XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.childrens   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: hayesmstw@hotmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:57:10 -0400, Derek Broughton    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   With all due respect (ie eithout wishing to be insulting), that is really a   
   bit silly.   
      
   I have several books of literary criticism on my shelves, but it would be   
   silly to pick up one and say "this isn't Lit Crit, this is a book"   
      
   With even more respect due to Marshall McLuhan, that's taking "the medium is   
   the massage" a bit too far.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   It's not a parable, either. Parables don't normally have named characters,   
   they don't have developing plots, and they usually make one point.   
      
   If LWW were an allegory of, say, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ in   
   the gospels, then one has to ask which characters in LWW represent which ones   
   in the gospel narratives.   
      
   Who does Peter represent?   
   Who does Susan represent?   
   Who does Edmund represent (you could say Judas, but unlike Judas Edmund   
   	 repents)   
   Who does the White Witch represent? Herod? Pilate? Caiaphas?   
   Who does Tumnus represent? Lazarus? John the Baptist?   
   Who do Mr & Mrs Beaver represent? Mary and Martha of Bethany?   
   Who does Fr Christmas represent?   
      
   There are simply not enough correspondences. Any argument that it is an   
   allegory has more holes than a colander. It just won't hold water.   
      
   And nor, for that matter, is a colander an allegory of a faulty argument,   
   though it may be an analogy.   
      
   Are analogy, allegory and anagram that easily confused?   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm   
        http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)