|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
can we put a character templates in narnia character articles? i've seen harry potter and others, and maybe narnia deserve to have it as well. HoneyBee 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop portraying Edmund as a bad person. He's just a kid. Cut him some slack. 220.127.116.11 i believe that al the stuff on this is juss a bunchh of bulll Edmund was portrayed as a bad person in the books. Please don't put your own point of view into articles. IrishGuy 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You stay out of this! 18.104.22.168
Stop adding your own personal views to articles and blanking content you disagree with and I will stay out of it. Until then, it is every users duty to revert vandalism. IrishGuy 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at my talk page. I left a message regarding this. 22.214.171.124
Wow. Okay, well, in the books Edmund is not portrayed as evil. Rather he is portrayed as someone who makes a few bad decisions, partially out of spite, then slides down that path before finally having the courage to admit his error. I don't think either of the edits accurately reflects this. -- Steven Fisher
- He isn't the embodyment of all that is evil, but he is far from misunderstood. He deliberately antagonizes his siblings, went out of his way to lie about the wardrobe, knowingly betrayed his family for selfish reasons...and then it didn't go his way. Had the witch given him what he desired, would he have still done the right thing and come back to his family? It's hard to tell. But Edmund is in no way an innocent who made some bad choices. They were deliberate actions with ill intent. IrishGuy talk 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. When the book starts, he's a little angry at his siblings and occasionally cruel but not evil. Initially he does nothing horribly wrong. Then he eats a piece of candy, having not been given an indication of exactly what effect it will have on him. It's an act of ignorance, rather than evil, and it's a mistake anyone might have made in his place. And once he tastes the candy, he's snared and we're not delaing with the "real" Edmund anymore. This is when he starts to act up. Recall that he wasn't a witness to the wardrobe's power until he went through. By the time he returned to his siblings, he was deep in the white witch's power. Likewise, him betraying his siblings fell from him wanting to believe the white witch in order to sate his addiction. It probably helps if you think of the Turkish delight as something more powerful than heroin. Calling him villainous is incorrect -- but calling him misunderstood is incorrect, too. The right word is probably "snared" or (better) "addicted." -- Steven Fisher 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Steven. Edmund was a bit rude to his siblings at first, but that was probably because he had no friends. Sometimes loneliness can make a person feel mad inside, having no one to express their feelings with. But as the story goes on, he turns into a better person. So that's something to think about. Thank you for coming to solve this conflict, Steven. 126.96.36.199
Actually, I am really glad I discovered this argument. I've gained a lot of insight here. I knew already that Lucy represented agape love, but I don't think I realized before exactly how much Edmund grows in the tLtWatW. I've adjusted the lead somewhat to take the disputed word entirely, although I think the rest of the article needs some updating as well. -- Steven Fisher 14:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you've found a message in this article. I knew there was one from the start. Now I've read the book, and it said that Edmund decided to follow Lucy to find her. However here, it says he was trying to tease her. And are you quite sure the Turkish Delight was addictive? That question has been bugging me. 188.8.131.52
The article here is correct. Not because he thought it a particularly good place to hide but because he wanted to go on teasing her about her imaginary country. As for the Turkish delight: Probably the Queen knew quite well what he was thinking; for she know, though Edmund did not, that this was enchanted Turkish Delight and anyone who had once tasted it would want more and more of it, and would even, if they were allowed, go on eating it till they killed themselves. If you're asking why it is addictive, I find it doubtful that it was physically addictive but rather spiritually addictive. -- Steven Fisher 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I reread the book and you are correct. Thank you for clarifying that. I also want a request. It says that Edmund represents the sinful nature of man. I put sometimes that he represents people who have sin and conflict in their lives, wheras Jesus, or Aslan in this case, died to save us from sin, and rose again, and with Jesus, or Aslan's guidance, Edmund, or normal people, are forgiven and become better people. Could I post that? 184.108.40.206
I don't really have an opinion, other than I find what's already there imperfect. If you know what you want to say, why don't you make your edit? Even if it is a little wrong, maybe it can be refined. -- Steven Fisher 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted to the original text because the new version was too unwieldy. The original is clearer. IrishGuy talk 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Unweildy? I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that, and if my version is too long, should I just make it shorter? 220.127.116.11
- It isn't so much that it was too long. The original wording already states that Aslan is Jesus and Edmund is sinful man. To further break it down and reword it is just redundant. IrishGuy talk 19:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that Jesus is Aslan. The only thing different from my wording and Wikpedia's, is that I put Edmund is basically a normal person with sin in his life, sin which he didn't want to bring on himself. Wikipedia says he represents the sinful nature of man who have seen truth but are unwilling to admit it. Edmund was afraid of being laughed at by Peter, so he lied out of stress, and enchantment of the Turkish Delight. If I'm wrong, I'll let the wording be. 18.104.22.168
- There is nothing stated in the book that Turkish Delight is either addictive or enchanting. That is simply opinion. Nowhere does it state that Edmund's motivation was fear of being laughed at by Peter. That is also opinion. The original wording doesn't have opinion within it and therefore is the superior wording. IrishGuy talk 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If you'll read the book, it says itself the Turkish Delight was enchanted. And it may not say Edmund is afraid of being laughed at, but you don't need words to find that obvious fact out. And what's superior wording? 22.214.171.124 P.S. Steven, could you give your opinion on this?
- I have read the book. Most likely before you were even born. While the Turkish Delight was obviously created by magic, at no point is it claimed that the Turkish Delight is in any way responsible for Edmund's behavior. And YES, if something isn't in the book it doesn't go in the article. Your personal opinions are completely irrelevant. IrishGuy talk 00:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. You say what you like. 126.96.36.199
- I think it's quite obvious that the Turkish Delight was enchanted, and that it had an affect on Edmund's behaviour.
- ...this was enchanted Turkish Delight and anyone who had once tasted it would want more and more of it, and would even, if they were allowed, go on eating it till they killed themselves. pg 38
- At first Edmund tried to remember that it was rude to speak with one's mouth full, but soon he forgot about this and thought only of trying to shovel down as much Turkish Delight as he could, and the more he ate the more he wanted to eat. pg 37
- Edmund was already feeling uncomfortable from having eaten too many sweets, and when he heard that the Lady he had made friends with was a dangerous witch he felt even more uncomfortable. But he still wanted to taste that Turkish Delight more than he wanted anything else. pg 42
- (Once Edmund has given up his siblings to the White Witch) ...at last Edmund plucked up the courage to say, "Please, your majesty, could I have some Turkish Delight? You - you - said"' pg 102
- Tntnnbltn 09:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think external links should be pertinent, i.e. they should specifically concern the article's subject. The subject of the Edmund Pevensie article is the Edmund Pevensie character, and the current external link, i.e. http://www.narniaweb.com, is a generic site about the Narnia saga: I think it should be removed. I replaced it with http://narnia.wikia.com/wiki/edmund_pevensie, but XLinkBot removed it, saying XLinkBot removes "external links which may not be in line with policy or guideline. Wikia links are often so. The external links guideline has something to say about other wikis (which, generally, are just as unreliable and unstable as wikipedia itself)". It advised me to talk about it in this talk page. What shall I do? --Aplomb Dinamico (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Edmund, King of England
I think it might be interesting to note somewhere in the article that Edmund was the name of two kings of England.
you see, Edmund mostly did all of those things because he ate the devil's(witches) fruit also known as enchanted Turkish delight. Eventually the spell begins to break and Edmund sees the error of his ways inevitably almost giving up his life by smashing the witch's wand.All in all, Edmund is just another child learning about life, cut him slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defector1234 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I serached on Google, using the name Edmund Pevensie, just to see if he or any of his siblings were supposed to be in the newest Narnia movie. I have not read any of them, so I don't know what is going to happen. And then, on the search results, this shows up, and I havn't even clicked on Wikipedia: "Edmund Pevensie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaEdmund "Ed" Pevensie (1930 - 1949) is a major fictional character in C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. He is a principal character in three of the seven ..."
It clearly says he is going to die young in one of the books (and movies). I see no point in having such a majo spoiler in the first line in the article. Instead it should be mentioned in the reference to the book it happen in. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous editor from London (IP:184.108.40.206) has made several changes of the past few weeks indicating that Edmund is not actually 10 as the unreferenced statement in the article claims, but is rather 12 or possibly 13. My chief concerns are twofold:
- The change is similarly unreferenced, but believe that TL,tW,&tW discusses the ages of the children. I don't, however, have a copy with me to confirm this.
- The anon also made changes to indicate that individuals were turned to ice and not stone, which is clearly wrong and so I doubt the editor understands the subject and is relying on memory or some adaptation of the story.