Talk:List of Narnian creatures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Narnia To-do:

Contents

[edit] Original Text

The original text for this article was provided by Joshua Bell of NarniaMUSH, and is used here with his permission granted as per Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. LloydSommerer 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

As already outlined on this talk page, this list is a mess. It is unsourced, and it would be difficult to source it now as it stands because most of the information is not from C. S. Lewis but from classical mythology, which is unacceptable. I've decided to finally tag this page for clean-up. (Additionally, I just removed a bunch of cartoonish pictures. The list is also incorrect in numerous areas in terms of spacing, formatting, and grammar.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've started to have a go at completely rewriting this, but it may take some time. See User:Tivedshambo/List of Narnian creatures for progress. – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

RIGHT! I got so sick of this poorly-written article that I have just done a complete edit of this thing, books in hand, to get rid of all of the useless, non-book-related information and waffly padding. Everything in the main part of the article is now straight from the books, with appropriate citations as to which book a certain comment relates. If something wasn't in the books or wasn't given sufficient citation, I got rid of it. I would have added references to page numbers too, if it were not for the fact that some editions are a little different because they don't have the illustrations. I also merged several sections together to keep things tidy and concise. *goes to lie down* - re: 03:14, 19 February 2007 121.44.147.15

Many thanks to you, anonymous user! That was much needed. If you had an account I would give you a barnstar. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is JakeGothic? I see that he has been removing information from the article that comes directly from the books and adding his own descriptions instead. If you want to add information to the article, JakeGothic, please cite which book it came from, otherwise it is merely speculative on your part, and speculative material does not belong in a Wikipedia article. And continually stating that naiads and dryads can be male is a huge error on your part - please read the Narnia books, and then consider that C.S. Lewis does actually know his mythology more than you do. - re: 09:40, 22 February 2007 203.122.208.69

[edit] Why have descriptions here?

In order to avoid dozens of articles that are of only a few sentences, I've added descriptions to this list. As such, I didn't add links to Narnia specific creatures. My though being that they should be directed here instead. Thoughts? LloydSommerer 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on descriptions

I am concerned that many of these descriptions have no warrant in Lewis' novels. For instance: "Cruels are short, hairy, ugly creatures. There are very few of them in Narnia. They have extraordinarily long teeth which they use for biting, and enjoy torturing their victims." In fact Lewis mentions 'Cruels' only once, and says nothing about them -- in fact, he explicitly says he is not going to describe them (with a bunch of other monsters of the same sort). What are these descriptions from? A movie promotional? Some role-playing game? Such sources ought to be explicitly stated and distinguished from Lewis' own writing. I'll let the original author of these descriptions have a go at cleaning up the article, but if nothing is done there will be a bit of pruning necessary. 68.100.18.183 16:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCritic

Many of the original descriptions are from a Narnia MUSH. It's very possible that some of them have been "embellished". I would say go ahead and cleanup then ones that cannot be verified from the books. Maybe it would be best to move those descriptions here, so that if people do run across references they are easy to restore? We do that for paragraphs that need citation in The Chronicles of Narnia article. Just a thought. LloydSommerer 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are the descriptions I've removed:
  • Ankle Slicer: Small reptilian creatures with parrot-like heads. Their average size is only a foot high. True to their name, Ankle Slicers bring down their enemies by slicing through their ankles with sharp scythes.

Reason -- not in books, source not given

  • Cyclops: Brutal one-eyed warriors loyal to the White Witch. They are surprisingly intelligent, and are skilled in swordfighting, using spears and many other forms of combat.

Reason -- not in books, source not given

  • Gryphon: Magnificent creatures, part-eagle and part-lion with large ears. They have mastered both land and air, and are valuable fighters in Aslan's army.

Reason -- not in books, source not given

  • Harpy: Horrifying bat-like creatures that serve the White Witch. The fact that they can fly high above their foes and are swift enough to avoid arrows makes them one of the hardest of opponents to defeat. They attack by dropping large rocks from above.

Reason -- not in books, source not given

  • Minoboar: Part man, part boar. One of the White Witch's most dangerous henchmen.

Reason -- not in books, at least not under this name

  • Succubus: Are the female versions of Incubi,and take the form of beautiful young women.

Reason -- not in books, source not given

Here are descriptions I've altered:
  • Boggle: Boggles are a nasty, vaguely humanoid race of goblins that serve the White Witch. They are thin, almost skeleton-like, with dagger-like claws. Some of them are viciously clever and lead other creatures in their terrible traps.
  • Cruel: Cruels are short, hairy, ugly creatures. There are very few of them in Narnia. They have extraordinarily long teeth which they use for biting, and enjoy torturing their victims. They are cowards, though, when facing anyone bigger or stronger than they are.
  • Eagle: Eagles are quick, keen flying hunters. Their eyes are the sharpest of any Talking Beast, and their insight is such that they can often see into the hearts and intentions of others, in addition to seeing far distances. They are extremely formidable opponents in combat, especially when teamed with Gryphons.
  • Efreet: They are Calormene genie-like spirits . Very little is known about them in Narnia. They are terrifying and powerful, and various Tarkaans and Calormene nobles variously fear them or deny their existence. The ones who deny very often live to regret that decision, but not much longer.
  • Ettin: Ettins are giant-like creatures, though not as large or as stupid as proper giants . They fight with clubs. Some of them have two heads, others four arms, but never both.
  • Ghoul: Ghouls are terrible creatures that come from the darkest places of the night. They move in silence and grab unsuspecting people from the shadows. They perish at the sight of daylight. Physically, they resemble corroded, old humans.
  • Hag: Hags always appear as ugly old women, with warts on their noses and hair growing out of the warts. Usually they have come to look like this because they have dabbled in Black Magic, such as the kind that Jadis used. They hope to make use of the power they get this way, but they are never happy. They excel at making potions.
  • Horror: They are ghost-like creatures that are entirely black in color, and sometimes cannot be seen at night. They are not stealthy, however, for they prefer making loud, terrifying cries, and jumping into battle with their vicious claws.
  • Incubus: Another of the evil creatures that serve the White Witch. Incubi are gargoyle-like demons that have bat-like wings growing out of their backs. They can appear as extremely handsome young men, if they choose. They cannot fly very far, however, and one with a true heart will see through their disguise.
  • Ogre: Ogres are tall, hairy, unfriendly beasts with very large noses. They are one of the largest fighters in the White Witch's army. Probably the most shocking thing that can be said about them is that they are even stupider than giants.
  • Minotaur: Horrible monsters, half-man and half-bull. After Spectres, they are the second-deadliest warriors of the White Witch's army, lowering their horned heads and charging ruthlessly into battle. They can kill just as easily with swords and double-axes. When not fighting in such ways, they enjoy sitting in the middle of labyrinths.
  • Orkny: Orknies are short, pointy-nosed, very mischievous goblin-like creatures. Their mischief, however, is never friendly or good-natured. They are sworn to serve the White Witch, and sometimes come to live in the basements of people who have become too selfish and ill-natured themselves.
  • People of the Toadstool: Very short, very evil creatures that live among enchanted mushrooms of the very worst kind. They are cruel beyond cruel, but can only work in groups because of their small size.
  • Silvan: Silvans are faerie like creatures that resemble either pretty,golden-haired girls or androgynous,dark-haired boys,they have butterfly-like wings and fly around the woods of Narnia,they are the spirits of the air and they live amongst the dryads and hamadryads.
  • Spectre: Of all the terrible creatures that Jadis called up for her evil deeds, spectres are the worst. They are evil spirits from places where things never ought to be touched. They have all the powers of ghouls and wraithes, and more.
  • Sprite: Sprites are tiny, imp-like creatures that fly on very small wings. They do not grow longer than one foot in wingspan. They cause a great deal of mischief, and though they are not friendly at all, they are not as dangerous as orknies because they are not as powerful. They love to eat the leaves of trees mercilessly, and for this reason are enemies of the Dryads.
  • Water Rat: Water rats are larger than Talking Mice, certainly a good deal gruffer and hairier. They often operate on small riverboats of their own manufacture. A number of them made their way, through various circumstances, to Tashbaan, where there are still a number of them living beneath the docks.
  • Woose: Wooses are medium-sized, very fat and nasty creatures. They are grey and have no hair at all, so that when they close their eyes and sit very still, they are sometimes mistaken for large stones.
  • Wraith: Wraiths are wispy, ghost-like spirits that are very difficult to see in clear daylight or especially at night. Only when there is mist or fog or rain do they become more easily visible. They are some of the most dangerous of the White Witch's creatures, because they can easily sneak upon people at night and suck their life away from them.

Reason -- in all of the above cases, the descriptions go well beyond what is mentioned in Lewis' books.

If it is felt that these creatures appear in Narnian games, movies etc. I would suggest putting them in a separate section with clear identification of where the information comes from. RandomCritic 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Nice work. LloydSommerer 18:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length of life

It is stated that the Talking Animals have lifespans approximately the same as humans - a statement which is not only unsupported by the books, but directly contradicted in The Last Battle. Please do your research before making such unfounded assumptions. --Tim4christ17 12:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just got fed up, and have made multiple edits in an attempt to make the list more Canonical. There're are still more edits that need to be made, as well as references introduced, but I've done all I can without digging out my copy of the series. (Don't worry, I will soon.) --Tim4christ17 12:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strictly Cinematic Creatures?

I think we had better include strictly cinematic creatures (e.g. rhino), as long as they are identified as such after the headword.

Similarly, the embellishments for fantasy games etc. might be useful, but their non-canonicity must be mentioned. Nhrenton 5:49 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dryads

Who keeps changing the text to say that male trees are called dryads? This is incorrect, please refer to both the Narnia books and the mythological origins of dryads. 30 October 2006

[edit] Telmarines?

Do Telmarines count as creatures? Perhaps we should make a general comment for Humans under H.– Tivedshambo (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They're certainly different from Calormen, or other groups of humans. Since Narnia's to a large extent a nonhuman world, it makes sense to me to put the various groups of humans into the same list. --Alvestrand 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confessions....

Um...I'm really sorry if my editings have been a burden to you all.Its just that I think that Dryads can be male or female and Hamadryads were walking trees with human-like features.It just makes sense to me you know?I thought ALL tree spirits in narnia were spiritually tied to their trees.And besides, Lewis doesn't describe the Hamadryads or Silvans seperately from the dryads, neither does he state that they are titles to difeerent wood people.And the whole centaurs and satyrs and fauns being either male only or having females in their species is crazy!I believe that all races in narnia have male and female counterparts!The whole idea of a faun reproducing with a dryad where she has males memebers in her race own species is kinda gross when you look at it.Anyway I appologize for any inconveniences regarding this page.Please forgive me...Jakegothic

I'm sorry, but I think I speak for everyone when I say it doesn't really matter what you believe. Personal opinions and speculation cannot enter into Wikipedia, yet you keep changing this article to reflect your own ideas. What matters is the mythology that is used by C.S. Lewis, a learned master mythologist. Please visit these links to learn about nymphs[1][2], dryads[3][4], and naiads[5][6]. Lastly, please note that never under any circumstances are these creatures male. To call a nymph male is as though you decided to call a dog a cat. It's simply not possible. A nymph is not an entire species. The word "nymph" specifically pertains to a female being. 121.44.73.166 07:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Kraken article

Why did you guys remove the Kraken article??the Kraken is definintley mentioned in VDT.Just read the chapter where Lucy discovers the sea people!

It's true that it's mentioned, but it isn't quite clear from the context whether it's a Narnian creature or not. Lewis mentions it in his own narrative voice. Perhaps if you restore the Kraken entry you can make it a bit more clear that although it may be Narnian, Lewis mayn't necessarily be referring to it as a Narnian creature but rather as an example of the type of creature that lives under the sea in legends (from Lucy's and Edmund's point of view thinking over it back in England, as the book states). 121.44.73.166 02:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit article

Ok, what do you guys think of spirit article huh?It's a good way to make all those nymphs and nature gods as a species eh?And it even includes the ghostly races, am I right?If any of you see and gramar miss spelling or left-out info,please, by all means go right ahead.

Good idea in principle, but it would tend to complicate things unnecessarily because the nymphs and gods aren't spirit-like in form. They are corporeal (they have physical, tangible bodies). I'm puzzled as to why you want to make all these different creatures seem like one species, because they aren't one species - they're different, which is why they have different entries. Also, we can't include Spectres and Wraiths as spirits or ghost-like beings, because Lewis never describes them as such, so that's personal conjecture. Reasonable conjecture, and possibly correct, but still we can't put it in an encyclopedia article as it has nothing specific from the books to back it up. But it would have been a good idea, sorry about that! If you can find any book evidence to back up calling Wraiths and Spectres "spirits", it would be fine, otherwise I think it should be removed for now.

Oh - and just as a quick note for future reference - dryads and naiads are both different types of nymphs (there are many different types of nymphs in mythology, though Lewis only uses those two types in Narnia) so you don't have to think of them as separate from nymphs. Trees are wood nymphs, and naiads are water nymphs :). 121.45.110.204 08:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tree People

I read the books and noticed something, most of the books say that tree spirits have human like bodies and can go in and out of their trees, whereas in Prince Caspian, the tree spirits use their trees and shape them into human shaped bodies.I think the former are the dryads and the latter are hamadryads, it does makes some sense doesnt it?I mean, sure in mythology dryad could just leave their trees and go back inside whereas the hamadryads die if their trees are cut down, but the books never makes them distinct and whether if the dryads, hamadryads, and silvans where seperate species of wood spirit or respective titles for different sorts of wood people.Can someone explain please???

[edit] Fan Fiction Creatures?

I'm sorry but I really think that this section must go. I for one think the article should focus primarily on the creatures included in the literary works, however I can see the viability in including the film creatures in a seperate specifically labeled section as we currently are. The video game creatures I'm really iffy about, but fan fiction come on guys, do a bunch of stories who are written by fans and are in no way officially endorsed by Lewis' estate or Disney/Walden really deserve mention in an encyclopediac article? I think the answer should be pretty clear on this one.

199.79.36.25 22:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs some major cleanup, I think we really need to establish a consensus of what belongs on here and what doesn't.

Aurum ore 22:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan Fiction creatures are not part of the official Narnian canon, but fan-based creations and therefor original research which Wikipedia strongly disapproves of. They have no place in an encyclopedia, including this article. If you disagree with this, discuss it here before re-instating this section

S Luke 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grffins and Goblins

Goblins do appear in the desney adaptions. and there is a griffin in the BBC adaption.

Yes, small monsters that somewhat resemble the goblins from The Lord of the Rings films appear in the Disney movie but that doesn't mean they're called "goblins". If people can find an official source for this this, then that's find. However, to just pick a creature from either the BBC or Disney films and slap a name on it is still original research.
S Luke 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have the extended version of LWW, watch the extra stuff when they're talking about creatures and they'll mention goblins dude,

Jakegothic

Alright, sorry I didn't think to check the bonus features. Although this is one of the reasons I wish people would a better job for citing their sources for that section. S Luke 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

However, if you check that same extra on the DVD, you'll notice that they say, quote: "Goblins are vaguely Human-like creatures. In Narnia they are also known as Boggles." They never appear under the name "Goblin" in the books, and as such should not be listed in the main section of this article. If they must be included in the film section, "Goblin" should only redirect to "Boggle", as the creature's information is already listed there. S Luke 22:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptations section

I think this entire section needs to be reorganized. It appears that some of the creatures appear in more than one adaptation if that's the case where do we put them? My thought would be to add them under the first category they appear in, for instance we only mention the creatures under the "Disney Film" section that didn't appear in the book, similarly we would only list the ones from the BBC version that didn't appear in either the books or the Disney film, etc. Also the vast majority of the descriptions here contain original research for example the description of the Cyclops:

"Brutal one-eyed warriors loyal to the White Witch. They are surprisingly intelligent, and are skilled in swordfighting, using spears and many other forms of combat."

Where does it say any of this in the film? I think it'd be great if some of us could work on these descriptions to make them as accurate and canonical as possible. They illustrations section also could really use some work.

22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Human Characters

This article is names "List of Narnian Cratures" and as such I believe the various human characters listed in the BBC version such as "Jungle Tribesman" and "Dark Samurai" don't belong here. Not only are these characters human, and therefor not intended for such a list to begin with, these are not their official names but merely fan terms used to describe them,a nd therefor speculation. I don't mind leaving the actual creatures such as Cockatrice listed in the BBC section, but this is a page for the creatures featured in Lewis' literary masterwork not for fan created job classes. Aurum ore 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them since no one commented here. Aurum ore 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centaur and Marsh wiggle article merge here

They are very short, basically stubs that will be deleted on their own, and would add some detail to this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)