Talk:The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Discussion
"There are also symbolic references to Holy Communion (pictured as a feast hosted by a living star) and other Christian themes, but chiefly it works on the level of an exciting children's adventure story, and a re-working on the themes of the great sea-voyages of classical mythology, particularly the story of Jason and the Argonautica."

Could someone write a bit more about the "other Christian themes" alluded to in the passage above?


 * Well, I'm not certain I understand exactly what you mean. The last part of it should really be a different sentence, and I did just now break it apart. I haven't read the book in over a year, and I don't have it before me, so the following is from memory. A very long table was set out, each plate full of food, each cup full of wine. Whatever remained uneated at dawn (or perhaps dusk) was eaten by a flock of birds that flew in (as memory serves, from the west) and ate all the food so that nothing was left behind, and then flew away (in the same direction, so as memory serves, to the east). And just now, I understand what you mean by your question.


 * Other Christian themes: Well, the "other Christian themes" doesn't refer to the table, that I can tell, other than all that goes with the Holy Communion. And as well, all by memory, I can't think of any other specific Christian themes, but I do remember that there were some. Sorry I can't help you with that. You just have to read the book. :-) It is the most adventuresome and is very exciting. I read it for the first time when I was 22 or 23, and I enjoyed it immensely. Sorry I can't help you more than that. --D. F. Schmidt (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Couldn't this be an example of an immram? The title of the novel follows that typical pattern "Voyage of..." and immrams are intrinsically Christian. IrisWings 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the use of John 3:16 should either not be linked or replaced by the word "thesis" only because it creates some confusion in its usage. DeathscytheH64 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire idea of Eustace becoming a dragon had huge Christian influence. I personally perceive him becoming a dragon a purgatory of sorts. But then someone pointed me to a passage in the bible that talks about Jesus healing a blind man and removing the scales from his eyes after allowing him to try. In the bible it is supposed to mean that God will fix and sometimes it will take time. With the presumption that Aslan represents Jesus, this could be symbolic of Eustace's healing and baptism. -- JoeAlfaro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.205.142 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Time
I deleted "The year is 1942." from the synopsis. Lewis is inconsistent: In Chapter 1, he says the events of LWW were "long ago, in the war years". In Chapter 2, Edmund says one year has passed since the events of Prince Caspian. Arrgh. —wwoods 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right on deleting the 1942 thing. It is unnecessary. But, in fact, C.S. Lewis later, in one of his books, made a timeline to his books, placing this story in England time 1942. --ANNAfoxlover

Alternate markup for the edition comparison table
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsommerer (talk • contribs)


 * I like it. Much clearer. I added one teensy paragraph marking for 3-6 in the left column. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I did this one first and didn't like it as much. But I put it here because I wasn't sure about not liking it as much. I just now edited it so that the paragraphs line up better. Looking at it now, I think you're right. I'll wait to see if there's more feedback then change it.LloydSommerer 03:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting other version here just in case we want it later... LloydSommerer 13:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, there's little difference between them unless you're looking very hard. Katana Geldar 02:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)


 * Can someone clarify the significance of these differences. In all but a couple of cases, the difference is simply the replacing of double-quotes with single-quotes... is that correct?  Is such a differece worth mentioning at such length?  Why not a description of the substantive difference, plus a note that the American version uses single-quotes to denote speech?  WI think that that miught be less confusing.  Leeborkman 12:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Italics in title
The article currently states:
 * By English grammatical rules, both book titles and ship names are italicized when written. Since "Dawn Treader" is part of both, it is put in Roman text to signify this.

In agreement with this, I reverted an edit to The Chronicles of Narnia the other day that extended the italics to the full title. This was then changed back to a fully italicised title, but with quotes around 'Dawn Treader'; the edit comment (from Myopic Bookworm) stated, "you can't deitalicize if there's then no distinction from the context". It's a fair point, but we really ought to be consistent on how we present the title. Ideas? -- Perey 08:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a grammatical rule, and the statement is therefore incorrect (though I have not yet altered it, pending discussion here). It is a useful but optional convention of typography. Even the cover image in this article illustrates the point that it is optional. If the book title is marked off by quotation marks as ‘The Voyage of the Dawn Treader’ then it is possible to use the italic convention for the ship's name; but Wikipedia style (and common practice) is to italicize book titles, and reverse typeface is then not a practical option, since The Voyage of the Dawn Treader runs into the following text. (You can get away with it at the head of this article because the book title is also in bold face as the subject of the article.) If you insist that the name of the ship must be distinct in some way (which is by no means obligatory), then the best option, in my opinion, is to retain the italic convention for the book title, and to use the alternative quotation mark convention for the ship's name: The Voyage of the ‘Dawn Treader’. And this really is far too trivial a matter to be placed in the head of this article: if it's worth mentioning at all, it should be in a note tucked away nearer the bottom. Myopic Bookworm 11:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was I who put the note at the top of the page, because I also reverted an edit on The Chronicles of Narnia, like Perey. If we do decide to keep it, I agree it should be moved to the bottom. However, I don't believe you can rely on the cover art for technical rules (this particular cover has italicized "of the," solely because they are minor words which they decided to make a bit more fancy, while "Voyage" is definitely not in italics). I'm looking at the HarperTrophy edition of the book, which differs from the current one we have, because it clearly has set Dawn Treader in italics. Throughout the book, Dawn Treader is italicized as well. I don't believe that it matters whether the Roman text of the book title collides with the remaining text on the page, it is technically correct. Also, according to the MOS, ships and books are to be italicized. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, I just went and italicised "the Dawn Treader" (making it the same font as "The Voyage of" on the Susan page, because when double-italicised, it is in the same font as the surrounding text. This formatting suggests that "the Dawn Treader" is neither part of the title nor a ship's name, so the effect is counter-productive.  Let rules serve the meaning, not obscure it. btw, I'll change it back if you like ;-) Leeborkman 12:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In the interests of clarity, if The Voyage of the Dawn Treader appears in a sentence which doesn't indicate where the title ends, then italicizing the whole thing is the way to go. But if the title is set off, e.g. by bolding or a wikilink, then the partial italicization is a nice touch, IMO. And often it's easy to rephrase a sentence, e.g. by putting the title at the end, or adding the publication date: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952) to the same effect.

No offense to grammarians, but why is this discussion summed up in the first paragraph of the article? Most people just don't care about this sort of thing -- let alone putting it in the lead-off paragraph. I would get rid of it altogether and replace it with a couple of sentences about what the book is about. 68.8.110.219 02:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because well-meaning but slow-thinking people keep changing it. Myopic Bookworm 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of this book that has "Dawn Treader" set in single quotation marks in the title on the cover; perhaps that could be a compromise solution that would eliminate the need for the note? (It's an older American edition from a boxed set using the original ordering of the books.) 1995hoo 01:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the title of this book should probably be written completely in ital with the ship's name in single quotes. I have a couple reasons for this. First, whether ship names are ital or not doesn't matter; this is the title of a book. Second, you shouldn't follow the rules of your style book to the point where you're confusing the reader. It's better to write clearly than get hung up on a bit of style. And I think putting single quotes around the ship's name gets the point across quite well.

I know this is a fairly late entry to this, but typographically, underlining has been used as an alternative to italics for both book and ship titles (usually when italics were not available). So, might it be an option to underline Dawn Treader within the italicized title (i.e. "Dawn Treader" would be both italicized and underlined), such that it is set off from both the (only italicized) rest of the title, and the (romanized) text? John Darrow (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragon
The part about Eustace being turned into a dragon should probably be in the plot summary. I haven't read the book in a while so I'll let someone else handle it.--roger6106 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. Wow, I've never said that before!

Chapters
I think the chapter listings for the Chronicles of Narnia books should be removed. I started a discussion at Talk:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe--roger6106 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. They are unneccessary. b_cubed 03:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "THEY ARE UNNECCESSARY?!?!" I THINK HE SHOULD "B CUBED"! I happen to think that the chapters are very useful.

Yeah the Chapters are very usefull and should be put back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.238.105 (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Burnt Island
In the plot, where it mentions all the islands the crew goes to, there is a mention of "Burnt Island". What is Burnt Island? I don't remember reading this in the book.


 * I don't have a copy handy, but I think it was a small island east of the dragon's island. Within flying range, evidently.
 * —wwoods 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

this is from soumyadeep, in the third part of narnia what happened peter and suzan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.7.77.179 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Embarrassment
"I am... 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 COMPLETELY missed the Jesus/God reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Cat (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure you know the story before you edit!
I just had to edit a section in this article that mentions plot details that do not occur at all in the novel. Whoever wrote the part where Caspian goes ashore towards the end with Susan, Edmund, Eustace and Repicheep must have ben smoking hobbitweed. Katana Geldar 11:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC) shes right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.240.214 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

British/American differences
In the table of differences between British and American versions, entires 2,3 and 6 seem to be identical apart from the single/double quotations. Is there a reason they are there? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're placeholders, so that all the paragraphs are accounted for. It would make sense to use a very light gray background for them. Elphion (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Commentary is WAY too biased!
The main issue that I have with this article is that the "Commentary" section is written from a decidedly Christian standpoint. Even though I myself am a "believer", I also see the value of keeping Wikipedia on neutral ground. To that end, I'll be editing some of the text in that section, moving it toward NPOV. Some "hard-liners" are going to be really miffed by this, sorry. It's the Wikipedia standard... Edit Centric (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there even a commentary? I wasn't aware encyclopedic articles had commentaries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.122.68 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that about five months has passed since the tagging, and the Commentary section still consisted of purely original research, I've deleted it. This is not in any way an attack on the opinions or efforts of the author of that section - it was very interesting, but was inappropriate material for a Wikipedia article in that form. Hopefully if it is restored, it will be with appropriate references to established 3rd party sources for the themes discussed, e.g. academic texts on the Narnia books as Christian allegory. earwicker (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No movie
The movie section should be erased, as there is not going to be such movie:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucayo (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Why should it be erased if it doesn't get made? A film was still put into pre-production and that's a fact. Secondly, simply because Disney pulled out doesn't mean Walden won't make it with someone else. :P Alientraveller (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Differences between editions?
Why are these changes notable? Staecker (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject of an article should be notable. That there are differences between the editions is important, and seeing that there are differences, I would immediately want to know what kind of differences there are and how significant they are.  Since they can be enumerated easily there is no particular reason not to (and this is the cleanest and least judgmental way to do it).  I had not known this before seeing it in WP; and this is the kind of information I would want and expect to see here. Elphion (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Article content, as well as the article subject should be notable. The fact that there are differences between the editions is not necessarily important. Books are revised and edited between publication editions all the time. Looking them over, I see nothing important in the changes. Of course this is just my opinion (I assume you have a different opinion), but the burden to establish notability is on the editor who wants to add the content. Can you establish that these are facts worth including? (I'm not just being difficult here- if there really is something interesting in the changes I'd love for the article to reflect that.) Staecker (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not indiscriminate. It is, pace your remark, quite *unusual* for the text of a work of fiction to change intentionally between editions (except possibly for regional linguistic conventions), unless the differences represent corrections.  These changes are very puzzling.  Are they due to Lewis or to his American editors?  They certainly don't look like corrections.  Why has such random liberty been taken with the text?  I was surprised at the differences, which I would not have known about but for WP, since (like most of us) I have no access to a variety of editions.  I'd like to know *more* about this, not less.  What other editorial travesties (like the character sketches or the ridiculous renumbering) have been foisted on Lewis's work? Elphion (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you know more about publication of fiction than I do. The questions you raise might have interesting answers, or their answers might be totally uninteresting. Do you have a particular reason (that can be adequately sourced) to believe that the reasons for the changes are notable? Like you, I also would not have been aware of the changes were it not for this article. But since the changes are not obviously significant, what's the point of my now knowing about them? Providing information for its own sake is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
 * I have removed the changes which consisted only of changing quotation marks style. These, I'm sure you'll agree, are not "very puzzling" changes. As I've said, none of the other changes in particular are puzzling to me, though I guess I'll agree if you say so that the fact that there were changes at all is puzzling. Perhaps the table could be deleted, and in the text above the table, "made the following changes" could be changed to "made minor changes to the text of four paragraphs" or something like that? Staecker (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To me it is noteworthy for a couple of reasons: (1) It occurred very rarely in the series. Lewis only made a handful(4?) changes for the American publication. (2) Lewis scholars believe it is worth including in books about the series. I do not favor the recent changes to the layout, because I do not think it presents the two editions in a way that is as easy to compare in context. Maybe the version from a few edits ago is better? I'll add it, feel free to revert if you don't like it. LloydSommerer (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could your (1) be sourced and added into the article, perhaps with a reference from one of the books mentioned in (2)? I also prefer the layout that Lsommerer prefers- though now all the quote marks are doubled. Is that what you wanted? Staecker (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at rewriting the section. I have no illusion that I am a great author, additional copy editing is appreciated. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow- that's great! I'm entirely satisfied. Staecker (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Errors and inconsistencies
Maybe there should be a section for this. Although minor, and not part of the text, I notice that Pauline Baynes's illustration of Caspian's cabin includes a globe. Although the difference between flat worlds and round worlds is a topic of discussion in the book, I can't see why Caspian would have a globe, as the world of Narnia is flat. Very flat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.101.254 (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This hardly warrants a whole section. Inasmuch as the illustrations are scarcely discussed at all, it's not clear we need to worry about it. While I don't seriously doubt that this is a error on Baynes's part, do we know that Narnia is in fact "Very flat", and not, say, domed (as the ancient Greeks once considered the Earth)? -- Elphion (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disney vs 20th Century Fox
User 76.232.120.28 has been editing the article to assert that the recent film adaptation is a third Disney installment, but it is distributed by 20th Century Fox, as our article on the film indicates. -- Elphion (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

duplication
Joni Mitchell is now in the article twice... AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusation on Twitter that this article has an "obvious error".
A Twitter user claims there is an "obvious error" in the following sentence in the article's introduction: "The Voyage features a second return to the Narnia world, about three years later in Narnia and one year later in England, by Edmund and Lucy Pevensie, the younger two of the four English children featured in the first two books."

As far as I can tell, he seems to think it's wrong to say this is Edmund's and Lucy's "second return" to Narnia, even though I have pointed out to him that CSL in chapter 1 explicitly says that they "had already visited it twice" (that is, in the first and second books). Thus, the visit in The Voyage is indeed their second return. I just wanted to call attention to his complaint because he is using this one sentence to indict all of Wikipedia: "Consider the errors we spot on Wikipedia because we're experts in our fields, and consider the obvious errors even children can see (below)."

https://twitter.com/dakobed/status/779739593046306816

He also seems to think the sentence is ungrammatical, but I also disagree with him about that. (It is too long, though, I think.)

I am a long-time but very inexperienced editor here, so I apologize if I should have done this some other way.

ELC (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he is counting the separate trips through the Wardrobe as separate visits? Or doesn't read "second return" as meaning a return after the first return?  Who knows, if he won't be specific.  Since Lewis explicitly called PC "The Return to Narnia", and since VDT is clearly another return to Narnia, I'm comfortable with "a second return". -- Elphion (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that's what he's doing. However, that's not what Lewis himself did. Here are the two pertinent quotations from Chapter 1: "They [Edmund and Lucy] had already visited it [Narnia] twice...." and "Consquently, when the Pevensie children had returned to Narnia last time for their second visit...." Thank you. ELC (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems fairly definitive. -- Elphion (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This has come up before -- some people don't seems to understand that second return means third visit. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voyage_of_the_Dawn_Treader&diff=614356687&oldid=614330382 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voyage_of_the_Dawn_Treader&diff=579101893&oldid=579067942 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voyage_of_the_Dawn_Treader&diff=569020214&oldid=568963447 -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. 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://archive.is/20140623035724/http://src.scholastic.com/bookexpert/detail_title.asp?UID=0DEA1BBF4B1D4B00AE1690DB6BC45C75&subt=0&item=162281 to http://src.scholastic.com/bookexpert/detail_title.asp?UID=0DEA1BBF4B1D4B00AE1690DB6BC45C75&subt=0&item=162281
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081112003550/http://www.narniafans.com/books/bk_vdt.php to http://www.narniafans.com/books/bk_vdt.php

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) 10:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)