Talk:Tash (Narnia)

There is currently a bit of controversy about the numbering of the Narnia books. Horse and His Boy is the fifth book written by Lewis. However, the events take place during the period in which the four children rule Narnia at the end of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, this makes it the third book in the narrative continuity.

As noted above the numbering is debatable, but naming the books by number didn't add any information to the article since both books are named and linked. Starfoxy 17:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is my first time on a talk page so pardon me if I've done this wrong, but Tash had the head of a vulture, not a bird of prey. I'm not completely familiar with all of the wikiquette yet, so hesitate to make the change without bringing it up here first. KathL 15:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

BE BOLD, KathL. If you know that is a more correct description, go ahead and change it. Jonathunder 04:14, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

After three years, I finally made this change. :D KathL (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was a bird of prey. Maybe both.75* 16:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone else notice, from The Horse and His Boy, the similarities that are drawn between Tash and Allah, or, more specifically, the way Allah is worshipped? Could be worth mentioning, but it's a controversial change to make. I'm hesitant to actually put it in.

This is a sensitive subject. The Horse and His Boy would now be regarded as a problematic work, since the Calormens are obviously loosely based on the Arab and Turkish peoples. However I am not aware that the similarities between Tash and Allah go further than this. If you have anything to add please do so. Tash is evidently a Satan-like figure, although his exact nature is not gone into in depth. In his serious religious writings Lewis described Islam somewhat ambiguously as "the greatest of the Christian heresies". One wonders whether on a certain level Tash-worship was the sort of enemy Lewis would have liked Christendom to fight against. PatGallacher 17:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I removed this:

The Calormenes' society bears a resemblance to medieval Muslim societies, and Tash is spoken of, by those who worship him, in ways that resemble the way Allah is referred to in Islam. For example, one character says, "In the name of Tash the irresistible, the inexorable - forward!"

Because it is nonsense. Of all the possible resemblances between Calormen and Muslim cultures, the worship of Tash is the point at which there is an absolutely unbridgeable gulf between them. Islam absolutely abjures and abhors the worship of any god but God, and certainly not of any theriomorphic deity represented by an idol. The literary resemblance which the contributor of this paragraph claims to exist, does not in fact exist; Allah is referred to not as "the irresistible, the inexorable" but as "the compassionate, the merciful". If the comparison is only to the formula "In the name of (DEITY X), (ADJECTIVE), (ADJECTIVE), then it is entirely meaningless, as such formulae can be found in Christianity and Judaism, e.g. "in nomine Dei summi et altissimi" (in the name of God the supreme and highest). 68.100.18.183 15:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCritic.Reply

It would be nice if editors would care to read the discussion page before claiming "vandalism". Edit restored. 68.100.18.183 09:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCriticReply

I'm the editor that 68.100.18.183 is refering to. Sorry about the revert, but it will probably happen again. Like many editors, I rely on edit summaries to understand why edits were made. To me, a deletion by an unregistered or logged-out editor without a summary looks like vandalism. Adding edit summaries would help me make fewer of these types of mistakes. A quick "see talk page" is fine. LloydSommerer 13:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised that my sentences about Islam were chopped out. There is no doubt that Lewis drew on medieval Muslim/Arabic culture in the way he describes Calormene culture, including the way Tash is spoken of. Any search on google will quickly show that I am by no means the only person to have noticed this. That Lewis may have also drawn on other sources does not gainsay the point. If you want to introduce weasel words, you can say, correctly, "it is widely believed that". However, I believe it is unnecessary to do so, and that what I have stated is simply a fact (one that the book illustrator picked up on, and I'd be amazed if this was a case where the author had no say about the illustrations).

Note that it is a personal attack to claim, in an edit summary, that a fellow user has made an anti-Muslim slur. It borders on accusing a colleague in this enterprise of racism and has a tendency to provoke conflict. Please be aware in future that personal attacks are forbidden under wikipedia's rules. Even if I (along with others) proved to be wrong, and Lewis was not using Muslim culture and religion as a source, stating that he was doing so would not be making a slur against Muslims. It would simply be a mistake. On the other hand, if I (along with others) am correct, there is a question whether Lewis was making an anti-Muslim slur. That, however, is a separate issue. Metamagician3000 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lewis describes the Calormenes worshipping idols of Tash, and sacrificing animals in his name, things that I thought were forbidin in Islam. What with Tash's animal head, and multiple arms, I'd sooner guess that the diety himself is more based on a Hindu god, such as Ganesha Wikiwarlock 04:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This argument is moot. In the books, specifically, in The Last Battle Aslan defines Tash. He explains that Tash is simply his opposite. Now, since Aslan represents Jesus of Nazareth, it doesn't make any sense to say Tash represents Allah. In Biblical terms, the opposite of a devotee of God, or Son of God, would be a force against God, IE a demon or evil God. Fallen angels fit the bill. Aslan represents life and resurrection, as he is a resurrected being, and has the capability of restoring life to those turned into stone (Tumnus, for example.) Tash has the head of a vulture, and obviously represents death. He claims the Ape that lies about Aslan in The Last Battle and leaves Narnia through a portal into another realm, carrying the Ape. This suggests that he rules over a domain, perhaps even Hell. He's just the opposite of Aslan, an anti-Christ if you will, so furthering the conversation that he represents Allah somehow is not only offensive, but ridiculous. I suggest immediately removing all references to Islam/Allah that somehow get inserted into the main article.Tsarevna (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought that, since he's Aslan's opposite, he would be the devil. Of course, I heard that Horse & his boy was an Exodus story, with Tisroc (MHLFE) as Pharaoh,etc. I'll have to get a source, but I thought I'd mention.75* 16:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is rather mote intelligent to see Tash in the context of Narnia's source myths, among which are the mindset of nations involved in the Crusades. Both sides effectively demonised the other, the better to make an odious target for their uneducated combattants to concentrate their hatred upon.

Conversely, we ought neither to be insensitive to the influences of the Arabian Nights and of Omar Khayyam upon the European and especially British Romantic imagination's processing of the Islamic world. A land of poetry and wonder, strangely savage but also irresistible as much for its magic as for its alien culture (and the implied eroticism of harem life). These attractive qualities conflict with the repulsive character we find in Lewis' imagining of Calormene life. Finally, for the theriomorphic character of Tash, we ought perhaps to look to the mythology of Ancient Egypt, with its grotesque but also fascinating animal-headed gods. Culturally distinct but equally fearful/attractive to the British imagination must also be cited the gods of India, frequently multibrachiate and terrifying of aspect. The British colonial store of nightmare-themes must still have freshly-blooded with gruesome tales of Thuggee and cults of human sacrifice. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

there's a illustration of tash therefore why don't people put it up? anyone?.

Be bold and put it up yourself. If you don't know how, see WP:IMAGE. If you don't know where, why don't you tell us where you think we might find one, and an editor will try to upload it themselves. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

An illustration of Tash exists on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tash.jpg, but the corresponding file name is already in use: File:Tash.jpg.--Auric (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

There are multiple characters referred to as gods in the book; the term seems to have a much lower status in Narnia than it does in everyday usage. The only other example of which I can think at the moment is in Book 4 (Prince Caspian), Chapter 14, when Lucy referred to a river spirit as "the river-god". 75.70.185.236 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this is stepping out of plot summary into interpretation. In the story itself, Aslan does not represent Jesus. I would suggest rephrasing this as "Aslan (who is good)", or "Aslan (a kind and loving character)"--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Aslan as Christ analogue is established in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - that level of explicit characterisation is absent from The Last Battle, but since the book is part of a single series, it's not unreasonable to allow continuity of the analogy. 82.1.7.156 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Represents" is perhaps too strong a word. "Is analogous to Jesus" would be much better. StAnselm (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

In June 2020 @Paleface Jack added the {{refimprove|date=June 2020}} tag to the article with the byline that it "needed additional citations for verification". However this is argument for citation overkill| which says: "When citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones. because the description of the character can be verified by checking the references." On that basis this tag should be removed. Knobbly ^talk 12:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply