Arvan
New member
Where is that found? And what is their definition of "long ago"? Personally, I think Lewis just didn't do well with continuity, no matter how good the stories were.
No. Just her actions.
Chronology questions
- Thread starter Peepiceek
- Start date
No. Just her actions.
Peepiceek
Well-known member
See Post #1 of this thread - I've listed all the relevant quotes there. [Edit:Arvan said:
Oops - not this one, apparently. I'll have to track it down and add it in, but I'm very sure it's there, when it says that Peter is at Professor Kirke's house.] Clearly "long ago" means two years in this context.I agree that Lewis probably didn't have continuity uppermost in his mind, but I like continuity and want to work out a plauible sequence.
Such as?
Peeps
Last edited:
Laurel
Member
You know, all of these things that make you think that they should be older--Peter fighting Miraz in Prince Caspian, and Edmund being intimidating to grown men in that book--don't necessarily have to be things that adults could see people of that age doing. They just have to be something that a kid of that age can see themselves doing, if you understand what I mean. When I read these books when I was, say, nine, I could definitely put myself in Lucy's shoes--in any of the books. And little kids never think they are little. So, even if an adult can't see someone of that age doing something, as long as a kid that age can see someone their age doing it, the character could be that young--if you understand me at all Still, I think the older ages listed right now make sense.
Still, I think the older ages listed right now make sense.
MrBob
Well-known member
"I teach 14 year olds, and some of them are still quite little. Also, the Dufflepuds are not terribly clever or discerning. And Reepicheep objects to them calling her a little girl, and refers to her as a lady."
Peep, Yes, and what would happen if you called them little girls? That would be insulting. Also, in the 1950s, would they have consiered 14-year-old girls little girls?
Also, in the book when Reep objects to the Duffers calling her a little girl, he is coming to her honor. He tells them "The lady is a queen." He is not specifically saying she isn't a little girl, just that the description does not befit who she is.
I put Lucy at about 11-12 in VotDT.
MrBob
Peep, Yes, and what would happen if you called them little girls? That would be insulting. Also, in the 1950s, would they have consiered 14-year-old girls little girls?
Also, in the book when Reep objects to the Duffers calling her a little girl, he is coming to her honor. He tells them "The lady is a queen." He is not specifically saying she isn't a little girl, just that the description does not befit who she is.
I put Lucy at about 11-12 in VotDT.
MrBob
Arvan
New member
Firstly, there's the fact that she was so naive, that she would go off into the wild in a strange place with a (literally) strange person. No matter what their attitude, I don't think a twelve-year-old with Lucy's good behavior would do something like that... but I know nine-year-olds who might, if the person was friendly enough. And we mustn't forget that the 1940's were very different from the 1990's, 2000's, and 2010's in regard to "stranger danger".
Then there's quotes like these:
"You ought to be ashamed of yourself, a great big Faun like you."
"I think you are a very good Faun. You are the nicest Faun I've ever met."
I have a sister who's younger than 12 that would never say things like that - and this is the 21st Century, where children are educated more slowly.
They would be insulted. But the Dufflepuds are looking for a female child. Lucy is a child. They call her a "little girl". Doesn't mean she actually is little, but she likely is. Just saying... but I think she was about 11 years old in VDT.
Peepiceek
Well-known member
In responding to some of the posts above, I am going to make use of principles that I articulated more fully in the Hermeneutics in Narniology thread, since there is a danger of talking at cross-purposes in discussions such as this.
It has frequently been noted (often with a tone of despair) that CS Lewis did not write his books with quite the meticulous attention to detail exhibited by other writers such as Tolkien. There are inconsistencies in his writing, and things that don't quite make sense. That leaves us with three basic approaches:
(1) We cannot resolve these inconsistencies, and therefore shouldn't bother trying, but should just enjoy the books for what they are.
(2) The inconsistencies can be resolved without doing serious violence to the text, although it may require us to modify what Lewis had in mind as he wrote particular sections of the book.
(3) The books are not in fact inconsistent, but we have just not quite understood Lewis's chronology.
To those who take approach (1), I suppose a thread such as this one is completely pointless and they would probably ignore it. Approach (3) seems to me to be unsustainable. It is therefore my basic assumption in this thread for we are going with approach (2).
Therefore, in response to those who want to say that Lucy was younger than I have suggested, or that LWW takes place in 1940, or other points of difference, I would not argue that there is no evidence to back up your view, or even that what you're suggesting might not be what Lewis had in mind when he was writing. He may well have envisioned LWW being in 1940 and Lucy being aged 8. However, in order to make logical sense of the series as a whole, I am suggesting that we need to modify those ideas. What I'm seeking, therefore, is a chronology that makes best sense of all the data we have in the books, and does least violence to the text.
Currently, I am aware of two chronologies: the much-disputed one alleged to have come from Lewis himself, and the one that I have set out earlier in this thread. I think mine makes good sense of the books as a whole; for example, although Lewis may have envisioned Lucy as being aged 8, I don't think that there is anything in LWW that could not be reconciled with her being aged 12, while there does appear to be a direct contradiction with the chronology of the books if we make her younger than 12 (because of the one year from LWW to PC, one year from PC to VDT and “more than a year” from VDT to TLB, by which time Lucy has left school).
What I'm asking, therefore, is whether anybody thinks that they have a better way of harmonising the chronology of the books than the one I have set out previously.
Peeps
It has frequently been noted (often with a tone of despair) that CS Lewis did not write his books with quite the meticulous attention to detail exhibited by other writers such as Tolkien. There are inconsistencies in his writing, and things that don't quite make sense. That leaves us with three basic approaches:
(1) We cannot resolve these inconsistencies, and therefore shouldn't bother trying, but should just enjoy the books for what they are.
(2) The inconsistencies can be resolved without doing serious violence to the text, although it may require us to modify what Lewis had in mind as he wrote particular sections of the book.
(3) The books are not in fact inconsistent, but we have just not quite understood Lewis's chronology.
To those who take approach (1), I suppose a thread such as this one is completely pointless and they would probably ignore it. Approach (3) seems to me to be unsustainable. It is therefore my basic assumption in this thread for we are going with approach (2).
Therefore, in response to those who want to say that Lucy was younger than I have suggested, or that LWW takes place in 1940, or other points of difference, I would not argue that there is no evidence to back up your view, or even that what you're suggesting might not be what Lewis had in mind when he was writing. He may well have envisioned LWW being in 1940 and Lucy being aged 8. However, in order to make logical sense of the series as a whole, I am suggesting that we need to modify those ideas. What I'm seeking, therefore, is a chronology that makes best sense of all the data we have in the books, and does least violence to the text.
Currently, I am aware of two chronologies: the much-disputed one alleged to have come from Lewis himself, and the one that I have set out earlier in this thread. I think mine makes good sense of the books as a whole; for example, although Lewis may have envisioned Lucy as being aged 8, I don't think that there is anything in LWW that could not be reconciled with her being aged 12, while there does appear to be a direct contradiction with the chronology of the books if we make her younger than 12 (because of the one year from LWW to PC, one year from PC to VDT and “more than a year” from VDT to TLB, by which time Lucy has left school).
What I'm asking, therefore, is whether anybody thinks that they have a better way of harmonising the chronology of the books than the one I have set out previously.
Peeps
Last edited:
MrBob
Well-known member
"there's the fact that she was so naive, that she would go off into the wild in a strange place with a (literally) strange person. No matter what their attitude, I don't think a twelve-year-old with Lucy's good behavior would do something like that... but I know nine-year-olds who might, if the person was friendly enough. And we mustn't forget that the 1940's were very different from the 1990's, 2000's and 2010's in regard to "stranger danger"."
Arvan, there is a huge difference between following a random person in your own world and someone in a magical land. Lucy was a stranger in a strange land and a faun, a creature she had never seen except for in fairy tales. Remember, Peter and Susan consented to follow the robin as well. Edmund had an excuse for his first time as Jadis was very intimidating and introduced herself as the queen.
I don't know whether we should consider this, but Lucy Barfield, the girl who was the inspiration for her namesale character, was 13 and six months when Lewis finished LWW. This would match up with Peep's ideas, but I still like to think of Lucy as 9 in LWW.
MrBob
Arvan, there is a huge difference between following a random person in your own world and someone in a magical land. Lucy was a stranger in a strange land and a faun, a creature she had never seen except for in fairy tales. Remember, Peter and Susan consented to follow the robin as well. Edmund had an excuse for his first time as Jadis was very intimidating and introduced herself as the queen.
I don't know whether we should consider this, but Lucy Barfield, the girl who was the inspiration for her namesale character, was 13 and six months when Lewis finished LWW. This would match up with Peep's ideas, but I still like to think of Lucy as 9 in LWW.
MrBob
katsullivan
New member
Hi! These are my own thoughts. But I will be honest. I read the Chronicles when I was very young so most of the time, I mentally inserted my own age in the age of the characters and it shows.
I think Lucy was 10 in LWW and 11 and 12 in the subsequent books. At the beginning of PC, she is starting school for the first time so she has to be 11. Edmund is a year older. I think Susan should be at least two years older or poor Mrs. Pevensie! Can you imagine have a newborn, not one but two other children under two! Although I hear that back in those days, people lived with their grandparents and cousins and lots of family members so there was always help at hand. This was before the Pill was invented so birth control really depended on how long and how well the woman was breastfeeding. Wow! So the children really could have just been one year apart from each other. My mom and her two brothers are exactly one year, one month apart in age i.e. Sep 1962, Oct 1963 and Nov 1964!!!
Me, too!
I think Lucy was 10 in LWW and 11 and 12 in the subsequent books. At the beginning of PC, she is starting school for the first time so she has to be 11. Edmund is a year older. I think Susan should be at least two years older or poor Mrs. Pevensie! Can you imagine have a newborn, not one but two other children under two! Although I hear that back in those days, people lived with their grandparents and cousins and lots of family members so there was always help at hand. This was before the Pill was invented so birth control really depended on how long and how well the woman was breastfeeding. Wow! So the children really could have just been one year apart from each other. My mom and her two brothers are exactly one year, one month apart in age i.e. Sep 1962, Oct 1963 and Nov 1964!!!
I read MN when I was 9 and I thought Polly was just a little bit younger. She is too... carefree. Too occupied with games and playing. There isn't any mention of school at all and if she was older than 10, she should have been either thinking about going to boarding school or would have been on holidays from it.
I like this idea! And maybe when the Winter went, the children encouraged the Narnians to explore beyond the border and they found Archenland.
You know, all of these things that make you think that they should be older--Peter fighting Miraz in Prince Caspian, and Edmund being intimidating to grown men in that book--don't necessarily have to be things that adults could see people of that age doing. They just have to be something that a kid of that age can see themselves doing, if you understand what I mean. When I read these books when I was, say, nine, I could definitely put myself in Lucy's shoes--in any of the books. And little kids never think they are little. So, even if an adult can't see someone of that age doing something, as long as a kid that age can see someone their age doing it, the character could be that young--if you understand me at all
Me, too!
Peepiceek
Well-known member
Hi Kat
Welcome to the forum! And thanks for your post.
Peeps
Welcome to the forum! And thanks for your post.
TMN does actually say that it is during the summer holidays.katsullivan said:
I'm actually working on a thread to explain everything about how Jadis came to take power, and what was going on in other countries during the long winter. But it's not quite ready for publication yet!
Peeps
katsullivan
New member
But does she mention boarding school at all? If she was in school, it would be a big part of her life and if she was just about to start, it would be something she would be thinking about. And remember, Aunt Letty said that 'Mavis was the biggest baby of the three'. It really seems that Polly and Digory are very young.
That's true, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Lewis started Lion when Lucy was younger, then shelved it for a few years, then pulled it out, finished it, and published it. If he "cast" Lucy at the age when he started the book, that would affect things.
I also remember reading that though the book was dedicated to Lucy Barfield, the Lucy character was actually modelled on one of two girls who came to stay at The Kilns to escape the bombing in London. So trying to tie Lucy's "book age" to Lucy Barfield would be an error to begin with.
I just had a Thought. When I was 12 years old, I had come to that terrible age where you start growing up and losing aspects of your imagination, bit by bit.
Lucy has 'child-like faith' and a vivid imagination which is more similar to what I was like at nine.
In addition to that, in the 1940s, children were expected to 'grow-up' sooner than they they are now....
Lucy has 'child-like faith' and a vivid imagination which is more similar to what I was like at nine.
In addition to that, in the 1940s, children were expected to 'grow-up' sooner than they they are now....
Arvan
New member
Yet she still had those after she left school.
Peepiceek
Well-known member
I'm not convinced by this: if anything, I think our children have to grow up more quickly. They certainly become physically mature earlier and are sexualised at a younger age, and the internet means that socialising becomes more complex at a younger age. Arguably they are more stressed due to exams and have to consider 'work-life balance' much more than earlier generations.MissReepicheep said:
Peeps
katsullivan
New member
According to Lewis, that isn't 'growing up' at all.
LOL!
Arvan, you're right. And I still have mine too, it's just not the same...
Peepicheep, that's a good point to. In that sense, children today our forced to grow up too soon. In the 1940s, children TRULY grew up sooner, by taking on responsiblity at a younger age. Still, children today have their imagination zapped first. You're right.
LOL, Kat, good point.
Arvan, you're right. And I still have mine too, it's just not the same...
Peepicheep, that's a good point to. In that sense, children today our forced to grow up too soon. In the 1940s, children TRULY grew up sooner, by taking on responsiblity at a younger age. Still, children today have their imagination zapped first. You're right.
LOL, Kat, good point.