The Space Trilogy
- Thread starter tgraveline
- Start date
Oh for Pete's sake ... Hey, they did that on Star Trek once -- Nurse Chapel's lost fiance Dr Corby was found on an ice planet where he had gone underground and discovered a civilzation androids. He was mortally wounded, and they patched him back up using an android body. Or else he made himself an android body; I forget. He imprinted his brain on an electronic brain, or so he thought -- but it made him a weeny bit psychopathic, and he tried to kill Kirk and did kill some other people if I remember rightly. Then Nurse Chapel couldn't love him, anyway, when she found out he was a robot. And a murderer.
TimmyofOz
Well-known member
I have always had problems understanding the Titian vision of what may have been Venus by Jane in the Lodge. How is this Venus like "Mother" Dimble and not like her? I never understood the Director's (or how Lewis') explanation.
Any how for those on the other thread that ask if Narnia is too Pagan, they should look at THS, and ask why is this book so pagan. Lewis really mixes in this last book of the trilogy his angelology with pagan gods.
Any how for those on the other thread that ask if Narnia is too Pagan, they should look at THS, and ask why is this book so pagan. Lewis really mixes in this last book of the trilogy his angelology with pagan gods.
Last edited:
WarriorSatyr
Member
Well, he's exploring the possibility that some of the pagan gods were angels who ended up being worshiped by mistake, isn't he?
And as for how Venus is more like Mother Dimble, well, it's because she is a mother, and Jane isn't.
And as for how Venus is more like Mother Dimble, well, it's because she is a mother, and Jane isn't.
I think it is more mystical than that. "Mother" Dimble, you remember, never had any children -- yet became a mother to all her husband's students. She was a wife, and a sexual being, if she had not been a Christian, Lewis implies, she might even have been raunchy -- or at least naughty. The giantess (who is not Venus, is she?) was un-Christian/pagan, and she made a mockery of sexuality and pulled apart the special marriage bed Jane had helped prepare for Maggs and her husband. She was provacative and overtly sexual -- without any spirituality to her. If Jane, who was sensitive to the overlap of the pagan/Christian spaces, would not submit herself to the "Christianizing" authority of the Director (and thus to Christ) she would have, in place of the chaste and childless Mother Dimble, a wild and raunchy fertility goddess, a raw-edged and dangerous one at that. Does that make any sense?
Lewis is showing that what was good in pagan worship (sensuality) could be redeemed and enhanced in Christianity (the sacrament of marriage).
This is how I read it. The same with Merlin, who was sort of on the cusp between Christianity and paganism: his magic is really founded upon communication with the earth's powers, and Ransom says that even in his (Merlin's) day, that kind of magic was already passing from the world as the gods that facilitated it were growing dim and Christ was growing brighter -- but because Merlin was, himself, a Christian, he was able to revive that magic and place it in Christ's service in the moment of crisis.
I think it is a nice way to look at the old religions; that perhaps there were such creatures, and although they aren't to be worshiped, they can be redeemed and retained in Christianity as other servants of Christ.
Lewis is showing that what was good in pagan worship (sensuality) could be redeemed and enhanced in Christianity (the sacrament of marriage).
This is how I read it. The same with Merlin, who was sort of on the cusp between Christianity and paganism: his magic is really founded upon communication with the earth's powers, and Ransom says that even in his (Merlin's) day, that kind of magic was already passing from the world as the gods that facilitated it were growing dim and Christ was growing brighter -- but because Merlin was, himself, a Christian, he was able to revive that magic and place it in Christ's service in the moment of crisis.
I think it is a nice way to look at the old religions; that perhaps there were such creatures, and although they aren't to be worshiped, they can be redeemed and retained in Christianity as other servants of Christ.
TimmyofOz
Well-known member
You make some good points inkspot. It is true the Director never identifies the giantess as Venus. It is not the Venus he knew from Perelandra, but maybe a earth form of the goddess. I am not sure the Director ever associates these earth form gods with the true Oyéresu as allies to the Oyéresu or counterfeits. They seem to be wraiths in that they mimic the true Oyéresu, whether for good or for bad we don't know. It is not something Lewis want to tell us for sure. It is hard to tell if this giantess and the earth people with her, were demons trying to torment Jane, or just pagan creatures having a romp stirred up by the present of Merlin. If they were demons they failed because Jane becomes a Christian soon after.
WarriorSatyr
Member
Doesn't the Director say that if Jane was a Christian that the Giantess wouldn't have been so terrifying?
TimmyofOz
Well-known member
Well we know that Jane was under constant attack by the bad Eldila or demons, even during her conversion. But like I said, I am not sure whether Lewis wanted to convey that the vision at the lodge was a demonic attack, or an angelic vision. Your comment, WarriorSatyr, doesn't seem to answer the question, because if Jane was a Christian she would probably be less afraid on either account. You ought to be afraid of angels if you are not a Christian and even if you are to some extent. Also Lewis talks about there being once neutrals in the spiritual world of THS. This Giantess and her friends may be neutrals. Inspot is right that marriage is a major theme in the book and the vision has to do with Jane's problems with her marriage. I have recently been encouraging newly weds I know to read THS. 
I always took the premise to be that creatures like the giantess and her dwarf friends were morally neutral -- but tending toward naughtiness, like Bacchus and his madcap girls in ... Prince Caspian, isn't it? yes, during the romp. The Pevensie girls admit they would be afraid to meet the young god and his wild maidens if not for the presence of Aslan. He implies, it seems to me, that the morally neitral creatures of pagan mythology can be brought into glorious light in Christ, or left to stray back toward evil if not placed in proper submission to Him.
He also makes the point, does he not, that things are ever becoming narrower, more like themselves -- that is in Mere Christianity I believe, but perhaps also in fiction: if the old mythological creatures will not come into their right place in Christ, they will fall further and further away, and thus into evil. That's how I read it ...
Was CSL married when he wrote THS? It is an interesting view of marriage he puts forth.
He also makes the point, does he not, that things are ever becoming narrower, more like themselves -- that is in Mere Christianity I believe, but perhaps also in fiction: if the old mythological creatures will not come into their right place in Christ, they will fall further and further away, and thus into evil. That's how I read it ...
Was CSL married when he wrote THS? It is an interesting view of marriage he puts forth.
I don't think he was married when he wrote the Space Trilogy, but I don't think it would matter. The view of marriage which he espouses is, so far as I can see, classic Christian marriage, so I can't imagine why his getting married would have any effect on it.
Heh
I think a "classical" view of Christian marriage can vary widely. In fact I know that CSL's view of the sanctity of marriage changed dramatically once he was in love with Joy -- at the time his Church didn't allow divorced people to re-marry, but he found a priest who would do it. He went outside the classical view of Christian marriage in his own denomination in order to give Joy the sacrament of marriage she desired with him (is how I read the story).
Talking about marriage without having experienced it (as Mrs Dimble even says of the Director in THS) is quite different from talking about it once you are directly involved in it.
I have no qualms specifically with what Lewis says -- in fact, I really love the the discovery of each other that Mark and Jane make of each other throughout the book ... I just wonder how CSL might have approached the subject had he been writing as a married man, or even a widower.
Typical man's answer?
I think a "classical" view of Christian marriage can vary widely. In fact I know that CSL's view of the sanctity of marriage changed dramatically once he was in love with Joy -- at the time his Church didn't allow divorced people to re-marry, but he found a priest who would do it. He went outside the classical view of Christian marriage in his own denomination in order to give Joy the sacrament of marriage she desired with him (is how I read the story).
Talking about marriage without having experienced it (as Mrs Dimble even says of the Director in THS) is quite different from talking about it once you are directly involved in it.
I have no qualms specifically with what Lewis says -- in fact, I really love the the discovery of each other that Mark and Jane make of each other throughout the book ... I just wonder how CSL might have approached the subject had he been writing as a married man, or even a widower.
TimmyofOz
Well-known member
I was reading some essay on That Hideous Strength on line. Essays that might have been written in the last ten years in modern colleges of literature. Now I tend to agree with PotW that Lewis' views on marriage are Christian Classic even before his marriage. But there is a view that from Lewis' pre-marriage books that he was a sexist and maybe a misogynist and that the only saving part of his life was his marriage to Joy, that turned his life around in his view toward women. I was shocked that this view was held by many. The idea that Lewis disrespected women and only preferred the company of men is crazy. Let's not forget that he wrote LWW before he meet Joy and in that book Lucy is the lead character. And in The Silver Chair the book is written from the view of Jill. Lewis in his fiction always tried hard to understand the view point of the female characters. This is hardly the character of a misogynist. Is anyone else aware that many felt Lewis was a sexist? Like I said, I have recently been encouraging newly weds I know to read THS.
The Tear Of The Lion
Member
Well, sadly, some people see all Christians (or religious people) as sexists
Anyways. Many people call Narnia sexist. Because Susan doesn't get into the real Narnia, because she is more interested in stockings and lipstick* or because Father Christmas doesn't like women in war. Anyways, that's all nonsense. Lewis has never been a sexist. In fact, the Narnia books are very modern, especially considering how old these books are. The Space Trigoly ist sexist either, even though slightly less modern than Narnia. But that's only a tiny bit.
People also call Narnia racist (because the Calormenes are dark skinned -> Aravis and Emeth are GOOD characters, oh my! And the WHite Witch is as white as it gets ) or anti-Islam (because the Calormenes are pseudo-oriental -> there are no similarities between the pagan Calormene cult and the monotheistic Islam) and other kinds of nonsene
*many people think Susan couldn't get into the real Narnia "because she found sex". That's nonsense! It was because she was oh-so-grown-up and mature and the message was "keep the inner child" - NOT "you grow up so you're a slut". In fact, Lucy was ca. sixteen years old in The Last Battle. In other words: Susan was at least in her early twenties. She wasn't a young teenage girl who might have "found sex". She was either fixed on that material, mature and rational adult world or she started a real family. She might have even been married. The whole young girl finds sex and get's "bad" thing is pure nonsense. The stockings and lipsticks didn't symbolize sex, but MATERIALISM.
Or in other words: Noen of Lewis' books are sexist. Nor are they racist. Or anything like that.
Anyways. Many people call Narnia sexist. Because Susan doesn't get into the real Narnia, because she is more interested in stockings and lipstick* or because Father Christmas doesn't like women in war. Anyways, that's all nonsense. Lewis has never been a sexist. In fact, the Narnia books are very modern, especially considering how old these books are. The Space Trigoly ist sexist either, even though slightly less modern than Narnia. But that's only a tiny bit.
People also call Narnia racist (because the Calormenes are dark skinned -> Aravis and Emeth are GOOD characters, oh my! And the WHite Witch is as white as it gets
) or anti-Islam (because the Calormenes are pseudo-oriental -> there are no similarities between the pagan Calormene cult and the monotheistic Islam) and other kinds of nonsene *many people think Susan couldn't get into the real Narnia "because she found sex". That's nonsense! It was because she was oh-so-grown-up and mature and the message was "keep the inner child" - NOT "you grow up so you're a slut". In fact, Lucy was ca. sixteen years old in The Last Battle. In other words: Susan was at least in her early twenties. She wasn't a young teenage girl who might have "found sex". She was either fixed on that material, mature and rational adult world or she started a real family. She might have even been married. The whole young girl finds sex and get's "bad" thing is pure nonsense. The stockings and lipsticks didn't symbolize sex, but MATERIALISM.
Or in other words: Noen of Lewis' books are sexist. Nor are they racist. Or anything like that.
I have heard of this view. And although I certainly do not think CSL was a misogynist, I did get the impression from reading about his life that up until he met Joy, he had not met a woman with whom he could share the life of his mind and feel comfortable. I think he did not understand women, and he did not find it worth his while to take up the study.
This isn't to say that he disliked women, but I did read an essay he had written — and now I cannot remember what it was called or where I read it — where he was speaking of the great pleasure he was looking forward to in reconnecting with an old student, a young man with original ideas and good humor. Lewis seemed to be anticipating stimulating conversation for an hour or two. When the young man arrived, he had with him his fiancée. If I recall the essay correctly, CSL was greatly taken aback and all his views of a good two hours conversation on stimulating topics and renewing old acquaintance were immediately abandon (ruined in fact) by the presence of a woman.
The entire tenor of the meeting was for him changed for the worse. It couldn't be the bromance he had in mind because the girl was there. In the essay, he related how her presence loomed large over the entire afternoon — but he also admitted this was his fault and his problem because he could not give up what he had hoped for in favor of what yet received. I think the essay intended to show that we created in our minds make an event in sifted by clinging to what we had expected of it rather than accepting it for what it was… But to me it also showed that he did indeed find the company of men to be more comfortable and more stimulating for his mind.
I do think his marriage to Joy changed him, in this regard, for the better. It taught him that women could engage and entertain him. I don't think he was a misogynist to begin with, or he never could have gotten close to Joy. I think the unfortunate circumstance of his mother's death distanced him for many years from getting close to any woman. I think it is fair to say that he understood men, and children, but that grown women were a mystery to him.
But I think we are a mystery, and very few male writers get it exactly right.
**Please forgive the typos — blame the voice recognition software. Thank you.
This isn't to say that he disliked women, but I did read an essay he had written — and now I cannot remember what it was called or where I read it — where he was speaking of the great pleasure he was looking forward to in reconnecting with an old student, a young man with original ideas and good humor. Lewis seemed to be anticipating stimulating conversation for an hour or two. When the young man arrived, he had with him his fiancée. If I recall the essay correctly, CSL was greatly taken aback and all his views of a good two hours conversation on stimulating topics and renewing old acquaintance were immediately abandon (ruined in fact) by the presence of a woman.
The entire tenor of the meeting was for him changed for the worse. It couldn't be the bromance he had in mind because the girl was there. In the essay, he related how her presence loomed large over the entire afternoon — but he also admitted this was his fault and his problem because he could not give up what he had hoped for in favor of what yet received. I think the essay intended to show that we created in our minds make an event in sifted by clinging to what we had expected of it rather than accepting it for what it was… But to me it also showed that he did indeed find the company of men to be more comfortable and more stimulating for his mind.
I do think his marriage to Joy changed him, in this regard, for the better. It taught him that women could engage and entertain him. I don't think he was a misogynist to begin with, or he never could have gotten close to Joy. I think the unfortunate circumstance of his mother's death distanced him for many years from getting close to any woman. I think it is fair to say that he understood men, and children, but that grown women were a mystery to him.
But I think we are a mystery, and very few male writers get it exactly right.
**Please forgive the typos — blame the voice recognition software. Thank you.
Every time I look at this thread I tell myself that I'm gonna buy and start reading these books. But I forget all the time! How can I remember to do it?
tirian_son_of_erlian
Active member
They've had them at Barnes & Noble, if you're old school like me and you enjoy browsing those ancient archives called "book-stores." Lol. I found them to be moderately intense reading but many of you on here are admirably intelligent, so you may find it cake-work. Since the first is the shortest it's the easiest to finish, however you decide to break it up.
TimmyofOz
Well-known member
They can be a difficult read. As tse said the first book OSP is the shortest and reads like your basic early 1900's science fiction book. Yet it isn't till the end that you get to the message Lewis is trying to tell of the corruption of science. Perelandra is longer but is not much of a science fiction book, but a running philosophical debate in a personal conflict story, so it is quite intense. Last THS is quite long and slow for the first half. It is more of a modern fantasy, Lewis calls it a modern fairy tale. I would rank it up with 1984 and Brave New World in making some very good futuristic prophecies. Again all three books deal with the corruption of science. But hey you can get the three books in audio version. Since the books are not likely ever to be made into movies I like to listen to them.
Last edited: