Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/Archive 5

Inconsistency
Which is it, 100 million, or 120 million copies sold? It's mentioned twice. We only need once, but I don't know the correct figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NessBird (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Listing it twice is the right thing to do as the lead should be a summary of the article. It looks like the cited references support the 100 million figure. LloydSommerer (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Some Errors
It's late and I haven't slept much, but two things caught my eye, which I don't have time to document and update right now (but, as a serious Narnia fan, happen to know):

1) The film section does not mention an old, 2D-animated film of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe that I watched as a young kid. I assume it is one of the "happened four times" mentioned, but more info on it might be nice. IMDB link

2) The game section fails to mention a little-known pair of games I used to play on an Apple IIGS; one was based on The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, while the other was based on The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I gather they were created by a group called Lifeware, and published by Word Publishing, around 1984. Some info at this link. The games were unusual in that you used physical dice to generate random numbers (or, possibly, just typed in a winning number), and drew cards from a physical deck when prompted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NateEag (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the info on the game. LloydSommerer (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Berit Kjos
Berit Kjos is not a reliable source; please remove any material that is sourced to her. She is an author for newswithviews.com, a very kooky blog whose other authors include Ted Pike, the leader of a very anti-Semitic organization (the National Prayer Network), and Chuck Baldwin, who claimed that the US government secretly caused the earthquake in Haiti to cover up drug trafficking by the Bush and Clinton families. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The context of her citation does not infer she is reliable. (I certainly don't hold to any of Kjos' views.) She is cited as an example of negative criticism that Narnia has received from some Christian quarters.
 * Effectively, she is being used as a primary source!! WP guidelines state that "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." I think we are well within this guideline. The article states that Narnia has been criticized by some Christians for usage of pagan imagery. Kjos is a living example of this.
 * For example, a perfectly sound encyclopedia article explaining Hitler's beliefs could certainly use Mein Kampf as a source to establish that Hitler really believed a particular idea, but such a citation would in no way be construed as an endorsement of Hitler's world-view or otherwise endorse Hitler as a reliable source on anything. This again is because such a usage of "Mein Kampf" is as a primary source.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. I was actually unaware of the context in which the Kjos source was being used, due to the fact that the citations list has a somewhat unusual (for Wikipedia) format, which I found difficult if not impossible to navigate. I would suggest using the tag, which provides a format that is (for me) easier to use. Citation lists done using this tag have numbered rather than bulleted citation lists, and there is a carat-shaped (^) mark next to each entry which acts as a link that, if you click on it, takes you straight to the portion of the article where the relevant entry has been cited. Quite convenient, if you ask me. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I decided to be bold and switch the article over to a tag for now, due to the reasons I explained above. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the is a change for the better, but we've lost some information with this change. You might want to go back and add the information that was in the references list at the end of the article but was not between the reference tags within the article. LloydSommerer (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Or at least I think so. Other users may wish to check, just to make sure I did it correctly. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant go back through the article and add the information back into the individual reference tags. But that would be more work. I guess this works. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand the point of the reflist change. The same template — — is being used for the numbered references as before (but in one column instead of two), and the free-standing references (previously segregated in a separate section) have now been butted up in an unfortunate formatting debacle with the numbered references. Nothing has been gained, and the better formatting has been lost. I do think the free-standing references should come after the numbered references:

== Notes == == References == (free-standing references)

at least until the latter can be properly incorporated with &lt;ref&gt; tags into the article. Elphion (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Narnia in other media
The Narnia in other media section is getting pretty long. I don't know that anything should be taken out of it, but I'm thinking it might be fine as a stand alone article. We could do a summary as a stand alone section or maybe as a section in Narnia's influence on others (which is maybe not as good an idea). Thoughts? Volunteers? LloydSommerer (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading order

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

I have a boxed set dated 1988 (well, they are a mix of dates, but 1988 is the latest) which uses the Magician's Nephew-first order. The publisher is Collins, under the Fontana Lions imprint. The copyright page says "First published in Fontana Lions 1980". This tells me a few things: Hairy Dude (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Collins took over the series in 1980 at latest. (HarperCollins was formed from a merger with Harper & Row, so they inherited it in 1989.) I haven't been able to figure out who the original publisher was, if it wasn't in fact Collins originally.
 * The Magician's Nephew-first order was certainly used in publishing the books long before 1994.
 * There is a reference missing: where and when did Douglas Gresham suggest this order?
 * It wouldn't surprise me if the 1994 date is correct for the US market, but it certainly isn't for the UK. Hairy Dude (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect you're right about the American editions: Schakel and Ford (both American writers) give 1994 as the take-over by Collins. I do wish someone could talk some sense into HarperCollins:  they should issue a definitive edition with the Baynes illustrations, maps, and dust-jackets restored, with Lewis's later revisions restored, and in the proper order.  I mean, we're all stuck with these ancient, acid-impregnated copies that are literally falling apart, but refuse to spend good money on such travesties as the books have been allowed to become under the HC regime.  A decent, well-produced edition could make a mint. -- Elphion (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is Narnia associated with witchcraft and sorcery if it's supposed to be christian?
The reason I ask it is because many Christians,including me, believe that witchcraft and sorcery conflicts with my religion.


 * The witches in Narnia are all evil. However, some Christian groups believe even depicting it in fiction is wrong. Lewis was not among them.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this depiction is all right, even though I am a Christian, because these witches are depicted in sense that shows that they are evil (I mean, what are you supposed to use instead?). AirplanePro 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Note on removal of tag warning of self-published sources.
WP policy overtly states "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Glen Goodknight qualifies in this area- a frequent speaker at fantasy conventions, and a co-editor of a few published anthologies of essays on Lewis and Tolkien. Thus, my removal of the tag about "improper use of self-published sources".--WickerGuy (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Plus as noted in my edit summary, Mr. Goodknight presents ample documentation for his material.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Final Completion order"
What do those words mean? The section is very well-written in my opinion, but that headline puzzles me... Fomalhaut76 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That column is actually sort of superfluous. It simply indicates that although Lewis started The Magician's Nephew before The Last Battle (in fact, drafts of it date from soon after LWW), the latter was finished before the former. -- Elphion (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, so Written order actually means something like Write-start order (if that would be correct English)... Thanks a lot for clarifying!  Fomalhaut76 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation for Dawn Treader openings
We need a WP:RS and WP:V citation for the openings of Dawn Treader. It's not an issue that Wikipedia doesn't believe that it's not already open (I'm going to see it shortly myself), the issue is we need a source that says when it opened in the markets listed. I suspect that IMDB would be a good location for such a source. Simply using a reference for show times for a theatre in Indonesia is not a good reference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I cut all the trivial detail "Opens in Indonesia/Hong Kong /US/ Andorra/Botswana/Canada/ Lithuania..." Who cares? This isn't an article about the films, so just the month -- December 2010 -- is all that's required (and that's all that's given for the other films) and easily sourced to IMDB (as the actual article about the movie uses). Actually, really no more than the YEAR is necessary, but I won't distress anyone by simplifying to that extent. Barsoomian (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading Order
I have a copy of the series from 1982, first published 1980, which orders the books by in-world chronology. I looked up the publisher "Fontana Lions" and found this site: http://inklingsfocus.com/en_GB/brit_1980.html which states that they were the first to publish the series numbered chronologically. This would be useful information for the article if we can found a reliable source.-AlexTG (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Narnia books.jpg
This is a copy of a message left on User talk:Hammersoft.

There were three images. The latter two were composites which were obviously not acceptable under the rules. The oldest image was a photo of a complete set which was not against any rules that I'm aware of. Why were all three deleted? I will not be watching here so please comment on The Chronicles of Narnia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The original image was a user created photo of the covers together. This is still a user created montage of non-free work. If I photograph a book cover, rights to the cover do not transfer to me, allowing me to release rights to the cover. Whether it's taking 7 graphics depicting the covers and merging them together (as in the last two iterations) or taking 7 covers and photographing them together, the effect in terms of copyright is the same. Also, when an image is deleted, all versions are deleted. It's possible to select a specific version to delete, but this is usually only done to remove copyright violations, fair use images that are oversized, etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The original image was a user created photo of the covers together. This is still a user created montage of non-free work." That's not what you suggested earlier. You specifically stated that if an image of an entire collection were available it would likely not break the copyright rules. The image was of a collection sold as a whole, not seven books sold individually and then placed together to make a collection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * from your talk page (emphasis mine):
 * * I don't think it's necessary to introduce all the covers. At most, I think including the cover of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe would be the most we could allow. Is there a compilation box set of all these books? If so, is a picture of that compilation set available from the copyright holder? That would probably be the best route. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a compilation. It was being used for illustrative purposes and as such would have been available under fair use: the series is frequently sold as a complete collection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User created montages. If you have a montage available from the copyright holder, that's different. The image that deleted contained three user created montages, none created by the copyright holder. I've also removed the notice of potential copyright violation from the infobox, as that is no the issue at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are incorrect. There were three versions of the file. The latter two were a montage. the original image was a photograph of the books laid-out on a table. I suspect you'll argue that the books did not ship that way and the act of laying them out on the table was done by the user. However, it's a complete collection as provided by a publishing house.
 * As for a montage from a seller, it's even more copyrighted that taking a photo of the books laid-out on a table. There's a copyright on everything that a publisher releases, including promotional images. Then we're back arguing fair use of the montage.
 * In short, it was fair use of a photograph of the collection that was deleted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain again. Let's say you took Image X (a book cover) from a copyright holder's web site. You upload the image here, and claim use of it under fair use and comply with WP:NFCC. All's good. No problem. If instead of doing this, you were to take a photograph of the book, and upload it here, you would still have to use it under fair use and comply with WP:NFCC. Photographing something copyrighted doesn't transfer rights of what you photograph to you. You may retain rights to the photograph yourself, but you do not have rights to what is photographed. This is basic copyright law.
 * Now, if you take 7 book cover images from a copyright holder, and upload all 7 here, and use them on their respective articles under fair use and comply with WP:NFCC, no problem. If you take all 7 of those book cover images and merge them into a single montage, as was done in this case, EACH use of the item then requires 7 rationales for that single item to be used. Merging the images into one image doesn't reduce the fair use burden. Now, if you take all 7 books, lay them down on a table, and photograph them the same situation applies. You're taking 7 book covers from the copyright holder, merging them into a single image, and using it; that too requires 7 rationales for EACH use of the item; because rights to the covers don't transfer to you.
 * If there is a montage of the book covers, say from the copyright holder's web site, then that is a SINGLE copyrighted image provided from the rights holder. We would only need one rationale for each use, not 7. This is why we strongly discourage user created montages in favor of copyright holder created montages. This is why we accept cast photos for showing a cast for a show, rather than creating montages of individual screenshots of each character.
 * I don't know if I can be any more clear about this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that was not the case. The first image that was later replaced by the montage was a single photograph of the seven covers of a publisher's collection of the books laid-out on a table. The cropping was bad (too much space around the outside of the books) but otherwise met the photograph of the collection. It was essentially a cast photo. I don't know if I can be any more clear about this. I even commented on that on the image's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia has this http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Narnia_books.jpg Is that the original version with books on the table? Is it usable? What about http://www.firstshowing.net/img/chroniclesnarnia-boxset.jpg or http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/classic-childrens-books/11-1.jpg or a close-up version (just the bottom part of http://www.waldenfans.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_july2007books.jpg I take it this image in LostPedia (TV series Lost) http://images.wikia.com/lostpedia/images/e/e8/Narnia_books.jpg is the offending one we have removed.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first link is, I believe, the same or very similar image to the one that was first uploaded in the deleted image. If that was provided by the copyright holder, I'd be very, very surprised. That's a low quality image with bad lighting. No evidence has been provided anywhere to indicate that photograph has been provided by the copyright holder. Searching the HarperCollins web site for images of these books does not find the photographic montage shown in that first link. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that you have found the images in question, and yes this is the picture on the table of the entire series (my children have this same series). What is missing is the box in which the series is shipped. This is a boxed-set of the collection. This is the image that is clearly unacceptable according to the current rules as they are collage of the first-edition covers which were never gathered as a collection but had to be purchased individually. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction. The books on the table are not the same as the boxed-set my children have, but they are a collection nonetheless. The collection is the one my children have, but the image is not mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to suggest that this was produced by the copyright holders, specifically HarperCollins? Or, if that image isn't the same as the first one uploaded here, that the first one here was produced by HarperCollins? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that HarperCollins is the copyright holder? It assumes that it is an American edition which may not be the case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * HarperCollins is the publisher. Anyone else publishing the material would need their permission, whether they're an American entity or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But they're not the copyright holders. C.S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. are. You are confused. HC has the rights to publish in the US, but not internationally. They may have copyrighted the covers of a specific edition, but they are not the copyright holders. In fact, doesn't that make your entire argument moot since you have not shown that HC has a copyright of the images or covers? I understand that no copyright needs to be requested for it to apply. But please don't continue to say that HC has the copyright since they're just publishers of the works. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm desperately confused. Get back to answer the question please. Whomever you think holds copyrights, whomever you think is the publisher, is completely irrelevant. WHO created the photographic montage that was first uploaded here? Answer the question. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What about ?--WickerGuy (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to answer it because you're under some delusion that it matters. It's fair use to represent the collection which is sold as a single entity.
 * To answer a much better question, I think the image you presented, WickerGuy suffers the same problem as the one deleted. I would argue that shows that it is a series and leaves no doubt. The individual covers are not fully represented so it cannot be argued that their worth is diminished by their use. The titles are not even shown on the spine of the books. We're talking fair use, not libre or copyright exempt. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm delusional. Thank you for your ever increasing compliments! Now, back to the question at hand; do you dispute that a user created montage of non-free images would require a non-free rationale for each cover in the montage? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents. WP has a fairly specific policy discouraging WP_user-created montages of non-free images, so I agree with HS on that one. But a "montage from a seller" requires only one free-use rationale, and the WP rule-page in question allows this as a good alternative. After this point comes up, you two seem to be talking past each other like ships passing in the dark.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have zero problem with a montage that comes from the copyright holder, provided it has a valid rationale for each use. What I believe Walter is not understanding is that a user created montage done by photograph isn't any more free of restrictions on use here than a user created montage done by graphic program to merge 7 images. If the source isn't from the copyright holder, then we'd need 7 non-free rationales for each use. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me the policy that backs your opinion. Until then I'll argue that a user-created image of a collection for purposes of representing the collection is no different than a user-created image of a single work for purposes of representing the work. If you have a policy or legal opinion that counters this opinion, I'll be glad to read it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue for WaGo seems to be that it is "sold as a single work". For HS it is that there are "seven separate images" each copyrighted being viewed here. The bookcase approach is used in the Harry Potter article. Why not here?--WickerGuy (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The type of image would be just like that used in Harry Potter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And HS will want to know where THAT image came from?--WickerGuy (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It comes from Amazon.com, which I assume is not an image from the publisher or copyright holder since Amazon creates its own images. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case any of these    would be an equivalent. The first two would be best to avoid the montage effect since they're a complete collection in one volume while the latter two show that they're actually a collection of individual books. The fourth is the collection I have. The one my children have is not represented. Also notice that one collection is from Macmillan Publishing and another Scholastic Inc. Two don't indicate (but I know mine isn't HC). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fourth collection is published by HarperTrophy. My collection was published in the 80s by Penguin. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Walter, the image and all its versions have been deleted. I'm not sorry about that of course. I am sorry that you fail to understand why. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter. If another user created montage is added to the article, it will be deleted. That's the bottom line. I really don't care what your opinion of me is, and how hostile you get towards me. So far as I'm concerned, you can think of me as a clueless lump of steaming donkey feces infested by amoebic dysentary microbes who couldn't find his with a flashlight and a cast of thousands pointing to it. No matter what you think, no matter how much you complain, no matter how much you swear I'm delusional or anyone else is an idiot, it doesn't matter. You are welcome to your opinion. But, those opinions are not going to change the fact that a user created montage of the 7 covers here will be deleted. With that, I bid you adieu. Microphone's all yours. I'm sure you'll use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand why the latter two revisions were, but you were wrong to delete the original. I'm sorry you don't understand why. And now off to WP:UNCIVIL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now back to the task at hand: finding a replacement image. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was fun reading. If I am understanding HS correctly, then a new image montage is not required. This image can be used, but must include a fair use rational for each of the separate images. That doesn't seem like such a large task, as the rational would be the same for each image. LloydSommerer (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not reading Hammersoft correctly. There is no way that the image can be used which is why it was deleted. The individual images have been stitched together and this is not acceptable in Wikipedia. In US copyright law, since the images were not changed, the resulting image is still subject to the individual copyrights of each image. On Wikipedia however, a collection of images is under no circumstances permissible. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking on WP, a collection of images in "gallery" format is acceptable, but it cannot possibly be used in an infobox.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, on WP galleries of non-free images almost always fail WP:NFCC #8. See WP:NFG. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand why the boxed set image wasn't used in the first place, or at least suggested when the objection to the montage was first raised. Doesn't WP have a policy of suggesting boxed sets instead of montages? Donn Edwards (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
 * There is no policy like that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially, there are some policies on WP that are de facto policies, but not official ones.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a random sampling of what's out in Wikipedia in articles on series of books
 * Dark Materials - no image
 * Lord of Rings- Montage of Unused drafts by Tolkien of covers of 3 books
 * Little House (cover of one book with same name as series)
 * Dune- no article on series as a whole
 * Foundation Series- Cover of 3rd novel "Second Foundation"
 * Space Odyssey - no image
 * List of Oz Books - no image, but an image for all of the first nine by Baum
 * Lonesome Dove series- no image
 * Tarzan (book series) - cover of 1st book only
 * Darkover series- no image
 * Dark Tower series- cover of 1st book only
 * Space Trilogy (CS Lewis) - no image
 * Professor Challenger- no article on series as whole
 * L'Engle's Time Quartet - photo of spines of hardbacks


 * Clearly, no uniform policy. Oddly, WP does have a ''Category" of book series, but a few of these are not listed as such in their respective articles.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally, another article with a boxed set image, except its the cover of the box unfolded to see the front and back with no book spines. LeGuin's "Earthsea cycle"--WickerGuy (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section
I've been away from this article for a while and have noticed that some old problems have snuck back into the Controversy section. Namely, some editors feeling the need to 'defend' Lewis against some of his critics. All criticisms and defenses need to be from notable sources (just like the enormous hidden note in the code says). Do not add your own defense of Lewis (or criticism) with the weasel words 'some of his defenders say'. Remember, WP doesn't necessarily endorse every quote in every article. So even if Pullam's views, for example, fill you with rage, unless there is a notable rebuttal, you just have to let it rest. Ashmoo (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed this text because it contains no source, thus being original research, and is also a fairly weak argument. Although the portrait of the Calormenes is coloured by European perceptions of Ottoman culture, the Calormene religion as portrayed by Lewis is polytheistic and bears little resemblance to Islam. Moreover, several Calormenes, notably Aravis in The Horse and his Boy and Emeth, the young Calormene soldier in The Last Battle, are portrayed favourably as brave and noble individuals and eventually enter Narnian heaven. Ashmoo (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is OR as stand, but it is an argument taken on dozens and dozens of various bulletin board discussions all over the web re this issue. If these are used as sources on themselves and we cite a few of them and state objectors say thus-and-so, I think we can put it back. It has also been argued that the Calormen religion is essentially Babylonian.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bulletin boards and other discussion forums are not acceptable sources. If you can find a book, article, or web site that meet WP:EL and WP:V that states this information it can be added back in with the correct reference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm probably stretching the WP guideline that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" which has done elsewhere on WP, and in this article. At any rate, that's what I had in mind. See Identifying reliable sources.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a stretch, it's incorrect. Self-published sources are things like a blog by an author writing about the author himself, letters from one person to another about things that happened to the person, a Twitter or Facebook account used to announce an upcoming movie or album release. It's not about fans discussing the object of their fanaticism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice additions. You may need to provide quotes at some point, but they address the immediate concerns. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse those of us who get frustrated by over-academic lit-crit: the sources for Aravis' and Emeth's being brave and noble individuals are "The Horse and his boy" and "The last battle". It's sad that Lewis didn't think to add footnotes specifying which of his characters was intended as a hero and which as a bad-guy; perhaps he assumed his readers would have the common sense to be able to tell the difference without a literary critic to help them. It would be interesting to know whether he considered that a mere ability to read a children's novel and identify the good guys constituted "original research". Incidentally, I personally find the whole criticism section rather weak. Surely Lewis has more critics than just Pullman? 81.141.32.144 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Other critics are mentioned including J. K. Rowling, Philip Hensher and Gregg Easterbrook. Pullman has no bearing and the last section of the "Criticisms" section at all. I think everyone can tell from reading H&B & LB that Aravis and Emith are good guys, but the issue here is specifically WP's rules against WP:synthesis, which specifically states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."--WickerGuy (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The portion dealing with Susan and the "nylons and lipstick and and invitations" quote fail to mention that the text in fact reads that she was "interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations." This is significant because the critics listed misquote Lewis as banishing Susan from Narnia for simply being interested in lipstick. --Mattmatt1987 (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical anachronism
The article mentioned CS Lewis having been born in "Belfast, Northern Ireland" in 1898. This is an absurdity - Northern Ireland was only established in 1921. Therefore, one could refer to "Belfast, Ireland", or "Belfast, United Kingdom", or "Belfast, in contemporary Northern Ireland", or simply avoid any matter of contention by just saying "Belfast", which is where the article on the city is located. However, it is anachronistic and incorrect to say that anything could have happened in "Belfast, Northern Ireland" in 1898! Please do not reintroduce this error. 109.158.50.166 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Checked the author's article and copied the method used there. Also see that article's talk page for additional discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you.109.158.151.26 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out and sorry for not understanding what you were getting at earlier. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Music Section Removal
I just removed the music section. It was originally used for musical adaptations of the books in the series, but over time had accumulated items that were pop-culture references. I moved the only one that appeared to be an adaptation to the new Adaptations of The Chronicles of Narnia page and moved one of the other references into the pop-culture section. There used to be dozens of pop-culture references and they were going to be spun off into a separate article, but it was felt by some that an article like that would not be encyclopedic. If anyone is interested, they are available here LloydSommerer (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between musical adaptations and marginal references. Is Narnia the main subject of the music, or an allusion in a single line? Many WP articles require in this area a secondary source to provide cultural commentary to establish "notability". See In popular culture?--WickerGuy (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The music is much less notable than the film, stage and TV adaptations. And if you look at the list from before it was taken out, they were more along the lines of music inspired by rather than musical adaptations per se. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy Edit discussion
 I've been following the progress of the copy edit and making queries over on Philg88's talk page, but in retrospect, I think it would actually be more useful to track it here instead, so I've have copied over the existing conversation: -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there - many thanks for taking this on! I realise it's a big article and will take some effort - hopefully it's not too bad to start with. Please do drop me a line if you have any questions. Thanks again! Cheers. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's an interesting article and I remember enjoying the books as a child. I have done the lead - see what you think. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good so far. I suppose the old version was a tad link-happy :)  My only question is whether we really need to include the dates for "Second World War (1939–1945)" .... is that a generally accepted style point? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did that because Wikipedia will be around for ever - in a few hundred years not everyone will know about it. I don't really mind if it comes out. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 23:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I noticed that you tagged "or scripts other than English" as an inference .... in fact that comes from one of the citations linked to that statement ... it refers to the fact that the English version is available in braille. Any suggestions on how to fix that up? Thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * have a look now ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 00:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good! -- Jake fuersturm (talk)

FYI - despite the girlish-sounding name, the character of Eustace Scrubb is a boy :) No worries, I was wondering that the first time I saw the name as well :P -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW - in case it comes up again, I've seen that you've made a few edits referencing Narnia as a kingdom. While this is technically true (of the Kingdom of Narnia), the name Narnia also refers to the world in which the stories are set, and there is a subtle but important distinction depending on the specific usage. Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'll leave it to you to sort that one out when I've finished. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 01:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I just wanted you to be aware of it just in case you see that again later on. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry to keep bugging you, but I didn't want to forget to ask. I just wanted to understand the rationale for using blockquote rather than cquote? Thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer cquote as it adds a slight touch of color and spaces things nicely. No problem if you want to revert to blockquote - having just checked that's what the WP:MOS recommends too. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 03:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My two cents (because I was the one who started to try and wanted it improved it first) the lead looks fine as long as it sums up every thing in the article. Even though I liked the idea of characters being introduced. I don't feel like we do not need to use subsections for the characters and I do feel there is more major characters than that if you don't mind me adding more sometime. I won't do it right away because I am still watching you guys going at it. What do you guys feel about dumping the subsections (if you want an example here is one). Jhenderson 7 7 7  14:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Does WP:MOS or similar have anything to say about the format of characters list? When I added the Main Characters section I just thought the sub-sections worked better as I wanted to give each character more than just a short sentence, and I've also noticed a general aversion to "list format" in Wikipedia. (Interestingly Harry Potter doesn't have a characters section at all). A major difference between Narnia and LOTR / Harry Potter is that except for Aslan, the main Narnia protagonists don't consistently appear in every book of the series (and when they do it's not always in a major role), whereas in LOTR/HP you can count on The Fellowship and Harry/Ron/Herminone having a major role in every book (and this is also the main reason I dropped in the table of appearances - to keep track of where characters show up).  And while I agree that there are more characters that could be added, I was trying to focus on the Earth Children, around whom the series revolves (plus of course Caspian and Shasta since three of the books couldn't really exist without them). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I realise that I forgot to add Polly Plummer. Oops. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Polly Plummer (which I see you now notice) and maybe even Aravis can be added. It doesn't really matter when it comes to MOS subsection or not. I just figure it would be a lot less space.   Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah my bad, but I did disclaimer before that I wasn't a Narnia expert :) I agree with you on the space considerations, the article was getting massive at one point (somewhere around 115,000 bytes) but its much more manageable now (a shade under 80,000 bytes). Re: the Main Characters section, I think we're at a bit of a "tipping point" right now ... if we add many more characters to the list, then it really will be too long to use sub-sections, but if we keep it to a reasonable length, I don't think the sub-sections should be an issue. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes on recent changes
Just three quick notes on the recent improvements to the article: Nice work everyone on the recent changes to the article. LloydSommerer (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Would it be appropriated in the Publication history section to mention the changes that Lewis made to the books when they were first published in the U.S? I think the individual changes are all documented in the articles for the individual books, so it might be better just to mention that Lewis made the changes.
 * 2) I worry that the Main characters section could prove to be problematic as people add details and characters to the section over time. My own feeling is that Character sections are more appropriate on individual book articles rather on the article for the series. Having said that, I think I preferred the version from a few days ago with the Pevensie children listed separately.
 * 3) I think we've lost too much of the Christian Parallels section when it was moved to the Religion in The Chronicles of Narnia article. We've kept Lewis's dislike of using the term allegory, but lost the suppositional parallels. My suggestion would be to either add the Lewis quote back to the Religious overtones section or add a Christianity subsection to the Influences section.

Responses in order:
 * 1) I think that's a good idea. As you say, it probably better just to say it happened, lest the section get too bloated
 * 2) Well, there's a couple of ways to fix that. We could either leave a note here on the talk page, or a hidden edit note in the section itself, warning editors that a consensus was reached on which characters to include.  Or we could condense it into bullet points (as Jhenderson777 suggested yesterday). FYI - my rationale for condensing the Pevensies was again due to bloat.  It would be easy enough to restore if that's the agreed-upon action
 * OK, yeah, I was afraid of that. When I was editing it, it was a really fine line between keeping to the essentials and (yep, you guessed it - bloat :)  The original material was all preserved when I fissioned-off the Religion in The Chronicles of Narnia article. I defer to your judgement in how to deal with this one since you obviously know the material better than I do. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm done ... sort of
Lloyd, Josh, I think I've taken this about as far as I can for the time being, without further input from you or others. As far as I know, the only unresolved issues are the ones Lloyd lists above and finding a enough cite refs to satisfy the unreferenced section tags we got during copy edit. I think once we cover-off these points, we should be able to put the article into the queue for Peer Review. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't had a chance to take it in, but I'll say thanks for the hard work. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. Thanks, Jake! oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I appreciate it. Now that you say you're done I might just go back to work once again. I am mostly pleased but I would love more sources in the future. And I will test the character format as well. But I do appreciate your step in. And I might even avoid the sandbox this time just to prove that I actually did participate helping at this article as well. I just figured it would be easier at the time. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys - and definitely more sources, I've encountered enough deletionists in my short time here to conclude that there's no such thing as enough reliable sources! Happy to have you guys continue with bringing it to GA - I'll definitely still be involved, just a little less, since the G.I. Joe articles are getting hit pretty hard right now :( -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys, heads up - I'm outta here. Sorry, but you'll have to walk the last few steps to GA on your own. Seriously need to take a break from Wikipedia. Take care, and best of luck. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Overlooked topic?
Hi,

I'm not sure how to ask/bring this up, but I was wondering if there is some mention due to the supposed late night conversation/apparent wager between C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien that purportedly spurred each man to create their respective masterpieces, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings?

I had heard various iterations of this from different sources over the years and recently found this article on the topic:

http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2003/12/03/tolkien_lewis/index.html

Thanks,

Lansharked (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll let the domain specialists discuss it here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good find. Sounds like something that might work on the Influences section here. And it also might be useful on the C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien articles as well. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The conversation in no way constitutes a "wager"!!! It is a literary discussion about the relationship of myth, faith, and spirituality. The conversation certainly spurred Tolkien to further writing, but its main influence on Lewis was catalyzing his conversion to Christianity. His decision to write the Narnia books came much later. The characterization of this conversation by Lansharked is really rather misleading!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I probably missed reading bits and pieces of this source. But I haven't noticed the source constitutioning a wager. Most of the source did seem to explain what I already knew about Lewis and Tolkien, the whole friendship and them being a member of the Inklings. Information like that I remember removing for it's more necessary on the author's articles and the group article itself. A few mentioning of the influences the source seemed to state which chould be good on the influence section but what's on the source is probably already on the article already. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aslan = Christ
It's worth noting after the Main Characters / Aslan comment of 'C. S. Lewis [describing] Aslan as an alternative version of Jesus that is: "as the form in which Christ might have appeared in a fantasy world," ' that in chapter 16 of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader the following conversation strengthens the point:

“Please, Aslan,” said Lucy. “Before we go, will you tell us when we can come back to Narnia again? Please. And oh, do, do, do make it soon.” “Dearest,” said Aslan very gently, “you and your brother will never come back to Narnia.” “Oh, Aslan!!” said Edmund and Lucy both together in despairing voices. “You are too old, children,” said Aslan, “and you must begin to come close to your own world now.” “It isn't Narnia, you know,” sobbed Lucy. “It's you. We shan't meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?” “But you shall meet me, dear one,” said Aslan. “Are are you there too, Sir?” said Edmund. “I am,” said Aslan. “But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.”

I am, so perculiarly placed in here, is a reference to one of God's names in the Bible (Exo 3:14, c.f. Jn 6:35; 8:12,58; 10:9,14; 11:25; 13:13; 14:6; 15:5; 18:8), and the other Name which he specifically speaks of is presumed to be Jesus - who, incidentally, is known as the Lion of Judah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.108.178 (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This appears to be your analysis. What you're missing is a reliable source that says this.  When backed by reliable references, it would be appropriate to mention this in the article.  -- Elphion (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * People are missing the fact that Lewis himself confirmed that Aslan was Christ - as Christ might have appeared in a fantasy world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.104.5 (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is already overtly stated in the article. Don't know if it was added after this exchange or not. Could trace the history to find out.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in witchcraft template
This article is included in the Witchcraft navbox (which I somehow did not notice when I removed the navbox in ). Why? Sure, the series features a witch, but so do many, many fantasy novels. Some works of fiction are about witchcraft, and some merely feature it. This seems to me to be the latter, and I don't see why it belongs there, as there's no reason to bloat the navbox with every fantasy series that features a magic user (or to bloat those articles with the navbox). Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this question would be better asked at the navbox itself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably true, and done. Discussion here: Template talk:Witchcraft. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

When did the witchcraft navbox get added? Has it been there for a while? You'd think that after all the editing I'd done on this article in March/April I would have noticed it, LOL :P -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arrived about 18 hours ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my bad, I only looked at the edit that deleted it. :P -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Narnia Timeline
Just a note that the narnian timeline article has been nominated for deletion. If you have have feelings, feel free to leave them. I can see what the nominator is saying, but he's saying it about all of the fiction articles that have "timeline" in them. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment on "Influences from Mythology and Cosmology ..."
"On the other hand, Narnia scholar Paul F. Ford finds Ward's assertion that Lewis intended The Chronicles to be an embodiment of medieval astrology implausible.[2]" ... Paul F. Ford links to a non-existent page. Further, the reference [2] is to a book that was published before ref 29, which it is supposed to challenge. Should this be fixed? Exiled from GROGGS (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If there could plausibly be an article written about him, the red link is okay. I've removed "On the other hand" as wording that can confuse as easily as clarify. Rivertorch (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From Red link: "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of what articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." Is an article needed? If the link has existed for longer than a year, it's likely that no article will ever exist and that the redlink should be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that is pessimism! Rivertorch (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re Ford pre-dating Ward: Ford's book (2005 edition, p.16, note 26) refers to Ward's introduction of his thesis in a TLS commentary Ward wrote in 2003.  -- Elphion (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for speedy response. I'm still thinking that whilst Ford may have considered the thesis implausible in 2005, if Ward's book (in which it was fully expounded) didn't appear till after then, then this doesn't really constitute a response to Ward, as is implied by the text. However, it's not well up any list of priorities, so I won't chase it any further. Exiled from GROGGS (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ward expounded his thesis in shorter form before publishing the full-length book.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ford's criticism was based on a 2003 article by Ward in the Times Literary Supplement. I have extended the last sentence to include this clarification (by Ford himself), a further clarification on the content of the criticism wrt the later book's actual content and the reference for all of this.  RBarryYoung (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never used a talk page before, so please excuse any mistakes I make. I didn't read this page before deleting the Paul Ford material and replacing it with what I did. I came here to say I'm not Michael Ward, and I believe that my reference to his page is justified because it fairly demonstrates that major Lewis scholars do agree with his thesis. I have done an extensive search for people other than Ford who disagree with it and have come up with nothing. So even if it appears self-serving to have Ward's website demonstrate agreement with Ward's thesis, he is the only one to collate all those positive reviews, and in fact Ford is an extreme outlier. I'm open to discussion about this, of course. User:Irisheyes5


 * I guess I'd like to see some references. I've seen remarks along the lines of "Lewis would certainly have liked that idea, but there's not much evidence that he intended it."  That's not quite "agreeing with his thesis". (And I have to disagree about Ford being an "extreme outlier": his analysis consistently rings true.) -- Elphion (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because of the removal of the Ford reference, not because of the addition of supporting views. References for support from other Narnia Scholars should probably not come from the Planet Narnia website. LloydSommerer (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Publication history
(This weekend I have edited all seven book articles, altho barely revised the text after the first few sentences.)

1. Complete dates. What is the source for complete dates such as "2 May 1955"?

2. Timing. We give September and October publ dates for all except The Magician's Nephew, May, and years 1950 to 1956 without gap. Considering what we say about conception and writing, I suppose that the novels were purposefully withheld in order to appear annually. If so, why? Let me brainstorm; of course we need some confirmation to address this in the article.
 * a book, or fiction book, or children's book, was considered new for about a year and it was considered best that an author not compete with himself, or series not compete with itself
 * there was an important Christmas season and six of the novels were released to be new for that annual Christmas season --meanwhile, it was not important to compete for school library purchases in advance of the academic year [perhaps too close to WWII much spending on school library books?]
 * one or both of these points --no self-competition and timing within the year-- was considered important with an eye on competing for major book awards

3. (quote) "In the United States, the publication rights were first owned by Macmillan Publishers, and later by HarperCollins. The two issued both hardcover and paperback editions of the series during their tenure as publishers, while at the same time Scholastic, Inc. produced paperback versions for sale primarily through direct mail order, book clubs, and book fairs." -- do we know any dates? Narnia at ISFDB covers UK paper editions from about 1965 (Puffin) and US paper editions from the early 1970s (Collier/MacMillan). Were there earlier paper eds? That source (not likely to cover the schools market well) list Jan 1995 Scholastic eds. of Prince Caspian and The Last Battle. We say Scholastic switched numbering in 1994.

4. (quote "Reading order") "The books were not numbered until the first American publisher, Macmillan, enumerated them according to their original publication order." -- do we know when they were so numbered by Macmillan US?

5. Worldwide edition. We mention "the 1994 worldwide Harper Collins edition" in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. All of the Pauline Baynes illustrations were restored (which had been cropped or deleted in some eds). In the same article we say "they used the British edition for all subsequent editions worldwide" (revisions by Lewis for the US editions were undone). Does "worldwide" also imply uniform pagination, dedication, etc? uniform ISBN?

--P64 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

6. British and American editions. We have a short section The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (LWW) and a longer section The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (VDT) concerning substantial revisions by Lewis for the American edition. At VDT we imply that he revised most if not all volumes, always prior to the first US edition. Is that so? -- Do the sources Ford and Schakel enumerate all substantial differences (ie, textual diffs beyond Brit & Amer English or publisher styles). --P64 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Female characters
The section entitled Gender Stereotyping began is if it would be all about "accusations" of hostility toward women and inappropriate gender role stereotyping. Only someone who read all the way to the end would realize that some of the earlier criticism are balanced with defenses - some of which in effect accuse the critics of misrepresenting the books.

I wonder if anyone noticed that in LWW, it is a female character who is selected to make the discovery of Narnia (in its wintry state), and that this female character is defended by the books primary (British real-world) character, Professor Kirke. The male character who casts doubt on her story is made out to be a traitor. Can you get more "pro-woman" than that? (This is not OR, and I'm not asking anyone to put it in the article. It's just an example of how easy it is to counter one-sided criticism with what's actually in the book. If a RS has said the same thing, we can quote them.)

Did anyone notice that this is not a boy's book, where the male characters become kings - but rather a boy's and girls books where both sexes attain equal rank? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree that Lucy is a pivotal and noble character in LWW as Edmund is not. Aravis in H&B is also pretty cool. I think Caspian is the most male-centric of the series overall.
 * I have amended the intro paragraph to flag that there are defenses later in the section.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point, Ed. Maybe not quite equal rank, though; Peter was the High King. And it's unclear whether there were any ruling queens in Narnia after the four Pevensies' reign. Rivertorch (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it pro-woman, or is it an age issue? Could Lewis be making a different point than the one you're suggesting? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lewis may very well have worked by intuition without thinking through the exact implications of what he was doing. I myself think there is some sexism in Lewis, but it is intermittent and inconsistent, not prevailing.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Note the inversion, probably deliberate, from the original manuscript opening (September 1939, when Lewis was 40/41 years old, quoted in the article): "This book is about four children whose names were Ann, Martin, Rose and Peter. But it is most about Peter who was the youngest." Meanwhile, as eleven years passed before LWW publication, the author aged from 40/41 to 51/52 years and the "very old professor who lived all by himself in the country" became merely 51/52 years old himself. --or so he was defined whenever CSL pinned Digory Kirke and The Magician's Nephew to 1888 and 1900 on the English timeline. --P64 (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustration
We say almost nothing about illustration here. Namely, There is more to be said. See Talk: Pauline Baynes. If/when I get facts straight, perhaps from a public library copy of Sibley, I'll return to that biography and try to remember to return here. --P64 (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * we mention the 1972 map in section Narnia universe: Geography --and merely a See also in the main article Narnia (world)
 * we this in Background and conception: "The original illustrator, Pauline Baynes, created for the Narnia books pen and ink drawings which are still used in the books as published today."
 * (slightly revised today) --P64 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yesterday at a used book store I examined an early U.S. hardcover and four paperback editions of The Silver Chair, one paperback being the 1998 centenary "Collector's Edition" (whose US publisher/printer/distributor I forgot to note), the others being black-and-white.
 * Pauline Baynes created a full-colour cover illustration in 1965, retained for the 1998 ed.
 * Baynes "colorized" the original interior illustrations for the 1998 ed., which also includes all the original illustrations. (interior illustrations copyright 1998, cover illustration copyright 1965)
 * According to back material, some black-and-white paperback eds., at least after 1998, also include all the original illustrations. (All these editions include most of those in the 1998 set.)
 * The quality of the black line in the colorized illustrations is super. Somewhere I have read that the line quality had declined a lot. Judging by a cheap paperback ed. alone, I would agree, but cheap paper or process may be an important cause afaik. (Unfortunately I don't know anything about the process that must have been used to reproduce Baynes illustrations over the years, before whatever restorative work was done along with her "colorizing" in 1998.)
 * I had limited time, will get back this week. It's original research, I know, and plan this week to get to that proverbial public library too.
 * --P64 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Publishers

 * (cross-posted with appropriate changes at Talk: The Magician's Nephew)

This article should cover the change in publisher (and state the continuity of illustrator) between the first five and the last two novels, 1954/1955.

Please explain if possible. Most important, did Lewis (or Lewis & Baynes, or Baynes) depart Geoffrey Bles for Bodley Head? Or did Bles go out of business? Or Bles join Bodley?

Was there any physical change in the series at this point, such as quality of paper, font, etc?

The basic fact and the explanation, if any, should also be covered at The Magician's Nephew (1955), the first published by Bodley Head. Perhaps the explanation should be primarily in that article --something I can't judge; maybe no one can judge until the explanation is researched and written.

--P64 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Among the six earlier fiction books by Lewis (C. S. Lewis bibliography):
 * John Lane, aka The Bodley Head (founded as "John Lane and Elkin Mathews — The Bodley Head") had been the original publisher of the Cosmic trilogy (1938 to 1945)
 * Geoffrey Bles had been the original publisher of The Screwtape Letters (1942) and The Great Divorce (1945) and the 1943 publisher of Pilgrim's Regress (orig. JM Dent, 1933).
 * Sources: our book articles and . --P64 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Narnia in The Oxford Companion
Entry "Narnia" in The Oxford Companion to Children's Literature is freely accessible at Questia. (page 370).

One factual claim interesting to me: "The immediate inspiration for the first book was a series of nightmares that Lewis had about lions." He favoured mice, I know. --P64 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

unclear
"Ward argues that C. S. Lewis's did not start with a coherent plan for the books, but Ward's book answers this by arguing that the astrological associations grew in the writing."

Shouldnt this start "Ford argues...". Or is Ward answering his own question? CapnZapp (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first 'Ward' should be 'Ford'. Change made, good catch. -- Elphion (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading Order
The article says that chronological numbering wasn't present until the HarperCollins editions of 1994. I am holding in my hand a 1980 Lions (a uk Collins imprint) paperback of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe - with a #2 on the spine. There is also a list of the books in "reading order" printed inside - also the chronological, not publication, order.

I do not have the paperbacks I read as a child in Canada in the 60s and 70s anymore, but I can remember quite clearly the same (chronological) "reading order" list provided as the order in which *the author believed they should be read* (on the back cover or inside). I could be wrong, but I do not think those editions had any numbering on the spine. This was a matter of some discussion among child and adult readers, of course, and I can remember trying to follow, and being dissatisfied with, what was presented as the author's preference.

My point is just that HarperCollins (previously Collins) didn't need Gresham's help in 1994 to decide on the chronological numbering, since their own uk editions had been printed that way since at least 1980, if not the 1960s. Maybe they presented it that way to US readers or something. Duncanthornton (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've finessed the prose somewhat to avoid unwarranted conclusions. -- Elphion (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of "The Chronicles of Narnia"
There was mention of it years ago. I don't think C.S. Lewis ever mentioned "The Chronicles of Narnia". I need to know if this was coined.--Jondel (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article states that "Fellow children's author Roger Lancelyn Green first referred to the series as The Chronicles of Narnia, in March 1951". It was not Lewis's designation, but did appear quite early in the history of the series.  I don't know when publishers adopted it. -- Elphion (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Vaguely I recall reading that Lewis adopted the name. A likely source is the Brian Sibley companion (Talk: Pauline Baynes).
 * I read the first Letters of CSL, before there was an expanded version (C. S. Lewis: Lewis, W.H.). Now I would look for "Chronicles of Narnia" and "Narnia" in the index of the expanded edition, or in the table of contents divided if its organized by subject, and hope to find that CSL used the series name in mid-1950s correspondence.
 * Offhand I think Green & Hoopes 2002 (which we cite here for the Green coinage, and I never read) and the Paul Ford companion are likely sources of information about terminology. Ford covers original, preliminary, and suggested titles of the novels, iiuc.
 * The Pauline Baynes papers (Pauline Baynes #3) may show the name in her correspondence with Narnia publishers.
 * --P64 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Digimon
Maybe the page is changed or I can't find it, but note 50 does not seem to have any reference to the information mentioned in the article regarding Narnian influence on Digimon ( " During interviews, the primary creator of the Japanese anime and gaming series Digimon has noted the heavy influence of The Chronicles of Narnia on his series.[50] " ). Having trouble finding other references to the interviews in question. Does anyone who knows more about this know where the information might be found, or if it can be confirmed at all? 88.192.80.82 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Muslim vs Semitic
IP 84.226.144.165 recently edited the "Racial Undertones" sections to change "The Calormenes in particular are seen by multiple critics as a negative representation of Semitic culture" to "The Calormenes in particular are seen by multiple critics as a negative representation of Muslim or middle-Eastern culture". This was reverted by Rivertorch. Two comments: First, the book is in fact describing Ottoman customs (albeit inaccurately), not Semitic customs, as reflected in the quote from O'Connor immediately preceding. Second, if critics really are perceiving anti-Semitism, we need references. -- Elphion (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly about this but thought the change should at least be explained (there was no edit summary). Of course we need to go with what the sources say. Rivertorch (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. They are clearly based on the Ottoman Empire. The more generic term should be used, but not changed to "Muslim or middle-Eastern" which is what Semitic is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I should have also said that I was bothered by the imprecision of the phrase, "Muslim or middle-Eastern [sic] culture". The Middle East contains various cultures, not all of them associated with Islam, and Islam isn't conterminous with the Middle East, so it's vague and confusing. Rivertorch (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Remarks on race, religion, culture --or West and East when Lewis was a boy
 * The narrow point has been resolved in a sense, by dropping generalization about the critics and focusing nominally on race (The Chronicles of Narnia).
 * Insofar as we do generalize, "X are seen by multiple critics as a negative representation of Y", of course Y is whatever the multiple critics say they see represented in X, not what we judge to be its derivation.
 * Our article Religion in The Chronicles of Narnia is all about Christianity and paganism only. The lead does say Narnia "borrows characters and ideas from Greek, Turkish and Roman mythology", where the link reproduced here is a gross surprise. In the target article Lewis says "of course I meant the Lion of Judah".
 * Our book articles The Horse and his Boy and The Last Battle are devoid of criticism. The Horse doesn't even hint of any challenge for film adaptation.
 * In the latest School Library Journal Top 100 Children's Novels (2012), Narnia makes the list only with #5 LWW and "a real shocker", #96 The Horse and His Boy.

Aside (unless the Encyclopedia mentions Narnia or there is another source). For the foundations of Calormene consider the Arabian Nights as a Playground (see those two articles in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, I recall). In other words Lewis "plays" in Arabia that he knows from 19th-century English adaptations, from the 1001 Nights as consigned to the nursery. So his fiction draws on Persian and Arabian (present in the source) and medieval Saracen and modern Turk as commonly understood by the British. --P64 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Fantasy article on Lewis does say of HB, "The Horse and His Boy opens in Calormen, an  kingdom." The article on Arabian Fantasy broadly fits my recollection. I will move this in part to Talk: The Horse and His Boy and probably continue in a way. --P64 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Book series
Publisher HarperCollins? That is the worldwide publisher from 1998 iirc. How is this listing, primarily for the infobox?
 * Geoffrey Bles (vols. 1–5), The Bodley Head (vols. 6–7), Macmillan (US), HarperCollins (worldwide from 1998)

This is a book series article but I wonder whether it should be the main article in rather than down in. Harry Potter is also a book series article--formally companion to a film series article and the fictional character article Harry Potter (character), as this one is formally companion to a film series article and the fictional universe article Narnia (world). Yet the article Harry Potter is main article for and not down in. Is it clear we have it right here? --P64 (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Harry Potter is entirely missing from, if i skim correctly. The main Narnia category (not this book series article) is listed there under C --i agree listing but would list it under N. --P64 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Prince Caspian
Wikipedia guidelines state that a work should be given it's most communally used name. This is Why Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope is named this and not Star Wars, and that Dr. No is not named under it's full title. Prince Caspian has not been published with is's original subtitle for decades, and it is very uncommon for it to be referred to with the subtitle. It's own article is simply called 'Prince Caspian', and features no subtitle, which is why we should remove it and simply have Prince Caspian. IT's full title is still referenced on it's full page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogkermit (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Location of said guideline? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I ask, is that WP:COMMONNAME is related to article names, not their use inside an article. I have not seen such a guideline, but then there are many and I don't want to fight over such a trivial thing as the original name and the common name used in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Are the children Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy?
A Google-search shows the names of the children: Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are the names of the children in the final published story, but the quote you changed (itself not something to do) is Lewis discussing an earlier version of the story where the names and ages were different. So the current version of the article, to which I reverted, is correct. oknazevad (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Perhaps we could re-work that section since it is modified occasionally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably just include a hidden edit comment that the quote is referring to an early draft and should not be changed. It reads well as is and the over quick scanning that some readers do is not reason to change it. oknazevad (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Christian criticism
Would be interesting if there was more on this. Broadly speaking I understand this to include the following: -MacRùsgail (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Magic/sorcery/witchcraft
 * Universalism
 * Supposed satanic overtones - Tumnus as Pan as Satan.
 * Use of non-Christian mythology.
 * Astrology.
 * General doctrinal quibbles.
 * Narni as an occult centre.


 * There's a bit of this among some ultra-traditionalist Christians, except I think that criticisms of Universalism are mainly targeted at other works of Lewis- it's certainly not a dominant theme in his works.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article has this sentence "The Chronicles have, consequently, a large Christian following, and are widely used to promote Christian ideas. However, some Christians object that The Chronicles promote "soft-sell paganism and occultism" due to recurring pagan imagery and themes."--WickerGuy (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it would be interesting to go into a bit more detail, either here or on the religion article. It makes an interesting counterpoint to the feminist/multicultural deconstruction. Although both are essentially heresy hunting.

Walter, its a little of both. Its just pointing out why the sexist critiscm makes no sense. That's actually the actor who played Lucy holding the sword so it would at least be a viable image to stick in the production section. Susan is comparable to Katniss. I can hardly imagine Lucy trying to run around and killing things with that sword. DYD interesting trivia; I took Turkish as my foreign laungage credit and the word for lion in Türkye is Aslan. So they're quite literally calling him lion. In fact the fact they use a Turkish name for one of the most powerful characters actually portrays the ottoman culture or semetic or whatever er the other criticism was about in a good way. I think the critism doesn't have any real basis in reality ShadowHawk555 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another thing. Jack liked a beer or two, with the Inklings as well. They don't like that either.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Jack, that's probably just the puritans. Definently ain't the Irish Christians! ShadowHawk555 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thing that occurs to me as a link between Aslan and Jesus is that Jesus (we are told) is a descendant of the House of David, and the insignia of that tribe was a lion. Nuttyskin (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone more familiar with the series than I care to add it to this list?
Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would probably qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be better to raise this at Talk:Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction, but since you raised it I'll say a little here. It's a problematic list and, while The Chronicles of Narnia appears to fit its inclusion criteria, it's beyond me how the particulars of the Lewis series could be shoehorned into some of those table cells. For instance, what would one put for "Setting"? If it's Narnia proper, then out go the dragons. But afaik there isn't an all-encompassing term for the world Lewis wrote about (which includes Archenland, Calormen and so on, as well as Narnia itself). I also have a problem with "Human magic users". The Narnia books have actual human magic users. Polly and Digory, the four Pevensies, and arguably every other human who arrives in Narnia does so via magic, whether or not the journey is inadvertent. The table lists witches as "human magic users", but in Narnia they most certainly are not. (Humanoid yes, human no.) The whole exercise seems messy, if not sloppy. In some ways I guess it's a cool list, but it doesn't strike me as especially encyclopedic. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Chronicles of Narnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515201654/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2005%2F12%2F11%2FNARNIA.TMP to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2005%2F12%2F11%2FNARNIA.TMP
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051201%2FLIVING%2F512010303%2F1007
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051201%2FLIVING%2F512010303%2F1007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the "cameo" distinction in the table of main characters?
It was meaningful -- every character in the table reappears in the closing scenes of LB except Jadis and Susan, but some of them are merely mentioned as being present (and were previously listed as "cameos"), whereas others have things to do and say in those final scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:C002:5700:E83D:8A32:A8FF:AA7F (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Anybody have any objection to me...
...putting the other main antagonists (besides Jadis) in the "main characters" list? That would be: Miraz, the Lady of the Green Kirtle, Rabadash, and Shift. VeryRarelyStable (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Where's everybody gone?
Why am I the only person who's edited a Narnia page in the last four days? What does everybody else know that I don't? VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a mature article; I wouldn't expect to see a lot of edits (I presume other Narnia articles are similarly mature). In fact, I was struck on reading it by its clarity and relative brevity, or say rather, it is (IMO) just the right length and level of detail. It could serve as a model for other articles on books and series, especially the Plot Summaries, which here give just enough detail to capture the essence, without either stretching to a prolix blow-by-blow or sounding like a publisher's puff. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)