Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)