XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien, alt.fan.harry-potter   
   From: dthierbach@usenet.arcornews.de   
      
   Steve Hayes  wrote:   
   > If Lockhart is meant to represent Pullman, that would be an allegory.   
      
   And this is what I don't understand. Assume for a moment that Lockhart   
   was really meant to represent Pullman. Now, let's go over your definition:   
      
   >> Allegory:   
   >> a figurative narrative or description,   
   Check.   
      
   >> conveying a veiled moral meaning:   
   I don't see any.   
      
   >> an extended metaphor.   
   I don't see any extension either.   
      
   How is just basing a character on a real person an allegory? You're   
   missing most parts that are important for an allegory, according to   
   your own definition.   
      
   So far, all you have done is insisted that this must be an allegory,   
   without even trying to explain it. Sorry, I'm not just going to take   
   your word for it.   
      
   >>>> OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists   
   >>>> to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:   
   >>>> That's the metaphorical moral meaning.   
   >>>> Do you agree?   
      
   >>> But it's not allegory.   
      
   >> So what does distinguish this extended metaphor which conveys a moral   
   >> meaning from the other allegories? That it doesn't extend to the book   
   >> as a whole?   
      
   > Look at books that are indisputably allegories and you can see. "The Faerie   
   > Queen", "Pilgrim's Progress" and "Animal Farm".   
      
   > The characters either represent abstract qualities, or people and events that   
   > have taken place in this world.   
      
   And not just any people or events, but *fundamentally important*   
   people or events, namely those that are connected to some moral   
   meaning. That part in your definition is central.   
      
   Aslan represents both: The historical figure of Christ, and the abstract   
   quality of the "saviour", and the morality is about the relationship   
   of the protagonists to him.   
      
   Let's go over your definition again:   
      
   >> Allegory:   
   >> a figurative narrative or description,   
   Check, Aslan for Christ.   
      
   >> conveying a veiled moral meaning:   
   Check, the moral is "how should I behave as Christion"   
      
   >> an extended metaphor.   
   Check, not only is Aslan Christ, the metaphor is extended to the   
   relationship between Aslan/Christ and the protagnists/Christians in   
   general, and what this relationship means for them.   
      
   So that fits your definition perfectly, and so far you haven't been   
   able to explain me why that isn't an allegory. If it wasn't an allegory,   
   then some parts of it shouldn't fit the definition. Or your definition   
   is incomplete, and there some other criteria which don't fit in your   
   opinion. Or something else.   
      
   So far, we agree on the definition, we agree on a lot of other examples,   
   and what I just don't get is how you can say that this definition doesn't   
   apply to Aslan/Christ, but it applies to Lockhart/Pulmann.   
      
   Do you see what I'm trying to say?   
      
   > One of the Harry Potter books has a satire on a journalist, and another a   
   > satire on a bureaucrat (or it could be the same one, I'd have to check, and   
   my   
   > copies are down the passage at the moment). But they are not allegories.   
      
   Yes, certainly. I complete agree with that and everything else you   
   said, and that's actually the reason why I said that idea that   
   Lockhart is based on Pulmann is completely nuts. As you say, it's a   
   satire on a certain kind of author.   
      
   > They may represent stereotpes, but they do not represent actual   
   > people and events,   
      
   But an allegory is not defined by "represents actual people or   
   events". Satire can do that, too. Look at the definition of allegory   
   you gave yourself. It doesn't contain "actual people or events".   
      
   > Lewis's "That hideous strength" also satrises the behaviour of academics and   
   > bureaucrats, but though he may have had actual events in mind, he is noy   
   > suggesting them to the reader, but the reader's own experience may suggest   
   > such things.   
      
   Let's leave aside Lewis SF for a moment, shall we? It can be also read   
   as a Christian allegory (you have Adam and Eve, you have names like   
   "Ransom" and "Fisher-King", and more), but it's a lot more complicated   
   than Narnia. That reading isn't obvious, and I missed it for a long   
   time.   
      
   I'd be happy enough if we can either agree that Lockhart/Pulmann isn't   
   an allegory and Aslan/Christ is one; or you can explain to me how I   
   should read your definition so that it's the other way round, as you   
   claim; or you can extend the definition to make it so.   
      
   - Dirk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)