Note: This post has commentary in footnotes, so is best read onsite to get the pop-up notes.

Most treatments of discourse will use a binary contrast to describe the advancement of the plot. The mainline of the story is advanced with perfective action (i.e. viewing things as an undifferentiated whole), whereas the details that are needed to flesh out the story are generally in the imperfective aspect (i.e. in-process or ongoing). This imperfective action usually will not advance the narrative plot, but either establishes introductory states of affair or creates a pause in the midst of the story to add descriptive detail.

One of the important presuppositions I have stressed here is the principle of choice implying meaning. In other words it is not just the content that is important, but how the content is portrayed and conveyed. Background information can be placed almost anywhere in a story, but the placement of it will have different effects. For instance, when we are told that Sarah and Rebekah are beautiful, that David is handsome, that Esau is hairy and that Jacob is smooth, it is at the very beginning of these stories from the Hebrew Bible. This represents a choice on the writer’s part, and creates the expectation that somehow this information will tie in at some point. Imagine me beginning a joke about a one-legged grammarian and coming to the end of the joke without the fact that she only has one leg being relevant. Sperber and Wilson have helpfully pointed out this expectation of relevance in communication. So one option is to disclose the needed background at the beginning of the story.

Another way of revealing the background information is in dialogue. This is over-used in the Shepherd of Hermas, with Hermas asking questions that draw out the needed information, or vice versa. Rarely does one find a narrative description of what he sees, but the angel will ask him “What do you see?” You find the same thing in Jeremiah.

There is another use of background information that I want to focus on: to highlight a climax by delaying it. I have been reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and been wonderfully surprised by what I see. Lewis took the time to write well. It is not just the content that is compelling, but the delivery as well. I wanted to give you some excerpts that illustrate the point. I trust that you will have enough of the general plot to follow what, um, follows. These are mostly taken from the chapter where Aslan lays down his life in the place of Edmund to pay the penalty for his traitorous behavior in serving the White Witch.

The following excerpt comes where the Witch is trying to force Aslan to hand Edmund over to her, just after Aslan’s forces have finished rescuing Edmund. She grounds her claim on the “Deep Magic,” a concept has not previously been explained or even mentioned. Yet understanding the Deep Magic is the key to understanding the events that follow. The disclosure of this needed background information comes in the midst of the story rather than the beginning, at the very point that it is relevant. It also comes in the midst of dialogue, rather than as a narrative aside like (i.e., “Now the Deep Magic was…”) What is noteworthy is how the Witch’s use of unnecessary repetition delays the disclosure of the needed information. The pragmatic effect of this repetition is to create suspense and build to the climax. Background information is often used similarly in the NT to build suspense, but calling something “background” makes it sound as though it is unimportant. I thought I would use Lewis instead to illustrate the principle. You should be able to hover on the footnotes to see my comments.

“Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?” asked the Witch.

“Let us say I have forgotten it,”1 answered Aslan gravely. “Tell us of this Deep Magic.”

“Tell you?” said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller. “Tell you what is written on that very Table of Stone which stands beside us? Tell you what is written in letters deep as a spear is long on the fire-stones on the Secret Hill? Tell you2 what is engraved on the scepter of the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea? You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill.”3

“Oh,” said Mr. Beaver. “So that’s how you came to imagine yourself a queen–because you were the Emperor’s hangman. I see.”4

“Peace, Beaver,” said Aslan, with a very low growl.5

“And so,” continued the Witch,6 “that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property.”

“Come and take it then,” said the Bull with the man’s head in a great bellowing voice.7

“Fool,” said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl,8 “do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.”9

“It is very true,” said Aslan, “I do not deny it.”10

“Oh, Aslan!” whispered Susan in the Lion’s ear, “can’t we–I mean, you won’t, will you? Can’t we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn’t there something you can work against it?”11

“Work against the Emperor’s magic?” said Aslan, turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again.12

Edmund was on the other side of Aslan, looking all the time at Aslan’s face. He felt a choking feeling and wondered if he ought to say something; but a moment later he felt that he was not expected to do anything except to wait, and do what he was told.13

“Fall back, all of you,” said Aslan, “and I will talk to the Witch alone.”14

They all obeyed. It was a terrible time this15 –waiting and wondering while the Lion and the Witch talked earnestly together in low voices. Lucy said, “Oh, Edmund!” and began to cry. Peter stood with his back to the others looking out at the distant sea. The Beavers stood holding each other’s paws with their heads bowed. The centaurs stamped uneasily with their hoofs.16 But everyone became perfectly still in the end so that you noticed even small sounds like a bumble-bee flying past, or the birds in the forest down below them, or the wind rustling the leaves.17 And still the talk between Aslan and the White Witch went on.18

At last they heard Aslan’s voice, “You can all come back,” he said. “I have settled the matter. She has renounced the claim to your brother’s blood.”19 All over the hill there was a noise as if everyone had been holding their breath and had now begun breathing again, and then a murmur of talk.20

The Witch was just turning away with a look of fierce joy on her face when she stopped and said, “But how will I know this promise will be kept?”21

“Haa-a-arrh!” roared Aslan, rising half from his throne; and his great mouth opened wider and wider and the roar grew louder and louder, and the Witch, after staring for a moment with her lips wide apart, picked up her skirts and fairly ran for her life.

C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (New York: Scholastic Inc., 1995), 142-44.

An so ends Chapter 14, without knowing the details of the promise Aslan has made with the Witch. It is not until near the end of the next chapter that we learn the nature of the sacrifice that Aslan makes, and only in the chapter after that do we find that there is an even Deeper Magic that not even the Witch knows about.

Do you see the impact here of delaying progress? There is the macro-level delay whereby we do not learn what the promise is until the next chapter. There is the pericope-level delay where we get told what everyone is doing when we really want to learn what Aslan is going to do. There is also the sentence-level delay, where quotative frames and vocatives of address interrupt the flow and cause delay. Not all background information has this effect of creating suspense or building to a climax. It is the insertion of things that are not semantically required that brings this about. I will be discussing this more in my SBL paper, but no using Lewis.

Getting from A to B as quickly as possible can be highly over-rated. The most pertinent portions of this excerpt could have been condensed into probably little more than a paragraph of cliff notes. However, doing so would be a tragic mistake. I illustrate these principles here because they are used throughout the biblical text, in both testaments. Slow down, stop de-coding, and read thoughtfully. Think about how the text is structured. Consider the consequences of alternative formulations. Mostly, have fun reading.

  1. What would have been the effect if Aslan said, “Yes, I know it, I must hand over Edmund or a substitute who is guiltless.” [↩]
  2. What is the effect of repeating the “Tell you” statement regarding the structure? Look at how what follows is recharacterized to describe essentially the same thing. More information is learned about the Deep Magic after each repetition of the refrain. She thematically recharacterizes the writing as deeply engraved on the Stone Table, in the fire-stones of the Secret Hill, on the scepter of the Emporor–it must be some heavy duty stuff! But still we have no clue what these words say. [↩]
  3. Italics are mine, this is the relevant part of the Deep Magic that we were waiting to hear. Surely the same information could have been more efficiently conveyed, but without the same effect. [↩]
  4. Why do we need to hear from the Beaver? We want to know what Aslan’s response will be! Further evidence of delay. [↩]
  5. He quiets the beaver, but still gives us no indication of what will happen, of how he will respond. [↩]
  6. Notice the effect of the non-initial quotative frames like “she said.”, We find the same non-initial use of φημι in Greek. Such non-initial placement of verbs of speaking, vocatives/nominatives of address (“What I want to tell you, my dear, is…”), meta-comments, etc., will have two effects: separating two things of unequal importance, and delaying the introduction of what is typically the more-prominent of the two. If the first happens to be more salient, then the interruption creates what Randall Buth calls a “dramatic pause.” See his article on Hebrew verbless clauses in Miller (1999). [↩]
  7. Again, no response from Aslan. But the Bull expresses what the reader might be thinking: there is no way Aslan is going to hand over Edmund to be killed, right? The Bull not only voices our sentiment, he also delays learning what Aslan’s response will be. [↩]
  8. Another delay with non-initial quotative frame and a vocative. What follows is more salient. Lewis could have more easily written, “The Witch retorted, ‘Do you really…'” [↩]
  9. Another relevant portion of the Deep Magic is disclosed, again at the point it is salient. If she had included this with the portion about every traitor being hers, then there would have been no reason for the Bull to say what he did. [↩]
  10. Still no direct answer about how Aslan will respond. This reminds me a lot of the introduction of John the Baptist in John 1:20 where he is asked if he is the Christ: “And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “’I am not the Christ.'” (NASB). You have both a positive (two actually) and negative statement of the same proposition, but still nothing about how he will respond. [↩]
  11. Again, a character’s words are used to express (or prompt) the reader’s response to the situation. There must be some other way, right? Surely Edmund won’t be killed? [↩]
  12. Here we see there is no way out of the Deep Magic, as though the Witch will win. Perhaps Edmund will die after all. [↩]
  13. What difference does it make where Edmund is and what he is feeling? For crying out loud, I want to know how Aslan will respond! What will he do? [↩]
  14. The plot advances, but only by inches. We still do not know how Aslan will respond. We have to wait out the report of obedience before we learn anything else. This is the point that you likely begin skipping ahead to avoid the delay, right? [↩]
  15. Nice forward-pointing reference here in the use of “this”, drawing attention to the state-of-affairs about to be described. [↩]
  16. Again, who gives a rip what Lucy said, how Peter was standing, that the Beavers were holding paws, that the centaurs were stamping. I want to know what’s gonna happen, for crying out loud! Get on with it! [↩]
  17. Who cares how still it was, get on with it already! [↩]
  18. Repetition of the last event from the mainline, noting it is still going on. It is very difficult “make time pass” in a story. One way of making it more real is to throw in detail that is not needed. It slows the advance of the plot, which is exactly what we see here. [↩]
  19. Note that he neglects to say how he has brought this about, exactly what kind of deal he has cut with the Witch. I thought there was no way out of the Deep Magic? What gives? [↩]
  20. Did the Witch just abandon her claim? Nothing is going to happen, no blood will be exchanged? [↩]
  21. Ah, so now we know for sure that there is come catch, the Witch will not walk away empty handed. But what is the promise? We have to wait and keep reading. To some extent, we could construe “the promise” as a forward-pointing reference, since there is no explicit antecedent. [↩]