(urth) Lupiverse(es)

[António Marques]

David Stockhoff wrote:
> My disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who
> cares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The
> disappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been
> led to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever
> aspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main
> point by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did
> not believe.

Regarding this and the hypothetical anti-christian Wolfe (a thought 
exepriment which I think is by no means new) what I have to say is that, 
like all demons who turn to be unknowingly doing the work of the 
Increate, the joke would be on the writer, not on the readers who 
enjoyed the book. *Provided* the readers enjoyed the book. If the 
readers don't enjoy the book [other than fueling their own beliefs], 
then the joke's both on them and the writer, whether the writer is 
honest or dissimulate.

Iow, if the work is good, it stands, no matter what the author thinks. 
But I think the odds are very small indeed that a covert author would 
produce a really good book.

In this case, if you like Narnia, then you like it, and realising after 
the fcat that it is propaganda should only turn you off, I think, if 
what had made you like it were all the propagandistic bits fitting in 
with each other. Otherwise, it makes no sense to disown it. Of course, 
since you say you never liked it all that much, you're just being coherent.