XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.childrens   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: news@pointerstop.ca   
      
   Steve Hayes wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Not at all - and I'm not insulted.  This is more analogous to a discussion   
   at a party.  Some of the people in the discussion having had a few drinks.   
   >   
   > 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"   
      
   But to _expect_ literary criticism, in a forum which is for "discussion", is   
   to put an unfair burden on those who are _not_ literary critics.  It's   
   tantamount to saying "I'm a literary critic, so your voice doesn't   
   count" (which I've unfortunately heard, almost literally, in RABT, more   
   than once).  Perhaps some of these groups have a charter requiring   
   discussion on that level, but certainly not all.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Does _every_ character in an allegory need to correspond?  I don't think so.   
   However, I'll give you Susan & Lucy as Mary & Martha, and Tumnus as   
   Lazarus.  Peter & Susan (can a character in an allegory take more than one   
   part?) as reluctant converts.  Edmund definitely as Judas.  The White Witch   
   representing the whole of Judaism & Maugrim as Caiaphas.  The beavers as   
   "the disciples".  Father Christmas never really felt to me as if he   
   belonged in this book.   
      
   But thanks at least for taking the time to explain why you don't see it as   
   an allegory - it's a much more valid argument than "it isn't, because Lewis   
   said it wasn't".   
   --   
   derek   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)