XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.childrens   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us   
      
   Steve Hayes wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I was unaware that President Bush is prepared to bring war and destruction to   
   the   
   entire EARTH!!!!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)