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 20:55:39 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>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 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? Much as people retell myths and legends from age to
>age, the Christian story is being told in a different form. There are
>therefore two stories proceeding at the same time, side-by-side:
>elements of the Christian story, and then the story of Narnia providing
>a background to the story. Recall the discussion (I think it was between
>Tolkien and Lewis) where the Christian story is compared to myth, and
>how this form of story strikes deep into the human psyche.
I think you could say that it is a mythical retelling, bearing in mind
something that Lewis said:
C.S. Lewis and allegory.
Source: Carpenter 1978:30.
Lewis wrote to Tolkien on 7 December 1929, after reading
Tolkien's poem on Beren and Luthien, "The two things that come
out clearly are the sense of reality in the background and the
mythical value: the essence of a myth being that it should
have no taint of allegory to the maker and yet should suggest
incipient allegories to the reader."
I think LWW *does* suggest incipient allegories to the reader. For example,
when i first read it, Maugrim suggested Lieutenant Dreyer of the Security
Police. Police raids were common in those days (early 1960s). That was an
incipient allegory to me, but certainly not intended by Lewis.
A reader in Soviet Russia might have made a connection that was similar, but
not quite the same.
To call a whole work "allegory", as some insist on doing with the Narnia
stories (illegitimately, i believe) is quite different. In allegorical works,
the allegory is intended by the author,
And then there is allegorical interpretation.
I once heard a Congregational minister preach a sermon with an allegorical
interpretation of the capture of Jericho and Ai by the Israelites (Joshua
chapters 7-8). After the Israelites captured Jericho, they were defeated by
the smaller town of Ai, and this was attributed to one of the Israelite
soldiers keeping some booty secretly. In his sermon the ministrer allegorised
this, and said that the booty represented a small, secret sin in our lives,
that we wanted to hang on to and not get rid of, something that other people
were not even aware of, but could nevertheless damage the whole community.
Such allegorical interpretation, especially of the Old Testament, has been
quite common in Christian history, and often quite elaborate, going well
beyond the "incipient allegories" (note the plural) that Lewis says are
suggested to the reader in true myth.
>Consider the aim of retelling a story, or to phrase it another way:
>
>recasting
>
>An author recasts/retells a tale to present it to a different audience.
>And that was clearly one of the aims that Lewis had. To present the
>story in a different context so that the essential points of the story
>would be understood and transmitted, without just being thought of as a
>"boring bible story".
>
>So LWW is a "contextualised retelling of the Christian story".
>
>"Allegory" is so 14th-century! :-)
>
>Someone did ask "Who does Peter represent?" with respect to LWW. I'm not
>sure who he represents there, if indeed he represents anyone at all, but
>on a recent re-reading of the Narnia books I was struck by the scene in
>'The Last Battle' where Peter, for some reason, is the one that produces
>a golden key (seemingly out of nowhere) and locks the door through which
>everyone has just come, from Narnia, into what we later discover is
>another level up, effectively heaven. I suddenly noticed the slight
>correspondence here between Peter Pevensie and St Peter, he of the
>pearly gates, said to greet those entering heaven. But maybe I am
>over-reading the text?
That sounds a reasonable connection to make, and one probably intended by
Lewis, though it doesn't necessarily make Peter in the stories an allegory for
St Peter, even though it's an almost typological role.
And doesn't that bring us back to the "deplorable word" and the "one ring" of
Lord of the Rings. They can suggest to readers the threat of a nuclear
holocaust, and they are indeed "weapons of mass destruction". But they are not
allegories of actual people in history, or abstract qualities. But both Lewis
and Tolkien in their mythical retellings portray the kind of behaviour and
moral choices people have to make when they possess such potent weapons or are
faced with others wielding them.
The ring and the deplorable word are not allegories of weapons of mass
destruction in our world, they ARE weapons of mass destruction in their own
worlds. And readers can see their own connections, which may be incipient
allegories. The behaviour of Jadis in Charn suggests to me the behaviour of
George Bush and Saddam Hussein in our world... the latterprepared to allow his
country to be destroyed, and the former prepared to bring war and destruction
to the whole world in an insane desire to retain and enhance his power. But I
don't think either will get a chance to do it again in a brand new world. And
to say that Lewis intended Jadis and her sister to be allegories of George
Bush and Saddam Hussein would be taking it too far. Nevertheless, the reaction
of Polly is the reaction of sane people in our world to their insane
confrontation.
--
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)
|
