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 12:41:06 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> 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.
Or discussion over port in the senior common room. Or discussing a paper read
at a symposium (where the notion of a booze-up is implicit).
>> 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.
I think this thread represents Usenet at its best, or nearly so. It's
crossposted to several newsgroups, yet has remained on-topic in most of them
for most of the time, and has brought togeter people of a wide variety of
viewpoints and levels and fields of expertise. This makes it interesting and
stimulating and challenging. Some people like to stick to the same old
newsgroup, and so have the same old arguments from the same old people.
But in this thread I have learnt something, from various different people. You
don't have to be a lit crit fundi -- after all anyone can read a book,
especially books by people like Lewis and Tolkien, and enjoy them at various
levels. You don't have to udnerstand them exactly as the author did, or
exactly as other people who have read them do, but you can learn from other
people's views on the books, which can either modify or reinforce your own.
But whenever people are discussing books, it's lit crit.
>> 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?
Not necessarily every single one in a one to one correspondence, but the main
characters, yes.
I don't think so.
>However, I'll give you Susan & Lucy as Mary & Martha, and Tumnus as
>Lazarus.
But they don't work as that.
Peter & Susan (can a character in an allegory take more than one
>part?) as reluctant converts. Edmund definitely as Judas.
But Edmund didn't commit suicide.
>The White Witch
>representing the whole of Judaism
You've GOT to be joking!
& Maugrim as Caiaphas.
And there, too. Maugrim represents Himmler or Beria. Caiaphas acts as a judge
in a religious court, not as the secret police of the occupying power.
The beavers as
>"the disciples". Father Christmas never really felt to me as if he
>belonged in this book.
But he's there, representing himself, or at least the popular public
perception of him.
No, as allegory LWW simply doesn't work.
As someone else has pointed our, "The pilgrims regress" is allegory, and there
are allegorical elements in "The great divorce", but in LWW, no.
--
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)
|
