OK, so I admit it -- I'm a little disturbed that the Christian Right is wigging out, speaking in tongues, and sending whole churches of people to go see this, evidently finding the Narnia movies as worthy of seeing in our sin-soaked world. I mean, what, are people gonna be yelling out "Praise Jesus" and "amen" and crap during the movie? Speaking in tongues? Whatever. They better not do it around me.

Just a reminder, right-wingers -- it's a story (and as an allegory, one heavily swathed in fairytale trappings so that the source is near-unrecognizable). I don't give a crap if it's an allegory about the first Pope, the middle-aged Testament, or Jesus's last snack, as long as it's a beautiful and exciting story beautifully presented. I find it a little sad that only *now* (and, well, back last year with "The Torture of the Christ") do churchgoing folks find a movie worth attending in droves. What a world it would be if all these super-religious folks instead simply flocked to movies that told powerful stories of good versus evil, thrillingly told! (They might find "Harry Potter" 'Christian' after all.)

With that said, I think the trailer looks awesome, the casting was superb, and I'm crossing my fingers that the movie brings to life the world I loved so much in childhood.

I loved the books. Adored them. Then found out they were allegories. I shrugged, read the books again, and aside from the end of "The Last Battle," with its over-the-top "see it's really Jesus!" ending, I still loved them, and have ever since. I'm not a Christian but enjoy Lewis's writings, and respect anyone's beliefs and really don't care what motivated Lewis to write the Narnia books. I'm just glad he did, because it was a wonderful place to go, and a haven for me as a child. (And personally, "Magician's Nephew" is my favorite, not "LWatW".)

Usher, sportyblueroadster, absolutely great letters. Thanks for a breath of fresh air on this issue.

Bobdatuna, hate to break it to ya, but Tolkien was not a devout atheist, but a devout Catholic (he actually converted Lewis, who then dedicated "Screwtape Letters" to him as thanks). However, his goals were utterly different from Lewis's -- as I said before, he hated allegory and found it weak. He went out of his way to avoid it in "Lord of the Rings," and was publicly disgusted with those who tried to find hidden Christian meanings in those works (i.e., "Galadriel" = "Mary figure" etc).

I still can't believe Miller lumps Tolkien in with Lewis on the subject of religious allegory (just not correct; Tolkien loathed it and wrote about it at length in such works as Leaf by Niggle, etc.), and most of all that she bases most of her arguments on someone like Goldthwaite. I mean, please. It's embarrassing.

Ultimately, I'm far less disturbed that the Religious Right are going to be flocking to Narnia to celebrate their religious beliefs (to each their own), than I am by the fact that (according to CNN's latest polls on the subject) most of such faith-based attendees are still battling the teaching of this really revolutionary scientific concept -- Evolution. (Maybe somebody should write an allegorical book to help explain that, while they're at it?)

You know, this was actually it for me. My last straw with Salon.

I'm a former magazine editor, and I used to love this magazine, now a hysterical and badly edited ghost of its former self. I eagerly looked forward to reading so many different columnists on a daily basis because the common thread was always a lively intelligence and spirit of debate. Now I just check in with a dash of politics (sadly lamenting the loss of Jake Tapper all the while), maybe some Cary Tennis or the Fix, or occasionally catch up on Stephanie Zacharek and the movie reviews.

But I'm out. I put up with the huge slide in quality over the past year, the amateurish and visually ugly "redesign," the lazy editing, etc. But the fact that this woman gets a paycheck for this dreck is just too upsetting.

I am incredibly liberal, but I tried to read this piece as objectively as I could and it's disturbing as hell. And not in a brave or psychologically exploratory way. It's just badly written with shock value obviously in mind ("ooh, I'm so edgy, look, I'm not afraid to be superphysical with my kid").

But the deliberately sexualized language, the "moaning" kisses with the child, the constant blatant and bizarre jealousies, fantasies, etc. What's the point? To make many of us wish we had actually not kept reading? (I finished the piece and felt lightly coated in slime; I literally wish I could un-read this column.)

I actually feel kind of sorry for Waldeman, as if the subtext from Salon is "look how many letters/page views we get off this nut." She has confessed to mental problems, and Salon obviously gets off on the imbalanced and "confessional" aspect of these columns. The piece itself is rambling, disjointed, badly written, and hilariously unself-aware.

But that's it for me. I have no reason to keep paying for this crap. And -- while I hope Ms. Waldeman recovers from some of her more dangerous delusions (and finds better medication to boot), I also honestly hope this letter impels someone to call Child Protective Services.

Bye Salon. I remember when you were worth reading. (Oh, and how utterly transparent is it that almost *all* of the "Editor's Choice" letters either praise Waldeman or Salon effusively? Sheesh people, you got seventy, eighty letters from people who loathed this piece. Can't you pick even a few letters to honestly and accurately represent that fact?)

But I forgot... you're not a real magazine anymore. Sigh.