That Hideous Strength

Hideously cheesy cover art, dontcha think? I picked it up for $.75 at a used book shop.

Just finished reading That Hideous Strength, the last of C.S. Lewis' space trilogy, and while a fuller discussion will have to wait, I have a few observations.

For one thing, each of the three books of the trilogy - Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength - is a very different kind of work from the others. Whereas, for instance, in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and even including The Hobbit) there is a continuity of structure, style and rhythm, in Lewis' space trilogy, each novel is a completely different literary approach to the common material of the story.

Out of the Silent Planet is an outer space adventure romp, Perelandra is a gripping spiritual thriller and a deep meditation all in one (as I expanded on here), and finally That Hideous Strength bends the story arc into a complex and layered tale of intrigue and suspense, expanding at points into full blown satire, rolling the elements of the first two books into an apocalyptic ending.

Anyone who read one book of the trilogy and picked up another expecting more of the same might be confused for a few chapters, at any rate.

Each is worthwhile reading on its own, yet even with these very disparate approaches, the trilogy does hang together.

I have, myself, referred to Lewis now and then as Chesterton Lite, but his insights into human nature, sin and the walk of faith are at times astonishingly vivid and repeatedly call for deeper reflection.

More later. What are your impressions of the trilogy? ...What should I read next?

Comments

[Gary Keith Chesterton]

Oh, my goodness. There is nothing "lite" about Lewis. You are right to realize this.

AS to what to read next, what of his non-fiction have you read?

[Tim J.]

I don't mean "Lite" really in any disparaging way, but I realized (retroactively)that reading him had been very useful preparation for reading Chesterton. I'm not worthy to shine the shoes of either, but I do find Lewis easier to digest... more plain spoken.

For that reason, though there is plenty of depth in either Lewis or Chesterton to challenge as clumsy a swimmer as me, and though I find reading Chesterton requires more mental effort, I also find the greater depth in Chesterton.

They are *both* well over my head, which is what makes diving in such a worthwhile adventure in either case.

[M. B.]

That Hideous Strength is definitely my favorite of the three, if not simply because of its complexity. There's just so much in it.

Are you looking for more Lewis, or just more fiction, or just any old book at all?

If the first -- have you read The Great Divorce yet? A good dramatization of how soul choose hell. Till We Have Faces is also thoughtful, though not the most gripping drama. I just finished reading a collection of Lewis letters called Yours, Jack which contains a lot of good insights, and also interestingly reveals some of Lewis' blindnesses regarding Catholicism. His Letters to Malcolm is also good.

Or were you looking to change pace from Lewis completely?

[Tim J.]

I've actually read quite a lot of C.S. Lewis' non-fiction books, but not yet Letters to Malcolm. I'd also like to read The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Belloc is where my reading has been most anemic, so I think I'd most like to start there. The Four Men, mayhaps?

[Andrew Preslar]

I am reading the Space Trilogy now. That last bit from Perelandra should be worked into the liturgy of the hours, somehow.

Good call on each volume being so different from the rest. I like them all very much.

For sheer fun, I recommend The Letters of C.S. Lewis, 3 vols, edited by Walter Hooper. First two volumes are completely delightful. The letters from "Jacks" to "Warnie" are priceless. The latter bits of the second, and the first parts of the third (I am currently at the letters written in 1952), volume suffer from the fact that the brothers are now living together at the Kilns. So no brother to brother letters.

Also, Lewis is getting older, much more famous (war talks then Narnia), hence more cautious and (as is only natural when writing reams of letters to complete strangers) less personal. All the same, their is much good advice and an occasional item of interest in the letters from this period (WW2 through the publication of the Narnia books).

Paperbacks just came out, so the vols are affordable. All told, they come to 4,000 pages, which is why I am glad to have them on my handy little Kindle device (a reader's delight).

[M. B.]

I'll admit that among the patrons of this blog, I'm least read in Belloc as well. If you haven't read "The Path to Rome" yet, then that's next up -- Belloc himself considered it his best. And while it is usually never as good to read about an author instead of reading the author himself, Joseph Pearce's Belloc biography "Old Thunder" is really almost just as good. Pearce himself shares the "bearded Catholic" outlook and captures it well in his biographies.

[Tim J.]

"Old Thunder" is a cracking good idea, as I've already met Joseph Pearce and enjoyed our few minutes of face time immensely.

"The Path to Rome" would also be great, but I want to make sure and read "The Four Men" before the end of November ("Four Men" Feast time!).

[The Pachyderminator]

That's the same edition I have, and I've wondered for years what that cover art is supposed to portray. Even more oddly, however, is the thing on the cover of Perelandra that looks exactly like the Emerald City. Having gotten it for $.75, it must be immensely satisfying to look at the $2.95 on the cover!

That Hideous Strength is one of the things that shows, sometimes surprisingly, how versatile Lewis really was. One definitely recognizes his style, but it's very different from anything else he wrote. It shows that he was a more powerful writer than he usually let on. It has his usual controlled delineation and development of character (though done even more carefully, and to better effect, than usual) and spiritual insight, but combined with the sort of special effects and horror that he rarely indulged in. That makes it a very interesting read.

"Letters to Malcolm" is not one of his better works, though there are good things in it. I also am less read in Hilaire Belloc than the other Founders, so I can't offer advice on that point. However, "The Four Men" sounds like a good idea. I'll try to read it by the time you blog about it.

[The Pachyderminator]

And forgive me, but I never can let this go by: "The Lord of the Rings" is not a trilogy. It's one book, that happens to be printed in three volumes.

[Patrick]

It sounds like "The Four Men" is decided. Relatedly, what is the one book by each author you'd recommend if you could only recommend one book per man? My list:

Chesterton - The Everlasting Man
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Belloc - The Great Heresies
Tolkien - ??????

It is difficult to pick against Orthodoxy, but I think The Everlasting Man covers a broader scope. With Lewis, it is very difficult to pick against The Screwtape Letters, which I love. However, unless the person recommended to was already a Christian, it wouldn't be that interesting of a read for them.

[M. B.]

Patrick et al.,

Difficult to pick indeed! I say "Orthodoxy" hands down, though I know many fellow Chestertonians disagree with me on this and prefer "Everlasting Man." "Orthodoxy", in my view, gives the philosophical and psychological fundamentals of the Chestertonian outlook, where EM gives the results of that outlook in a particular case, although an admittedly broad case (e.g. the history of the world). In that sense I would suggest "Orthodoxy" has the broader scope.

Your other choices are good, although for Belloc I would pick "Path to Rome". For Lewis, "MC" is a good choice, although I might offer "Abolition of Man" as a possible alternative.

I find it interesting that Tolkien is your undecided -- clearly, if it's one Tolkien and one only, it's "Lord of the Rings". What contenders did you have in mind?

I'm going to plug "Old Thunder" again. I'll be honest -- I sometimes pick it up for spiritual reading, needing to be reminded of Belloc's pugnaciousness and tenacious defense of the ordinary, jolly, Catholic man's life in an age to which such an ideal is alien.

I haven't read "The Four Men" yet, though it's on my list, along with "Cruise of the Nona" and "Hills and the Sea" and others. I just got Chesterton's autobiography in the mail -- can't wait to start it. I'm currently slogging my way through Boswell's "Life of Johnson" -- an interminable march in some places, punctuated with brilliant characters and insights in others (somewhat like the real "path to Rome" in fact.)

Apropos, Tim, isn't this the sort of discussion you had in mind when you started TLBC? Good stuff, gentlemen!

[Patrick]

@M.B. 6:33 PM:

"Orthodoxy", in my view, gives the philosophical and psychological fundamentals of the Chestertonian outlook, where EM gives the results of that outlook in a particular case, although an admittedly broad case (e.g. the history of the world). In that sense I would suggest "Orthodoxy" has the broader scope."

Yeah, that's right. I meant that "Orthodoxy" might only speak to someone with a philosophical bend who has read Nietzsche. In other words, if I had to recommend one Chesterton book, I'd make sure that book shot down all this neo-pagan stuff as well as made an excellent case in Christianity's favor, without regard to whether my interlocutor had read much Nietzsche or cared about philosophy. But you're right: "Orthodoxy" does cover a larger scope, it's just in a particular discipline (philosophy).

Where would you rank "The Great Heresies" by Belloc, out of curiousity? For me, this was the easiest call. "The Path to Rome" is an amusing read, don't get me wrong, but I was shocked and astonished with Belloc's viewing history through the lens of the Church and finding spot-on predictions like the West's eventual re-confrontation with Islam (which in my opinion has barely begun) and the problem with Protestantization of history departments- which leads to more or less ignoring the West's largest and perhaps longest-lived institution in it's interpretation of history. It's totally true, too: just amazing how the Church has been sort of shunted aside in teaching history. I loved that book.

As far as Tolkien - I've not read any Tolkien except for "The Hobbit", which I read in middle school. I grew up Catholic, so this didn't seem like a big deal, and besides, I barely remember it. Perhaps I should read it again.

I will definitely check out "Old Thunder" by J. Pearce. Happily, though, I've got a glut of good reading in my queue: "The Problem of Pain" by Lewis, "The Superstitions of the Sceptic" and "The New Jerusalem" by Chesterton.

[M. B.]

Oh, Patrick, and you're in for some good readings with your upcoming books. I've read all three. "The New Jerusalem" has some good thought on the Holy Land, as well as some views that I find thought-provoking given Chesterton's general political views -- for instance this passage, one the most intriguing, I think:

"There came in through the crooked entry beside the great gap in the wall a tall soldier, dismounting and walking and wearing
only the dust-hued habit of modern war. There went no trumpet before him, neither did he enter by the Golden Gate; but the silence of the deserts was full of a phantom acclamation, as when from far
away a wind brings in a whisper the cheering of many thousand men. For in that hour a long-lost cry found fulfilment, and something counted irrational returned in the reason of things. And at last even the wise understood, and at last even the learned were enlightened on a need truly and indeed international, which a mob
in a darker age had known by the light of nature; something that could be denied and delayed and evaded, but not escaped for ever. Id Deus vult."

I'd love to sit down with a mug of beer to a discussion between Belloc and Chesterton over the Holy Land.

I have an original 1925 edition, too, of "The Supersitions of the Sceptic" that is among my most prized of books. You'll enjoy.

[M. B.]

Hmm ... and my previous post seems to have vanished. Here it is again, as near as I can remember:

Patrick -- You have a point about taking into account your reader's pre-conceptions. In that case, there is so much good to choose from, a decision is hard to make.

"The Great Heresies" is good, but it is Belloc's "Heretics" rather than his "Orthodoxy"... that is, Chesterton wrote Orthodoxy" after a reader of "Heretics" said, "Chesteron, we know what you are against, but what are you for?" Now, "The Path to Rome" is certainly not the most expository of Belloc's works, but I think it does reveal his mind and character as a man.

Regarding Tolkien, I think he's unique among TLBC's patrons. He is the least prolific writer, but what he did write made up in quality what he may have lacked in quantity. If you've only read "The Hobbit", please keep going. TLOTR is "The Hobbit" taken to a new level. Of all the writers patronized here, I think Tolkien is the only one who has a clear magnum opus -- The Lord of the Rings -- and all of his other works seem to orbit around this massive central figure.

[Patrick]

"Patrick -- You have a point about taking into account your reader's pre-conceptions. In that case, there is so much good to choose from, a decision is hard to make."

Heh. I guess this idea looked better in my mind than on paper. I wanted accessibility, contemporary "relevance" and whatever prioritized over what are probably *the best* works. I didn't write that, but you can get that from the last paragraph of my first post if you are a good guesser. Like I said, I think "Orthodoxy" and "The Screwtape Letters" are better books, but "Everlasting Man" and "Mere Christianity" would, in my opinion, be better in making the Christian case to the unconvinced - if the unconvinced isn't terribly interested in philosophy. But indeed; once you begin to factor in theoretical pre-conceptions of the person you're recommending books to, you're really finding creative ways to procrastinate.

"The Great Heresies" is good, but it is Belloc's "Heretics" rather than his "Orthodoxy"

I see what you mean - it isn't a work of apologetics nor does it sketch out Belloc's views. Belloc's argument, however, is more a description: that the most telling view of history is through the lens of the Catholic Church, rather than a refutation of rival viewpoints. Belloc doesn't propose as the main point to dismiss any of the heresies substantially (although he does that with some sarcastic commentary because he's Hilaire Belloc), he means to sketch a history of "the West" assuming the view of the Church. "Heretics" proposes as it's object to refute rival views. But yeah: you don't get Belloc's complete character or view from that book - beyond the pugnacity - so it is in that way like "Heretics".

I suppose I should start with "The Hobbit" again, since I don't remember much of it before TLOTR.

[Patrick]

This is *really* off topic. but I was wondering if any Bearded Catholics could do a guest post about praying the Liturgy of the Hours. I've tried to read about this on the Internet, but can make neither heads nor tails about it, and I was wondering, if we could have post about it and a Q and A section under the post by someone who can explain it to people not in MENSA.

[The Pachyderminator]

Patrick, the best thing for you to do would be to buy a one-volume Christian Prayer and then ask for instruction from a priest at your parish. He should be happy to help you. You also might want a little booklet called "Guide to Christian Prayer" that will tell you the page numbers for each day.

[Tim J.]

I got lost in the Liturgy of the Hours my first time out, as well, but now pray the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is taken (I think) from TLOH.

I'm doing well to pray the Little Office and my daily Rosary. Perhaps one day I'll grow into TLOH.

[Shakespeare's Cobbler]

The Lord of the Rings is SIX books, fools! You shall not pass! *babbles* (For those who don't know, which I guess would be everybody here, I used to contend that LotR could be done justice in movieland if you made six movies, one for each of the actual books as opposed to the packaged books. *sigh* Not that it's likely Tom Bombadil would be done right anyway...)

My personal obstacle to the LotH is largely an inability to drop everything and do something in particular based on the time of day, which is almost arbitrary in my little land of slow-moving moods and focuses. How I do it to force myself to school I don't know -- I think driving somewhere and sitting in a particular room there has something to do with that. Maybe I could do the LotH if I had a church doing it to attend rather than praying it privately. A friend of mine started doing the Little Office of Our Lady when she got the brown scapular -- apparently I ought to be doing that too, for the same reason, so I'm going to have to try programming my computer to pop up the day's Little Office readings and whatnot at the set times, or something... and haven't got around to figuring out how to do that (you'd think a computer science major would know, but then, even besides scheduling that sort of task there's the matter of _getting_ the Little Office electronically)...

[Patrick]

@ Shakespeare's Cobbler:

"My personal obstacle to the LotH is largely an inability to drop everything and do something in particular based on the time of day, which is almost arbitrary in my little land of slow-moving moods and focuses."

Heh. You could just as easily say:

"My personal obstacle to rigidly-scheduled hobbies and schoolwork is largely the inability to drop LotH and do something in particular based on the time of day..."

This brings up "arbitrariness", however I believe "the Hours" are a holdover of the Jewish days-measuring* and prayer mechanism. In other words, the times of the day aren't arbitrary insofar as they're given in the Old Testament, and there is nothing about Christ's covenant that overturns *that*.

Mind you: I haven't actually prayed LotH even once yet, and nobody is justified by how much they pray (else a Pharisee would be justified). However, organizing the day around LotH rather than something else would actually be *less* arbitrary than organizing it around subjective hobbies and interests if that was a main obstacle. (Better still, though, to organize the day around Mass what with the Real Presence).

*Without resorting to leafing through Deut., Lev., etc., remember when Peter says in Acts "these men aren't drunk, for it is the 3rd hour of the day" - which means the hours were somewhere in Jewish tradition and thus not quite arbitrary. Laziness prevents me from looking through the Pentateuch to find this.

@ The Pachyderminator:

Sage advice, and that's what I aim to do. Would you believe talking with a priest *never* occurred to me?

@ Tim J:

If the LotH ever gets in the way of my daily rosary, I'll stop the LotH. Outside of Mass, I think the daily rosary is the important thing: I just want to "step it up", as it were.

[The Pachyderminator]

"I used to contend that LotR could be done justice in movieland if you made six movies, one for each of the actual books as opposed to the packaged books."

EXACTLY! I've always said the same thing. Consider this: the only movie that gave anything close to adequate treatment to the corresponding parts of the book, in terms of what was kept in and what was left out, was The Two Towers. However, nine of the 21 chapters in that book were farmed out to the first and third movies, leaving only 12 chapters to be adapted - that is, the length of Book 1. QED.

It'll be a couple of generations before the field is considered open for a Lord of the Rings remake, but when it is, I really hope they do that.

[Tim J.]

I've always appreciated the job the BBC does with book adaptations. Great respect for the material.

[Shakespeare's Cobbler]

'Heh. You could just as easily say:

"My personal obstacle to rigidly-scheduled hobbies and schoolwork is largely the inability to drop LotH and do something in particular based on the time of day..."'
Funny, I do have issues there too. I get by by taking the momentum from when I have to do it (head out to a particular place just for it, work along with everybody else) and try to keep it going till I'm done. And it's not just a matter of discipline, my brain actually has nonstandard trouble changing focus. Wouldn't trade it for the world, since I like the level of focus I get on things when I've managed to focus on them, but that shift really is difficult and it's not just prayer that struggles from it.

Sorry if that's a bit much self-relevatory -- but what am I talking about? You don't even know my real name. Heh.

That aside, point taken about organizing the day around the non-arbitray Hours. I guess what's at issue for me is not so much that one thing is better to organize around than another (although inasmuch as one is, it's the prayer life), as that it's easier for me to "organize" by the activities themselves, just taking however much time they take and getting through them, than organize by any time points or period. In that regard, I suppose I need to either A) make the LotH more concrete (hence my comment about getting the computer to play the prayers and prompt me rather than my having to prompt myself to pull them out at the given times), or B) start anticipating it in the general vicinity of its hours rather than worrying about the time in any strict manner, e.g. "Ok, I'm winding this down and it's after two, that's close enough for Nones."

Actually, although I may not be consistent that way for some time, that may be the solution; so, thanks for making me think about it. ;^)

[The Pachyderminator]

"start anticipating it in the general vicinity of its hours rather than worrying about the time in any strict manner, e.g. 'Ok, I'm winding this down and it's after two, that's close enough for Nones.'"

That sounds like a good approach to me. As I understand it, it's not so much about the exact times as about sanctifying every time of day. This means that putting at the natural division points in your day may actually be preferable.

By the way, congrats on finally syncing all your blog ID's.

[Tim J.]

I have always struggled with sloth and a lack of discipline. For a long time I waited to paint or to pray until I believed I was in "the right frame of mind" - until the mood struck me.

Then I read some of the Desert Fathers and one piece of advice was to guard against "whimsy", and to be disciplined and orderly in your habits. This is what my dad used to try to teach me, too, and its wisdom is manifestly obvious to me, now.

We're in a battle. In the words of Gurney Halleck;

"Mood's a thing for cattle or making love or playing the baliset. It's not for fighting."

I've tried to be more disciplined, and have made some progress of late. The Little Office has helped.