Talk:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

For previous discussions, see the talk page at The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. PatGallacher 17:26, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

That old talk-page link should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lion%2C_the_Witch%2C_and_the_Wardrobe –Smoken 21:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed content on sexism

I removed the following to here because I don't know whether this is a new user who doesn't understand that we don't put contributors' names in articles; or whether it's someone borrowing the work of the person named at the end (in which case we need to be clear on copyright). I don't want to scare newcomers away by just silently deleting their work. However, I feel it needs substantial copy-editing and heavy referencing before a return to the main article is considered. To be honest, I think that the verifiable information is fairly scant, and we have it covered either here or in the main Lewis article anyway. --Telsa 16:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sexism Shown in C.S. Lewis’s work

Accomplished writer Clive Staples Lewis, who’s known mainly for his popular The Chronicles of Narnia series has often been criticized for being racist and sexist. Many writers of his time face the same criticism such as Earnest Hemingway, Morley Callahan, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Although 1950's The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe has a strong sexist influence, it has opened the doors to many fantasy novels. We cannot blame Lewis for being sexist. The feminist movement didn’t start to take effect until the late 1950's though to the 1960's. During his whole childhood, he was exposed to male figures who had little respect for women such as his grandfather and father. His mother was a house wife who was shown as little respect as most women in the 1920's. Lewis was also a man who could not hold a steady relationship. His fathers influence hurt his relationships with women. His strong Christian faith has also shaped him to be sexist. His devotion to his religion is seen by is use of biblical allusions in his novels. Women are seen as second to men in Catholic, and most Christian churches. His book The Screwtape Letters, outlines his Christian views. Some have argued that the influences of his time made him sexist, which made him a good writer.

Richard Dickason , University of Toronto

Weak writing: it talks of sexism shown in Lewis's work, yet it "shows" this only by repeating the charge a 2nd time (criticized for being racist and sexist) and a 3rd time (has a strong sexist influence), and then alluding to the charge as if three accusations was proof in itself. 4th time (cannot blame Lewis for being sexist). Followed by explaining the cause of this yet-to-be-illustrated fault (5th time: Christian faith has also shaped him to be sexist).

There is no substance to the charge despite the comparison to Catholicism ("Women are seen as second to men"). Meanwhile, anyone who's read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe knows that both the girls are Queens right alongside the two boys who are Kings. Even the talking animals give the girls equal homage: the phrase "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve" is repeated many times (first by the Beaver I think). Uncle Ed 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Current Synopsis of Book Correct?

I'll have to re-read the book, but it looks like there has been some creep from the movie. If anyone knows the book by heart, can they check? --Tomandlu 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
part is from the movie synopsis

removed excessive synopsis

I have removed most of this article which consisted of excessive synopsis of the book, and which was in several places inaccurate.

The pre-existing synopsis section is an adequate precis of the book for a Wiki article.

I don't know if someone has added more since this comment was made (it would have helped if a name had been left) but the synopsis of this is WAY too long. It might as well be rewritten. It's a long time since I read the book so it would be helpful if someone more familiar could begin it. --BigBlueFish 19:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree - I'll re-read the book and re-write the synopsis. Movie creep as well, IMHO.

--Tomandlu 08:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've written a more concise synopsis - hope no one is too upset, but the last one was way, way too long

--Tomandlu 10:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction to history comment

Just to mention, my edit for 11:59, December 29, 2005 should have said "somewhat POV", not "somewhat NPOV".

--Tomandlu 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Last Battle and sexism

I can understand the bit about Susan no longer being a friend of Narnia being in the Chronicles of Narnia article and the Last Battle article, but why is it here? Also, the section implies that there are other examples of Lewis supposedly regarding sexual maturity as bad, but, as far as I know, the Susan example is the only one. Joey1898 23:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite being mostly on the secular-side with regard to narnia, I largely agree. The current commentary seems to have mushroomed from a fairly speculative point about the children's return from narnia. There's enough material out there, especially in the wake of the movie, for a fairer and more precise article. --Tomandlu 23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the modern perspectives bit, and added in a more general approach to the issue.

BTW the previous assertion regarding removing the children before they reached sexual maturity strikes me as wrong in its assumptions (or at least without verifiable basis). It may be correct that lewis felt the need to remove the children before they could consumate any sexual relationship in Narnia - but the alternative would have been to return them after they had had full (or implied) sex - presumably with their sexual memories intact. This, IMHO, would have been unacceptable to most readers, irrespective of their faith. --Tomandlu 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Film versions, etc.

I came to this article looking for a list of film/TV/whatever adaptations and was surprised not to find one. I later found the list (at The Chronicles of Narnia), but it seems somewhat inadequate to mention the new film in this article and not any of the others. (Especially since at this early date we have no way of knowing if the new film will be any more significant than the previous ones.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we give the Animated The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe it's own page? The reason that I bring this up, is because the film has quite the history, with the rushed animation, and two different voice casts (one british, one american). --LuminousSpecter 07:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

An Israeli-Jew's Point-of-View

I have just seen the movie, and I am bothered with one aspect of it. As a child I read the book (a Hebrew translation) and saw a T.V. production, and as with the movie, the Story is fascinating, even magical. But now, as a grown person I could not ignore some Christian motives that portray the Jew in a negative manner: For example, while the Fox helps the three fugitive brothers, he is accused as being the same as the wolves who help the Queen. The Fox defends himself (I don’t remember the exact words) that although he is, for his misfortune, from the same race as the wolves are, he is loyal to Aslan (the Lion/Jesus). The Fox is of-course the Good Samaritan. But the most bothering example is the Queen. The Queen relies on tradition and thus demands the blood (Shylock?) of the traitor (Edmund=Judas). The Lion/Jesus sacrifices himself instead of Edmund (performing Christian Love) and says (again, I don’t remember the exact words), that the Queen relies on tradition but do not see deep enough to understand the true meaning of the words. The Queen, the all evil character in the plot, is of-course the Jew. It seems from the Story that for Christians to go back to the roots and be better is to meet, fight and win the ancient enemy – me. One may think that a theme of such a modern literary work will not portray one element of humanity as negative as in this story.

I can understand you're feelings, but you're making a common mistake. Lewis wasn't writing an allegory. He was writing a sort of alternate history. In his own words, answering the question, "What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?" However, even if it were an allegory, the Jews would have to be represented (at least to a Christian like Lewis) by the group of people from whom Aslan came. Or, if you prefer, they could be represented by the people he came to save. The White Witch doesn't fall into either of those categories, which is what you would expect as we're not talking about an allegory. LloydSommerer 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like in Tolkien's case, Lewis cannot be above such criticism merely by saying "this is an alternate world, I didn't mean any of this". Like Tolkien, he has some racial/-ist undercurrents. I was not aware of any Antisemitism, and if there is any, it is almost too weak to be detected. But if there is published literary criticism of Lewis along these lines, it would by all means be fair game to discuss them here. dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I buy the idea that any time you can find an allegory the author meant for it to be there (or perhaps I misunderstood and you weren't saying that). My understanding was that we were not discussing published literary criticism, and so I was just offering my own view on the likelyhood of an intentional representation. LloydSommerer 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the White Witch (or Queen) is not meant to portray a Jew. Rather, she is symbolic of evil. Edmund is an example of the person who falls short and makes a mistake but is brought back and saved by Christ. I believe I heard this on the radio station I listen to, Air 1 (go to www.air1.com), and I think they were talking about the actual letter C. S. Lewis wrote explaining the book before he died. I suppose this is up for debate, but I just thought you should know that Lewis was most likely not trying to condemn Jews; he was condemning evil. God Bless. 71.129.7.196 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense but I disagree the jews killed Jesus while he did nothing wrong and offcourse aslan got killed and he didnt do anything wrong, And also when Jesus died there was an earth quake and when aslan died the stone cracked in the middle

The witch is actually representative of sin, which according to Paul in the New Testament holds the power of death through the Law (written on Tables of Stone).Nolewr 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Excessive Synopsis

This article has a tendancy to acquire a synopsis that rivals the length of the actual book... there have been several discussions about this. There is a dedicated Narnia wiki - wouldn't that be a better place for a long synopsis? For now, I've reverted to the last "short" version --Tomandlu 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted a new and, IMHO, excessive synopsis by User:AlexWilkes.

Discuss?

Tomandlu 21:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Influences

Does anyone have a reference for: "As a child, C.S. Lewis used to sit inside a wardrobe and write stories."

It sounds a bit apoc. and searching for "lewis childhood cupboard" is not much use ;)

Maybe you should search for "lewis childhood wardrobe", then. Tex 01:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

You should use an image of Lucy from the motion picture instead of the videogame because it looks very vague and you can't even tell what it is a picture of unless you play videogames. 4.253.121.34 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)--4.253.121.34 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhh.. it's not from the video game - it's a raytraced image I made a few years ago. You'll get a larger version if you click on it. Feel free to use a larger version, or a different image - I can't remember the particular tag I'm afraid. Personally, I think a larger image would be distracting. BTW I'm against using images from the film or game - there's already enough plot-creep from the movie as it is ;) --Tomandlu 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd much rather a real illustration by Pauline Baynes, from the book. Baynes worked with Lewis to create the illustrations, didn't she, and certainly lewis spoke highly of her contibution. After all, this is a page about the book, and the illustration were very much a part of that book. Is there some copyright problem? Leeborkman 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

References in pop culture?

Are these of interest? eg the Young One's episode "Flood". I am sure there must be many more. Leeborkman 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia in popular culture. There's a short introductory paragraph at The Chronicles of Narnia; perhaps the same sort of thing would server here as well? Of course, the article deals with all of the books, but I don't recall, off hand, that there are many that are not LLW references. LloydSommerer 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Random Comment

Aslan means 'lion' in Turkish. 193.140.194.104 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cover art

Can we get an illustrated bit of cover art, not one with the movie? This is, after all, the book, and I for a minute thought it was a rip-off DVD cover put in place of the book cover, until I read the text. How about a Pauline Baynes illustration? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was cover art, but all the modern books have the movie art on them too. I've gone hunting, and found something else, though perhaps not as good. --I hope you like it anyway. :) Patstuart 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't saying it wasn't cover art, just that it looked, at first glance, to be a movie cover. I was looking for original illustrated editions, not photos. I think what you uploaded was okay, but I have a HarperTrophy edition with a picture of Tumnus in a snow scene on the cover, which I think is original Pauline Baynes. Whatever, this is fine. We should try to keep the same editions' illustrations, though, for all of the book articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone, somewhere was enjoying a bit of irony when they chose the cover art for that edition. On a cover that advertises that it is 'now a major motion micture" they chose to illistrate with a scene that does not appear in the motion picture. LloydSommerer 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That cover looks kind of old; it may have been referring to the 1977 film (I think that's the year?). The animated one. Possibly. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to try to find some original cover art. b_cubed 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the first edition cover art, best I could find... Despite that tear at the top of the dust jacket, that particular copy still costs about 12,000 tea leaves... And it was far from the most expensive that I came across. I moved the other cover further down in the article. -- Antepenultimate 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Why would the all-knowing Aslan create a law that would eventually result in his own near-demise? What's more, why does the Magician's Nephew make no mention of The "Deep Magic"? --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 03:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The deep magic is from the Emperor Beyond the Sea, not from Aslan, who is his son. Analogically, Jesus has to play by God's rules. Also, it's not a near-demise. He dies and is resurrected. I hope that King Edmund wrote him a VERY nice thank you note. Ninquerinquar (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In reality, the Deep Magic ultimately leads to the White Witch's demise, since Aslan was more familiar with it. His "near-demise" (though dying never really had to mean the end for Aslan- he's not a tame cat) really created his overall victory. -Kanogul ^(talk) 00:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jadis equals White Witch - are we sure?

Does Lewis ever state that Jadis (from Magician's nephew) and the White Witch are the same person? Tomandlu 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think he ever did. But he did state in the MN (not exactly like this), "She will stay in waste lands for years, profecting her dark arts, until the Apple Tree that you (Digory) just planted had withered away. Then she will take over Narnia for 100 years." So, I think we can come to the conclusion that she's the same person. Besides, what happened to Jadis after we left, and how did the White Witch get there? She most certainly is not however, the Lady of the Green Kirtle.GoldenLiquid 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Witch is named Jadis in the notice at Tumnus's house.

—wwoods 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the witch sends a written message using the name Jadis for herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.18.69 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jadis is definitely the White Witch. The Magician's Nephew was published after The Chronicles of Narnia. Why would C.S. Lewis name the witch in The Magician's Nephew the same name as the Witch in The Chronicles of Narnia? In The Magician's Newphew, it says

"In Narnia the Beasts lived in great peace and joy and neither the Witch nor any other enemy came to trouble that pleasant land for many hundred years."

...Quite obvious... --66.32.48.170 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tumnus, not Mr. Tumnus

Tumnus introduces himself to Lucy by his name, Tumnus; Lucy, being a well-brought-up little English girl, assumes that if an adult introduces himself by one name, that name must be the adult's surname, and accordingly addresses him and refers to him respectfully as Mr. Tumnus. That is Lucy's mistake, however; Tumnus is not his surname, but his only name, and the honorific Mr. Tumnus is in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.239.55 (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ecology and the long winter

So what did the population survive on during the century or so of winter? How much life can taiga/permafrost land support? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Character list

Is there anyway someone better at coding than me can fix the big gap between the title "Character list" and the start of the text. I believe it is caused by the info box.Beligaronia (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Reading through the plot summary, the fourth paragraph looks like it's missing something. It says, "Several weeks later, having forgotten about Narnia, Lucy and Edmund hide in the wardrobe while playing hide-and-seek. He fails to catch up with Lucy, and is approached by an extremely pale lady on a sledge pulled by a white reindeer...."

It's been awhile since I've read the book, but shouldn't it say something about them discovering the portal and Lucy running off in there? Twhoffman (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blitz and Blitzkrieg

Earlier today an anonymous IP editor changed the plot from reading "Blitz" to read "Blitzkrieg". This got reverted by Elphion because it broke the Wikipedia link. But on top of that, the change was not even correct. The German bombing of London in 1940 and 1941 is always called "The Blitz" ("lightning" in German) although it is a shortening of the word "Blitzkrieg". The title "Blitzkrieg" (German "lightning war") has been used for numerous war battles (since it describes a particular war strategy) including Allied offensive against Germany in 1944, including Patton's invasion of France, but that is a whole different scenario. But the German bombing of London which in Lewis' story precipitates the action of LWW has always and everywhere been simply "The Blitz".--WickerGuy (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's actually why I reverted it, rather than just rewriting the link; "broken link" was a convenient excuse. But the link itself should have been a clue to the anon IP. Elphion (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Character list

I suspect there are too many minor characters in this list.Mesmacat (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial Christ

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is a very controversial book with all of the allusions to Christ. Should there be another section added to the page that specifically details some of the symbolism in the novel? I know that it was mentioned in the "Allusions" section, but I feel as though this is all too crucial to the subplot to be a side note. Mcolowebb (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Allusions Section

I think this might usefully be split out into two sections. One for influences or allusions, and one for themes. This would allow some focus in the two sections, the influences or allusions dealing mainly with antecedents and references in the piece, which can cover quite a wide range from Greek mythology to Lewis's confessed influence from the children's stories of E. Nesbit, and the themes section allowing for more commentary about the concepts of the novel such as the partial reenactment of the resurrection and atonement, etc. I can see there are a lot of people watching this page, so I will not enact this change without first proposing the idea Mesmacat (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia article has two sections "Influences" and "Christian parallels". I think we could follow suit here.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This section is full of heavy POV, original research and no references for spurious suggestions. I think therefore this section should be removed. Spanglej (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some are more spurious than others. (BTW, although I have contributed a lot to this article, I wrote none of the material in this section.) The notion that Aslan's death is an allusion to the crucifixion of Christ has been asserted widely and often. It is such a wide common understanding that it is understandable that the author would not have felt necessary to have a citation for it. The most obvious source would be the writings of Kathryn Lindskoog.
The issue regarding the magic wardrobe in The 35th of May, or Conrad's Ride to the South Seas really has to do with whether C.S. Lewis had read the book and was consciously alluding to it. The section as stands never even asserts that Lewis alluded to the book, only that the plot parallels exist. It should not require a citation that a magic wardrobe appears in the other book. However, it should both be stated and require a citation that Lewis was aware of and influenced by the book- otherwise we might merely have a case of two fantasy authors who think alike.

Certainly the most spurious suggestion in this section is the idea that the breaking of the Stone table is a parallel to the rending of the temple curtain at the death of Christ. If this section is going to be trimmed, I think that would be the first to go. Again, I think most of the other stuff can be cited in Lindskoog's writings, possibly even the stuff about the Stone Table I consider spurious--WickerGuy (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Abridged versions?

Fascinating. I had never realised there were abridged versions. Is this a matter of removing chapters, paragraphs, or simply odd words? I think this would be worth adding.

I have the boxed set from 1977. The set cost £3.60 then: how times change! I'll add ISBNs.

Telsa 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought all abridged editions were either graphic novels or audiotapes.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

My Mistake

It appears that although the Witch is frequently referred to as "Jadis" in the subsequently published prequel The Magician's Nephew, she is indeed only once referred to as "Jadis" right here in LWW, in the text of a printed notice left on the door of the decimated home of Tumnus by the wolf chief-of-police. I was wrong.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn...I somehow missed this and have been reverting an IP's reversion of your...reversion? Granted they haven't been providing an edit summary either... Is there a ruling on whether her name is used in the film as well? Doniago (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, I'm quite sure her name is not used in the film, and I think the reversion to just White Witch should stand here because it is citing dialogue from the novel, and in the novel her name is never used in dialogue, it only appears on a printed notice.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll support that. WW is also more accessible to the casual reader. Doniago (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't see any point in obscuring that the witch is given the name Jadis, and that Lewis later had more to say about this character in The Magician's Nephew. On the other hand, info from MN, like the bit in the character list here saying that she originated on Charn, doesn't belong under LWW, where it is not mentioned and is not relevant. -- Elphion (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for an argument I think you're going to be disappointed. (smile) Doniago (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it fine to mention somewhere in the article that her name is Jadis, but not in a citation of dialogue from the book (So-and-so says we are in danger from Jadis, the White Witch) where it doesn't occur.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, boldly. -- Elphion (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comma in title

It seems a bit odd to me that the title of the book, if written with a comma after "Witch" redirects to this title. I could swear that, if you lay hands on a copy of the book, the comma is there. The title of the article should include the comma. It has nothing to do with whether the comma is right or wrong in general, it's the way Lewis titled his book, and therefore it should be carried over into the title of the Wikipedia article. They seem to have left it out of the movie title, but that doesn't change the book title. There may even be editions for the American market without the comma, but I suggest the original title should be used in a work of reference.

Personally I don't care about the book enough to engage in the inevitable talk wars with any conviction. But perhaps someone else does.

Tex 01:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just checking my copies of the book, and I can't find that comma anywhere. These are Australia versions, which tend to follow the British language variations. Leeborkman 06:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lewis has no comma after "Witch." In writing, the comma that precedes the "and" (conjunction) before the last item in a series is optional. Although almost all authorities prefer a comma before the conjunction, the only hard-and-fast rule is "be consistent" (either always insert the comma or always omit it). Newspapers and magazines generally omit the comma to save space; writers who have no need to save space should insert the comma. See Strunk and White, The Elements of Style (New York: MacMillan, 1979), 3rd ed., p. 2. Atticusattor (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"It depicts the crucifixion of Jesus Christ"

I removed that bolded line from the opening 2 paragraphs. I think discussion about the allegory and the allusion to the sacrifice of Christ should be on the page, but it doesn't belong in the open like that. It certainly doesn't represent a NPOV because there is much debate about how closely it matches the Christ story. A statement like "It depicts the crucifixion of Jesus Christ" belongs in the open of an article on "The Passion" or something similar. -PK9 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. C.S. Lewis's intentent was to tell the story of Christ! He was a Christian theologian. The premise of the story is what would Christ be like in a different world (a supposition not allegory), how would he appear and relate to those around him, When Lewis says its not allegorical it's because Aslan is not like Jesus, he is Jesus. Consider the following quote

"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.” The Voyage of the Dawn Treader – Chapter 16

C.S. Lewis specifically said that the story was not allegory, it was a story about Christ. That is the reson he did not want it made into an animation (during his life), because he thought it would be almost blasphemous to depict Jesus in such a way.

This really should be corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judahbenjamin (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to be incredibly naive to refuse to recognize Aslan's death and resurrection as symbolizing the death and resurrection of Jesus. After all, Lewis was a popular theologian who wrote books about Christianity and who had a religious radio program. He even wrote an earlier allegory that he acknowledged as allegory. The reason he denied that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is allegory is that he was afraid that knowledge of its religious content would interfere with book sales. Parents who did not want their children to be subjected to Lewis's biblical literalism would refuse to buy the book. England, where Lewis lived and where he wrote and published the book, is far less religious than America. Atticusattor (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone acknowledges that Aslan is a Christ figure, and that up to a point there are parallels between Aslan's death and resurrection and that of Jesus. Dispute arises because the parallels are loose and inexact. However, Lewis' denial that LWW is an allegory is because the allegorical elements in it are just as I said, loose and inexact, in strong contrast to his novel The Pilgrim's Regress which is allegorical through and through in a very precise and focused way. What evidence do you have that Lewis' denial was through fear of hurting book sales? Also, Lewis is not really a "biblical literalist" anymore than Augustine or Aquinas.

Christ figures appear in many books that are not precise allegories. Jim Casy in The Grapes of Wrath is a Christ-figure, but Wrath is not an allegory. The Day the Earth Stood Still borders on allegory, but is not quite fully-fledge as one, although Klaatu is certainly a Christ-figure. Symbolism is an element of allegory, but the presence of symbolism does not per se make a book an allegory.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)--WickerGuy (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed parallels

In light of statements from the author that the story is not an allegory, I found the insertion of bolded comments comparing it to the Jesus story a needless distraction from the synopsis. The parallels would be worth noting in a distinct section, but asserting within the synopsis that they are the One True Way to intepret the story is not only a direct contradiction of the Lewis's statement that it isn't an allegory but also completely non-encyclopedic. teucer 19:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the christian parallels from the synopsis. They don't belong there, and certainly don't need to be in bold. In the other Narnia articles they are typically found as part of the Commentary section Lsommerer 20:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Lewis's denials that his story is allegory have been thoroughly refuted; the allegorical material has been thoroughly documented. Aslan's symbolizing Jesus, and Aslan's death and resurrection's symbolizing the death and resurrection of Jesus, are widely recognized, even by those who doubt that the story is full-blown allegory. The skeptics are unfamiliar with later interpretive material. Some don't even know what allegory is: Devin Brown thinks Aslan (not the story) is the alleged allegory! Stories, not characters, are allegories; the surface story characters are symbols, symbols of characters or things in a hidden story. See Leonard F. Wheat, Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials: A Multiple Allegory (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2008), 79-103. The allegorical material definitely belongs in the article.Atticusattor (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Any allegorical material should be in the interpretations section (doesn't exist yet- you can create one)- not in the plot or characters section and CERTAINLY not in the lede section. Furthermore, while some elements of the allegory are widely agreed upon (everyone understands that Aslan = Christ), more contentious material (such as Professor = God or White Stag = Aslan or Penvensie children at end = four horsemen) should be asserted as simply one critic's opinion, certainly not at all as irrefutable fact, and should be put in with other interpreter's opinions such as Kathryn Lindskoog, Michael Ward, etc. --WickerGuy (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not require more than one reference for any fact or interpretation. Neither does it condone the substitution of opinion (yours) for references. You are, in effect, substituting your own opinion that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is not allegory for authority and evidence. Wouldn't it be fairer to let readers use their own intelligence and judgment to decide whether the referenced interpretations and their evidence and analogies make sense? What you see as disallowing "contentious" but referenced material, I see as censorship. Just how much consensus does there have to be before well documented findings are allowed in an article?

And why would you expect me (or anyone else) to waste additional hours implementing your suggestion that "any allegorical material should be in the interpretations section (doesn't exist yet . . . )"? The material would undoubtedly be deleted by you or someone else on grounds that other authorities (including some who naively think allegories are characters rather than stories) deny the existence of allegory? The naive interpreters who deny allegory and who are already in print will always be in print and can always be used by you to justify censorship of material with which you disagree.

You need to recognize that, when authority is supplemented with evidence and when a huge number of analogies are mutually supporting, inclusion of the material is thoroughly justified. You also need to recognize that C. S. Lewis is widely acknowledged to be an extremely conservative Christian apologist, He says in The Screwtape Letters that he believes in Satan; he also believes in the resurrection and in the basics of the New Testament's book of Revelation, and he passionately believes in heaven and hell. He has written quasi-fundamentalist books and in the 1940s had his own religious radio program. In the light of these facts, and they are facts, your doubts that he would have injected abundant religious material into a children's story are far-fetched indeed. Likewise, I am astounded by your unwillingness to believe that the presence of Four Horsemen (OK, two are horsewomen) symbolizes the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in a story that centers on the symbolized death and resurrection of Jesus. To me that is like an ostrich burying its head in the sand.Atticusattor (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You make a lot of misrepresentations of my own opinions and WP policies here. Let's begin with your last paragraph. Contrary to what you state, I do not have any doubt whatsoever that Lewis "injected abundant religious material into a children's story", as ought to be quite clear from my earlier remarks. Of course, the Narnia books are filled with religious material and symbolism!!! However, to claim that they form a allegory in the strictest sense of that word is an entirely different matter altogether, and considered doubtful by many critics. Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time is filled with religious material and symbolism, but is not an allegory either. You are confusing and conflating two different assertions, a rather subtle form of the fallacy of equivocation.

As for my suggestion that you put this material in an "interpretations" section, the standard in WP for novels is really a "Themes" section, but lots of articles on novels and films in WP actually have an "interpretations" section. For an example of a "Themes" section, see the article on Paradise Lost. For an example of a "Styles and Interpretation" section, see the article on Lolita. However, this is where such material on interpretation of symbolism properly goes, and the WP manual at WP:MOS-NOVELS explicitly states "You must present the consensus of literary scholars and historians." See also the section WP:UNDUE which overtly states

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.

Ergo, you are welcome to espouse Mr. Leonard Wheat's views in a theme section, as long as you also present the views of scholars who think Narnia is not an allegory (although everyone agrees it IS filled with Christian symbolism and Aslan is a Christ-figure- again no one disputes that!!!) Finally, if editors at WP think that Wheat's views are currently a "fringe theory" (sometimes fringe theories later become mainstream and gain wide acceptance), it would not only raise questions about how much prominence it should have in article, but whether it should be included at all. See WP:FRINGE, especially the bit at the top which says

An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner

Whether or not I personally agree with Mr. Wheat is not relevant as to whether or not his material belongs in Wikipedia. I disagree with the philosophy of Ayn Rand, but she has had sufficient impact on American culture to warrant an article on Wikipedia, by easily passing WP guidelines for being WP:NOTABLE. WP is not censored, but it is overtly asserted in the Manual of Style the WP is not a soapbox for anyone's pet theories, especially if they are not (yet) of mainstream status.

For the record, although I have no doubts about the conservative Christian influence on Lewis, I do indeed disagree about the Horsemen. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse bring a variety of plagues, war, famine, and death upon the world. How are the Pevensie children in the final chapter of LWW playing any such role?? Or was my ostrich-head so buried in the sand that I just missed that part of the book? You are arguing that because many parts of the book have fairly clear religious symbolism (Aslan=Christ) that everything in the book must be a religious symbol. This is the fallacy of composition.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to learn more about allegory before attempting to define it. You are wrong in asserting that multiple analogies are required to establish the symbolic relationship between an allegorical symbol and its referent. It is widely recognized that George Orwell's Animal Farm and that Farmer Jones, who is overthrown by the animals, symbolizes Czar Nicholas, who was overthrown in the 1917 Russian revolution. The overthrown leader analogy is all that is required to establish this symbolism. Yet you claim that the four horse-mounted siblings don't provide sufficient analogical support for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse symbolism. Four horsepersons = Four Horsemen is so nearly literal, and basic, that this one analogy is all it takes. But there are additional analogies you don't recognize: (2) As in the Bible, Lewis's four mounted horsepersons appear at the end of the book, just as the Bible's Four Horsepersons appear at the end of the Bible. (3) After Lewis's four horsemen appear the White Stag (white animal) appears, just as after the Four Horsemen appear the white Lamb of God (white animal) is repeatedly featured. (4) After the White Stag comes the Lamppost, just as in the Bible the lamp in New Jerusalem comes at the very end after the white lamb. (5) Each of the four mounted siblings--2 kings, 2 queens--has one-fourth of the power over Narnia, just as each of the Four horseman has power over one-fourth of the earth. (6) The White Stag is a good being--he is actually Aslan morphed into Stag, and he leads the siblings back to the wardrobe--just as Aslan is a good being.

But you implicitly demand that every last detail of a symbols's referent be symbolized. All right, since you acknowledge that Aslan symbolizes Jesus, tell me where Lewis provides the other details from the gospel story. Does the baby Aslan lie in a manger? Is his mother a virgin, and is baby Aslan visited by wise men and shepherds Does he get baptised by a character resembling John the Baptist? Did Jesus slay Satan, just as Aslan (Jesus) slayed the White Witch (Satan)? Does Aslan enter a city mounted on an ass or on another creature that might symbolize an ass? Does Aslan have twelve disciples? Is he betrayed by someone who kisses him? You can't find any of these analogies in Lewis's story,yet you acknowledge that Aslan symbolizes Jesus. Why the double standard?

You falsely attribute to me the argument that "because many parts of the book have fairly clear religious symbolism . . . that everything in the book must be a religious symbol." Where did I say that everything in the book is a religious symbol? What I did say, or at least imply, is that it takes more than a few symbols to create an allegory. Lewis's early interpreters, the ones you trust, noticed only four or five symbols: Aslan (Jesus), his "crucifixion," his "resurrection," the White Witch (Satan), and the Witch's castle (hell). These symbols appear in only four of the book's 17 chapters (less than one-fourth of the book). Clearly, just five symbols confined to four chapters don't make the story an allegory. So the early interpreters found no allegory. But Wheat identifies 52 symbols, and they are scattered over all seventeen chapters. And the symbols have a unifying theme--Christianity--that is another requirement for allegory. (The 1917 Russian revolution and the subsequent Stalinist dictatorship is the unifying theme of Animal Farm. Lewis's story easily meets the requirements of allegory.

Yes, C. S. Lewis disingenuously denied that his story was allegory. (He didn't want to discourage nonreligious parents from buying his book.) But he based his denial on the ridiculous claim that Aslan was not a symbol of Jesus. You yourself recognize that claim as false. And have you noticed what Lewis bases his claim on? He bases it on the patently false assertion that Aslan cannot be a symbol for Jesus because Aslan actually is Jesus. But both you and I know that Aslan isn't Jesus, who was a human being and lived on earth. Aslan is a storybook animal, a fictional character, and he lives in the magical land of Narnia. Aslan the animal is no more the real Jesus than Snowball the pig (in Animal Farm) is the real Leon Trotsky.

I can't stop you from disparaging Wheat's interpretation as nothing more than what you call a "pet theory." I can only say that you have a remarkable inability to distinguish between scholarship and pet theories.Atticusattor (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully acknowledge that Animal Farm is an allegory in the strictest possible sense of the world. Furthermore, since that is the sweeping consensus or scholarship, there is no problem per WP policy of asserting that on Wikipedia.

Again however, Wikipedia's stated policy is to reflect the current consensus of mainstream scholarship and to give theories with marginal acceptance only marginal mention. As I earlier stated, sometimes theories that were once marginal later become mainstream, which COULD happen eventually to Leonard Wheat, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote (or worse yet premiere) theories that are not (yet) widely accepted. So whether I personally agree with Wheat or not is irrelevant to whether your edits to the article are appropriate here.

With regard to the Four Horseman, I am not requiring "multiple" analogies. I am requiring the main, primary, and most obvious analogy!!! I am not requiring (as you say) "every last detail" but the first foremost most blatant detail in the foreground (the Four Horsemen are harbingers of war. etc.)!! As such, the absence of Aslan's virgin birth, etc. is irrelevant, and I have no double standard. I never said that "multiple analogies" are required for something to be an allegory!!!

Without realizing it, you indeed are requiring multiple analogies. You are requiring that the four mounted siblings be harbingers of bad events, comparable to war. But if Lewis had presented only one horseman instead of four and the horseman's appearance had been followed by bad events (e.g., successive deaths of the other three siblings), would you have accepted the bad events as a sufficient analogical relationship--sufficient to make Lewis's one horseman a symbol of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? I think we both know the answer to that one. You would have regarded the "harbinger" analogy as insufficient; you would have demanded four mounted siblings instead of just one. And that is multiple analogies--something you "never said" was required but nevertheless implicitly require. Which brings me to a related point. You say that "the main, primary, and most obvious analogy" is that "the Four Horsemen are harbingers of war, etc." Sorry, but that is neither the main nor the most obvious characteristic of Revelation's equestrians. The main and most obvious characteristic--really two characteristics--is what Lewis uses for his symbolism: (1) there are four persons and (2) they are mounted on horses. Those are the only analogies you need.

Also, I will concede(!!) that by the relatively broad definition of allegory offered by Northrup Frye (in Anatomy of Criticism), you could consider the Narnia books a partial allegory, but Lewis was operating with a much narrower classical definition, which is the real reason for his denial. Northrup Frye talks about a "continuum of allegory" according which it is not true that a story it IS or it ISN'T an allegory, but instead one can talk about degrees of allegory, like hot, warm, cool, or cold (my own analogy). Frye is one of the first critics to allow that a literary work may have elements of allegory without being fully allegorical. For Frye, at one end of the spectrum are stories where most material has a "second meaning" (such as Animal Farm). In the center of Frye's spectrum is Shakespeare, where the symbolic meanings are embodied in the story itself. At the far other end of the spectrum are tales which are essentially mere story-telling. On Frye's spectrum the Narnia books might qualify as (let's guess) 60-70% allegory. This has been very well-argued by Leland Ryken & Marjorie Lamp Mead in A Reader's Guide to Caspian. (See the chapter Are the Narnian Stories Allegories? beginning on page 93). Ryken and Mead conclude the Narnia stories are "sort of" near-allegories.

You are absolutely right that Lewis was operating by an unconventional definition of allegory when he denied his Aslan story was allegory. But you are wrong in asserting that his definition was a "classical" definition. In reality, his definition was so unconventional to be absurd. It had three characteristics, all of which are nonsense. First, and most important, Lewis said allegory requires that the symbols personify not persons but immaterial realities such as despair or wisdom: "By allegory I mean a composition . . . in which immaterial realities are represented as feigned physical objects." (Quoted by Colin Duriez, A Field Guide to Narnia, p. 96.) Lewis is saying, in effect, that Animal Farm isn't allegory because its symbols symbolize persons, the hammer-and-sickle Soviet flag, and The Internationale (Soviet anthem) instead of nonmaterial concepts like despair, which is symbolized in the allegory The Pilgrim's Progress. Second, as a corollary of the first Lewis requirement, Lewis says allegorical symbols require personification. And by personification he means human persons, not animals like Aslan. But allegory really doesn't require that its symbols be persons; even less does it require that beings who serve as symbols be humans. In Animal Farm most of the symbols are animals; Farmer Jones (symbolizing Czar Nicholas II) is the main exception. It is true that allegorical symbols most commonly are persons, but that is not a requirement. In Animal Farm the animal flag and the animal anthem are allegorical symbols but are not persons. Third, Lewis claims that if he calls something (specifically Aslan) a "supposal"--something the author supposes is real--that something cannot be a symbol. Elaborating, he says that in The Pilgrim's Progress the Giant Despair "does not start from a supposal" because it is "a fact that despair can capture and imprison a human soul." In contrast, Aslan is (according to Lewis) just a "supposal," a supposal that Jesus was incarnated in another world in the form of a Lion. He is wrong, of course. What makes a symbol a symbol is that it is analogically related to its referent. My point here is that, when Lewis denies that his story is allegory, he is using false definitions of allegory and allegorical symbolism. A related point is that Lewis's denial that his story has to be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, his strained definition of allegory strongly implies that he knows his story really is allegory. Otherwise he would use a conventional, and accurate, definition of allegory. See my additional comments below concerning Bloom's false definition of allegory.Atticusattor (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If we allow Frye's looser definition of allegory and his notion a work can be "partially" allegorical, I personally would say the Narnia books satisfy two out of three of Harold Edward Bloom's three sets of conditions for something to be an allegory, and fails a fourth condition which he specified outside of his list. Bloom's list from The Order of Poetry is an allegory has these traits.

(a) its surface or literal story is interesting and exciting;

(b) its abstract correlatives are clearly discernible and are consistent (emphasis added by me-WG) in their relationships with the personifications or symbols which represent them in the surface plot; and

(c) the philosophical thesis thus acted out is of wide applicability to human experience.

The Narnia books satisfy a and c, but fail b. Furthermore, Bloom states that in allegory the "conflicts and resolutions among characters" are meant to result in a modification in the reader's understanding of the elements being symbolized. This last is patently NOT true of the Narnia series. Lewis has many overtly Christian moral and spiritual points to make in the Narnia books, but virtually none of them are made through the religious symbolism (certainly not in the way this is done in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress- which is clearly an allegory in every sense)- in this respect the Narnia stories fail Bloom's definition of allegory!!

Bloom's definition of allegory is unconventional and unacceptable: (a) An allegory's surface story need not be interesting or exciting. I find The Pilgrim's Progress dull and boring. The definitions offered in Wheat's book, those of Bernstein and Fowler, merely call for "a metaphorical narrative" and "a tale." (b) Bloom's second criterion, which seems to be that the symbols be correlated, is acceptable if we understand that he is trying to say that the symbols cannot be scattershot but must have a unifying theme--the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and its aftermath in the case of Animal Farm, Christianity in the case of the Lewis story. (c) The idea that "the philosophical thesis thus acted out is of wide applicability to human experience" begs the question. Bloom assumes that all allegories have a widely applicable philosophical thesis, an untrue assumption. Can the 1917 Bolshevik revolution be called widely applicable to human experience? All that allegory requires is that the surface story tell a hidden story and that the surface story contain a substantial number of related symbols, symbols with a unifying theme. A symbol, in turn, is something in the surface story (not necessarily a person or even a being) that is related by analogy (sometimes multiple analogies) to whatever it symbolizes in the hidden story. I am saying that you cannot use Bloom's criteria to challenge the idea that Lewis's story is allegory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticusattor (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lewis's friend J.R.R. Tolkien made a useful distinction between "allegory" and "applicability". A story may be relevant to understanding a similar and closer-to-home situation without being an allegory. Arthur Miller's play The Crucible about the Salem witch-trials of the 17th century makes many indirect social comments on the 1950s McCarthy hearings thoughout it's text- however, it is not an allegory of the McCarthy trials.

It is perfectly true that Lewis' books have a unifying theme, which I would say is a Christian ethos (Catholics might say "moral theology") and aesthetic (but not so much Christian dogma). However, having a unifying theme is a necessary but not sufficient condition for allegory.

Lewis certainly never denied that Aslan is a stand-in or representative for Jesus (he overtly acknowledged that by being a lion Aslan references the Biblical "Lion of Judah"), and you have not a shred of evidence for your contention that Lewis denied that Narnia was an allegory because "He didn't want to discourage nonreligious parents from buying his book". As I stated in my last post, the presence of religious motifs and symbolism is not in dispute- the presence of allegory is, and so you are still conflating two different assertions. There are in fact dozens, perhaps hundreds, of works of literature in which one character is a symbolic "Christ-figure" but which are still not allegories. I have not seen the quote you refer to in which he claims Aslan "is" Jesus, but if Lewis said that he must have meant that in the framework of the stories, Aslan is a different incarnation of the Logos in a different world. I think Lewis meant that Aslan acts as a Christ-figure in the book, but NOT in a (strictly) allegorical way.

The phrase "pet theory" means that one has a special (possibly undue) affection and fondness for the theory. I was referring to your own apparent infatuation, not Wheat's, and a pet theory may in fact be eventually judged true, but the phrase is meant to suggest that the appeal of the theory may bias one's judgement. I tried to avoid implying that it was "nothing more than" a pet theory- however I do personally think Wheat's arguments are tendentious (I have looked over Wheat's book since my last post). Wheat's tone is not very humble- he seems very impressed with himself- and so with regard to him the phrase "pet theory" is also quite applicable.

Leonard Wheat wrote an equally peculiar book entitled Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory. His main thesis is somewhat convincing, but he also claims that the monolith symbolizes the Trojan Horse, and that the the four orbiting satellites represent the goddesses Aphrodite, Hera, and Athena, and Eris, a very far-fetched assertion. He makes false claims about Homer's Odyssey, confusing chapter titles of modern editions with the original, makes some claims based on specific English translations of Homer, and he mistakenly states Clarke wrote the novel after the film was released. (I didn't read it all. I was told he claims that Arthur Clarke "forgot" that he intended IBM to be one letter ahead of HAL- this is especially bizarre!!) There are a couple of Amazon reviews which summarize the problems quite well. The film 2001: A Space Odyssey is rich in layers and layers of metaphor and symbolism, and has been subject to dozens of diverse interpretations, many regarded as equally valid for such an ambiguous yet rich film, and yet some Kubrick scholars still seem to regard Wheat as far-fetched. Patrick Webster, for example, describes Wheat as "tenuous" with "extravagant interpretations".

In arguing for or against material on the main article page on Wikipedia, personal credentials count for virtually nothing. WP policy states that personal credentials should NOT be used to settle an (article) content dispute, nor to win an argument. I will however use mine to request you stop taking such a condescending and arrogant tone with me. I have in fact taken graduate level English lit courses and have the equivalent of an English lit minor (I majored in history- I did not officially register a minor in English) from an Ivy League University. Please do not patronize me with statements like I "need to learn more about allegory" of that I have an "inability to distinguish between scholarship and pet theories". Sometimes good scholars have a pet theory, but a grandiose tone is a strong indicator of a pet theory, and both you and Leonard Wheat have an extremely grandiose tone. (I sincerely hope you are NOT yourself Leonard Wheat, in which case you would be making a really MAJOR violation of Wikipedia rules.)--WickerGuy (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Postscript on Details

I have just checked the Biblical references to the Four Horsemen. I realize I am being a bit pedantic here. In Revelation, the horsemen as a collectivity together have power over one-fourth of the earth (Revelation 6:8), not their getting power over one-quarter each as you assert. Some much weaker points: while Revelation 4 speaks of seven lamps before God, Revelation 22 states that in the New Jerusalem there is no lamp, since the Lamb Himself is the light there. The Lamb is indeed mentioned many times, but actually first appears just before the four Horsemen but after the four living creatures (ox,lion,eagle,man).

But these are small matters. The major issue is that the prime function of the four horsemen is to be harbingers of war, and the Pevensies at the end of LWW are no such thing. It's not a small minor detail as you disingenuously imply.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Read Rev.6:8 more carefully. The antecedents of "they" in "they were given power over a fourth of the earth" are the 4th horsman and his horse, not the Four Horsemen. The clear implication is that each horseman (and his horse) have power over a fourth of the earth. As for the lamp in New Jerusalem, it is obviously a figurative lamp. You misquote Rev. when you say that "in the New Jerusalem there is no lamp." Rev. 22:23 says, "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for . . . its Lamp is the lamb." The point is that the Lamp comes after the Lamb; the Lamb is discussed first. And in Lewis's story, the lamppost comes after the White Stag. Whether the lamppost's antecedent is literal or figurative is irrelevant.Atticusattor (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean Rev 21:23, not 22:23. The Lamb is the "light" in King James (and a popular hymn), but "lamp" in Revised Standard ("lighted torch" in Jerusalem Bible), but your point taken. I am less convinced on Rev 6:8, and either way, even if it is the 4th horse and Rider gets authority over 1/4th of the earth, it doesn't imply additional fourths to the other three. More anon.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Allegory Redux

I think the following passage from a lecture on Pilgrim's Progress by Ian Johnston from [1] is helpful & illuminating.

Allegories need to be distinguished from symbolic stories. Both allegorical structures and symbolic structures derive their full meaning from something beyond the literal meaning of the word, event, image, or character in the fiction. That is, they both point to a range of meanings beyond themselves. The major difference is that in allegories the reference point is clear and relatively unambiguous; whereas, with symbols the range of meaning is more ambiguous and uncertain.
For example, money in Chaucer's General Prologue or images of disease in Hamlet clearly exert a recurring symbolic influence throughout the works. But what they refer to is not immediately explicit, and, as readers, we need to interpret, argue about, and come (if possible) to some consensus about the range of possible meanings. By contrast, in The Pilgrim's Progress something like Christian's scrap of paper or the Slough of Despond refer explicitly to some important aspect of the overarching doctrine which is controlling the shape of the fiction and which every detail of the fiction is designed to illustrate. About such reference there is no ambiguity and no need for argument about a range of interpretative possibilities.
This point is particularly clear if we compare the characterization in Chaucer and Shakespeare with the characterization in Bunyan. The characters in the earlier two works are clearly (for the most part) complex, ambiguous, and arguable. There may be some (like the Knight and the Parson) who are ideal characters and serve to point to a clear Christian standard, but for the most part we cannot simply define the characters in these works according to a simple and given frame of reference. In Bunyan, of course, the situation is quite the reverse. The characters in the work almost all serve exclusively to present unambiguously a certain principle in the doctrine; we do not have to argue about the significance of people like Ignorance, Talkative, Lord Hategood, Obstinate, Pliable, and so on.

In brief, the professor is saying that in allegory the moral and spiritual meaning is mediated through the symbols, which is certainly the case in Pilgrim's Progress and largely in Animal Farm, but which is manifestly not the case in any of the Narnia stories. This is surely the prime reason Lewis denied the Narnia books were allegories, not any attempt to deceive the market.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice responses, WG, showing clearly which of you two has in fact the better grasp of allegory (and not coincidentally, showing that arguments from authority that start with "You need to ..." are generally not very persuasive). Random similarities between X and Y do not make X a symbol -- let alone an allegory -- for Y. A good test is the general reader's response: is it "Oh, I see!" or "... Wait, what?? " Analysts like Wheat who stretch to forge such random similarities into Inner Hidden Deeper Meaning are really tiresome and lend academic criticism a pungent odor. (Not that Wheat is a scholar -- his degree is not in literature -- and in any event not all scholars are equally insightful. I second WG's recommendation of the Amazon reviews.) As for the Pevensies representing the Four Horsemen (wait ... what?? ), I have to say that this comparison fails to convince on several levels. The details aren't right at all (the children weren't granted one-quarter rule each over the world, they ruled jointly one country of it; Lewis describes Aslan, not the White Stag, as the Lamb of God; the Lamp did not come "after" the White Stag but was a pre-existing landmark), while the entire role assigned to the children in the narrative is completely at variance with that of the Horsemen. Which child should we associate with which horseman, and why? The comparison is just nonsense. -- Elphion (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to all three points inserted above by Atticusattor.

Lewis' understanding of allegory is the one that was prevalent in the Middle Ages, the area of literature in which he had the greatest expertise. It is true that he therefore unfortunately implicitly excludes Orwell's Animal Farm in that way. Lewis was less familiar with modern literature than medieval literature. But your note that the characters in Animal Farm are animals, not persons, is sheer technical pedantry. They function for all practical purposes in the story as persons (as does Aslan in LWW). But I am still entirely correct in claiming Lewis was using a "classical" understanding of allegory. you assert that Lewis's "definition was so unconventional to be absurd". (You are echoing your hero Leonard Wheat who states Lewis' definition of allegory in "ridiculous" on p. 86)(You aren't Leonard Wheat, are you?). This is a bit hard to take as Lewis' study The Allegory of Love is considered to one of most important milestone studies of medieval allegory published in the 20th century. I have now read the passage in Wheat (pp. 87-88) in which he rebuts Lewis' 'allegory vs. supposal' argument, for which you have evidently relied upon quite heavily in your post here. I have not read in full the passage from Lewis which Wheat is rebutting, but I suspect Wheat misunderstands Lewis' position (which Lewis admittedly seems to provide a mere sketch of). The core of Lewis' position seems to be the "allegory and supposal mix the real and unreal in different ways" (emphasis added), but Lewis, for example, never seems to say (as Wheat claims on p.87) that real people cannot be symbols too. That seems to be a straw man argument, and I suspect if I saw the Lewis passage, I would find other examples of the same.

Again it is unfortunate that Lewis' definition of allegory implicitly excludes Animal Farm but he is hardly alone in employing that definition. From Thrall, Hibbard, Holman A Handbook to Literature: "A form of extended METAPHOR in which objects and persons in a narrative, either in prose or verse, are equated with meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. Thus it represents one thing in the guise of another--an abstraction in the guise of concrete IMAGE. The characters are usually PERSONIFICATIONS of abstract qualities," (emphasis added).

I concede that Fowler's Modern English Usage is one of the most important books of its kind in the 20th century, but as it is simply a dictionary of literary terms, its very brief definition of allegory seems to me to be just a tad sweeping and broad. [New Insert: See Johnston's useful distinction between allegories and symbolic stories above. You stated "All that allegory requires is that the surface story tell a hidden story and that the surface story contain a substantial number of related symbols, symbols with a unifying theme." Johnston clearly disagrees.] I don't get your counter-examples to Bloom's criterion at all. (I misspoke. This is Edward Bloom, not Harold Bloom!!! And there's another famous lit crit named Allan Bloom!) To anyone living in Europe in most of the 20th century, an allegory of the Bolshevik revolution certainly would be called widely applicable to human experience. The difference is that more traditional allegories are about religious, spiritual and moral ideas, and Orwell wrote a political allegory that would be less relevant once Soviet Russia had disappeared or to people living remotely from it. You are right in interpreting Bloom's second criterion as "the symbols cannot be scattershot but must have a unifying theme", but he says more than that- "the symbols must be consistent in their relationships with the personifications or symbols which represent them in the surface plot" wherein Narnia stories IMO fail. You may find Bunyan's PP boring, but before Walt Disney it was a main text on which parents raised children in the Western world. At any rate, Bloom's definition of allegory may be too rigidly fixed, but it is not particularly "unconventional".

As for your Horsemen argument, acting as harbingers of war is the primary thing that the horsemen do- it is their role- regardless of what they ride or how many of them they are. You're just grasping at straws here.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-christian reactions

Just a thought: has this or the other Narnia books ever been published in non-Christian countries, e.g. the Islamic countries, or India or Japan? If so, what did they make of it? PatGallacher 09:56, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

Well, atheist me loves these books. Islamic reaction would be interesting, but we know that Lewis went out of his way in TLB to be inclusive, with Aslan saying "All who do good in Tash's name do it in my name", or something like that. So I don't know that there should be any significant problem re Islam itself (although arabic people might find other Narnian things upsetting). Leeborkman 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of translations linked to in the article -- http://inklingsfocus.com/translation_index.html -- includes Arabic, Hindi and Japanese. 2.25.131.173 (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dagger

From the edition I read, Lucy was also given a dagger by Father Christmas, but it's not mentioned here, has it been taken out because I do remember it not being in the succeeding books. Therequiembellishere 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure, but it may be that this newer version of the book has been adapted somewhat from the movie, as Father Christmas does give Lucy a dagger in the film version. Just conjecture, I don't know for sure... -Kanogul ^(talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The dagger is mentioned in my copy of the novel, which I've owned since before the film existed. Therequiembellishere is quite right -- it's not mentioned in Prince Caspian when they find the gifts again. 2.25.131.173 (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Chapters

The articles on The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle include a chapter listing, although the others do not. Should the chapter titles be listed in the articles or not?--roger6106 20:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of a chapter listing? Is that kind of information of any use to anyone reading Wikipedia? Leeborkman 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I think they should be deleted, but I want to give others a chance to say what they think.--roger6106 15:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say this type of information is definitely useful. However, it may be something not for here but a query for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I took care of it. It was an unneccesary inclusion. b_cubed 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Six years later we list the Chapter Titles (with a numerical sequence, without page numbers) in two of the seven book articles, here and at The Voyage of the Dawn Treader#Chapters.

Perhaps by coincidence, these two articles are also alone in covering "Differences between British and American editions. --P64 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Importance of References

I have just been busy finding references for all the adaptations that were recently removed without references. It turns out is the Filipino play, and NOT the Aussie play that Lewis' stepson Douglas Gresham was so impressed by- as the earlier unreferenced paragraph on stage productions had said. The Aussie play/musical was apparently very well staged, but its music was considered very weak. But it toured Australia and had a well-known director.

As the audiobooks are easily verified from Amazon.com, I have taken the liberty of restoring them without references. They only have a bare mention. Two of three of the radioplay audio versions are from well-known publishers.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Today I have cast the References in two columns (width 30em) and revised dozens of them.

On two or three points I tried to be complete and consistent: {dmy} publication dates, yyyy-mm-dd retrieved dates, and lastname-first authors.

For works referenced more than once I introduced short references with supposedly full Citations below.

All that, I have done "manually" (maybe the wrong word) rather than by introducing new templates such as {{sfn}} or {{cite book}}, or new template parameters such as {cite} last= and first=.

I have added information to several refs but completed only one of the many incomplete references.

See also Talk: The Magician's Nephew#References, about the other Narnia book article with many references.

P.S. Earlier I converted Further readings from reverse-chron order to chron order. Probably those should be alphabetical by author surname, same as the Citations. --P64 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Full-colour illustrations

In section Illustrations we say, "All the illustrations were restored for the 1994 worldwide HarperCollins edition, although these lacked the clarity of early printings.[17]" (emphasis mine)

The 1998 full-colour edition, Harper Children's Books, is now the immediate target of the {{worldcat}} External link in each book article. The illustrations were coloured by Baynes (third paragraph). Does anyone here know whether the original clarity of lines was restored?

--P64 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Book Order

Ok I want to add Book Infoboxes to this page and the others in the series. When stating previous books and subsequent book in the series, should they be given in publication order or the order in which they should be read? --NeilEvans 13:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard WikiProjectNovels is to list them in order they should be read. Grey Shadow 13:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You ask that as if there's a difference between publication order and (first) reading order. —wwoods 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between reading order and publication order. --NeilEvans 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Wwoods is getting at the fact that reading order and publication order are the same, but the current numbering on the books is different from those two. LloydSommerer 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I realise that the books were originally published in a different order. The new order reflects the chronology of Narnia itself, so that's the way the books have been ordered in their respective infoboxes. --NeilEvans 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For consistancy I changed them to the published order. This is the order that has been used in the template and in the series article. We're probably all familiar with the arguments for each ordering, but we have to go with one of them. LloydSommerer 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at other comments, maybe a little more information is in order. See Chronicles of Narnia#Reading order for background. The consensus seems to be that the original publication order is the prefered reading order. But that is not the chronological order (which happens to be the current numbering order on the books). Gresham seems to be endorsing the original publication order with the choice of which movie to shoot first. But others have argued that the ordering of the movies only indicates which one they think would sell the series the best. Of course, that might also argue for the best reading order... Blah Blah Blah, it won't ever end. It's like the guys arguing over whether Lewis was Irish or English or Northern Irish or British. LloydSommerer 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

mine does not have a comma after the word witch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.12.79 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

After reading Chronicles of Narnia#Reading order I am still unsure which order should be used. But I think of the Star Wars series of films they were not filmed in the order of their internal chronology, but they are listed on this site in that order. As to follow the story from one to six would show a natural progression of the characters. Although one can watch them in any order. If one watched the films in the order they were released one might wonder for example why Darth Vader became the way he did, which is explained in the earlier films, so they don't neccessarily need to be in any order, but on Wiki there should be a consesnus for these kinds of series.

--NeilEvans 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All I want to say is that the publication order was the ORIGINAL reading order, and it makes the most sense to order them that way. And, is it just me or doesn't it just feel like reading it in the original order makes the most sense? 74.192.45.152 (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just you. Most scholars agree that the original publication order is the most effective reading order. (Schakel has a whole chapter on this.) Lewis's stepson points to a letter by Lewis (to a young man who argued for chronological order) as firm evidence for Lewis's preference, but more likely Lewis was just being polite, and in any event did nothing to foster chronological order during his lifetime. The language of the books themselves points clearly in the other direction. -- Elphion (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Professor Kirke

Our character article Digory Kirke, section LWW, says "The professor's first name of Digory is not used in the text."

That is my recollection. If true, I think "Digory" should not be named here. --or named only in notes on other volumes, in section Character list. Meanwhile I think he may freely be called "Professor Kirke" rather than "(The) Professor".

--P64 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604183102/http://www.fountainoflanguage.com:80/youngones.html to http://www.fountainoflanguage.com/youngones.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That is now ref #60. I fixed or expanded several others manually. Among refs with external links to online sources, I visited all of #25-31 and #55-60 of which all external links work except #56-57. --P64 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070908234841/http://www.theblurb.com.au/Issue35/LWW.htm to http://www.theblurb.com.au/Issue35/LWW.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. 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/20140904220313/http://campus.huntington.edu/dma/leeper/DM101/Readings/@PDF/02B_It%20All%20Began%20With%20a%20Picture.pdf to http://campus.huntington.edu/dma/leeper/DM101/Readings/@PDF/02B_It%20All%20Began%20With%20a%20Picture.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819153449/http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/cslewis/ to http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/cslewis/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Both archive links check out, but I've replaced the second with a live URL to the original work on the redesigned site of the Lewis Institute. -- Elphion (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible Improvements

Here are some ideas for where my friend and I see room for improvements on this article:

• In the Illustrations section, it could be helpful to post images of the illustrations for reference.
• In the Film section, we are pretty sure there are more films adapted from the novel than just Disney's. More research would need to be done on this.
• In the Themes section, more themes could be analyzed. Also, more sources on the Cold War section could be beneficial for that specific theme, as we had a hard time finding sources on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetrarain (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There is at least one other movie, I will work on digging up a reference later. Not sure if we can include the illustrations without hitting copyright issues. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 18:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)