Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/Archive 3

message: *There are two real places called Narnia, one in Spain and another in Italy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsommerer (talk • contribs) 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From influences on Narnia: Name

message: *The first movie, which was released in the fourth quarter of 2005, is also often compared to two other films: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (like Harry Potter, the Pevensie children are British and enter a magical realm), and Memoirs of a Geisha, which takes place at around the same time as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and that the Pevensie children are sold to another place, just as Chiyo, the geisha in the movie, was sold to another house.
I'm not at all certain that this paragraph adds anything to the article anyway. LloydSommerer 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (and the Pevensie children are evacuated, not "sold"!) — Matt Crypto 14:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed - and just weird... --Tomandlu 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Cinema

message: *It is clear that Lewis intended Susan to be the member of the family that puts "childish" things like Narnia aside in favor of the trappings of adulthood, and portrays that as a great loss. However, there is no indication that he singled out a female character based on a fear of or contempt for female maturity.
This isn't really supported by the articles currently cited in that section, so, after appearing for a week with a ((cite needed)) template, I have moved it here. LloydSommerer 12:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute tosh.  The dwarfs speak like English working class squaddies, and their hard-bitten refusal to be "taken in" (even at the cost of missing something good) is presented as a universal human characteristic.  (An instance is the "Vigilant" school of anti-romantic criticism, see An Experiment in Criticism; another is the bolshy type always going on about their rights. He may even have been thinking of some of his own left-wing students!)  Lewis has remarkably little to say about Jews in any of his works, which differs from his models Chesterton and Williams.  (Note: Tolkien's dwarves are supposed to be something like the Jews, as Tolkien explains in a letter, but are portrayed favourably on the whole.) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Critisism

message: I've re-arranged the section a little, but haven't changed the content (save for minor grammatical changes). 
However, what's principally wrong with this section is that half of it reads more like a Philip Pullman soapbox than an encyclopaedia entry. Pullman is well loved for his Dark Materials children's trilogy, and he's a competent author. However, as a philosopher or theologian, Pullman is a light-weight, and does more to harm the cause of atheism than he does to support it. 
This section of the article would be much better if we quoted more scholarly and respectable critics, or at jsut made it more succinct. The bulk of Pullman quotes belong to the Philip_Pullman article.
Some of the sandbox suggestions are great, but we should avoid emphasising that critics are authors (where they are) in case the reader implies that the criticism is of a literary nature, which it is not. 
Oliver Low 16:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rearranged, but needs big changes 

message: !!!!  So annoying.  The lion, withc, and wardrobe is just the most popular.  Magician's Nephew is the first book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.249.9 (talk • contribs).
:Only where fiction is truth. Alientraveller 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the first book, chronologically. In the order of publication, LWW came first. This is totally irrelevant, since both orderings are explained in the article. --Cheeser1 17:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Magician's Nephew is a prequel. It is the story which is set earliest, but it is NOT the first book. Myopic Bookworm 10:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW IS THE FIRST BOOK 

message: I think that to keep in-line with wikipedia standards, the flag should be changed beside CL Lewis' name to the flag of Ireland at the time of his birth, as is the norm. English, Scottish and Welsh celebrities are represented by the flags of England, Scotland and Wales, not the Union Jack. Have a glace at the page of Oscar Wilde.
:It's far too contentious. (The Wilde page has the flag of Leinster. Lewis was born in Ulster, at a time when the whole of Ireland was in the United Kingdom.) The Union flag is probably under-used in the interests of excessive nationalist fervour by English, Scottish, and Welsh contributors. Myopic Bookworm 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Like Steven Spielberg and Star Trek, editors simply treat the "criticism" element as a playground for bashers. Critcism as a whole means every evaluation on the subject, positive or negative. Thus far, I read it and see little positive analysis on why Lewis' series is so popular. Alientraveller 08:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is unbalanced 

message: "Drew Trotter, PhD, president of the Center for Christian Study, noted that the producers of the film version of The Chronicles of Narnia felt that The Chronicles of Narnia closely follows the archetypal pattern of the monomyth as detailed in Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces (Trotter 2005). Joseph Campbell himself felt that the New Testament adhered to the archetypal monomyth and was but "one version of mythic stories that can be found in many cultures" (Jacobs 2004). Both The Chronicles of Narnia and the New Testament contain Jungian archetypal imagery."
I have several objections to this paragraph.  First, the article quoted is in fact arguing against the idea of C.S. Lewis being influenced by mythology in the way that J. Cambell understands it.  It seems inapproriate to reference something in order to assert something contrary to what it is arguing.  At best it shows that the producers of the film were influenced by one type of understanding of mythology.  The second sentence is even more off topic.  It asserts that Christianity is a product of monomyth.  But this assertion does not relate to whether C.S. Lewis shared this understanding of Christianity or whether this potential understanding influenced the writting of the Narnia series.  If this argument is topical, then every work of fiction, movie, art should have a similar section on it's wiki, explaining that it is a product of monomyth.  The last sentence could be applied to most works of fiction, et cetera.  At the very least, it needs a reference to justify it's topicality.
I love Cambell's work almost as much as I love Lewis'.  And Lewis is undoubtably influenced by mythology to a much greater extent than the section currently explains.  But I see no evidence to see that Lewis' understanding of mythology was in any way compatible with Cambell's.  The paragraph seems to be the work of a Cambell fan-boy who has gone to great lengths to find a rational to add information about Cambell's opinions to this entry.  It should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.77.83 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence from Mythology 

message: I concur with the author of the paragraph "Criticism Section is Unbalanced" above; but for totally different reasons :-}
Balanced or unbalanced, it's kind of silly to give all that column space to people who push forth their own interpretations of Lewis but cannot cite any actual examples in his writing.  If they want to call Lewis a racist on the basis of the Chronicles of Narnia, then they should be able to cite passages that show, e.g. stereotyping of minorities; or hate-speech against minorities; or racially motivated mistreatment of minorities, by the Pevensies or their associates; or their encouragement, tolerance or condonement of any of the above, or similar, actions.
They are merely projecting their own fears and fantasies about Christians as a group, IOW "stereotyping".
Bottom line, there's enough racism, homophobia and misogyny in the world that we don't have to hurt our eyes looking for it in the works of Dead White Guys.
:Although I agree with your sentiment. Editors should not cite examples from his writing to prove he was a racist\sexist\whatever. That would be original research. Editors should cite notable critics who have done so. Ashmoo 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section is Unbalanced, II 

message: I chopped this counter argument to the counter argument to the accusation of sexism because it is unsourced and seems like pure editor opinion. 
However, it should be noted that both of those girls are repeatedly described as being tomboys and are portrayed as prepubescents, which undercuts the point (which is apparently against grown women acting feminine, rather than being against the female gender, which is normally equated with "sexism").
Ashmoo 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexism section: Unsourced opinion 

message: I chopped this para as it is unsourced and purely an editor's opinion. Even though it is quite reasonable (and probably true), we need to cite a notable scholar who has stated that it is not an allegory.
The Narnia series is not an allegory, because allegories have an overarching figurative level of meaning tied to the literal level, and the Narnia series has a literal level of meaning without any overarching figurative level, though there are figurative elements. The misconception that the Narnia series is an allegory is the result of the disjunction caused by the narrative taking place across parallel universes. There are similarities between the world of Narnia and our own, but these are literal manifestations of the same phenomena in multiple worlds, not allegorical abstractions. For example, the character Aslan is not an allegorical representation of Christ, but a literal representation of Christ only in another body, in another universe, and by another name. Aslan and Jesus are the same character in two different worlds. There is no allegory involved. As Lewis has Aslan say at the end of Dawn Treader, "There I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name."
Ashmoo 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree with chopping this whole paragraph. There is certainly an unsourced sentence in there (the one that is marked), but it looks to me like it is an explanation of what Lewis himself wrote and not an attempt to expand on that. LloydSommerer 12:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, according to my understand of WP rules, it that it is putting forward and argument (ie trying to refute the allegory claim) without providing a source for the argument. Although each individual fact is true (with reference to the primary source) the synthesis needs a notable source. WP isn't a forum and shouldn't be putting forth or refuting arguments. Ashmoo 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm reading it more as a definition of what allegory is and then explaining why Narnia doesn't fall into that category. I think I would have more trouble with it if I wasn't reading it as a restatement of the Lewis quote that appeared before it. LloydSommerer 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I think it is better to have the Lewis quotes and let them stand by themselves. Why restate something that has been quoted as a primary source? Ashmoo 11:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be sufficient to 1) quote and cite an example of a source calling the Narnia books allegories; and 2) quote Lewis' explanation of why they are not. Frankly, I think that at least some of them are more allegorical than he lets on, The Silver Chair in particular, and that he sells it short by denying that it is since it's a rare example of an allegory that's actually readable. Too bad I'm not a published critic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegory? 

message: It seems like the "Criticism" section would be more properly called "Controversy".  Isn't there anything to say about how the books were received when they were published and over time?  I came to the page because my memory, having read the series as a child and not looked at them since, was that the first few were good but The Horse and His Boy and The Silver Chair were two of the worst books I'd ever read, and wondering if other people shared that view.  Obviously I don't know enough to put it in myself, but if someone else is, it would be a good addition.  Perhaps this kind of material would be better placed under the individual book pages, but there's nothing there either.  KarlM 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually properly called criticism. Siskel and Ebert style criticism isn't the only kind of criticism. Example: feminist literary criticism. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  any literary criticism? 

message: When the Chronicles of narnia in Popular Culture article was deleted some time ago it was moved here and promptly slapped with a trivia tag. I attempted some months ago to rewite it in paragraph form to see if that would help, but I believe it didn't improve it any. I would like to see it on it's own page, because I think it is interesting, but I fully understand that many people find lists of this nature unencyclopedic. I have removed it from the article, and replaced it with a few examples of references from various areas. If you restore it, it's probably best to go with either a paragraph format or a list. The mixture wasn't working. 
I found this information too interesting to lose entirely, so I copied it to a blog page. I won't be linking to it, but if anyone feels it belongs in External Links feel free. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The clean up you've been doing is quite good - thanks for putting the work in. Alot of those pop-culture mentions just aren't important or notable, and their mention added nothing to this article (a tiny side-joke in an episode of South Park has no relevance to this literary work). It's appreciated. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: First, thanks for spending so much time on the article today giving it some much needed clean up! It is already looking much better. For the Pop Culture section, I must admit, I personally hate such lists and find them useless and more trivia than anything else, so I'm glad to see it go. In particular, with Chronicles of Narnia, I think it could be possible to have one or two paragraphs discussing its over all cultural influences without a need for a list at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture 

message: Include both positive and negative response 
The Chronicle's of Narnia books were very well received and continue to be published and widely read to this day. Literary criticism involves both positive and negative response. Under the criticism section in this article there is nothing but negative response in the form of allegations of bigotry and counter arguments to those allegations. This is very strange for a book series as positively received and as well-loved as the Chronicles of Narnia. An excellent example of a balanced literary criticism section can be found in the wikipedia articles for the Lord of the Rings and Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses. I would propose beginning the section with a discussion of how well the books were received at publication, any criticism they met at that time, any awards they have won, and then moving on to modern day revisionist critiques like the allegations of racism/sexism/etc. that currently dominate the section. 66.57.229.78 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to introduce meaningful, properly sourced, notable criticism of the work. However, much of that information is properly placed in other parts of the article. While "criticism" is not necessarily a negative term, the negative criticism doesn't fit anywhere else in the article but positive criticism (or "positive reception," book sales, praise, etc - which is what you seem to want to talk about) often belongs elsewhere. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The last time we made major changes to the criticism section we found it useful to actually write several new sections so that other editors could see what various editors were trying to accomplish without messing around with the article. Some of that took place on the talk page, and some on user pages like :User:Lsommerer/Narnia. You might find people more receptive to your changes if we could see what the final product would look like for this article. That also tends to keep things civil because can discuss large changes without immediately changing the article. This is not particularely standard wiki policy, but has worked well for us here in the past. The best recieved rewrites have kept in mind what other people were saying even, believe me, when the author didn't agree with all of them. LloydSommerer (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive and negative responses 

message: change the subsection titles from "racism" "sexism" etc. to "allegations of racism" or "concerns over sexist themes"
This serves two purposes: 
1)it is simply grammatically correct. "racism" isn't a criticism, it's a world view. "allegations of racism" is a critique. What do the critics do? They do not do "racism" they "allege racism" or "express concern over racist themes."
2)more accurately expresses that these allegations are far outside the mainstream.66.57.229.78 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaningless semantics. Racism is a criticism - it's a type of criticism, hence the subsections. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "allegations of racism" gives more information and is more true to the content of the subsection (allegations followed by rebuttal). What reason is there for not using that title? Drv208 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What reason do you have for changing it? "Racism" and "sexism" are types of criticism. Calling it an "allegation" is actually less true to the content. It sounds like an attack on Lewis (what you might seem to think it is) rather than literary criticism (what it really is). --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Racism and Sexism to "Allegations"

message: There are several dubious sources in the Criticism sections that are not up to Wikipedia's standards of acceptability WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia requires that articles "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.Sources that do not meet these standards should be used only in articles about themselves . I will itemize the list of dubious sources for discussion.Drv208 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your deal with Pullman? This is the second section on this very talk page in which you demand the removal of a source that meets reliability policy. It's an author with plenty of literary authority, who's writing criticism in a published source - supported by an Op-Ed, but drawn from an article by a journalist that's about his criticism. There is nothing wrong with these sources. The fact that you don't think Pullman's opinion is up-to-snuff isn't relevant - you're not a publisher, and someone who is has already published his opinion and a news article about his opinion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confused as to the standards of verifiability and relevance, neither of which I think these sources meet. Providing a forum for discussion of this issue is not out of line. Are there any other opinions? Drv208 (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an hour ago you asked me to point you to WP:RS because you had never read Wikipedia's policy before. Now you're telling me that I'm confused about the standards, as if that settles the matter in your favor?? And I'm simply commenting on the fact that you've started two separate sections within an hour to try to get Pullman's criticism (despite being published in a newspaper as a piece of journalism) removed from the article. -Cheeser1 (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Drv208, I left a warning on your page, but wanted to also state it here for the record and so the other editors can be aware of this. Your continued efforts to change the headings and content of the article despite consensus from all other editors on this article and multiple editors undoing your change is a reportable and blockable offense (see three revert policy, edit warring policy, and disruptive editing guidelines).  At this point, your edits could, and probably should, be considered vandalism.  You were cut a lot of slack earlier with your multiple attempts to cut out whole sections of the article against consensus.  All of the editors on this article have been extremely lenient in your continued attempts to change the article and in trying to discuss the issue with you.  You did succeed in giving the article a needed "kick in the pants" to get that section the updating it needs, however, your disruptive behavior will not be tolerated indefinitely.  I strongly suggest you step back and read up on basic editing guidelines and read the multitude of comments here that have tried to inform you as to proper Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when someone gives you a vandalism warning, that's not an invitation to use it on someone who happens to disagree with you (you, who stand as a singular objection to consensus) like you did here. That's extremely inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That vandalism warning was given before mine, actually. It came after you reverted a change I made to the subject title despite 1)suggesting the change on the talk page (which is honestly quite an appropriate thing to do. I do not understand your hostility to creating "two section on the talk page in an hour") 2)engaging in discussion 3)being told that they were "100% synonymous" and observing the wikipedia thinks "criticism" is an NPOV word and 4) declaring an intention to change it that met no explicit opposition.Drv208 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: your reference to "consensus" here is overblown. There are three other posters here who have expressed opinions similar to mine in the past, and there are two or three that disagree. The problem is that the three of you are the only ones who have continued to stick around. The others have given up.Drv208 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you're digging in your heels to fight until you get your way, I suggest you rethink what you're doing. Consensus is as consensus does. You're the only one advocating these changes, which don't have support from policy, precedent, or consensus. You can clamor all you want about your your opinions are right, how you represent some silent "consensus" of other editors, or how I'm a vandal because I reverted your unnecessary/inappropriate/unsupported changes, but that's not going to change anything. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That source was reprinted (see the citation just above the one you're citing as unknown). --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious sources in Criticism section 

message: I chopped this whole paragraph as it is rife with Weasel Words, provides no attributions for any one the arguments and and the end degenerates into an obvious opinion of a WP editor. Please reinclude with sources from notable critics.  
It is claimed that the reference to "lipsticks, nylons, and invitations" were intended to represent temptations of the "grown-up" world.  However, many oppose this view, arguing that the quote is taken out of context, and that Susan does not go back to Narnia in The Last Battle specifically because she no longer believes in it. It is not stated that Susan is permanently excluded; at the end of the story, she is still alive in our world with her destiny not yet fully revealed. Moreover, in The Horse and His Boy, an earlier work, Susan's adulthood and sexual maturity is portrayed in a positive light. In fact, in the same scene of The Last Battle, Polly Plummer—a woman many decades her superior—specifically states, "I wish she WOULD grow up." Thus, many argue that it was not the feminine lifestyle that was problematic, but that Susan let it become the larger part of her life—even allowing it to derail her faith in Narnia. Defenders of Lewis also cite the positive roles of women in the series, like Lucy Pevensie and Aravis Tarkheena, who are main characters in the The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and The Horse and His Boy, respectively. It is asserted that Lucy is the most admirable of the human characters, and that in general the girls come off better than the boys through the stories.
Ashmoo 11:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to restore a previous version of this paragraph from before some relatively recent problematic editing. This paragraph has three sources, and they all appear at the end of the paragraph, because there is a lot of "cross talk" between them. Feel free to seperate them out and put them with the respective points, but in my experience it makes the paragraph hard to read. LloydSommerer  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. But I think we do need to insist on explicitly attributing each criticism/rebuttal to a source. This stops editors coming in and adding there own unsourced opinions. Something the Criticism section is currently rife with. Ashmoo 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that I could edit this page myself, but I am not sure how to do what I think should be added to make it still look right.  I came to wiki to gather a little info on this series before I go buy it and I read a little here and there and get a spoiler... I think there should be a warning as this spoiler is HUGE! Here is the section that I am reffering to, "the end of The Last Battle the other children die and join Aslan in the Narnian afterlife. Susan remains alive, her ultimate fate unknown."  After reading that I feel gypped as I now have had the end of a book ruined for me.  Thank you for your time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordVeovis (talk • contribs) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism : Sexism