If they are all older than 15, we could assume that they were evacuated during the war. Wonder what parallels with LWW this could produce, especially if the older siblings aren't all girls at all. 

Posted by: @icarus

If Violet is "Sister 3" at 17 years old, then it makes sense to me that Sisters 1 and 2 would be even older still.

I think this would create a clear sense of divide between the 3 older siblings, and the much younger Polly, and thus wouldn't impinge too much on the existing character dynamics.

To me, it would be super weird if Polly had younger siblings who were also of Narnia-going age, but who didn't get to come with her to Narnia, but thankfully that doesn't appear to be the case here.

All this definitely makes sense to me too. 

I don't have much more to add, except that I'm largely just baffled as to why Polly needs siblings. I suppose it's something of an indication that her character / role / backstory will be expanded upon in this film — we really don't learn much at all about her background and home life in the book.

(In fact, we learn very little about the families of most of the main child characters in the Chronicles, except where there's something about them that's directly relevant to the plot. The only ones that stand out in this way are Digory with his terminally ill mother, strict maiden aunt and creepy uncle; Eustace with his utterly obnoxious parents; and Shasta discovering that the harsh and unlovable man he calls "father" isn't his father at all. And we do learn about Aravis's family too, but only in her own words and descriptions, not as a part of the main "on stage" action.)

I only hope, whatever is being done with Polly's family, that it doesn't become a distraction from the main part of the plot. But then, I think I've already given up on this being any kind of a "faithful" adaptation. 

@courtenay The boat labelled Faithful has sailed. 

Lewis didn't give most his child characters siblings. It was probably simpler not to bother, once he'd set up the Pevensies

A number of them were in unhappy situations, but we don't know about Polly. He didn't tell us anything about her family, just what her father said about the empty house on the other side of the Ketterleys', and Uncle Andrew referring to her mother (and her mother being cross when she came home with wet feet from the first journey).  Lewis doesn't talk about Polly's friends, only that she's playing by herself, and that she wasn't going away to the seaside for the summer. 

She doesn't need siblings, but some uninvolved ones would be acceptable.

Posted by: @coracle

She doesn't need siblings, but some uninvolved ones would be acceptable.

Yes, but then why make them part of it at all??

That was exactly my point — there's nothing in the story that makes it the slightest bit necessary for Polly to have siblings, or for us to know anything very specific about her family. If they're going to the trouble of writing parts for her sisters, and casting known actors for them, that to me strongly suggests they are going to be involved in the plot somehow. And I can't see that doing anything but drag it further off the track of the original story. 

@courtenay I'm largely just baffled as to why Polly needs siblings. I suppose it's something of an indication that her character / role / backstory will be expanded upon in this film

At the beginning of MN, it appears that she is at home for the school holidays when that year they weren't going to the beach. I suppose that some more detail might be supplied, such as an older sister with a new baby a distinct possibility, if older siblings were needed at all.

But if Polly has an older sister at 17, I think that is still a bit too young in the 1955 era to be the eldest of her sisters, if she has as many as 3, let alone to be saddled with a baby, knowing that British law & custom established 17 as the age of consent long before 2021. In British society girls at 17, especially middle class and upwards, might make their debut or "coming out". I don't know much about how it works, when at the time I was too busy with my Leaving Certificate & other family problems to be bothered, though I remember my father asking me if I wanted to do such a thing. 

I gather that it is social clubs that sponsor these things, such as Rotary or the Freemasons, or something like that. The girls sign up for a bit of training in deportment & etiquette among other things. They have to have escorts, maybe a brother? There is a big occasion that might or might not be attended by Royalty. This is a formal coming of age introduction to take part in society, and for the next year they go around to various parties & other occasions to socialise better. I can well imagine Susan Pevensie doing something like that.

@coracle  (and her mother being cross when she came home with wet feet from the first journey).  Lewis doesn't talk about Polly's friends, only that she's playing by herself, and that she wasn't going away to the seaside for the summer. 

Yes the second occasion where we see a bit about Polly's family life when on returning from Charn, Polly's mother is cross, & she has to eat just the main course, without pudding as a punishment, before being sent to her room for two hours, I think it was. C.S. Lewis suggests that such a punishment was probably more bearable than Digory's having to wait on tenterhooks for the return of Jadis and Uncle Andrew from their restaurant meal. Sounds like boarding school, though there is nothing exciting about prunes and junket, loathed by the inmates at the Red Cross home I was sent to during holidays, though I preferred it to the prunes and custard we'd get at the Baulkham Hills establishment I was at during school terms. 

Posted by: @icarus

 

To me, it would be super weird if Polly had younger siblings who were also of Narnia-going age, but who didn't get to come with her to Narnia, but thankfully that doesn't appear to be the case here.

In "The Magician's Nephew," you didn't have to be a child to get to Narnia. Frank and Uncle Andrew arrived as adults.

So Polly's older sisters could easily have gone to Narnia with her.

Posted by: @orsha

Posted by: @icarus

 

To me, it would be super weird if Polly had younger siblings who were also of Narnia-going age, but who didn't get to come with her to Narnia, but thankfully that doesn't appear to be the case here.

In "The Magician's Nephew," you didn't have to be a child to get to Narnia. Frank and Uncle Andrew arrived as adults.

So Polly's older sisters could easily have gone to Narnia with her.

Not just there; we know the Telmarines found a portal to the country.

So maybe it's that only children can be taken to Narnia without actively trying to go.

Posted by: @courtenay

Posted by: @coracle

She doesn't need siblings, but some uninvolved ones would be acceptable.

Yes, but then why make them part of it at all??

That was exactly my point — there's nothing in the story that makes it the slightest bit necessary for Polly to have siblings, or for us to know anything very specific about her family. If they're going to the trouble of writing parts for her sisters, and casting known actors for them, that to me strongly suggests they are going to be involved in the plot somehow. And I can't see that doing anything but drag it further off the track of the original story. 

Not only that but Polly's big thing is playing outside every single day by herself (or with Digory). It's a very different dynamic once you introduce siblings to the picture.

@orsha So Polly's older sisters could easily have gone to Narnia with her.

No, I don't think so, when, in my opinion, they are merely fleshing out why Polly remained at home, next door to Digory, and didn't go to the beach, and because that is all I could think of. Yes, as you say, adults could go to Narnia, but they can't come back, I think, like Frank & Helen. Not to mention the horse, and Jadis. Oops, I forgot Uncle Andrew, whose time in Narnia was like a nightmare.

I agree that sisters would be unnecessary, especially younger sisters, unless Mum is absorbed with toddlers, pre-schoolers and those in "Infants school" as we called those in Kindergarten, 1st & 2nd class, that Polly isn't so likely to spend much time with them, anyway, at the age of 12, that is to say, old enough to be in the top classes at elementary school (or Primary school as we call it here), and young enough to be only starting high school. 

@starlit Not only that but Polly's big thing is playing outside every single day by herself (or with Digory). It's a very different dynamic once you introduce siblings to the picture.

Yes, you are right. And therein is the problem for Polly, to have younger sisters, in particular. It is called "duty of care" for the older ones, who are held responsible for keeping their younger siblings out of trouble. Even in boarding school, or the one I went to, older girls used to assist with younger girls some as young as 4 or 5 (myself, for instance, at the time). People used to be stricter with children growing up back in 1955. As a matter of interest, if there were younger children, Polly wouldn't be playing alone, by the age of 12. She would be expected to be able to help Mother with the younger ones, if she had nothing better to do. Even the way Susan is drawn in LWW, HHB & PC shows she was in that sort of elder sister dynamic. 

With older sisters, it is a different kettle of fish, when either Polly was escaping their "supervision" or else they were already busy with their own teenage lives. And in every case, even the relatively innocent Frank & Helen, the people who do go to Narnia have some problem about where they are. And in Polly's case, it wasn't really her own problem, but Digory's, whilst Uncle Andrew only got to Narnia because of what is called "karma", and the chance to poke fun at him.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

@orsha So Polly's older sisters could easily have gone to Narnia with her.

 

Yes, you are right. And therein is the problem for Polly, to have younger sisters, in particular. It is called "duty of care" for the older ones, who are held responsible for keeping their younger siblings out of trouble. Even in boarding school, or the one I went to, older girls used to assist with younger girls some as young as 4 or 5 (myself, for instance, at the time). People used to be stricter with children growing up back in 1955. As a matter of interest, if there were younger children, Polly wouldn't be playing alone, by the age of 12. She would be expected to be able to help Mother with the younger ones, if she had nothing better to do. Even the way Susan is drawn in LWW, HHB & PC shows she was in that sort of elder sister dynamic. 

Good points all around.

Nobody seems to talk about it but one thing I've picked up on was that Polly running out to the fight at the lamppost was especially brave because her mother (or maybe it was both parents, I don't remember offhand) had threatened to permanently forbid her from playing like Digory every again after she came home muddy. 

So, setting MN in the 1950’s and Polly having three sisters. I honestly don’t know how that’s going to fit in the plot. 

As I’ve said before, I’ve always had the impression that Polly was an only child. But then of course, the book doesn’t give details about her family. So I don’t know how having three sisters is going to fit in the plot or why would she even need a sister, let alone three. 

Though regardless, the book is going to be better anyways. I think that’s also true for any movie that’s been adapted from a book.

@Jasmine

While it is usually true that a book is “better” than a movie based on that book, this is not always the case. Many would argue that the movies The Godfather, Jaws, Shawshank Redemption, The Silence of the Lambs, Clockwork Orange, Jurassic Park, The Devil Wears Prada, and Blade Runner, among other films, are “superior” to the novels on which they were based.

However, of course, none of the books from which those movies were adapted were authored by C.S. Lewis.

@rachel So we must go back to the fact that in the book Polly's parents are mentioned but no siblings. Why?

Did Lewis find it a nuisance to have to create other characters?  Did he prefer 'only' children in his stories? Did he want to slim the child cast down to just two with no siblings?

Or was it careful design? The boy readers would follow Digory and the girl readers follow Polly, as they read this book in 1955.  But there are more adults at the centre of this story than the others. 

The introduction of one or more sisters in the film is a mystery. Is this instead of showing Polly's parents for reactions? Or will the sister/s play the same role/s as maids looking  out at the events on the street? (servants were much rarer in the 1950s).

@coracle If they are all older than 15, we could assume that they were evacuated during the war.

Maybe not. My husband's 90th birthday is next month, & he was never evacuated when his large family lived in or around Falkirk, a historic city, roughly midway between Glasgow (which most definitely was bombed because of the shipyards), and Edinburgh.  Of course, London would always be targeted, just like Warsaw, which was flattened by the German blitzkrieg. As were German cities like Hamburg & Dresden for much the same reasons. Nor were other industrial cities spared in England, such as Liverpool (port), Manchester and Birmingham, not to mention Coventry. Oxford was spared bombing because Hitler fancied making that particular city as his capital of England, which is why Oxford looks a bit grimy compared to other English cities, having been left intact. 

Most of the evacuations happened from when Great Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 and sporadically through the six years of the war, especially when the Doodlebugs were launched against Britain, London, in particular. 

Polly, said to be aged about 12, did live in London, but she would still be older than myself, if the book is set in 1955, when I was aged 7, that year, & was in 2nd class at school. A sister, aged 17, would have been born in 1938, and I wonder if, when evacuating children, they drew a line about splitting up babies away from their mothers, the older ones being somewhat more "moveable". 

@rachel However, of course, none of the books from which those movies were adapted were authored by C.S. Lewis.

Yes, C.S. Lewis' books are so well-known that his Narnia creation sometimes appears in crossword puzzles, though the compiler sometimes gets confused between C.S. Lewis & Lewis Carroll, who wrote Alice in Wonderland, the story of a girl who famously went down a rabbit hole. Though Alice Liddell, on whom the character is based, had 2 sisters, neither of them are mentioned in Alice in Wonderland, or in its sequel, Alice through the Looking Glass. Or are they?

@jasmine As I’ve said before, I’ve always had the impression that Polly was an only child. But then of course, the book doesn’t give details about her family

So did I, but C.S. Lewis tended to be economical with such details, when there were so many factors which isolated children from their siblings, if any, in the second half of the 20th century, boarding schools among them, most noticeable in LWW & in PC. Unlike, say, Enid Blyton who made a great thing about "spoiled only children", C.S Lewis tends to talk about the individuals concerned, rather than their family lives.  Lucy in LWW was still too young to go to boarding school, unlike her older siblings. Susan tends to be the great conformist, alone at a girls' school. Whilst Peter, being older, seems to find Edmund, his younger brother a bit of a nuisance, making Edmund resentful. Eustace is definitely an only child, in the Enid Blyton sense, though his parents seem a bit "weird", & in their own world, whilst Aravis & Shasta's situations are explained in the story. Jill & Eustace's story arc shows how horrible school could be when there is a culture of bullying, so being an only child is irrelevant. 

For myself, at boarding school, they didn't have boys and girls together, except in the classroom, thus splitting up brothers & sisters. Each cottage accommodated senior girls in one dormitory, split up with curtains, whilst junior girls shared the other dormitory, with 12 beds. I found even at boarding school sisters could still disrupt the place with their family quarrels, and on Saturdays, when family could visit, were no pleasure if nobody came to see me at all. 

And when there are sometimes huge gaps in age between siblings, maybe Polly would be fine with older sisters, who have already left home, or in the throes of doing so. But why as many as 3, I wonder? 

Is it possible that Polly's sister could be the mother or grandmother of the Pevensies? I don't love that idea and I know Fantasia has gone on record as being sick of storytellers making everyone related to everyone else these days. But I'm still a bit drawn to it because of a revelation I've had. 

I don't necessarily mind the idea of an adaptation of The Magician's Nephew adding characters. (Mind you, I can't understand the need for new characters, but I don't think they're automatically bad.) But it's weirding me out that all the new characters we've been hearing about are from the London section of the story. Isn't MN supposed to be setting up the broader story of Narnia? If one of the new characters is some ancestor of the Pevensies, I can understand their presence better. 

@col-klink Is it possible that Polly's sister could be the mother or grandmother of the Pevensies? I don't love that idea and I know Fantasia has gone on record as being sick of storytellers making everyone related to everyone else these days.

If you are putting MN in 1955, it would depend on when you are going to show LWW. If we stuck to the book times for both books, a grandmother of the Pevensies would be more likely, since both Polly & Digory were at least 10 or 11 in 1900, the year before Federation & the death of Queen Victoria, three weeks afterwards, which made it more possible for Polly's much older sister to be a grandmother by 1939, when my own mother was 16, and my mother-in-law, born in 1906, married in 1924, had given birth to about 7 of her 12 children by that time, including my husband, in 1935.  But it seems that this MN production is timed for 1955. (all this mathematics is making my head spin)  

I was seven in 1955, whereas Netflix Polly is supposed to be eleven or 12, which means she was born during WW2, probably about 1944 or 1943 at earliest. Yes, an older sister who married early could well be the mother of the Pevensies, but if you wanted a grandmother for the Pevensies it had better not be the 17-year-old who has been mentioned, and who might have been born about 1938. Especially when it was more usual before the 1970's to marry after the magical age of 21 to reach adulthood.

It might be possible when Eustace was also a Pevensie cousin, but I think the main reason for a crowd of sisters is that all the maids, housekeepers etc in MN or even LWW had disappeared by 1955, & MN as a film production, might need sisters to take their place in Polly's household, or even, maybe, one of the sisters might help out in a neighbourly fashion, when Digory's mother is so ill. But who is playing Aunt Letty? 

In 2010, Ha-Joon Cheng, a South Korean economist wrote a book called 23 Things they don't tell you about Capitalism, in which he claimed that the invention of the washing machine made more impact on the 20th century, as a whole, than even television, when a washing machine freed up the time of housewives, when ownership of one was more economical in UK than hiring maids & housekeepers, who could often make more money working in factories that produced washing machines & other useful household appliances. In 1955, by contrast, television was frequent in UK, but Australia only got television in 1956.