![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
In that notes section it reads as follows: "Will Stanton's eleventh birthday is momentous in the book. In the Hollywood version he is 13 to 14 years old (and American) in order to help distinguish him from Harry Potter, a later creation but earlier international film star who learns on his eleventh birthday that he is a wizard." Harry Potter is not the star he's the character. I can't seem to edit the note, if someone else could that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.251.246 ( talk) 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I have merged the infor from the pages for the indivdual books in the series onto this page. Most of those pages were only stubs, and in this way a fuller artticle will result. I am about to convert the separate pages into redirects. DES 23:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
To see the history of the text on the individual works, consult the history of the separate articles at Over Sea, Under Stone, The Dark Is Rising, Greenwitch, The Grey King, and Silver on the Tree, all of which are now redirects to the series article. DES 00:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are the Old Ones actually immortal? They age, but slowly. Merriman was old, as was The Lady.
I've been pouring over Welsh, Celtic, and British mythology trying to figure out definitively who the character "The Lady" in the Dark is Rising series is mean to represent. With all the meaning and significance behind all the other characters, I can't believe she's not also significant historically and mythologically. The most obvious guess would be that she's "Morgaine." Or perhaps "Viviane"? Any thoughts?
I was under the impression that the grail in the stories was not the Holy Grail of legend but a different cup. Applejuicefool 16:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
While this article is long, I find it to be severely lacking in information. (I came to the article as I wasn't sure if I had ever read the books as a child. I come away from it no more certain, as I can't get much out of this.) The plot synopsis for each book are bare, consisting mainly of "this book introduces/involves character(s) characcter X, description of character," there's no information on when the books were first published, or who published them. In fact, most of the article seems to be taken up with a list of the characters.
Granted, maybe all this makes sense to someone who has read (or at least recalls) the books, but the article should be useful to those who haven't as well. Just my two cents. g026r 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Random Tidbits about the Stanton Family" section seems to be more apt as a part or sub-section of the "Characters" section, no? It's really not substantially different from what's included there, and although the characters don't show up in each and every book (neither do the rooks for goodness' sake), they are pretty central to a lot of what goes on across the series. Again, I obviously need to read the series again, but I feel like this change would be a good one. Mohsin.Siddiqui 20:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to remove the links on this page that redirect back to this page and find other double redirects - I didn't realize I wasn't logged in earlier when I made some changes, but those were me as well. Lcarscad 20:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
1. I think we need a summary for the entire series. 2. I think perhaps a section describing the themes? 3. We need to move the stanton family to the character section 4. We need to decide whether or not we are going to tell those newbury succession people to take a hike or not. We have a standard for the books where we redirect all of the books to this one page. Now The _Grey_King has its own page though because people were concerned about the newbury succession page. But I think that it is too inconsistent. Jpittman 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Although it is important to the overview of the series, need we really reveal Merriman's identity here? These are wonderful books and why spoil Cooper's surprizes for the reader? Kids do read Wikipedia, right? earrach Sept10th,2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earrach ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Darkisrising.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Does the symbol seen on some of the covers (circle with two perpendicular lines inside) remind anyone of the Gnostic symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.209.15 ( talk) 18:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link to the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Simple_crossed_circle.svg
In Will's bio, it says that he is the seventh son of a seventh son, yet when I counted his siblings, including Tom, he appears to be the tenth. Does anyone know why this is? Anpan11 ( talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he 'patronises' John Smith's establishment. We only see him there once and later we find out that he didn't know John Smith was an Old One until John gave himself away by talking to Will in the Old Speech... Sparrer ( talk) 02:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
There have been several attempts to change the age of Will Stanton in this article from eleven to fourteen. This is another unfortunate effect of the film, which made the character older, an American, and with fewer siblings [see section on Will's Siblings above]. In the book, which this article is about, events begin on the day before Will's eleventh birthday. Abbeybufo ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the titles within the series include the publication dates? I visited this page to find out when this series was published but nowhere (except for a brief reference to The Gray King winning the Newberry Prize in 1976) is there a reference to when these books were written. I know nothing about the series (which is why I was looking it up) or I'd help out here. SophieTorkleson ( talk) 02:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Dark is Rising series listing at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (ISFDB) gives these publication dates for UK and US first editions. After the first book, the years match, and the US month is earlier where available.
In the article we/I call this "almost simultaneous" publication of the sequels, but that is a stretch if the four-month difference for The Grey King is reliable. Publication details seem to me worthwhile in the articles devoted to particular books, perhaps in a section "Publication history". ( Talk:The Grey King) -- P64 ( talk) 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a reasonable knowledge of Welsh grammar, and the explanation of the odd ?incorrect grammar in the Welsh couplet makes little sense to me, so it is reasonable to assume it means even less to a non-Welsh speaker. The explanation seems a bit laboured and off-the-point (though no doubt written with best intentions.) Would it be reasonable to simply give the translation, and maybe comment that the Welsh used is anomolous, rather than the current passage on the correct usage of the verb Bod? Jellytussle ( talk) 20:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
[...] Done --more or less "completed" nine months later; notes deleted or transferred to the next section --
P64 (
talk)
22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
-- P64 ( talk) 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead of this article, which covers both the second book and the whole series, simply makes the The Seeker (film) an adaptation of book two. Section "Film adaptation" reports that it was planned to be an adaptation of the series. That other article simply calls its subject the film "adaptation of the second book in the five-book young adult fantasy series The Dark is Rising by Susan Cooper."
Does the film story essentially amount to Will's discovery of his "Old-Onage" and his acquisition of the six signs, as does the second book story? On the contrary, do the advance of Will to age 14 and the introduction of a love interest constitute some adaptation of the sequel novels? Are any elements of the film clearly drawn from the first book Over Sea, Under Stone? (In turn that article does not mention any film adaptation of the series. It does cover separate radio adaptations of books one and two.)
For contrast or comparison, The Black Cauldron (novel) lead says that it "provided a title and many elements of plot for the only Prydain film, the Disney animated feature The Black Cauldron (film) released in 1985 (below)." Section "Adaptation" says that that book (also the second of five) "was loosely adapted by Walt Disney Productions and released in 1985 as Disney's 25th animated feature film. The Black Cauldron (film) was based primarily on the first two Prydain novels with elements from the others."
It is said of Prydain that there can be no continuing film adaptation of the series. (As for The Lord of the Rings, any subsequent effort would necessarily dispense with what has been done.) Applying that "test" to this case: does The Seeker (film) impinge seriously on film adaptation of either Over Sea, Under Stone or one of its sequels? If so, how? Eg, does it undermine the other stories?
(I have not seen either the Prydain film or the Dark one. I know both from their wikipedia articles only, including some online references by those articles. I know both book twos, and both ones, very well.) -- P64 ( talk) 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Aren't the rhymes a copyright violation? Anyway, I don't think the article needs the texts, though it should mention the musical setting. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Today I revised The Grey King heavily, altho limited to the lead, infobox, and footer. (Among winners of the U.S. Newbery Medal it may be the only one whose book article does not overtly cover the plot.)
Comments solicited. See also Talk: Tir na n-Og Award and Talk: The Grey King. -- P64 ( talk) 23:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Dark Is Rising Sequence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alice Stanton (cricketer) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The topic of this article:
Under MOS:TIES "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. [...] In an article about a modern writer, it is often a good choice to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote, especially if the writings are quoted." Recently an author adjusted the American "Artifact" to "Artefact" but the article still contains other words exclusive to the American dialect. I propose:
58.164.7.191 ( talk) 06:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Very good point. Even though The Dark Is Rising was originally bought by an American editor at an American publisher, it has always been printed with British spelling and even punctuation (Mr and Mrs with no periods). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdrpyh ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Should probably add discussion of/links to the BBC's new radio adaptation, either here or on the The Dark is Rising page -- Bbolker ( talk) 01:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)