Talk:821: Five-Minute Comics: Part 3

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 09:58, 5 May 2013 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Regarding Lucy, Peter, et al, the four children in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe... They're not foster children (except in the broadest possible parallel), but Evacuees. A huge number of children from many of the major cities of the UK were packed off in WW2 to be temporarily housed in more rural places, to escape The Blitz. (Many more, but a minor fraction, had been packed off to British Oversees Territories, and other friendly territories... Some part of this oversees cohort were children of richer parents who could afford to send their kids on 'holiday' well out of harm's way when things looked like they may get "a bit sticky", quite a lot of the rest were mostly orphans and the like, possibly including children currently in provisional foster-care, with few links to real family to keep them in the UK who were basically herded off to The Colonies, e.g. Australia, Canada...) From personal reading of the Narnia books I'd definitely say that the children (and their contemporaries) are upper-middle class at worst (not inner-city ne'er-do-wells... the classic quote apparently being of a city teacher saying as how his kids had left him for Evacuation saying "We is...", but returned after the general threat had lessened saying the rural variation of "Us be..."... The Pevensies, Eustace Scrub and Jill Pole were definitely of a higher-class than these stereotypes, although Prof. Kirke, in his youth and Polly Plummer sound at least financially lower in class... yet above the status King Frank the First had, whilst still a hansom-cab driver in our world), and there's most definitely living parents in the picture (see The Last Battle for how things stood). And it just occurs to me that a family of four kids, in fact, would have been dreadfully lucky to have been either fostered or Evacuated to to the same place... Good job Prof. Diggory was there with space for them, eh? ;) ...Anyhow, just saying. Don't even know if it's worth changing this one word in the explanation, but FYI. 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A further note on the Narnia panel: At an earlier point in xkcd (#665), a woman (who appears to be Megan) discovers the wardrobe and begins conducting experiments. So Randall could be refering to her, and not the original children of the story, thus making some of these points arbitrary. On the other hand, in neither drawing are the subjects clearly identified, though the presence of computing would indicate a later time period than WWII. 09:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)