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 12:41:06 -0400, Derek Broughton
> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
They work for me :-)
>
> 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.
I can't see why that's necessary - we've already established that a strict
one-to-one correspondence isn't needed.
>>The White Witch
>>representing the whole of Judaism
>
> You've GOT to be joking!
Well, no. I thought it was my best point :-) In retrospect, I'll admit
that "the whole of" is unreasonable, but "the Jewish leadership" isn't.
>
> & 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.
Caiaphas in the gospels acts as the strong arm of the Jewish leadership,
above. If the Witch stands as I think she does, then Maugrim as Caiaphas
works. Of course if I'm wrong about the Witch, I'm wrong about Maugrim.
--
derek
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
