Talk:The Keys to the Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
The Keys to the Kingdom is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian literature. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to children's and young adult literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
Tasks you can do:
|
|||
Other religious references? I'm sure the book is rife with that kind of allegory. --Aegwyn 02:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The first five books in the series also have articles, but they are extremly short. I suggest that they be merged into this article, but I don't know how to post the suggestion.12.17.189.77 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There's another page, entitled just "Keys to the Kingdom" that has this same information in a less "wikified" form. We might consider merging them and adding a redirect...
[edit] suggestion
the fith book is out. is there not a back bage with a preview of saturday's book? could the quote from the top be posted on the site?
-pravuil- could he be Superior Saturday or Lord Sunday? he seems to like to mess with things, and he may be able to change gender...
-will- whatever happened to paragraphs 1&2 of the will? the first part claims to be paragraphs 3-7...
-Tuesday- Has tuesdays dawn, noon, or dusk ever been reapointed after lord author took over? it never says...
-leaf- could leif possibly be the architect? she can see the house...
Well... 1. There's no preview. There wasn't one on the others, so I hear... 2. We can state what parts of the will are missing, but not what parts are what. 3. Pravuil could be anything to a grand manipulator, or just a regular denizen hired by Saturday. 4. Considering that they probably won't reappear and not be referenced by name, there isn't much to say about it. 211.30.223.128 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-Will- I still say that the Will is the Architect, but ive no real proof do I either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz sleeping (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] plot
most of the plot details are about Mister Monday. If this article is about the series, I think the plot should be rewritten to reflect that.
[edit] Proposed deletion of a section
I propose deleting the section "Speculation on future books using the Hero's Journey template" on the grounds that it is speculation, and thus has no place in Wikipedia. Does anyone agree, disagree?Emmett5 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I Agree it only has MM not the rest--Eddy Dude 02:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I also agree to delete the section. Bio 18:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delete monomyth section?
I think it's kind of unnecessary because almost all literature in this genre follow the monomyth in some way. However, other articles don't point out how they follow the monomyth so I don't think it's necessary to do that here. Axem Titanium 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against the monomyth section itself, but the speculation section, as it is about future books and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Emmett5 00:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're not, I am. The monomyth applies to basically all fantasy books so it really isn't a necessary section. Vote for delete? Axem Titanium 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both you, Axem to a lesser extent. The speculative section shoud go, for that pure and simple fact that it is speculation. The Hero's Journey though I think could be commented on in say a Literary Structure or Structure section, or with plot but not to the extent it is. It is true that many novels follow this pattern, it is not true in all cases and I suppose is worth at least mentioning, but as I said not to this extent. --Aegwyn 14:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The main section should stay (as it is), and it should be mentioned that it is possible to speculate on plot lines for the remainder of the series, but the whole speculation section should go. As fun as it is to speculate, this is the wrong place to do it. 81.131.76.185 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Right I;m removing the spulative section, we can figure out the monomyth here. --Aegwyn 12:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair call on the speculative section, however the Monomyth section is particularly poignant to the overall narrative to this series as it is so overwhelmingly blatant. Normally a Hero's Journey doesn't slap you in the face as hard. I wouldn’t be surprised if Nix is using this template to write the series as an experiment to see if using such archetype guarantees a crowd pleaser. --Mrogilvie 23:48, 21 June 2006
I for one think that the Monomyth section should stay there, which is why I put it back after Axem Titanium deleted it without waiting for a definate decision on the matter --SurrealWarrior 17:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. That is why I removed it. Axem Titanium 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If people don't want to read about it, why fight to keep it here? If it must be removed, it needs to be refenced on the main page. i have already done so without going into detail. --Mrogilvie
[edit] Virtues & Covers
I haven't had any comments on this yet, but I assume most would agree with the Virtue section I did a while ago? They seem to be the right ones for the right paragraphs. Also, Is it worth mentioning the significance of the book covers and the meanings in them, ie. The Keys, Will Paragraphs & the Denizens or creatures met pictured within, noting also the awards? --Aegwyn 14:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- They look fine and they make sense. The books just didn't really emphasize the fact that the pieces of the Will had the Virtues too well. Axem Titanium 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
yes, this part of the wills virtues are fine. as to the second part of your question, i do not think the covers are too necisary to define ( they are explained in detail in the bookk, i.e. mondays clock for the old one, the grims train, wednessdays steel bed, ect.). an exception to this may be the austrailian covers, as they feature what the key is going to be. ( mondays sword, tuesdays gloves, ect.)--Chimchimchim 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
are we sure that the first will was fortitude and not hope?--Teletran 12:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lady Friday / Lord Sunday - Middle House / Incomparable Gardens
Is there any part of the books that confirm Friday's precedence over the Middle House and Sunday's over the Incomparable Gardens? Sir Thursday confirmed Saturday's domain is the Upper House, but these two's parts of the House have never been mentioned. It is more than likely that it will be that way round as Sunday, in charge of everything, can't really be lower than Saturday in the House, but you never know... I think this should be marked as probable in the same fashion as lust, envy and pride being the sins of Friday, Saturday and Sunday respectively, as it has not been confirmed in the books. 81.131.76.185 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Definitly. Although the dominion's are probable, they are not canon. I will make sure that this is mentioned in the article, but you should feel free to make similar changes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, you need not be registered! Emmett5 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I know I can edit pages, but I thought I'd check I hadn't forgotten a mention of their domains in one of the books. Clearly I hadn't. 81.131.76.185 14:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually you got it slightly wrong - Saturday was confirmed as the Upper House ruler in Sir Thursday (in the letter she sent Arthur). It is Friday and Sunday's dominions that are unconfirmed. I've changed the article accordingly. 81.131.76.185 14:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
An anon user reverted this change back to the orig. form, I changed it back to the old format that we agreed upon. Emmett5 15:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The Incomparible Gardens are more likely to be Lord Sunday's domain, as Friday is inferior to Staurday, but still the Gardens are described as incredibly beautiful: this may reflect the beauty of Lady Friday. I've also heard somewhere Sunday reffered to as King, which means he cannot be lower than Saturday. it also is assumed that if the story is in a single week, then Saturday will fall bafore Sunday. You ideally go through the Middle house to get to the Upper house, and i don't imagine that Arthur will take on Sunday without the power of the other six keys to back him up and defend him. --Grim®™© 13:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- When all's said and done, this is all complete speculation which doesn't belong on wikipedia. I haven't read Sir Thursday yet so I can't tell you anything about it but unless you talk to Nix himself and he specifically says something about this, it is speculation. Can somebody who knows remove anything that hasn't been directly confirmed by the books from the articles? Axem Titanium 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It may just be speculation, but we can still talk about it here, right? I'm kinda fuzzy on the concept of no speculation on wikipedia pages. Bio 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- You can talk about it here to determine what is and what isn't but speculation doesn't belong on the main article pages. Axem Titanium 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll edit the speculation off the front page, then (although my two cents is that Sunday gets the Incomparable Gardens).
Someone has changed the parts of the House to the way we believe they will come out. Was this referenced by a book? There doesn't seem to be any mention of it on this talk page. (Incidently, who agrees that the final key could be a crown? Can I even say something like this on the talk page?) Bio 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Amazon.co.uk's synopsis of the book says that "the race is on the solve the secret of the Middle House" (or something like that), so Friday's domain is almost certainly the Middle House - although, perhaps it should be noted that it this is just a presumption (although almost certainly a true one). As far as I can tell, the past books are ambiguous on where her and Sunday's domains are, though, but Friday = Middle House and Sunday = Incomparable Gardens makes a lot of sense. Edit: The synopsis on the Australian publishers' site also mentions the Middle House. [1]
It makes a lot of sense if you think about. Incomparable means "So outstanding as to be beyond comparison; unsurpassed.". I think Lord Sunday would have dominion over this section of the house as he is supposedly the strongest of the Trustees (thus being "incomparable" among the trustees).
The Middle House is definetly confirmed to be Friday's as it is mentioned in the new excerpt from the book at the Allen and Unwin Keys to the Kingdom site. Go to http://www.keystothekingdom.com.au/ and click the link at the bottom of the page to view the excerpt. Lord Mandos 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Leaf
Why is Leaf also able to see Denizens of the House? This could be very important. Bio 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
She got this special sight from one of her ancestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettyfizzw (talk • contribs)
That's what she thinks, but she thought this before she knew about the House. Perhaps there is something to do with the House that influenced this. Bio 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Superior Saturday
It's a question of intrigue: but Superior Saturday is female? I don't doubt this, because I have never known. But I'm curious as to where it is said, or what evidence it is gleened from.
- Saturday is referred to as female whenever mentioned in Drowned Wednesday, though I don't have the book on me for page numbers. Whether or not she is actually female remains to be seen. Axem Titanium 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, Arthur assumed she was male, and was surprised when somebody corrected him.
- The Raised Rats claim that the last they heard, Saturday was female. This implies that she could possibly be able to change. Bio 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is just speculation, but I would assume all higher level Denizens are able to change their gender at will, just as they are able to change their appearance to a certain extent. Lord Mandos 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- In Lady Friday, Saturday names herself Lady Saturday.
- Also in Drowned Wednesday dame Primus corrects Arthur on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.74.4 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Consistent use of covers?
I notice that the articles for Monday and Tuesday use the Australian and U.K. covers, then Wednesday and Thursday use the Australian and U.S. covers, Friday only has the U.K. cover (fair enough if none others have been released, but perhaps it shouldn't have the most prominent position?), and this main page doesn't have the U.K. covers at all. Shouldn't all the different covers be shown - or shouldn't at least the usage be consistent? I don't know how to do it myself, but I'd suggest putting the British and American covers next to each other, or one after another (the highest one would depend on where it's released first, I guess, which I assume is the U.S. before the U.K.), on both the main series page and the page for each book. Or not use them so decoratively and just add them in a gallery in their own section of a page.
[edit] Quotes?
Are the quotes at the beginning of the article from the books? I've only got the Australian version and they don't have them. If so which version is it from? Yuanchosaan 08:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know they're on the British editions, although my MM and GT just had quotes from Anthony Horowitz. I think I've seen them elsewhere, too.
yes. these quotes are on the back of the american books, at least the ones I have that are from scholastic. it was me who thought they should be on the site somewhere ( as they appear to have reference to the plot of the story) and put them there.Chimchimchim 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lady Friday: Lust or Envy
It seems to me that Lady Friday the embodiment of Envy than Lust. Lust is a stronger feeling than Envy and does not seem to suit Friday as well as Envy does. She is envious of mortal feelings and emotions, not so much lustful. I may be wrong but I have discussed it with people and Friday seems to be more envious than lustful. What do you think?--Fred Gold 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wondered about this as well. Do we have any specific reference from a publisher website or author interview confirming whether Friday is infected with lust vs. envy? I can see that Nix, having allowed these books to be marketed for young readers, might need to finesse around showing too much in the way of physical lust, but I thought this depiction was rather weak. Edalton 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but lust is very hard to do - and the whole sins thing is probably technically original research, as I don't think it's ever stated in the books. Might be something that we have to wait the rest of the series to confirm. But Friday's sin could still be lust, manifested (for a family-friendly series) as a lust for mortal (read: phsyical) experience and desires. I don't think she really particularly shows envy of them, though; she wants those experiences, but she doesn't seem to bear a grudge against humans for it. It's not the most direct depiction of lust, but I really don't think it's envy, and I can't imagine one of the later Trustees showing stronger feelings of lust. (The end of the book also seems to throw something of a spanner in the works regarding Sunday's sin, but it really is hard to tell.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.66.227 (talk)
- I was thinking that as well. It is a children's series, and lust cannot just mean desire in the physical sense. I can mean desire for other things as well, such as in the term "blood lust" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.90.152 (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
- I agree, but lust is very hard to do - and the whole sins thing is probably technically original research, as I don't think it's ever stated in the books. Might be something that we have to wait the rest of the series to confirm. But Friday's sin could still be lust, manifested (for a family-friendly series) as a lust for mortal (read: phsyical) experience and desires. I don't think she really particularly shows envy of them, though; she wants those experiences, but she doesn't seem to bear a grudge against humans for it. It's not the most direct depiction of lust, but I really don't think it's envy, and I can't imagine one of the later Trustees showing stronger feelings of lust. (The end of the book also seems to throw something of a spanner in the works regarding Sunday's sin, but it really is hard to tell.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.66.227 (talk)
Just to let you know, Dame Primus has stated that "in (Monday's) his sloth" and "Tuesday's avarice" in the beginning in Sir Thursday. Technically, it's not original research. 211.30.223.128 01:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Morrow days and their sins?
Maybe we should rethink the last few morrow days and their sins. Was there anything that actually said whether Fridays was Lust? I presumed denizens do not have sexual lust, and that it can mean other things, but perhaps she is envious of the humans emotions and experiences they can have?
Obviously we cannot see what Sunday and Saturday are, but I am beginning to think that Saturday may actually be pride, seeing as she is running the house mostly, and Sunday is rarely heard of. We need more info, but if that note at the end was from him, he did not seem to care. Also, "Superior" Saturday may be a clue. 58.168.90.152 09:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Jess
- "Superior" argues pretty strongly that her sin is envy; she is apparently judging herself by comparison to her neighbors; whereas if her sin were pride she would instead compare herself to some unattainable ideal, and be unable to admit how she falls short of it. Ben Standeven 03:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Envy means you want something of someone elses; Pride means you feel better than others i.e. Superiority. I would say Saturday's would be Pride. I think that Sunday might actually be envious of the Architect, but thats just me. In reference to the first comment, since Lust is specifically desires for the flesh, not neccesarily sexual, I am pretty sure Friday's is Lust.Alcemáe 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- But Friday does not want the mortals flesh but rather their experiences. I don't agree that her sin is lust, but rather it is envy due to her obsession with "experiencing." I don't believe we will truly know what her sin is until we discover both Superior Saturdays and Lord Sundays deadly sins. AlMair 14:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] One-week gap?
From the Plot Summary section:
The series begins on a Monday, with the main events starting a week later, and each book moves onto the next day of this week, concluding on Sunday.
Wasn't there a gap of one week between Sir Thursday and Lady Friday?--Salty53 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, someone is very observant. You are correct. Bettyfizzw 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a gap in Arthur-Earth time, but in house time, the events happen right after the other. How should this be put to avoid confusion? Bio 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- While each book takes place on the day of its title, the events do not take place within a single week?
Also Mister Monday takes place over the course of a week beginning on a Monday when Arthur first receives the lesser Key and continuing through to the following Monday when he enters the House.--Teletran 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bold merges
I've merged a lot of the stubby character and location articles into the characters page and the article on the House. I've also eliminated the subcategories and centralized them into Category:The Keys to the Kingdom for easy navigation. The books are in order under "*" and there were only 3 character articles and 1 location article after the merges so I felt like there wasn't a need for the character and location subcats. Axem Titanium 23:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've been watching these edits for the past few minutes and I think they were good. However, my only concern is that there was some information in the Denizens of the House article that now no longer exists. Unless you were planning to merge that as well, I would suggest some of it be merged. Everything else were very good edits. Alcemáe T • C 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree that the changes made were properly done. I am glad someone took the time to reorganize the characters section in such detail, good job Axem. AlMair 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I trimmed some of the Denizen stuff. If you feel like there was more that needed to be merged, feel free to do so. Axem Titanium 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What country are the books set in?
I've never been sure where the books are supposed to be set. The first book uses the Australian emergency number (000) which makes sense as it's an Australian author (although the publishers could simply have used the local numbers) however certain inconsistencies had me confused. I now believe that the books are intended to take place in the near future.--Teletran 18:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
On rereading "Mister Monday" I noticed that the fashion and architecture of the house are consistently referred to as those of earth one hundred and fifty years ago. Later in the book these fashions are referred to as Victorian, these facts taken together sugest that the events of the books take place somewhere between 1987 and 2051.--Teletran 11:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably just a fictional world. Zzz sleeping 05:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Monday's Noon/Dusk
Can we please establish a pattern on what to call the two? Should they be referred to as Monday's Noon (previously Dusk) or Monday's Dusk (now Noon) or what? Or does it matter? Thoughts? Alcemáe T • C 00:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] error?
Arthur, at the beginning of the first book, lives a relatively normal life as an adopted child in a large but caring family. An asthma attack on Monday that should have killed him brings him to the Lower House where he is declared heir to the Kingdom by convenience and given a Key shaped like a minute hand of a clock; the "Lesser" Half of the "First Key". Arthur is relieved of his asthma, at the beginning of a strange and dangerous set of adventures.
That part in bold is not correct. As I recall Mister Monday comes to Arthur in the park Then bestows the key apawn him. Hoping that he might die before he is able to use it
Also:
"The series begins on a Monday, with the main events starting a week later. Each book moves onto the next day of this week, concluding on Sunday"
While this is semi-true Each say is successed by the other.... The Book Lady Friday does state that Arthur did spend an entire week after Sir Thursday in a state of coma (persay). And isnt just specualtion that it "will" end on a sunday?
A.H. 207.6.79.209 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. This is a wiki, so you can be bold and fix things that are wrong. Go right ahead. As a side note, generally new topics on talk pages should be made on the bottom of the page, so I moved this. I (said) (did) 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lead
The lead, as short as it is (could be expanded, as an aside), is completely drowned out by the TOC and the wide picture of the series. I suggest either expanding the lead to make it several lines long, or somehow rearranging what is going on around there. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Parts of the Will and Sin?
It mentions in the article that "Each part of the will also seems to act in a way of the seven deadly sins, differently from that which their forms imply." etc.
Might this not stem from the fact that each part of the Will represents a single virtue only, and that strongly defines their personality? Without temperence (represented by the Dragon in the series), might the virtues almost be considered vices?
examples:
- Part 1 (the Frod) - Fortitude - might this not cause it's seemingly wrathful behaviour
- Part 2 (the Bear) - Prudence - acts slothfully, because it is over-prudent?
- Part 4 (the snake) - overly judgemental because it represents only justice?
etc.
Any thoughts on this? --147.143.102.11 (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Is it just me, or are there Platoist themes in the Book? The Architect/Demiurge, the Will/the Template and Nothing/the Void. --147.143.102.11 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
well, they do say that it is bad to have to much of one thing, so, perhaps you are right. Without temperance, which was the dragon, things would be unbalanced, turning the being into the paradox of it's virtue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.175.215 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nithlings
In the wiki page, creatures such as fetchers and nightsweepers are referred to as Nithilngs. However, when Arthur first reads about nithlings in Mister Monday, the Atlas says something along the lines of "...this is not the treason of dealing with Nithlings, those self-willed creatures made from Nothing." This seems to imply that, for something to be classified as a Nithling, it has to be self made, so creatures like Fetchers are not Nithlings. This also raises the point that the Architect and Old One could count as Nithlings, as they are self-made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.52.38 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
