Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Allegory (was, Mouse takes on Lion)

Expand Messages
  • Margaret Dean
    ... But the identifications are not at the same level. By supposal Lewis meant something like Suppose Christ were to manifest Himself in a world like
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 3, 2004
      "Carl F. Hostetter" wrote:

      > On Mar 3, 2004, at 1:53 PM, Margaret Dean wrote:
      >
      > > Come on now, Carl, you know better than that. =The Lion, the Witch,
      > > and the Wardrobe= is NOT an allegory. Lewis said it wasn't (he
      > > preferred to call it a "supposal"), and he, of all people, should
      > > know.
      >
      > Actually, I didn't know that Lewis made any such claim. At any rate,
      > Aslan _is_ Christ, his sacrifice at the hands of Jadis _is_ The
      > Crucifixion, etc., etc. That makes it a Christian allegory in my book.

      But the identifications are not at the same level. By "supposal"
      Lewis meant something like "Suppose Christ were to manifest
      Himself in a world like Narnia's -- what form might he take, and
      what might happen?" Therefore Aslan "is" Christ in a very
      fundamental way, but his sacrifice on the Stone Table is a
      similar or parallel event to the Crucifixion, not the same event.

      I had to smile a bit when you said it was a Christian allegory
      "in my book", and think, "But what about Lewis' book?" ...
      because it's awfully tempting to say that Lewis "wrote the book"
      on the subject of allegory (=The Allegory of Love=). All right,
      maybe not =the= book, but I believe it's still a highly valued
      study of the subject, though first published in 1936.

      I suspect one reason both Lewis and Tolkien got a bit tetchy at
      hearing their fantasies called "allegories" was that both of them
      were medievalists by training and knew very well what an
      allegory, by its original definition, was.


      --Margaret Dean
      <margdean@...>
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      I accept that Lewis and I are applying different usages of the word allegory ; indeed, I knew that we had to be in order for him to deny that _LWW_ is a
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 3, 2004
        I accept that Lewis and I are applying different usages of the word
        "allegory"; indeed, I knew that we had to be in order for him to deny
        that _LWW_ is a Christian allegory.

        But I don't want that to detract from the meaning of my original
        statement, which is that I "boldly" predict (i.e., consider it a pretty
        safe bet) that the Christian elements of Lewis's story, fundamental as
        they are, will nonetheless not survive the Disney filter; in precisely
        the way that the same elements in Tolkien's story did not survive
        Jackson and Boyen's "vision".

        Carl

        (Who also was a medievalist in college and has read more than his fair
        share of medieval allegories and considers _LWW_ as obviously
        allegorical as such canonical medieval allegories as _Pearl_ or _Piers
        Plowman_.)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.