Talk:Prince Caspian

Too Much Info!

I would agree that this entry is too long, and contains too much information. The book itself is 223 pages long in most formats! Why the long summary? Is the "Names of Chapters" part really necessary? The "Theme" section also contains a number of opinions which do little to advance an objective understanding of the book. --24.19.171.110 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here it is 2009 and there's still too much. I've tried to slim down the plot summary (which after all is a "plot summary", not a "plot blow-by-blow description"), but it's still over-long. (Also corrected some details that seem to have slipped in from the Walden film.) Elphion (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I would hardly consider the fact that this is the only one of the Narnia books that doesn't begin with the word "the" to be trivia. Trivia in this sense consists of little known facts, not knowledge which is obvious on the face of it, but trivial in nature. Seeing as this is the only entry in this section, I am going to remove it entirely. Delius1967 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambig?

Considering that there are three things mentioned in the hatnote and that the new film is just going to get more publicity as the year goes on, should this page be moved to "Prince Caspian (book)" or "Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia" and the main Prince Caspian page converted in to disambig? Normally I would be happy for the book to take precedence over the movie based on it, but given that he is also a character the main article is not entirely clear in my mind, the paradigm case for disambiguation. Eluchil404 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

Personally, I think that the Commentary section overplays things in identifying faith as being a particular theme of this book. If I had to choose one of the Chronicles of Narnia as having faith as a theme, then I would select The Silver Chair. Or perhaps I just mean that the faith in The Silver Chair is the closest to Richard Dawkins's hostile picture of faith. -- Alan Peakall 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the entire Commentary section, which was recently readded, since it is entirely unsourced and appears to be original research. Themes and connections to other works of literature should only be added if they can be sourced to literary critics or other reliable sources. Eluchil404 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's almost time to remove the Commentary section again. It's not quite as bad as last time (and there are things worth preserving), but references are badly needed. Also, the main theme of the book (the importance of Lucy's taking responsibility for guiding the others to faith) is not even mentioned. Elphion (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Too long/detailed?

I'm not sure why the too long/detailed tag is on this article. Seems a perfectly acceptable length to me.--Wolf530 (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OR

I added the OR tag to the "Themes" section. Some of this sounds reasonable, some more far fetched. Essentially none of it is referenced. If we can't come up with some respectable references, the whole section should be removed. Elphion (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Subtitle

Since when did Prince Caspian have the subtitle The Return to Narnia in its title? I've always seen it referred to as simply 'Prince Caspian' ... --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 16:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From the date of first publication, as you can see from the image of the first edition in the article. -- Elphion (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Cover or jacket design is not reliable. I understand that the U.S. Library of Congress catalogs data from the title page (or from paperwork submitted by the publisher, for some more recent books).

For what it's worth, LCCat shows Prince Caspian: the return to Narnia for both the first and first US editions, and several others in its holdings. (There is also a recent picture book (i infer from "unpaged") adaptation Return to Narnia: the rescue of Prince Caspian.) Source: visit catalog.loc.gov and search title 'prince caspian'

For the final book LCCat shows The Last Battle: a story for children for the first ed (compare our cover image, The Last Battle); and The Last Battle for the first US ed and several others.

--P64 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

King Miraz's son

Is there any information as regards what became of Miraz's son? Such as, what his name might be. It seems such an obvious loose end. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Lewis never fills in that corner.

Lewis was closely familiar with Tolkien's immersive world-building and (evidently) consciously chose not to emulate him. When people try to treat Narnia like Middle-Earth, as an internally consistent fully realized "Secondary World" (Tolkien's term), they quickly find themselves frustrated; I certainly have. The only uniting thread that goes deeper than the text and won't come undone on closer inspection is the nature and identity of Aslan; I believe this was a deliberate choice on Lewis's part, to draw readers in to contemplate Christianity.

However, this shouldn't make much difference to the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia differs from fandom-specific wikis in that it treats fiction strictly from a real-world perspective. We do not speculate on what happened to fictional characters when they were not on the screen or page, unless those off-screen events are alluded to in the text. If Lewis never gave Miraz's son a name then he doesn't have one.

—VeryRarelyStable 23:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Missing Stage Adaptation

I keep trying to add info about another stage adaptation, and this is the reply I got after it was reverted: "crap sourcing". Even after I specified that these sources were okay (mainly https://answersingenesis.org pages), it wouldn't let me publish the change and fix something else. The story really was adapted by The Academy of Arts in Taylors SC, and it IS touring across the US right now. ~2026-47985-61 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

"Crap sourcing" is my characterization of https://answersingenesis.org. That website is for fake religious "science" coming from the Bible—a ridiculous idea. Nothing on that website can be trusted.

If Answers in Genesis is the only reporting source for a particular touring theater group, then that group is not prominent enough to mention on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, even if their religion is false, they still talk about real science and real events, and most of their propositions in their arguments are sound, so I don't know why they can't be trusted as a source. By the way, ~2026-47985-61, here are four sources for the performance: 1. Narnia Web 2. VisitBranson.org 3. Museum of the Bible and 4. https://thelogostheatre.com/. Hope this helps! ~2026-49014-47 (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It would help if you provided links to the sources rather than just names. Narnia Web and the site for the theater where the adaptation was staged wouldn't qualify as secondary sources, which we should have as a means of establishing that this performance is considered significant. Assuming the adaptation is located in Branson, a tourism website likely isn't sufficient either. Please do not re-add this text until there is a consensus in favor of including it. DonIago (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It's all religious crap sourcing with a promotional aim. The Logos Theatre is a church group, not a public venue. The pseudoscience of Answers in Genesis cannot be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. Stop trying to promote your religious mission here. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

so it wouldn't help to say that the logos theatre is already on another wikipedia page... ~2026-49014-47 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

do you mean this page?

The Horse and His Boy ~2026-49274-35 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)