[Jacques]

Heres a briefer take and the full website to a book that despite its odd hook of a title... might very well add to an even far deeper evaluation 'futher up and further in' to Lewis's Narnia series, his often over-looked space trilogy and his own favorite..Till We have Faces. I just got this book yesterday smuggled via amazon hidden amidst the Little Golden Books of Wall-E for my boy... alas i was found out. But reading so far... this book is proving to be not just good--but truly an excellent and scholarly take on Lewis's work. Thus the thread. Published by Oxford University Press...it has copious notes, both a scriptural index and a general , with also a vast bibliography that testifies to some legit research on the part of the author, Michael Ward. Good inspiration to be found do check it out.

[Peter T Chattaway]

FWIW, there is a link to one of Michael Ward's articles on this subject in the thread on 'the Narnia books'.

[Jacques]

of great worth always thanks Peter!! i should have been more thorough in my search...so much for my multitasking when enthused so

[Tony Watkins]

Very good BBC documentary on Michael Ward's ideas (made by Norman Stone) is available on BBC iPlayer until next Thursday. Well worth watching for an introduction. My blog post on it.

[e2c]

the iPlayer is UK-only - unless you have a UK-based proxy server.

[Tony Watkins]

the iPlayer is UK-only - unless you have a UK-based proxy server.

Oh, the rotters. You'll have to get the book then.

[e2c]

I know! My guess is that this will be broadcast on BBC America, although that's a premium channel in many of our US cable TV packages and (for me personally) too costly.

Edit: the radio iPlayer works here.

This post has been edited by nardis: 18 April 2009 - 10:32 PM

[BethR]

the iPlayer is UK-only - unless you have a UK-based proxy server.

Oh, the rotters. You'll have to get the book then.

I have it! It's worth the investment. Or at least worth a trip to the library. Really.

[e2c]

the iPlayer is UK-only - unless you have a UK-based proxy server.

Oh, the rotters. You'll have to get the book then.

I have it! It's worth the investment. Or at least worth a trip to the library. Really.

Can you fill us in a bit? I have to admit that I feel a little skeptical, if only because I can't stand That Hideous Strength.

[SDG]

Can you fill us in a bit? I have to admit that I feel a little skeptical, if only because I can't stand That Hideous Strength.

...the book? Or some adaptation I'm missing?

Tom Howard's book on Lewis's fiction (currently available from Ignatius Press as Narnia and Beyond, previously known as The Achievement of C. S. Lewis and C. S. Lewis: Man of Letters) has a good chapter on That Hideous Strength.

[e2c]

The book. The only part of it that's ever appealed to me is the section where the planetary spirits show up, but even that feels forced.

This post has been edited by nardis: 20 April 2009 - 12:19 PM

[e2c]

I watched the documentary some while back, and while I think Michael Ward has come up with some great, compelling evidence for his theory, I'm not entirely convinced by it.

Am really not sure that his ideas are as new as they're made to be - if (per the docu) Lewis hit on this subject so often in his medieval lit classes, wouldn't his former students more or less know (or at least, be very aware) of the potential connection? I wonder...

I'm also somewhat skeptical due to the fact that this kind of symbolism is so pervasive in most Western art prior to the 18th century. Medieval cathedrals are full of symbolic imagery of many kinds, and I'd think that people from countries where there is easy public access to such art would likely be more attuned to the use of such symbolism than, say, someone like me. (Growing up in the US, far away from such things.)

Maybe the fact that people seem to have lost hold of some of the connections Ward makes is what's truly surprising - ? (I don't know if this is the case; am just speculating.)

This post has been edited by e2c: 14 June 2009 - 12:00 AM

[Harris-Stone]

The book. The only part of it that's ever appealed to me is the section where the planetary spirits show up, but even that feels forced.

I don't think I'm alone in saying that That Hideous Strength is a pastiche of a Charles Williams novel. Compare it with any of Williams novels and you will see the same story elements: heroine in jeopardy, supernatural forces breaking into reality, etc. I once had the chance to discuss this with Madeleine L'Engle and she agreed as well. (We attended the same church in NYC and I became one of her many writing students.)

[e2c]

I've avoided Williams for years.

And to be honest, I think That Hideous Strength is one of the worst novels I've ever read.

[Harris-Stone]

I've avoided Williams for years.

And to be honest, I think That Hideous Strength is one of the worst novels I've ever read.

It's my least favorite Lewis novel. I much prefer Perelandra and Til We Have Faces. But I did really like Charles Williams' novels when I read through them in college, especially All Hallows Eve. I think Williams is much better at being Williams than Lewis.

For what its worth, I see them as sort of literary paranormal novels with a lot of interesting ideas. In terms of characterization, they seem sort of genre-ish in a good way, kind of like Tarrantino's film characters. Interestingly the one Philip Pullman, His Dark Materials book I read, The Subtle Knife, seemed very Williams-ish in feel. He's certainly not everyone's taste. Much too strange for that. He did have a big influence on Bruce Cockburn about the time he recorded Dancing in the Dragon's Jaws.

However, based on what you're saying, if I were you, I'd keep avoiding.

Tom Howard's book on Lewis's fiction (currently available from Ignatius Press as Narnia and Beyond, previously known as The Achievement of C. S. Lewis and C. S. Lewis: Man of Letters) has a good chapter on That Hideous Strength.

Some day, somewhere, I'll have to read this. Thanks for the recommendation SDG!

[e2c]

I much prefer Perelandra and Til We Have Faces.

We're very much in agreement, H-S! I've read both many times, but I think Til We Have Faces is my favorite - am not even sure I can explain why.

As for Williams, I've had a boxed set of his novels sitting around for about 30 years. Haven't cracked a single one yet. (I even have some of his poetry - Taliesin Through Logres + The Region of the Summer Stars.)

He's one of those people that I used to feel I ought to like, but...

Your comparison to Pullman is very interesting - I like His Dark Materials a lot (read all 3 books not too long ago, for the 1st time). I wonder if the other books in the series would strike you the same way...

Edited to add: There are two things about That Hideous Strength that bother me a lot. Number 1: the submissive wife thing, especially given the fact that the husband is a real jerk. And then, the characterization of a lesbian character as sadistic - as if somehow her sexual orientation is responsible for her sadism. That's not outrightly stated, but it might as well be - the implications are certainly there. Overall, I think there's an unusual amount of misogyny in the novel. It's as if Lewis could deal more fairly with female characters in fantasy/non-contemporary settings, but in supposed "real life" - not so much.

OTOH, this is a one-off, and I wouldn't want to use this book as a lens through which to view the rest of his fiction. But... the same kind of thing crops up in the later Narnia books, with Susan - especially in The Last Battle, where two under-12 kids more or less get the last word on Susan in late adolescence. *Of course* they're going to see a lot of what she does as self-absorbed and silly - because they haven't hit puberty yet and aren't anywhere close to trying to figure out how they fit into the "grown-up" world. IMO, It's one of many wrong notes in the Narnia books - and definitely one that I wish Lewis had reworked a bit. I don't think Susan got a fair shake, and judging from discussions on this board and elsewhere, a lot of people seem to share this kind of condemning view of her It's a real missed opportunity, to my mind.

This post has been edited by e2c: 14 June 2009 - 01:45 AM

[BethR]

I much prefer Perelandra and Til We Have Faces.

We're very much in agreement, H-S! I've read both many times, but I think Til We Have Faces is my favorite - am not even sure I can explain why.

TWHF is a very "realistic" novel, I think, even if it is set in an ancient-Greek-type land, and several main characters, including the narrator, are female. Misogynistic? I don't think so.

...

Edited to add: There are two things about That Hideous Strength that bother me a lot. Number 1: the submissive wife thing, especially given the fact that the husband is a real jerk.

Yes, the husband is a real jerk--at the beginning--that's sort of the point. She's kind of caught up in herself, too. They both have to go through some changes. Mark is quite different by the end of the novel.

And then, the characterization of a lesbian character as sadistic - as if somehow her sexual orientation is responsible for her sadism. That's not outrightly stated, but it might as well be - the implications are certainly there.

Certainly the character is a stereotype, but I think you're asking a lot of a novel written by a oldish WASP male in the mid-1940s (publication date 1946).

Overall, I think there's an unusual amount of misogyny in the novel. It's as if Lewis could deal more fairly with female characters in fantasy/non-contemporary settings, but in supposed "real life" - not so much.

Would you consider THS an example of "real life" fiction? It's subtitled "a modern fairy tale for grown-ups," crammed with mystic dreams, allusions to Arthurian legend, angels, demons, and mythic beasts! And what about other female characters: Grace Ironwood, Mrs. Dimble, Ivy Maggs, Camilla Denniston? They may be "types," but they aren't portrayed negatively.

OTOH, this is a one-off, and I wouldn't want to use this book as a lens through which to view the rest of his fiction.

THS stands alone all right, but is actually the final book in the "space trilogy," following Out of the Silent Planet & Perelandra.

But... the same kind of thing crops up in the later Narnia books, with Susan - especially in The Last Battle, where two under-12 kids more or less get the last word on Susan in late adolescence. *Of course* they're going to see a lot of what she does as self-absorbed and silly - because they haven't hit puberty yet and aren't anywhere close to trying to figure out how they fit into the "grown-up" world. IMO, It's one of many wrong notes in the Narnia books - and definitely one that I wish Lewis had reworked a bit. I don't think Susan got a fair shake, and judging from discussions on this board and elsewhere, a lot of people seem to share this kind of condemning view of her It's a real missed opportunity, to my mind.

I really do not agree on this so-called "problem of Susan." We're talking about children's books here, so yes, with children as the primary audience the term "grown-up" often=silly, boring, not-wanted. But consider, too--many of the characters in that final scene of Last Battle have become, in fact, grownups themselves--Polly (now an adult "Lady Polly", not the child she was in The Magician's Nephew), Peter, Edmund, Lucy, Tirian. Nothing wrong with them. And it's not the youngest--Eustace & Jill--who have the last word on Susan. King Tirian asks Peter:

"...Has not your Majesty two sisters? Where is Queen Susan?"
"My sister Susan," answered Peter shortly and gravely, "is no longer a friend of Narnia."
"Yes," said Eustace, "and whenever you've tried to get her to come and talk about Narnia or do anything about Narnia, she says, 'What wonderful memories you have! Fancy your still thinking about all those funny games we used to play when we were children.'"
"Oh Susan," said Jill. "She's interest in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up."
"Grown-up, indeed," said the Lady Polly. "I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race on to the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and then stop there as long as she can." (The Last Battle, 126-27, emphasis added)

The point of the passage is not that Susan has "grown up" to be a woman who's interested in what "nylons and lipstick and invitations" symbolize--romance, sex, and/or marriage. Marriage exists in Narnia--Caspian falls in love & marries--but again, it's a children's book--most child readers are not interested in the specifics of that? The point is that Susan is "no longer a friend of Narnia." She could be connected to Narnia in spirit, at least, at any age, but she's decided it's a children's pretend game and chosen to focus on an apparently materialistic social life. But the kind of woman Polly is describing still exists today--pick any one of the "real housewives" of wherever, or the starlets of "The Hills". She's the one living in a fantasy world. Compare the words of Jesus:

¹At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
²He called a little child and had him stand among them. ³And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 18)

[e2c]

Beth, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, on Susan especially. I think he shows a profound lack of understanding of teenage girls, specifically girls who are moving from adolescence to adulthood. Full stop. (And it's hard for me to believe that he really had much contact with older girls and young women, on the whole - his portrayal might be a bit more sympathetic if he'd ventured outside the all-male circles in which he worked and lived.)

For my part, I recall those years of my life with great trepidation and am *very* glad they're over. As for the "romance, sex, and/or marriage" part of the equation, could it be that she's struggling to negotiate the adult world and find her place in it? I'd go so far as to say that yes, she's very preoccupied, but who's to say that she'll stay that way? I know Tony Watkins mentioned in another thread that he feels Lewis did less than his best with this situation, and I can't help but agree. (Though at one time I would have agreed with you completely. )

But the kind of woman Polly is describing still exists today--pick any one of the "real housewives" of wherever, or the starlets of "The Hills". She's the one living in a fantasy world. Compare the words of Jesus:

True, but I wonder if that's really the case here... We never do get to hear Susan's side of things, after all.

Til We Have Faces is a one-off, but I wish it wasn't. And I wasn't saying that it was misogynistic - the opposite, in fact. (Maybe I didn't state that clearly enough?)

As for That Hideous Strength, I guess, from my pov, the less said, the better. (I actually think it's embarassingly bad, for many more reasons than I've cited.) I'm sure Harris-Stone is correct in saying that Williams doing Williams is far superior to Lewis trying to do Williams.

As for the character in question, it appears that he based her (in part) on a woman who defeated him in a debate. I won't add links - Google will cough them up for you easily enough.

To each his/her own, no?

This post has been edited by e2c: 15 June 2009 - 11:41 AM

[e2c]

One more thing about Susan that Lewis really didn't (IMO) think through: Her entire family dies. She's the only one left. To lose one or two family members in an accident is devastating enough, but all of them - it's hard for me to imagine how it could possibly be worse for her, marooned here, alone.

That's truly heartbreaking - and maybe worth a novel or two on its own. One thing's for sure: it's not a "fantasy world," unless by that you mean a kind of waking nightmare.

This post has been edited by e2c: 15 June 2009 - 01:49 AM

[Nezpop]

One more thing about Susan that Lewis really didn't (IMO) think through: Her entire family dies. She's the only one left. To lose one or two family members in an accident is devastating enough, but all of them - it's hard for me to imagine how it could possibly be worse for her, marooned here, alone.

That's truly heartbreaking - and maybe worth a novel or two on its own. One thing's for sure: it's not a "fantasy world," unless by that you mean a kind of waking nightmare.

I've found the Narnia books, so far, to be pretty worshipful at the altar of childhood. Narnia is a place that only allows children to visit and as children age, they grow more towards...well, not being allowed back. Yeah, they are kids books, but it is not a good thing that they merely re-inforce or instill a fear of growing up.