XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.childrens   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: news@pointerstop.ca   
      
   Mike Schilling wrote:   
      
   >   
   > "junior-kun"  wrote in message   
   > news:1138225853.698467.227940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> Mike Schilling wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> If Lewis is retelling the Christian story, then all the major story   
   >>> elements   
   >>> in the Narnia books (characters, settings, conflicts etc.) came from the   
   >>> pre-existing Christian story, and this simple isn't true, any more than   
   >>> an   
   >>> allrgory's 1-1 correspondence is present.   
   >>   
   >> Nobody who is suggesting Narnia is allegory is claiming that a 1-1   
   >> correspondance is present, or need to present, that's just silly.   
   >   
   > True: such people must be using a definition of "allegory" that has no   
   > such   
   > requirement.  Similarly, people calling Narnia a pastrami sandwich must be   
   > using a definition that doesn't involve bread or meat.   
      
   Well, nobody has bothered to present here a requirement that allegory _must_   
   have a 1-1 correspondence.  Would you give us that definition, please?  And   
   how does it exclude definitions that don't require such tight   
   correspondence?   
   --   
   derek   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)