Article 2 of 40

Subject:      Re: Difficulties with "Miracles" - no quantum mechanics
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/02/06
Message-Id:   <ifSerCAFqj+yEw1s@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk
References:   <GbcXKBAxOn9yEwpf@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Annexia Free Press
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.books.cs-Lewis



In article <32f8f6c3.257591582@news.interlog.com>, Theresa Constantine
<tconstan@interlog.com***> writes
>I would like to state three reasons why I do not believe Lewis
>employed rhetorical tricks when he was professing to be writing an
>apologetic work:
>
>1. These works-in-progress were often read at Inklings' meetings. I am
>sure that had he attempted to pass rhetoric off as apologetics he
>would have been pounced upon from all directions.
>
>2. The knowledge of the appropriate and inappropriate use of rhetoric
>would be elementary for a professional literary critic. As an Oxford
>don, he knew all of his works would be scrutinised by his peers.
>
>3. He was very conscious of the fact that he was a non-theologian
>writing a theological work. He was even more conscious that
>theologians would be reading his works (cf. the preface to The Problem
>of Pain).
>
>
You could be right, but if Lewis didn't employ rhetoric then we have to
find other interpretations for the "rhetorical" passages in his writing.
The problem is that most of the alternative interpretations reflect
badly on Lewis in ways that even I would consider out of character for
him. To put it simply: I don't think he was lying and I don't think he
was stupid, and rhetoric is the best alternative to these two that
anyone's suggested so far.

Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk)
"I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. 
 Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is
 desperately needed."
                        -J.G. Ballard