XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.childrens   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
      
   In rec.arts.books.tolkien Christopher Kreuzer    
   wrote:   
   > Steve Hayes  wrote:   
      
   >    
      
   >> 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   
      
   > I agree. The whole allegory/not allegory subthread may have been started   
   > by my injudicious use of the word (though someone else would have used   
   > it eventually), but it has been very interesting.   
      
   > I have a few thoughts on this, but I'm not quite sure where to add them.   
   > I think this post will be as good a place as anywhere.   
      
   I also had some thoughts but was not sure where to add them,   
   so I'll follow suit.   
      
      
      
   > Which of these apply to Narnia? IMO, given the right context, most of   
   > these words can be used to describe aspects of, or all of, Narnia and   
   > what Lewis was trying to achieve with his story.   
      
   One of the challenges with classifying the LW&W story is that   
   "with God all things are possible".  What do I mean   
   by this?  In "Animal Farm" the pigs represent the   
   rulers of a communist government, and there is definitely   
   a Stalin/Napoleon and Trotsky/Snowball connection going   
   on.  However Stalin was not a pig (well, not in the literal   
   sense :) ), and he cannot be a pig.  So there is no reasonable way   
   to read the story thinking that Napoleon is really Stalin in a different   
   form.  On the other hand Jesus was not a lion, but as Jesus is God,   
   Jesus can be anything he wants, so the reader has a choice.   
   They can see Aslan as a symbol for Christ, in the same way   
   that Napoleon represents Stalin, or they can see Aslan as   
   the actual Christ appearing as a lion.  I know Lewis intended   
   the latter, but nothing in the LW&W excludes the former.   
      
   I am not sure how theologically sound Lewis's   
   position is, and of course that depends on who you ask.   
   The exact connection between body and soul is one of those   
   great puzzlers and even dividing points among Christians.   
   The idea that Jesus had a real human body, and was in   
   fact a real human being, is a critical point, and I would   
   imagine that among some theologians this precludes him   
   incarnating as a lion.  After all, Jesus physically ascended   
   into Heaven.  God may do whatever he wants, but he chooses to   
   follow his own rules.   
      
   Someone coming from a theologically background where Jesus   
   being a lion is as preposterous as Stalin being a pig is   
   going to see Aslan as a symbol.   
      
      
   > One more term, or rather technique, that I haven't seen used, and that I   
   > would like to add to the mix, is this one:   
      
   > retelling   
      
   > I was wondering whether the whole argument about using the word allegory   
   > in connection with the Narnia stories could be side-stepped by saying,   
   > much as Lewis does, that it is a fictionalised _retelling_ of the   
   > Christian story?   
      
   That does not seem all that different from the "allegory position"   
   in my opinion.   
      
   Stephen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)