Talk:Head

Page Format Change
Storyseeker1, thanks so much for adding content! I made redliks to the page, so I had to make the page...and then I had to go study for finals. Now that I am officially on Christmas break (Yay!), I have just re-organized what you had in order to add headings. I think I preserved all of your original info; let me know if I missed something we should add back in. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 06:31, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

One thing, though... When someone dismisses you from a job for incompetence, it's called being fired, even if they do get you another one. This I know something greatly about, as I have had to fire several people over the years. So the Head was definitely fired from her position at the school. Storyseeker1 (talk) 19:45, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Except that she wasn't dismissed--it sounds more like being "kicked upstairs." It also wasn't her boss, but her friends who got her her promotions. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 21:02, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

She was dismissed from teaching. Storyseeker1 (talk) 02:33, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

But she got a job higher up in the same organization. You wouldn't call a cashier who gets promoted to manager fired, even if the promotion was because of incompetence at his/her previous job. There is also the fact that it was her friends, not her boss, who arranged the promotion. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 06:13, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess. Somehow I don't think Lewis thought that part of the story out very well. I mean, what kind of friends does this Head have, who has their fingers in education and government/parliament??? Storyseeker1 (talk) 18:09, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he doesn't provide much detail there. I wonder, though, whether that was intentional. Clearly Lewis is commenting on politics (and Inspectors for that matter) in his statement that people like the Head might thrive ("live happily ever after") in such a post. I wonder whether the story--especially this part--might have been less concerned with realism than modern people (and by that I mean anyone after the Scientific Revolution) often want art and stories to be. It's possible he just didn't think about it much, it's possible he just wanted to move on with the story, it's possible he thought his ironic humour would be spoiled by too much in-depth explanation, or it's possible he didn't care so much about making it realistic as about making it real to the reader. All four may be true; I don't know. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 18:52, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds more like he was deliberately a dirty joke on parliament. Doesnt sound he was a parlaiment fan. Cant blame him, as hardly anyone is, even now. Storyseeker1 (talk) 18:59, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

"Other Occupations" Quote
I intentionally decided not to use the quote format for this because it is a comment by an (in-universe) historian, not a quote by a character. I don't know exactly why, but the quote template format didn't seem right somehow. I may be wrong; I'm not saying it can't be changed--I just want people to know that it is an intentional (if incorrect) choice. Thanks! Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 06:31, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference whether the quotes by a character or during a sentence? It's still in the book. Storyseeker1 (talk) 11:06, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, and I could certainly be wrong. I guess the difference is like the difference between an inspirational quote by Abraham Lincoln that you might put in italics at the beginning of a chapter of a book on the Civil War, and an in-text citation of a Civil War historian's quote, which isn't generally separated from the body of the chapter. Even though both Lewis' quotes and the characters' are in the books, from an in-universe perspective they are different things. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 18:09, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else have thoughts? I know it's a breech of current practice, so if this doesn't make sense to anybody else I'll change it back. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 18:54, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be put in the quote template as it is normally done. It just doesn't look right as is. 18:15, December 23, 2012 (UTC)