That Hideous Strength

[debgab]

I was wondering, has anyone read the book by C.S. Lewis “That Hideous Strength”, ? and any thoughts on it?.
I’ve enjoyed several of his books including this one. This one is particularly of interest to me. I think I’m seeing parallels in movies I’ve seen… and now this recent book that seem to be pointing to an end to death by artificial means. Don’t know if I’m paranoid or what and just wanted to know if anyone else out there has a sense of some kind of impending doom on essentially, what it means to be human.

 

[Peter_J]

I was wondering, has anyone read the book by C.S. Lewis “That Hideous Strength”, ?

Yes!

Also check out The Magician’s Twin

 

[debgab]

I will! I absolutely love CS Lewis!

 

[Inisfallen]

I was wondering, has anyone read the book by C.S. Lewis “That Hideous Strength”, ? and any thoughts on it?.
I’ve enjoyed several of his books including this one. This one is particularly of interest to me. I think I’m seeing parallels in movies I’ve seen… and now this recent book that seem to be pointing to an end to death by artificial means. Don’t know if I’m paranoid or what and just wanted to know if anyone else out there has a sense of some kind of impending doom on essentially, what it means to be human.

I’ve read it, along with the first two volumes of Lewis’s Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra).

It’s a wonderful book. It’s a cautionary tale about the effects of modernization on us (among other things).

Lewis did have some odd ideas women and their proper role in society, and they come through pretty strongly in That Hideous Strength. Other than that, it’s well worth reading. A dystopian classic.

 

[GEddie]

Read the whole trilogy.

**THS **is to me the strangest book of the three. Although it takes place wholly on Earth, the British mythology is stranger than the aliens of the first two volumes. And why is Jane Studdick treated so hideously?

ICXC NIKA

 

[debgab]

I haven’t finished the book just towards the end of it but don’t agree so far on the opinion that Jane’s treatment and his opinion or belief on women’s role in society. I didn’t get that but thought he was making a case for the upper, loftier qualities of masculinity and femininity as opposed to just the biological; male and female.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

I read the trilogy many moons ago. I enjoyed the first one, the second one, not as much, the third one even less.

But I was approaching the books maybe with a different mindset. For me they got darker as they went on and I wanted the books to help me escape.

 

[codefro]

I was wondering, has anyone read the book by C.S. Lewis “That Hideous Strength”, ? and any thoughts on it?.
I’ve enjoyed several of his books including this one. This one is particularly of interest to me. I think I’m seeing parallels in movies I’ve seen… and now this recent book that seem to be pointing to an end to death by artificial means. Don’t know if I’m paranoid or what and just wanted to know if anyone else out there has a sense of some kind of impending doom on essentially, what it means to be human.

I read it, and at the time the secret society stuff went a bit over my head, but I was fascinated how he was going to continue the fantasy/ sci-fi element that existed in the prior two books in the series. I was really fascinated with the resurrection of Merlin, and how Lewis molds the idea of his magic being that he can speak to nature. It is a bit like Harry Potter’s parseltongue ability.

 

[Della]

Well, having cast the book into a screenplay, I guess I rather liked it.

When I did that I placed the story just before WWII instead of in the 50’s, as Lewis did. I think he was harkening back to the time in his own life when he was struggling with atheism vs. Christianity.

Lewis and Tolkien both “Christianized” pagan mythologies in their stories. Lewis went on to write “Tell We Have Faces” which is the Psyche/Cupid story retold and made into an allegory for Christ and the believer. So, it’s not surprising he used the Merlin myth in THS.

As for his ideas about women/femininity, he went into that more deeply in Perelandra/Venus, and brings that sensibility back to Earth in this last of his space trilogy. I understand where he’s coming from with that, and I agree with certain aspects of it. But, I think it needs a more nuanced touch to make it compatible with Catholic teaching.

Lewis did write memorable characters. I can picture Professor Frost quite clearly, and all the others. They’re typical English types of his day, but they transcend that in the story and become archetypes of humanity’s ability to rise to great virtue or fall into the depths of hell.

All in all, it’s a good read and a good story. I’d love to see it done for stage or screen by people who understand it and would be true to his main themes. Unlike the unfortunate treatment the last two Narnia films received, especially “Prince Caspian,” which they entirely ruined. Or “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” which, while interesting and not as bad as PC, certainly didn’t tell the same story Lewis wrote.

 

[Peter_J]

Or “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” which, while interesting and not as bad as PC, certainly didn’t tell the same story Lewis wrote.

Which was understandable I guess: a movie needs one unified story to tell.

 

[Viki63]

I was wondering, has anyone read the book by C.S. Lewis “That Hideous Strength”, ? and any thoughts on it?.
I’ve enjoyed several of his books including this one. This one is particularly of interest to me. I think I’m seeing parallels in movies I’ve seen… and now this recent book that seem to be pointing to an end to death by artificial means. Don’t know if I’m paranoid or what and just wanted to know if anyone else out there has a sense of some kind of impending doom on essentially, what it means to be human.

This is even clearer in his book The Abolition of Man.
Talk about impending doom. We are pretty much there.

.

 

[meteoric]

I read an article written by Lewis where he talks about one of the themes of the book – the secrets. He remembers being told to go away by some girls (his sister? It’s been 35 years since I read it) but sneaking back to listen in. He said he had to force himself to think what they talked about as being important and mysterious, when in fact it was boring. So too, the secret society in the book, unpeeled layer by layer like an onion, turns out to have at its core nothing.

I really enjoyed the book, and much later learned that his writing style for this one was based on the style of his friend Charles Williams, whose books I also liked. Williams isn’t to everyone’s taste, however, and that seems to be translated to That Hideous Strength. Williams was writing “urban fantasy” fifty years before the term was coined.

Tom A.

 

[tomarin]

All in all, it’s a good read and a good story. I’d love to see it done for stage or screen by people who understand it and would be true to his main themes. Unlike the unfortunate treatment the last two Narnia films received, especially “Prince Caspian,” which they entirely ruined. Or “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” which, while interesting and not as bad as PC, certainly didn’t tell the same story Lewis wrote.

I thought the film version of ‘Prince Caspian’ was better than that of ‘Voyage of the Dawn Treader’, at least as a rollicking adventure story with Hamlet-esque undertones. Even though Voyage was my favorite book of the series, and Prince Caspian not so much. I’m not sure what was wrong with the film adaptation of Voyage but it just seemed insubstantial.

 

[Della]

Which was understandable I guess: a movie needs one unified story to tell.

Yes. The book is more episodic. It’s not that I didn’t like the film–I very much liked the way they had Reepicheep take Eustace under his care, making him a friend and encouraging him–better than the way Lewis dealt with their situation, actually. My only observation is that the film isn’t Lewis’ story, that’s all, really.

tomarin:

I thought the film version of ‘Prince Caspian’ was better than that of ‘Voyage of the Dawn Treader’, at least as a rollicking adventure story with Hamlet-esque undertones.

The film version of PC seemed more a “storm’n da castle” story in which poor Peter was cast as the overly ambition and immature man-child that got his people killed. Not at all what Lewis intended nor did it work for me. In the book Peter merely lacked faith that Lucy had seen Aslan–that he should have listened to her and made a leap of faith and done what she said Aslan wanted them to do. No one got killed because he didn’t listen to her, they merely got more lost and nearly got killed themselves. And there was no celebration by the townspeople with Aslan coming among them nor Bacchus nor the feast with Bacchus, etc. It was just another Hollywood, Errol Flynn wannabe attempt at heroics that just didn’t work with the themes Lewis had written. His adopted son co-produced and was the advisor on the film. I think he got swept up in the idea that Hollywood knew better than the source material while trying to stick a few element of Lewis original ideas into the story. But again, it simply didn’t work.

Even though Voyage was my favorite book of the series, and Prince Caspian not so much. I’m not sure what was wrong with the film adaptation of Voyage but it just seemed insubstantial.

I felt just the opposite. I’m not saying I loved their version of TVOTDT, but it was a notch above their treatment of PC. In any case, the box office was so poor for both the latter films (which I chalk up to disappointing the fan base), that they haven’t made any of the others. That right there tells us that after the first film they went seriously wrong with how they “interpreted” Lewis’ stories, which they apparently didn’t understand in the least.

---

Back to THS. What I found odd was the way Lewis had to side-step the papacy when Merlin asked about the unity of Christendom. Merlin wouldn’t have been as upset to learn that Ransom and co. weren’t Saxons as he’d be to learn they weren’t in full communion with Rome. After all, in Merlin’s time there was only one Christian Church, not “many.” Lewis completely dodged the reformation, as if it weren’t important to mention by simply saying that the Church no longer spoke with one voice. So not true. The Church still speaks with one voice, and Lewis knew it–he simply wouldn’t acknowledge it. And the whole “in a sweet, Protestantism world” when describing the Lady Alice quadrangle clearly showed his bias–as if Bunyan was better than Dante. It was the major flaw in the story I can’t let him get away with nor approve of.

 

[tomarin]

I felt just the opposite. I’m not saying I loved their version of TVOTDT, but it was a notch above their treatment of PC. In any case, the box office was so poor for both the latter films (which I chalk up to disappointing the fan base), that they haven’t made any of the others. That right there tells us that after the first film they went seriously wrong with how they “interpreted” Lewis’ stories, which they apparently didn’t understand in the least.

Yes, they were both commercial disappointments from what I remember, which translates as no sequel - at least not for a while. Last I heard ‘The Silver Chair’ was in development but with a new cast and possibly a new production company.

I should probably watch both movies again, especially since I reread all the Narnia books not too long ago as bedtime reading for my son. I think what may have made the Voyage film a bit flimsy (in my opinion) vis-a-vis Prince Caspian could be that Prince Caspian had as its narrative backbone that most sturdy of all plots, the son challenging a wicked father-figure, whereas Voyage, both the movie and the book, lacked a strong plot; as you point out it’s a series of barely related adventures on various islands, without a central villain as in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, or even Prince Caspian. I also think the actor who played Prince Caspian was pretty appealing as a swashbuckling action hero. He also made a nice latin foil to blond, Anglo-saxon Peter - which is entirely an invention of the movie.

So that leaves me wondering what I enjoyed so much about the book Voyage of the Dawn Treader that as a kid it was my favorite of the entire series. It must have been Eustace and his transformation from whiny good-for-nothing to hero, which mirrors Edmund’s transformation somewhat in the first book. I always liked Edmund, and Eustace actually starts off as even more hopeless and insufferable than Edmund did (therefore he had even more room to grow). Plus I like a nautical adventure, and the idea of exploring a marginal area to Narnia rather than the main country itself probably appealed, at the time. Plus it has Calormen - that’s like putting Klingons in a Star Trek movie, it can’t miss.

I wish I could add something about That Hideous Strength to keep this nominally on topic but I could never get through it, despite being a science fiction fan.

 

[Della]

Yes, they were both commercial disappointments from what I remember, which translates as no sequel - at least not for a while. Last I heard ‘The Silver Chair’ was in development but with a new cast and possibly a new production company.

If true, and I hope it is, , I wish that this time they’ll get it right. If they disappoint Lewis’ fan base again, I’m sure no more of the stories will be filmed, sad to say.

Lewis intended VOTDT to be a trip through the virtues, which is hard to do in a story plot, which is why, I assume, the filmmakers gave the story a unifying theme–one their audience could relate to.

I too liked Eustace’s transformation from a nasty kid into a good one. As Edmund said, to make him feel better–"I was guilty of treason, whereas you were only an “a word” (the site’s censors won’t allow the word). And it’s true. But of course, Eustace was a forerunner of today’s kids who need “safe spaces” and “time outs” instead of being allowed to be knocked about a bit by reality. He saw it coming even in his day.

 

[tomarin]

If true, and I hope it is, , I wish that this time they’ll get it right. If they disappoint Lewis’ fan base again, I’m sure no more of the stories will be filmed, sad to say.

Lewis intended VOTDT to be a trip through the virtues, which is hard to do in a story plot, which is why, I assume, the filmmakers gave the story a unifying theme–one their audience could relate to.

I too liked Eustace’s transformation from a nasty kid into a good one. As Edmund said, to make him feel better–"I was guilty of treason, whereas you were only an “a word” (the site’s censors won’t allow the word). And it’s true. But of course, Eustace was a forerunner of today’s kids who need “safe spaces” and “time outs” instead of being allowed to be knocked about a bit by reality. He saw it coming even in his day.

Oh yes, the Narnia books are full of Lewis’s scorn for ‘progressive’ education.

Having just reread ‘The Silver Chair’ I’d say it seemed even better than I remembered it (The Last Battle also improved over my memory of it, whereas The Horse and His Boy and The Magician’s Nephew were underwhelming.) I think it would make a good movie - there’s a lot of suspense and action, especially when the children are guests in the giants’ castle, and I hope they do a good job adapting it.

 

[UnumCorpus]

The Cosmic Trilogy is one of my favourite works of C.S. Lewis. That Hideous Strength is the strangest of the three, but I still enjoyed it. Its depiction of evil is chilling yet so accurate. The very human longing to be part of the “Inner Ring” can lead people to commit acts of great cruelty.

I’m not sure if the OP has read through all of the book yet, so I will warn of potential spoilers in the rest of my post.

---

One of my favourite parts of the book is the descent of the gods (the planetary eldila) onto St Anne’s. The description of these eldila (especially the ones not encountered before such as Glundandra), is nothing short of breath-taking.

What I found odd was the way Lewis had to side-step the papacy when Merlin asked about the unity of Christendom. Merlin wouldn’t have been as upset to learn that Ransom and co. weren’t Saxons as he’d be to learn they weren’t in full communion with Rome. After all, in Merlin’s time there was only one Christian Church, not “many.” Lewis completely dodged the reformation, as if it weren’t important to mention by simply saying that the Church no longer spoke with one voice. So not true. The Church still speaks with one voice, and Lewis knew it–he simply wouldn’t acknowledge it.

Yes, I’m glad I’m not the only person to be puzzled about this. Ransom tells Merlin that there are no longer any Christian princes left, but the whole time I kept thinking ”…but what about the Pope?” That exchange between Merlin and Ransom was frustrating to read as a result.

And the whole “in a sweet, Protestantism world” when describing the Lady Alice quadrangle clearly showed his bias–as if Bunyan was better than Dante. It was the major flaw in the story I can’t let him get away with nor approve of.

I agree with this as well. The story was masterfully written with so many rich themes but there is a definite Protestant bias to it.

There are other omissions of Catholic themes in the trilogy. For example, in* Perelandra*, Lewis goes to great lengths to compare Tinidril to Eve, and Tinidril is called “the New Eve”. The earthly Eve and her Venus equivalent are placed in opposition to each other, which makes sense given the* Paradise Lost *themes within the book. However, it’s curious that in this representation of the universe, there is no mention of Mary. This is odd given that one of her titles is actually “the New Eve”. I would have thought that would at least warrant a mention by one of the planetary eldil, especially since they do reference Maleldil’s (i.e. Christ’s) incarnation.

In That Hideous Strength, there is also discussion about the features of fallen, corrupted femininity and its heavenly counterpart (as represented by the earthly Venus and Perelandra respectively). But again, Mary is not mentioned at all.

At any rate, it would be interesting to see a Catholic commentary on these books. There is so much theological and thematic richness to them, though its avoidance of Catholic themes (Mariology, the papacy) is notable.

 

[Della]

I too, UnumCorpus, am gratified to find another person willing to talk about Lewis’ obvious lack of candor about Catholic history and Marian theology. I can recall only a couple of instances in which Lewis mentions Mary–and both only in passing with one a mere allusion. He writes about the banner of the Virgin being carried into battle (as I recall) in one of the conversations between Ransom and Merlin. And in The Great Divorce, he asks if a great lady who is accompanied by a large retinue of creatures and children is Mary–without mentioning Mary’s name. His acknowledgements, though welcome, are so sparse and so limited they “damn with faint praise” rather than excite any kind of interest much less devotion.

And what about Aslan? Who was his mother? Where did she come from? And how was he incarnated? He never mentions anything about these things–as if they don’t matter. Well, you can’t have an incarnation without a mother–be it human or lion. Lewis definitely tells us that Aslan is a real lion, so he had to have had a real lion mother, but Lewis is completely silent about it. As if Aslan, or Jesus, merely popped into existence without mother or family or context. For someone who was so adamant that Christ was born truly man and truly God he seems to have forgotten how that happened–as if, once again, it doesn’t matter when, of course, it matters very much indeed.

 

[GEddie]

The Cosmic Trilogy is one of my favourite works of C.S. Lewis. That Hideous Strength is the strangest of the three, but I still enjoyed it. Its depiction of evil is chilling yet so accurate. The very human longing to be part of the “Inner Ring” can lead people to commit acts of great cruelty.

I’m not sure if the OP has read through all of the book yet, so I will warn of potential spoilers in the rest of my post.

---

One of my favourite parts of the book is the descent of the gods (the planetary eldila) onto St Anne’s. The description of these eldila (especially the ones not encountered before such as Glundandra), is nothing short of breath-taking.

Yes, I’m glad I’m not the only person to be puzzled about this. Ransom tells Merlin that there are no longer any Christian princes left, but the whole time I kept thinking ”…but what about the Pope?” That exchange between Merlin and Ransom was frustrating to read as a result.

I agree with this as well. The story was masterfully written with so many rich themes but there is a definite Protestant bias to it.

There are other omissions of Catholic themes in the trilogy. For example, in* Perelandra*, Lewis goes to great lengths to compare Tinidril to Eve, and Tinidril is called “the New Eve”. The earthly Eve and her Venus equivalent are placed in opposition to each other, which makes sense given the* Paradise Lost *themes within the book. However, it’s curious that in this representation of the universe, there is no mention of Mary. This is odd given that one of her titles is actually “the New Eve”. I would have thought that would at least warrant a mention by one of the planetary eldil, especially since they do reference Maleldil’s (i.e. Christ’s) incarnation.

In That Hideous Strength, there is also discussion about the features of fallen, corrupted femininity and its heavenly counterpart (as represented by the earthly Venus and Perelandra respectively). But again, Mary is not mentioned at all.

At any rate, it would be interesting to see a Catholic commentary on these books. There is so much theological and thematic richness to them, though its avoidance of Catholic themes (Mariology, the papacy) is notable.

No surprise there; in fact almost a [DUH!] moment to me.

The book was published in 1942 or 43? Based on Orwell’s contemporary journals, England was full of anti-Catholicism at the time. Making it a Marian narrative would have lost readership and maybe even a publisher.

(And how does a green-bodied Venusian in earth-year 1942 have an Earth-bodied child in 6BC???)

ICXC NIKA