Talk:Susan Pevensie

Add a little something
Recently read a review on Prince Caspian (the movie) and interestingly found that the reviewer noted how Susan's character was already at this point "moving away from Narnia". Apart from seeing Aslan last, the cave wall drawings in the cave that lead to the Stone Table (I am still talking about the movie), there were four images of the Pevensie children: all but Susan's were facing the viewer, whereas hers were turned away. Gonna watch the movie soon and look for this, but do you think it's worth adding? Also (excuse the ongoing post): a quote I dug up: "The books don't tell us what happened. It's very likely that Susan's family's death brought her to think about Narnia. And who knows? She might still stumble across something that would bring her into Narnia, some time, some day .... we'll just have to wait and see...." Worth anything? EDIT: And of course, the famous line of Aslan "Once a King or Queen of Narnia, always a King or Queen of Narnia." Hackeru (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That quote is probably the only thing that the fans of Narnia will use to prop up the idea that Susan 'can be saved'. But the more subtle parts-as described by Peter on the front page 'she is no longer a friend of Narina' is far more descriptive of what Lewis was trying to say, that a woman who likes to become more is wrong.Lightningbarer (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Commentary
I apparently seem to have mistaken Wikipedia for Everything2, but while we're on the subject I'd like to tell the critics to cool off. To say that Susan was excluded because of her female sexuality going for the burn would cause a fundamental conflict with other themes - Frith, look at the good Calormenian. Near as I can tell, it's the 'nothing except' more than the 'nylons...' Also there's a good chance that she didn't end up in Aslan's World because she's still present on Earth, but that's getting irrelevant. Anyway, I'd edit the paragraph in a fanatical pursuit of NPOV to include her dismissal of Narnia had I an English copy of the book. -- Kizor 08:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, she is excluded because she 'survived' but she did so because Lewis decided she should. Just like he dicided she should like nylons and be overtly concerned with appearances and appointements. shes not a real person, the story is constructed to serve the purpuse of the author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.167.132.217 (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC).


 * The next paragraph actually tries to address the neutrality (it was much worse before my rewrite...) But I'll add the quote you want, since I've got an English copy here. Mpolo 08:52, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

in the last issue of TIME magazine, J.K. Rowling was interviewed, saying she has a problem with this chracter(or, more to the point, with Lewis himself), maybe that could be inserted as well 85.65.36.121


 * There's been a Sub-Heading in the Cronicals of Narnia page on wiki-heading 6-that gives explanations to why Authors like Rowling and Pullman have a 'distaste' for Lewis' writing style, so I'd say add a link to the page, or a very small annotation for it with a link to the full artical. Lightningbarer (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

characters template
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 23:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Gaiman's "The Problem of Susan" - protagonist not named
Actually, I believe that the character in Gaiman's story is never explicitly given a first name. She is "Professor Hastings", and the young reporter never mentions any coincidence of name when discussing the similarities between the professor's family and the one on the Narnia books. We are left to draw our own conclusions about who the professor is. Or have I missed something? Leeborkman 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought you were mistaken, but rereading the story I noted that (a) you were right, (b) that the narrative structure is quite a bit more complicated than I first though and (c) the question of the professor's identity is completely open. Nothing she says would be inconsistant with someone who had "simply" also had her entire family killed in a train accident a few years after the war. LloydSommerer 02:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lloyd. I was just writing a note to you, and now I see this from you.  Yes, it is a very interesting story, and I only just read it a couple of day's ago because of the article here in WP.  Very open to all manner of interpretation.  Thanks. Leeborkman 02:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hehe, I haven't read the short story "The Problem of Susan" and the articles say that the first name of "Prof. Hastings" was never explicitly given. Now the question is: "Who is 'Susan' in that short story?" If there was no other person named Susan in the story, then the title itself would be the very clue to the identity of the professor as Susan Hastings, well, at least implied in the title....(yeah, i know, its still not explicitly given as the first name of Prof. Hastings, hehe).... Meynardtengco 20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, how sad can you apologists get? Stretching it as much as you can does not remove the fact it was Susan Pevensie. Especially when the author states it was. 203.171.196.57 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

In my copy of Fragile Things (UK paperback published by Headline Review) there is a section at the beginning which discusses all of the stories in the book and this includes The Problem of Susan. Excerpt: "I read the Narnia books to myself hundreds of times as a boy, and then aloud as an adult, twice, to my children. There is so much in the books that I love, but each time I found the disposal of Susan to be intensely problematic and deeply irritating. I suppose I wanted to write a story that would be equally problematic,and just as much of an irritant, if from a different direction, and to talk about the remarkable power of children's literature". --Joshtek (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, since Susan was quoted as being "no good at school work" it would be quite the turn-around for her to become not merely an able scholar but a Professor, no less. Losing her entire family must have given her no end of a kick in the rear end, but it's still quite something to have miraculously developed the aptitude for professorhood, no matter the motivation. :) Captain Pedant (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Susan's photo
The photo of Susan has funny bits of text around it - it has "Image:" on the left, and "|240px" on the right (with square brackets). Does anyone know how to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Tumnus (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry! Mr Tumnus 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It still looks wrong. I can see the word "Image:" above it, and "|240px]]" below it. Please, can somebody fix it? Mr Tumnus 11:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. The template was expecting the bare name of the image, to which it adds the formatting.
 * —wwoods 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks fine now. Mr Tumnus 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I Love You so very,very,very,much Anna popplewell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.59.140 (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Last Battle Entry
The section of this entry here is nothing more than special pleading, which has no real place in a wiki article.

'This is not to say, as some critics have maintained, that she is lost forever ... It is a mistake to think   that Susan was killed in the railway accident at the end of The Last Battle and that she has forever fallen from   grace. It is to be assumed, rather, that as a woman of twenty-one who has just lost her entire family in a terrible crash, she will have much to work through; in the process, she might change to become truly the gentle person she has the potential for being.'

The fact that Peter states that she isn't a friend of Narnia and how no one actually speaks to her states that she is not there in the railway crash. That there are no sections of the Last Battle that even remotely suggest that Susan is going to be given a repieve from what Peter and-apparently-Aslan have placed upon her. 'she is no longer a friend of Narina' 'lipsticks, nylons and invitations' are both rather harsh and set in stone terms. The First being that she's no longer welcome in 'Aslans Country' and the second-though rather thinly defended-states that an empowered woman who embraces her sexuality is something sick and wrong. Something that is 'unnatural' which fits with the common 'sex is bad' view in orthadox Abrahamic faith systems.Lightningbarer (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You make that sound like it's original research in Wikipedia's part. Wikipedia is quoting what somebody said. Which in my opinion should be cited to be proven true. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * sigh. This needs stamping on again and again. There's no sense of "sex is bad" in describing what has become of Susan - all that is bad is her seeking to get to the silliest stage of her life as early as possible and then remaining there as long as she can, meanwhile denying the truth of Narnia and all she experienced there. Lipstick and nylons and invitations are morally neutral in their own place, but when they become the whole focus of a young woman's attention - so that she is trying to pass herself off as twenty-one both years before and years after the fact - then the important business of living as a mature adult is being overlooked. The final chapter of That Hideous Strength, "Venus at St Anne's", makes quite clear Lewis's view that sexuality within marriage is admirable and to be encouraged. Captain Pedant (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

rofl! Captain Pendant, it is amusing that you think youth is the "silliest stage of life" and furthermore think it is bad to want to stay youthful as long as possible. Is that not the dream? *winks* --50.33.53.134 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Susan was not killed in the train crash, but, remained the sole survivor of the Penvensie family means that she has time to repent of her falling away. "No longer a friend" can be said of anybody who falls away from their religious faith, during that time period, but, in less it becomes permanent, the friendship can be restored again. Edmund started out as an ENEMY of Narnia & of Aslan, but, in the end was Saved. The same thing can happen with Susan too. Even CS Lewis himself, said so.--Splashen (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This board is for improvements to the article, not for you to work out your own explanation for how to reconcile Lewis' apparent misogyny with your faith. And in any case "she can always repent" is not much of a defense against the charge that Lewis's disapproval of female sexuality was what caused him to write her as lost. Do you have specific suggested changes to make to the article, and sources to back them up? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Even CS Lewis himself, said so." Where did he say, or more likely write, this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Splashen is referring to the quote from his Letters to Children (citation number 4 in the article). -- Elphion (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The notion "sex is bad" is not the "view of Orthodox Abrahamic faith systems." The view of most is "extra marital sex is bad, marital sex is positively commanded by God." Even C. S. Lewis seems to hold the later view in That Hideous Strength although also connected with the view "Marital sex should be pursued in a way that allows for creating children", which is not the same as that being the only reason to have sex. However many would argue that Lewis' writing Susan out of The Last Battle is actually most a result of his odd decision to over emphasize 7.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Using the movie photo
Is it standard to focus on the film portrayal of a character? Since this page is specifically about the character in general an illustration from the books (if one exists) or no image at all would seem more appropriate, but maybe that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.163.7 (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is room in the article for more than one image. That being said, all images are likely to be copyrighted, and require a Fair Use Rationale in order to include them here. Someone has gone to the trouble of uploading and creating a FUR for the current image; you are more than welcome to do the same for an image from the book, or an image from the BBC films. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary should be based on book, not mix in movie
The summary of her character should focus on what the book says. The only outside sources workable there are published timelines, etc. by Lewis himself and scholarly studies of the character, not editings from the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)