Response to Student Pulse article

In the journal article, Examining Mythology in “The Chronicles of Narnia” by C.S. Lewis, the main thesis is that C.S Lewis has created a Narnian mythology. In the second paragraph the author spends a lot of time trying to convince the reader that C.S. Lewis was creating a Narnian mythology by quoting many of C.S. Lewis’ own works. While this thesis is not very controversial, it is of interest of those who enjoy the development of literary mythology. It is not clear who this article is for other than an academic audience. However it should be noted, that the author uses quite a bit of detail from the Chronicles of Narnia series. I will discuss later how this dense detail frustrates the reader.

There is a definite structure to this piece of writing. The author uses a checklist by Ryken and Mead to explain how Narnian mythology meets the criteria of mythology. There is an explanation about why Ryken and Mead’s checklist is used as opposed to Lewis’ checklist. According to the author, Ryken and Mean’s checklist is easier to understand. Since a checklist is used to structure the essay, each paragraph starts with the ‘first, second, and third characteristic’ of a myth. However, in order to be consistent, the author should have split the fourth and fifth characteristics into separate paragraphs. Since the author follows the checklist of Ryken and Mead, the structure is predictable and helps the reader follow the argument. There are no concluding sentences at the end of the paragraphs. The paragraphs seem long and lose focus.

            There is very little use of language in this journal article. The author uses the metaphor of opening a book to opening the wardrobe door to introduce the idea of Narnian mythology. Other than that there are no similes, hyperbole, personification, etc. The author quotes several sources to enhance his or her argument. It must be mentioned that several of the sentences are awkward and could have been written more simply. As mentioned above, the writing is often too specific to the stories and not specific to the argument which confuses the reader.

            For a piece of academic writing, these are some of my surprising observations.

The author chose to abbreviate the book titles after he or she first mentions them. This bothers me as a reader because it is not that difficult to write out the title of a book and I do not think it follows academic writing rules. The conclusion does not retell the content-- it goes off in a new direction. I was always taught that the reader does not have any prior knowledge. However, this author uses so much detail that was unhelpful and did not necessarily support the argument. The argument would have been stronger if there was more explanation for the reader.

            This journal article has many good points. It has a strong metaphor at the beginning. It has a good organizational structure. The author is obviously passionate about the topic. There are some flaws with the journal article such as too much assumed prior knowledge, lack of conclusion, and dry language. Overall I found this article difficult to connect to as a reader.

 Link to article: http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/69/examining-mythology-in-the-chronicles-of-narnia-by-cs-lewis