Talk:Snowflake

Dumb Beast
In response to Storyseeker1's edit summary: "I hate the word 'dumb.'"

I didn't change it back, although I think maybe we should. "Dumb" as Lewis uses it is the opposite of Talking, not of Smart, and Dumb Beast is the canon term for non-Talking Beasts.Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 00:54, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care if Lewis used it or not. I HATE that word! Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:10, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

What about it do you hate? ~Las 01:41, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

It's a word used to describe someone or something that is just plain well stupid. I find it very insulting, as a lot of animals are smarter than they appear. Plus, I had a friend at school whose sister had Down's Syndrome. Dumb, dumbass and such were a lot of the neighbourhood kid's fave nicknames for her, so needless to say it's not a fave word of mine. Storyseeker1 (talk) 02:01, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

I get that, but of course Lewis didn't use the word to mean stupid, but rather unable to speak. In the same way, he called Reepicheep "a gay and marshal mouse" and Puzzle an "ass." Like these words have gained new, less socially acceptable meanings, dumb has come to be used as an insult, but Lewis certainly did not mean any offense to people with Down's Syndrome. Nor do I. In fact, his dumb beasts could also be noble and kind in their own ways--e.g., Reepicheep's ancestors and even Snowflake herself, whom Rilian calls "noble." All the same, I think "Dumb Beasts" may be the best term we have for animals to whom Aslan did not give the ability to speak. It is the term Lewis uses, and English doesn't have another concise way to say "unable to speak Beasts." I don't think "Dumb" is offensive enough to enough people that we should try to avoid using it despite its canonicity and efficiency, and I can't find any reasonable alternatives. Can you think of anything? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 03:11, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the word has multiple meanings. It means someone who can't talk, and someone who's stupid. Check it in the dictionary. Storyseeker1 (talk) 11:24,

December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Much as I appreciate the problem you have with the word, I have to agree with Las on this one... the word "dumb" properly used means "unable to speak" and this was the meaning Lewis intended. Any other use of the word is really slang. It is also the word solely used in the Chronicles, which means it's the logical choice for the wiki. Not sure there's a better option. 08:04, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

footnote reference
I actually deliberately deleted the footnote reference #2. Mainly because I thought it had been put there by mistake. How's anyone supposed to know it's a reference to something? It's a simple number "2", added on at the end of a sentence. There's no link, no info about what it's about. It looks like it's been mistakely put there. Storyseeker1 (talk) 16:11, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

It corresponds to the #2 at the bottom. It is a common strategy used in books and on Wikipedia, so I think a decent number of people will figure it out, but you're right that some people may be confused. Like I said, this was mostly an experiment. If we do it all over the wiki, it will become more familiar to people. (See WikiNarnia talk: WikiNarnia Format.) It might also help if we could make the superscript numbers links to the "Citations" heading. I'll experiment with that. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 17:44, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I still think it's a waste of time, but it's your time to spend however you want. What kind of books use it? I've never seen any. Storyseeker1 (talk) 00:33, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Mostly non-fiction books. I know it will take a lot of time, but I think it could be valuable to show users where in the books the info is coming from. By the way, please take a look at your talk page and the Wiki Format talk page. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 00:36, February 21, 2013 (UTC)