Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Problem paragraph in criticism?

I'm sorry if this was addressed already, but some of the above looks like bickering and I don't really want to go through it all.

I'm not sure what to make of this:

'Some of the criticism may be related to Narnia's Christian content. Pullman is also an outspoken atheist (Dodd 2004) and, according to Jacobs, "Those who dislike Christianity itself can be far more harsh: Thus the English novelist Philip Hensher chastised Lewis a few years ago because his books 'corrupt the minds of the young with allegory,' and suggested (only half-jokingly, I think) that parents should give their children Last Exit to Brooklyn to read rather than a Narnia tale."'

First off, who is "Jacobs"? And I just read the synthesis policy. This sounds like a few ideas fused into one - that Pullman is an atheist, and that some Jacobs guy thinks those who dislike Christianity are harsh against C.S. Lewis. And there seems to be a third invisible premise needed to connect these two, which is the assumption that atheists inherently "dislike Christianity".

So I don't think this meets policy, or that it's even logically sound, unless I am totally reading it wrong. Furthermore, I don't think it represents Pullman. I've seen him quoted as saying the problem with Narnia for him isn't the presence of Christian content, but rather the "lack of Christian virtue". Please feel free to look that up, but I'm pretty sure that's almost exactly what he said.VatoFirme 06:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright well nobody's answered, but I'm going to remove that paragraph because it violates synthesis policy by mushing together at least two or three arguments and unfairly insinuates that atheists "dislike" Christianity.VatoFirme 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I mostly just took out the personal attack on Pullman, I don't doubt there are people who "dislike Christianity" and therefore hate Narnia, but A.) Pullman has been very clear that he doesn't hate Christianity per se, he hates dogmatic institutions that seek political power and engage in religious intolerance (whether Christian or otherwise), B.) from what I've read of wikipedia policy you can't synthesize arguments, and C.) it unfairly insinuated that atheists are inherently anti-Christian.VatoFirme 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's a sensible way to fix it. --Cheeser1 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Vato, the current read is pretty good, thanks! I had thought I had read a Narnia--> Christianity--> Atheism--> Dark Materials commentary from Pullman himself at some point. But, you are correct we should have it sourced and accurate, if it exists. --Knulclunk 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Music

My first edit, so if I'm not doing it quite right let me know. Relient K's song "In Like a Lion" is is inspired by C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. Underground Revolution (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source you can point to confirm that it is inspired by the books? AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen lots of fan sites reference/talk about/analyze it, and if you listen to it it's quite obvious but I'll see if I can find an official reliable source. Also the Wikipedia article about the album which this song is on says in the trivia section that it is based on The Lion Witch and the Wardrobe. Heres the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathetic_EP. Underground Revolution (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The AP album page is also unsourced, unfortunately. Fan sites can not be used as references, so some kind of official or neutral, third party source is preferred. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a source from a music magazine and added it for you :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to the "5.2 Influence on popular culture" section. The Music section where it is now is a subsection of "Narnia in other Media" which holds retelling of the story in something other than book form. LloydSommerer (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we used to have an extensive list like section 5.2 that was deleted, by consensus? I don't want people to waste time contributing to rebuilding it (because either way, we still have it in the history and could restore it, or consensus hasn't changed and we don't need every single reference to Narnia ever). I'm going to say that, for example, the nipple reference in Friends does not merit inclusion on this page. But I'd to hear from others before I cut anything. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Friends quote is not helpful here, and have removed it. It hardly counts as being 'influenced' by Narnia; it only mentions it, and if we included it on Wikipedia every time Friends mentioned some element of pop culture, we'd end up with half our articles being lists of Friends quotes. We don't need that. Terraxos (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The band Silverchair is probably named after the book, but I don't have any source on this or any proof.BlackFlag30 (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Harvard references seem to conflict with the quote mechanism. Which way out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandrod (talk • contribs)

I would suggest leaving the quotations as-is. Fiddle around in a sandbox to try to find way to integrate the two, if you'd like. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason to use a blockquote or a quote template instead of the colon indent? LloydSommerer (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but I wasn't going to discourage the change - so long as we can first find a way at least to make it work. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChroniclesNxx16xx1024.jpg

Image:ChroniclesNxx16xx1024.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

moved comment

You also know that Wikipedia is the best to deliever the right and true informations about this.

Illustrations By Selase Beard of Nii Boi Town —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.19.128 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Maybe it can be reintegrated into the article somewhere else.

Perhaps we can add a section after racism and prior to paganism that discusses criticism of the allegorical aspects of the books. The Hensher quote would fit under that as well as many Philip Pullman's opinions. The is no doubt that secularists have have spoken strongly about the Christianity represented in the books... could be considered criticism. --Knulclunk (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does it needed to be added at all? Are these criticisms being added simply because Lewis chose to reflect his faith in his works and that's it? Why is that a valid criticism? Why not then criticize every author of every book ever written for writing a book in a way they wished to write it? I could see if Lewis misrepresented Christianity in his works criticizing that, but that he included the faith period - that's a valid criticism? It's not. It's opinion. It's a matter of personal taste. Nevermind the fact that Lewis denied the Narnia books are allegory. We clearly need another section of so-called criticism. I'm interested in seeing if this much attention to criticism is given to Phillip Pullman's books. --Selderane (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether the criticisms themselves are valid or reasonable is beside the point. The fact is that they are notable. Wikipedia isn't criticizing Lewis, WP is reporting notable criticisms of the author. Ashmoo (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That a criticism is valid or reasonable is the very standard by which we should be determining the worthwhileness of its notation. Is the criticism being noted because what's being said it worth consideration, or simply because who is saying it happens to be famous? If the latter is the standard, then Wikipedia is a useless reference and we would be better served by reading celebrity gossip rags. In the case of Pullman, you seem to be saying what he says isn't worthy of consideration because he raises a fair and reasonable point, but because he's Pullman. --Selderane (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbering

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

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

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

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

Horrible sentence in Influneces from mythology

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

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

Racism

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

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

Music

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

Image map

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

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

You mean like this?

Bo Lindbergh (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the non-free content rules don't allow us to use the actual image here, but I've put Bo's imagemap into place on the article anyway. How does it look, should we keep it? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The default link is just a link, not an image, so you just specified a link title of "250px" for the unused black rectangles in the bottom corners. Not really useful.... Bo Lindbergh (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I fixed it. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rowling quote taken out of context in the paragraph on sexism

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

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

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

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

Undue weight in Criticism section

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

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

Again, inclusion of criticisms doesn't hinge on how reasonable they are, but how notable. The fact that Pullman is so stridently anti-Lewis makes it even more interesting and relevant for inclusion. Ashmoo (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It should, at the very least, be pointed out that Pullman has specifically stated that he's against Lewis, and that his own books are an anti-Christian response to Narnia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pullman isn't your average critic as he's made a career out of being the anti-Lewis. If his criticisms are worthy of note because of this, as Ashmoo says, then this too should be noted so that readers will be provided with a context from which Pullman's words spring. They should know that Pullman isn't unbiased and, in fact, makes money off his position. --Selderane (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the following line to the first mention of Pullman in the Criticism section, "...and so a fierce critic of Lewis' work as to be dubbed "the anti-Lewis..." I also linked three separate webpages that use the term to describe Pullman. I believe my edit is warranted given Pullman's known disgust with Lewis' work and that this knowledge provides valuable context to his criticisms. He's grossly biased in this argument and that should be known if we're going to treat his opinions as worthy of note. --Selderane (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that Pullman fails to meet the standards of a critic, but I do doubt that over the past 50+ years that these novels have been popular, Pullman's statements constitute such a large part of the work's identity. I know that today, in light of His Dark Materials and current events, we tend to think of Pullman when we hear the name of Lewis, but to make him so large a part of the entry on Lewis's work is like filling the Shakespeare section with criticism on Gweneth Paltrow's role in Shakespeare in Love. Mrathel (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I believe we need to come to a consenus on how to deal with major edits of material. In my opinion, the article is being tied down by unscholarly discussions based on comments by Pullman and Rowling. There are points to be made about sexism and racism and other forms of bigotry in the novels, but they need to be quoted from professors in universities and not pop culture writers who stand to gain financially through their criticism. If no one has any valid objections, I will begin making edits next week. I would like your help and your opinions, but we must work together to make this article better.Mrathel (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No problems here. My Narnia expertise goes little beyond the books themselves (I.E. I haven't read much about the books if you get what I mean), but if you need any help I'll try to offer it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, there isn't a whole lot out there in the way of scholarly criticism of this bent. A google scholar and lexis nexus search reveals merely one thesis paper (i.e., written by a senior undergrad student, not a professor). The thing is that there isn't much to be said about "bigotry" in Lewis's work that is particular to Lewis's work. The sexism complaints can be leveled at Christianity generally, and the racism complaints at the prevailing attitudes of the era. As such any such criticism is encapsulated in the description of the novels as "1960's english fiction from a Christian perspective" or whatever. I support the proposition that the sections be deleted or diminished. 72.186.129.177 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to improve any section of any article, but before you jump into the criticism section you might want to take the time to read through the many discussions we've had about it in the past. There are four pages of archives links at the top of this page and each archive contains much good information to consider before doing a major rewrite of that section. In the past we've also setup criticism section sandboxes to help hash things out before making changes to the article. The current criticism section is a result of consensus and compromise achieved over a fairly long stretch of time, and it has been relatively quiet lately. I think that means that most people feel they can live with it. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lsommerer and Mrathel both make fine points. What's been discussed in the past should be looked at. That said, I can't help but think Pullman and Rowling are given the space they have been simply because of who they are - not because they contribute something that hasn't been noted before. And that they stand to make a profit by differentiating their works from Lewis' should give us pause when using them as sole sources for criticism. If more scholarly criticisms can be found then I vote we should post those and excise Pullman and Rowling. If not, and criticisms must stand as they are, it should be noted that these two sources are not at all unbiased, as I did with Pullman in a way. If Mrathel finds something better to fill the void then I say let him. If he can't, I'm comfortable letting the article stay as it is save a note or two for both Pullman and Rowling indicating their stake in the issue. --Selderane (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I believe what she said was that she has not read all of the books, but it's been a year or more since I looked at that stuff. It's important not to forget that they are included here because they are best selling, award winning children's authors. And, while that does not make them literary scholars, it does make them professionals in the field. Personally, I don't think their criticisms hold water, which is why it was relatively easy to find sources that refute them. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be so specific, but being a professional in the field of childrens literature does not make one an adequate critic of the Narnia series. If an author has not read the series itself, he or she has forfeits all right to be represented here-- this isn't an article on childrens literature, and all sources and information must be based on readings of the books. Anyhow, I am finding a few good sources, it will just take time to sort through them. My intention is to sit in the library this weekend and gain several good sources to post here and have everyone look over and choose. Mrathel (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I am going through the current sources, I am noticing a bit of a problem with credibility. The first one by one R.J. Anderson is a Live Journal account that does not seem to have ever been published. If in the process of assessing the quality of this entry the board checks the first of our sources, I don't think this looks good for the credibility of the information in the article. Perhaps someone other than myself should go through and pick out sorces (mainly the web ones) that don't meet with WP guidelines. Mrathel (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think people are mistaking reasonability with notability. A criticism doesn't have to be reasonable to be included. By anology, should the page on Judaism contain no mention of anti-semitism due to the fact that anti-semitism is unreasonable?

The fact that Rowling is probably the best-selling children's author of all time makes the litmus test of notability in my opinion. Personally, I think the paragraphs on Arabs/racism is more problematic, as it has fewer sources, and the opinions are not directly attributed to authors. Ashmoo (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree with you, but what I am saying is that 'authority' is not the criteria of inclusion, 'notability' is. If we were to say: 'Lewis' work is generally considered racist and sexist' and added Rowling and Pullman as sources, I would definitely object. But since we are just quoting what they are saying verbatim there is no problem. The reader can decide on the 'authority' of the author's themselves. You could argue Rowling's inclusion, but since Pullman has been described explicitly as 'The Anti-Lewis', I think noting the strong opinions Lewis provokes (without condoning or condeming those opinions) is definitely notable. Ashmoo (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In WP:notability, the criteria for sources indicates that non-academic sources are fine if they have been vetted by academic sources and found to be notable. However, I just don't feel that our discussions of Rowling and Pullman are adequately questioning their notability in direct relation to Narnia. Again we have to highlight the distinction between writer and scholarly critic. In not doing so, we run into the risk of running off the topic. The topic of this article is the Chronicles of Narnia. The bulk of Pullman's attacks tend to be on C.S. Lewis the writer, not the worlds he creates. Not only does this paint him as less-than-scholarly, it means means his attacks are void in the discussion of the novel. For those of you who do read literary criticism, you know that a line is being crossed in Pullman's quote on sexism: "He didn't like women in general, or sexuality at all, at least at the stage in his life when he wrote the Narnia books. " THis is not academic criticism; there is no way that Pullman can confirm such a claim, and he doesn't try to. To speculate on an author's life based on text is to imply a direct relationship between author and characters, which is a fallacy of thought that even an undergraduate in English would be severly punished for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrathel (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with your characterisation of Pullman's arguments. But we are not here to assess the strength of other people arguments, just report them. I agree direct attacks on Lewis better belong in his bio article. But the quote that currently exists directly references the CoN, and my reading of it is that it uses the word 'Lewis' as a metonym for 'the works of Lewis' or CoN itself.

Since Pullman is on record as writing his books as a direct response to CoN, I think it is notable. Since Pullman is not an academic critic, maybe his views should outlined in another section, such as 'Influence on others' or something similar? Ashmoo (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of Pullman's lines being added to the "Influence on others", but how can Lewis be a metonym for his novels in this sentence: "He didn't like women in general, or sexuality at all, at least at the stage in his life when he wrote the Narnia books. " He, in this case, is Lewis, not CoN. If we do substitude "the works of Lewis" for he in this sentence, then it would be saying, "the works didn't like woman at the stage in the works's life when the works wrote the Narnia books." It is absolutely clear that this whole argument is focused on Lewis, not Naria. I can handle the discussion of the novels from a feminist standpoint-- there is a good reason to question their portrayal of women, but personal attacks on an author would belong on the author's page if they belong on WP at all.Mrathel (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pullman is specifically talking about Susan here. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take your word for it when you can describe how a criticism on an author's mindset upon writing a novel corresponds to the actions of a specific character in a novel. You have to make the distinction between character and author, and when you do, Pullman's remarks don't fall into criticism of the character. You can't say that Pullman's remark regards Susan's actions-- it only applies to the actions of LewisMrathel (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Christiananity ridicule is hilarious

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

Aslan is pretty much a metaphor for Jesus. C.S. Lewis didn't spill out it, but it is pretty clear.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lewis did actually spell it out. I don't have the cites handy, but he basically said Aslan is Jesus in an alternate reality, or something of the sort. 5 minutes googling would probably find the quote. Ashmoo (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not even 5 minutes:

'According to C.S. Lewis, “If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours? This is not allegory at all.”'

http://www.lewissociety.org/lewisgraphics.php

—WWoods (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The objection the unsigned comment is raising is that many people feel Aslan is Jesus. While we cannot prove or disprove what people feel we can prove that Aslan is not Jesus. The comment doesn't leave room for Aslan being, as you note, like Jesus. Which is something I think Lewis wouldn't disagree with. Indeed, answering the question as Lewis did, "What would Jesus look like in Narnia?" Aslan must look like Jesus in some shape or form. As for the unsigned comment's position that the death and resurrection of Aslan little resembled the death and resurrection of Jesus - that's a matter of opinion. But, then, the comment itself is entirely opinion. --Selderane (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

At what point was it named "The Chronicles of Narnia?"

Can't find that information in the article. Would very much like to know the answer. IceKeyHunter (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and Narnia in Pop Culture

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

Nice job cleaning up those sections. But I don't think we have a problem with the duplication of material. The lead should serve as an introduction and should summarize important parts of the article (WP:LEAD). It's unfortunate that so many of the important parts come in the section immediately following the lead, but probably not worth reordering the sections to fix. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that the information may be necessary and that moving the sections around will put more strain on the article than it can curently take, so I am happy to move on. Right now, I am focusing on the article's grammar to avoid stepping on too many toes. Feel free if you think something I change doesn't make the article easier to read; I will be happy to have my own grammar corrected. But if you can indulge me, does the pop culture section not look much like a trivia section? What is the policy on that? I do not think the information is irrelevent, but I think it might improve the appearence if we were to put it into text format. Mrathel (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Originally the "Narnia in Popular Culture" section was a free for all. Big, ugly and lie a trivia list. It was spun off into it's own article with just a summary in the main article. Then the spun off article was deleted. We tried combining it back into the article in paragraph form, but the paragraphs were fairly disjointed. You can probably find it in the history if you're interested. I saved a copy of the old article [1]. The idea now was that we'd just include the best representative samples from various types of works. It gathers odd entries over time and they get pruned back later. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tough one-- this stuff belongs somewhere, but I think it probably works best as a seperate article. As you have delt with this longer, I will let you be the judge. Mrathel (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My own feelings are the same. I think it was okay as a separate article (someone pointed out that it should actually be a separate list), but delete was the consensus. I think there would be more support for it as a list if anyone wants to resurrect it. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The pop culture article shouldn't be recreated. This is the problem when articles get too big: people suggest splitting off the trivia sections. It should be condensed, and left at that. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Paganism, sexism and Racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Sometimes you have a film of Jesus' life story on the TV, no-one complains do they?!

Did you miss the storm that surrounded The Passion of the Christ? No one complains? Really? As for the devil-worshiping bit: Do you know anything about Christianity? It's a commonly known Christian theological position that if you worship any god but God the Father, the god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, you are worshiping a false god. This could be a demon, this could be man, this could be any number of things but it is a false god. On an unrelated note: Please, please, please work on your grammar and spelling. I've had to read and re-read a number of your comments over and over again to try to decipher what you're talking about.--Selderane (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Way late and off topic here, but: I hope you're speaking in just a Christian POV when you say "false god"... for all I know, you could be saying that my Hindu god is false? Anyway, I don't get the IP's complaint: what on earth is he/she saying? BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Narnia is New Age Theology

What if Narnia is new age theology? What are we to do when a Christian bookshop sells Narnia as a christian story, actually insisting it is a credible christian story of good and evil, even though the mythical caracters are evil of origin, except for the lion, however the lion as the Messiah is misplaced, He is still to come as the "Lion" of Zion! When He comes as the Lion of Zion, He will be devouring evil and it will not be nice too see! We do not mind the story, but selling it as a christian story in a christian bookshop? Regards Adre --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.37 (talk • contribs) 07:48:29, 29 July, 2008

I don't agree with your assessment at all, but if you can cite reliable sources documenting this as an opinion of note then it might get a mention. I have a feeling there aren't any, though. :-P --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The opening sentence has been vandalized: "The Chronicles of Narnia is a sucky stupid book of seven fantasy novels for children written by C. S. Lewis." I do not have enough experience as a wiki contributor to take the appropriate action. The sentence should be repaired, but some action should be taken to block the vandal,imho. After such action is complete, i do not object to having my post moved or deleted. --Sgsmith, nola (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

References

I've noticed that the references for this article are done improperly. They've been divided into a "References" and "Notes" section, which is fine, but whoever has done this doesn't seem to the understand why it's done. Using both a main "References" section and an inline citation section "Notes" is meant to be used when a book has multiple inline citations, of a style like this "Smith (2000), p. 300", that refer to a book listed once under references in a full form, so that a book can be referenced multiple times while still stating the exact page for each separate citation. (See Battle of Goliad for an example).

My explanation is rather confusing, I know, so you might want to read Wikipedia:References for a more detailed one. At any rate, however, this style is used improperly in this article because most of the references are used only once, and do not need to be listed twice (i.e., under both "References" and "Notes"). I've begun converting the style, but it's rather time-consuming and I'm busy in real life, so I don't know how long it will take.

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on proper referencing and reference the article in the proper style from now on (and if you want to help in converting the article, please do!) Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception and religion section

Does the 'Reception and religion' section really need to be there? Despite being totally unsourced, it seems to just repeat what is said in other sections. Ashmoo (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The final of the three paragraphs does indeed repeat material in other sections but it is brief and relevant to this section, and the earlier stuff doesn't mention Rowling's Christianity. The second of the three paragraphs is totally unsourced and could use some sourcing, but would be backed up by the work of Humphrey Carpenter, both his bio of Tolkien and his bio of the Inklings. I'll track down the Carpenter citation.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Like Ashmoo said, it's all unsourced, and a bit of it could be construed as POV. There was also some wrong information: Rowling, for example, said "There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She's become irreligious basically because she found sex, I have a big problem with that". She never said that C.S. Lewis himself was a sexist, as this section seemed to say. And Rowling's religion has little to do with her criticisms of Narnia in the first place, as what she's critiquing has nothing to do with the religious aspects.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I put it back, but I removed the Rowling/Pullman parts and added "Citation" tags to some other stuff. Also, does anyone have the actual quotes from Tolkien about Narnia?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the 'Christian Parellels' section already deals with the issue of the Xtian themes in the novel. Would anyone object to me moving the para about Tolkien to that section? Ashmoo (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

None from me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think moving the Tolkien stuff there (with citations from Carpenter added eventually) would make sense, but if so done then it would warrant removal of this section altogether. The now-deleted third paragraph could have been clearer about Rowling's religion not bearing on her criticism. I was only trying to observe that both a Christian and a Christian-critical author had both voiced the same criticisms. Perhaps that could have been clearer.

Of the three citation-tags now in the first paragraph, I'm not clear on the need for the second one. However, it could be cited by pointing to the extensive amount of published Sunday-school material centered on the Narnia books and so forth. For the first, see various bios of Lewis. For the third, see any number of pagan web-sites. Fansites don't necessarily provide reliable info, but for this purpose, the mere presence of Narnia on such sites establishes what is being stated.

I'll leave this alone pending what the fate of the Tolkien paragraph is. If it's moved, I think this section should then be deleted. If it stays here, I think this section should be fixed up.

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly did you find that reception of Narnia was 'so-so' until later? I'm not an expert on Narnia, but I never got the impression that it wasn't successful in it's beginning. And I still don't see the necessity in mentioning Rowling and Pullman's criticisms a second time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's going to take me a bit of time to find. The Rowling/Pullman stuff isn't especially important, though I tried to make it a tad more nuanced. I simply thought it interesting that a criticism was shared by folks on opposite sides of the religion fence. If I can't trace the reception stuff, I'll delete it in a few days. There are several good bios of Lewis that would be good sources. --WickerGuy (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one else has any problems with the bit about Pullman and Rowling, I won't argue it it's placement. As for Narnia's early reception...do you recall hearing anywhere how it did? I was always under the impression that they did pretty good, which is why Lewis kept on making more and more stories.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still having trouble understanding why the text from this section shouldn't just go into the 'Inklings', 'Christian Parrallels' & 'Controversies' sections. Ashmoo (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good idea and I'm the author of the section. If one can think of more material to add to this section (I cannot) it may make more sense to keep it here. I originally put in this section in the article on Lion/Witch/Wardrobe where it was for about 4 hours, then thought it made more sense to go here as there was nothing LWW specific about it. I've had "edit-wars" which I was much less conciliatory on (if this is even an "edit-war"- this is more of an edit tea-time dialogue, which I greatly prefer). PS. As can be seen I've changed the assertion about reception to lukewarm reviews- the reading public wasn't lukewarm towards Narnia at all. I rechecked the Sayers bio. And I've added citations --WickerGuy (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There remains some problems with the section which I hope you can fix. First 'lukewarm reception' doesn't really tell us anything, it would be better to detail how sales or number of awards won increased over the years. Second, what is a 'secular fan'? This terminology strikes me as being specific to Americal-style Protestant fundamentalism, which seperates all people into 'Christian' (meaning Protestant fundamentalist) and 'secular' (everyone else). In standard English, only institutions can be secular. Third, the bit about 'pagans' seems non-notable, or at least there is no source which shows that a significant number of fan identify as such. Finally, the source that link to a website fails the Primary Source and Notability requirements. Ashmoo (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A proposed but not ratified (nor rejected) WP standard (see WP:FICT#Self-published_sources) argues that fansites on fiction are OK for info...about fan perceptions of fiction. Specifically, "Including these viewpoints can also be an important part of providing coverage of significant views on the subject." However, I may have jumped the gun on going with this before ratification. The more established WP:V#Self-published_sources says to virtually never use self-published sources at all.

You're mostly right about the dictionary definition of "secular" although in the States the word is often used as I did, as in actress Natalie Portman describing herself as "fairly secular". However, the dictionary says you can describe music, poetry, architecture, or an era as secular. John Milton writes "New foes arise, Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains" (lifted from dictionary- doesn't say what work). The wording in this article should be changed to "non-religious".

Not sure how to cite the pagan fans of Lewis without appealing again to WP:FICT#Self-published_sources. I'll have to think about this a bit. I'm immediately fixing the 'secular' thing, and am thinking about the rest, but this is an acknowledgment that I have read and thought about what you are saying.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Although I imagine (I don't have any proof) that most of Lewis' English readership would consider themselves non-practicing Anglicans and thus definitely not 'non-religious', even if they don't show the sort of religious enthusiasm more typical in the US. This makes even using the term 'non-religious' a bit dubious. I think the solution to all this is to just find a source that makes a positive claim about it and copy their wording. Ashmoo (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And the key problem I have with the 'websites as sources' isn't the WP:FICT#Self-published_sources policy, but that neither source makes the claim the article presents, but are rather used as primary sources to prove the point, which verges on WP:OR. Ashmoo (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. The sources assume it as a premise, rather than argue for it as a conclusion. I've supplemented those sources with more reliable ones without deleting them. In particular, the filmmakers were concerned about the Christian fanbase and have talked about it with the press, so that's certainly reliable.

I have added to the main text that the film-makers perceived there was a Christian fanbase (with further citation), that prominent pagan author Starhawk heavily recommends Narnia (with link to her article at beliefnet) and changed "non-religious" to "without any religious affiliation at all" though for now I haven't found a source making the claim to copy their wording. If I do, I'll follow up on that suggestion. BTW, you Narnia fans are so civil!!! (Though by WP standards that may not be saying much.)

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"without any religious affiliation at all" is still problematic, because like I said most of its readers probably ARE affliated, as Anglicans, Catholics etc. Either way, the statement is unsourced, so should probably just be removed. Regarding the 'Christian fanbase': the cite you provide just mentions the 'Christian readers', but doesn't indicate that anyone thinks that they make up a significant proportion of the total, just that they are enthusiastic. Also, the 'Sunday school' bit needs citation too. Ashmoo (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We may have a demographic-based difference of perception (I won't say opinion), but then WP is available all over the globe so one has to back up what is saying to folks in all quarters of the earth. However, both the concern about the film's appeal to both audiences and the use of the word 'secular' are backable.

On usage the word "secular". An article in an Indian newspaper (published in both English and Hindi) entitled "Christian underpinnings don't deter secular Narnia fans" may be found online at http://www.jansamachar.net/display.php3?id=&num=12044&lang=English. I was wondering if this was just a USA usage. Evidently not. Locally, the San Francisco Chronicle's review of the film LWW states that "Thus, despite its enormous secular appeal, "The Chronicles of Narnia" could also be called the most effective and moving religious picture since Nick Ray's "King of Kings."" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/09/DDG9QG4FJS1.DTL. The same San Francisco Chronicle has a separate article entitled "Narnia tries to appeal to religious and secular" at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/11/MNG0FG6AND1.DTL. The article talks about the "secular" audience, and about how Disney and Walden want to reach both audiences. They quote David Bruce (a Christian) as saying "I've never met a secular person who would boycott, let's say, 'Ben-Hur' just because it contained a Christian message."

Still, it seems to me it may be a largely American usage of the term, the Hindi paper notwithstanding. Perhaps a clarification of the term might be in order. Still thinking...

The Sunday school stuff is easily cited. I'll just add it in.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Postscript. Oh, my!! Even Lewis's stepson talks about the 'secular' audience!!!! http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/2001-07-18-narnia.htm

With all due respect, I think with some clarification the word stays.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, new version is up. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Sorry if my last post here (just above) seemed too "triumphalistic". I think I got carried away. Sorry to take multiple edits to fix the appearance of the footnotes, but you can't preview them with the show preview button. Keep in touch with any further concerns. Merry Christmas.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well, Gresham is actually an evangelical Christian, so his use of the word 'secular' in that way is not surprising. Anyway, I'm not disputing that it is never used by non-US evangelical Xtians, just that it is ambiguous, so more precise language is preferred.

But I'm happy to hold off on that debate now, because I think there are bigger problems with the current version. Specifically, the sentence: When adapting the films, the producers had some concerns over the perception that the books had both many Christian fans and many fans who were 'secular' in the sense of having no religious convictions or affiliation. is not supported by either of the cites attached to it. The first one just quotes Gresham saying that the 'secular' world is in need of Narnia. The second one doesn't mentioned the film's producers at all. Ashmoo (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that this article is actually about the books, not the film, so we need to keep it focused on that. Ashmoo (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree-- This article needs to make sure it is more focused on one topic. While there is extreme notability for the films, this article seems to suffer when it takes the two subjects into the same account. The books should be the main topic here, and while the films should probably be referenced, we should not let them modify the article on the books, as the two are very seperate entities.Mrathel (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually massively misplaced the most important reference about the concerns of the film makers under the footnote about Sunday school materials (which is also a good place for it since the same article also discusses Walden marketing their tie-in material to Sunday schools as well), but there are other good references there, and the reference is much more badly needed exactly where I failed to put it!!! Essentially I was "killing two birds with one stone" or justifying two statements with one reference and got a bit confused. I think the current wording in the main is probably OK. If the only reference to the film is the film-makers concern that the book has Christian and 'secular' fans, than the film-makers effectively serve as a source of information for perception about the fanbase of the book. This section contains no information (except in the referenced articles) about what or how the film-makers actually acted upon their perception, so as such I would say this inclusion here is OK. How am I doing with the wording "many fans who were 'secular' in the sense of having no religious convictions or affiliation."?? Thanks again for your patience.

Regards, --WickerGuy (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed in main text. The sentence about discussion prior to release of the films was not meant to involve or implicate the film makers at all. An unclarity on my part. I have corrected that sentence and expanded the sentence about the film-makers to avoid confusion I may have caused there.

--WickerGuy (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wiped out the fan fiction magazine because it shows no source and is very clearly a huge bias. It will stay this way until a source is shown and i see fit to allow it.

Jeremy D. (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, though it's not part of the article section being discussed here. (Nor did I put it in.) However, I might be interested in seeing what could be done to fix it.

--WickerGuy (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The second part of that deleted section is beyond repair although it's the part that does not cite a fan magazine. A google search yields no records of an author by that name in any online magazine or published books, neither a "Rees Pearson" nor a "Reece Pearson" nor a "Reese Pearson". However, the author cited (from the fanmag) has written a lot about Lewis including outside the context of a fan magazine, so that bit might be repairable.

--WickerGuy (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading Order Table

I'm not so sure that I like the new chart in the Reading Order section. To me it is a little more disjointed, a little harder to read. I realize that it expresses the same information, but I think the somewhat non-standard formatting makes the information a little harder to grasp. For a comparison, here are some of the things we've tried in the past:[2][3][4] [5]

It could be that I've just grown accustom to the old table though, so lets hear what everyone thinks. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I prefer the old table. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference Notes 4 and 2 above yield the same table so there are really three choices.

I like the first one. The rationale behind the current one (made by me) is that is shows that 5 out the 7 titles are in the same order in both sequences in a fairly visual form. The first chart has the nice feature of you being able to sort by either order by clicking on a button. But by all means let's be democratic on this. --WickerGuy (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the old table format. I think #4 of the above citation is the best format. The current version makes my head swim just trying to figure it out. Ashmoo (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't want anyone's head swimming. I concede. Change it. Perhaps a prose note that only two of the books are in a different place in the sequence.

--WickerGuy (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Race section

I chopped this para from accusations of racism section because: 1. The argument is not attributed to a 3rd party, and seems like an editors opinion. (The only source for the first part is to the book itself). 2. The argument itself is also poor. Just because the Calormene's religion bears little resemblance to Islam doesn't prove that it isn't hostile to Islam, it could be a mischaracterisation. Please note, I don't think Lewis is actually racist, just that this argument is poor. The The religion of the Calormenes seems more likely to section also fails to provide a source for the opinion, but just provides primary sources, making it WP:OR.

However, Calormene religion has no resemblance to Islam, as it is polytheistic and worships a plethora of gods. The religion of the Calormenes seems more likely to have been based on early Canaanite and Carthaginian religion, which also required human sacrifice, and was portrayed as the ultimate in diabolism in G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man, a book which Lewis admired.

Ashmoo (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. This is a good topic for research, but its inclusion in the article, without an actual source, amounts to Origional Research. The book itself cannot be used as a source for literary criticism that isn't contained in the novel. If Lewis had actually printed a discussion on these religions inside the novel, then you can cite it along with the opinion of an esteemed literary critic, but as of now, it amounts to OR.Mrathel (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The notion that Calormen religion entails human sacrifice isn't actually established until The Last Battle. With an overt reference to that book, one can say first that the Calormen religion requires human sacrifice. Then without saying that Lewis based Calormen religion on anything state that as a Christian Lewis would have regarded this as the ultimate diabolism, then state as did one of his Christian mentors when discussing Canaanite religion. Perhaps this would work, as a revision

However, Calormene religion has no resemblance to Islam, as it is polytheistic, worshipping a plethora of gods. In The Last Battle it is established that the Calormen religion involves human sacrifice. Lewis would have regarded this as the ultimate diabolism as did his religious mentor religion G. K. Chesterton writing of the of the Canaanites in The Everlasting Man.

Much of the accusation against Lewis can be found here http://www.physicsroom.org.nz/log/archive/2/arab/

which ought to be cited as a source somewhere if it isn't already. Another good source can be found here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18672

I hope this helps. Onto the religion and reception section

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried my hand at editing out most of the OR. I think it's fair to state that the Calormene religion bears little resemblance to Islam without citing external sources. The bit about European and Polynesian ancestry reads more into the text than is actually stated, but it is clear that the ancestry is mixed. That said, I do think Lewis was a bit sloppy about letting casual British prejudice creep into the books. Elphion (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reception & Religion and Christian Parallels sections

Does anyone else think that the final paragraph in the Christian Parallels section would fit in better in the Reception & Religion section? I don't really know how to integrate it, but it has always seemed like a new topic in that section that didn't quite fit, but didn't have anyplace better to go. LloydSommerer (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems a moderately plausible idea to me, however I may be prematurely biased to endorsing it because the R&R section (created by me) is considerably too short. Still thinking...

--WickerGuy (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

But note

There was an earlier proposal to put the last paragraph of the R&R section in the Christian parallels section, the vice-versa of your suggestion. Both have merit. Clearly, the relationship between the sections needs some thought. At the very least the two sections probably ought to be adjacent in the article.

--WickerGuy (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WickerGuy, I hope I don't sound rude, but I'm concerned about the citations you have been using for your edits. I think you may need to re-read WP:RS. When added a source to Verify a claim, the source must be a reliable 3rd party that actually makes the claim in question. Primary sources that provide 'evidence' for the claim are generally not acceptable, especially personal websites or interviews that only mention the topic at hand in passing. I don't mean to discourage you in any way, your enthusiam is commendable, but the citation needs to be improved so we don't spend ages on talk page arguing over them. Ashmoo (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't sound rude. You're very polite (especially by WP standards). I think there was one occasion in which I was rude (or at least snappy) with you. Which I feel bad about, because you're so polite (really).
To the bizness at hand, if you are referring to the citation following the sentence "However, the book is often popular with readers who identify as 'pagan' in the sense of Wiccan or neo-pagan." then you are entirely correct. (I think in other cases only parts of multiple citations in one note are a problem.) There is a proposed but not ratified WP standard (WP:FICT) that a month ago suggested that when writing specifically about fiction, self-published sources (i.e. fansites) are considered a reliable source of info about...what fans think (though not at all about say the personal life and thought of C.S. Lewis). That wording in the proposed standard has now been deleted. I am left with three options, either delete that sentence, or find a reliable citation for it, or rephrase it. For the time being I'm going with that last option. The sentence now reads "However, the book has appeared on recommended reading lists targeted for 'pagan' in the sense of Wiccan readers." Hopefully, that works for now.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I just chopped this: ' and there is an online bloggers group called "pagannarnians".'. Because 1. It is a referenced only by a primary source, making its inclusion WP:OR. 2. The group in question has 7 members, hardly a significant group. Ashmoo (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right on (2.) I didn't check the membership rolls. I'm less sure about 1 as WP:OR specifically allows descriptive claims, but not interpretive claims using primary sources. But sure let it go. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

More broadly speaking.

I think there's a tendency at WP to appeal to the WP:OR policy when a more specific rationale for deletion would do. The stuff of mine you just removed probably fail's WP:Notability, but I'm unconvinced it violates WP:OR. Stuff by someone else that I myself removed in a different article failed WP:UNDUE but others said it violated WP:OR. OR seems to be employed as a kind of umbrella policy that encompasses others. I feel that more specific and less general reasons such as Notability and Due Weight should be appealed to whenever possible before appealing to the overused broadly applied OR policy. But of course again, I accept that the material of mine you removed failed the notability test.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material in Criticism section

I removed the following sentences, as while some of it is true (and some is not), all of it is unsourced. ALL criticisms and defenses of CoN require Notable sources. Ashmoo (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Calormenes are described as oily and dark-skinned people who wear turbans and pointy slippers and are armed with scimitars. This depiction has been cited as a blatant allegorical comparison to the traditional attire of Islam and Sikhism: turbans are worn by Muslim clerics and by most adult Sikh males; scimitars originated in the Middle East, and are highly symbolic of Islam; and the Calormenes worship the "false god" Tash, who is portrayed as a stereotypical Satanic being requiring evil deeds and sacrifices from his followers.

Without that block of text, however, the allegation seems unfounded and preposterous, giving the section a very POV feel. Besides, with some rephrasing, that is acceptable WP:OR because it is easily discernible fact that can easily be derived from the book. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

this book is coool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.133.62 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexism Critique Section

I would propose that this section be expanded beyond just discussing Susan. While most of the claims of sexism seem to focus on Susan, I would put forth that there are many other sexism allegations and rebuffs that look at all female characters. Specifically, I am noting the fact that the books seem to praise masculine characteristics in girls and look down upon girls who are overly girlish or beautiful. Most witches in the books seem to get ahead by their beauty and by entrapping men as opposed to things like wisdom or actual brilliance of plans. The most beautiful non-witch character is Susan, and we've seen the arguments about her personification. A specific example is the Green Witch in the Silver Chair and her seduction of Rilian as well as the White Witch in the Wordrobe who basically gets to Edward not only because of the sweets but because of her beauty (as well as her earlier temptation of Digory in MN). It seems that being overly beautiful and knowing it is a vice, for both the good and the bad characters. While it's important to point to those who argue that Lewis was speaking out against vanity (as many of the blog sources point out), it does seem that he only seems to personify women as being susceptible to vanity. True evil in Narnia always seems to be personofied in a woman. There are plenty bad guys who are men, but pure evil, are always female beautiful witches. Perhaps that's more suited to the discussion in the religion section as far as paralells to Adam and Eve and the temptation.--RossF18 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, except for the last sentence parallels to Adam and Eve are just a tad speculative and to my knowledge haven't been brought forth by any commentator. (Hope I don't seem overprotective as the primary author of the religion section.) However, it would be important to stick to known criticisms and defenses made by other authors such as the fellow who wrote "The Narnian" (defends Lewis) or the recent book by Laura Miller (50/50) or critics like Pullman, or the essays in the anthology "Revisiting Narnia". Important to keep POV out of it, but still I overall very much agree. --WickerGuy (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Adam and Eve thing was commented about in Narnia and Philosopy by a professor of philosophy. See the passage below. And it's fine being protective and I wasn't suggesting any unsourced addition. I was just hoping for an expanded section beyond just the Susan discussion. The Adam and Eve passage is:

The connection between the plight of Prince Rilian and the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise cannot be overlooked. The story of the Fall is a tale in which Eve, through beauty and charm, seduces Adam into a life of sin by tempting him to eat the apple, just like the Green Witch seduces Prince Rilian and condemns him to a life in the dark world of Underland. Except that in the Narnian version of the story, the woman and the snake are one and the same. Luckily, with the help of the children, Prince Rilian escapes from his curse and is able to kill the Witch in her serpent form. This is fortunate since it would not have suited Rilian's heart and honor to kill a lady, but killing a snake is much easier (SC, Chapter 13, p. 634). Perhaps part of the reason why he finds it easier to kill the snake is that the physical beauty of the Witch doesn't get in the way. Like all witches, the Green Witch uses her beauty, and connives in order to get what she wants, turning men away from the Christian cause of Aslan. Karin Fry. Chapter 13. No Longer a Friend of Narnia: Gender in Narnia. p. 161. The Chronicles of Narnia and Philosophy. The Lion, The Witch, and the Worldview. Edited by Gregory Bassham and Jerry L. Walls.

On p. 162, she continues by stating that:

Perhaps the most important allusion to the Fall in the Chronicles is the passage in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (LWW) describing the lineage of the White Witch. The White Witch is a descendant of Lilith, a female demon regarded in some strands of rabbinic literature as Adam's first wife, prior to Eve. The figure of Lilith reconciles an apparent conflict between the two biblical accounts of the creation of humanity, one which tells of Adam and his wife being created at the same time and another in which Eve is described as being created after Adam, from his side. To reconcile these conflicting narratives, Lilith was thought to be Adam's first wife, who was excluded from Eden due to her sin, which may have been to say God's name. Similarly, Jadis who later becomes White Witch, destroys all of Charn by saying an evil word, much like her ancestor, Lilith. In Jewish folklore, Lilith becomes a she-devil who mates with demons and is responsible for everyting from killing newborns and causing miscarriages, to causing men to have nocturnal emissions due to her influence in their dreams (Jocelyn Hellig, Lilith as a Focus of Judaism's Gender Construction, Dialogue and Alliance 12 (1998) pp. 40-47). The White Witch isn't related to Eve, and doesn't have "a drop of real Human blood," but she is related to the beautiful, evil, and even more corrupting Lilith (LWW, Chapter 8, p. 147). Lilith is described as one of the Jinn (L222, Chapter 8, p. 147). . . .

In Narnia, the model of corruption mirrors the Fall, where Eve is condemned for tempting Adam to eat the apple, just as the Witches seek to seduce the children towards sin. All women in Narnia are connected to this biblical history, since female humans are called "Daughters of Eve." This terminology associates women with Eve's behavior and shame, and distances them from whatever traits could be inherited from Adam. But at least the girls are not descended from Lilith, as the WHite Witch is. Whatever the problems with Eve, Lililth is clearly worse.

--RossF18 (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrific. I'm see a lot of those "___ and philosophy" books but didn't know there was one on Narnia.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a final passage in the interest of full disclosure. If anything, it's just interesting.

The World that Lewis creates finds femininity suspcious, deceptive, and closer to evil because it seduces and beguiles men, and indeed, has some power over them. Female beauty is condemned, and the women who happend to be beautiful or interested in their physicla appearance are reproached. Oddly enough, Susan is never described as being overly interested in her own beauty. In the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Lucy is said to be jealous of her sister's beauty, but Susan herself is never described as being vein, unless a connection can be made between her beauty and her interest in boys, parties, and fashion. Luckily, Lucy doesn't succumb to her desire to be beautiful, but one cannot help but wonder if Susan is somehow condemned for her beauty. Perhpas the problem with Susan is that she gets led astray by her own beauty, even though she is never described as conceited. WHat leads her astray is an interest in grown-up things and in boys, and these superficial interests harm her spiritual life.

--RossF18 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is inapropriate for a wikipedia article. I think and would constitute "original research." The purpose of the artice is to describe the novels in an accurate manner, not offer the reader amateur literary criticism. As a secondary objection, your point is a off-base. Susan's susceptibility to vanity is portrayed negatively. But so is Edmund's arrogance. Lucy's kindness toward's Mr. Tumnus on the other hand is given positive treatment. The distinction is not that one characteristic is "feminine" and the other is "masculine," but rather that according to Lewis's deeply Christian worldview, vanity and arrogance are vices and kindness and love are virtues. I would remind you that throughout the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Lucy is portrayed as the most pure and noble character whereas Edmund is quite literally the judas figure, betraying his family to indulge his gultony (the turkish delight) and ambition/vanity/arrogance (the prospect of becoming a prince). I would also point you to the ape character in the Last Battle, who is very literally a satan-figure. 65.35.244.1 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What would constitute original research? What would constitute amateur literary criticism? I don't think I was suggesting that editors personally comment on the book in the actual article or engage in their own personal literary criticism, which would rightly (most likely) be amateur. My point was that we should expand the section beyond discussion of Susan with actual authorities in the field who provide actual professorial level literary criticism if we keep the sexism section at all. The section is entitled Sexism after all, not sexism as it relates to Susan. Read my post again. It also seems odd that you would go on with your own rather amateur litarary criticism of the books whilst disagreeing with my own right to do so. But that point aside, this talk page is not a place to bash either of our points of view, only discussing ways to improve the article. This is not a fan site or a blog. That said, you provide no support for your points of view, while I was discussing a sited source which I provided extended excerpts from. My point of view might be no more valid than yours, but at least I have a source from which I draw my points and my goal in bringing this discussion up is to do exactly what you kind out touch upon, i.e., expanding discussion of sexism beyond just Susan, and pointing out how apparent sexism might have been something else or not. But again, all these things require sources. I have a source for my point that Lewis was trying to distinguish between feminine and masculine and if you have a source that would support your following assertion: "The distinction is not that one characteristic is 'feminine' and the other is 'masculine,' but rather that according to Lewis's deeply Christian worldview, vanity and arrogance are vices and kindness and love are virtues" well than that's great. And that's exactly my point. Experts disagree on the Lewis's writings and you can go ahead and remind me about Edmund and Lucy all you want (which is of course something I know well), but unless you have a source, your point is just as the amateur literary critique you accused me off, something that I wasn't even trying to do. I was trying to call fellow editors to expand the section with cited sources beyond just the "nylons" discussion of Susan, and bring up Lucy and Edmund. (By the way, although Edmund was a personification of Judas, he got into Narnia, while Susan was left out just because she was vaine. If that's not sexism, I don't know what is. Judas was a traitor who according to the majority of the Christian world betrayed Jesus, so if Edmund is a Judas figure, the fact that he got into Narnia/Heaven and Susan didn't just because she started to be vain at the end, is very sexist. And Lucy was potrayed as most noble and pure character, but she did act like a boy, wanting to go into battle, and she was never interested in thing Susan was interested in. So, that only serves to confirm the sexism points, in my opinion, which has nothing to do with what can go into the article since personal opinion is very different than a verified source)--RossF18 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Planet Narnia

Michael Ward's book merits a section. In it he suggests that each book is based on the Seven planets - i.e. five plus the moon (Silver Chair) and the Sun (Dawn Treader). Kittybrewster ☎ 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So what's the book, who is Michael Ward, and what evidence does he present? Which book goes with which planet (and why)? Elphion (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Ward is Lewis scholar who was actually a kind of caretaker for Lewis' old house, The Kilns, for a few years. The book has a webpage "http://www.planetnarnia.com/". Ward draws on Lewis' long long interest in Elizabethan astrology as evidenced in his poetry, scholarship, and the science-fiction trilogy about Professor Ransom. As such, he makes a convincing case for hidden astrological symbolism in the Narnia books. He seems to have read the Lewis corpus quite thoroughly. There's also a podcast interview with him on the web somewhere. Of lesser note, he has a bit part in the James Bond film The World is Not Enough as an assistant of Q.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mercury - The horse and his boy.

Venus - The magician's nephew

Mars - Prince Caspian

Jupiter - Lion W & W

Saturn - Last battle. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a paragraph about it already in the Influences section. LloydSommerer (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I watched the documentary and while it could be said that Lewis used the Seven planets of the ancient world as a scaffolding for the Chronicles series, can we deduce that from a reading and does it really matter. There are a number of works that use such methodology. Paintings inspired by poetry, music inspired by paintings etc. I recall where some scholar deduced the order a work of music was produced in, by examining the watermark on each sheet. From this he could deduce the order the sheets came off a much larger sheet. Trojan work indeed, but does it really matter. Did the tune sound alright ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jz2qp/The_Narnia_Code/

emacsuser (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "scaffolding" and "method of composition" are one thing, while "hidden meanings" go beyond it. It's difficult to say which is what here. However, given that this ties is with other works in the Lewis corpus (with more overt appeals to Elizabethan astrology), it should be mentioned here. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet domain

Does that really belong in controversy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the book, rather the estate of Lewis. It is confusing when really the article headings to find "internet" in a book that was established well before the internet exist. Is that event really notable? Should it be taking to another section consider it is not actually a controversy from the book, but rather a domain name registration. Schnarr 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's out of place, for the reasons you mention. It arguably doesn't belong in this article at all, since except for the name it doesn't relate to the books. Not quite sure where to move it, though. Elphion (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One possible solution which would require some research is to include a (new) section on legitimate Narnia-related websites as part of the longer "in other media" section and then move the controversy to that section. Would want to avoid violation of policy WP:SPAM, so would need to focus on Lewis-estate approved webpages (I think Lewis' stepson has such a page.) As such perhaps not an ideal solution, but I think moderately good one.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is out of place, and I think you could argue based on Encyclopaedic that it does not belong on wikipedia at all. Perhaps wikinews would be a better place for this information. I don't like simply removing information from the article, but it really doesn't apply to the books. If there was an article on Lewis's Estate, maybe it would be a section there (but again, maybe it is simply not encyclopaedic). LloydSommerer (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no opposition to removing it, I will do so. LloydSommerer (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs

This phrase: "children from our world who are..." seems a bit odd to me. I feel that the "our" is the wrong word for this. Thoughts? Alan16 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is "from our world" a bad description? I suppose "from Britain of the 1940s" would be more precise. But the thrust of the stories is that these are ordinary children from, yes, our world. Elphion (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Series title?

This article (and others, including Template:C._S._Lewis) treats the Chronicles of Narnia as a series title (complete with italics) instead of as a description of the collection of the seven separate books. I had always assumed that it was just a description, like the Space Triology. Is there any indication that it is really a title, or was it simply dreamed up by the publishers after the fact? (It already appears in my Collier edition of 1970, but not as a title.) Elphion (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it was dreamed up by the publishers but is now deeply ensconced in the popular culture. BTW, Collier did not get the publishing rights to Lewis' works until well after 1970 at which time MacMillan was still publishing them. You should double-check the date and/or publisher of your edition. Regards, --WickerGuy (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright page says "First Collier Books Edition 1970". Elphion (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Ford writes in his 'Companion to Narnia' that, "The series was christened 'The Chronicles of Narna' in 1952 by Lewis's dear friend Roger Lancelyn Green, in an analogy with Andrew Lang's 'Chronicles of Pantouflia'." LloydSommerer (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. So we're falling squarely in middle ground. Ugh. Elphion (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian Traditions

I am having trouble understanding the claim here. It is as if these traditions did not exist without the glory of Christ. Or was that just another attempt at taking undeserved credit and leading people back to the church? Can we just erase the Christian part already? They erased Lewis's story and put their own in place. And it has a spot in Wikipedia's entry for the film. Is there some way to keep these unnecesary edits out of the article as well? 66.74.131.101 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)SonicKuz

I can't make head nor tail out of most of this. This article is about the series of books by CS Lewis, not the films. Who then is the "They" that "erased Lewis's story" (which is arguably only true of the 2nd film anyway), and why would it matter for this article? As for your second sentence: whether the traditions are divine or human in origin does not directly impinge on the very important fact that Lewis certainly drew on Christian tradition in writing the novels and very heavily as well, and as such needs to be stated here. The third sentence/question of your post, I don't even understand what it means. What is the connection between "taking undeserved credit" and "leading people back to the church"? What is the connection between these two? Regardless, it is certainly necessary to state the Christian connection in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lewis did not originally intend to incorporate any Christian elements into the novels - he said that they arrived of their own accord. That suggests that he accepted that there were Christian elements. But he also says that any belief that there are Christian elements is "suppositional". They only way that these two comments can be reconciled is to say that CS Lewis did not intend to or deliberately incorporate Christian symbolism or elements into the story. If people see or believe they see Christian elements that is their supposition, not his intent. This is a pretty clear indication that Lewis did not view the stories as having any Christian element whatever.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Lewis saying that these Christian elements "arrived" while he was writing is certainly an admission that he put them in to the story. So his intention must be viewed as glorifying Christianity. If he did not like them, and they arrived, he could have removed them. No one was helping him write. Its clear that they are present. Im sure that some people find them distasteful, and some people favor them. thats been the way with religions since the start. I think the responsible thing is to admit they are there. Its a pretty obvious allegory of the crucifixion of Christ. Ill see if there are reliable texts on this. Im sure there are. --Lollipopfop Jan 24 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any source for the suggestion that some find the so-called Christian elements "distasteful"? Odd that Hare Krishna, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca and all manner of odd beliefs are fashionable, and encouraged, yet Christianity is regarded as distasteful. Surely the Second Coming must be near at hand (only joking, I hope).124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats tricky. I don't think it would be difficult to find a source saying Christianity is distasteful. I also note that Christians happily denounce all sorts of practices as distasteful siting the Bible. So, its probably best to just assume that there are people who agree and disagree with both standpoints. But just out of curiosity, it seems like Christinas are far quicker to talk against practices, then anti Christians are to denounce Christianity. Goodness, I even see posts about the dangers of Harry Potter bringing the youth to witchcraft. Not that it has much to do with any wiki article. Isn't calling widespread religions like Buddhism and Islam "odd" just that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely directly sourced and cited in the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Narnia as a fictional parallel universe. I don't see any connection between that obvious fact and whether or not there are Christian elements in the story. They are two separate matters.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On the comments you suggested earlier... “If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in The Pilgrim's Progress] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure.” C.S. Lewis, here, did not intend to use allegory in the Chronicles of Narnia like he did for Pilgrim’s progress. Initially, he began writing these children’s stories to entertain his God daughter. However, it does not mean he didn’t employ Christian symbolism. In fact, looking closely, even if C.S. Lewis did not intend for an allegory on Christian themes, there are reasons why Christian Parallelism should be included: there are terms that directly reference the bible, there were immense Christian symbolism, and C.S Lewis was heavily influenced by Christianity in many of works. It should be cited. In the Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe, the protagonists are called “Sons of Adam, and Daughter of Eve.” Adam and Eve are actual characters in the bible. In the Christian tradition, they are parents that represent the human race, which makes sense when Aslan saves the children. Clearly, by naming these Characters in this specific manner Lewis wants to incorporate Christian themes. Finally, Christian Parallelism should be included in this section, because C.S Lewis was influenced by his religion. He wrote numerous Christian books, such as Mere Christianity, the Screw tape letters, and Abolition man etc that would be read by millions of people. He defended his faith using Christian theology and apologetics with other intellectuals. He was not ashamed of his religion. Christianity was C.S Lewis’s life in every aspect. Even if he did not originally intend to put Christian theme in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, people cannot fully appreciate this story if they did not talk about Christianity since it was a significant part of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M3torun (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)