100 Year Winter: Narnia Movie
Tim Bruening
Lewis) on Sunday. Spoilers below:
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
0
0
0
In this movie, 4 kids, named Lucy, Susan, Edmund, and Peter go through a
wardrobe into a land called "Narnia". It has been winter in Narnia for
100
years, thanks to a spell cast by the cruel White Witch.
How have the life forms of Narnia survived? I would expect that the
grass, flowers, and fruit would not
grow in the snow. This would cause the herbivores, bees, and birds to
starve, which would wipe out the animals that feed on herbivores, birds,
and bees. Granted, Narnia's animals seem to be as smart as Earth
humans, but I don't see how they could practice farming in all that snow
(especially since they have only a medieval level of technology. I saw
no sign of industrialization, use of fossil fuels, or even
greenhouses). The rivers and lakes are completely frozen, which would
eliminate the fresh water fish and any animals that prey on such fish.
Ken from Chicago
"Tim Bruening" <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:43A8BA82...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
>I saw "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" (based on the book by C.S.
> Lewis) on Sunday. Spoilers below:
<snip>
> In this movie, 4 kids, named Lucy, Susan, Edmund, and Peter go through a
> wardrobe into a land called "Narnia". It has been winter in Narnia for
> 100
> years, thanks to a spell cast by the cruel White Witch.
>
> How have the life forms of Narnia survived? I would expect that the
> grass, flowers, and fruit would not
> grow in the snow. This would cause the herbivores, bees, and birds to
> starve, which would wipe out the animals that feed on herbivores, birds,
> and bees. Granted, Narnia's animals seem to be as smart as Earth
> humans, but I don't see how they could practice farming in all that snow
> (especially since they have only a medieval level of technology. I saw
> no sign of industrialization, use of fossil fuels, or even
> greenhouses). The rivers and lakes are completely frozen, which would
> eliminate the fresh water fish and any animals that prey on such fish.
Magic.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. That said, animals and plants grow in winter.
Sea Wasp
Why isn't Sleeping Beauty withered away and either dead, or in need
of months of physical therapy to sit up when the Prince finally shows?
This is a fairy tale, basically. Those kind of questions are not
going to be answered, any more than "How do beavers, who lack the
appropriate voiceboxes and musculature and mouth structure, speak
perfect English?".
Maybe there's just a LOT of smuggling going on through Archenland,
anyway.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Evelyn C. Leeper
1) And as Mark noted in his review, "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver [are] two
beavers who talk but never say their reaction to the enormous fur coats
that the children wear."
2) Does all this really need spoiler space?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Complaint is the largest tribute heaven receives,
and the sincerest part of our devotion. --Jonathan Swift
Paul Ciszek
In article <NRcqf.3200$DM5...@fe08.lga>,
Evelyn C. Leeper <ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>1) And as Mark noted in his review, "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver [are] two
>beavers who talk but never say their reaction to the enormous fur coats
>that the children wear."
There are ordinary as well as talking animals in Narnia, and the people
and many of the beasts are not vegetarians. Decent Narnians, human and
otherwise, find the idea of eating a *talking* animal repugnant, while
not having a problem with meat in general. The same should go for fur
and leather.
>2) Does all this really need spoiler space?
No. By the way kids, Gollum destroys the Ring! And Hamlet dies at the
end! And it turns out that Oedipus has killed his own father and
married his own mother! Bwahahahahaha!
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
sp...@aslan.demon.co.uk
Andrew Rilstone
Mike Schilling
"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dobrpm$p6a$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <NRcqf.3200$DM5...@fe08.lga>,
> Evelyn C. Leeper <ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>1) And as Mark noted in his review, "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver [are] two
>>beavers who talk but never say their reaction to the enormous fur coats
>>that the children wear."
>
> There are ordinary as well as talking animals in Narnia, and the people
> and many of the beasts are not vegetarians. Decent Narnians, human and
> otherwise, find the idea of eating a *talking* animal repugnant, while
> not having a problem with meat in general.
Me 'usband's dead!
I'm so sorry. What happened?
I blames it on the laryngitis.
Christopher J. Henrich
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
> > In this movie, 4 kids, named Lucy, Susan, Edmund, and Peter go through a
> > wardrobe into a land called "Narnia". It has been winter in Narnia for
> > 100
> > years, thanks to a spell cast by the cruel White Witch.
> >
> > How have the life forms of Narnia survived?
>
> Why isn't Sleeping Beauty withered away and either dead, or in need
> of months of physical therapy to sit up when the Prince finally shows?
>
> This is a fairy tale, basically. Those kind of questions are not
> going to be answered, any more than "How do beavers, who lack the
> appropriate voiceboxes and musculature and mouth structure, speak
> perfect English?".
>
> Maybe there's just a LOT of smuggling going on through Archenland,
> anyway.
>
And, they serve up a high tea that is attractive to humans.
And (in the book - I don't remember it from the movie) Mrs. Beaver
frets about leaving behind her sewing machine. Sewing machines are
complicated manufactured goods. The first ones were made in the 19th
century, and I bet they would have been impossible earlier. Where in
Narnia is the industrial base needed for such high technology?
Answer: it's in your heads, fellow readers. You know about sewing
machines, so you supply one. This bit makes excellent narrative sense,
because it is just the sort of thing that people do fret about when
they should be running like hell.
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
Yes, one can rant about the program designs, but generally things keep getting
more and more confused as time goes on. --Sea Wasp
Lizard
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrotC:DRIVE_E
>
>Me 'usband's dead!
>
>I'm so sorry. What happened?
>
>I blames it on the laryngitis.
>
Props 4 teh win! (Or something along those lines...)
Sean O'Hara
Henrich declared:
>
> And (in the book - I don't remember it from the movie) Mrs. Beaver
> frets about leaving behind her sewing machine. Sewing machines are
> complicated manufactured goods. The first ones were made in the 19th
> century, and I bet they would have been impossible earlier. Where in
> Narnia is the industrial base needed for such high technology?
>
Don't the Beavers live fairly close to the wardrobe? Obviously
Wossisname, the guy the children were staying with, had a thriving
import/export business going.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Frankly I do not see how well either the taxpayers' interests or my
own would be served by my spending the next sixty or seventy years
in a Vermont jail.
--Donna Tartt, /The Secret History/
Dorothy J Heydt
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Christopher J.
>Henrich declared:
>>
>> And (in the book - I don't remember it from the movie) Mrs. Beaver
>> frets about leaving behind her sewing machine. Sewing machines are
>> complicated manufactured goods. The first ones were made in the 19th
>> century, and I bet they would have been impossible earlier. Where in
>> Narnia is the industrial base needed for such high technology?
>>
>
>Don't the Beavers live fairly close to the wardrobe? Obviously
>Wossisname, the guy the children were staying with, had a thriving
>import/export business going.
Professor Digory Kirke. Who had, of course, been there before
himself.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Ross Presser
> And (in the book - I don't remember it from the movie) Mrs. Beaver
> frets about leaving behind her sewing machine. Sewing machines are
> complicated manufactured goods. The first ones were made in the 19th
> century, and I bet they would have been impossible earlier. Where in
> Narnia is the industrial base needed for such high technology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewing_Machine
The first known attempt at a mechanical device for sewing was by the German
born Charles Fredrick Wiesenthal, who was working in England. He was
awarded British Patent No. 701 in 1755 for a double pointed needle with an
eye at one end. This needle was designed to be passed through the cloth by
a pair of mechanical fingers and grasped on the other side by a second
pair.
(OK, so it's only half a century earlier than you thought, and the
industrial base was definitely starting up ... I just couldn't resist.)
Peter B. Juul
> Professor Digory Kirke. Who had, of course, been there before
> himself.
Not when LWW was written. I don't even think he had a name then.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o
The RockBear. ((^))
I speak only 0}._.{0
for myself. O/ \O
Dorothy J Heydt
Peter B. Juul <p...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> Professor Digory Kirke. Who had, of course, been there before
>> himself.
>
>Not when LWW was written. I don't even think he had a name then.
Not a Christian name; he was known as Professor Kirke.
Even in LWW, notice how he's completely unsurprised by the
children's tales of where they've been and what they've done.
lclough
> In article <m2ek46g...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk>,
> Peter B. Juul <p...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk> wrote:
>
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Professor Digory Kirke. Who had, of course, been there before
>>>himself.
>>
>>Not when LWW was written. I don't even think he had a name then.
>
>
> Not a Christian name; he was known as Professor Kirke.
>
> Even in LWW, notice how he's completely unsurprised by the
> children's tales of where they've been and what they've done.
>
In the movie, I was delighted with the Professor's reaction. He
was obviously surprised when Peter and Susan confide in him, but
he is surprised that they got through the wardrobe, not that
there is a Narnia.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com
FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html
Peter B. Juul
[digory in LWW]
> Not a Christian name; he was known as Professor Kirke.
Do you have a reference? I am pretty sure he didn't get named until
TMN.
> Even in LWW, notice how he's completely unsurprised by the
> children's tales of where they've been and what they've done.
That's because he is wise. At the time of LWW, I'm quite certain Lewis
thought of the professor as his own alter ego. This sense is somewhat
strengthened by the fact that Digory Kirke's mother is mortally ill in
TMN.
It's pretty obvious that Lewis hadn't thought through the details of
the Narnia Chronicles. before he wrote LWW. Just look at the plethora
of other humans populating the narnian world in the later books,
whereas they are thought to be a myth in LWW (check mr. Tumnus'
bookshelf).
Actually Lewis claims himself that he had no idea he'd write another
book in the series after LWW.
See http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/cslfaq.htm#_Toc5085877
It's in the quote right before 3.22.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Well," said Aslan, "I suppose we could try lasers."
Bree
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>[digory in LWW]
>> Not a Christian name; he was known as Professor Kirke.
>
>Do you have a reference? I am pretty sure he didn't get named until
>TMN.
>
>> Even in LWW, notice how he's completely unsurprised by the
>> children's tales of where they've been and what they've done.
>
>That's because he is wise. At the time of LWW, I'm quite certain Lewis
>thought of the professor as his own alter ego.
Agreed. And the Professor had obviously read Lovejoy's THE GREAT CHAIN OF
BEING, and anyway it's all in Plato. Really. The old theologians thought
parallel worlds much more likely than not. God wouldn't have 'grudged' to
leave any possible niche unpopulated.
Imo this is a big reason to read Publication Order. :) For a random
grown-up to be this philosophically open-minded is a magnificent
intellectual achievement (like Lewis's :). If the Professor already knew
about Narnia because he remembered being there (and making the wardrobe out
of the Narnian tree) -- his reaction wouldn't be open-mindedness it would
be coyness, concealing his own knowledge instead of supporting Lucy!
If a child reads Pub Order they get to see the openmindedness for several
books, and then (if they make the connection at all) they get to find out
that Fiction Has Inconsistencies and some things are more important than
consistency.
/snip/
>It's pretty obvious that Lewis hadn't thought through the details of
>the Narnia Chronicles. before he wrote LWW. Just look at the plethora
>of other humans populating the narnian world in the later books,
>whereas they are thought to be a myth in LWW (check mr. Tumnus'
>bookshelf).
>
>Actually Lewis claims himself that he had no idea he'd write another
>book in the series after LWW.
>
>See http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/cslfaq.htm#_Toc5085877
>
>It's in the quote right before 3.22.
Here it is:
From a 1957 letter to a child:
"The series was not planned beforehand as she thinks. When I wrote The Lion
I did not know I was going to write any more. Then I wrote P. Caspian as a
sequel and still didn't think there would be any more, and when I had done
The Voyage I felt quite sure it would be the last."
--
Bree
Ken from Chicago
<sp...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1135179484....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Can you say "categorary mistake"?
>
>
> Andrew Rilstone
Is "categorary" a typo or some kind of nature / zoological term?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Evelyn C. Leeper" <ele...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:NRcqf.3200$DM5...@fe08.lga...
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>
>>> I saw "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" (based on the book by C.S.
>>> Lewis) on Sunday. Spoilers below:
>>>
<snip>
>>> In this movie, 4 kids, named Lucy, Susan, Edmund, and Peter go through a
>>> wardrobe into a land called "Narnia". It has been winter in Narnia for
>>> 100
>>> years, thanks to a spell cast by the cruel White Witch.
>>>
>>> How have the life forms of Narnia survived?
>>
>>
>> Why isn't Sleeping Beauty withered away and either dead, or in need
>> of months of physical therapy to sit up when the Prince finally shows?
>>
>> This is a fairy tale, basically. Those kind of questions are not
>> going to be answered, any more than "How do beavers, who lack the
>> appropriate voiceboxes and musculature and mouth structure, speak perfect
>> English?".
>
> 1) And as Mark noted in his review, "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver [are] two beavers
> who talk but never say their reaction to the enormous fur coats that the
> children wear."
>
> 2) Does all this really need spoiler space?
>
> --
> Evelyn C. Leeper
> Complaint is the largest tribute heaven receives,
> and the sincerest part of our devotion. --Jonathan Swift
>
Animals kill each other for food and shelter, why would they react to the
humans killing animals?
-- Ken from Chicago
westprog
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:W9ydnWwd7u6z5jfe...@comcast.com...
...
> > 1) And as Mark noted in his review, "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver [are] two
beavers
> > who talk but never say their reaction to the enormous fur coats that the
> > children wear."
> > 2) Does all this really need spoiler space?
No.
> Animals kill each other for food and shelter, why would they react to the
> humans killing animals?
Talking animals are regarded in Narnia as being equivalent to human. If a
talking animal or a human kills a talking animal, that is murder. The
beavers would assume that the fur coats were taken from non-talking animals,
which is almost certainly true. In TSC, the characters are horrified to find
they are eating a talking animal. (To varying degrees, depending on how
Narnia-accustomed they are).
Talking animals tend to approximate to human size. A beaver in Narnia would
be much larger than a regular beaver. (Horses, OTOH would be about the same
size).
Lewis was one of the few writers to address some of the talking-animal
issues which are ignored in most children's fiction, though he introduced as
many problems as he solved.
J/
Dorothy J Heydt
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>Animals kill each other for food and shelter, why would they react to the
>humans killing animals?
Depends on whether they're dealing with ordinary animals or
Talking Animals. Cf. Puddleglum's reaction in _The Silver Chair_
when he realizes he's been eating one.
rja.ca...@excite.com
> Magic.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> P.S. That said, animals and plants grow in winter.
Extremophiles?
Weren't a lot of living things turned to stone, like in _Yellow
Submarine_?
Is it relevant that at least the first two or three of the Narnia books
at least, were written while Second World War food rationing still
applied in Britain - up to February 1952...
Bree
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
White Witch as a rationing officer, stopping people from celebrating
Christmas? :) Actually I've heard that Cromwell outlawed Christmas while he
was in power.
Bree
--
Rilstone's Lewis FAQ is at
http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/cslfaq.htm#_Toc5085877
Eric Tolle
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:W9ydnWwd7u6z5jfe...@comcast.com...
> ...
> > > 1) And as Mark noted in his review, "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver [are] two
> beavers
> > > who talk but never say their reaction to the enormous fur coats that the
> > > children wear."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 2) Does all this really need spoiler space?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No.
>
> > Animals kill each other for food and shelter, why would they react to the
> > humans killing animals?
>
> Talking animals are regarded in Narnia as being equivalent to human. If a
> talking animal or a human kills a talking animal, that is murder. The
> beavers would assume that the fur coats were taken from non-talking animals,
> which is almost certainly true. In TSC, the characters are horrified to find
> they are eating a talking animal. (To varying degrees, depending on how
> Narnia-accustomed they are).
I have to imagine that that situation makes things difficult for
predators, especially the big hunting cats.
*pounce* "Uh, scuse me- can you talk? Hello? Ouch! Can you- hang on
a second- can you understand me?"
Kurt Busiek
See: Terry Pratchett's Amazing Maurice.
kdb
--
Read an ASTRO CITY story for FREE, at:
http://www.dccomics.com/features/astro/
Leebehr
nonspeaking ones. At least as far as the smaller creatures were
concerned. that _might_ make them easier to identify...
lclough
There is also the fact that talking animals tend to be carrying
artifacts (swords, armor), tools (sewing machines) or to be
talking constantly. How annoying it must be to be a Talking Cat
or Fox, and have to search for the -right- prey.
Mike Schilling
"lclough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:cSYqf.1781$x%2.546@trnddc06...
> Leebehr wrote:
>
>> IIRC some of the talking animals were slightly larger than the
>> nonspeaking ones. At least as far as the smaller creatures were
>> concerned. that _might_ make them easier to identify...
>>
>
>
>
> There is also the fact that talking animals tend to be carrying artifacts
> (swords, armor), tools (sewing machines) or to be talking constantly. How
> annoying it must be to be a Talking Cat or Fox, and have to search for
> the -right- prey.
Did you just eat a talking mouse?
Of course not. Why do you think it was one of those?
Well, it said "Don't eat me!"
Really? I couldn't hear it over my stomach growling.
David Johnston
wrote:
The talking animals were generally larger than their dumb cousins and
the only predator I remember from the books was Aslan anyway. Letting
yourself get eaten by Aslan is a holy duty.
Kurt Busiek
> The talking animals were generally larger than their dumb cousins and
> the only predator I remember from the books was Aslan anyway. Letting
> yourself get eaten by Aslan is a holy duty.
There are wolves, bears, at least one other lion -- plenty of predators
to be had among the Talking Beasts.
westprog
"Eric Tolle" <ericth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135362001.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
> > Talking animals are regarded in Narnia as being equivalent to human. If
a
> > talking animal or a human kills a talking animal, that is murder. The
> > beavers would assume that the fur coats were taken from non-talking
animals,
> > which is almost certainly true. In TSC, the characters are horrified to
find
> > they are eating a talking animal. (To varying degrees, depending on how
> > Narnia-accustomed they are).
> I have to imagine that that situation makes things difficult for
> predators, especially the big hunting cats.
> *pounce* "Uh, scuse me- can you talk? Hello? Ouch! Can you- hang on
> a second- can you understand me?"
I think that talking animals can tell each other from non-talking as well as
humans can distinguish men from women. There might be a few embarassing
mistakes, of course.
J/
Paul Ciszek
In article <2005122315045850073-kurtbusiek@aolcomics>,
Kurt Busiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>On 2005-12-23 14:16:41 -0800, rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) said:
>
>> The talking animals were generally larger than their dumb cousins and
>> the only predator I remember from the books was Aslan anyway. Letting
>> yourself get eaten by Aslan is a holy duty.
>
>There are wolves, bears, at least one other lion -- plenty of predators
>to be had among the Talking Beasts.
Yep, ordinary lions AND the talking lion in tLtWatW, who was one of
the "good guys" at least in that he was an enemy of the witch who
was depetrified and recruited for the big battle. Althought he
seemed to attache great importance to the fact that he was a lion,
it was pretty clear that he was no one special.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Tim Bruening
David Johnston wrote:
There was a Talking Lion statue at the Witch's castle. I assume that once he was
unstoned, he would eat animals.
Tim Bruening
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
But he had buried the Rings he and his girlfriend had used to visit Narnia,
and I didn't get the impression that he had known about the magic portal in
his wardrobe before the kids went through.
Tim Bruening
westprog wrote:
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:W9ydnWwd7u6z5jfe...@comcast.com...
> ...
> > > 1) And as Mark noted in his review, "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver [are] two
> beavers
> > > who talk but never say their reaction to the enormous fur coats that the
> > > children wear."
>
> > > 2) Does all this really need spoiler space?
>
> No.
>
> > Animals kill each other for food and shelter, why would they react to the
> > humans killing animals?
>
> Talking animals are regarded in Narnia as being equivalent to human. If a
> talking animal or a human kills a talking animal, that is murder. The
> beavers would assume that the fur coats were taken from non-talking animals,
> which is almost certainly true. In TSC, the characters are horrified to find
> they are eating a talking animal. (To varying degrees, depending on how
> Narnia-accustomed they are).
>
> Talking animals tend to approximate to human size. A beaver in Narnia would
> be much larger than a regular beaver. (Horses, OTOH would be about the same
> size).
The talking horse I saw in the movie was as large as a normal horse.
Tim Bruening
lclough wrote:
> Leebehr wrote:
>
> > IIRC some of the talking animals were slightly larger than the
> > nonspeaking ones. At least as far as the smaller creatures were
> > concerned. that _might_ make them easier to identify...
> >
>
> There is also the fact that talking animals tend to be carrying
> artifacts (swords, armor), tools (sewing machines) or to be
> talking constantly. How annoying it must be to be a Talking Cat
> or Fox, and have to search for the -right- prey.
The existence of sewing machines in Narnia indicates a technology
equivalent to at least the 19th century (I understand that sewing
machines were invented in the 19th century). Why don't the Narnians
have guns (invented long before the 19th century)?
Tim Bruening
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <NRcqf.3200$DM5...@fe08.lga>,
> Evelyn C. Leeper <ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >1) And as Mark noted in his review, "Mr. and Mrs. Beaver [are] two
> >beavers who talk but never say their reaction to the enormous fur coats
> >that the children wear."
>
> There are ordinary as well as talking animals in Narnia, and the people
> and many of the beasts are not vegetarians. Decent Narnians, human and
> otherwise, find the idea of eating a *talking* animal repugnant, while
> not having a problem with meat in general. The same should go for fur
> and leather.
I expect that the ordinary animals would have had severe difficulties
surviving that 100 year winter!
Tim Bruening
Ross Presser wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:04:38 GMT, Christopher J. Henrich wrote:
>
> > And (in the book - I don't remember it from the movie) Mrs. Beaver
> > frets about leaving behind her sewing machine. Sewing machines are
> > complicated manufactured goods. The first ones were made in the 19th
> > century, and I bet they would have been impossible earlier. Where in
> > Narnia is the industrial base needed for such high technology?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewing_Machine
>
> The first known attempt at a mechanical device for sewing was by the German
> born Charles Fredrick Wiesenthal, who was working in England. He was
> awarded British Patent No. 701 in 1755 for a double pointed needle with an
> eye at one end. This needle was designed to be passed through the cloth by
> a pair of mechanical fingers and grasped on the other side by a second
> pair.
>
> (OK, so it's only half a century earlier than you thought, and the
> industrial base was definitely starting up ... I just couldn't resist.)
At that time, there were already guns in Europe and in the Americas. Why
doesn't the Narnia of Peter's time have guns?
David Johnston
Just because you have fine mechanical engineering on the order of the
19th century doesn't mean you have mastered chemicals that go boom.
>
David Johnston
Probably not, now that I think about it. Predators were herbivores in
the garden of Eden.
>
Tim Bruening
David Johnston wrote:
With all that snow, Narnia didn't look like the Garden of Eden to me!
serg271
Tim Bruening wrote:
> At that time, there were already guns in Europe and in the Americas. Why
> doesn't the Narnia of Peter's time have guns?
No easy access to sulphur ?
Steven L.
> The existence of sewing machines in Narnia indicates a technology
> equivalent to at least the 19th century (I understand that sewing
> machines were invented in the 19th century). Why don't the Narnians
> have guns (invented long before the 19th century)?
I'll humor you by discussing this fantasy movie as if it's science fiction:
Civilizations don't all progress at the same rates, nor do they make the
same technological advances in the same order:
Why didn't the Mayans invent the wheel when it had already been invented
elsewhere? They had a better calendar than other civilizations, but no
wheel.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
lclough
Obviously, because they do not actually manufacture anything of
this sort, paws and beaks anc claws not being handy for the
operation of heavy equipment. All this stuff is made someplace
far away (Calormene? Archenland?) and imported. With what is
the Narnian economy paying for these imports? I suggest that
there is a reason why the funerary customs of the country are
never gone into. Mortuaries in Narnia also double as tanneries
and fur exporters. You could probably do something with the
meat as well...
Sea Wasp
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
>>
>> lclough wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Leebehr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> IIRC some of the talking animals were slightly larger than the
>>>> nonspeaking ones. At least as far as the smaller creatures were
>>>> concerned. that _might_ make them easier to identify...
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is also the fact that talking animals tend to be carrying
>>> artifacts (swords, armor), tools (sewing machines) or to be
>>> talking constantly. How annoying it must be to be a Talking Cat
>>> or Fox, and have to search for the -right- prey.
>>
>>
>>
>> The existence of sewing machines in Narnia indicates a technology
>> equivalent to at least the 19th century (I understand that sewing
>> machines were invented in the 19th century). Why don't the Narnians
>> have guns (invented long before the 19th century)?
>>
>
>
> Obviously, because they do not actually manufacture anything of this
> sort, paws and beaks anc claws not being handy for the operation of
> heavy equipment. All this stuff is made someplace far away (Calormene?
> Archenland?) and imported. With what is the Narnian economy paying for
> these imports? I suggest that there is a reason why the funerary
> customs of the country are never gone into. Mortuaries in Narnia also
> double as tanneries and fur exporters. You could probably do something
> with the meat as well...
"Soylent Narnia"?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Bree
They'd beat them all into sewing machines?
David L. Burkhead
> In article <2005122315045850073-kurtbusiek@aolcomics>,
> Kurt Busiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>> On 2005-12-23 14:16:41 -0800, rgo...@block.net (David Johnston)
>> said:
>>
>>> The talking animals were generally larger than their dumb cousins
>>> and the only predator I remember from the books was Aslan anyway.
>>> Letting yourself get eaten by Aslan is a holy duty.
>>
>> There are wolves, bears, at least one other lion -- plenty of
>> predators to be had among the Talking Beasts.
>
> Yep, ordinary lions AND the talking lion in tLtWatW, who was one of
> the "good guys" at least in that he was an enemy of the witch who
> was depetrified and recruited for the big battle. Althought he
> seemed to attache great importance to the fact that he was a lion,
> it was pretty clear that he was no one special.
WHILE true
"He said 'us lions.' That means him and me."
WEND
--
David L. Burkhead "May I be just half the person
mailto:dbur...@comcast.net my dog thinks I am."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://coldservings.keenspace.com
Updates Wednesdays
David L. Burkhead
Consider the breakfasts of centaurs described in, I believe, The Silver
Chair. (Centaurs have human stomachs and horse stomachs and both want
breakfast.)
David L. Burkhead
He may not knkow about the magic portal, but once you've been there with
magic rings, it's no longer any great stretch to imagine someone else going
there by other means.
David L. Burkhead
That's one thing that annoys me about Civ III. Anybody who has livestock
has access to saltpeter. It's _sulphur_ that you need to obtain from
natural stocks.
jager...@gmail.com
that plays hard and fast with the rules. If it has magic, then it's
usually not hard sci-fi. For that matter ask how the faun is able to
balance himself or how Azlan talks.
westprog
"Tim Bruening" <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:43AD03AA...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
The talking animals tended to be approximately the same size, so they could
form a functioning society. They were mostly on human scale. Reepicheep is
the size of a human midget. There would be no point in the horses growing
much bigger. That does mean that a talking lion is at constant risk of
eating a talking horse. Probably he sticks to rabbits and beavers, so he can
be safe.
J/
westprog
<jager...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135494030.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's not a fantasy in the same sense as most of the adult fantasy now
published - or even as LOTR. It's a fairy story. Economic coherence would
not be appropriate in such a book.
J/
Tim Bruening
lclough wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> >
> > lclough wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Leebehr wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>IIRC some of the talking animals were slightly larger than the
> >>>nonspeaking ones. At least as far as the smaller creatures were
> >>>concerned. that _might_ make them easier to identify...
> >>>
> >>
> >>There is also the fact that talking animals tend to be carrying
> >>artifacts (swords, armor), tools (sewing machines) or to be
> >>talking constantly. How annoying it must be to be a Talking Cat
> >>or Fox, and have to search for the -right- prey.
> >
> >
> > The existence of sewing machines in Narnia indicates a technology
> > equivalent to at least the 19th century (I understand that sewing
> > machines were invented in the 19th century). Why don't the Narnians
> > have guns (invented long before the 19th century)?
> >
>
> Obviously, because they do not actually manufacture anything of
> this sort, paws and beaks anc claws not being handy for the
> operation of heavy equipment. All this stuff is made someplace
> far away (Calormene? Archenland?) and imported. With what is
> the Narnian economy paying for these imports? I suggest that
> there is a reason why the funerary customs of the country are
> never gone into. Mortuaries in Narnia also double as tanneries
> and fur exporters. You could probably do something with the
> meat as well...
If Calormen or Archenland have sewing machine technology, why don't they
have gun technology too?
David Johnston
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>> never gone into. Mortuaries in Narnia also double as tanneries
>> and fur exporters. You could probably do something with the
>> meat as well...
>
>If Calormen or Archenland have sewing machine technology, why don't they
>have gun technology too?
>
What makes you think that sewing machine technology inevitably leads
to gun technology?
Tim Bruening
David Johnston wrote:
I was thinking that a culture capable of making sewing machines would also be
capable of making guns, and would do so to fend off enemies.
lclough
I on the other hand was thinking about the notorious
bloodthirstiness of seamstresses. They'd as soon slash your
throat with a seam ripper as look at you. And knitters are your
classic ninja assassins. Why do you think the TSA banned
knitting needles? A circular needle is the perfect garotte, and
is available at any craft store.
David Johnston
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>> What makes you think that sewing machine technology inevitably leads
>> to gun technology?
>
>I was thinking that a culture capable of making sewing machines would also be
>capable of making guns,
You think sewing machines are powered by gunpowder?
Kurt Busiek
Only the best ones.
Common Narnian sewing machines are powered by nitroglycerin.
kdb
--
Read an ASTRO CITY story for FREE, at:
http://www.dccomics.com/features/astro/
peterw...@hotmail.com
do have gunpowder.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Tim Bruening
peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Where are fireworks mentioned, and why didn't the White Witch use them
against the Narnian freedom fighters?
Brion K. Lienhart
> I was thinking that a culture capable of making sewing machines would also be
> capable of making guns, and would do so to fend off enemies.
>
Is there some part of the word "allegory" that you don't understand? I
suggest you invest in a good dictionary. The Chronicles of Narnia are
not history books, they are *STORIES* with talking animals etc standing
in for various groups on our Earth.
Brion K. Lienhart
>>I have to imagine that that situation makes things difficult for
>>predators, especially the big hunting cats.
>>
>>*pounce* "Uh, scuse me- can you talk? Hello? Ouch! Can you- hang on
>>a second- can you understand me?"
>>
>
>
> The talking animals were generally larger than their dumb cousins and
> the only predator I remember from the books was Aslan anyway. Letting
> yourself get eaten by Aslan is a holy duty.
>
I haven't read the books in a while, but there were quite a few
leopards, and a couple of tigers, IIRC in Aslan's Army.
Mark Atwood
>
> What makes you think that sewing machine technology inevitably leads
> to gun technology?
They use pretty much exactly the same materials, machineing, tool&die,
and manufacturing techniques.
During WW2 in the US, sewing machine production came to a dead stop,
as all the factories that made them were (without too much effort)
converted over to manufacturing small arms.
If you can build a sewing machine, you can build a WW2 era battle
rifle, and you can build an AK-47 knock-off. You can also make the
brass and bullets, and you build the (re)loader to put them
together. (In fact, the AK-47 would be *easier* to build than the
sewing machine. A lot fewer parts, and a lot looser tolerances.)
The only possible "out" would be an Alien Space Bat scenario, similar
to _Dies the Fire_, where in this case the ASB in question would be
Aslan, who would have had to slipped into the Creation Song a verse
along the lines of "the chemistry of life works, possibly aided by
some sort of non-rational magic, but the chemistry of explosives
doesnt work".
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Mark Atwood
No, but the skills required to make a sewing machine is the same
skills required to make a gun and to make bullets.
mec...@yahoo.com
Mark Atwood wrote:
> If you can build a sewing machine, you can build a WW2 era battle
> rifle, and you can build an AK-47 knock-off. You can also make the
> brass and bullets, and you build the (re)loader to put them
> together. (In fact, the AK-47 would be *easier* to build than the
> sewing machine. A lot fewer parts, and a lot looser tolerances.)
> The only possible "out" would be an Alien Space Bat scenario, similar
> to _Dies the Fire_, where in this case the ASB in question would be
> Aslan, who would have had to slipped into the Creation Song a verse
> along the lines of "the chemistry of life works, possibly aided by
> some sort of non-rational magic, but the chemistry of explosives
> doesnt work".
There's also the Doctor Who "out", where practically every
creature out there is impervious to bullets (thus rendering
Pertwee era UNIT dependent upon the Doctor to come up
with some clever non-bullet based way to deal with the
alien/robot/dinosaur menace).
Isaac Kuo
Mark Atwood
>
> There's also the Doctor Who "out", where practically every
> creature out there is impervious to bullets (thus rendering
> Pertwee era UNIT dependent upon the Doctor to come up
> with some clever non-bullet based way to deal with the
> alien/robot/dinosaur menace).
The Bureau 13 books sometimes have had fun with the reverse of that.
There is a mention of a demon/goddess who was "hot stuff" millenia
ago. Her only material weakness was that steel. Oops.
And there were waves of monsters who were suspectable to only one
metal. Lead. Oops.
Mark Atwood
>
> I haven't read the books in a while, but there were quite a few
> leopards, and a couple of tigers, IIRC in Aslan's Army.
They were in the movie. And *somebody* studied feline body language,
because they "bowed" to Aslan exactly the way a cat expresses respect
and trust in someone, by slowly blinking.
Peter Trei
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <40u1k2F...@individual.net>,
>>>Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Christopher J.
>>>>Henrich declared:
>>>>
>>>>>And (in the book - I don't remember it from the movie) Mrs. Beaver
>>>>>frets about leaving behind her sewing machine. Sewing machines are
>>>>>complicated manufactured goods. The first ones were made in the
>>>>>19th century, and I bet they would have been impossible earlier.
>>>>>Where in Narnia is the industrial base needed for such high
>>>>>technology?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't the Beavers live fairly close to the wardrobe? Obviously
>>>>Wossisname, the guy the children were staying with, had a thriving
>>>>import/export business going.
>>>
>>>Professor Digory Kirke. Who had, of course, been there before
>>>himself.
>>
>>But he had buried the Rings he and his girlfriend had used to visit
>>Narnia, and I didn't get the impression that he had known about the
>>magic portal in his wardrobe before the kids went through.
>
> He may not knkow about the magic portal, but once you've been there with
> magic rings, it's no longer any great stretch to imagine someone else going
> there by other means.
It's been a *long* time since I read "The Magician's Nephew", but IIRC,
the rings are buried surrounding an apple tree, grown from the core
of an apple Jadis picked and ate in Narnia. The wardrobe is made
from wood cut from that tree.
The Professor knew all this, and so while he had never passed through
the wardrobe, he's very aware that is has connections to Narnia.
Peter Trei
Dan Drake
>
> I think that talking animals can tell each other from non-talking as well as
> humans can distinguish men from women. There might be a few embarassing
> mistakes, of course.
In each case.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
Bree
:-) Jeweler's paste.
Bree
--
Steve Hix
rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:49:50 -0800, Tim Bruening
> <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
> >> never gone into. Mortuaries in Narnia also double as tanneries
> >> and fur exporters. You could probably do something with the
> >> meat as well...
> >
> >If Calormen or Archenland have sewing machine technology, why don't they
> >have gun technology too?
Gun manufacture sort of led to sewing machine manufacture (mass
production of standardized parts). Gunpowder, per se, was unrelated,
except that nations *really* wanted to make a *lot* of gunpowder weapons
cheaply, which drove the manufacturing process.
But there's no reason that machines like sewing machines couldn't have
come about after, say, agricultural machinery technology made their
development and mass production possible.
Steve Hix
Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
One that could make sewing machines might never have stumbled over gun
powder.
Steve Hix
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
> rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) writes:
> >
> > What makes you think that sewing machine technology inevitably leads
> > to gun technology?
>
> They use pretty much exactly the same materials, machineing, tool&die,
> and manufacturing techniques.
>
> During WW2 in the US, sewing machine production came to a dead stop,
> as all the factories that made them were (without too much effort)
> converted over to manufacturing small arms.
>
> If you can build a sewing machine, you can build a WW2 era battle
> rifle, and you can build an AK-47 knock-off. You can also make the
> brass and bullets, and you build the (re)loader to put them
> together. (In fact, the AK-47 would be *easier* to build than the
> sewing machine. A lot fewer parts, and a lot looser tolerances.)
What if you've never developed any propellants?
Howard Brazee
<se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>One that could make sewing machines might never have stumbled over gun
>powder.
Trouble is, explosives are so useful, and accidental explosives are
easy to discover.
Brion K. Lienhart
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:09:06 UTC, "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think that talking animals can tell each other from non-talking as well as
>>humans can distinguish men from women. There might be a few embarassing
>>mistakes, of course.
>
>
>
> In each case.
>
Cue the "That's Pat" theme song. :)
Bree
I can't believe that in Narnia anyone makes sewing machines. I think
beavers just inherit them.
Bree
--
I don't buy my hats, I _have_ my hats.
-- a forgotten lady of the 1950s
David Goldfarb
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>mec...@yahoo.com writes:
>>
>> There's also the Doctor Who "out", where practically every
>> creature out there is impervious to bullets (thus rendering
>> Pertwee era UNIT dependent upon the Doctor to come up
>> with some clever non-bullet based way to deal with the
>> alien/robot/dinosaur menace).
>
>The Bureau 13 books sometimes have had fun with the reverse of that.
>
>There is a mention of a demon/goddess who was "hot stuff" millenia
>ago. Her only material weakness was that steel. Oops.
>
>And there were waves of monsters who were suspectable to only one
>metal. Lead. Oops.
ObBuffy: The Judge and the rocket launcher. "What's that do?"
--
David Goldfarb | "We need you to distract them."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |"Right."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "What are you going to do?"
|"I'm going to kill them all. That ought to
|distract them." -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Tim Bruening
Tim Bruening wrote:
I have found a reference to fireworks in "Prince Caspian" (Chapter 5,
"Caspian's Adventure in the Mountains, page 28 of paperback). Fireworks
are being launched to celebrate the birth of a prince. I'm surprised that
the evil and violent King Miraz didn't think to use fireworks as weapons
against Caspian's army.
Tim Bruening
Peter Trei wrote:
The apple in question was picked by Digory and fed to his mother.
The apple tree in England swayed whenever its parent tree in Narnia was blown
about by the wind. Eventually, the English tree got blown down. Did the parent
tree (which had repelled Jadis the White Witch) in Narnia fall down too at the
same time, allowing the White Witch to take over Narnia?
Mark Atwood
>> brass and bullets, and you build the (re)loader to put them
>> together. (In fact, the AK-47 would be *easier* to build than the
>> sewing machine. A lot fewer parts, and a lot looser tolerances.)
>
> What if you've never developed any propellants?
You are not have the metallurgy required to make sewing machine parts
without having enough practical chemistry to make black powder.
Tim Bruening
Mark Atwood wrote:
> rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) writes:
> >
> > What makes you think that sewing machine technology inevitably leads
> > to gun technology?
>
> They use pretty much exactly the same materials, machineing, tool&die,
> and manufacturing techniques.
>
> During WW2 in the US, sewing machine production came to a dead stop,
> as all the factories that made them were (without too much effort)
> converted over to manufacturing small arms.
>
> If you can build a sewing machine, you can build a WW2 era battle
> rifle, and you can build an AK-47 knock-off. You can also make the
> brass and bullets, and you build the (re)loader to put them
> together. (In fact, the AK-47 would be *easier* to build than the
> sewing machine. A lot fewer parts, and a lot looser tolerances.)
>
> The only possible "out" would be an Alien Space Bat scenario, similar
> to _Dies the Fire_, where in this case the ASB in question would be
> Aslan, who would have had to slipped into the Creation Song a verse
> along the lines of "the chemistry of life works, possibly aided by
> some sort of non-rational magic, but the chemistry of explosives
> doesnt work".
Yet in Prince/King Caspian's time, the Telmarines have fireworks.
Tim Bruening
Mark Atwood wrote:
> rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) writes:
> >
> > What makes you think that sewing machine technology inevitably leads
> > to gun technology?
>
> They use pretty much exactly the same materials, machineing, tool&die,
> and manufacturing techniques.
>
> During WW2 in the US, sewing machine production came to a dead stop,
> as all the factories that made them were (without too much effort)
> converted over to manufacturing small arms.
>
> If you can build a sewing machine, you can build a WW2 era battle
> rifle, and you can build an AK-47 knock-off. You can also make the
> brass and bullets, and you build the (re)loader to put them
> together. (In fact, the AK-47 would be *easier* to build than the
> sewing machine. A lot fewer parts, and a lot looser tolerances.)
>
> The only possible "out" would be an Alien Space Bat scenario, similar
> to _Dies the Fire_, where in this case the ASB in question would be
> Aslan, who would have had to slipped into the Creation Song a verse
> along the lines of "the chemistry of life works, possibly aided by
> some sort of non-rational magic, but the chemistry of explosives
> doesnt work".
So an alien space bat sent Nantucket back in time and eliminated
electricity. What chance do we have against the alien space bat?
Tim Bruening
Tim Bruening
Steve Hix wrote:
However, the Narnia of Prince Caspian's time has fireworks, which explode using
gunpowder.
Tim Bruening
Steve Hix wrote:
Prince Caspian's Narnia can launch fireworks, meaning that they have
propellents.
Tim Bruening
Bree wrote:
Where did the beavers get their sewing machine?
Tim Bruening
Mark Atwood wrote:
> Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> writes:
> >> brass and bullets, and you build the (re)loader to put them
> >> together. (In fact, the AK-47 would be *easier* to build than the
> >> sewing machine. A lot fewer parts, and a lot looser tolerances.)
> >
> > What if you've never developed any propellants?
>
> You are not have the metallurgy required to make sewing machine parts
> without having enough practical chemistry to make black powder.
Metallurgy: Goblin that makes metal objects.
Allergy: Goblin that sneezes.
Bree
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Bree wrote:
/snip/
>> I can't believe that in Narnia anyone makes sewing machines. I think
>> beavers just inherit them.
>
>Where did the beavers get their sewing machine?
Maybe the first one grew, like the lamppost.
Bree
Mark Atwood
>
> All the Narnia creatures looked vulnerable to bullets to me!
They certainly didn't seem to have any blood in them tho.
"Peter! Clean your sword."
"Of *what*?"
Peter B. Juul
> > One that could make sewing machines might never have stumbled over gun
> > powder.
>
> However, the Narnia of Prince Caspian's time has fireworks, which explode using
> gunpowder.
The telmarines' ancestors are earthling pirates that probably gad guns
with them.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Larry, everybody steals shrimp
The RockBear. ((^)) and everybody lies about it.
I speak only 0}._.{0 This is Hollywood."
for myself. O/ \O -Curb Your Enthusiasm
Peter B. Juul
> I have found a reference to fireworks in "Prince Caspian" (Chapter 5,
> "Caspian's Adventure in the Mountains, page 28 of paperback). Fireworks
> are being launched to celebrate the birth of a prince. I'm surprised that
> the evil and violent King Miraz didn't think to use fireworks as weapons
> against Caspian's army.
Narnia is a flat world. The stars take on human form. Animals
talk. And guns just plain don't work. Fireworks do. Guns don't.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o
The RockBear. ((^))
I speak only 0}._.{0
for myself. O/ \O
westprog
"Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote in message
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-Fz3QGBYHv1V2@localhost...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:09:06 UTC, "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think that talking animals can tell each other from non-talking as
well as
> > humans can distinguish men from women. There might be a few embarassing
> > mistakes, of course.
>
>
> In each case.
I can imagine bringing a horse to a party just to watch the guest try to
talk to him. (Wouldn't work with the smaller animals, of course).
J/
westprog
"Tim Bruening" <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:43B0F600...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
...
> I have found a reference to fireworks in "Prince Caspian" (Chapter 5,
> "Caspian's Adventure in the Mountains, page 28 of paperback). Fireworks
> are being launched to celebrate the birth of a prince. I'm surprised that
> the evil and violent King Miraz didn't think to use fireworks as weapons
> against Caspian's army.
Because any culture smart enough to invent fireworks would quickly learn to
use gunpowder as a weapon? Inevitable, right?
J/
nemo
Yes! We have no baNarnias!
We have no baNarnias today!
Metal Lurghi: A disease from The Goon Show which has spread to robots.
Kurt Busiek
Where have you found reference to him not using fireworks against them?
kdb
--
Read an ASTRO CITY story for FREE, at:
http://www.dccomics.com/features/astro/
Kurt Busiek
Where does it say that Telmarine fireworks explode using gunpowder?
Kurt Busiek
Where does it say that those fireworks are launched with conventional
propellants?
Kurt Busiek
For 50% of them, Santa Claus. Thus, it's possible that they got both
from Santa.