on 12/31/05 10:07 AM, mlcvamp@...
> The Oxford article's mention of commentaries on Lewis reminded me of
> one of my Christmas presents, C. S. LEWIS AND NARNIA FOR DUMMIES. I
> think it's quite good of its kind, with no significant errors that I
> noticed. But I was rather bemused by the author's suggestion for new
> readers to work up gradually to the "tougher" books such as ABOLITION
> OF MAN. I'm no professional philosopher or theologian by a long
> stretch, and I have never found any of Lewis' apologetic works anything
> other than completely transparent and immediately comprehensible.
> That's what I loved about his nonfiction as soon as I started reading
> it decades ago -- he's so lucid he can make ANY subject not only clear
> but enjoyable to read about.
> There are people who need ABOLITION OF MAN and MIRACLES *explained*? <G>
I don't think people need it explained, but both books are likely to put
people off and so are best reserved to those who already have read, and
enjoyed, a good deal of Lewis's other work. I know I'd never have read
another book by the man if I'd had the bad luck to begin with ABOLITION
rather than SCREWTAPE. As for MIRACLES, for years I've debated whether DYMER
or THE ABOLITION OF MAN was CSL's worst book: now that I've just completed
MIRACLES a few weeks ago I think it's a three-way split for
worst-of-the-worst. I don't know whether Wagner (not Wendell) agrees or not,
but it's certainly tangential to the CSL he's interested in.
current reading: The Book of Enoch (O.T. apocrapha), "The Problem of Susan"
(Gaiman), Pre-Raphaelite Women (Marsh).
newest purchase: "The Narnian" by Jacobs.
> Best wishes to all for 2006,
> Margaret Carter
--And a Happy New Year to all. 2006: the year of Getting Things Done.