XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien, alt.fan.harry-potter   
   From: dthierbach@usenet.arcornews.de   
      
   Weland  wrote:   
   > Technically, the Narnia books aren't an allegory.  They are heavily   
   > allegorical.   
      
   That's what I meant. Sorry for being imprecise.   
      
   > But Peter and Edmund and Beaver for example don't represent anything   
   > other than themselves, which in a true allegory they would.   
      
   Yes. I didn't mean to say that "Narnia as a whole is an allegory".   
      
   > But only some particular characters or events, not to everything.  In an   
   > allegory like Spenser's Faerie Queene, or the Romance of the Rose, or   
   > the play Everyman to name three, the one to one correspondance isn't to   
   > some particulars and events but to the whole.   
      
   Or rather to some abstract things. But it's still a one-to-one   
   correspondance, you can't read it differently (or most of the   
   metaphors break down). Hence I consider that an important part   
   of the definition of allegory, even though Steve didn't include it   
   in his.   
      
   - Dirk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)