The Space Trilogy

PrinceOfTheWest said:
I think that it's more that once Ransom assumed the office of Pendragon, he also assumed a throne name. To those under his authority, he was known as "the Director", but to those outside, he was known as "Mr. Fisher-King". That last is a clear allusion to the figure in Arthurian legend.
Click to expand...

Ok, now this is interesting to me. Thanks for the link. My only real knowledge of the Arthurian legend comes from Tennyson's Idylls of the King, and it has been some time since I read it. Is this Fisher-King or Wounded King supposed to be King Arthur from the legend? I love Tennyson's poetry but not sure how accurately he portrayed the legend. Do you recommend Howard Pyle or Malory or who is the best to read for learning more? It might have been Gustave Dore's illustrations of Idylls that really got me interested in it, especially the one titled "Edyrn with His Lady and Dwarf Journey to Arthur's Court." http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/art/dore/dore3.htm
 
No, the Fisher-King was not Arthur. However, he seemed to be (in some versions) the custodian of the Graal, and/or the Lance (i.e. the one used to pierce Christ's side on the Cross.) I think Percival found him. I'm not too up on him, either - here's a link to a distilled account of where he fits in.

This also fits in Merlin's glancing comment about "the stroke which Balinus struck". In Malory, Balinus (or Balyn) grabbed The Lance to attack King Pelam and sorely wounded him, but also caused catastrophe for the kingdom and death for himself. (search this page for 'Balyn' for the distillation of Malory's account.) There's a connection in that Pelam (and Pellas, another character) are descendants of Joseph of Arimathea, who brought the Graal and Lance to England's shores.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
Strength is a wonderful parable for us all in the nature of evil and the ways of corruption. It always starts out innocuous, trivial, some banality hardly worth bothering about. But it can end up in the Objective Room, or taking orders from a demon-possessed head, unless we obey the Moral Law and act with courage. That's what Mark needed to do, and that's what we need to do.
Click to expand...

Standing out to me in my current reading of That Hideous Strength, are (1) Jane's unexamined drives and notions, of which she is largely unconscious, that cause her to be repulsed by what the people in St. Anne's stand for. She will not "be taken in", is repulsed by the very notion of "having to get permission from her husband". (2) Mark's also unexamined drives to be in the inner circle. It was especially interesting to watch his good sense ~ wanting to have things cleared up and defined ~ be undermined by the threat to him being excluded from the inner circle.

When Mark is in the village that is going to be destroyed, he finds that he actually takes pleasure in what his Sociology considers unvaluable. But what I found most interesting is that he discovers that his colleague (whose name I forget at the moment) is a bore. This thing about "being a bore" is also intriguing. I think it's a piece of the symbolism Lewis is using.

What are the characteristics of the people Lewis calls "a bore" in Strength, and what does this tell us? ;)
 
I think in Lewis' framework, a "bore" is someone who is superficial and shallow - there's no depth. Consider the context where he uses that to describe the coworker (Cosser, I think). They're investigating the village of Cure Hardy with the intent of writing up a report to justify something that is already a fait accompli: the village's condemnation. The whole trip, and the report being written, are exercises in futility, since the decision has already been made. Cosser's behaviour fits right in.

Notice the contrast with the village people, who Mark can still appreciate at least a little. They may be simple, but they have depth. They are true people, as opposed to a bureaucratic apparatchik like Cosser.
 
I'm interested in why the bore has become superficial and shallow in Lewis' writing. I imagine, PotW, you have read some of Charles Williams, such as Descent into Hell. I find it in Tolkien as well, that these three Christians had a powerfully deep understanding of the operation of sin and evil in the human mind and heart. We see it a little bit in Boromir, a lot in Denethor; we see it in the protagonists in Williams. We see it in both Weston and Devine (Feverstone, of course). And Screwtape Letters is primarily about it.

Why do you suppose these three Inklings gave so much creative energy to "turning over the stones", so to speak, "and revealing the worms beneath?" What was their aim? Or was this one of their aims?
 
I think one advantage they had was being classically educated, and thus had a much broader picture of human nature, from noble to evil, than most men of their (or our) day. They were not trammeled by the narrow modern or post-modern world views that mark our time. They had the dual advantage of a sweep of human wisdom from many times and ages combined with the insights offered by the Gospel.

I think the advantage of multiple perspectives enabled them to see past the illusions of their time and better perceive the core of human nature. This enabled them in their tales to portray True Men in all their complexity, not the shallow, two-dimensional caricatures you find in most modern stories. Besides this, they were also all extremely skilled writers. I'd put Tolkien first in terms of raw literary craft, but Lewis close behind, especially on his more mature works like Faces. Williams is a little less accessible, but he's still better than most you read these days. Even Tolkien, who was ambivalent about Williams as a literary craftsman, acknowledged that Williams had the ability to describe in words once-in-a-lifetime experiences, the kind of events that defy easy description. (I'm a writer, so I know how hard it is.) You can find these in all his novels, but The Greater Trumps has several.
 
littlemanpoet said:
I'm interested in why the bore has become superficial and shallow in Lewis' writing.
Click to expand...
I think the bore is only one of the types of corrupt man in Lewis' writings, and a lesser one at that. For instance, Weston and Divine were many things, but "bores" was not among them. In Strength, the most prominent bore is Curry, who escapes destruction partly because he is a bore, and thus doesn't get close enough to the action to be destroyed when everything blows up. (Thus, in a way, he's saved by his pettiness.) Wither, Hardcastle, Straik, and Frost were all much more evil than Curry, and not "bores" in the sense Lewis used it.
 
Very astute observations, PotW.

Just read the part how Jane is "undone" by being in the presence of the Fisher-King. I have had this experience myself, but not in exactly the same way. She is left defenseless. That is, all of her usual defenses against ( what? ) the reality of life in all its four-squareness ( ? ) are gone, and she realizes that only the truth will do.

I must admit that I needed to apply a "willing suspension of disbelief" in regard to some of the things she admitted to herself as true. - This may have more to do with Lewis "telling" rather than "showing", though.
 
I just happened upon an amazing bit of writing in That Hideous Strength.

To those high creatures whose activity builds what we call Nature, nothing is "natural." From their station the essential arbitrariness (so to call it) of every actual creation is ceaselessly visible; for them there are no basic assumptions: all springs with the willful beauty of a jest or a tune from that miraculous moment of self-limitation wherein the Infinite, rejecting a myriad possibilities, throws out of Himself the positive and elected invention.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a mouthful and a mind-full. But it is an amazing thought. It's talking about the eldila (angels), how they are not "home" on any planet, how bodied beings who experience life full of procreation and growing up and living then dying, are just one more type of nature.

But it grabs onto a piece of Christian thought that is almost scandalous in its profundity. God, the Infinite, chooses to limit Himself (who is unlimitable?) by creating something (us) outside of Himself to love and be loved by, thus limiting Himself. And this very act of limiting by creation-fall-redemption-resurrection-transformation/sanctification, completes Him by perfecting us to be with Him forever.

Amazing.
 
How does Jane Austen's writings fit into THS? We know Lewis has his Jane character reading Mansfield Park in the book. I have never read Jane Austen, I quess I should. I know she is still popular in England. I am jumping into Shakespere's Sonnets.
 
The Space Trilogy is all about conflicting viewpoints. Jane Austen's novels illustrate the viewpoints of a past era in England, so they are a reference.
 
After reading the interview of Douglas Gresham I was wondering if a movie of "That Hideous Strength" could be made with out the first two parts of "The Space Trilogy". I have always felt that only the last book would ever make a good movie. I feel a good screen play can be written to make "That Hideous Strength" stand alone by itself. I see I am finally a "Friend of Narnia", cool.
 
You have long been a friend of Narnia, Timmy! :)

I think it would be a shame to make THS into a film without making the other two which would be great fantasy movies, to my mind. All three of them would, I think, be good films if made by the right people.
 
forbearne said:
I read The Space Trilogy many years ago. Fairly interesting over all but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as Narnia.
Click to expand...
How old are you, darling? If you're a grown-up, I'll allow it. But if you're a youngster who read the Trilogy years ago, you probably weren't old enough to really get it from the perspective of years. Try it again in 15 or 20 years.

That said, of course CON will always be first place in my heart, because of all the magic attendant to books you read as a child, but I find the Trilogy to be first rate and would be hard to judge between them.
 
I'm in my mid-twenties. I was about nine at the time, but we read it as a family and my parents liked Narnia better, too. :p I think at the time I was expecting it to be along the lines of Ray Bradbury, who I adore, however, which it wasn't. Perhaps sometime I'll give it another chance and see if my views have changed.
 
forbearne said:
I'm in my mid-twenties. I was about nine at the time, but we read it as a family and my parents liked Narnia better, too. :p I think at the time I was expecting it to be along the lines of Ray Bradbury, who I adore, however, which it wasn't. Perhaps sometime I'll give it another chance and see if my views have changed.
Click to expand...
Definitely try it again. CSL does a masterful job of creating a "fairy tale" for adults. Or three of them actually, THS is the most fairy-tailish. The others are rather more sci-fi like stories.
 
I don't think of them as sci-fi at all, no matter what Lewis thought. They are way better than any of the science fiction they come out with these days.
 
Back
Top