Talk:Narnian timeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Narnian timeline is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
List milestones Date Process Result October 30, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed October 31, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 12, 2006 Featured list candidate Not promoted December 9, 2006 Featured list candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured list

	This article is part of WikiProject Narnia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to C. S. Lewis' Narnia universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Narnia Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Narnia To-do: edit  Collaboration Dashboard This box: view • talk • edit Featured Article Candidates none at the moment Featured List Candidates none at the moment Featured Picture Candidates none at the moment Featured Article Removal Candidates none at the moment Featured List Removal Candidates none at the moment Peer Review none at the moment Good article nominees Battle of Beruna Ford Version 1.0 Editorial Team Assessment Narnia-related Articles For Deletion none at the moment Narnia-related Factual Accuracy Disputes none at the moment Narnia-related Neutrality Disputes none at the moment

Narnian timeline was selected as the Narnia Portal's selected article of the month for November, 2006.

Contents 1 Deaths of the children 2 Source of this information? 3 Failed GA 4 Dates in England 5 Past Watchful Dragon's 6 "and thus is considered canon." 7 Queen Swanwhite 8 Spoiler? 9 Side-by-side 10 Timeline problem 11 svg version of timeline, anyone? 12 Charn?

[edit] Deaths of the children

The article says "1949. Digory, Polly, Peter, Edmund, Lucy, Eustace and Jill, while riding a British Rail train that derails, die, as they are called to Narnia by Aslan." But does the book actually say that they died on the train, I don't remember it actually saying that, so it could be interpreted as POV really. Can anyone clarify??NeilEvans 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall this is confirmed when they arrive in Aslan's Country. But I'll check it out later. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rechecked the relevant chapter, and you are right Aslan confirms that they did die in the railway accident. It's been a while since I read the books I guess I just didn't remember al the facts.NeilEvans 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NeilEvans, it is confirmed in The LAst Battle, when Aslan tells Lucy, that is was a real accident.--Rsrikanth05 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of this information?

What is the source for the material in the timeline? Much of it comes from the Chronicles, of course, but some of it plainly doesn't (such as the assertion that Calormen was settled by Archenlander outlaws, and not, e.g., by a separate group from Earth, as Telmar was).

Does this material come from Lewis's letters? If not, where? In any event, I think the page ought to note the source of the information, and/or indicate when events are listed which do not come from the Chronicles themselves. -- Narsil 08:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I had found it on a random web site, seeing it cited here on Wikipedia a number of times. Apparently it comes straight from Past Watchful Dragons by Walter Hooper (ISBN 0-02-051970-2). Lewis provided the timeline for his writing of the book. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From all I hear, Hooper-supplied information is at best suspect. Was any of this in a book by C.S. Lewis? If not, then I think we should, at the least, note that the information is controversial. Narsil 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The timeline is used by other Narnia related books such as A Guide Through Narnia by Martha Sammons. I realize that this doesn't necessarily prove that it is from Lewis, but it does mean that other Lewis scholars belive that it is reasonable. LloydSommerer 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While these can't be cited as sources in the article, perhaps these will additionally convince you of the timeline's acceptability: FactMonster refers to the timeline as "C. S. Lewis' own"; an Amazon customer review says that "Treasury of Narnia" by Brian Sibley and Alison Sage refers to the timeline as being mentioned in the book; a reliable-looking fan site contains the phrase "Lewis' timeline, written after the books," suggesting he himself wrote it but it is not in canon. Furthermore, a partial selection of the timeline is included on the LWW DVD extras, approved by Douglas Gresham. We can always hope they'll eventually release the full timeline over time after all the DVDs are released. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, all of those citations you give strike me as being, more or less, "I totally heard this dude on the interweb say..." To me, it comes down to "if you trust Hooper, you'll accept the timeline; if not, not". (Unless FactMonster has some independent way of checking with Lewis?) As for Gresham, well, he was 18 when Lewis died, and I have no idea how much he discussed this stuff with his stepfather. My sense of him from USENET interactions was that he was a touch willing to cloak all his own speculations in the garb of Authoritative Pronouncements from the Stepson of Jack. (It's thanks to Gresham that they've put the wrong numbers on the spines of the books...) Mind you, I don't think Hooper made this stuff up out of whole cloth. But I think it's entirely possible that Lewis, say, might have jotted down some "notes towards a timeline", in extremely rough-draft form, and not thought through inconsistencies; and that Hooper, stumbling across them, might have taken some liberties in fleshing them out, and might have (unjustifiably) presented them as being Lewis's finished, considered opinion.

By way of comparison--Late in his life, Tolkien decided that his original Middle-Earth creation story (in which the world was originally flat, and the sun and the moon are fairly late additions to the cosmos) didn't make sense, given his conceit that this was the origin of our world, and that the Elves heard the details directly from angelic beings. Morgoth's Ring contains Tolkien's notes on what the revised creation story might be (with an earth round from the beginning, and a sun which is clouded by Morgoth then revealed again in the first age). But that is not regarded as part of "canonical" Middle-earth; Tolkien didn't finish it, and in aany event it was written long after the other pieces. I think the Timeline is, at best, in that category; and as such, it shouldn't be presented, flatly, as "the Narnian timeline", as if it came from the books or was directly implied by them.

I'm not heavily committed to this. I'd be quite satisifed if (a) The page on the Timeline noted that its only source is Hooper's book, which some have questioned; and (b) Other pages, when they make assertions based only on the Timeline, included a similar caveat (that the information comes not from the Chronicles or from indisputable Lewisiana, but from the disputed Hooper work). And if I'm the only one who feels that way, well, I can live with it. But if anyone wants my opinion, well, now they've got it. -- Narsil 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anywhere where a Lewis expert has suggested that the timeline from Past Watchful Dragons is not authentic. Can someone point me toward a source for that? LloydSommerer 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's the whole Lindskoog argument that Hooper's work in general is suspect. But if nothing else, there's the indisputable fact that with the timeline, Hooper published something which Lewis himself did not publish. Why didn't Lewis publish it himself? Perhaps he never took it that seriously. Perhaps he changed his mind. Perhaps the timeline was a starting point, and his actual writing led elsewhere. Perhaps he never got a chance to finish it. But in any event, given that Lewis never actually published it, I don't think we can argue that it contains "the facts" about Narnia; it should not be re-presented here as "the timeline of the world of Narnia", full-stop, but rather as "unfinished notes Lewis made towards a timeline of Narnia". And that's at the very best; at the worst, it would be "notes he made, which were then polished, rewritten, or redacted by Hooper". In either case, other Narnian articles shouldn't be citing the Timeline as fact (the way, e.g., the Calormen article flatly asserted that Calormen was settled by Archenlander outlaws); at most, they should say "according to the Narnian timeline, blah blah blah". IMHO. YMMV, CCBS. -- Narsil 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply added those sources to casually suggest the authenticity, but I see now this is a bigger issue. I don't have the time to read all of this, but it's about the war between Lindskoog and Hooper. We definitely need to note that the timeline is not in canon, but is written by Lewis himself – with an attribute that some scholars question this; still, as far as we know (adhering to WP:NOR), we trust what the publishers say. Also, I agree with you about articles saying "according to the timeline"; most of them should say that anyway, but we have a lot of clean-up to do in the project. Last, what's "YMMV, CCBS"? :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm passingly familiar with the Lindskoog stuff, but I don't believe that she or any other expert question the fact that Lewis wrote the timeline. Having said that, I agree that we should make the source of the timeline clear in the article and that all of the sources of information in any article should be cited. LloydSommerer 12:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If we can find a source for this sentence "Thus, even though the timeline is not in canon, it is commonly accepted among experts and fans to have a bearing on the series," we might be good for being a FL! Can somebody find a citation for this? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to add some closure to this discussion, the necessary attributions and citations have been added to the article LloydSommerer 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article basically is a list and list is covered in the GA system, not per WP:WIAGA.

A list is covered in the GA system, or not? You seem to contradict yourself. Either way, I'll go check out how to advance lists in quality. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates in England

I've got problems with the dates for a couple of books in the Timeline in England section.

• The Magician's Nephew — putting this in 1900 makes Digory only 52 in 1940. But in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Professor Kirke is a "very old man" (or seems so to the four children). All I can find to date the story is that "this happened when your grandfather was a child" and the reference to Sherlock Holmes and E. Nesbit's Bastable children, which I'd guess puts it in the 1880s or '90s.

• The Voyage of the Dawn Treader — In Chapter 1, Lewis says the events of LWW were "long ago, in the war years", which sounds as if it were set after the war. And I don't recall the children saying anything suggesting that their country is in the middle of WWII. Their father takes his wife and daughter along with him to America for the summer, which I'd think would be difficult to manage in 1942. On the other hand, in Chapter 2, Edmund says one year has passed since the events of Prince Caspian.

—wwoods 06:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me it's just a bit of continuity error on Lewis' part. He didn't fact-check the books alongside the timeline, it appears. However, this is information he has provided publicly, so there's nothing wrong, per se, to have the Professor seem like an old man but really be 52, or to misjudge the length of time as "long." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading the "long ago, in the war years" sentence, it seems ambiguous to me; it could be read as meaning long ago from Lewis's point of view as the writer (Dawn Treader was published in 1952). 84.69.192.60

[edit] Past Watchful Dragon's

I think we have to reference Hooper's essay as originally presented in 1971 Imagination & the Spirit: Essays in Literature & the Christian Faith Presented to Clyde S. Kilby, E Charles Hutter (ERD). Either that, or find another reference that describes the manuscript as coming to Hooper from Lewis (I don't think we can use Hooper for it either). Schakel references the original title of the essay, not the later book.

We can take care of the fact that it is no longer in common circulation by adding a further reading section and including the current publication. We could also move Sammons and Ford out of reference (since we're not actually citing them) and into the new further reading section. Does that sound okay to the rest of you? LloydSommerer 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Schakel claims it's part of 1971 Imagination & the Spirit then you say it's part of tha tand cite Schakel. You can't cite Hooper if you haven't read the actual source. It can be put into a further reading section, though. Sounds good. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "and thus is considered canon."

"and thus is considered canon.", this phrase bothers me. Canon is, if you'll pardon the expression, a rather "fan boy" concept. If we've established that Lewis is the accepted author then saying it is canon is redundant. If we haven't, then it can't be canon anyway. I realize this is somewhat a matter of taste, and would like to hear others take on this. LloydSommerer 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Lloyd, I just saw this. I guess I'm so used to canon from Harry Potter that it just came naturally to say it here. I have removed it, completely understanding your point. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Swanwhite

On the Timeline, there is the whole issue of the Two Queen Swanwhites - the "Last Battle"-listed 900s Swanwhite, and the Hooper Timeline-listed mid-1000s Swanwhite. It seems to me that these two could very well have been two different Swanwhites, i.e. Swanwhite I and Swanwhite II, much like there is an Elizabeth I and an Elizabeth II of England. It could certainly explain the difference in Lewis' notes and his books. Any thoughts???? 69.48.147.4 15:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea a lot, never having heard any sort of explanation for this. However, mentioning it in the article might classify as original research, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. It's still a very logical explanation. Good work. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler?

I find it quite strange to have a spoiler warning here. Anyone who looks up Narian timeline certainly expects to find just that, a timeline of Narnia? I think it makes no sense and it looks unprofessional. — mark ✎ 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably if somebody searches for "Narnian timeline" in the search box, yes, they will have read the series or be expecting of spoilers. But the page is not only accessed by searching for it. It is linked from many pages, most of which are not expectant of the reader to have read past a specific novel. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side-by-side

Is it possible to place England and Narnia side-by-side with the corresponding years next to each other? --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We tried it with an image a while ago. See what you think: older version. LloydSommerer 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add the image back, but I made the image, so I'm a little biased about it. If you don't feel it adds to the article, feel free to remove it. LloydSommerer 20:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline problem

• The Last Battle —Another timeline problem. In the chapter "How Help Came to the King," Eustace says, "I'm Eustace Scrubb and this is Jill Pole, and we were here once before, ages and ages ago, more than a year ago by our time, and there was a chap called Prince Rilian..." Anyway, the timeline says the time between "The Silver Chair" and "The Last Battle" by our time is around seven years. I don't think Eustace would have said "more than a year ago" if it was as long as seven years. Just thought I'd point it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.77.34 (talk • contribs)

Well, this is probably just a continuity error by Lewis. However, we can't change anything, or point out anything is wrong, because it is WP:OR. Good eyes though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] svg version of timeline, anyone?

Check out Image:Narnia_Timeline.svg. It works very nicely on browsers with svg support, but not so well on others, as the Wikimedia software doesn't generate a large enough bitmap. In general vector diagrams are better than PNGs for this kind of thing, as the text is easier to edit, they are smaller, and they scale better. In this case, with a lot of really small text, I'm not so sure what the best solution is. FWIW. --Slashme 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charn?

The Deplorable word, The Battle of Charn and Digory ringing the bell aren't even mentioned once! Were are they? Altenhofen (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)