XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.childrens   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: news@pointerstop.ca   
      
   westprog wrote:   
      
   >   
   > "junior-kun"  wrote in message   
   > news:1138129691.846225.161840@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
      
   > I suppose one could come to the right conclusions if enough evidence were   
   > ignored. Certainly lit crit where no background reading is required must   
   > be less demanding. One could knock off by lunchtime.   
      
   There's absolutely no need to be insulting.  This is NOT literary criticism,   
   this is Usenet.  If you actually expect "lit crit" perhaps you're expecting   
   too much.   
   >   
   >> It is not inaccurate to call TLTWaTW allegory.   
   >   
   > It's not even a matter of accuracy. It's a matter of usefullness. We learn   
   > nothing about the book by calling it an allegory. Even Lewis' one-word   
   > coinage tells us more.   
      
   What on earth does "supposal" tell us?  Absolutely nothing, because the word   
   had no meaning until Lewis coined it.  Allegory has a wealth of   
   connotations that seem to me to be well matched to the books.   
      
   > The book supposes that Christ becomes incarnate in   
   > another world, and develops the implications.   
      
   It's a parable of good and evil.   
   --   
   derek   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)