"J.K. Rowling among the Inklings"
Troels Forchhammer
Inklings", [1] commenting some parallels Jason has noticed between
passages in Rowling's works and couple of passages in Williams'
novel, _War in Heaven_.
I have no idea whether Rowling knows Williams, or if this particular
idea may exist elsewhere (with a possible source of inspiration
common to the two) -- if anyone knows, I'm sure Jason would be
delighted to learn more.
What attracted my attention, however, was the statement that
But Rowling, like Sayers, is frequently described as an
“honorary Inkling”, or said to be following in the
tradition of the Inklings. The latter is certainly true.
Is Rowling really 'following in the tradition of the Inklings'? Just
because people say it, that doesn't make it true, of course. I was an
avid Rowling enthusiast for some years, but my enthusiasm began to
cool after the fifth book (_Harry Potter and the Order of the
Phoenix_) and since the last of the Potter books (_Harry Potter and
the Deathly Hallows_) it has been more or less dead, though I still
consider the third book in particular to be a very good (children's)
book. When I was following the news about Rowling, I saw many
laudatory claims about Rowling's writings that I, even then, found
questionable, but I haven't been following things for the last 4 - 5
years, and much may have happened in the meantime.
In this particular blog entry, Jason is invoking Charles Williams,
and I have to admit that besides Tolkien's work, I have read next to
nothing of the Inklings (the Narnia books in a Danish translation
targeted at children is, IIRC, all), so I am _not_ going to judge
whether the above statement is actually true; hence my bringing it up
here.
With respect to Tolkien, I can see some parallels in Rowling's works,
but not enough that I would say that she is following in the
tradition of Tolkien -- for that to have been true, there would, in
my opinion, have had to be a greater parallel in the ways the two
authors use and relate to their source material, but what about the
other Inklings?
Are there any particular Inkling(s) in whose tradition Rowling can be
said to follow more closely?
Is there a common denominator for the Inklings in which tradition
Rowling follows? And just to whet the appetite for discussion, I
would say that I am highly sceptical of the claims of Rowling's
Christianity as an inspiration for the books: while I can see much in
both Tolkien's and Lewis' work that relies on their Christian
_faith_, I see nothing of that sort in Rowling's work. There is
Christian culture and Christian ethics, but not specifically
Christian faith or spirituality (here I am more inclined to agree
with the views ostensibly supported the then Cardinal Ratzinger [2]).
Is it correct that Rowling is 'following in the tradition Inklings'?
And if so, in what way(s) is this correct?
[1] Jason Fisher, _Lingwë - Musings of a Fish_, "J.K. Rowling among
the Inklings", Friday, October 8, 2010
<http://lingwe.blogspot.com/2010/10/jk-rowling-among-inklings.html>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ctb2sl>
[2] See e.g.
<http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05071301.html> or
<http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/rita-skeeter-covers-the-vatican/>
X-posted: rec.arts.books.tolkien;
alt.fan.tolkien
alt.books.inklings
alt.fan.harry-potter
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal
nothing.
- Frodo Baggins, /The Return of the King/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
John W Kennedy
> I have no idea whether Rowling knows Williams, or if this particular
> idea may exist elsewhere (with a possible source of inspiration
> common to the two) -- if anyone knows, I'm sure Jason would be
> delighted to learn more.
I do not know offhand of anything earlier than "War in Heaven", but the
same description applies to what is called "the Tarnhelm Effect" in the
Lord Darcy series.
Actually, I can think of one earlier example.
“You’re nearly the first Fairy I ever saw. Have you ever seen any
people besides me?”
“Plenty!” said Bruno. “We see’em when we walk in the road.”
“But they ca’n’t see you. How is it they never tread on you?”
“Ca’n’t tread on us,” said Bruno, looking amused at my ignorance. “Why,
suppose oo’re walking, here--so--” (making little marks on the ground)
“and suppose there’s a Fairy--that’s me--walking here. Very well then,
oo put one foot here, and one foot here, so oo doosn’t tread on the
Fairy.”
-- "Sylvie & Bruno"
--
John W Kennedy
"The grand art mastered the thudding hammer of Thor
And the heart of our lord Taliessin determined the war."
-- Charles Williams. "Mount Badon"
Steve Hayes
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>Jason Fisher has produced a blog entry titled "J.K. Rowling among the
>Inklings", [1] commenting some parallels Jason has noticed between
>passages in Rowling's works and couple of passages in Williams'
>novel, _War in Heaven_.
>
>I have no idea whether Rowling knows Williams, or if this particular
>idea may exist elsewhere (with a possible source of inspiration
>common to the two) -- if anyone knows, I'm sure Jason would be
>delighted to learn more.
>
>What attracted my attention, however, was the statement that
> But Rowling, like Sayers, is frequently described as an
> ?onorary Inkling? or said to be following in the
> tradition of the Inklings. The latter is certainly true.
One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary Inkling" is
that she was a fairly close friend of some of the Inklings, though she never
attended any of their gatherings. That would not, of course, apply to Rowling.
>
>Is Rowling really 'following in the tradition of the Inklings'? Just
>because people say it, that doesn't make it true, of course. I was an
>avid Rowling enthusiast for some years, but my enthusiasm began to
>cool after the fifth book (_Harry Potter and the Order of the
>Phoenix_) and since the last of the Potter books (_Harry Potter and
>the Deathly Hallows_) it has been more or less dead, though I still
>consider the third book in particular to be a very good (children's)
>book. When I was following the news about Rowling, I saw many
>laudatory claims about Rowling's writings that I, even then, found
>questionable, but I haven't been following things for the last 4 - 5
>years, and much may have happened in the meantime.
"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is certainly the one I liked least
of the Harry Potter books, though I thought the series picked up a bit towards
the end. But I still liked the first three books best.
They have in common with the Narnia series and "The Hobbit" the genre of being
children's fantasy, but I don't think that is enough to make anyone an
honorary Inkling. The other Inklings didn't write children's fantasies, and
some of them didn't write anything at all.
The thing about the Harry Potter books is that they came after a dearth of
decent children's books. For a long time all you could get was R.L. Stein and
the "Goosebumps" series, which were mediocre, to say the least. And now you
have the "I'm a lovesick teenage vegeterian vampire" kind of thing which are
as bad as the "Goosebumps" lot, though my son, who works in a bookshop, says
they are now selling a lot less of those than of Harry Potter.
>In this particular blog entry, Jason is invoking Charles Williams,
>and I have to admit that besides Tolkien's work, I have read next to
>nothing of the Inklings (the Narnia books in a Danish translation
>targeted at children is, IIRC, all), so I am _not_ going to judge
>whether the above statement is actually true; hence my bringing it up
>here.
I've been meaning to read his blog post, but haven't yet. I see little
resemblance. Neil Gaiman's "American gods" and "Neverwhere" are a lot closer
to Charles Williams than the Harry Potter books are, but I'm not sure that
that would make him an honorary Inkling.
Over the past few years I've challenged Williams and other Inklings fans to
write books in the Charles Williams genre in NaNoWriMo (National Novel-Writing
Month), but there have been no takers.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Dirk Thierbach
> What attracted my attention, however, was the statement that
> But Rowling, like Sayers, is frequently described as an
>
> Is Rowling really 'following in the tradition of the Inklings'?
I guess to answer this question one would first have to agree what
this "tradition" is in the first place.
In a very loose sense, the appeal of Harry Potter is the same as
LotR or Narnia -- a subcreated world, where this subcreation is used
to say something fundamental about human nature. But that does apply
to lots of SF and F.
In a more strict sense, there are less similarities.
> In this particular blog entry, Jason is invoking Charles Williams,
> [1] Jason Fisher, _Lingwë - Musings of a Fish_, "J.K. Rowling among
> the Inklings", Friday, October 8, 2010
> <http://lingwe.blogspot.com/2010/10/jk-rowling-among-inklings.html>
What he gets hung up on (an "unplottable" house) looks like a common
"gimmick": I can think of several SF/F works with "invisible" houses;
the Wandering Magic Shop is proabably an instance, of this, too; and I
wouldn't be surprised if there are fairy tales with a similar idea.
- Dirk
Clams Canino
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
> They have in common with the Narnia series and "The Hobbit" the genre of
> being
> children's fantasy, but I don't think that is enough to make anyone an
> honorary Inkling. The other Inklings didn't write children's fantasies,
> and
> some of them didn't write anything at all.
I think that's the sticky point. This whole "tradition of the Inklings"
notion is quite vague and smells more of someone trying to sell an article
then anything else.
-W
John W Kennedy
> One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary Inkling" is
> that she was a fairly close friend of some of the Inklings, though she never
> attended any of their gatherings. That would not, of course, apply to Rowling.
Sayers was also a popular writer (which Rowling certainly is), a
language scholar (which Rowling is, properly speaking, not, but she
knows a few languages), and an Oxonian. In addition, Sayers was, like
most of the famous Inklings, a Christian, which Rowling is, at least to
the extent that she self-identifies as Christian and has generally
Christian-compatible sentiments.
> Over the past few years I've challenged Williams and other Inklings fans to
> write books in the Charles Williams genre in NaNoWriMo (National Novel-Writing
> Month), but there have been no takers.
It is not impossible to write after the manner of Charles Williams
(under the Mercy), but it is an experience rich with terror, as though
one were to dream of juggling live wildcats and find it waking truth,
for his prose, yet more his poetry, subsists in a continuum of
morphemes quivering with yet-untapped power and sanctity. Few have the
courage, humility, and concentration to long hold open the
phosphorescent portal between holy humanity and holy sanity.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Sell an article?
To whom?
Hari Seldon
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:Xns9E0E45AD...@130.133.4.11...
> the Inklings", Friday, October 8, 2010
> <http://lingwe.blogspot.com/2010/10/jk-rowling-among-inklings.html>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ctb2sl>
>
> [2] See e.g.
> <http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05071301.html> or
> <http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/rita-skeeter-covers-the-vatican/>
>
>
> X-posted: rec.arts.books.tolkien;
> alt.fan.tolkien
> alt.books.inklings
> alt.fan.harry-potter
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
> Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
> Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
>
> It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal
> nothing.
> - Frodo Baggins, /The Return of the King/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
There is one aspect that certainly applies 1:1 to the books of Rowling and
one member of the Inkling-club.
"Oh my God! Please! No more Elves!!!"
That thought came up regular while reading on Doby and all.
That said. Book 4 of Rowling was indeed the weakest of all - should have
been 240 pages instead of 500. On the other hand, kudos for Rowling
finishing the tale after book 4 and 5 and keeping up a high level of
quality. Compared to works of Herbert or Zelazny she actually managed to
stand and deliver which the Dune- or Amber-tale missed, imho. Even the
before unpublished or unfinished tales of Tolkien do prove - again imho -
why they were not published before. They just lack quality. The one serie
that stays strong that I can come up with is Vance's Demon Princes (but
that's SF).
On the Inkling club, imho Rowling didn't have a (deeper) allegory of
christianity that Tolkien and Lewis for instance, framed in their works.
Lewis wrote brilliant fairytale, Tolkien wrote brilliant mythological.
Rowling did a fine job on combingin these two writing the HP's. Let's hope
more of that quality will come.
I guess like most of you all, I love the lore in Tolkiens world - and HP had
less lore... Narnia had less lore than HP.
Weland
to some extent, I don't see the connection. The post skirts by, barely,
the fallacy of saying "A looks like Z, therefore A is Z".
I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is Lewis and
Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no surprise: she's
educated in the British system, read Classics, and is heavily influenced
by the Arthurian tradition and Chaucer as well as classical texts like
the Aeneid and the Odyssey. There's no question she's influenced by the
same texts as Lewis and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as
well as by T. H. White among other things. So sure, following at least
in part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
Weland
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:38:26 -0400, "Clams Canino"<cc-m...@earthdink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steve Hayes"<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> They have in common with the Narnia series and "The Hobbit" the genre of
>>> being
>>> children's fantasy, but I don't think that is enough to make anyone an
>>> honorary Inkling. The other Inklings didn't write children's fantasies,
>>> and
>>> some of them didn't write anything at all.
>>
>> I think that's the sticky point. This whole "tradition of the Inklings"
>> notion is quite vague and smells more of someone trying to sell an article
>> then anything else.
>
> Sell an article?
>
> To whom?
>
>
Not "sell" perhaps, but get another published.
Weland
> On 2010-10-10 22:49:40 -0400, Steve Hayes said:
>> One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary
>> Inkling" is
>> that she was a fairly close friend of some of the Inklings, though she
>> never
>> attended any of their gatherings. That would not, of course, apply to
>> Rowling.
>
> Sayers was also a popular writer (which Rowling certainly is), a
> language scholar (which Rowling is, properly speaking, not, but she
> knows a few languages), and an Oxonian. In addition, Sayers was, like
> most of the famous Inklings, a Christian, which Rowling is, at least to
> the extent that she self-identifies as Christian and has generally
Hmm, I wonder what makes Sayers a "language scholar" and Rowling not?
Sayers read Modern Languages and Medieval Literature. Rowling did
French and Classics. Sayers did some work on Dante. Rowling worked as
a language specialist and translator for Amnesty International. What
makes Sayers a "language scholar", but Rowling not? Both did work in
modern and classical languages, both have worked in modern languages in
a professional capacity.
Steve Hayes
>I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is Lewis and
>Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no surprise: she's
>educated in the British system, read Classics, and is heavily influenced
>by the Arthurian tradition and Chaucer as well as classical texts like
>the Aeneid and the Odyssey. There's no question she's influenced by the
>same texts as Lewis and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as
>well as by T. H. White among other things. So sure, following at least
>in part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
After reading Jason's blog, I blogged about it here:
http://khanya.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/j-k-rowling-among-the-inklings/
and Jason commented on one aspect of it thus:
"As a matter of macroscopic comparison, I would probably agree with you,
Steve. (And remember, Gaiman was much influenced by the Inklings himself.) I
was really just drawing a comparison on this specific motif. However, there
are some other general similarities between Williams and Rowling, e.g., the
location of a supernatural world alongside (and usually invisible to) the
humdrum reality of the hoi polloi, the humorous and often parodic treatment of
class differences, vocations, etc. But I wasn’t trying to say Williams for a
major influence — or even any influence at all — on Rowling. It just struck me
as possible this motif in her novels came from Williams. There’s no evidence
of it, of course."
And if it comes down to the "hidden building motif" common to Williams and
Rowling, I remember a ghost story that was read to me by a teacher at school,
about a man who stayed in a hotel that had no room 13 - there was just a 12
and 14 - but during the night room 12 where he was staying suddenly altered
and a room 13 appeared. Perhaps both Williams and Rowling were influenced by
that story, or others like it. And Lewis used a similar one in gateways to
Narnia - now you see it, now you don't.
Another point of similarity, not specifically mentioned by Jason, but which
can be seen, is that both Williams (in "Many Dimensions") and Rowling satirise
British bureaucracy.
And when it comes to "the location of a supernatural world alongside (and
usually invisible to) the humdrum reality of the hoi polloi" Alan Garner's
children's books, especially "Elidor", do that too. That book would surely
make Garner an "honorary Inkling" too.
John W Kennedy
> On 10/11/2010 11:03 AM, John W Kennedy wrote:
>> On 2010-10-10 22:49:40 -0400, Steve Hayes said:
>>> One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary
>>> Inkling" is
>>> that she was a fairly close friend of some of the Inklings, though she
>>> never
>>> attended any of their gatherings. That would not, of course, apply to
>>> Rowling.
>>
>> Sayers was also a popular writer (which Rowling certainly is), a
>> language scholar (which Rowling is, properly speaking, not, but she
>> knows a few languages), and an Oxonian. In addition, Sayers was, like
>> most of the famous Inklings, a Christian, which Rowling is, at least to
>> the extent that she self-identifies as Christian and has generally
>> Christian-compatible sentiments..
>
>
> Hmm, I wonder what makes Sayers a "language scholar" and Rowling not?
> Sayers read Modern Languages and Medieval Literature. Rowling did
> French and Classics. Sayers did some work on Dante. Rowling worked as
> a language specialist and translator for Amnesty International. What
> makes Sayers a "language scholar", but Rowling not? Both did work in
> modern and classical languages, both have worked in modern languages in
> a professional capacity.
I suspect you are confusing two different meanings of "modern
language". And Sayers did a good deal more than "some work" on Dante,
not to mention also translating the Song of Roland and other texts. (In
fact, the IAU uses her translation of the Song of Roland for the naming
theme of features of Iapetus.)
Clams Canino
"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> Not "sell" perhaps, but get another published.
Yes... I used the term "sell" loosely. I trust my intent was clear.
-W
Paul S. Person
<Roel....@philips.nl> wrote:
<snippo>
>That said. Book 4 of Rowling was indeed the weakest of all - should have
>been 240 pages instead of 500. On the other hand, kudos for Rowling
>finishing the tale after book 4 and 5 and keeping up a high level of
>quality. Compared to works of Herbert or Zelazny she actually managed to
>stand and deliver which the Dune- or Amber-tale missed, imho. Even the
>before unpublished or unfinished tales of Tolkien do prove - again imho -
>why they were not published before. They just lack quality. The one serie
>that stays strong that I can come up with is Vance's Demon Princes (but
>that's SF).
Of course, she had two advantages:
1) She had a defined end-point, that is, she knew the entire story
(please note that I do not say in how much detail she knew it, as it
may have been just an outline) before she started writing.
2) She lived long enough to finish it.
In the first case, I doubt that Herbert had such an outline before he
wrote /Dune/, and Zelazny's first Amber series was completed, it is
the second series that just ends, and which may or may not have had an
overall plot before it was started.
In the second case, IIRC, both Herbert and Zelazny died before they
could get the next book out. Which might or might not have been the
book that wrapped up the series.
And, in the case of Herbert, Washington State had discovered that it
was home to a /very/ popular and successful author, who had not
bothered to pay his B&O tax for several years. This gave Herbert a
financial incentive to spin the tale out as long as possible. So he
may or may not have ever actually wrapped it up. Yes, I know, his
heirs have put out a pair of novels purportedly based on Herbert's
plot outline for the end of the series, but if the publicity value of
that assertion is considered, the possibility that it was no such
thing must also be considered. Especially if they still had back B&O
taxes to pay.
Note: B&O taxes are an amazing invention by which the State of
Washington extracts, from each business, a percentage of its income --
which, as I understand it, includes any monies provided for startup! A
business can be paying B&O taxes on the money it gets from investors
for years before actually starting business operations, if it happens
to be the sort of business that takes a few years to start up. To be
fair, there is a lower limit below which the tax need not be paid, so
very small and not particularly successful business just have to file
a return to show that they don't owe the tax.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Hari Seldon
Thanks for the reply! Apreciate it! Didn;t know about the tax-Herbert story.
But even in the first series of Zelazny I found book 5 kind of disappointed.
The story was so ultimate Epic that the solution to let Random be king was
ultimately disappointing. In series II Zelazny tried different writing
styles (James Joyce anyone?) and that didn;t work. I absolutely love Dune,
read Children of Dune and scanned the rest and threw it away. Same with the
Merlin-Zelazny story... Rowling on the other hand.. .I *read*, while she was
loaded, she continued...
richard e white
I will have to admit I've never heard of the defanistion before.
who came up with it?
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Try the Olympus DM-520 for digital music and Audio books!
Jeff Urs
> Thanks for the reply! Apreciate it! Didn;t know about the tax-Herbert story.
> But even in the first series of Zelazny I found book 5 kind of disappointed.
> The story was so ultimate Epic that the solution to let Random be king was
> ultimately disappointing. In series II Zelazny tried different writing
> styles (James Joyce anyone?) and that didn;t work. I absolutely love Dune,
> read Children of Dune and scanned the rest and threw it away. Same with the
> Merlin-Zelazny story... Rowling on the other hand.. .I *read*, while she was
> loaded, she continued...
IMO, _Dune_ by itself and Amber after _The Courts of Chaos_ are as
complete as Harry Potter after _The Deathly Hallows_. All the
important issues have been resolved, leaving nothing more that really
needs to be said. (And, really, who else but Random was there, except
for Corwin himself, who -- understandably -- no longer wanted it?)
--
Jeff
Weland
> On 2010-10-11 20:03:18 -0400, Weland said:
>
>> On 10/11/2010 11:03 AM, John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> On 2010-10-10 22:49:40 -0400, Steve Hayes said:
>>>> One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary
>>>> Inkling" is
>>>> that she was a fairly close friend of some of the Inklings, though she
>>>> never
>>>> attended any of their gatherings. That would not, of course, apply to
>>>> Rowling.
>>>
>>> Sayers was also a popular writer (which Rowling certainly is), a
>>> language scholar (which Rowling is, properly speaking, not, but she
>>> knows a few languages), and an Oxonian. In addition, Sayers was, like
>>> most of the famous Inklings, a Christian, which Rowling is, at least to
>>> the extent that she self-identifies as Christian and has generally
>>> Christian-compatible sentiments..
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I wonder what makes Sayers a "language scholar" and Rowling not?
>> Sayers read Modern Languages and Medieval Literature. Rowling did
>> French and Classics. Sayers did some work on Dante. Rowling worked as
>> a language specialist and translator for Amnesty International. What
>> makes Sayers a "language scholar", but Rowling not? Both did work in
>> modern and classical languages, both have worked in modern languages
>> in a professional capacity.
>
> I suspect you are confusing two different meanings of "modern language".
I doubt it.
> And Sayers did a good deal more than "some work" on Dante, not to
> mention also translating the Song of Roland and other texts.
You fail to answer the question. Her work on Dante is well known. It
took her years. Her "translation" of Roland is fine, but anyone with a
decent understanding of either Latin or French can do it. Rowling has
both. So again, I fail to see why one would call Sayers a "language
scholar" and not Rowling, the latter who again has both educational
training in languages, and worked professionally as a translator (not to
mention her use of classical and medieval texts sometimes quite
extensively in HP).
(In fact,
> the IAU uses her translation of the Song of Roland for the naming theme
> of features of Iapetus.)
I don't take the IAU as a measure of the quality of a translation or who
is or is not a "language scholar."
derek
I'm not even confident about their definition of what is, or isn't, a
planet - which is far more within their field of expertise :-)
John W Kennedy
You are if you regard OF and MnF as the same language.
>> And Sayers did a good deal more than "some work" on Dante, not to
>> mention also translating the Song of Roland and other texts.
>
> You fail to answer the question. Her work on Dante is well known. It
> took her years. Her "translation" of Roland is fine, but anyone with a
> decent understanding of either Latin or French can do it.
That's like saying anyone with a decent understanding of English can
read Sir Gawayn & þe Grene Knyȝt
Weland
You are the one confused. They are the same language, just at different
periods. And for the intelligent, it isn't hard to go from one to the
other and back.
>
>>> And Sayers did a good deal more than "some work" on Dante, not to
>>> mention also translating the Song of Roland and other texts.
>>
>> You fail to answer the question. Her work on Dante is well known. It
>> took her years. Her "translation" of Roland is fine, but anyone with a
>> decent understanding of either Latin or French can do it.
>
> That's like saying anyone with a decent understanding of English can
> read Sir Gawayn & þe Grene Knyȝt
Happens to be true. I teach the text to undergraduates in Middle English.
Weland
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:55:54 -0500, Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is Lewis and
>> Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no surprise: she's
>> educated in the British system, read Classics, and is heavily influenced
>> by the Arthurian tradition and Chaucer as well as classical texts like
>> the Aeneid and the Odyssey. There's no question she's influenced by the
>> same texts as Lewis and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as
>> well as by T. H. White among other things. So sure, following at least
>> in part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
>
> After reading Jason's blog, I blogged about it here:
>
> http://khanya.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/j-k-rowling-among-the-inklings/
>
> and Jason commented on one aspect of it thus:
>
> "As a matter of macroscopic comparison, I would probably agree with you,
> Steve. (And remember, Gaiman was much influenced by the Inklings himself.) I
> was really just drawing a comparison on this specific motif. However, there
> are some other general similarities between Williams and Rowling, e.g., the
> location of a supernatural world alongside (and usually invisible to) the
> humdrum reality of the hoi polloi, the humorous and often parodic treatment of
> major influence � or even any influence at all � on Rowling. It just struck me
> as possible this motif in her novels came from Williams. There�s no evidence
> of it, of course."
>
> And if it comes down to the "hidden building motif" common to Williams and
> Rowling, I remember a ghost story that was read to me by a teacher at school,
> about a man who stayed in a hotel that had no room 13 - there was just a 12
> and 14 - but during the night room 12 where he was staying suddenly altered
> and a room 13 appeared. Perhaps both Williams and Rowling were influenced by
> that story, or others like it. And Lewis used a similar one in gateways to
> Narnia - now you see it, now you don't.
House of Lost Play, Arthurian Romances, Christianity is built on the
assumption of an unseen world around us that we could see if only we had
spiritual vision...which saints do; Dickens even shows us a whole world
of spirits wandering around unseen....folktales have hidden buildings
and places.
> Another point of similarity, not specifically mentioned by Jason, but which
> can be seen, is that both Williams (in "Many Dimensions") and Rowling satirise
> British bureaucracy.
Not peculiar to these two authors either.
richard e white
> On 10/11/2010 8:41 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:55:54 -0500, Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is Lewis and
> >> Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no surprise: she's
> >> educated in the British system, read Classics, and is heavily influenced
> >> by the Arthurian tradition and Chaucer as well as classical texts like
> >> the Aeneid and the Odyssey. There's no question she's influenced by the
> >> same texts as Lewis and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as
> >> well as by T. H. White among other things. So sure, following at least
> >> in part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
> >
> > After reading Jason's blog, I blogged about it here:
> >
> > http://khanya.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/j-k-rowling-among-the-inklings/
> >
> > and Jason commented on one aspect of it thus:
> >
> > "As a matter of macroscopic comparison, I would probably agree with you,
> > Steve. (And remember, Gaiman was much influenced by the Inklings himself.) I
> > was really just drawing a comparison on this specific motif. However, there
> > are some other general similarities between Williams and Rowling, e.g., the
> > location of a supernatural world alongside (and usually invisible to) the
> > humdrum reality of the hoi polloi, the humorous and often parodic treatment of
> > class differences, vocations, etc. But I wasn’t trying to say Williams for a
> > major influence — or even any influence at all — on Rowling. It just struck me
> > as possible this motif in her novels came from Williams. There’s no evidence
> > of it, of course."
> >
> > And if it comes down to the "hidden building motif" common to Williams and
> > Rowling, I remember a ghost story that was read to me by a teacher at school,
> > about a man who stayed in a hotel that had no room 13 - there was just a 12
> > and 14 - but during the night room 12 where he was staying suddenly altered
> > and a room 13 appeared. Perhaps both Williams and Rowling were influenced by
> > that story, or others like it. And Lewis used a similar one in gateways to
> > Narnia - now you see it, now you don't.
>
> House of Lost Play, Arthurian Romances, Christianity is built on the
> assumption of an unseen world around us that we could see if only we had
> spiritual vision...which saints do; Dickens even shows us a whole world
> of spirits wandering around unseen....folktales have hidden buildings
> and places.
>
> > Another point of similarity, not specifically mentioned by Jason, but which
> > can be seen, is that both Williams (in "Many Dimensions") and Rowling satirise
> > British bureaucracy.
>
> Not peculiar to these two authors either.
>
> > And when it comes to "the location of a supernatural world alongside (and
> > usually invisible to) the humdrum reality of the hoi polloi" Alan Garner's
> > children's books, especially "Elidor", do that too. That book would surely
> > make Garner an "honorary Inkling" too.
> >
> >
> >
> >
If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books don't fit. "The
red pyramid" might fit if a Christian view isn't required.
So the question is it only a Christian unseen world which sets these writers aside,
or is it just an unseen world?
richard e white
The problem in potter is that it is hard to belive everything was instantly fine.
No clean up, no hunting for people who slipped out the back. In fact no one even
explained how the Minster job went to shakabolt. Its like saying everything is
done after the vase hits the ground. The clean up was important as well. But
like so many movies the crash was better then what went on next.the
Matthew Woodcraft
> Hmm, I wonder what makes Sayers a "language scholar" and Rowling not?
> Sayers read Modern Languages and Medieval Literature. Rowling did
> French and Classics. Sayers did some work on Dante. Rowling worked as
> a language specialist and translator for Amnesty International. What
> makes Sayers a "language scholar", but Rowling not? Both did work in
> modern and classical languages, both have worked in modern languages
> in a professional capacity.
It looks to me that this says "Sayers did some scholarly work and
Rowling hasn't, so why do people call Sayers a language scholar but not
Rowling?" (which would answer itself).
Presumably that's not what you're saying, but it isn't obvious whether
you're surprised that people consider translations and commentaries on
Dante to be scholarly work, or that people don't count translation work
for Amnesty International as scholarly.
Neither seems surprising to me.
-M-
Troels Forchhammer
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
> On 10/10/2010 9:49 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary
>> Inkling" is that she was a fairly close friend of some of the
>> Inklings, though she never attended any of their gatherings. That
>> would not, of course, apply to Rowling.
I think we should look at the 'in the tradition of the Inklings' part
rather than waste too much effort on the 'honourary Inkling'
statement -- the latter is, as you point out, attributed to Sayers
because of some very specific historical circumstances and it is
nonsensical to attribute it to Rowling or any other author who didn't
belong to these particular historical circumstances.
Dirk said that
||| I guess to answer this question one would first have to agree
||| what this "tradition" is in the first place.
which I think is a very relevant question -- what, if anything, is
the 'tradition of the Inklings'? As I said, I am (in the present
company) particularly unknowledgeable about other Inklings than
Tolkien, but as Steve has pointed out, the Inklings' literary
production spans very widely (with some of them, as I understand it,
publishing nothing and others only non-fiction).
<snip>
> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is
> Lewis and Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no
> surprise: she's educated in the British system,
[...]
> There's no question she's influenced by the same texts as Lewis
> and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as well as by T. H.
> White among other things. So sure, following at least in part
> the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
But, as you put it here, you seem to imply that this tradition is
merely the tradition of any reasonably well-educated British fantasy
author? I'm sure much of the same could be said, for instance, of
Philip Pullman . . .
Is there anything that distinguishes the Inklings from the broader
background of British twentieth-century (sub-creative?) literature?
I'm fishing here, I know, but though there has been a lot of writing
about the Inklings, I don't think I have seen it suggested that their
work belongs to a common 'tradition' -- if anything the 'tradition'
was one of communality, of testing ideas on each other and openly
discussing each others' work, but this would, as I understand it, be
particularly inappropriate for Rowling who appears to have worked
very much alone.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Troels Forchhammer
<chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
> Weland wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2010 8:41 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>
<snip and re-arranging>
>>> Another point of similarity, not specifically mentioned by
>>> Jason, but which can be seen, is that both Williams (in "Many
>>> Dimensions") and Rowling satirise British bureaucracy.
>>
>> Not peculiar to these two authors either.
No, hardly ;-)
Bureaucracy seems a common target of satire in any form of narrative
art -- whether film, comic-book (there's a delicious _Asterix_ that I
remember), poetry or prose (and possibly in other art-forms as well).
This seems more to be a tradition of artists ;-)
>>> And if it comes down to the "hidden building motif" common to
>>> Williams and Rowling, I remember a ghost story
<snip specifics>
>>> Perhaps both Williams and Rowling were influenced by that story,
>>> or others like it. And Lewis used a similar one in gateways to
>>> Narnia - now you see it, now you don't.
>>
>> House of Lost Play, Arthurian Romances, Christianity is built on
>> the assumption of an unseen world around us that we could see if
>> only we had spiritual vision...which saints do; Dickens even
>> shows us a whole world of spirits wandering around unseen....
I can see how the ieda of a spiritual world could translate into the
magical world both of Lewis and Rowling, but would you say that this
whole 'now you see it, now you don't' theme (at least as employed by,
say, Western fantasy authors) is derived from this Christian idea of
an unseen world?
>> folktales have hidden buildings and places.
aplenty . . . ;-)
>>> And when it comes to "the location of a supernatural world
>>> alongside (and usually invisible to) the humdrum reality of the
>>> hoi polloi" Alan Garner's children's books, especially
>>> "Elidor", do that too. That book would s urely make Garner an
>>> "honorary Inkling" too.
>
> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
> don't fit.
Right, I quite agree.
And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
and, far more subtly, in Tolkien's work. In both the Narnia books and
the Middle-earth books, the Christianity of the author is worked into
the causal basis of their sub-created world: trusting in providence,
for instance, actually does work in both worlds.
> "The red pyramid" might fit if a Christian view isn't required.
If we speak of the Inklings, then I do believe that the Christian
view would be required if any spirituality is a part of the
tradition. That is -- either the 'tradition of the Inklings' is
explicitly Christian, or there is no aspect of spirituality in it.
> So the question is it only a Christian unseen world which sets
> these writers aside, or is it just an unseen world?
And does even a 'Christian unseen world' set them apart? Or is this
such a common feature that it isn't defining of any particular group
of authors?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot ++
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
Steve Hayes
One of their traditions was reading their work to each other.
Did Rowling discuss her work with anyone while she was writing it?
><snip>
>
>> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is
>> Lewis and Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no
>> surprise: she's educated in the British system,
>[...]
>> There's no question she's influenced by the same texts as Lewis
>> and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as well as by T. H.
>> White among other things. So sure, following at least in part
>> the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
>
>But, as you put it here, you seem to imply that this tradition is
>merely the tradition of any reasonably well-educated British fantasy
>author? I'm sure much of the same could be said, for instance, of
>Philip Pullman . . .
>
>Is there anything that distinguishes the Inklings from the broader
>background of British twentieth-century (sub-creative?) literature?
>
>I'm fishing here, I know, but though there has been a lot of writing
>about the Inklings, I don't think I have seen it suggested that their
>work belongs to a common 'tradition' -- if anything the 'tradition'
>was one of communality, of testing ideas on each other and openly
>discussing each others' work, but this would, as I understand it, be
>particularly inappropriate for Rowling who appears to have worked
>very much alone.
Yes, and I think the same applies to Pullman.
Dirk Thierbach
> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>> don't fit.
> Right, I quite agree.
I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
mean that Rowling should, too.
> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
> and, far more subtly, in Tolkien's work. In both the Narnia books and
> the Middle-earth books, the Christianity of the author is worked into
> the causal basis of their sub-created world:
But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
make sacrifices to be able to save others.
I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:34:10 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>Dirk said that
>>||| I guess to answer this question one would first have to agree
>>||| what this "tradition" is in the first place.
>>which I think is a very relevant question -- what, if anything, is
>>the 'tradition of the Inklings'?
> One of their traditions was reading their work to each other.
Well, I hardly think that the original author even thought remotely
about this aspect when he stated that "Rowling writes in the tradition
of the inklings".
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>
>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>> don't fit.
>
>> Right, I quite agree.
>
>I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
Which critics would those be?
>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>
>Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
>mean that Rowling should, too.
No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her
books are therefore different in that respect.
>> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
>
>Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
>books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
Not really an allegory.
>
>> and, far more subtly, in Tolkien's work. In both the Narnia books and
>> the Middle-earth books, the Christianity of the author is worked into
>> the causal basis of their sub-created world:
>
>But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
>about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
>make sacrifices to be able to save others.
Yes indeed.
I'd say that Rowling's books are informed by Christian ethics, but they are
not, as in the work of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams, fitted into a Christian
mythological framework.
>
>I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
>parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
>closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
>
>Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
It's clear enough in some of the books. One can see there Christian ethics and
Christian values, but without the Christian mythological underpinning that one
finds in Lewis, Tolkien & Co.
Rowling manages to make her stories moral without being moralistic, and that
is one of the nice things about them.
Lewis occasionally lapses into moralism -- his advice about not locking
oneself in a wardrobe sounds a bit like something devised to promote the
health and safety regulations of a nanny state.
Julian Bradfield
> It's clear enough in some of the books. One can see there Christian ethics and
> Christian values, but without the Christian mythological underpinning that one
> finds in Lewis, Tolkien & Co.
Could you give an example of something that is specifically Christian
ethics and Christian values, rather than ethics and values shared by
many cultures?
Dirk Thierbach
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>>> don't fit.
>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>
>>I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>>the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
> Which critics would those be?
Whichever critics the person who stated this was referring to; he
didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember
where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider
it likely to be true.
>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>>Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
>>mean that Rowling should, too.
> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her
> books are therefore different in that respect.
Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that in order to "write in
the tradition of the Inlings" one should take that approach. Especially
since I'd say that this particular theme is especially emphasized by
Tolkien, and a lot less by the other Inklings, as far as I know them
(people who have read more from the other Inklings than I did please
correct me if I'm wrong).
>>> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
>>Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>>allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
>>books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
> Not really an allegory.
Well, I consider using a "lion" for "Christ" pretty much an allegory,
for example. Whatever you like to call it.
There's a very clear cut one-to-one correspondence between between
very particular characters or actions in Narnia and very particular,
easy to identify counterparts in Christian teachings.
Or, to use Tolkien's words, there's a quite limited "applicability".
>>But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
>>about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
>>make sacrifices to be able to save others.
> Yes indeed.
>
> I'd say that Rowling's books are informed by Christian ethics, but they are
> not, as in the work of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams, fitted into a Christian
> mythological framework.
What exactly do you mean by a "Christian mythological framework"?
>>I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
>>parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
>>closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
>>
>>Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
> It's clear enough in some of the books.
Can you give some concrete examples?
> One can see there Christian ethics and Christian values, but without
> the Christian mythological underpinning that one finds in Lewis,
> Tolkien & Co.
As I wrote, I don't think I understand what you mean here.
> Rowling manages to make her stories moral without being moralistic, and that
> is one of the nice things about them.
Yep. Though "morality" by itself doesn't mean "Christian". That's why
I'd prefer to have a closer look.
> Lewis occasionally lapses into moralism
For rather large values of "occasionally", bordering on "often".
- Dirk
Steve Morrison
> With respect to Tolkien, I can see some parallels in Rowling's works,
> but not enough that I would say that she is following in the
> tradition of Tolkien -- for that to have been true, there would, in
> my opinion, have had to be a greater parallel in the ways the two
> authors use and relate to their source material, but what about the
> other Inklings?
I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
influence on Rowling, e.g. "the Whomping Willow is just like Old
Man Willow!" or "Tolkien wrote a poem with the line /He battled
with the Dumbledors/!" They mostly seem explainable by common
sources, a common interest in obscure and archaic words, and sheer
coincidence (when you're looking for possible parallels in a long
and complicated source you'd expect a lot of false positives due
to coincidence, and the likelihood is more than squared when the
later work is even longer and more intricate!) The one such claim
that does look plausible is the number of hobbit names which
reappear in the Potter books: Proudfoot, Everard, Odo, Puddifoot,
etc.
> Is there a common denominator for the Inklings in which tradition
> Rowling follows? And just to whet the appetite for discussion, I
> would say that I am highly sceptical of the claims of Rowling's
> Christianity as an inspiration for the books: while I can see much in
> both Tolkien's and Lewis' work that relies on their Christian
> _faith_, I see nothing of that sort in Rowling's work. There is
> Christian culture and Christian ethics, but not specifically
> Christian faith or spirituality (here I am more inclined to agree
> with the views ostensibly supported the then Cardinal Ratzinger [2]).
I do take the "Christian symbolism" claims more seriously.
First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/! And that book also
has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from the New Testament,
etc. But long before it was published, some analysts did see
traditional Christian symbolism in the series: references to stags,
griffins, phoenixes, etc. The go-to man for this is John Granger,
who runs the "Hogwarts Professor" web site at
http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com (and I see that one of your links
goes to an article on that site). There is also Travis Prinzi's
site "The Hog's Head" at http://thehogshead.org/ where such things
are frequently discussed; the latter has a forum where you could
ask questions if anyone is interested. There is also at least one
book specifically on the subject, though I haven't read it:
http://outskirtspress.com/webpage.php?ISBN=9781432741129
Steve Hayes
John W Kennedy
> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
> allegory.
No it isn't. You might as well call "Ben-Hur" a Christian allegory.
John W Kennedy
> Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>
>>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>>>> don't fit.
>
>>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>>
>>> I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>>> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
>> Which critics would those be?
>
> Whichever critics the person who stated this was referring to; he
> didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember
> where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider
> it likely to be true.
At least one of the original book reviews in the 50s said in so many
words that there was no "religion" in LotR. I don't offhand recall
which (not Lewis or Auden, certainly).
As to Christianity in "Harry Potter", check out the Oprah interview.
Dirk Thierbach
> I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
> influence on Rowling, e.g. "the Whomping Willow is just like Old
> Man Willow!" or "Tolkien wrote a poem with the line /He battled
> with the Dumbledors/!" They mostly seem explainable by common
> sources, a common interest in obscure and archaic words, and sheer
> coincidence (when you're looking for possible parallels in a long
> and complicated source you'd expect a lot of false positives due
> to coincidence, and the likelihood is more than squared when the
> later work is even longer and more intricate!)
I completely agree.
> The one such claim that does look plausible is the number of hobbit
> names which reappear in the Potter books: Proudfoot, Everard, Odo,
> Puddifoot, etc.
I wouldn't count that one: Rowling uses names very differently from
Tolkien, though both have fun with names in their own. And AFAIK
(someone correct me if I'm wrong), these are all common English last
names.
> I do take the "Christian symbolism" claims more seriously.
> First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
> saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/!
As I said, I only read DH once, at that was some time ago, so I
don't really feel qualified for a discussion about details.
OTOH, form me the parallel "Harry = Christ" seems to be as silly as
the parallel "Gandalf = Christ", because Gandalf was "resurrected" as
well. If Rowling really did write this with the intention of a
parallel, then I am somewhat disappointed.
> And that book also has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from
> the New Testament, etc. But long before it was published, some
> analysts did see traditional Christian symbolism in the series:
> references to stags, griffins, phoenixes, etc. The go-to man for
> this is John Granger, who runs the "Hogwarts Professor" web site at
> http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com
I've read some of the articles there, and it's intersting stuff.
(Though either the site doesn't like my uncommon browser, or some
of the content is gone. I can't see the article in
http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/the-christian-content-of-deathly-hallows-a/
for example, only the comments).
OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
of what he writes.
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> On 2010-10-18 03:38:59 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>> allegory.
> No it isn't. You might as well call "Ben-Hur" a Christian allegory.
But I don't call Ben-Hur a Christian allegory. OTOH, I still call
Narnia a very thinly veiled Christian allegory. Now what? :-)
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>of what he writes.
Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
derek
>
> I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
> influence on Rowling, e.g. "the Whomping Willow is just like Old
> Man Willow!" or "Tolkien wrote a poem with the line /He battled
> with the Dumbledors/!" They mostly seem explainable by common
> sources, a common interest in obscure and archaic words, and sheer
> coincidence
and borrowing! There's no reason that one can't borrow a good thing
without being "in the tradition of..."/
> I do take the "Christian symbolism" claims more seriously.
> First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
> saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/! And that book also
> has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from the New Testament,
> etc.
yes.
> But long before it was published, some analysts did see
> traditional Christian symbolism in the series: references to stags,
> griffins, phoenixes, etc.
Oh, please. Those are all pre-Christian. And if Christianity
borrowed them, does that make Christianity "in the tradition of
paganism"?
derek
> On 2010-10-18 03:38:59 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>
> > Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
> > allegory.
>
> No it isn't. You might as well call "Ben-Hur" a Christian allegory.
Of course Narnia isn't an allegory - it doesn't have any naked women.
As far as I can recall, not a single one.
But if we take the more commonly used definition (from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory: "the expression by
means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or
generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a
story or painting) of such expression"), of course Narnia is a
Christian allegory. If the first 6 books aren't enough to convince
you, /The Last Battle/ is just rampant with allegory.
Dirk Thierbach
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>of what he writes.
> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
I think we use two different very definitions of "allegory". I suppose
mine is closer to the one Tolkien uses in his foreword. But as I said,
I don't mind what you call it. I'm happy to use a different term, if
you propose one.
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>of what he writes.
>
>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>
>I think we use two different very definitions of "allegory". I suppose
>mine is closer to the one Tolkien uses in his foreword. But as I said,
>I don't mind what you call it. I'm happy to use a different term, if
>you propose one.
Tolkien doesn't define it, but I suspect that he uses it with the standard
meaning.
Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
meaning: an extended metaphor. As C.S. Lewis argues in The Allegory of Love,
the medieval mind tended to think naturally in allegorical terms. Allegorical
works of great vitality continued to be produced, ranging from Spenser's
Faerie Queene and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, both of which use
personifications of abstract qualities, to Dryden's political allegory Absalom
and Achitophel, which conceals real identities.
(The concise Oxford companion to English literature, Margaret Drabble & Jenny
Stringer (eds), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986).
And, of course, one of the great 20th-century allegories was George Orwell's
"Animal farm".
Paul S. Person
Perhaps it depends on just how thin the veil is ...
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
richard e white
It is a rather commen theam, and by itsself I don't think it is enugf to
define a group of writers. And when they add people who don't even write
into the group, it sounds more like a name for a book club with the same
vage idea.
richard e white
Its only there if you look to find it. It does back several values which
are Christian. However, the problem is they are found in other areas as
well. The good verses evil can't really be used to prove anything. It is
to commen in writing just to make things easyer.
The train sceen with a dead DD and a living harry is much closer, but it
on;ly points to an unknown after life. Still I will axcept it does lean
twords Christ, but not just his teachings. It could also point to Islam,
jewish and many other tradistional religions. The x-mass and easter
holidays are a better indeacation. The problem is that you don't have to
be Christian to observe them in todays culture.
Troels Forchhammer
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> spoke these staves:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>>>>
>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's
>>>> books don't fit.
>>
>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>
>> I'm actually not so sure.
I took it to mean that the 'invisible' (or at least parallel) wizard
world in the Harry Potter books does not rely on some special spirit
vision to see: it is actually there, visibile to all; protected in a
few places (the unplottable houses, for instance), but mostly
protected by making those forget what they have seen who do see
without being intended to. In other words: in the Harry Potter
books, you do not have to have some special spiritual, or even
magical, quality in order to see the hidden world.
>> Critics thought for a long time that the
>> LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
> Which critics would those be?
The only one that I know of is Lin Carter, whose criticism David
Bratman has countered recently on the Mythsoc mailing list with
repost at his blog: <http://calimac.livejournal.com/474130.html>
Since I haven't actually read Carter's criticism myself, I have
nothing further to add to David's comments.
>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental
>>> Christian basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia
>>> books -- there is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence
>>> in Rowling's work,
>>
>> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't mean
>> that Rowling should, too.
>
> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and
> that her books are therefore different in that respect.
Exactly -- I only meant to point out a difference, not to imply any
value judgement.
It was intended as one example -- many other could be conceived -- of
why I don't consider Rowling to be a 'Christian author' in the same
way as e.g. Tolkien and Lewis. The Christianity present in Rowling's
books is, as I see it, equivalent to the that of a personal atheist
who has grown up in a Christian culture celebrating Christian
holidays such as Christmas and Easter etc. and whose personal ethics
are heavily influenced by Christian thought. Rowling describes
herself as Christian, and I have no quarrel with that, but looking
only at the Potter books, I could not have inferred more than the
above.
<snip>
> I'd say that Rowling's books are informed by Christian ethics, but
> they are not, as in the work of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams,
> fitted into a Christian mythological framework.
That, I think, is a very good way to put it. I don't know about
Williams, but I'd say that Tolkien and Lewis (at least in the Narnia
books) also fit their sub-creations into a Christian _theological_
framework -- but you may include this, when you speak of their
Christian mythological framework?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- Frodo and Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
derek
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:31:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>
> >Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> >> <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
> >>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
> >>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
> >>>of what he writes.
>
> >> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>
> >I think we use two different very definitions of "allegory". I suppose
> >mine is closer to the one Tolkien uses in his foreword. But as I said,
> >I don't mind what you call it. I'm happy to use a different term, if
> >you propose one.
>
> Tolkien doesn't define it, but I suspect that he uses it with the standard
> meaning.
>
> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
> meaning: an extended metaphor
Funny. Tolkien always insisted LOTR was _not_ allegory, and yet it
certainly fits that description. So, no, Tolkien definitely did not
use that definition. His was much narrower.
>. As C.S. Lewis argues in The Allegory of Love,
> the medieval mind tended to think naturally in allegorical terms. Allegorical
> works of great vitality continued to be produced, ranging from Spenser's
> Faerie Queene and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, both of which use
> personifications of abstract qualities, to Dryden's political allegory Absalom
> and Achitophel, which conceals real identities.
And which the Narnia books very clearly also fit.
>
> And, of course, one of the great 20th-century allegories was George Orwell's
> "Animal farm".
No doubt about it. You can practically name all the animals for the
people they represent (of course, you _can_ name all of them, but
there are disagreements about who's who).
derek
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:18:25 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>
> >John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 2010-10-18 03:38:59 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>
> >>> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
> >>> allegory.
>
> >> No it isn't. You might as well call "Ben-Hur" a Christian allegory.
>
> >But I don't call Ben-Hur a Christian allegory. OTOH, I still call
> >Narnia a very thinly veiled Christian allegory. Now what? :-)
>
> Perhaps it depends on just how thin the veil is ...
I've avoided watching Ben Hur for decades, so have no recollection
whether it constitutes allegory - I do recall first seeing it in my
Jesus freak period, and not getting the Easter connection. The veil
over Narnia is pretty thin, though.
derek
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
> > But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
> > about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
> > make sacrifices to be able to save others.
>
> > I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
> > parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
> > closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
>
> > Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
>
> Its only there if you look to find it. It does back several values which
> are Christian. However, the problem is they are found in other areas as
> well. The good verses evil can't really be used to prove anything. It is
> to commen in writing just to make things easyer.
I completely agree - imo, it's an apologia (I _know_ I shouldn't be
using words like that in an argument involving Kennedy and Person, but
I _think_ I have it right) to justify Rowling's use of themes that
fundamentalist churches call witchcraft, and therefore ispo facto
(oops, I did again) evil.
> Richard The Blind Typer.
> Lets hear it for talking computers.
Are you using "listening computers", too? Your typos look like
something a computer heard, rather than artifacts of the qwerty
keyboard. In any case, lets hear it for assistive technologies of all
kinds!
derek
wrote:
>
> I took it to mean that the 'invisible' (or at least parallel) wizard
> world in the Harry Potter books does not rely on some special spirit
> vision to see: it is actually there, visibile to all;
Ohmigod! We're back to Ringwraiths :-)
> >> Critics thought for a long time that the
> >> LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
> > Which critics would those be?
>
> The only one that I know of is Lin Carter, whose criticism David
> Bratman has countered recently on the Mythsoc mailing list with
> repost at his blog: <http://calimac.livejournal.com/474130.html>
> Since I haven't actually read Carter's criticism myself, I have
> nothing further to add to David's comments.
Hmm. I'll have to look, but if it _is_ Carter, I would expect it to
be something more along the lines of "No Christianity to see here,
move along now", than an honest "I can't see any Christian themes
here". Admittedly, we're all seeing it with the hindsight of /The
Silmarillion/ - without knowing the roots of LOTR, you won't recognize
some of the themes - but at the very least you have to admit a
creator, and a Mary figure.
> It was intended as one example -- many other could be conceived -- of
> why I don't consider Rowling to be a 'Christian author' in the same
> way as e.g. Tolkien and Lewis. The Christianity present in Rowling's
> books is, as I see it, equivalent to the that of a personal atheist
> who has grown up in a Christian culture celebrating Christian
> holidays such as Christmas and Easter etc. and whose personal ethics
> are heavily influenced by Christian thought.
I like that description, and I think if she wasn't having to defend
herself from the Christian Right, Rowling might too...
Troels Forchhammer
<c5ac95e3-b01d-403b...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> On Oct 18, 3:46 pm, Steve Morrison <rima...@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
>> influence on Rowling,
Me too.
As someone pointed out, Rowling did study languages at a British
university (I forget which languages and which university), and so
presumably knows a lot of the sources that Tolkien also knew. I
wonder where this whole Tolkien/Inklings-influencing-Rowling-idea
comes from?
>> They mostly seem explainable by common sources, a common interest
>> in obscure and archaic words, and sheer coincidence
>
> and borrowing! There's no reason that one can't borrow a good thing
> without being "in the tradition of..."/
Fishing for a particuly good morsel in the soup is not only allowed,
but also encouraged . . . ;-)
Still, I think that in most cases Steve is right that it might just
as well be a matter of Tolkien and Rowling fishing out the same
morsel for their own dishes more than Rowling fishing for a
Tolkien-morsel.
>> I do take the "Christian symbolism" claims more seriously.
Both yes and no. Symbolism isn't faith -- in fact Christian
symbolism is a cultural phenomenon rather than one of faith, and
thus it fits well with what I've said elsewhere that there is
nothing in the Harry Potter books that shows that Rowling is more
than a well-educated woman raised in a Christian culture and sharing
the ethics of the predominantly Christian society to which she
belongs.
>> First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
>> saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/! And that book also
>> has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from the New Testament,
>> etc.
None of this, however, suggests more than that she is a
well-educated member of a (mostly) Christian society. The question
of her personal faith came up as the series began to sell in huge
numbers in the US (which wasn't until after _Prisoner of Azkaban_
had been published in the UK) and some of the Christian groups there
began to ban it. Rowling's first statements were along the lines
that she believed in Christ, but disliked organised religion. I do
believe that some of the additional trappings of Christianity in the
latter half of the series are due more to the absurd claims of
supporting witch-craft (the situation was not made easier, I
suppose, by practicing Wiccans (sp?) calling in to radio shows
asking her if she was 'craft or muggle'[1]) than to any deep desire
on the part of Rowling to encumber her story with them.
[1]
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/library/ref/intvw/19991012_TheConnection.html#part21>
<http://tinyurl.com/bzl4n>
>> But long before it was published, some analysts did see
>> traditional Christian symbolism in the series: references to
>> stags, griffins, phoenixes, etc.
>
> Oh, please. Those are all pre-Christian.
It is, in my honest opinion, a matter of people seeing what they
want to see. The whole question of Christianity in the Harry Potter
books only arose because of the aforementioned absurd claims from
certain US-based Christian (and Wicca) groups who claimed that the
books supported and promoted witchcraft. I'd say that it is fairly
obvious that they do not, but it was apparently not enough that they
didn't promote witchcraft / Wicca: it had to be shown that they did
promote Christian faith, and so some defenders found what they
sought for. As I see it :-)
> And if Christianity borrowed them, does that make Christianity "in
> the tradition of paganism"?
Well, it _is_, I'd say ;-)
And not just because it borrowed heavily of pagan symbolism, but
also because it adapted and adopted pagan traditions, in many cases
giving them a Christian content but otherwise touching them only
very little: in other words, direct and explicit borrowing in order
to ease the transition for the pagans (I know this was done in what
appears to be a systematic manner in Scandinavia, but I cannot say
how wide-spread this practice has been elsewhere). I am sure that
other arguements could also be made to show how Christianity in many
other was are 'in the tradition of paganism'.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom
of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Troels Forchhammer
Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> spoke these staves:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> I would say that I am highly sceptical of the claims of Rowling's
>> Christianity as an inspiration for the books: while I can see
>> much in both Tolkien's and Lewis' work that relies on their
>> Christian _faith_, I see nothing of that sort in Rowling's work.
>> There is Christian culture and Christian ethics, but not
>> specifically Christian faith or spirituality
>
> First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
> saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/! And that book
> also has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from the New
> Testament, etc.
If this is supposed to make Rowling's work 'Christian' in some way,
then, by that standard, Tolkien's work in its various parts can be
argued to be Finnish pagan, Old Norse Asatru, ancient Greek pagan and
possibly more besides . . .
Rowling places her work in a clearly Christian _cultural_ framework,
and all of the above are, in my view, cultural references, just as
the images of her characters celebrating both Christmas and Easter
(in both cases, by the way, emphasizing the old pagan elements of the
modern holidays while having nothing clearly Christian [with the
possible exception of the Christmas carols sung by the armor suits at
Hogwarts]). As pointed out elsewhere, some people believing in
witchcraft have seen the Potter books as showing their culture and
their traditions very, very well indeed.
Turning again Tolkien, Christian culture is clearly not the only
culture that influenced his work (or Rowling's, for that matter) and
there are many -- even some very clear -- references to pagan
cultures in Tolkien's writings, but we never stop to ask whether
Tolkien was pagan, because he went further than to include cultural
references.
As David Bratman says
The reason [Tolkien's] pagan warriors don't worship false
gods is that, through the Elves, and they through the
Valar, have unfiltered access to the truth about the
spiritual universe. (The truth as Tolkien sees it, of
course, but as an author he has the right to make his
Catholic theology the unfettered truth within his own
fiction.) They don't need false gods; they have the real
God.
<http://calimac.livejournal.com/474130.html>
I quite agree that there are _many_ references in Rowling's books to
Christian culture: symbolism, holidays, quotations and other direct
borrowings from the Biblical story (you mention the Crucifixion
parallel in _Deathly Hallows_), but I do not think that this is
enough to make it a Christian story.
It is the final step of making her Christian theology 'the unfettered
truth within [her] own fiction' that I do _not_ see in Rowling's work
-- actually I cannot see that her work offers _any_ theological
framework as an unfettered truth, which is, of course, _not_ the same
as saying that it makes an atheistic framework its unfettered truth
(there are some hints, at least, at a spiritual framework, but this
is not, in my opinion, particularly Christian).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
One who cannot cast away a treasure at need is in fetters.
- Aragorn "Strider", /Two Towers/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Steve Hayes
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:a59ob6ptqcq3isnea...@4ax.com>
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>> Critics thought for a long time that the
>>> LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>>
>> Which critics would those be?
>
>The only one that I know of is Lin Carter, whose criticism David
>Bratman has countered recently on the Mythsoc mailing list with
>repost at his blog: <http://calimac.livejournal.com/474130.html>
>Since I haven't actually read Carter's criticism myself, I have
>nothing further to add to David's comments.
I think there was some discussion on this point in one off the newsgroups, I
think rec.arts.books.tolkien, about 15 years ago. But I haven't read any
critics who say this either, so it's a bit too vague to discuss.
>It was intended as one example -- many other could be conceived -- of
>why I don't consider Rowling to be a 'Christian author' in the same
>way as e.g. Tolkien and Lewis. The Christianity present in Rowling's
>books is, as I see it, equivalent to the that of a personal atheist
>who has grown up in a Christian culture celebrating Christian
>holidays such as Christmas and Easter etc. and whose personal ethics
>are heavily influenced by Christian thought. Rowling describes
>herself as Christian, and I have no quarrel with that, but looking
>only at the Potter books, I could not have inferred more than the
>above.
Rowling touches on themes that are far more this-worldly than those of Tolkien
and Lewis -- teenage angst, for example.
>
><snip>
>
>> I'd say that Rowling's books are informed by Christian ethics, but
>> they are not, as in the work of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams,
>> fitted into a Christian mythological framework.
>
>That, I think, is a very good way to put it. I don't know about
>Williams, but I'd say that Tolkien and Lewis (at least in the Narnia
>books) also fit their sub-creations into a Christian _theological_
>framework -- but you may include this, when you speak of their
>Christian mythological framework?
Yes. But Lewis and Tolkien, in particular, were concerned to wrote myths. They
wrote at a time when some academic theologians, like Bultmann, were trying to
demythologise Christianity. Lewis and Tolkien were more concerned to
remythologise it. While I don't think it was a conscious goal that they
deliberately set out to achieve, it was one of their shared values, and alsdo
shared, to some extent, by Williams. I don't think Rowling had any such
concerns. The Harry Potter books cross several genres - school story,
Bildungsroman and others, but they are not copncerned to create a myth.
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" (Carpenter 1978:30).
Note that this was long before Lewis wrote his Narnia or sf stories.
Barfield showed Lewis that Myth has a central place in language and
literature. "Barfield's arguments were printed in 'Poetic Diction', a short
book by him that appeared in 1928 -- though by that time Lewis knew its ideas
well. Barfield examined the history of words, and came to the conclusion that
mythology, far from being (as the philologist Max Mueller called it 'a disease
of language', is closely associated with the very origin of all speech and
literature. In the dawn of language, said Barfield, speakers did not make a
distinction between the 'literal' and the 'metaphorical', but used words in
what might be called a 'mythological' manner. For example, nowadays when we
translate the Latin spiritus we have to render it either as 'spirit' or as
'breath' or as 'wind' depending on the context. But early users of language
would not have made any such distinction between these meanings. To them a
word like 'spiritus' meant something like 'spirit-breath-wind'. When the wind
blew it was not merely 'like' someone breathing: it was the breath of a god.
And when an early speaker talked about his soul as 'spiritus' he did not
merely mean that it was 'like' a breath: it was to him just that: the breath
of life." (Captenter 1978:40).
And, finally though not from an Inkling: "Myth is a reality immeasurably
greater than concept. It is high time that we stopped identifying myth with
invention, with the illusions of primitive mentality, and with anything, in
fact, which is essentially opposed to reality... The creation of myths among
peoples denotes a real spiritual life, more real indeed than that of abstract
concepts and rational thought. Myth is always concrete and expresses life
better than abstract thought can do; its nature is bound up with that of
symbol. Myth is the concrete recital of events and original phenomena of the
spiritual life symbolized in the natural world, which has engraved itself on
the language memory and creative energy of the people... it brings two worlds
together symbolically" (Nicolas Berdyaev).
derek
wrote:
> In message
> <c5ac95e3-b01d-403b-b1a2-4ed96a3cf...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> > On Oct 18, 3:46 pm, Steve Morrison <rima...@toast.net> wrote:
>
> >> I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
> >> influence on Rowling,
> >> in obscure and archaic words, and sheer coincidence
> > and borrowing! There's no reason that one can't borrow a good thing
> > without being "in the tradition of..."/
>
> Fishing for a particuly good morsel in the soup is not only allowed,
> but also encouraged . . . ;-)
>
> Still, I think that in most cases Steve is right that it might just
> as well be a matter of Tolkien and Rowling fishing out the same
> morsel for their own dishes more than Rowling fishing for a
> Tolkien-morsel.
I really feel it's practically impossible for a fantasy writer in the
English language - and probably most other European languages - to not
be influenced by Tolkien. Which is, of course, not a Bad Thing.
...
> None of this, however, suggests more than that she is a
> well-educated member of a (mostly) Christian society.
>
As usual, you've managed to say what I wanted to say, so much better.
Thank you.
> >> But long before it was published, some analysts did see
> >> traditional Christian symbolism in the series: references to
> >> stags, griffins, phoenixes, etc.
>
> > Oh, please. Those are all pre-Christian.
>
> It is, in my honest opinion, a matter of people seeing what they
> want to see. The whole question of Christianity in the Harry Potter
> books only arose because of the aforementioned absurd claims from
> certain US-based Christian (and Wicca) groups who claimed that the
> books supported and promoted witchcraft.
Exactly.
> > And if Christianity borrowed them, does that make Christianity "in
> > the tradition of paganism"?
>
> Well, it _is_, I'd say ;-)
:-)
You and I are clearly both damned heretics...
John W Kennedy
Then either you have a catastrophically incorrect understanding of what
actually happens in "Narnia" or you do not know what the word
"allegory" means.
Steve Hayes
But I think you'd be hard put to do the same with the Narnia stories.
Yes, Maugrim might fit Beria or Himmler -- but might equally well fit a dozen
others in similar positions.
Who does Tumnus represent, or Mr and Mrs Beaver, or Reepicheep?
John W Kennedy
> On Oct 19, 12:10 pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:31:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>
>> <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>> Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>>> <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>> OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>>> to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>>> of what he writes.
>>
>>>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>>
>>> I think we use two different very definitions of "allegory". I suppose
>>> mine is closer to the one Tolkien uses in his foreword. But as I said,
>>> I don't mind what you call it. I'm happy to use a different term, if
>>> you propose one.
>>
>> Tolkien doesn't define it, but I suspect that he uses it with the standard
>> meaning.
>>
>> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
>> meaning: an extended metaphor
>
> Funny. Tolkien always insisted LOTR was _not_ allegory, and yet it
> certainly fits that description. So, no, Tolkien definitely did not
> use that definition. His was much narrower.
Never use definitions of technical terms that you found in a
dictionary. (Unless it's a scholarly dictionary and the definition is
in the front matter and concerned with lexicography.)
John W Kennedy
> On Oct 18, 10:41 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-10-18 03:38:59 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>>
>>> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>>> allegory.
>>
>> No it isn't. You might as well call "Ben-Hur" a Christian allegory.
>
> Of course Narnia isn't an allegory - it doesn't have any naked women.
> As far as I can recall, not a single one.
>
> But if we take the more commonly used definition (from
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory: "the expression by
> means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or
> generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a
> story or painting) of such expression"),
How far do you think you'd get talking to a physicist using a
dictionary definition of "energy"?
> of course Narnia is a
> Christian allegory. If the first 6 books aren't enough to convince
> you, /The Last Battle/ is just rampant with allegory.
No it isn't. What happens in "The Last Battle" isn't symbolism; it's
(within the fictional construct) entirely real. Aslan isn't a symbol of
Jesus, but a literal second Incarnation of the Divine Son in a second
Creation.
Lewis's early "The Pilgrim's Regress" is an allegory. "Narnia" is a
straightforward fantasy in which God happens to be one of the main
characters. Lewis was quite probably the 20th century's greatest expert
on allegory, and he wouldn't screw one up so badly as to completely
hash the distinction between levels.
Dirk Thierbach
> On 2010-10-19 03:18:25 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2010-10-18 03:38:59 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>>>> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>>>> allegory.
>>> No it isn't. You might as well call "Ben-Hur" a Christian allegory.
>> But I don't call Ben-Hur a Christian allegory. OTOH, I still call
>> Narnia a very thinly veiled Christian allegory. Now what? :-)
> Then either you have a catastrophically incorrect understanding of what
> actually happens in "Narnia"
Ok. So could you tell me what actually happens in Narnia? Who
exactly is Aslan? Just some invented character with no relationship
to anything in the real world?
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:31:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>>of what he writes.
>>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
> meaning: an extended metaphor.
Ok. So what's the veiled moral meaning or metaphor in having an
invented character that shares some personality traits with a real
person (but has otherwise nothing to do with the real person)?
It's not like Lockhart is Christ. Or Truth.
OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists
to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:
That's the metaphorical moral meaning.
Do you agree?
- DIrk
Troels Forchhammer
John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> spoke these staves:
> On 2010-10-19 08:50:08 -0400, derek said:
>>
<snip>
>> Of course Narnia isn't an allegory - it doesn't have any naked
>> women. As far as I can recall, not a single one.
Eh? Where did that one come from? (It has the distinct feeling of a
reference to something commonly know that goes completely over the
top of my head ;-)
>> But if we take the more commonly used definition (from
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory:
<snip definition>
>
> How far do you think you'd get talking to a physicist using a
> dictionary definition of "energy"?
Oh dear! ;-)
(Or, for that matter, 'power' or 'force')
>> of course Narnia is a Christian allegory. If the first 6 books
>> aren't enough to convince you, /The Last Battle/ is just rampant
>> with allegory.
>
> No it isn't. What happens in "The Last Battle" isn't symbolism;
> it's (within the fictional construct) entirely real.
I suppose that doesn't preclude it from being also allegorical?
> Aslan isn't a symbol of Jesus, but a literal second Incarnation of
> the Divine Son in a second Creation.
It is my impression that it is this that people refer to when calling
Narnia a Christian allegory, and whether this is an appropriate use
of the word or not, this is a very common way of describing the
Narnia books (possibly because the common vernacular lacks an equally
brief way of describing what the Narnia books really are).
Corey Olsen (a.k.a. 'the Tolkien Professor') says in one of his
podcast that in an allegory it is the allegory that is the important
part, and once you 'get it', the plane of the fictional story becomes
irrelevant (or words to that effect). There's more to it than that,
but this part stuck in my memory. Aslan, as you say, _is_ Jesus, but
the story in which he appears in Narnia is not just a re-enactment of
the Biblical story from Earth -- it is a different story with
different elements, though clearly there are some common elements
(which I could imagine Lewis to claim derive from the nature of the
character rather than being allegorical).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
- /Reaper Man/ (Terry Pratchett)
Dirk Thierbach
> (within the fictional construct) entirely real. Aslan isn't a symbol of
> Jesus, but a literal second Incarnation of the Divine Son in a second
> Creation.
Within some fictional construct in some "subcreated" reality.
Which makes it allegorical. Just because you pretend something is
real doesn't make it real, especially if the background contradicts
the real world.
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:31:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>>>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>>>of what he writes.
>
>>>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>
>> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
>> meaning: an extended metaphor.
>
>Ok. So what's the veiled moral meaning or metaphor in having an
>invented character that shares some personality traits with a real
>person (but has otherwise nothing to do with the real person)?
>
>It's not like Lockhart is Christ. Or Truth.
No, he isn't. And he's not Philip Pullman either.
The Harry Potter books are not allegory, though there may possibly be some
allegories within them, though I can't recall any.
Neither are the Narnia stories allegories, nor is Lewis's science fiction
allegory, nor are Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit allegories.
While allegories may have a veiled moral meaning, not everythin g that has a
veiled moral meaning is an allegory.
But "Animal Farm" is an allegory.
Some have taken LOTR as an allegory, with the Ring being nuclear weaponry, for
example. But Tolkien has explicitly said that that was not in his mind when he
wrote it.
>
>OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists
>to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:
>That's the metaphorical moral meaning.
>
>Do you agree?
But it's not allegory.
Dirk Thierbach
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:36:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>>>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>>>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>>>>of what he writes.
>>>>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>>> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
>>> meaning: an extended metaphor.
>>
>>Ok. So what's the veiled moral meaning or metaphor in having an
>>invented character that shares some personality traits with a real
>>person (but has otherwise nothing to do with the real person)?
>>
>>It's not like Lockhart is Christ. Or Truth.
> No, he isn't. And he's not Philip Pullman either.
> The Harry Potter books are not allegory, though there may possibly be some
> allegories within them, though I can't recall any.
I'm confused now. I understood you were saying "if Lockhart is
modelled on Pullman, than that is an allegory". If that is not what you're
saying (because you don't see any allegories in Harry Potter), then
we're in agreement.
> Neither are the Narnia stories allegories,
Not as a whole, but (using your phrasing) they *contain* a lot of allegory.
> nor is Lewis's science fiction allegory,
I'm undecided on that.
> nor are Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit allegories.
Certainly not. But "Leaf by Niggle" is an allegory.
> While allegories may have a veiled moral meaning, not everythin g that has a
> veiled moral meaning is an allegory.
I never said so.
> But "Animal Farm" is an allegory.
Yes, certainly.
> Some have taken LOTR as an allegory, with the Ring being nuclear
> weaponry, for example. But Tolkien has explicitly said that that was
> not in his mind when he wrote it.
Yes, certainly.
>> OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists
>> to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:
>> That's the metaphorical moral meaning.
>> Do you agree?
> But it's not allegory.
So what does distinguish this extended metaphor which conveys a moral
meaning from the other allegories? That it doesn't extend to the book
as a whole?
- Dirk
derek
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:20:23 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >On Oct 19, 12:10 pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> And, of course, one of the great 20th-century allegories was George Orwell's
> >> "Animal farm".
>
> >No doubt about it. You can practically name all the animals for the
> >people they represent (of course, you _can_ name all of them, but
> >there are disagreements about who's who).
>
> But I think you'd be hard put to do the same with the Narnia stories.
>
> Yes, Maugrim might fit Beria or Himmler -- but might equally well fit a dozen
> others in similar positions.
>
> Who does Tumnus represent, or Mr and Mrs Beaver, or Reepicheep?
Who does Aslan represent? Really, it's not so hard.
derek
Don't be silly. It's a perfectly good definition.
derek
wrote:
> In message <news:4cbe69ff$0$31281$607e...@cv.net>
> John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> spoke these staves:
> > On 2010-10-19 08:50:08 -0400, derek said:
>
> >> Of course Narnia isn't an allegory - it doesn't have any naked
> >> women. As far as I can recall, not a single one.
>
> Eh? Where did that one come from? (It has the distinct feeling of a
> reference to something commonly know that goes completely over the
> top of my head ;-)
Take a walk through any museum of art. Not being an art historian, I
couldn't name the period, but there's a phase where every painting,
and many sculptures, seems to include a naked - or near naked - woman,
which is always supposed to be an allegory for something.
> >> But if we take the more commonly used definition (from
> >>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory:
> <snip definition>
>
> > How far do you think you'd get talking to a physicist using a
> > dictionary definition of "energy"?
>
> Oh dear! ;-)
Well, from the same source, entry (3) is an adequate definition
(albeit vague). One needs to start from _some_ definition, and
Merriam-Webster's is valid.
> >> of course Narnia is a Christian allegory. If the first 6 books
> >> aren't enough to convince you, /The Last Battle/ is just rampant
> >> with allegory.
>
> > No it isn't. What happens in "The Last Battle" isn't symbolism;
> > it's (within the fictional construct) entirely real.
>
> I suppose that doesn't preclude it from being also allegorical?
>
> > Aslan isn't a symbol of Jesus, but a literal second Incarnation of
> > the Divine Son in a second Creation.
>
> It is my impression that it is this that people refer to when calling
> Narnia a Christian allegory, and whether this is an appropriate use
> of the word or not, this is a very common way of describing the
> Narnia books (possibly because the common vernacular lacks an equally
> brief way of describing what the Narnia books really are).
Aslan is only a "literal" incarnation of Jesus if you can wrap your
mind around the idea of the host as the "literal" body of Christ.
Aslan is, by any sane definition, an allegory.
Öjevind Lång
news:2010102007380...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
That's what an atheist would say. ;-)
�jevind
Jeff Urs
wrote:
>> Jesus, but a literal second Incarnation of the Divine Son in a second
>> Creation.
>
> Within some fictional construct in some "subcreated" reality.
> Which makes it allegorical. Just because you pretend something is
> real doesn't make it real, especially if the background contradicts
> the real world.
Does the background contradict the real world?
--
Jeff
Steve Hayes
The Emperor over the Sea.
Dirk Thierbach
I haven't seen any lion-shaped Christ-figure around here lately.
Have you?
It's *fictional*. It containts lots of elements that don't belong
into the real world. Come on, people. Please.
I enjoy SF & F as much as you do, but I am fully aware that these
are books, even if the subcreated world is very nice, and I like
to pretend and play the "what-if" game, too. But they are still
books that don't even attempt to describe the real world.
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> No, he isn't. And he's not Philip Pullman either.
>
>> The Harry Potter books are not allegory, though there may possibly be some
>> allegories within them, though I can't recall any.
>
>I'm confused now. I understood you were saying "if Lockhart is
>modelled on Pullman, than that is an allegory". If that is not what you're
>saying (because you don't see any allegories in Harry Potter), then
>we're in agreement.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
If Lockhart is meant to represent Pullman, that would be an allegory. But he's
not, so it isn't.
>
>> Neither are the Narnia stories allegories,
>
>Not as a whole, but (using your phrasing) they *contain* a lot of allegory.
>
>> nor is Lewis's science fiction allegory,
>
>I'm undecided on that.
>
>> nor are Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit allegories.
>
>Certainly not. But "Leaf by Niggle" is an allegory.
>
>> While allegories may have a veiled moral meaning, not everythin g that has a
>> veiled moral meaning is an allegory.
>
>I never said so.
>
>> But "Animal Farm" is an allegory.
>
>Yes, certainly.
>
>> Some have taken LOTR as an allegory, with the Ring being nuclear
>> weaponry, for example. But Tolkien has explicitly said that that was
>> not in his mind when he wrote it.
>
>Yes, certainly.
>
>>> OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists
>>> to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:
>>> That's the metaphorical moral meaning.
>>> Do you agree?
>
>> But it's not allegory.
>
>So what does distinguish this extended metaphor which conveys a moral
>meaning from the other allegories? That it doesn't extend to the book
>as a whole?
Look at books that are indisputably allegories and you can see. "The Faerie
Queen", "Pilgrim's Progress" and "Animal Farm".
The characters either represent abstract qualities, or people and events that
have taken place in this world.
One of the Harry Potter books has a satire on a journalist, and another a
satire on a bureaucrat (or it could be the same one, I'd have to check, and my
copies are down the passage at the moment). But they are not allegories. They
may represent stereotpes, but they do not represent actual people and events,
nor do they represent abstract qualities.
Lewis's "That hideous strength" also satrises the behaviour of academics and
bureaucrats, but though he may have had actual events in mind, he is noy
suggesting them to the reader, but the reader's own experience may suggest
such things.
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>On Oct 19, 2:37�pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
IIRC from the special feature (which, being made for TV way-back-when,
is /definitely/ worth watching), the Heston version was relatively
subdued in this regard. The book, apparently, was far more explicit:
the mother and daughter were cured of leprosy by conversion, not just
literal diluted blood.
I haven't read the book, but, given the description and its age, it is
probably not an "allegory" at all, just a historical novel
corresponding to Christian beliefs. Saying that the film is an
"allegory" would seem to confirm that it disguises the explicit
religion said to be present in the novel.
There is a version of /The Last Days of Pompeii/ directed by Ernest B.
Schoedsack (other versions may exist) which, at the end, shows what I
mean by an /explicitly religious scene/: the protagonist, dying after
saving a whole lot of others, sees Jesus (semi-transparent) appear and
welcome him into His kingdom. It doesn't get much clearer than that!
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Jeff Urs
wrote:
> I haven't seen any lion-shaped Christ-figure around here lately.
> Have you?
No. But then, other than the children at the school that Eustace and
Jill attend, neither does anyone in the books... other than in another
universe, that is. And, as far as my understanding extends, the idea
of other universes, with physical laws differing from our own, is not
purely the subject of fiction.
> It's *fictional*. It containts lots of elements that don't belong
> into the real world. Come on, people. Please.
Lewis (carefully, I believe) keeps elements that don't belong in the
real world almost exclusively in the other worlds. There are the
substances that allow travel between the universes (a concept that
also appears in speculative fiction), the apple that cures Digory's
mother (which could be mere medicine, rather than magic), and Aslan's
appearance at school (which doesn't involve acts of magic in this
world), and not much else.
--
Jeff
JimboCat
wrote:
> Jason Fisher has produced a blog entry titled "J.K. Rowling among the
> Inklings", [1] commenting some parallels Jason has noticed between
> passages in Rowling's works and couple of passages in Williams'
> novel, _War in Heaven_.
Because this group (RABT) has a concentration of scientifically- and
philosophically-minded people, and just because I want to, I am taking
this thread as an opportunity to promote an excellent Harry Potter fan
fiction. It is called "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"
and includes a lot information on both subjects. Plus it's excellently
written and a great read. The only downside is: it's only up to fifty
chapters so far, and the wait between new chapters is hard on usss,
hard on ussss, preciousss, yesss it isssss.
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality
And I'm leaving in all the x-posted groups too, for the same reason
(just because).
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Retitling the Books:"
1. Harry Potter and the Promising Start
2. Harry Potter and the Good Follow-Up
3. Harry Potter and the Peak of the Series
4. Harry Potter and the Muddled Middle
5. Harry Potter and the Beginning of the End
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Hearted Effort
7. Harry Potter and the Disappointing Finish
[John VanSickle]
John W Kennedy
> In message <news:4cbe69ff$0$31281$607e...@cv.net>
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> spoke these staves:
>> Aslan isn't a symbol of Jesus, but a literal second Incarnation of
>> the Divine Son in a second Creation.
>
> It is my impression that it is this that people refer to when calling
> Narnia a Christian allegory, and whether this is an appropriate use
> of the word or not, this is a very common way of describing the
> Narnia books (possibly because the common vernacular lacks an equally
> brief way of describing what the Narnia books really are).
And if enough people do that, literary critics will have to invent a
new word to mean "allegory", because "allegory" will no longer mean
anything. Lewis had a word for that: "verbicide".
John W Kennedy
A truly epic example of "Not even wrong". The propositions:
P. At the moment of Euchristic consecration, the metaphysical
breadness of the bread and the metaphysical wineness of the
wine are miraculously changed into Body-of-Christ-ness and
Blood-of-Christ-ness.
Q. In the fictional "Narnia" multiverse, the Second Person
of the Trinity is incarnate as a talking Lion in the
universe that contains the land of Narnia just as He is
incarnate as a Man in that multiverse's universe that
contains England (as Christians believe He is in this real
universe).
are wholly disjunct.
John W Kennedy
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> No it isn't. What happens in "The Last Battle" isn't symbolism; it's
>> (within the fictional construct) entirely real. Aslan isn't a symbol of
>> Jesus, but a literal second Incarnation of the Divine Son in a second
>> Creation.
>
> Within some fictional construct in some "subcreated" reality.
> Which makes it allegorical.
In other words, according to you, "Ben-Hur" /is/ an allegory.
John W Kennedy
And so are "Leaf by Niggle" and "The Pilgrim's Regress".
John W Kennedy
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-10-19 03:18:25 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>
>>> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2010-10-18 03:38:59 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>
>>>>> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>>>>> allegory.
>
>>>> No it isn't. You might as well call "Ben-Hur" a Christian allegory.
>
>>> But I don't call Ben-Hur a Christian allegory. OTOH, I still call
>>> Narnia a very thinly veiled Christian allegory. Now what? :-)
>
>> Then either you have a catastrophically incorrect understanding of what
>> actually happens in "Narnia"
>
> Ok. So could you tell me what actually happens in Narnia? Who
> exactly is Aslan?
Narnia's equivalent of Jesus. The Divine Son became a Lion in the
Narnia universe just as He became a Man in the England universe (in
both the fictional "Narnia" multiverse and, as Christians believe,
reality).
It may be that, at some point in the evolution of the "Narnia" corpus,
Lewis's intentions were allegorical. After all, at the earliest stage,
Mr. Tumnus was the main character, so it had a lot of evolving to do.
But the complete seven books, as published, make it perfectly clear
that the relationship between Aslan and Jesus is one of identity.
derek
No, they're not. You have claimed that Narnia isn't an allegory,
because you claim a literary construct is "real". This is perfectly
valid on the same level that Catholic dogma maintains the host _is_
the body of Christ. If that's where you want to go, then I have to
accept your statements - to the extent that your reality and mine
don't coincide. In the _fictional_ Narnia, Aslan is NOT Christ, he is
representative of Christ.
Weland
> Weland<gi...@poetic.com> writes:
>
>> Hmm, I wonder what makes Sayers a "language scholar" and Rowling not?
>> Sayers read Modern Languages and Medieval Literature. Rowling did
>> French and Classics. Sayers did some work on Dante. Rowling worked as
>> a language specialist and translator for Amnesty International. What
>> makes Sayers a "language scholar", but Rowling not? Both did work in
>> modern and classical languages, both have worked in modern languages
>> in a professional capacity.
>
> It looks to me that this says "Sayers did some scholarly work and
> Rowling hasn't, so why do people call Sayers a language scholar but not
> Rowling?" (which would answer itself).
I suppose it depends on whether you count professional translation as
"scholarly."
> Presumably that's not what you're saying, but it isn't obvious whether
> you're surprised that people consider translations and commentaries on
> Dante to be scholarly work, or that people don't count translation work
> for Amnesty International as scholarly.
But the phrase used was not "Dante scholar" or "scholarly work on Dante"
or even "scholarly work on medieval texts", but "language scholar." And
yes, as both a scholar who works on medieval texts and a language
scholar, there is a big, big difference.
Weland
> Troels Forchhammer<Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>> In message<news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>
>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>> don't fit.
>
>> Right, I quite agree.
>
> I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>
> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
> mean that Rowling should, too.
>
>> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
>
> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
> books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
>
>> and, far more subtly, in Tolkien's work. In both the Narnia books and
>> the Middle-earth books, the Christianity of the author is worked into
>> the causal basis of their sub-created world:
>
> But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
> about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
> make sacrifices to be able to save others.
>
> I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
> parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
> closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
>
> Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
>
> - Dirk
The idea of Good vs. Evil is not peculiar to the Christian tradition.
Andrew James Clutterbuck
> "Retitling the Books:"
> 1. Harry Potter and the Promising Start
> 2. Harry Potter and the Good Follow-Up
> 3. Harry Potter and the Peak of the Series
> 4. Harry Potter and the Muddled Middle
> 5. Harry Potter and the Beginning of the End
> 6. Harry Potter and the Half-Hearted Effort
> 7. Harry Potter and the Disappointing Finish
lol
Weland
>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>> Troels Forchhammer<Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In message<news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>
>>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>>>> don't fit.
>
>>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>>
>>> I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>>> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
>
> Whichever critics the person who stated this was referring to; he
> didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember
> where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider
> it likely to be true.
Lin Carter's rather early book for one.
>
>>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>>>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>>>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>
>>> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
>>> mean that Rowling should, too.
>
>> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her
>> books are therefore different in that respect.
>
> Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that in order to "write in
> the tradition of the Inlings" one should take that approach. Especially
> since I'd say that this particular theme is especially emphasized by
> Tolkien, and a lot less by the other Inklings, as far as I know them
> (people who have read more from the other Inklings than I did please
> correct me if I'm wrong).
Just to clarify: part of the discussion hinges on the differentiation of
"writing in the tradition of the Inklings" and "an honorary Inkling". I
would agree with the former, disagree with the latter.
>>>> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
>
>>> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>>> allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
>>> books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
>
>> Not really an allegory.
>
> Well, I consider using a "lion" for "Christ" pretty much an allegory,
> for example. Whatever you like to call it.
Technically, the Narnia books aren't an allegory. They are heavily
allegorical. But Peter and Edmund and Beaver for example don't
represent anything other than themselves, which in a true allegory they
would.
>
> There's a very clear cut one-to-one correspondence between between
> very particular characters or actions in Narnia and very particular,
> easy to identify counterparts in Christian teachings.
>
> Or, to use Tolkien's words, there's a quite limited "applicability".
But only some particular characters or events, not to everything. In an
allegory like Spenser's Faerie Queene, or the Romance of the Rose, or
the play Everyman to name three, the one to one correspondance isn't to
some particulars and events but to the whole. Hence the need to
distinguish between an allegorical work and an allegory proper.
Weland
> On 2010-10-18 03:38:59 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>
>> allegory.
>
>
No. There is a clear and deliberate correspondence between Aslan and
Christ, between the sacrifice of Aslan and the Passion of Christ, or
between some of the events of the Last Battle and conceptions of the
events of the Last Days in certain kinds of Christianity....whereas
there isn't any such correspondence in Ben Hur. While I don't think
Narnia is allegory, it is allegorical. Ben Hur is not.
Steve Hayes
>On 10/18/2010 7:51 AM, Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Steve Hayes<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> Troels Forchhammer<Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In message<news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>>>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>>>>> don't fit.
>>
>>>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>>>> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>>
>>> Which critics would those be?
>>
>> Whichever critics the person who stated this was referring to; he
>> didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember
>> where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider
>> it likely to be true.
>
>Lin Carter's rather early book for one.
I'm not familiar with it. But it would be interesting to know why they said
such things.
As they were walking, Lewis said to Tolkien that "myths are lies and therefore
worthless, even though breathed through silver". No said Tolkien, they are not
lies. Tolkien went on: "You look at trees, he said, and call them 'trees', and
probably you do not think twice about the word. You call a star a "star", and
think nothing more of it. But you must remember that these words 'tree, star'
were (in their original forms) names given to these objects by people with
very different views from yours. To you, a tree is simply a vegetable
organism, and a star simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a
mathematical course. But the first men to talk of 'trees' and 'stars' saw
things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological
beings. They saw the stars as living silver, bursting into flame in answer to
the eternal music. They saw the sky as a jewelled tent, and the earth as the
womb whence all living things have come. To them, the whole creation was
'myth-woven and elf-patterned'...." "Tolkien continued, not merely the
abstract thoughts of man, but also his imaginative inventions, must originate
with God and must in consequence reflect something of eternal truth"
(Carpenter 1978:43).
Lewis later incorporated those ideas into his Narnia stories, for example in
"The magicians nephew", with the singing stars (cf. Job 38:4-7), and the
"retired star" in "The voyage of the dawn treader".
Note too (for those inclined to confuse the two) that Tolkien said
"myth-woven" and not "allegory-woven", and Lewis also, in another passage I
quoted, distingishes between myth and allegory.
>>>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>>>>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>>>>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>>
>>>> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
>>>> mean that Rowling should, too.
>>
>>> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her
>>> books are therefore different in that respect.
>>
>> Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that in order to "write in
>> the tradition of the Inlings" one should take that approach. Especially
>> since I'd say that this particular theme is especially emphasized by
>> Tolkien, and a lot less by the other Inklings, as far as I know them
>> (people who have read more from the other Inklings than I did please
>> correct me if I'm wrong).
>
>Just to clarify: part of the discussion hinges on the differentiation of
>"writing in the tradition of the Inklings" and "an honorary Inkling". I
>would agree with the former, disagree with the latter.
If, by the tradition of the Inklings, you mean writing fantasy literature,
then yes, but in that case Rowling also stands in the tradition of "The wizard
of Oz", which is somewhat different from the writings of the Inklings.
Dirk Thierbach
> On 2010-10-20 06:45:09 -0400, Dirk Thierbach said:
>> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> No it isn't. What happens in "The Last Battle" isn't symbolism; it's
>>> (within the fictional construct) entirely real. Aslan isn't a symbol of
>>> Jesus, but a literal second Incarnation of the Divine Son in a second
>>> Creation.
>> Within some fictional construct in some "subcreated" reality.
>> Which makes it allegorical.
> In other words, according to you, "Ben-Hur" /is/ an allegory.
No, it isn't, because it missed the "figurative" part. In Ben-Hur,
Christ is really Christ. The historical one. The film makers take some
liberties with history, but they don't pretend it's a lion called
Aslan. And they don't want to teach a moral meaning using that
metaphor, either.
Do you see the difference?
So, according to me, "Ben-Hur" is *not* an allegory, and Aslan/Christ
*is* an allegory.
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> Technically, the Narnia books aren't an allegory. They are heavily
> allegorical.
That's what I meant. Sorry for being imprecise.
> But Peter and Edmund and Beaver for example don't represent anything
> other than themselves, which in a true allegory they would.
Yes. I didn't mean to say that "Narnia as a whole is an allegory".
> But only some particular characters or events, not to everything. In an
> allegory like Spenser's Faerie Queene, or the Romance of the Rose, or
> the play Everyman to name three, the one to one correspondance isn't to
> some particulars and events but to the whole.
Or rather to some abstract things. But it's still a one-to-one
correspondance, you can't read it differently (or most of the
metaphors break down). Hence I consider that an important part
of the definition of allegory, even though Steve didn't include it
in his.
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> On Oct 20, 1:15 pm, Dirk Thierbach <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de>
> wrote:
>> I haven't seen any lion-shaped Christ-figure around here lately.
>> Have you?
> No. But then, other than the children at the school that Eustace and
> Jill attend, neither does anyone in the books... other than in another
> universe, that is.
And that universe has different rules than our own universe. Talking
animals, for example. So, the "background" (the rules, the setting)
in that universe contradict our own.
> And, as far as my understanding extends, the idea of other
> universes, with physical laws differing from our own, is not purely
> the subject of fiction.
It is fiction in the sense that nobody has actually seen one. And
nobody knows if the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics
is even valid. So far, it's a *possible* interpretation. That's all.
And it doesn't matter anyway, because what I'm saying is that this
"other world" isn't our reality. I don't care if you say "but our
current understanding of physics doesn't rule out that worlds
like this really exist".
>> It's *fictional*. It containts lots of elements that don't belong
>> into the real world. Come on, people. Please.
> Lewis (carefully, I believe) keeps elements that don't belong in the
> real world almost exclusively in the other worlds. There are the
> substances that allow travel between the universes (a concept that
> also appears in speculative fiction),
You note the words "speculative" and "fiction" you are using here,
don't you? Have you actually seen another universe? Have you actually
seen some substance that travels between universes?
"It cannot be ruled out" doesn't mean "it's real".
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> Narnia's equivalent of Jesus.
And the word "equivalent" means it's allegorical.
> The Divine Son became a Lion in the Narnia universe just as He
> became a Man in the England universe
In other words, it's a metaphor.
> (in both the fictional "Narnia" multiverse and, as Christians
> believe, reality).
> It may be that, at some point in the evolution of the "Narnia" corpus,
> Lewis's intentions were allegorical.
They were certainly allegorical. And that he has to explain the
allegory inside the story (maybe he was afraid the children wouldn't
understand it on their own?) doesn't change that one bit.
People in books can go around claiming "but I'm real" till they are
blue in the face, they are still fiction. Aslan can claim "but
I'm Christ in this universe" all he wants, he isn't. He's
an allegory of the "real" Christ.
> But the complete seven books, as published, make it perfectly clear
> that the relationship between Aslan and Jesus is one of identity.
In all allegories, the relationship is one of identity. Normally,
the author just doesn't make it explicit, because he has at least
a little bit faith in the intelligence of the reader.
- Dirk
derek
And if that's the fine hair John K wants to split, I'm fine with that.
I can accept that Narnia as a whole is not "an allegory" - there are
clearly bits that are nothing but a fine tale with strong moral
cautions. I still want to claim /The Last Battle/ as "an" allegory.
Julian Bradfield
discussion.
Given a proposition P, let
R(P) mean "P is true in the real world", and
F(P) mean "P is true within the fictional world under discussion",
and let r1, r2, etc. be characters, objects etc. in the real world,
and f1, f2, etc. be characters, objects etc. in the real world.
If r1 is real-world and also exists in the fictional world, let f(r1)
be the fictional version.
Let = be identity (real identity, ignoring "King of France" problems),
and let x<y mean "x represents y" for some sense of represents.
If I understand John's posts, he's saying that the
lit.crit. definition of allegory is a situation where
R(f1 < r1)
for example, "Napoleon the pig represents Stalin".
Whereas the Narnia series are of the form
F(f1 = f(r1)) "In Narnia Aslan is the same entity as Jesus".
Now, another way of defining the allegory of Animal Farm is to say
F(f1 = f(r1)) "In the book, Napoleon *is* the fictional version of Stalin".
Oh, look, that's the same as Narnia.
What's the difference?
I thought I understood it, before I tried to make it precise, and now
I don't!
Jeff Urs
wrote:
> "It cannot be ruled out" doesn't mean "it's real".
All I have said is real is the world in which we meet the Pevensies
and Digory and Polly and Eustace and Jill, the world of the Blitz and
of London cabbies and of badly-run boarding schools: real in, say, the
same way that a war in Iraq would be our real Iraq war if it appeared
in a historical fiction that accurately described our war but that
then went on to describe an invasion of Iran, begun and executed in a
way consistent with the beginning and execution of the invasion of
Iraq.
--
Jeff
Dirk Thierbach
> I feel the need for some logical notation to understand this allegory
> discussion.
> Given a proposition P, let
> R(P) mean "P is true in the real world", and
> F(P) mean "P is true within the fictional world under discussion",
Hm, I suppose you need a modal logic to deal with statements
that can be true in different worlds :-)
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic, for example).
> If I understand John's posts, he's saying that the
> lit.crit. definition of allegory is a situation where
> R(f1 < r1)
> for example, "Napoleon the pig represents Stalin".
The problem is that John doesn't make a difference (wrt. allegory)
between the real world and a fictional world. So, for him,
"Aslan is the incarnation of God in Narnia" is comparable to
"Christ is the incarnation of God in out world" (assuming for
the moment that this is true).
I can understand that very well, because that's the point of view
one often takes when dealing with subcreated worlds: Pretend that
this world is just an alternate version of our reality, with different
rules, and see what happens. I'm fond of doing that, too.
However, my argument is that this doesn't work when discussing
allegory: All fictional works, no matter if they contain subcreated
worlds that pretend to be real, are the same. Any attempt to
artistically portrait X (say, Christ) as Y (say, a lion) with help of
a metaphor in a work of fiction is a candidate for an allegory
(if the other criteria are met). And any attempt to portrait
X as X in a work of fiction (like Christ in Ben Hur) is not.
> I thought I understood it, before I tried to make it precise, and now
> I don't!
Your attempt at formalisation is already biased and includes John's point
of view. :-)
The difference lies in the assumption "One can treat subcreated worlds
on par with the real world". I'm saying that if you want to
analyze literature (as a work of literature), you can't do that.
He does it (and apparently doesn't want to understand why this is
a problem).
- Dirk
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>On Oct 20, 7:44 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
I'm afraid not.
In Narnia, that is, story-internal, Aslan is the Incarnate Word of
God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God. He is not
"representative" of Christ; he is the story-internal equivalent of
Christ.
It is a good thing that this is only story-internal. The doctrine of
the Two Natures is hard enough without a Third being added!