XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.childrens   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
      
   In rec.arts.books.tolkien nystulc@cs.com wrote:   
   > stephen@nomail.com wrote:   
   >> In rec.arts.books.tolkien nystulc@cs.com wrote:   
   >> > stephen@nomail.com wrote:   
   >> >> I am not ignoring any part of the definition.  The question   
   >> >> is, does Lewis use "an expressive style that uses fictional characters   
   >> >> and events to describe some subject by suggestive resemblances;   
   >> >> an extended metaphor".   
   >>   
   >> > If the last three words are essential, then the answer is "no".  The   
   >> > answer might be "yes" if the earlier words are interpreted broadly.   
   >>   
   >> The last three words?   'an extended metaphor'?  What is   
   >> your definition of 'an extended metaphor'?  You seem   
   >> to have some definition in mind but have not provided one.   
      
      
      
   > One could come up with less strict definitions of metaphor than this.   
   > My only argument is that, in the end, one must be left with a   
   > definition of "allegory" that is significantly less broad than the word   
   > "story."   
      
   > As applied here, the primary meaning intended is that the Son of God   
   > has been incarnated as a Lion in an alternate world.  The primary   
   > meaning intended is not the original story of Jesus, but another story   
   > featuring the same character, but which, rather like a James Bond   
   > movie, follows a similar formula.  In short, what is intended is what   
   > is portrayed.  This is "allegory" in the sense that the movie "Aliens"   
   > is an allegory for the original "Alien".   
      
   But that is not obvious to the reader, and it is not the   
   only plausible interpretation.  Yes I know that C.S. Lewis   
   said that, but someone reading tLW&tW will not automatically   
   come to that conclusion.  Many people in fact come   
   to the conclusion that Aslan is a metaphor for Christ,   
   one which is extended throughtout the entire novel,   
   and that the various events are all little lessons   
   in Christian theology.   
      
      
      
   >> > Actually, they describe their own story, which is inspired by, and   
   >> > intentionally resembles, but is not intended to represent, the earlier   
   >> > story; and which does not use extended metaphor.  Seems not so clear to   
   >> > me.   
   >>   
   >> How does it not use extended metaphor?  Please provide   
   >> a definition of that phrase and show that it does not apply.   
   >> "To take take arms against a sea of troubles" is a metaphor   
   >> (a mixed on at that).  How far does a metaphor have to   
   >> be carried in order for it to be extended, and who   
   >> determines that?   
      
   > I discussed it above.  You are welcome to suggest alternate definitions   
   > of metaphor, but ultimately you must be left with something that does   
   > not apply to any story element to which a hidden meaning can be   
   > ascribed (this can always be done), thus making any story an allegory.   
      
   The question was not about what 'metaphor' means, but what   
   qualifies as an 'extended metaphor'.   You have not   
   provided a definition of 'extended metaphor'.   
      
   >> >> > Lewis has made clear that Aslan was not intended as a metaphor, much   
   >> >> > less an extended metaphor.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Yes but the author does not get to dictate how his story   
   >> >> is to be read.  He may have not have intended Aslan to   
   >> >> be a metaphor, but as written he can be clearly read as one.   
   >>   
   >> > Congratulations!  You have just proved that all elements of all stories   
   >> > are metaphors.   
   >>   
   >> No, but you have proven that you are more interested in   
   >> putting words in my mouth than in debating in good faith.   
      
   > I have put no words into your mouth.  I tried to make a point.  I tried   
   > to point out to you that a certain argument you just made PROVES TOO   
   > MUCH.  I did not accuse you of drawing that overbroad conclusion.  I   
   > merely pointed out that the overbroad conclusion inevitably follows   
   > from the argument you made; suggesting that the definition you propose   
   > is ultimately too broad.   
      
   > If a metaphor can be read where the author did not intend it, then all   
   > story elements are metaphors, and all stories are allegories.  Unless   
   > you would like to propose a reasonable limiting principle that will   
   > prevent this all-encompassing result.   
      
   > You have just accused me of bad faith; and I can sense that this   
   > discussion is getting nasty.  Perhaps it is time for me to cut out.   
      
   >> > If the intent of the speaker is ignored, the destinction between   
   >> > metaphor and non-metaphor becomes meaningless.   
   >>   
   >> But the reader does not know the intention of the author.   
   >> Lewis does not tell the reader at the outset what is intention   
   >> is.  It is up to the reader to infer that.  If they   
   >> infer incorrectly, it is not necessarily the reader's fault.   
      
   > I was not trying to blame anyone.   
      
   You are apparently blaming everyone who does not know   
   Lewis's intent before reading tLW&tW of ignoring   
   Lewis's intent.   
      
   >> >> > Lewis makes clear that the story he tells   
   >> >> > is primarily about itself; it is intended to be its own story, however   
   >> >> > much it may be inspired by the other story (to which it does indeed   
   >> >> > bear some resemblance).  It does not fit definition three -- at least,   
   >> >> > it fits no better than all stories fit.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> It fits far better than most stories.   
   >>   
   >> > Perhaps it does.  If so, I have no quarrell with you calling it an   
   >> > "allegory" on the basis of it containing greater purposeful suggestive   
   >> > resemblances than normal.  I am not sure, however, how one would   
   >> > quantify suggestive resemblances, especially if intent of the author is   
   >> > ignored (as you insist it should be).   
   >>   
   >> The intent of the author must be ignored if it is unknown.   
      
   > True.  (Though moot, in this case, since you and I both know the intent   
   > of the author).   
      
   No, it is not moot.   
      
   >> Do you require that someone go read the author's own   
   >> summary of their work before reading the work?   
      
   > No.  But then again, I do not require them to decide whether it is   
   > "allegory" or is an "extended metaphor."  Such decisions, thankfully,   
   > are not required to enjoy a story.  Most stories, thankfully, are best   
   > enjoyed as stories.  In any event, I think the work ultimately speaks   
   > for itself, and the intent of the author can be correctly inferred.   
      
   But people will make such decisions about a book, and they   
   should be allowed to make such decisions without asking   
   the author's opinion.  Any sort of work is going to contain   
   things its creator did not intend, and will also not contain   
   all the things its creator did intend.   
      
   >> If not,   
   >> then you cannot demand that the reader respect the   
   >> author's intent, as the reader will not know the author's   
   >> intent.   
      
   > I am not demanding anything.  In any event, you know the author's   
   > intent.   
      
   Yes.  But that does not affect what the book actually   
   says and how people actually respond to the book.   
      
   >> Of course the reader can make guesses about the author's   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)