Oh, that's very interesting, Anne! All of it, really, but especially that Lewis doesn't spend a lot of time describing the children, but lets them show themselves in action. That is exactly what I have been doing, and I'm a little worried that I don't have enough physical description of my three main characters. But perhaps it doesn't matter so much, after all, because somehow I manage to have pretty vivid pictures of Lewis's children, in spite of his spare descriptions. For example, here are the things we do glean about Jill- She is small and slight. She loves horses, is a girl guide, and is quick and agile. She isn't afraid of heights, but hates confined spaces.
Now, Hermione - I don't honestly know what she's scared of. I don't really know what her height is, or her build, and I don't know anything at all about her extracurricular activities - except that she knits, rather badly.
You see what I mean? I do see what you mean, too; of course I do! As to Lewis's knowledge of literature and what went into making a story - I was absolutely blown away by Planet Narnia: the seven Heavens in the imagination of C.S. Lewis. Unlike Professor Granger's alchemical analysis of the Potter books, this theory actually makes sense, and really does show hidden depths in the works. It's pretty amazing. To give one example, Caspian is the book of Mars - both Mars, god of battle and Mars Sylvanus, and that is why woods and trees play such a big role in the story. It's fascinating.
As for Rowling's need to look at her books more objectively and rewrite - no arguments there. (Mary, who is again getting apprehensive about her own work!)
The weird thing is, there are other writers who work this way - first drafts in longhand, then off to the typist. Iris Murdoch was one, and I adore Under the Net. It's all very mysterious, apparently, this writing process! But I do think an author has an obligation to look hard at his/her work to see if it actually tells the story he/she meant to tell. And I'm not sure Rowling did that. I think Lewis did.
no subject
She is small and slight.
She loves horses, is a girl guide, and is quick and agile.
She isn't afraid of heights, but hates confined spaces.
Now, Hermione - I don't honestly know what she's scared of. I don't really know what her height is, or her build, and I don't know anything at all about her extracurricular activities - except that she knits, rather badly.
You see what I mean? I do see what you mean, too; of course I do! As to Lewis's knowledge of literature and what went into making a story - I was absolutely blown away by Planet Narnia: the seven Heavens in the imagination of C.S. Lewis. Unlike Professor Granger's alchemical analysis of the Potter books, this theory actually makes sense, and really does show hidden depths in the works. It's pretty amazing. To give one example, Caspian is the book of Mars - both Mars, god of battle and Mars Sylvanus, and that is why woods and trees play such a big role in the story. It's fascinating.
As for Rowling's need to look at her books more objectively and rewrite - no arguments there. (Mary, who is again getting apprehensive about her own work!)
The weird thing is, there are other writers who work this way - first drafts in longhand, then off to the typist. Iris Murdoch was one, and I adore Under the Net. It's all very mysterious, apparently, this writing process! But I do think an author has an obligation to look hard at his/her work to see if it actually tells the story he/she meant to tell. And I'm not sure Rowling did that. I think Lewis did.