XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books   
   XPost: rec.arts.books.childrens   
   From: news@pointerstop.ca   
      
   nystulc@cs.com wrote:   
      
   > Derek Broughton wrote:   
   >> nystulc@cs.com wrote:   
   >> > If I ask "Is Bigfoot a myth?" or "Is King Arthur a myth?" or "Are   
   >> > Elephants a myth", the answer may be "yes" or "no", but would not   
   >> > generally be understood to refer to other planets.  Clearly, this *at   
   >> > least* implies that Humans have existed in that world before, since the   
   >> > population HAS heard of them.   
   >>   
   >> No, it doesn't.  You appear to be suggesting that simply _because_ we ask   
   >> if Bigfoot is a myth, there really must be a bigfoot.   
   >   
   > Did I not explicitly say "the answer may be yes or no"?   
   >   
   > What I was saying is that IF the answer is "no".  If it ultimately   
   > turns out that the stories about Bigfoot are NOT myths, then it tends   
   > to follow that Bigfoot has been on the planet before.  Otherwise, any   
   > resemblance between Bigfoot and the big hairy creature that just landed   
   > on the planet would be pure coincidence, and Bigfoot, as such, would   
   > still be a myth.  Same goes for King Arthur, the City of Troy, or   
   > Elephants.   
   >   
   > In LWW, it turns out that Man is not a myth.  That implies either that   
   > Men have been in that world before, or alternatively, that inhabitants   
   > of that world have journeyed to the World of Men.   
      
   But it doesn't - the prophecy is all that is needed to raise the question of   
   myth or reality.   
      
   >> > Tumnus is watching the western border of Narnia, for humans, on Jadis'   
   >> > orders.  Where does Tumnus think the humans are going to come from?   
   >>   
   >> As I recall, Tumnus is just reacting to a general proclamation that Jadis   
   >> is to be informed of any humans seen in the woods.   
   >   
   > As I recall, it is a bit more than that.  He is her agent.  He is in   
   > her pay.   
      
   He has been promised a reward, he hasn't actually been _paid_.  He is her   
   agent no more than anybody else in Narnia (and significantly less than   
   many).   
   >   
   >> Our local Wildlife   
   >> officials like to be informed of any cougars seen in the woods, too.   
   >   
   > Your interpretation is plausible.  Perhaps it is merely coincidence   
   > that these are border-land woods that Tumnus is being told to watch.   
   >   
   > But I am merely arguing no inconsistency, and in light of what we learn   
   > later, my interpretation works better.  If, in later books, Lewis had   
   > clarified that there were indeed no humans anywhere else on the planet   
   > at that time, then in that case, your interpretation might have worked   
   > well enough.   
      
   Yeah, well...you do have later revelations on your side :-)   
      
   >   
   > But if you argue there is an inconsistency, the burden is on you to   
   > show that consistent interpretations do not work.  It is a bit perverse   
   > to insist that ambigous passages must be interpreted so as to create   
   > inconsistencies, and then blame Lewis for being inconsistent.   
      
   No, I don't argue an inconsistency - I simply think you're working too hard   
   at it.  There's no need to assume that, whether or not humans (or, indeed,   
   whether "humans" elsewhere are sons of Adam & daughters of Eve) exist   
   elsewhere on the planet that contains Narnia, there have ever been humans   
   _in_ Narnia.   
   --   
   derek   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)