tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5294071895258451220.post6862241323796274274..comments2023-08-16T12:07:41.887+02:00Comments on Under a loggia: C.S. LewisLuke Olsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14637585420904730534noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5294071895258451220.post-73427059879233339592008-05-27T06:25:00.000+02:002008-05-27T06:25:00.000+02:00wow um what to say what to say..... OH right Lewis...wow um what to say what to say..... OH right Lewis is a baller. I must agree with you that Tolkien is so much more in depth with his characters. On the other hand Lewis is just a baller Tolkien looked up to lewis and put him in his book so therefore Lewis is Awesome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5294071895258451220.post-64376775245001876112008-03-11T04:00:00.000+01:002008-03-11T04:00:00.000+01:00Lewis is so darn useful though, when one is trying...Lewis is so darn useful though, when one is trying to make a point about this or that. He does lay things out in a more-or-less neat and orderly way without completely trivializing the subject, whatever it may be. And he does know his Greek and so uses big words that no one's ever heard of before.<BR/><BR/>If it sounds like I am damning him with faint praise, I must protest that I don't have the literary balls to damn anyone. My praise is just so faint, I probably shouldn't say a good word about anyone.Geometricushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12608136348402997098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5294071895258451220.post-37991745152886000822008-03-08T04:42:00.000+01:002008-03-08T04:42:00.000+01:00Nick says (and precedes his statement with an iden...Nick says (and precedes his statement with an identification because he doesn't care to figure out how to identify himself with a website),<BR/><BR/>First, as a side note, you quoted Orthodoxy, not Everlasting man.<BR/><BR/>I agree. Lewis is a bit overrated and he simplifies too much for me. As far as one-liners go though, Chesterton totally has him beat; Chesterton is far more quotable than Lewis. Lewis has a lucid style that appeals to modern audiences but he's by no means so great a rhetor as Samuel Johnson nor as profound as Dostoyevsky nor as poetic as Nietzsche nor as lucid as Homer. His philosophy and theology always seemed to be a bit weak; he's no Thomas either. <BR/><BR/>Lewis tries to simplify what is supposed to be complex. One cannot slap an atheist with Mere Christianity and demand a conversion because faith is not that simple. Lewis's literature doesn't hold a candle to Homer, Dostoyevsky, Tolkein, or any other great writer. Other authors are so complex and for a reason. The Bible is perhaps the most difficult text to interpret, and though Christ may have taught with simple parables, the allegories were far more profound. Lewis's work is, in my mind, children's literature and teenage nonfiction for the average mind. More blessed minds can stick to Dante and the other greats, though, who recognize the complexity of the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com