User:Elphion/Categories

[copied from Talk:White Witch]

Categories, yet again
Much pointless discussion of categories has transpired above, and the discussion by now is sort of stale, so I'm not quite sure where to put this. But someone seems to think what went on before justifies adding inappropriate categories to this article. I am removing the following categories:
 * Fictional incarnations of evil – Jadis is not an "incarnation" of evil like Lucifer or Sauron. She is a person who chooses to do evil.  That's not the same thing.
 * Fictional half-demon – in LWW several Narnians conjecture about her ancestry, but Lewis, in the back story provided in Magicians Nephew, makes it clear that Jadis is none of these: she is a person, from Charn.  The Narnians are guilty of the oldest game in the book:  smear the ancestry of your opponent.

Several of the other categories (particularly Fictional warlord) are essentially pointless, because aren't important to what she was, but the two above falsify what Lewis wrote about her. Elphion (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem with the category Fictional incarnations of evil is that there is no clear definition of what belongs in the category. All categories should have a clear definition so that inclusion is not questionable. With that in mind, could someone point me toward the definition of incarnation of evil that we are using to decide if a fictional character belongs in it. Personally, I can't see including this article in that category, but maybe seeing a definition will help clarify it for me. LloydSommerer (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the article Fictional incarnations of evil says the following: "This category is for characters who are quite literally incarnations or representations of evil."  The literal meaning of "incarnation" is that a non-corporeal entity (like God) takes on a corporeal form – typically flesh and blood, and typically human.  In the Christian view, for example, Jesus was God.  Lewis gives no evidence to suggest that Jadis was Evil in this sense, and much evidence in the other direction. In Narnia Tash fills the bill far more precisely.


 * The real issue here (I believe) is that some editors are pushing the notion that Jadis is Satan. I happen to think that that makes her a much less interesting character, but that's not really relevant.  What is important is what Lewis intended, and especially with Magician's Nephew he went out of his way to dispel that notion, and to make clear that Jadis is a person who chooses evil, not an archetype. Elphion (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, a Jinn is a demonic creature. The whole point of creating the Fictional half-demons category was to avoid putting her in the Fictional demons category. Completely pointless in my opinion. Furthermore Jadis is a literal representation of evil. She isn't Satan himself but she is a metaphor for Satan, she plays the role of the Satanic charcter in Narnia and as an anon further up the page mentioned she was after all the person who originally introduced evil into Narnia and she is every bit as evil as Lucifer and Sauron who both by the way were originally benign entities who "chose" evil. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument has convinced me that Lucifer and Sauron also do not belong in this category. Probably the whole category is worthless and should be deleted. LloydSommerer (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First, the category:


 * A good case could be made for deleting this category. The real problem is that its definition is too fuzzy.  Judging from the people currently in it, it ought to be named something like Category: Fantasy characters who are really, really bad.  But a category is supposed to have clear criteria: somebody's either clearly in it or not — it should not require a POV decision.  In this case, the problem is where (or how) to draw the line.  If Morgoth is in, then why not Sauron?  If Sauron is in, then why not the Witch King of Angmar?  If the Witch King is in, then why not the Mouth of Sauron?  If the Mouth is in, then why not Sandyman?  They're all evil.  They all try really hard to be evil.  What makes one a "representation of evil" and another not?  What makes one a "metaphor for Satan" and another not?


 * Otherwise you need to wonder why other evil characters aren't in here, like, say, Adenoid Hynkel, or Dostoyesky's Grand Inquisitor, or even Amon Göth from Schindler's List (who strikes me as more evil than most of the above combined, and whose fictional version is not even as bad as the real one).


 * The only way I can see to salvage this is to take "incarnation of evil" very, very literally — something like: "an evil divine being who takes on corporeal existence". One could argue about whether the being needs to be in itself evil or whether something external corrupting it suffices.  By these lights, you would probably get Lucifer, Satan, Morgoth, and Tash; maybe Sauron.  Non-divine beings, like Jadis, are by definition not incarnations, so wouldn't belong.  This might make a workable category — though it still leaves a lot of wiggle room: does Screwtape count?  How about poor, incompetent Wormwood?  — But I'm getting the feeling this tighter definition is not what you have in mind.


 * Second, the nature of Jadis:


 * What do you mean by "a demonic creature"? In Islamic tradition, the Jinn are created beings, and have (like us but unlike angels) free will.  Some are good, some are evil, some are a mix, like most of us.  'Demon' strictly speaking is Greek; it means 'power' — the Greek notion was reminiscent of Tolkien's Maiar.  They also could be good or evil, but tended to be rather impersonal — like forces of nature.


 * None of this speaks much about Jadis. The Narnians said she was half-Jinn, and meant nothing good by it.  But (1) is it clear what they mean? and (2) how would they know? and (3) do you believe them?  Lewis, by contrast, shows us that she comes from a tall race of people from Charn, who learned bad behavior over many generations.  This doesn't strike me as the "ultimate incarnation of evil", just someone who was very good at it.  She's not even close to being on a par with Satan or Sauron or Tash.


 * And by the way, it was Diggory who introduced evil to Narnia — the whole point of the book is that it is our human choices that allow evil to continue. If he had behaved as he knew was right, Jadis would never have come to Narnia.


 * Elphion (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound aggressive but how can you say Lucifer isn't an incarnation of evil? He's the Devil! The ultimate personification of evil! If he's not evil incarnate who is? Oh, and he's not fictional. And by the way Lucifer and Satan are the same person. Furthermore if Morgoth and Tash are incarnations of evil (which they are) then Sauron certainly is. Sauron is at the very least as villainous as Morgoth and Tash. After Morgoth's downfall, Sauron took over his role as the most evil being in Arda. But we're not talking about them, we're talking about Jadis. Might I just say Diggory might be the person who let her into Narnia but Jadis was the first (and might I add greatest) evil in Narnia. She was the person who introduced the very concept of evil into Narnia. Furthermore she plays the role of a satanic tempter. Also a Djinn is a creature widely considered to be demonic. Finally with regards to Adynoid Hynkel and Amon Goth, both whilst being extremely evil are merely mortal men rather than malevolent entities like any of those other chaps. Morgoth, Sauron, Jadis and Tash all commited mass murder on global scales whereas Goth and Hynkel's crimes were merely sadistic war-crimes. The reason they seemed more evil was because they were more inclined to occure in real life. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I need to "get a life" (TM) as somebody said above, but I will take some time to try to answer this. I am not optimistic about success, since our view points seem very different. This of course is at the heart of the problem: much of what has been written in this article in the past has not taken a neutral point of view.
 * 1) "How can you say Lucifer isn't an incarnation of evil?" Obviously it depends on the definition.  If "incarnation of evil" includes innately evil from the very beginning, then Lucifer would not fall under that definition.  (Yes, I think that definition is too restrictive, but the definition needs to be spelled out.)
 * 2) "He's the Devil! The ultimate personification of evil! If he's not evil incarnate who is? Oh, and he's not fictional. And by the way Lucifer and Satan are the same person." Lucifer as portrayed in Paradise Lost is a fictional character.  There may be a corresponding real being, and this may be the same as Satan (whose literary background is quite different).  But surely you recognize that people do not agree about this.  The truth of your statements is a matter of faith, not of independently verifiable fact.  They are, in short, non-neutral POV.  Is he "evil incarnate"?  The point of item (1) is that it depends on the definition, which is what I'm trying to nail down.  Simply saying that he's the ultimate personification of evil does not make him fit the definition until we know what the definition is.
 * 3) "Furthermore if Morgoth and Tash are incarnations of evil (which they are)" I agree that they will fall under any definition we are likely to come up with.
 * 4) "then Sauron certainly is."  It will depend on the definition.
 * 5) "Sauron is at the very least as villainous as Morgoth and Tash." Yes, and in his own slimy way Sandyman is as villainous as Sauron, though not nearly as powerful. If the definition of "incarnation of evil" turns out to be "villainous", it will be a very large category indeed.  If power is the issue, it needs to be reflected in the definition, and Sauron might still have problems getting in.  Though very powerful, he was small potatoes compared to Morgoth, as Morgoth's Ring makes clear.
 * 6) "After Morgoth's downfall, Sauron took over his role as the most evil being in Arda." Yes, and Harding took over as President after Wilson.  That doesn't make them equal in stature or ability.  (Parenthetically, I really dislike this talk of "playing a role" that appears so often above in this page.  People are not responsible for roles, for parts on-stage; they are responsible for their lives.)
 * 7) "But we're not talking about them, we're talking about Jadis." But they are relevant to understanding the scope of the category.
 * 8) "Might I just say Diggory might be the person who let her into Narnia ... She was the person who introduced the very concept of evil into Narnia." No. Aslan holds Diggory morally responsible, through his evil acts, chosen freely, for bringing evil into Narnia. See, for example, Chapter XII of The Magician's Nephew.
 * 9) "Jadis was the first (and might I add greatest) evil in Narnia." Jadis does not bear the responsibility for introducing evil to Narnia, which was the claim made above for likening her to Satan.  Nor do the books say she is the greatest evil.  I suspect Lewis would not agree:  it is Shift the Ape who distorts the very notion of Aslan, and sets in motion the events that lead to the world's destruction.  Narnia recovered from Jadis, but not from Shift.  In most Western religions, preaching falsely about God is a more serious sin than fighting against God.  The Screwtape Letters explores this in some depth.
 * 10) "Furthermore she plays the role of a satanic tempter." POV. I would say rather that she tempts Diggory in an episode clearly modeled on the story of the Garden of Eden.  This does not make her Satan, or even a representation of Satan.
 * 11) "Also a Djinn is a creature widely considered to be demonic." Agreed, but as I pointed out above, that's not the whole story.
 * 12) "Finally with regards to Adynoid Hynkel and Amon Goth, both whilst being extremely evil are merely mortal men rather than malevolent entities like any of those other chaps." The same words apply equally to Jadis.  The only technical exception is that she became immortal after eating the fruit of life.  But immortality was not part of her innate nature, as the history of Charn shows.  She acquired immortality by taking advantage of an opportunity, just as Hynkel and Göth could have done had they been there.
 * 13) "Morgoth, Sauron, Jadis and Tash all committed mass murder on global scales whereas Goth and Hynkel's crimes were merely sadistic war-crimes." Merely sadistic war-crimes. My God!  What do you understand by the term 'evil'?  Hynkel is modeled on Hitler, who certainly operated on a global scale.  But the scale is immaterial.  Göth murdered thousands of people in cold blood, and in God's sight (POV, I know) any one of those could stand against all the residents of Charn.

In sum: the category definition is too fuzzy, "incarnation of evil" does not mean simply "very evil", and the depth of one's evil does not necessarily depend on one's power.

I'm done, I hope.

Elphion (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A good argument I must say. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your reference to Lucifer. I wasn't aware you talking about the one from Paradise Lost. Also the Devil is evil incarnate because he is the source of all evil and so assuming you are a Christian, all evil deeds have their origin in him (should that be a capital "h"?) Perhaps it was a bit of an understatement to say that Hynkel and Goth's deeds were "merely" sadistic war crimes. Perhaps it would be better to say that both men were under the delusion of making the world a better place whereas Jadis, Sauron, Tash and Morgoth were evil demons who sought to do harm with no concern for anyone but themselves. I think the category of Fictional incarnations of evil is for characters who are malign supernatural beings rather than just very evil people. Additionally when I said Jadis was the greatest evil in Narnia I was thinking of the book Prince Caspian in which one of the characters (I can't actually remember which) states that Jadis was "the greatest tyrant of all." If we're speaking in terms of power which I think we are I don't think Shift could hold his own against Jadis "in the ring" so to the speak. Finally I think it would be a bit of a stretch to refer to Diggory's actions as "evil." They were more misguided. He is after all, only human unlike Jadis who is a psychopathic alien. In conclusion I think we should agree to disagree and for the time being leave her out of the offending category until more conclusive evidence comes to light. As you say the definition is a little "fuzzy." On a side-note, no I don't think you need to "get a life", we all need a hobby. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, the person further up the page who said "Get a life" was you. Have you got Multiple Personality Disorder or something? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you shut up, Maximus? IMHO you fundamentalist Christians have ruined the Narnia series. To typecast Jadis as the devil does her character a lot less credit and (as is said above) makes her far less interesting. You may as well put Palpatine, Voldemort and the Horned King into that catagory too for all they are fun to watch. Two further points: Katana Geldar 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jadis did not manipulate Digory into ringing the bell, he made the choice of his own free will and admitted it.
 * When Nikabrik was refering to Jadis as "the greatest tyrant at all" Shift wasn't around and no one got the chance to compare them in the series.


 * Gently, gently: let's try to keep this civil.  Lewis himself believed in the literal truth of much of church teaching, so I think much of what you perceive as ruined in Narnia was in fact written in from the beginning.  But you are right on target about one thing:  it is very ironic how many readers focus their attention on the "splashy" characters like Jadis, fascinated by their flagrant wickedness, but completely miss Lewis's main message.  He wrote these books for children, and the moral fairly drips from almost every page:  you, young reader, like Edmund, Susan, and Peter, like Pole and Eustace, like Digory and even Lucy -- you are all constantly making moral decisions that are important and can have world-shaking consequences; your thoughtless little selfish sins are every bit as dangerous as anything Jadis ever did.  It's a theme that comes out in almost all of his Christian writing:  evil is real, and even in our modern world each of us faces every day choices with real moral consequences, and it's important to get it right.  You don't have to be a fundamentalist, or even a Christian, to see some truth in that. Elphion (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me add that I agree 100% about Jadis being more interesting as a person than as an "incarnation of evil". Tilda Swinton's best moment in the Disney film comes when she discovers that Edmund has siblings.  Her Jadis at that moment is consumed by fear: heart-stopping, gut-wrenching fear -- she realizes that the jig may very well be up and that she is in serious trouble.  In that moment, I feel deeply for her.  (Tash or Satan would just have smiled a wicked little sneer.) Elphion (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh feel free to attack and patronise me because you all know I'm right. Jadis is evil incarnate. She might not literally be Satan but she's as close to Satan as any mortal being is ever likely to get. She is so evil, evil people would beat her with sticks out of sheer, unbridled jealousy. This doesn't make her any less of a person and it doesn't make her any less interesting. On the contrary it makes her far more interesting than the pathetic everyman-hero type characters like Peter, Suzan, Lucy and Edmund. In the film when she finds out about Edmund's siblings she's not afraid in the slightest, merely interested. You can tell she's already figuring out how to dispose of them. That's my take on it anyway but we're drifting into realms of POV here so enough of that. Another rather amusing architectural flaw in your argument, Katana Geldar, is that Palpatine, like Jadis, actually is Satan. Finally I am not a fundementalist Christian. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)