Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Article Creation and December 14, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Lsommerer 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Problem with the Influence on Other Works Section

"A more recent British series of novels, Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, has been seen as an "answer" to the Narnia books. Pullman's series favours science and reason over religion, wholly rejecting the themes of Christian theology which permeate the Narnia series, but has many of the same issues, subject matter, and types of characters (including talking animals) as the Chronicles of Narnia."

The above is not NPOV. Describing books that are similar, but without any form of possible interpretable christian influence... and then calling them the "answer" is hardly encyclopaedic, because I can easily disagree with this statement. I think the "answer" is to simply not read a book if you fear the influence of religion on it... but I think you, and your children, will be missing out on a great classic. I would advise changing this segment to not read "answer", but simply pose that these books are similar to Narnia, without religious themes. You can't make a lack of religious themes sound "good" in an encyclopedia... in fact, many people and cultures would find a religion-neutered version of this book as apalling as you find the original.

Actually, this whole reference should be completely removed, simply because the list of things influenced by the Chronicles of Narnia are FAR MORE VAST than should even attempt to be listed in this listing. Wikipedia as a whole has serious anti-religion issues... Stop garnering attention by attacking people's beliefs. It's a waste of your time. You're not changing anyone's mind... you're just making a rude ass of yourself.

I don't read that entry as anti-religion. When I read the word "answer" in that context and quoted as it is I read it as "quote answer" and interpret it as "rejoinder" (so changing that wording would seem reasonable to me). They are not actually books that are "similar to Narnia without religious themes". My understanding is that they portray a very negative view of organized religion. But in my opinion, this is the only entry in the influence section that is reasonable as they are without a doubt influences by Narnia. As for the NPOVishness of it, I could go either way. Lsommerer 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving Content in Narnia pages

I'm interested in moving some of the content in the pages about the Narnia books. Specifically, I would like to move the information about the 'world of Narnia' out of the places:Narnia page and onto the The Chronicles of Narnia page. My thinking is that all of the other places pages deal with parts of the Narnia world (mostly various countries and islands) but the Narnia page deals with those details plus information about the 'Narnia universe'. I think things would be more consistent if the stuff that dealt with the whole world were on the The Chronicles of Narnia page.

Another solution would be to have two Narnia pages. One for the country and one for the world in general, but this seems more confusing to me than simply using the pages that currently exist.

If either of these changes is made, we should also change the 'Narnia content box' (I don't know the right term for that thing). And move it to the top of the page (which seems to be the location most often used in book series). In its current location it is very easy to miss most of the the Narnia content.

I am crossposting this to Talk:Narnia, so you might also look for responses there. Lsommerer 03:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Lilith

I think the article would be greatly improved by a discussion of George MacDonald's "Lilith". Lewis borrowed a lot of Narnia imagery from MacDonald, including the White Witch, the Wardrobe connecting two worlds, the animals appearing out of the "boiling" grass, the stupid giants, the gentle woodland people/animals, Uncles Andrew's inability to understand the animals, the protective moon closely connected to a big cat (a leopard in Lilith, Alsan in Narnia, who is practically a moon god), parallel time, etc.

To me the Aslan/Moon connection is a strong as the Aslan/Jesus connection, but I didn't even notice it until I read Lilith.

Here are some examples:

- Aslan actually radiates moonlight when changing Eustace back to a boy in "Dawn Treader"

- The scene at the tombs in "The Horse". The moon and the cat are very Lilith-like.

- The "two lion" scene in "The Horse"

- Alsan staring at the moon all night long when everyone else is celebrating at the end of Caspian.

- Lucy's repeated visions of Aslan by moonlight in "Caspian".

- The light at the end of the tunnel in "Chair".

- The dancing lawn and other mystical Narnianess is powered by moonlight.

All this discussion of the Christianity in Narnia is ok, but it misses a lot of the fun stuff in the books. Another interesting way to look at them is to compare them is to compare them with "The Lord of the Rings". For example, "Dawn Treader" is a wholesale ripoff (or parody) of The Hobbit, "Nephew" strongly parallels "The Silmarion" etc. But I guess this has been done elsewhere.

Allegory or parallel?

Can anyone defend the claim that the Chronicles can be read as allegory? A discussion on rec.arts.sf.written has not found many people (essentially, only one) who claim it is allegory. If we look at allegory we could be led to ask what meaning, in addition to the literal (which would include Aslan as Christ, since that is stated literally) is intended. I'd like some discussion of this claim. Gene Ward Smith 06:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lewis said that they aren't allegorical, so I've renamed the section as "Christian parallels". Tidied a few phrases up, too. MaryAnderson 15 Jul 2005

After years of immersion in The Chronicles of Narnia and the works of Lewis in general, I have come to the conclusion that the Chronicles of Narnia can be read allegorically, but only to a certain extent. There is no denying that Aslan represents Christ, or that The Last Battle is very eschatological, or that the cabby and his wife represent Adam and Eve. That said, one may over-read it and try to find the connection of Reepicheep stabbing people's legs to Christian theology. There is, I have found, a happy medium. It is allegorical, but then, it's main purpose is not to be a text for use in seminaries. Sincerely, Otto Bremen.

Non-sequitur in TV section?

I took out the following sentence that used to be at the end of the TV paragraph...

"Especially the final book, The Last Battle, is necessarily darker than the rest of the series, as it deals with the ending of Narnia, and by extension alludes to the end of our world."

...because it didn't really seem to follow. (I supposed it could've meant that this was why "The Last Battle" was never filmed, but it's not really clear from the sentence (which isn't very grammatical anyway).

HDC 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PBS television series?

Is the version of the Narnia books broadcast on PBS in the United States the same as the BBC version mentioned in the article? --Carnildo 22:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edmund = Judas?

I'm not quite sure I like the comparison of Edmund with Judas Iscariot. Edmund is a traitor, but he changes and comes to follow Aslan, whereas Judas had no such change. Might it not be better to compare Edmund with Peter when he denied Christ, and was then restored? Just a thought...

Edmund Does not represent Judas iscariot, he is a representation of all men. He turned his back on what was good and just and embraced the Jadis (satan), he came back, but the cost of his sin was death, Aslan (Jesus) died that he may yet live.

Edmund might more accurately be compared to the Apostle Peter, who also betrayed Jesus. Dan Lovejoy 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If anything, a more convincing case could be made for Susan Pevensie as Judas, inasmuch as she ultimately pretends that Aslan, Narnia and the Wardrobe were all part of an elaborate game played by children. -- Light is Sown (12/13/2005)

Quote sources

There are several quotes from Lewis in the article currently. What is the source for these? Such quotes should really have a cited reference, i think DES 20:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Comparison to Modern Authors

I have noticed the fact that C.S. Lewis is compared to such modern authors who so completely differ from his beliefs as to make the statements absurd. One does not begin to compare Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia with the likes of Rowling's Potter series. Prof. Edward S. Smith 20:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Except insofar as Rowling herself has cited him as an inspiration. 206.114.20.121 21:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Fanfictions are inspired by canon works. Ipso facto, does that make them comparable to the originals?

I have certainly read fanfictions whose quality of writing was as good, if not better, than the source material. Wilfredo Martinez 05:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is the reference to J.K. Rowling necessary in this section, since she did not like the work it was not an influence for her. That part could have been included in the criticism section. --68.119.161.174 (moved from article to talk page by Lsommerer 04:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

It's an historical artifact. If you look through the history, you'll see that at one time there was a bit of unsupported information on CS Lewis' influence on Rowling. I looked for any references to support the information and, not finding any, removed all but the initial claim. Someone later added the information (again not cited, but easily verifiable) that she hasn't read the series and disagrees with parts of it. So, that's how it happened, and I agree that it no longer belongs in the article. Lsommerer 04:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian parallel

I've removed "The stories illustrate aspects of Christianity in a way that is accessible to younger children." from the first paragraph, as it seems a bit matter-of-fact considering that the more indepth discussion doesn't necessarily come to the same conclusion.

--- I think that sentence still belongs. It has been part of this article for years, and has undergone changes as the allegory/not allegory debate has progressed. There really isn't any question that "The stories illustrate aspects of Christianity..." just the proper name for the manner in which they do so. I'm reverting, lets discuss it here before deciding. -lsommerer

---

After having read the article again, I think you're right to have reverted. I probably should have looked more closesly at the discussion and revision history before I made the change.

When I edited I was interpreting the sentence as "The stories were created to illustrate aspects of Christianity..." which would probably be false, on account of the discussion of Christian parallels, and the quotes from Lewis. Of course that isn't what the sentence says.

---

lsommerer: You cut out "Some Christians consider the Narnia books and movies to be an excellent tool for evangelization.", which I had added, based on lack of citation. Then you put in "Others see them as excellent tools for sharing Christianity with others. (MAC-Staff 2005)." In short, it looks ike you replaced it with a rough equivalent (although your language is a bit awkward due to the repetition of "others"; I may try to improve on it). As for citations, the one I would have gone with is http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2005/006/11.42.html, but it's not much better or worse than the MissionAmerica page you list. Think it's worth listing both? Alienus 19:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC) ---

Originally I didn't think it was a worthwhile addition, but after seeing it there for a while I discovered it was the somewhat odd placement on the information (tacked onto the end of that paragraph) that bothered me. Trying to come up with a context for the information and then creating a balanced paragraph with citations resulted in that new paragraph. You're right. My sentence is awkward. Would it clean it up enough to remove the second "with others"? I would rather not see us use the word evangelization. I believe that is jargon that doesn't mean much if you're not a christian. My writing tends to be somewhat disjointed(I try, but it's usually better when someone cleans it up).

I think your source is better than the MissionAmerica page in that it is actually an article with an author from a publication. The only downside to it is that it doesn't present quite the same breath of information, but I think the other factors outweigh that. I've been trying to avoid more than one citation as much as possible to discourage long lists of citations. I would say replace it. Lsommerer 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure that evangelization is an obscure term, but perhaps I could implictly define it. As for the sources, if you'd prefer to keep it down to one, I'll make the switch. Look for changes in a few minutes. Alienus 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Source of the name

What's the evidence that Narnia is named after the Italian town of Narni? I'd long suspected that the name was based on Tolkien's "Narn i Chîn Húrin" from The Silmarillion - unpublished until 1977, but almost certainly read by Tolkien to Lewis and the other Inklings as work in progress. It is highly likely that Lewis based the names Tor and Tinidril in Perelandra after Tolkien's Tuor and Idril, so the idea isn't exactly far-fetched.

"Accessible" consistency

...illustrate aspects of Christianity in a way that is accessible to younger children.

...in a way that was accessible to the average reader.

Could we rephrase one or the other of these to be consistent? This bit really caught my eye while reading this (well done) article. Dxco 23:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Especially since the second instance now reads lay reader. Lay is from laity, and --although probably more correct than average-- is jargon and certainly not the same as younger reader which seems to be the thing to point out in these children's books.--Lsommerer 23:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Racist?

A British newspaper is reporting that some find the Chronicles racist. I've never read the books, but someone who has should delve into this claim -- with textual support, if possible, as to why some feel this way. --zenohockey 17:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a popular series, written by a white guy. Therefore, people will look into it to find racist, sexist, class-ist, and any other-ist subtext that they care about, not to mention the homosexual, homophobic, and pedophilic themes. And it's a large enough work that they can find whatever they're looking for, even if it doesn't exist. --Carnildo 18:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's wonderful, isn't it, how the critics can validly ignore the possibility that C.S. Lewis was a product of his times and some of the prejudices of Britain c.1948 might have gotten into the books? I especially like the Narnia-bashers who somehow seem to interpret every interpolation of Christian themes into a work of art, no matter how minor, as a repugnant and hateworthy attempt to proselytize the unsuspecting reader. 206.114.20.121 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that is disappointing (to me) about some wikis; allegations get way too much leway in terms of truth, accuracy and validity. The general opinion seems to be that "oh, there is an alleged something or other so we should cover all bases just in case." Serious allegations such as racism, sexism, etc. need hard evidence, not someone's interpretation of a fictional novel. If it can't be backed up by a quote, non-fictional writing, interview, news item, history, etc. outside of the work itself, I don't know that it can be considered credible -- especially in this case where the items are stretching at best. Just my opinion, but including the items just seems to give validity to the allegations and effect people's opinions about a work or author whether they are true or not. --J, in StL --71.8.210.216 04:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Narnia is about as Racist as the Wizard of Oz is sexist. I'd ignore it and delete the "Racism" section in the article.

NPOV?

Is it just me, or does the section dealing with criticism of the books seem primarily focused on disproving the critics instead of balancing critic against supporter? Consider this paragraph:

The representation of other races, particularly the Calormenes, as enemies of Aslan and Narnia. (The Calormenes are described as dark-skinned.) It should be noted, however, that there are good Calormene characters throughout the books, and the majority of villainous characters, such as the White Witch, the Green Witch, Uncle Andrew, the Gentle Giants, and King Miraz and his fellow Telmarine supressors of "Old Narnia", are all white-skinned. In addition, the character Aravis, a dark-skinned Calormene, marries a white-skinned Archenlander prince, which is remarkably progressive racial thinking for the time that this book was written.

The evidence attacking the argument far outweighs the evidence for it, which is none. Only one sentence addresses the claim, while a good deal more is devoted to disproving the claim. Even those sections that do not directly try to debunk the claim attempt to justify it in some way, either by claiming it was a product of the times or cleared in other works of Lewis'. This seems NPOV to me, without a doubt-does anyone else think so?

And please, please don't say that this argument is trying to attack Lewis or the works, or even trying to do something to the article that would ruin the quality of it or the information. I have no qualms with Narnia, I haven't read the books since sixth grade and have no information about Lewis in my head. I just think that an article that deals with this topic and especially a subtopic as sensitive as criticism should be NPOV in every respect.

This is my reason for adding the tag. If anyone disagrees, please raise your voice.--Offkilter 04:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think this might be neutral enough. Specific critisms are raised, and then addressed. It seems to me that it is in the nature of addressing this sort of critisism that it takes far fewer words to describe a fault than it does to give any sort of response to that fault. However, I do agree that it is not necessary to cite every counter example as the paragraph above seems to do. At any rate, I changed the template from POV to POV-section for the time being as that seems to to Offkilter's intent Lsommerer 17:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• The tag doesn't belong here. Neutral doesn't mean that equal amounts of time should be spent discussing every silly theory when they are demonstrably false. See poinsettia for an example of this. The Narnia article mentions some weird theories, demonstrates them false, and moves on. These theories are already too prominent in the article, as it's not the third most important major point here. Steven Fisher 17:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• • If no one else thinks this section is not NPOV I'll remove the template on Friday December 9th. Lsommerer 00:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Criticism heading is *not* NPOV. I don't even agree with the criticisms, however the way that people have emotionalized the criticisms here points to a lack of NPOV. I feel that the criticisms should stand or fall on their own merit, rather than someone cleverly obfuscating each and every point to fit some agenda. However, the critic has made many weasel statements with no references or sources.

• "Some critics" need to be identified and cited and quoted verbatim.
• Abstract and vague references to Lewis's other works displaying sexism need to be cited, with links.
• References to Lewis's and Tolkien's alleged views of seeing materialism and commercialism as "evil" need to be cited.
• What was King Caspian's wife's name? Citing her as merely the wife of a male character and a dghter of Ramandu doesn't help bolster the argument that Lewis was sexist if her name isn't even mentioned.
• If someone went through and counted positive and negative female roles in the books, this would probably be "proof" one way or another, although this premise seems rather ridiculous.
• The psychiatric aspersions to Lewis's overt or subconscious sexism need to be proven.
• The subtle advertisement for Jill Pole was removed due to being grammatically incoherent and irrelevant
• Citing a single instance of a Caloremene princess marrying a white character could be seen more as an attempt to assimilate and devalue the culture from whence the girl derived. This is a hot issue because of the unwelcome evangelization in the Middle East right now and the dichotomy between Islam and Christianity.
• I don't even know what the point is about the Empire and Nation Criticism. Is the critic stating that CS Lewis is using his books as a sort of anti-colonialist or capitalist allegory, or that only dark-skinned people can be seen as noble savages and barbarians? Seems the contrast of the Calormen and the Ottoman Empire kind of shoots this argument down.
• The citation of Enmeth being welcomed into Aslan's country because he converted is extremely culturally insensitive and downright childish

I have done a partial re-write of the section for NPOV and to adhere to Wikipedia style, but I still think the NPOV template is needed until there is a little more consensus. I have at least tried to separate the pros and cons and attempted to appear non-partisan. This is not black /white, right /wrong. If necessary we can submit this entry for moderation if people can't play nice. Cyberdenizen 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice edits. Separating the criticisms from the defenses really cleans things up. There are a few places where the disjointed original understandably caused you to put items in the wrong category. I also want to point out that the Emeth reference isn't what you think. He was accepted into Aslan's country even though he didn't convert (which raises other issues). Lsommerer 22:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, thanks for the clarification on Enmeth. I haven't read the books in years. The entry is definitely looking better in my opinion, although a few things seem kind of convoluted...

• I don't think critics claim the author views "sexual maturity in females as evil", but are more disturbed by the fact that she seems to have been denied admittance to Aslan's country based solely on superficial criteria.
• What is Caspian's wife's name?
• I think that the refutation of the Sexism claims needs to at least cite some source for Lewis's and Tolkien's alleged moral disdain for materialism and commercialism. Rather than just citing "Lewis's other works" - which other works? The anti-Lewis criticisms need to cite specific sources as well - if there are none, their criticisms should be removed.
• The statement "the generally good representation of females in protagonist roles" seems biased and needs to be cleared up with fact, otherwise someone is just going to come along and attack the point. Citing sources is the best way to stop this ongoing wiki war, since many of the claims are just pure conjecture or hearsay.

Other than that, I think the section is looking pretty good... We'll see what others think. :D Cyberdenizen 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I spent some time finding references for the sexist section, and think I have the more important recent ones covered. I don't have the resources to find historical criticisms which I think some of these may be. As far as specifics go:

• The "sexual maturity in females as evil" was mine and was meant to serve as a place holder while I found some quotes.
• Caspian's wife is never named. She is always referred to as daughter of... or wife of... (somewhat sexist, I'm sure, but not something that I've read in written criticisms)
• "Lewis's other works..." was added at about the same time to this article and The Last Battle article by the same person, and seemed at the time to be referring to Lewis' Stace Trilogy. Clearly something got lost in future edits, and as I couldn't find a reference for that I changed it a bit to fit with the reference cited.
• "the generally good representation of females in protagonist roles" is now cited, and could be expanded with examples from that reference, but I have not done so in deference to the above comment that suggest more space is given to defense of criticisms than to the criticisms.
• I believe the bullet point "CS Lewis taught at Magdalen College at Oxford University"... should be removed. That information was originally added as a way of explaining why Lewis might have sexist views, not to criticize them. I would have liked to change it to a criticism related to outdated gender roles which I remember having read somewhere, but could not find a reference for.
• I could not find and references to criticism based on British imperialism, but this could be a historical criticism. Can anyone verify this and cite sources?
• I think the original poster of the "reverse colonialism" made the whole thing up, but who knows?
• I would like to completely remove the introductory sentence: The The Chronicles of Narnia have been criticized for sexism... from this section. It does not seem to add anything. Anyone have feelings on this?

It should probably be noted that the criticism section is a recent addition to this article (not my addition), and, as it is somewhat controversial, could be expected to take some time to iron out. Personally, with perhaps the exception of one user I think things have proceeded remarkably well. No revert wars. People waiting for comments before making changes. characterizing this as an "ongoing wiki war" seems a bit harsh to me. Cyberdenizen, if you have the time, could you look over my edits and make them more readable. They don’t read as well as yours. Lsommerer 13:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lsommerer- Your citations explain things a lot better, and take off some of the polemic tone which the section previously had. Good job! I think you went above and beyond in going and hunting down the critic's sources and references for them, though. That is their job: if they make a statement they need to provide Verifiable evidence to back up their assertions. If they can't, it gets deleted. Read the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. One of the things it says is: "Fact checking is time consuming. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial content is questionable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit." At least now you are well versed in the rhetoric of the critics, and can offer counter information when it reoccurs - and I'm sure it will, with the film and all. If the critics show up to make another 20 point bulleted manifesto against the allegedly Anglo-centric & intolerant CS Lewis, they can be made to adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and back up their hyperbole with facts not feelings. I won't do it until more people comment, but what do you think about compiling all the criticisms into one large paragraph and the refutations in a following paragraph? Some fluff will be lost in the process, but this will make it a lot more manageable and concise. Also, I'll go over the section later to polish it up a little more as per your request.Cyberdenizen 18:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the section has been significantly improved, and the NPOV should probably be removed. If anyone else still feels that it should be modified (as I'm sure somebody will) don't hesitate to say so.--Offkilter 06:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Justification for Edits Re:Criticsm

I have didacted much of the criticism section. Most of the content is derived from two critics, but the way it was arranged it made it appear as if there were hordes of anti-Lewis crusaders because so much was uncited and unsubstantiated in the entry. I quoted the jist of the negative claims, and they are referenced and some of it is hyper-linked if anyone wants to follow up. I have also removed the lengthy run on sentences and most of the specific refutations, leaving a more genral one intact. To let a few people with an axe to grind turn an entry into a Hegelian dialectic is not encyclopaedic. I cite criticisms of other authors like Tolkien on Wikipedia as an example of the proper way to let critics have their say, but not let their commentary monopolize the entry. Cyberdenizen 17:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned brielfy in my check-in comment, I generally approve of the changes you made. The section was a mess and now it's much cleaner because you cut out a lot of junk. However, you also cut out a relevant Pullman quote, so I put it back in and put Rowling ahead of him, both because she's better known and because it flows better this way. I also made a few minor copyedits for commas and such.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienus (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the spirit of the quotes you put back in are covered elsewhere in the criticisms section and if we let *every* single criticism in, then people want to refute *every* single criticism and it quickly gets out of hand. We already have one negative commentary by Pullman and there is a link to his work, his Wikipedia entry and the actual article in the references.Cyberdenizen 18:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my omited signature. I agree that we can't stick in every single criticism, but I'd say that a strong quote like this one is worth more than a necessarily more neutral summary. If there's duplication, I'd rather trim down the commentary and let the original speak for itself. Our job is to frame the issues and let the authorities speak, not drown them out with our own armchair input.

As for having both, they serve different purposes. The first is parallel, though distinct, from Rowling comments on the Susan issue, while the second is a more sweeping criticism that fits well with the following one. I don't have any strong feelings about your joining the two, but I do want you to understand why I kept them separate. Alienus 19:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the re-insertion of the 'susan' section to the intro, I do think they serve to introduce the quotes from the authors. I agree that the second quote fits well with the second set of critisisms, but I don't think it is necessary. It doesn't expand on them. It just states that he has them. I think we are as well served by the summary and reference.

I'd also like to point out that we're a find lot. Trying to get a NPOV on a section it seems like none of us particularly like or agree with. Nice work all. Don't get discouraged; we are improving. Lsommerer 20:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Henscher quote because it's just sensationalism. He isn't actually making a point - he's just saying he doesn't like it, though he is saying it in clever, literary language. DJ Clayworth 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I was quite content when we removed a lot of OR commentary and let the quotes speak for themselves. By quoting with minimal comment, we achieve the goal of neutral reporting. I'm very unhappy with the recent changes, since they effectively censor the critics, which violates the NPOV goal. I think we need to revert the bulk of the changes to what Cyberdenizen had before. As for the Susan paragraph I reverted, my basis is that the criticism is impossible to understand without the context. Unless someone has some good reason to the contrary, I plan to do just what I said. Alienus 22:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously a large problem in attempting to reach a consensus about the critisism section is that in addition to the edits that those of us who are discussing the section are doing, there are also other edits happening at the same time. Is it within the realm of Wikidom for those people interested enough to express an opinion here to (A) come to an agreement on the criteria for the section (probably just wiki policy and our thoughts on fair/readable presentation) and (B) hash out the section in some other location (here or a page in another namespace). Then (C) posting that version along with HTML comments suggesting that others (1) cite any additions and (2) read the talk page to get some context on changes? Lsommerer 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Justification for Edits Re:Criticsm

I have didacted much of the criticism section. Most of the content is derived from two critics, but the way it was arranged it made it appear as if there were hordes of anti-Lewis crusaders because so much was uncited and unsubstantiated in the entry. I quoted the jist of the negative claims, and they are referenced and some of it is hyper-linked if anyone wants to follow up. I have also removed the lengthy run on sentences and most of the specific refutations, leaving a more genral one intact. To let a few people with an axe to grind turn an entry into a Hegelian dialectic is not encyclopaedic. I cite criticisms of other authors like Tolkien on Wikipedia as an example of the proper way to let critics have their say, but not let their commentary monopolize the entry. Cyberdenizen 17:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned brielfy in my check-in comment, I generally approve of the changes you made. The section was a mess and now it's much cleaner because you cut out a lot of junk. However, you also cut out a relevant Pullman quote, so I put it back in and put Rowling ahead of him, both because she's better known and because it flows better this way. I also made a few minor copyedits for commas and such.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienus (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the spirit of the quotes you put back in are covered elsewhere in the criticisms section and if we let *every* single criticism in, then people want to refute *every* single criticism and it quickly gets out of hand. We already have one negative commentary by Pullman and there is a link to his work, his Wikipedia entry and the actual article in the references.Cyberdenizen 18:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my omited signature. I agree that we can't stick in every single criticism, but I'd say that a strong quote like this one is worth more than a necessarily more neutral summary. If there's duplication, I'd rather trim down the commentary and let the original speak for itself. Our job is to frame the issues and let the authorities speak, not drown them out with our own armchair input.

As for having both, they serve different purposes. The first is parallel, though distinct, from Rowling comments on the Susan issue, while the second is a more sweeping criticism that fits well with the following one. I don't have any strong feelings about your joining the two, but I do want you to understand why I kept them separate. Alienus 19:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the re-insertion of the 'susan' section to the intro, I do think they serve to introduce the quotes from the authors. I agree that the second quote fits well with the second set of critisisms, but I don't think it is necessary. It doesn't expand on them. It just states that he has them. I think we are as well served by the summary and reference.

I'd also like to point out that we're a find lot. Trying to get a NPOV on a section it seems like none of us particularly like or agree with. Nice work all. Don't get discouraged; we are improving. Lsommerer 20:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Henscher quote because it's just sensationalism. He isn't actually making a point - he's just saying he doesn't like it, though he is saying it in clever, literary language. DJ Clayworth 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I was quite content when we removed a lot of OR commentary and let the quotes speak for themselves. By quoting with minimal comment, we achieve the goal of neutral reporting. I'm very unhappy with the recent changes, since they effectively censor the critics, which violates the NPOV goal. I think we need to revert the bulk of the changes to what Cyberdenizen had before. As for the Susan paragraph I reverted, my basis is that the criticism is impossible to understand without the context. Unless someone has some good reason to the contrary, I plan to do just what I said. Alienus 22:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously a large problem in attempting to reach a consensus about the critisism section is that in addition to the edits that those of us who are discussing the section are doing, there are also other edits happening at the same time. Is it within the realm of Wikidom for those people interested enough to express an opinion here to (A) come to an agreement on the criteria for the section (probably just wiki policy and our thoughts on fair/readable presentation) and (B) hash out the section in some other location (here or a page in another namespace). Then (C) posting that version along with HTML comments suggesting that others (1) cite any additions and (2) read the talk page to get some context on changes? Lsommerer 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for Critisism section

I think this is a fair summary of what we've been moving toward. Correct it as needed Lsommerer 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• all information should be cited (critisisms and defences) as per Wikipedia:Cite
• it is preferable to quote critics verbatum when short self contained quotes are available
• context should be provided for those not familiar with issues (Susan junk)
• defenses should be brief summaries

Things that we don't seem to have consensus on yet:

• are section subheadings needed (accusations of sexism...)
• if they are, is an introduction paragraph needed
• how many quotes from critics are needed

---

I concur with your first four statements.I think subheadings are not needed. Critics can take their bulleted manifestos against the author to their own web space. It is not encyclopaedic conduct and it violates Wikipedia style. I don't think an introductory paragraph is needed. Let the critic's words speak for themselves. ONE good quote indicative of the critic or defender's position should suffice. This is not supposed to be the end all be all on the subject. Readers can do their own research into allegations, pro or con.I ask all editors who are feeling emotional and shouting "censorship" to go look at other fiction entries and author's criticism sections. I realize some here have a vested inrest in sainting or demonizing Lewis, but that doesn't mean every negative comment and accusation ever made needs to be inserted or refuted. I think that there are too many polemics occuring on both sides and I felt that my revision was relatively neutral prior to recent modifications. Lightissown: you need to justify and explain your edits or they will be reverted. You aren't even stating what you are doing or why. Cyberdenizen 23:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you for reverting Light_is_Sown's changes.

I made the mistake of doing an additional copyedit before going to Talk, so let me briefly explain what I did, why I did it, and what I suggest we should do. The two main changes were to restore the second part of the Pullman quote and to rewrite the paragraph on Victorianism. The reason for the former is that we still needed to cite something from Pullman that shows his allegations of racism. It's also fairly short and strongly written. The reason for the latter is that the paragraph just didn't hang together very well. I wanted to make it clear that the Victorian nature of the writers is being brought up as an excuse for the apparent sexism and racism. This paragraph might need more work, so feel very free to copyedit it some more.

Now, addressing each of the above points in turn: I likewise agree with the first four points, with a difference in interpretation on just how short quotes should be. I think every quote has to pull its own weight, so it comes down to whether there's sufficient justification for keeping it. On that note, I'm not thrilled with the Hensher quote we have now. It's more dismissive and much less detailed than the second part of Pullman's. I'd rather we found something that expresses why he hates Lewis, rather than just stating that he does.

I don't think the subheadings work that well, because the quotes mix in a few topics at once. For intros, we just need to make sure that the article makes sense to someone who's reading casually and isn't already intimately familiar with these issues. That's why I think the quick background on Susan's fate is essential. Likewise, every quote, pro or con, has to add value. Alienus 02:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I created a page where we can show what we each consider a reasonable state for the section. I think that will give me a better idea of what everyone thinks without all of us doing that with the real article. I would suggest you grab a copy of the section from the history that is close to what you consider optimal and copy it to a section on that page (or use one of the sections that is there already). Anyone is welcome to play, but please refrain from editing other's sections. (or maybe this isn't a good idea and noone will be interested. Lsommerer 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox for The Chronicles of Narnia Critisism Section

---

With the exception of the Hensher quote, I'm reasonably happy with the way things are at this very moment. Alienus 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet more NPOV discussion

I've repaired the gross atheistic bias against the works by including reasonable and valid rebuttals against the Pullman criticisms. I need to note to the original author: having such a large section of Pullman criticisms was unwarranted. There was more pullman content than Lewis. Where is the similar criticisms of Pullmans work on his page? To just blast away with a myriad of Pullman criticism without an adequate rebuttal is against the spirit of Wikipedia. While I have left, fully intact, the atheistic critiques, I have justly added rational responses that are cited, and sourced.

Please keep in mind that in the spirit of Wikipedia, it is unacceptable to have a personal point of view, and write up a "neutral" piece that is slanted towards that view. The original entry for this book was overtly slanted negatively. Four paragraphs of harsh criticisms followed by 3 sentences of defense is absurd. The page is now corrected to balance criticisms with defense.

---

Fight POV with citations and neutrality, not counter-POV. If you think the article could use more Lewis quotes, feel free to add them where appropriate. However, the place for criticism of Pullman is the article on Pullman, not here. Moreover, you can't keep feeding your words into the mouths of imaginary, unnamed "defenders" for very long without turning this into a rant. Your changes are not acceptable. Alienus 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

it is fully reasonable to give common responses to the numerous Pullman criticisms in this article. With no less than three full paragraphs devoted to Pullman's criticisms, more than 360 words, having a response is warranted. Simply putting in a criticism because you have a citation is not enough to warrant being added to this page. This is an encylopedia. The Chronicles of Narnia page should not be a source for Pullman's views that lack a response. Pullman's interpretations of Narnia are in the extreme minority, yet his presense on this page is heavy. The rebuttals were fully cited and are warranted, regardless of how you personally feel. A more balanced representation is necessary and your attempt at ownership of this page is unacceptable.

---

I'm actually a fairly recent and minor contributor to this article, so it's dishonest to pretend it's all about me. In fact, I'm just one of the people who keeps reverting your changes, so there does seem to be a consensus against you. Initially I tried to merge in your changes, but you crossed the line. I suggest, once again, that you use cited quotes instead of editorializing. Then the rest of us have something to work with, as opposed to revert wholesale. Making up unnamed sources is absurd. Until you stick within the accepted norms of this article, you're going to be on the losing side of an edit war. Alienus 07:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree with User:Alienus. The entry was actually coming along well prior to the emotional diatribes. Anonymous Editor 24.85.54.116 Please create a user name or log in if you are serious. Read the history. Use the Sandbox for The Chronicles of Narnia Critisism Section to offer your ideas so we can come to a consensus. We aren't trying to be mean - but this has been going on for several days and you aren't the first person to come along and wantonly modify the entry to suit an agenda. Also, you need to be aware that you are about to violate the Three Revert Rule and your IP may be suspended if you continue. Cyberdenizen 07:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

To Alienus. Please dont use threats of an IP ban on me (you just sent me one). I have not violated any rule by editing the page. In fact, Wikipedia encourages people to edit pages. I have not violated any rule whatsoever, so threats of banning are not a very respectful way to go about this. Furthermore, I would like to bring this rule to your attention:

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it....and do not make personal attacks."

Now, accusing me of ranting was a personal attack, one that I dont feel was warranted. Second, simply reverting my edits which were done in good faith and in the spirit of this website is not the best way to solve this. I represent the community as much as you do, and I would like to see a full defense of the Pullman criticisms on this page. The narnia page should not be used as a vessel for Pullman's views, which it is now. If you are going to have so many Pullman references, then a valid response is fully warranted. You do not own this page, we do. We, being the community.

I have created an account, marshill "to come along and wantonly modify the entry to suit an agenda" this is a statement designed to insinuate conflict. You have an obligation to post reasonable responses to Pullmans' criticisms. I posted them, and you removed them. Now, I, along with numerous other people, am going to hold you accountable to posting reasonable responses to those criticisms as NPOV demands. You are accountable to neutrality. Your accusation that I have an agenda is true: I have an agenda to be neutral. That is why I left every pullman critique completely unaltered. Yet you deleted all the reasonable and cited responses to them. Who has the agenda here? Now fufill your duty and obligation to neutrality and post reasonable responses to Pullmans extreme minority opinions on Lewis's work. You have 3 paragraphs of Pullman. Neutrality demands the same in response. Either remove some of Pullmans criticisms or add responses that are necessary for fairness. (unsigned)

---

I don't know if you're deluded or dishonest, but either way, you're spouting nonsense: I've made no threats of IP ban. All I've said is that your changes will continue to be reverted, which is more an observation than a threat, since others are jumping in to revert the damage you've made. Moreover, as Cyberdenizen was so kind as to point out, you're about to shoot yourself in the foot by violating the three revert rule. They're doing you a favor by telling you this.

You're free to edit, but we're free to revert bad edits, and yours are pretty bad. If you remember, I did my best to work in some of your changes, but once you crossed the line, there was just nothing to salvage.

Please re-read my suggestions above on how you can make a difference without making a mess. In particular, look for some some balancing quotes from real people, not your talking hand.

Oh, and please use four dashes to divide a section, not three. Also, sign with four tildes. Alienus 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

"I don't know if you're deluded or dishonest, but either way, you're spouting nonsense:" ad-hominem attacks are considered logical fallacies. Please refrain. I'd hate to require arbitration, but unfortunately, I need to stand my ground. The page as it is now is unacceptable. If my sourced and cited edits do not sit well with your subjective views, that does not equivocate to being "bad". Furthermore, you are not the owner of this page, the community is. Now, I am not forcing my edits, I am holding you accountable to neutrality. Provide an answer to Pullmans criticisms, you have this responsibility, because after four ad-hominem attacks, including a poisoning the well fallacy, I am wondering if your true motives are really to provide a neutral source of information regarding CS Lewis.Marshill 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello Marshill. Thank you for setting up an account. I sent you the notice at Anonymous Editor 24.85.54.116 because you continually keep modifying the entry without explaining your edits or adding an edit summary. This is considered vandalism. RoyBoy is an administrator, and he is the person who sent you the warning. Also, there is a sandbox here: Sandbox for The Chronicles of Narnia Critisism Section to submit your changes. We are trying to reach some sort of consensus, and wantonly changing everything is not constructive. Don't be so emotional - express your concerns without resorting to ad hominem attacks. If you want to submit the entry for arbitration, feel free. You can sign your name by entering four tildes ~ together. Cyberdenizen 07:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

thank you, being a frequent reader of Wikipedia I decided to contribue for a change, and did not know I needed to create an account, which I have promptly done. To avoid an edit war, I have fairly included a sectional dispute notice which should remain in place until the community can reach an agreement of neutrality. As alien himself admitted "but this has been going on for several days and you aren't the first person to come along and wantonly modify the entry to suit an agenda" the addition of an in-dispute notice is necessary at this point. I would like to resolve this in a mature fashion. Thank you. (p.s. I apologize to ALienus for falsely assuming he sent me the notice) Marshill 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

also, while I appreciate you trying to work in one of my edits, there is a gramattical error in the sentence "...using modern ethical standards a childrens book written in another social context is unreasonable." I changed it twice earlier, only to have it reverted. "standards a childrens book" should read "standards on" Marshill 08:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

What is the exact reasoning for not having an equally sized praise section and criticism section with nothing but direct quotes and no third person commentary, for or against the work? Again, let the criticsms stand or fall on their own merit. By keeping the number of negative and positive quotes equal, this will hopefully circumvent edit wars. Also, by not allowing rebuttals, this will stop the tit for tat. The criticism and praise should speak for itself. Otherwise it's not an encyclopaedic article, it is an apologetic or an editorial. Cyberdenizen 21:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I might be misunderstanding. I don't think seperate critisism/rebuttal sections would work because it is far "quicker" to critisize than to defend. That's why I prefer cited summaries for rebuttal. If you are considering negative-review/positive-review then that seems reasonable to me. I see a difference between a bad review (which to me is the opposite of praise) and critisism (sexism/racism). I believe we solve the same problem by only allowing cited information. Lsommerer 21:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am advocating a criticism section with no rebuttals and a praise section with no rebuttals. Both would only allow verifiable information. Period. No editorials or apologetics. They should be equally sized. If a critic thinks it's sexist or racist - fine. It's up to the reader to discern an opinion, not up to us to coerce them into seeing things a certain way. (Also, I started to archive but right in the middle of doing it someone replied in one of the sections - so I'm going to wait I guess) Cyberdenizen 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Dispute

On reflecting over the night about this article, I have further qualms with its neutrality. I dispute the neutrality of this article. The article leaves out a great deal of important information, and makes fallacies of hasty generalization. I'll cover each, beginning with the included content disputes.

INCLUDED CONTENT DISPUTES In section I, the use of the term "angered" is inappropriate. This is a hasty generalization, not representative of the majority of Lewis fans. While it is relevant to mention the dispute over the order of the books, to draw conclusions of "anger" and extreme emotion is not warranted.

In section II, under Christian parallels, an excluded middle fallacy is presented when it states in regard to the movie that "some find them distasteful....others see..." This sets up the illusion that there is a "half and half" and/or mutually exclusive opinion on the movie. The media has already reported numerous times that the references are overlooked by most moviegoers and that criticisms of the movie are not nearly as common as anticipated. It is not an either or proposition. The article makes a hasty generalization to state "some find them distasteful...others" as if the quantity of people opposing the movie are equal to the amount supporting it. Why is this comment necessary? Providing a counterpoint to each item in the article makes it an op-ed piece, rather than an objective piece. I propose that this section should be reworded to remove references to emotional judgments "seemingly innocent" and "distasteful" are slanted connotations. The truth is that most moviegoers are entirely comfortable with the references or overlooked them completely (this has been reported numerous times in the media).

CRITICISM DISPUTES Pullman is cited six times in the article and is the most frequently cited individual other than Lewis. Considering the objective fact that Pullman plays no major influence over Lewis's work and has an opinion of Lewis that is in the extreme minority, the volume of Pullman's presense in this article is not defensible. Criticism is acceptable, but should not be made into a hasty generalization. Because Pullman does not represent a majority opinion, but a very minor one, no information is given to indicate that as such. My dispute is that one who reads this section comes away with a sense of "widespread controversey" when in reality it is nothing of the sort. This is the hasty generalization fallacy I mentioned earlier. No answers to the criticism are given, and when they were included, they were promptly deleted by the watchdogs over this article.

EXCLUDED CONTENT: Much important information is left out.. The following questions are not answered. 1. What is the overall synopsis of The Chronicles of Narnia? 2. What are the themes Lewis uses in the series? 3. What literary devices does Lewis use in the series? 4. How successful is/was the series? 5. Did lewis recieve any awards/merits for his work? 6. What inspired Lewis to write a children's series, did he have children of his own?

The only attempt to answer question 2 is found in the first sentence: "good is fighting evil." This is a poor representation of "good" as a theme. Good is not defined as simply "fighting evil". There are numerous themes in Lewis' work, and the concept of good plays a much deeper role than just fighting evil. But rather than focusing on the books, instead, the article focuses on debate, controversey and criticism. It has the feel of an op-ed piece, or something I would read on the secular web at infidels.org. I want to repair this article. I would like to see the above questions answered. I would like to see the Pullman content either reduced, or a reasonable response provided. With the release of the movie, pop culture is coming to this site to learn about the Chronicles of Narnia. Instead they are learning about Pullman. Pullman is one man, and represents a minority of opinion. While I am not opposed to the mention of his name in the article, the prominence of it, and the effort made to critique all aspects of the series, completely takes away from the purpose of this page: and that purpose is to simply describe and inform people about the 7 childrens books titled "The Chronicles of Narnia". It is not a platform or advertising campaign for Pullman's books. That information belongs on the Pullman page, not here. This is the Chronicles of Narnia, so lets stick to the books and include more information about them, rather than focusing on racism, sexism, and religious critiquing.

On a positive note, the section regarding Narnia in the news, media and culture is well done and I have no dispute with that section. However, due to the overall feel of the article as a critique and the exclusion of important relevant content, I am disputing the article itself as a whole.

I must stress that the original authors do not own this page, it is for the betterment of all. I am proposing that someone make the additions stating the positive influences of the Narnia works, the popularity of his books, the awards won and recognition recieved (if any) for each book in the series. I would be happy to do this, however when I began to last night, I was deleted with each attempt. Thats fine, it doesn't have to be me that does it. If we can include the answers to the questions listed above, and at least provide one reasonable response to Pullmans criticisms, then I will no longer dispute this article. I recommend a section titled "themes" which would be highly informative to answer most of the questions above. Marshill 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello Marshill - This is much more constructive. Thank you for taking the time to also post your ideal revision to the Criticsm section in the sandbox. The reason your edits were reverted last night by at least three different people was because you did not attempt to explain what you were doing. Use the edit summaries! When an anonymous user comes along and makes numerous modifications to an article without explaining themselves it is rightly considered vandalism. I'm sorry you feel wronged. You can retrieve any of your previous edits by going back to immediately prior to the reverts and copying and pasting them into notepad or another word processing program. I will not contest any of the small edits you made, but if you are going to make long editorials you need to explain why. Please be considerate of others and use etiquette. Read through the history and talk page. You keep stating that the other editors do not "own the page" and believe it or not, I feel no possession or emotional ties to the subject whatsoever. But by your very logic, you need to be considerate of other's work and not attempt to fly in like a super hero and save the day because you feel that the article is not factual. This is an ongoing project and it won't be resolved instantaneously.Cyberdenizen 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

please note I am disputing the article as a whole, not just a section

I came to this page looking for information on the Chronicles of Narnia, hoping to learn about facts regarding the series. Instead I got something quite slanted, an op-ed piece about "drivel" and "anger" and deception tactics of proseletyzation using slanted terms like "seemingly innocent" which makes implications not necessary in an objective piece. I learned nothing about the synopisis of the series, the themes of the books, the popularity of the books, or their merits. I learned a lot about Pullman, but I was not on a Pullman page. I was considerate. I did not modify any sentence written by anyone else. I did not delete any sentence written by anyone else. I simply added content. I did so in the spirit of this site, and violated no rule. I did not need your approval to do what I did. I then came here and summarized my edits. However, even after I summarized my edits, my work was *still* deleted. I need to reiterate to you (or whomever summarily deleted my work) to be considerate. Consideration means not just deleting someone else's contribution with summary judgment. I did not do that to anyone, thus I believe I was quite considerate.

Now, as you notice I am not making any changes to the article but am contesting its neutrality. I am contesting the neutrality of the entire article, yet (once again) someone deleted my POV tag. I am no longer contesting the neutrality of one section, but the article as a whole. So whomever decided to summarily "move" my contest to a single section did not do so in consideration of me. Because the entire article is in dispute, it is appropriate to reflect the correct POV tag. The sectional one is not accurate. I laid out very detailed reasons above why I am disputing the article as a whole, rather than just one section, and the criteria needed to remove the POV dispute. Thanks.Marshill 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

'arg, edit conflict. butting in here'

Marshill, I changed the POV tag back to POV-section, because in the edit summary there was no indication of why the change was made (or any indication that I could find that information here). I don't know that it's reasonable to say something is not NPOV because it lacks information. I agree that there are obvious sections missing from this article. You clearly have a passion for them, and would, I imagine, be an excellent person to write them. Those sections don't exist --not because they were deleted-- but because no one has written them yet. To briefly address two points you raised:

• In reading order, the external sources that I have read use words like "raging", "upset" and so on. I didn't have anything to do with that section, but believe "angered" is accurate. I'll look for sources.
• In Christian parallels it is noted that people see the movies without noticing the parallels. All three possibilities are presented.

Please consider writing the sections that you feel are missing. Even stubs of sections will be fleched out eventually (by you or by others). Lsommerer 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

"Critical quotes"

When quoting critics, we could in principle quote anyone at all, so long as it's verifiable. But not all sources are of equal merit. I've seen pages full of rather harsh criticism by essentially unknown people. These aren't so great, although they're valid sources. Film or book reviews are better, and Toynbee's is good enough to deserve more quotes. However, there remains the lingering issue of just why we should think that the reviewer is qualified to criticize a modern classic. I would think that the most valid criticisms come from successful authors of books in the same genre, which mean that Rowling and Pullman are ideal. It doesn't hurt that both focus on the details of what they dislike and are clear, forceful writers. Pullman is particularly useful in that his criticisms span both literary merits and disagreeable content. He's also more reasonable than the stuff I've seen from Hensher, which seemed to be all conclusion, no argument. All told, I think the quotes could be improved, but we're on the right track. Alienus 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Whose criticism is it anyway?

An article on a subject that conceals extant criticism is POV. Then again, an article that revels in the criticism to the exclusion of accurately covering the relevant facts is likewise POV. We need to avoid these extremes. Our job is to report, not attack or defend. We can state what people believe but not endorse the beliefs as true or false unless they are beyond genuine controversy. If we comment at all, it should be to clarify what others mean by providing background or explanation, not to take sides ourselves. Finally, while there's room for showing the counterpoint, we can't lapse into an endless cycle of point/counterpoint/point/repeat. We need to get all sides on the table and let people decide for themselves. This means cutting out both unnecessary nastiness and sickening special pleading. So far, I think the article covers the critics reasonably well, though we could include more and better quotes with less commentary. However, the material reacting to the criticism is terrible, and was made worse still by Marshill's changes. We need to do a better job on this. Alienus 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I dont have a problem with critical quotes, I have a problem of the quantity of criticism against the works in comparison to substance about the works. In any professional review of work that I have read, criticism sections usually follow informative sections that contain the source and merits of the work being explained. nowhere in this piece are any merits highlighted. We are simply told "this is the Chronicles of Narnia, and here's another children's book author that hates them".

Introduction-->Substance --->Mertis--->Criticism

this article leaves out the substance and mertis of the works and skips directly to criticism. It is a biased piece, one that I am contesting. If you want to be on the right track, include information that describes the themes, merits, awards, and popularity of the work. Answer the questions posed earlier in my POV contest. only then will the heavy section of criticisms be justified. Marshill 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you, Lsommerer. I will write the sections now, and remove the tag. i will let the community flesh out the content. Marshill 20:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

ok, considering Lsommerer's comment that lack of content doesn't necessarily mean a POV, I've removed the tag. The page truly does need more content and substance about the books themselves, rather than its current state of being more of a critique than an informative piece. I am going to write (or attempt to) a section on Narnia Themes and one on Mythologies. Additionally, I will write a quick synopsis of the books, and include statistical and factual information regarding sales, merits and awards. Along with that, I will present at least one quotation from a credible source that respond to pullmans criticisms. I am hoping that when I complete the content, that it wont be summarily deleted, but instead be enhanced. cheers, Marshill 00:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

whoever removed the sublimed slants in the paragraph about "seemingly innocent" and the aim converting someone to christianity did a great job. This paragraph as it reads now: "With the release of the 2005 Disney movie there has been renewed interest in the Christian parallels found in the books. Some find them distasteful, while noting that they are easy to miss if you are not familiar with Christianity.(Toynbee 2005) Others see the chronicles as an excellent tools for Christian evangelism. (Kent 2005)" is just fine the way it is. I did not make that edit, but I was hoping someone would. I am happy with this, as it is neutral. Marshill 01:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You should check out the history button [1] from the top of the article. That's the edit summary above the save page button. Lsommerer 02:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's going to be 'Anglocentric'!

I find the criticism quote of how all Narnia gates open to England absolutely ridiculous. It was written by a BRITISH author, so what do you expect? Why would he have the gates to Narnia in some other country, when he's obviously targeting his books at a British audience, seeing its his own country. Have you noticed in Hollywood, how all the British are the bad guys, how the aliens always land in the US, how Americans find out all the scientific discoveries and how Americans always save the world? Seriphyn 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. I am from the United States, and when I read this criticism I was reminded of all the similar criticisms of american films you mentioned towards the end of your comment. Is Godzilla criticized for being Japan-centric? No. If I ever write a book, it will not be "world-centric" it will be centered wherever I am from.

Christian Parallel (quote)

I removed the paragraphs below from the Christian Parallel section for 3 reasons:

• It is uncited
• It is largely similar to the quote already in the text
• The quote doesn't necessarily support the statement: "Lewis meant the whole story to be about Christ"

According to a recently found letter to a fan written in 1957 (to be published in 2006), Lewis meant the whole story to be about Christ saying:

"Supposing there really was a world like Narnia . . . and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?"

"The stories are my answer. Since Narnia is a world of talking beasts, I thought he would become a talking beast there as he became a man here. I pictured him becoming a lion there because a) the lion is supposed to be the king of beasts; b) Christ is called ‘the lion of Judah’ in the Bible."

The quote seems to come from here[2] but seems to be a partial quote from here[3] or perhaps from this chapter[4] that doesn't seem to have made it into the book Narnia Beckons.

Lsommerer 16:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The state of this article

I haven't contributed to this article yet, but it seems to me that it's a bit of a mess. I guess that's the result of too many conflicting opinions and not enough actual material on the subject.

(BTW - isn't Anglo-centrism a rather odd accusation to make against an Irishman who said some fairly patronizing things about the English?)

Archiving anyone?

Anyone with more experience think this page could use some archiving? I'm thinking of the sections that haven't been touched in a while(obviously) and the recent "forum like" discussion toward the bottom of the page. Maybe the NPOV? section could be archived too with a link to it from whatever the new NPOV section turns out to be. Just an idea. Lsommerer 12:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Yeah it's getting pretty long. What sections do you think should be archived? Anything that hasn't been posted to for the past few days or longer? A lot of the older issues seem resolved, but keep your fingers corssed :D Cyberdenizen 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Agreed. We should archive anything that looks like it's closed, to make room for what's still open. Alienus 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)