Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Create article. I love these books. i have read each like 4 times. so cool. their not as heavy as The Lord of the Rings so it is so mmuch easier to read and they are just as enjoyable as The Lord of the Rings. --Will N. 18:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Consider mentioning CS Lewis's original order for the novels, and the re-published order (in time for the release of the feature film)? Also, I think the referents for some of the references (ie, which figure is Mohammed in Last Battle) should be made explicit. DunsScotus 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I read the books 3 times. I regard them as Christian allegory. If there is a bona fide reference to Mohammed, I'd like to know about it. But not written as speculation. --Ed Poor 18:27, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
That sounds very speculative. MountainDew 18:36, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Whether The Chronicles of Narnia is allegory or not I should like to point out that Lewis is not God. He didn't really know everything that was going to happen so anything about Muhammed in the Chronicles (especially The Last Battle) is purely guessing and fictional literature. That would make it speculations of speculation (confusing.) --User:Additioner, 25 April, 2007

Contents

Narnia as Bible stories? (Allegory)

While the strong Christian undertones (and true identity of Aslan) are unmistakeable, I think that claiming that the books are a straight retelling of the Old and New Testaments is rather stretching it.--M 20:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with M. It does have many similarities with the Bible. These are definitely christian books but to say that they are straight retellings is not quite true. Could this be changed in some way? --User:Additioner 14:02, 16 April 2007

Right, I agree. Its definitely not a "re-telling" of the Bible, and not even a true, straight up allegory. Some of the stuff (Especially in LWW) was obviously intended to be allegorical, some other stuff was obviously based on the Bible, but not strictly allegorical, and all placed with a lot of fiction. I made some changes to the beginning to imply these different facts about the biblical and allegory stuff. As I may be wrong, and going with the whole Wiki method of working, feel free to revise the stuff I revised. Mskreuz 18:11, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

C.S. Lewis' Name?

I don't want to contradict somebody, but is it really Clive Sinclair Lewis? Anything I've ever read said "Clive Staples Lewis". Is this right.Mskreuz 12:52, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

You are absolutely right it is Clive Staples Lewis. `Additioner 14:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah, cool! I wonder where that did come from. That's rather weird, that somebody would make that mistake. Oh well... Mskreuz 14:45, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

They probably mixed his name up with that of Clive Sinclair. - JasonAQuest 17:20, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Or Sinclair Lewis... Human 18:12, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Our World/Narnia

Not to be rude, but when you switched our world and Narnia, you totally missed that. They are adults in Narnia, and return to our world, not become adults in our world, and go back to Narnia as kids. That totally contradicts the book. Just something I noticed. Mskreuz 15:08, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Religious Criticisms

It is just my opinion, but the religious criticisms are rather long and overly specific. The arguments probably should be summarized quickly or they should be fewer. I also think they rely over-much on an allegorical interpretation of the Chronicles and sometimes in little details. I don't think it's completely allegorical, although there are allegorical parallels. Sometimes the arguments (such as that last one on celibacy) is incredibly weak. I think it should be altered or moved to a debate page, where the arguments can be examined and discussed. (However, I'm glad the author of these critics was careful about how he placed the arguments and gave it a section.) -Additioner 15:48, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the compliments. I wrote some of the criticisms because there are Christians who see these books as a perversion endorsing magic. Instead of stating this in such explicit terms, I tried to convey some of the specific issues we have with the books without explicitly calling them a false allegory intended to lead children astray. Listing a handful of criticisms is, I think, a compromise between those who see Narnia as a loose retelling of Christian cosmology and those who see it as a way to pervert a child's image of Christ, The Trinity and reality in general.--AlexC 23:11, 11 January 2009 (EST)

There are two issues in play. First, the policy of criticisms has to be done a bit more carefully so that it's not just a discussion section, I think a good way of mending this would be to find references of well-known thinkers, who agree with you. Now, I'm not booing any and all criticisms of the books. I too have some qualms with them. I think for example universalism is creeping into the Last Battle, as well as historical pessimism.

Second, here's the problem with some critics. You want to be specific, but some of the evidence is incorrect, badly interpreted or isolated. Taking the celibacy argument. This is somewhat isolated information, which refers to one example, Susan's. However in the other books characters get married (Aravis and Shasta) and are married (Mr. & Mrs. Beaver.) Also, you have to look at other Lewis books and how he talks about marriage there. (That Hideous Strength is climaxed by the reunion of a husband and wife beautifully.)

Finally, I just want to thank you for returning my comments. I think you have rightly motivated concerns. While we will probably disagree alot, I think we could have a very good analysis on this. Perhaps this could be moved to a debate page so that it doesn't take up to much room if discussion becomes to long. Thank-you. -Additioner 20:48, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I have to say, the religious criticisms need some work. It seems to me that if we want to be fair, we at least have to have some rebuttal to these criticisms, and at that point, it sort of becomes a debate, doesn't it? I would support these rebuttals below being on the page, or moving all that material to a debate page and then linking to that debate from this article.
Endorsement of astrology - Signs seen in the stars are frequently used as an irrefutable truth by the natives of Narnia. Apologists have claimed astrology is being used to symbolize Biblical prophesy. This would mean the Narnia books are deliberately using a forbidden form of divination to represent Biblical prophesy.

It's a childrens story. Astrology doesn't work, beavers don't talk, and Jesus wasn't a lion. That doesn't make the novels religiously flawed.

Prince Caspian marries Satan's daughter - Keen readers have noted that at the end "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" Prince Caspian marries the daughter of a fallen star. In the Book of Revelations stars are used to symbolize the angels who joined Satan in his rebellion against God and fell from Heaven. When asked what a star could do to be cast down from Heaven, the Narnian version of Satan declines to answer, only implying the answer would disturb Caspian and his crew.

Again, trying to be too direct in our translations from our world to Narnia results in this kind of mistake.

Aslan is distinct from his Father - Despite being used as a Christ figure in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" the prospect of a trinity is never raised. Aslan is depicted as distinct from his father, and no hint of a Holy Spirit analog surfaces. This, at best, leaves Aslan as an incomplete metaphor for Christ.

Aslan appears in Narnia distinct from the Emperor Across the Sea, just as Jesus appeared on Earth distinct from God the Father. The similarity is basically perfect, except Aslan seems to come around more often. And I'm sure if C.S. Lewis had thought it kids would have read a Narniaziation of Acts, the Holy Spirit would have a Narnian equivalent as well.

Breeding between species is common - Despite Biblical injunctions against mixing species, several characters are a blend of human and non-human ancestry. The most notable of these figures is the tutor of Prince Caspian, who is part dwarf. In Narnia, dwarfs are not just a separate species, never intended to intermarry with humans, but a collection of distinct species who aren't even meant to marry each other.

Wow. OK, first of all, it's a childrens story, and a fantasy. If we must be so literal, well, perhaps what is forbidden in our universe is not forbidden in theirs. Additionally, the books never endorse Trumpkin's (I think that was his name, right?) heritage.

Satanic figures used as heroes - Lucy meets a pan like character on her first visit to Narnia. The figure has horns and a lower body resembling that of a goat. Both traits are traditionally associated with artist representations of Satan, or with the pagan figure Pan, known for lasciviousness, drunkenness and sexual assault. In short, she meets a minor demon, and he becomes a "good guy."

Yes, and there are giants, too, which are good guys, unlike Goliath. It's a fantasy. This is silly!

Universal Celibacy is demanded of the heroes into adulthood. Marriage is not permitted - At the conclusion of the series, three of the four human characters from "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" enter a "new" Narnia, an apparent analog for either the post apocalyptic Earth ruled by Christ or for Heaven. Susan however does not enter the new Narnia, having been excluded from further attachment to Narnia by her lifestyle on Earth. The text is vague on the specifics, but she appears to have been exercised for either pursuing a promiscuous lifestyle or for trying to find a husband. This means Narnia, intended as an analog for Heaven, does not permit those who have married or tried to marry. It's important to note that Lewis himself was celibate at the time he wrote the Narnia series and did not marry until well after their publication, as fictionalized in the movie "Shadowlands." One meaning that can be derived from Susan's exclusion is that Lewis, at the time, believed that only the celibate faithful entered the Kingdom of Heaven. Lewis' view of marriage is further highlighted by the fact that the text leaves the reader unable to tell if Susan has become a Jezebel or is pursuing a Christ centered marriage. The text seems to equate the two.

The point that there are many married couples in Narnia that are GOOD has already been made, and made well - the beavers, Caspian and his wife, etc. Let's examine why Susan was actually banned: "...she says 'What wonderful memories you have! Fancy you still thinking about all those funny games we used to play when we were children.'" And Jill says, "She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations." People take this to mean that because she started wearing lipstick, she can't get into heaven. That's obviously not it - it's because she's lost her faith. The lipstick is just an example of her embracing SOLELY worldly things. If she wore lipstick, but still believed in Narnia, remembered it, loved it, she would have gotten in just fine.

Anyways, these are my objections to the objections on the page, and I think some form of them should be included. Before I make those edits, I'd like to hear what AlexC thinks. JDBowen 01:27, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree with most of the comments by JDBowen and agree it should be moved to a debate page. Unfortunately, I think AlexC is no longer a user of Conservapedia, since he has no link to a user page. I do not know the proper protocol for creating a debate page. -Additioner 16:29, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Recently, another user has placed conservative themes into the page (countering to an extent the religion criticisms.) I appreciate the need to counter the faulty claims, but I still think all of this needs to be either verified (by quoting Christian leaders or thinkers) or being removed to a debate page. I would hope that our pages would contain carefully sourced material, not just fall to individual opinion blaring. --Additioner 16:53, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Reading Order

Just wondering, what order did you read Narnia in? The order in which the books were released, or chronical order? Or in a different order? TobyKeet 19:17, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Personal tools