillip Pullman's books. --Selderane (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether the criticisms themselves are valid or reasonable is beside the point. The fact is that they are notable. Wikipedia isn't criticizing Lewis, WP is reporting notable criticisms of the author. Ashmoo (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That a criticism is valid or reasonable is the very standard by which we should be determining the worthwhileness of its notation. Is the criticism being noted because what's being said it worth consideration, or simply because who is saying it happens to be famous? If the latter is the standard, then Wikipedia is a useless reference and we would be better served by reading celebrity gossip rags. In the case of Pullman, you seem to be saying what he says isn't worthy of consideration because he raises a fair and reasonable point, but because he's Pullman. --Selderane (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

Should the section on Racism include a comment that Lewis's Narnians were descended from both whites and Polynesians? (Prince Caspian, Chapter 15). Bluesqueak (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a credible source that wages such an argument, I don't think it is within wiki standards to speculate on our own. Quite frankly, I believe this whole article is being weighed down by illegitimate sources. Mrathel (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering

When HarperCollins took over the series in 1994, the books were renumbered using the internal chronological order, as suggested by Lewis' stepson, Douglas Gresham.

I'm pretty sure the British paperback editions in the mid 1980s were numbered chronologically even then - when exactly was the order decided upon?

Timrollpickering (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

--The internal chronological order went The Magician's Nephew, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Horse and His Boy, Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle. 76.226.133.35 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image map

Couldn't someone turn the image in the infobox into an Image map so that when someone clicked on, for example, The Silver Chair, they would be taken to the article about the book, or would that be to much?

64.163.222.115 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this?
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Prince Caspian The Voyage of the Dawn Treader The Silver Chair The Horse and His Boy The Magician's Nephew The Last Battle
Bo Lindbergh (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the non-free content rules don't allow us to use the actual image here, but I've put Bo's imagemap into place on the article anyway. How does it look, should we keep it? --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 08:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The default link is just a link, not an image, so you just specified a link title of "250px" for the unused black rectangles in the bottom corners. Not really useful.... Bo Lindbergh (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I fixed it. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight in Criticism section

It seems to me that the criticism section is given undue weight. It seems by its large presence in the article to overstate the nature and extent of the actual criticism of the Chronicles. I would suggest it be trimmed down to a more concise and abridged version.68.126.255.60 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

-- I agree. I find it odd that much of the quoted criticism comes from Phillip Pullman, a man that prides himself in being the "anti-Lewis." The man isn't exactly unbiased in this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selderane (talk • contribs) 08:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, inclusion of criticisms doesn't hinge on how reasonable they are, but how notable. The fact that Pullman is so stridently anti-Lewis makes it even more interesting and relevant for inclusion. Ashmoo (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It should, at the very least, be pointed out that Pullman has specifically stated that he's against Lewis, and that his own books are an anti-Christian response to Narnia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Pullman isn't your average critic as he's made a career out of being the anti-Lewis. If his criticisms are worthy of note because of this, as Ashmoo says, then this too should be noted so that readers will be provided with a context from which Pullman's words spring. They should know that Pullman isn't unbiased and, in fact, makes money off his position. --Selderane (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added the following line to the first mention of Pullman in the Criticism section, "...and so a fierce critic of Lewis' work as to be dubbed "the anti-Lewis..." I also linked three separate webpages that use the term to describe Pullman. I believe my edit is warranted given Pullman's known disgust with Lewis' work and that this knowledge provides valuable context to his criticisms. He's grossly biased in this argument and that should be known if we're going to treat his opinions as worthy of note. --Selderane (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that Pullman fails to meet the standards of a critic, but I do doubt that over the past 50+ years that these novels have been popular, Pullman's statements constitute such a large part of the work's identity. I know that today, in light of His Dark Materials and current events, we tend to think of Pullman when we hear the name of Lewis, but to make him so large a part of the entry on Lewis's work is like filling the Shakespeare section with criticism on Gweneth Paltrow's role in Shakespeare in Love. Mrathel (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I believe we need to come to a consenus on how to deal with major edits of material. In my opinion, the article is being tied down by unscholarly discussions based on comments by Pullman and Rowling. There are points to be made about sexism and racism and other forms of bigotry in the novels, but they need to be quoted from professors in universities and not pop culture writers who stand to gain financially through their criticism. If no one has any valid objections, I will begin making edits next week. I would like your help and your opinions, but we must work together to make this article better.Mrathel (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No problems here. My Narnia expertise goes little beyond the books themselves (I.E. I haven't read much about the books if you get what I mean), but if you need any help I'll try to offer it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, there isn't a whole lot out there in the way of scholarly criticism of this bent. A google scholar and lexis nexus search reveals merely one thesis paper (i.e., written by a senior undergrad student, not a professor). The thing is that there isn't much to be said about "bigotry" in Lewis's work that is particular to Lewis's work. The sexism complaints can be leveled at Christianity generally, and the racism complaints at the prevailing attitudes of the era. As such any such criticism is encapsulated in the description of the novels as "1960's english fiction from a Christian perspective" or whatever. I support the proposition that the sections be deleted or diminished. 72.186.129.177 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I think it's a good idea to improve any section of any article, but before you jump into the criticism section you might want to take the time to read through the many discussions we've had about it in the past. There are four pages of archives links at the top of this page and each archive contains much good information to consider before doing a major rewrite of that section. In the past we've also setup criticism section sandboxes to help hash things out before making changes to the article. The current criticism section is a result of consensus and compromise achieved over a fairly long stretch of time, and it has been relatively quiet lately. I think that means that most people feel they can live with it. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Lsommerer and Mrathel both make fine points. What's been discussed in the past should be looked at. That said, I can't help but think Pullman and Rowling are given the space they have been simply because of who they are - not because they contribute something that hasn't been noted before. And that they stand to make a profit by differentiating their works from Lewis' should give us pause when using them as sole sources for criticism. If more scholarly criticisms can be found then I vote we should post those and excise Pullman and Rowling. If not, and criticisms must stand as they are, it should be noted that these two sources are not at all unbiased, as I did with Pullman in a way. If Mrathel finds something better to fill the void then I say let him. If he can't, I'm comfortable letting the article stay as it is save a note or two for both Pullman and Rowling indicating their stake in the issue. --Selderane (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem hashing out each item individually, and I have read the discussions in the past, but I just think that as far as WP standards go, this article needs serious changes to achieve GA or FA status. I understand that finding the sources will not be easy, but I have the University of Georgia library at my disposal as well as sources at Oxford, and I am sure I can find just about anything there. The truth is that I don't have any affection for the Chronicles. I don't even care if the criticism lambastes the books-- I just want it to do so with credible sources. If it is true that Rowling hasn't even read the novels, then I see no reason for us to leave her quotes on the page, no matter who she is.Mrathel (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe what she said was that she has not read all of the books, but it's been a year or more since I looked at that stuff. It's important not to forget that they are included here because they are best selling, award winning children's authors. And, while that does not make them literary scholars, it does make them professionals in the field. Personally, I don't think their criticisms hold water, which is why it was relatively easy to find sources that refute them. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate to be so specific, but being a professional in the field of childrens literature does not make one an adequate critic of the Narnia series. If an author has not read the series itself, he or she has forfeits all right to be represented here-- this isn't an article on childrens literature, and all sources and information must be based on readings of the books. Anyhow, I am finding a few good sources, it will just take time to sort through them. My intention is to sit in the library this weekend and gain several good sources to post here and have everyone look over and choose. Mrathel (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As I am going through the current sources, I am noticing a bit of a problem with credibility. The first one by one R.J. Anderson is a Live Journal account that does not seem to have ever been published. If in the process of assessing the quality of this entry the board checks the first of our sources, I don't think this looks good for the credibility of the information in the article. Perhaps someone other than myself should go through and pick out sorces (mainly the web ones) that don't meet with WP guidelines. Mrathel (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I think people are mistaking reasonability with notability. A criticism doesn't have to be reasonable to be included. By anology, should the page on Judaism contain no mention of anti-semitism due to the fact that anti-semitism is unreasonable?
The fact that Rowling is probably the best-selling children's author of all time makes the litmus test of notability in my opinion. Personally, I think the paragraphs on Arabs/racism is more problematic, as it has fewer sources, and the opinions are not directly attributed to authors. Ashmoo (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the racism section, or more specificly the rebuttals of the racism question, but I do like the sources used other than the Anderson, which I have already challenged. But being an expert in one field does not make one an expert in another. If, for instance, a professor has studdied and written books on ...Shakespear for instance, his or her observations on Milton are not valid if he or she has not actually read anything by Milton. Selling books is not the same thing as studying them, and while Rowling's and Pullman's status as notable writers of childrens fiction should not be challenged, their knowledge and understanding of specific novels can and should be. If, like Eliot, Larkin, Auden, etc. Pullman and Rowling were to mingle a writing carreer with a career in literary criticism and were respected in academic circles,then I would have no objection, but the truth is that neither has shown an aptitude for studying literature, and we should not take their words as having authority based solely on notability. Mrathel (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but what I am saying is that 'authority' is not the criteria of inclusion, 'notability' is. If we were to say: 'Lewis' work is generally considered racist and sexist' and added Rowling and Pullman as sources, I would definitely object. But since we are just quoting what they are saying verbatim there is no problem. The reader can decide on the 'authority' of the author's themselves. You could argue Rowling's inclusion, but since Pullman has been described explicitly as 'The Anti-Lewis', I think noting the strong opinions Lewis provokes (without condoning or condeming those opinions) is definitely notable. Ashmoo (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In WP:notability, the criteria for sources indicates that non-academic sources are fine if they have been vetted by academic sources and found to be notable. However, I just don't feel that our discussions of Rowling and Pullman are adequately questioning their notability in direct relation to Narnia. Again we have to highlight the distinction between writer and scholarly critic. In not doing so, we run into the risk of running off the topic. The topic of this article is the Chronicles of Narnia. The bulk of Pullman's attacks tend to be on C.S. Lewis the writer, not the worlds he creates. Not only does this paint him as less-than-scholarly, it means means his attacks are void in the discussion of the novel. For those of you who do read literary criticism, you know that a line is being crossed in Pullman's quote on sexism: "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. " THis is not academic criticism; there is no way that Pullman can confirm such a claim, and he doesn't try to. To speculate on an author's life based on text is to imply a direct relationship between author and characters, which is a fallacy of thought that even an undergraduate in English would be severly punished for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrathel (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with your characterisation of Pullman's arguments. But we are not here to assess the strength of other people arguments, just report them. I agree direct attacks on Lewis better belong in his bio article. But the quote that currently exists directly references the CoN, and my reading of it is that it uses the word 'Lewis' as a metonym for 'the works of Lewis' or CoN itself.
Since Pullman is on record as writing his books as a direct response to CoN, I think it is notable. Since Pullman is not an academic critic, maybe his views should outlined in another section, such as 'Influence on others' or something similar? Ashmoo (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of Pullman's lines being added to the "Influence on others", but how can Lewis be a metonym for his novels in this sentence: "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, in this case, is Lewis, not CoN. If we do substitude "the works of Lewis" for he in this sentence, then it would be saying, "the works didn't like woman at the stage in the works's life when the works wrote the Narnia books." It is absolutely clear that this whole argument is focused on Lewis, not Naria. I can handle the discussion of the novels from a feminist standpoint-- there is a good reason to question their portrayal of women, but personal attacks on an author would belong on the author's page if they belong on WP at all.Mrathel (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Pullman is specifically talking about Susan here. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christiananity ridicule is hilarious

I for one am Christian, and I find it so comical that there are some people in our community who think that just because he's a hero and they mention christmas in the movie, they automatically assume it must be Jesus. Uh, lets see, Jesus died on cross, Asland is revived on a broken stone... not really seeing too much of a resemblance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.18.172 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aslan is pretty much a metaphor for Jesus. C.S. Lewis didn't spill out it, but it is pretty clear.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lewis did actually spell it out. I don't have the cites handy, but he basically said Aslan is Jesus in an alternate reality, or something of the sort. 5 minutes googling would probably find the quote. Ashmoo (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not even 5 minutes:
'According to C.S. Lewis, “If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours? This is not allegory at all.”'
http://www.lewissociety.org/lewisgraphics.php
—WWoods (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, tehcnicly that is Saying that Aslan is somewhat like Jesus, rather than is Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlo-hara (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rowling quote taken out of context in the paragraph on sexism

A careful reading of the article quoted shows that Rowling is criticizing the asexuality of the young characters in the Chronicles, as oppossed to the more realistic sexuality of the characters in her series. Nothing in the article overtly suggests a double standard between Lewis's treatment of male and female characters. Rowling's quote should be removed. Niccodemus (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Also, the quote "However, J.K. Rowling later went on to declare the character Albus Dumbledore, from her famous book series Harry Potter, as gay. As such it is currently unknown how long Rowling has been clinically insane." is highly unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.157.248 (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That was probably just a vandal edit.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. There is an additional problem with this quote in that in the very same article that provides its source, Rowling indicates that she has not actually read all the Narnia series. There is a serious problem with including such an unfounded statement in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic, scholarly work. I would further observe that if the J.K. Rowling quote is removed, Phillip Pullman provides the sole basis for the criticism in the "criticism" section and perhaps the section should more accurately be titled "Phillip Pullman on the Chronicles of Narnia" 72.186.129.177 (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible sentence in Influneces from mythology

"Both The Chronicles of Narnia and the New Testament contain Jungian archetypal imagery." The author of this sentence has either said too much or too little. It adds nothing to the paragraph it is attached to and seems to have been added on by another author. Since archetypes are supposedly universal, there is little point in pointing out that a work of fiction contains them. A paragraph on what archetypes are used would be useful, as would an analysis on how C.S. Lewis' use of archetypes differs from other authors. But to merely state that his books contain archetypes is as about as useful as saying that his books contain words. (Thank you Hamlet.) A citation would be nice. Did someone in the real world talk about C.S. Lewis and Jungian archetypes? If not, why are we? Most disturbing is the inclusion of the New Testament in this sentence. It is niether topical nor NPOV. Please let me delete this awful sentence. Niccodemus (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to support your request if just on the grounds that whomever wrote that sentence threw the New Testament in with mythology and I can think about at least 1/3 of the world's population that would disagree. Additionally, that the New Testament may or may not contain Jungian imagery is immaterial to the discussion of forces that influenced Lewis' work.--Selderane (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music

The music sub-section inside the "Narnia in other Media" section is really for retelling of the Narnia stories in music. Right now it is also serving as a collecting point for any other information that is related to both Narnia and music. Most of these relate to the movies, and I think they should be moved to the various movie articles. Anyone have an opinion? LloydSommerer (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar and Narnia in Pop Culture

I think we need to clean up the language in the article as well as the content. From just editing the first two sections, I found a lot of repetition of both the number of copies sold, the number of languages in which it is printed, and the span of time in which it was written. We need to decide if these belong in the lead, and if they do, they don't belong anywhere else in the article. Mrathel (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice job cleaning up those sections. But I don't think we have a problem with the duplication of material. The lead should serve as an introduction and should summarize important parts of the article (WP:LEAD). It's unfortunate that so many of the important parts come in the section immediately following the lead, but probably not worth reordering the sections to fix. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I will concede that the information may be necessary and that moving the sections around will put more strain on the article than it can curently take, so I am happy to move on. Right now, I am focusing on the article's grammar to avoid stepping on too many toes. Feel free if you think something I change doesn't make the article easier to read; I will be happy to have my own grammar corrected. But if you can indulge me, does the pop culture section not look much like a trivia section? What is the policy on that? I do not think the information is irrelevent, but I think it might improve the appearence if we were to put it into text format. Mrathel (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Originally the "Narnia in Popular Culture" section was a free for all. Big, ugly and lie a trivia list. It was spun off into it's own article with just a summary in the main article. Then the spun off article was deleted. We tried combining it back into the article in paragraph form, but the paragraphs were fairly disjointed. You can probably find it in the history if you're interested. I saved a copy of the old article [1]. The idea now was that we'd just include the best representative samples from various types of works. It gathers odd entries over time and they get pruned back later. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Tough one-- this stuff belongs somewhere, but I think it probably works best as a seperate article. As you have delt with this longer, I will let you be the judge. Mrathel (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
My own feelings are the same. I think it was okay as a separate article (someone pointed out that it should actually be a separate list), but delete was the consensus. I think there would be more support for it as a list if anyone wants to resurrect it. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The pop culture article shouldn't be recreated. This is the problem when articles get too big: people suggest splitting off the trivia sections. It should be condensed, and left at that. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)