Wow.

You've seen it? Jealousy.

'Kerry also points out that although the novel is commonly interpreted as a direct allegory, Lewis did not intend it to be so. Scholars use, among other interpreted symbols in the novel, the example of the character of Aslan, a lion who sacrifices his life in the place of the boy Edmund who transgressed in Narnia. Aslan later rises from the dead to live again. Although this parallels the Christian belief in Jesus Christ's atonement, crucifixion and resurrection, it is not a direct commentary, Kerry says.

'"Lewis did not draw correlations directly but inspired thought," Kerry said. "He used symbols to invite the reader to think and ponder on an idea."'

--http://byunews.byu.edu/archive05-Dec-narnia.aspx

Any thoughts? It seemed like direct commentary to me....

The way I understand it, both Tolkien and Lewis were drawing directly from Christian principles. Lewis's complaint with LOTR was that it was too obtuse, and Tolkien's complaint with Narnia was that it was too obvious.

Well, to an extent it is a direct parallell. What I have heard on the matter is that Lewis wanted to write a world that had the same religous base but had fantastic elements. Therefore, some aspects of it will naturally be parallells, and will be obvious ones, at that. They will follow the same patterns of cause and effect, etc. Personalities and principles are the same. However, there are points which do not have obvious parallells, or whose parallells will be different for everyone. Think Mr Tumnus, Santa, the Beavers and the Wolf. While they will correlate in some respects, they are not absolutely defined and could be different things to different people. Thus the story is open to multiple interpretations, and becomes (I feel) more universal in its application. So, in a way, each of you are right; you are just talking past each other.

Personally, I thought we were in agreement on the matter.

I meant you and Kerry.

Ah.

I'm reading the books again. It's like reading them for the first time, it's been so long. They are very easy reads. Me like.

The movie does inspire one to read the books. I'm curious to see what they do with the rest of the chronicles.

On the contrary, Tolkien didn't really draw from Christianity, directly, for the formation of the Lord of the Rings series. While religious upbringing will undeniably have an impact on one's views and, consequently, writing, his story was not meant to have religious connotations to it like the Chronicles of Narnia do. I quote from the foreward to the second edition of the books, written by him:

"The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a reall long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault...

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit...

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences..." He then goes on to give a couple of life experiences that others have cited as influencing a certain point of the story, or being an allegory to it, which he soundly refutes.

A bit long, but if I were to attempt to sum it up, it would be that he just wanted to tell a story. In fact, he is rather...not fond of stories that are meant to be allegorical, preferring the story written for the sake of being the story (a history). The reader may find applications to his/her life, but that is completely on the part of the reader and not he did not write it to be allegorical to anything.

That was transcribed by me from the books I have (which included that foreward among other things from earlier editions of the books) in my possession. Consequently, there may be a few typos and etc. as I was reading the text and typing what I was reading without proofreading it. Just a disclaimer and explanation in case something seems amiss in the passage. I can attest to its grammatical correctness in the book, though he loves to use looong sentences, perhaps even run-ons. We seem to share a commonality in that regard.

As they say, great minds think alike (ho ho ho).