Talk:The Keys to the Kingdom

message: Other religious references? I'm sure the book is rife with that kind of allegory. --Aegwyn 02:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: the fith book is out. is there not a back bage with a preview of saturday's book? could the quote from the top be posted on the site?
-pravuil-
could he be Superior Saturday or Lord Sunday? he seems to like to mess with things, and he may be able to change gender...
-will-
whatever happened to paragraphs 1&2 of the will? the first part claims to be paragraphs 3-7...
-Tuesday-
Has tuesdays dawn, noon, or dusk ever been reapointed after lord author took over? it never says...
-leaf-
could leif possibly be the architect? she can see the house...
Well...
1. There's no preview.  There wasn't one on the others, so I hear...
2.  We can state what parts of the will are missing, but not what parts are what.
3. Pravuil could be anything to a grand manipulator, or just a regular denizen hired by Saturday.
4.  Considering that they probably won't reappear and not be referenced by name, there isn't much to say about it.
211.30.223.128 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion

message: I propose deleting the section "Speculation on future books using the Hero's Journey template" on the grounds that it is speculation, and thus has no place in Wikipedia.  Does anyone agree, disagree?Emmett5 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of a section 

message: I think it's kind of unnecessary because almost all literature in this genre follow the monomyth in some way. However, other articles don't point out how they follow the monomyth so I don't think it's necessary to do that here. Axem Titanium 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. That is why I removed it. Axem Titanium 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete monomyth section? 

message: I haven't had any comments on this yet, but I assume most would agree with the Virtue section I did a while ago? They seem to be the right ones for the right paragraphs. Also, Is it worth mentioning the significance of the book covers and the meanings in them, ie. The Keys, Will Paragraphs & the Denizens or creatures met pictured within, noting also the awards? --Aegwyn 14:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They look fine and they make sense. The books just didn't really emphasize the fact that the pieces of the Will had the Virtues too well. Axem Titanium 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Virtues & Covers

message: Is there any part of the books that confirm Friday's precedence over the Middle House and Sunday's over the Incomparable Gardens? Sir Thursday confirmed Saturday's domain is the Upper House, but these two's parts of the House have never been mentioned. It is more than likely that it will be that way round as Sunday, in charge of everything, can't really be lower than Saturday in the House, but you never know... I think this should be marked as probable in the same fashion as lust, envy and pride being the sins of Friday, Saturday and Sunday respectively, as it has not been confirmed in the books. 81.131.76.185 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When all's said and done, this is all complete speculation which doesn't belong on wikipedia. I haven't read Sir Thursday yet so I can't tell you anything about it but unless you talk to Nix himself and he specifically says something about this, it is speculation. Can somebody who knows remove anything that hasn't been directly confirmed by the books from the articles? Axem Titanium 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can talk about it here to determine what is and what isn't but speculation doesn't belong on the main article pages. Axem Titanium 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll edit the speculation off the front page, then (although my two cents is that Sunday gets the Incomparable Gardens).
Someone has changed the parts of the House to the way we believe they will come out. Was this referenced by a book? There doesn't seem to be any mention of it on this talk page. (Incidently, who agrees that the final key could be a crown? Can I even say something like this on the talk page?) Bio 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Amazon.co.uk's synopsis of the book says that "the race is on the solve the secret of the Middle House" (or something like that), so Friday's domain is almost certainly the Middle House - although, perhaps it should be noted that it this is just a presumption (although almost certainly a true one).  As far as I can tell, the past books are ambiguous on where her and Sunday's domains are, though, but Friday = Middle House and Sunday = Incomparable Gardens makes a lot of sense. Edit: The synopsis on the Australian publishers' site also mentions the Middle House. 
It makes a lot of sense if you think about. Incomparable means "So outstanding as to be beyond comparison; unsurpassed.". I think Lord Sunday would have dominion over this section of the house as he is supposedly the strongest of the Trustees (thus being "incomparable" among the trustees).
The Middle House is definetly confirmed to be Friday's as it is mentioned in the new excerpt from the book at the Allen and Unwin Keys to the Kingdom site. Go to http://www.keystothekingdom.com.au/ and click the link at the bottom of the page to view the excerpt. Lord Mandos 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Friday / Lord Sunday - Middle House / Incomparable Gardens 

message: Why is Leaf also able to see Denizens of the House? This could be very important. Bio 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaf

message: Are the quotes at the beginning of the article from the books? I've only got the Australian version and they don't have them. If so which version is it from? Yuanchosaan 08:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know they're on the British editions, although my MM and GT just had quotes from Anthony Horowitz.  I think I've seen them elsewhere, too.
yes. these quotes are on the back of the american books, at least the ones I have that are from scholastic. it was me who thought they should be on the site somewhere ( as they appear to have reference to the plot of the story) and put them there.Chimchimchim 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes?

message: Maybe we should rethink the last few morrow days and their sins. Was there anything that actually said whether Fridays was Lust? I presumed denizens do not have sexual lust, and that it can mean other things, but perhaps she is envious of the humans emotions and experiences they can have?
Obviously we cannot see what Sunday and Saturday are, but I am beginning to think that Saturday may actually be pride, seeing as she is running the house mostly, and Sunday is rarely heard of. We need more info, but if that note at the end was from him, he did not seem to care. Also, "Superior" Saturday may be a clue.
58.168.90.152 09:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Superior" argues pretty strongly that her sin is envy; she is apparently judging herself by comparison to her neighbors; whereas if her sin were pride she would instead compare herself to some unattainable ideal, and be unable to admit how she falls short of it. Ben Standeven 03:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Envy means you want something of someone elses; Pride means you feel better than others i.e. Superiority. I would say Saturday's would be Pride. I think that Sunday might actually be envious of the Architect, but thats just me. In reference to the first comment, since Lust is specifically desires for the flesh, not neccesarily sexual, I am pretty sure Friday's is Lust.Alcemáe 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Friday does not want the mortals flesh but rather their experiences. I don't agree that her sin is lust, but rather it is envy due to her obsession with "experiencing." I don't believe we will truly know what her sin is until we discover both Superior Saturdays and Lord Sundays deadly sins. AlMair 14:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morrow days and their sins? 

message: From the Plot Summary section:
 The series begins on a Monday, with the main events starting a week later, and each book moves onto
 the next day of this week, concluding on Sunday.
Wasn't there a gap of one week between Sir Thursday and Lady Friday?--Salty53 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While each book takes place on the day of its title, the events do not take place within a single week?
Also Mister Monday takes place over the course of a week beginning on a Monday when Arthur first receives the lesser Key and continuing through to the following Monday when he enters the House.--Teletran 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-week gap? 

message: I've merged a lot of the stubby character and location articles into the characters page and the article on the House. I've also eliminated the subcategories and centralized them into :Category:The Keys to the Kingdom for easy navigation. The books are in order under "*" and there were only 3 character articles and 1 location article after the merges so I felt like there wasn't a need for the character and location subcats. Axem Titanium 23:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching these edits for the past few minutes and I think they were good. However, my only concern is that there was some information in the Denizens of the House article that now no longer exists. Unless you were planning to merge that as well, I would suggest some of it be merged. Everything else were very good edits. Alcemáe   T  • C   23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree that the changes made were properly done. I am glad someone took the time to reorganize the characters section in such detail, good job Axem. AlMair 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed some of the Denizen stuff. If you feel like there was more that needed to be merged, feel free to do so. Axem Titanium 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold merges 

message: Can we please establish a pattern on what to call the two? Should they be referred to as Monday's Noon (previously Dusk) or Monday's Dusk (now Noon) or what? Or does it matter? Thoughts? Alcemáe   T  • C   00:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monday's Noon/Dusk 

message: Arthur, at the beginning of the first book, lives a relatively normal life as an adopted child in a large but caring family. An asthma attack on Monday that should have killed him brings him to the Lower House where he is declared heir to the Kingdom by convenience and given a Key shaped like a minute hand of a clock; the "Lesser" Half of the "First Key". Arthur is relieved of his asthma, at the beginning of a strange and dangerous set of adventures.
That part in bold is not correct. As I recall Mister Monday comes to Arthur in the park
Then bestows the key apawn him. Hoping that he might die before he is able to use it
Also:
"The series begins on a Monday, with the main events starting a week later. Each book moves onto the next day of this week, concluding on Sunday"
While this is semi-true Each say is successed by the other.... The Book Lady Friday does state that Arthur did spend an entire week after Sir Thursday in a state of coma (persay). And isnt just specualtion that it "will" end on a sunday?
A.H.
207.6.79.209 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. This is a wiki, so you can be bold and fix things that are wrong. Go right ahead. As a side note, generally new topics on talk pages should be made on the bottom of the page, so I moved this. I  (said) (did) 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: error?

message: The lead, as short as it is (could be expanded, as an aside), is completely drowned out by the TOC and the wide picture of the series. I suggest either expanding the lead to make it several lines long, or somehow rearranging what is going on around there. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: It mentions in the article that "Each part of the will also seems to act in a way of the seven deadly sins, differently from that which their forms imply." etc.
Might this not stem from the fact that each part of the Will represents a single virtue only, and that strongly defines their personality? Without temperence (represented by the Dragon in the series), might the virtues almost be considered vices?
examples:
*Part 1 (the Frog) - Fortitude - might this not cause it's seemingly wrathful behaviour
*Part 2 (the Bear) - Prudence - acts slothfully, because it is over-prudent?
*Part 4 (the snake) - overly judgemental because it represents only justice?
etc.
Any thoughts on this? --147.143.102.11 (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of the Will and Sin? 

message: In the wiki page, creatures such as fetchers and nightsweepers are referred to as Nithilngs. However, when Arthur first reads about nithlings in Mister Monday, the Atlas says something along the lines of "...this is not the treason of dealing with Nithlings, those self-willed creatures made from Nothing." This seems to imply that, for something to be classified as a Nithling, it has to be self made, so creatures like Fetchers are not Nithlings. This also raises the point that the Architect and Old One could count as Nithlings, as they are self-made  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.52.38 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The second is not correct as it is repeatedly stated throughout the books that the Architect and Old One are not Nithlings but "something" in the same way as Arthur ends up neither mortal nor Denizen
In addition I am removing the detail in the plot summary about previous biological terrorism as it is not mentioned in the books, simply a virus (possibly pandemic flu etc), although the Spirit Eater's mould is attributed to terrorism  Gamma2delta (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nithlings

message: This isn't really relavent. Should we remove it? Wise dude321 (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male/Female 

message: While the symbols and allusions section is reasonably comprehensive, there are still a host of references that seem to be missing from the entry.  I am planning on expanding the section to include more detail regarding symbols and allusions and specific references in the following categories: Greco-Roman mythology and literature, Judeo-Christian mythology, Arthurian legend, psychoanalytic symbolic imagery. Also looking at the manner in which each book and the series as a whole fits the traditional quest formula.  If anyone has specific suggestions, they would be appreciated.Thebravelittletailor (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols and Allusions 

message: Should it be noted anywhere exactly how out of shape this world was? I havent read the books in years... But I recall quite a few nasty things going on in their world. Tuesday digging through to nothing, Wednesday had a problem in her domain, if memory serves. Thursday's domain was under attack and about to be defeated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.246.25 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impending Doom 

message: I just felt that this was a little ironic and you guys might be interested in this. Thoughout the book Drowned Wednesday they called Lady Wednesday a leviathan. If you go to the seven deadly sins page on wikipedia it has a section about with demons are associated with which sin. I looked at this section and found out that there is a demon named Leviathan and it is associated with envy instead of gluttony. It just seemed a little funny. It makes me wonder if Garth Nix was aware of this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetist280 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drowned Wednesday 

message: How come drowned wednesday is the only one who wants the will to be fufilled?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmgtdwstlfssls (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drowned Wednesday 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Keys to the Kingdom. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110930064222/http://www.keystothekingdom.com.au/ to http://www.keystothekingdom.com.au/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050318112739/http://www.scifan.com:80/series/series.asp?SR_seriesid=4244 to http://www.scifan.com/series/series.asp?SR_seriesid=4244
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110930064222/http://www.keystothekingdom.com.au/ to http://www.keystothekingdom.com.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! Over at WP:cleanup, a cleanup request was made for the article List of The Keys to the Kingdom characters. The cleanup request was made because the article is way too detailed and is written in in-universe style. The same problems exist with The House (The Keys to the Kingdom). Those problems also go for this article, so this will require cleanup, too.
The subject of the two related articles have not received enough coverage to justify independent articles. Furthermore, they are in violation of WP:NOTPLOT, as all they are is an extension of this article's plot description.
Given that, I am proposing that 
*List of The Keys to the Kingdom characters
*The House (The Keys to the Kingdom)
be merged into this article. More than that will be needed, but this needs to happen first. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than merge List of The Keys to the Kingdom characters, just redirect as The Keys to the Kingdom#Characters is sufficient as it stands. Merge of The House (The Keys to the Kingdom) seems reasonable for the reasons given. Klbrain (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above to redirect/merge; the content in these articles should not be standalone articles. ~EdGl talk 17:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks! ~EdGl talk 19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge related articles into this one