Ship of Fools: Saint C.S. Lewis?

Thread: Saint C.S. Lewis? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023841

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

This is a spin-off from the cur4rently-running Lewis Trichotomy thread.

C.S.L. is listed in the Index of Saints' Days at the back of Celebrating Common Prayer (1992), to be commemorated on 22nd November. The Roman typeface indicates that he is included in the Franciscan but not in the Regular Calendar.

This difference sits oddly with the suggestion that he appeals primarily to those of an Evangelical persuasion. Rowan Williams' recently published book, 'The Lion's World' (a study of the Narnia series), goes a long way towards restoring Lewis's reputation as a Christian apologist.

So I wonder: was there ever a move towards commemorating him generally? Is there likely to be one now?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

The Episcopal Church's "Lesser Feasts and Fasts" and "Holy Women Holy Men" commemorate Clive Staples Lewis on November 22 -- except this year when Thanksgiving Day falls on the 22nd.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

In my experience (largely of evangelical circles) he is commemorated almost every Sunday as yet another quote of his appears in the sermon!

Since Peter Jackson made the LOTR films, JRR Tolkein gets more than his share of mentions too.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Really? In life, C.S. Lewis was very much considered an Anglo-catholic and wrote against the Ordination of Women. This is the first time I've heard of him as being particularly revered amongst Evangelicals, however useful his quotes might be in expository sermons!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Celebrating saints' days doesn't strike me as terribly evangelical, at least the way evangelicals are in this country.

[eta] To flesh this out: Therefore a list of saints' days will not have been compiled by evangelicals. Thus Lewis's appearance in said book says nothing about evangelicals' reverence of him.

HOWEVER, in this country also, he is, or was back when I was an evangelical, rather quite revered by evangelicals.

[ 04. September 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

The reference to Evangelicals derives from a post from The Long Ranger on the Trichotomy thread. It seemed, and still seems, an odd assertion. Anglican Franciscans are hardly Evangelicals.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

He was well respected by the Southern Baptists of my youth, before all the moderates were labelled "liberals" and purged. I'm not certain how American evangelical-types view him now, because my exposure is somewhat limited.

He has several advantages for cross-camp appeal, though. Firstly, he was a good writer whose faith (more than his specific liturgical practices) shines through in his books.

Secondly, he's dead. He'll never be able to tell someone "That's not what I really meant!"

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Is it customary to celebrate an individual on the anniversary of his/her death?

Who makes the decisions to include names in the list in question?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Is it customary to celebrate an individual on the anniversary of his/her death?

Yes, that is when saints are commemorated.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

The (American) evangelicals/fundamentalists of my acquaintance who revere Lewis tend to be more familiar with Narnia, and not so much his apologetics. In the Chronicles of Narnia, they especially like The Magician's Nephew, for its story of a non-evolutionary creation, and The Last Battle, for the resonances with the book of Revelation.

But those evangelicals (again, speaking of the ones I know) who know his apologetics and other writings, such as the space trilogy, appreciate his political conservatism as much as they do his theological stance. They like his conversion from atheism back to Christianity. And they like his theological orthodoxy, even though he explicitly distances himself from evangelicalism.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

It's customary to wait 50 years - so watch this space in 2013!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Anglican Franciscans are hardly Evangelicals.

Really? Arguably St Francis himself was an evangelical. Certainly the Anglican SSF had equal input from evangelicals and anglo-catholics at its foundation, and many Third Order members come from the evangelical tradition.

Possibly not the sort of evangelicals that venerate the blessed C S Lewis though.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I've come to the conclusion that the veneration of the Blessed Clive by evangelicals is because there are so very few Christians of any stripe who are household names for being explicitly Christian.

Thus, they'll overlook any heterodoxy in order to say "one of us". Other Christians who are less explicitly Christian (Tolkien, for example, or more recently JK Rowling) are suspect because they don't "do God" in their written work.

Watch out for the next time an athlete/sportsperson publicly and repeatedly talks about God. Churches will be falling over themselves to invite them for their next mission week.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
In life, C.S. Lewis was very much considered an Anglo-catholic and wrote against the Ordination of Women.

Even now some evangelicals are against the ordination of women. I don't think Lewis was ever an anglo-catholic. He was closer to the lower end of the candle than the upper. I don't think he was properly speaking an evangelical though (*).
He wasn't what would be called sound on a number of key conservative evangelical issues: he didn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible in a strong sense (he says that some of the sentiments in the Psalms are distinctly unholy), and he didn't believe that pre-mortem acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation.

(*) In the flavour of Christianity sense. He'd have said he was evangelical and catholic in the all Christians should be sense.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I would see C. S. Lewis as an archetypal MOTR Anglican. He values a variety of Christian traditions, and has a mix of views both Protestant and Catholic. You won't find many evangelicals who support prayer for the dead and admit the possibility of Purgatory, for example. More than anything, I get the impression that he very much disliked the factionalism in the Church of England.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Anglican Franciscans are hardly Evangelicals.
Really? Arguably St Francis himself was an evangelical. Certainly the Anglican SSF had equal input from evangelicals and anglo-catholics at its foundation, and many Third Order members come from the evangelical tradition.

Possibly not the sort of evangelicals that venerate the blessed C S Lewis though.

"Evangelical" in the relevant sense here refers to a rather recently evolved group of people. They didn't exist in St. Francis' day.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think Lewis was ever an anglo-catholic.

His confessor was a Cowley Father and he attended worship at St Mary Magdalen's, and if he went to evensong there, he would have attended Benediction.

He was not a partisan anglo-catholic and would have rejected the term, but he fitted in with it.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

He hated the sound of the church organ. There would be less of that the lower down the candle he worshipped.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Anglican Franciscans are hardly Evangelicals.
Really? Arguably St Francis himself was an evangelical. .
"Evangelical" in the relevant sense here refers to a rather recently evolved group of people. They didn't exist in St. Francis' day.

Well of course. I was aware of the anachronism. Nevertheless, Francis had many traits that would make him acceptable to 'evangelicals' in a narrower sense (though not of course his devotion to the papacy!), and he has always been revered across denominational boundaries, even if in a sentimentalised version sometimes. My main point is that the Anglican Franciscan movement has a much wider appeal than simply to anglo-catholics.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
He hated the sound of the church organ. There would be less of that the lower down the candle he worshipped.

Really? Guitars etc didn't really take off until well after Lewis died. Musically speaking there wasn't much difference between worshipping traditions across the C of E. Everybody used the BCP (approx) and traditional hymns.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Yes, he preferred earlier services where any organ use would be kept to a minimum.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Disliking an organ isn't necessarily a sign of churchmanship; he might have not liked the sound quite literally. It might've been too loud for his taste, or he just didn't find it appealing as an instrument.

I definitely heard him referenced more often by Evangelicals when I was one than I do now by Episcopalians (though some Piskies really like him).

The Evangelicals of my youth really liked the "liar, lunatic, or Lord" trichotomy, actually. I think they generally liked his rather direct apologetic style. In fact, I tended to avoid reading him because I was always put off by anything that people drooled over that much (including popular music). It was, in the Assemblies of God and Baptist circles I tended to be in, as if invoking CS Lewis could end an argument.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

"Saint" C. S. Lewis (in the evangelical wing of the TEC) all sounds a bit gimmicky to me. It is unnecessary and just doesn't ring true.

There's no danger of him being forgotten - despite the murmuring of intellectuals, his books will always be read and loved by many, I am sure.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
His confessor was a Cowley Father and he attended worship at St Mary Magdalen's, and if he went to evensong there, he would have attended Benediction.

That he had a confessor is significant. That he went to an Anglo Catholic church isn't; one of the things he was against was parish shopping on the basis of churchmanship (or I think anything short of outright heresy).

Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
His confessor was a Cowley Father and he attended worship at St Mary Magdalen's, and if he went to evensong there, he would have attended Benediction.
That he had a confessor is significant. That he went to an Anglo Catholic church isn't; one of the things he was against was parish shopping on the basis of churchmanship (or I think anything short of outright heresy).

He would have attended services in Magdalen College Chapel in term time, which is one of the more catholic-feeling chapels now- I have no idea what it was like fifty years ago! But IIRC he was most associated with Holy Trinity, Headington Quarry. He's buried there, and his brother Warnie was a churchwarden. I've looked around the church- you can see his favourite pew hiding behind one of the pillars!

The church seemed pretty MOTR to me at the time, and looking at the
website it looks fairly middle of the candle- said HC at 8, sung at 10, Choral Evensong once a month, a midweek communion... as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be!

Of course, it may have all been different in Lewis's time; but churches in Oxford tend to keep their churchmanship fairly unchanging. Just like everything else...

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

The difficulties of pigeon-holing Lewis ecclesiastically reinforce his claim to be a “mere Christian”.

To an evangelical, he comes across as quite sympathetic to Roman Catholicism ( though he claimed to find liturgy boring) but Tolkien accused him of anti-Catholic bigotry ( “the Ulsterior motive”) which could tell us more about Tolkien than it does about Lewis.

The evangelical enthusiasm for Lewis is quite an interesting phenomenon, and is certainly not general.

Outsiders often treat evangelicalism as homogeneous, but it contains countless variations, and while middle-of-the-road-evangelical Wheaton College might put Lewis’s pipe on display in a glass case (other hagiographical details can be found in A.N. Wilson’s biography), and a Wheaton lecturer, Alan Jacobs, has written the best biography of Lewis (not just my opinion, but that of the late Roman Catholic priest and controversialist Richard John Neuhaus), the now defunct conservative Moody Monthly (yes, I know) criticized Lewis in the past.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

In the Open Brethren in which I grew up all Christians were stated to be saints, probably from passages found in the letters "to the saints" and some others which are all inclusive.

Nevertheless, from a phenomenological perspective, some people were regarded as saints. FF Bruce, Spurgeon, Beasley-Murray were all revered. Some brethren I know act as though Darby and Andrew Norris Groves are saints (while being careful not to use the term).

Of course, the missionaries Nate Saint and Jim Elliot that were killed in Ecuador are regarded as martyrs and, when I was a teenager, seeing the film "Through Gates of Splendour" was a sort of pilgrimage.

And CS Lewis was revered for being an intelligent, articulate Chistian apologist.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Disliking an organ isn't necessarily a sign of churchmanship; he might have not liked the sound quite literally. It might've been too loud for his taste, or he just didn't find it appealing as an instrument.

I don't recall saying that disliking the organ was a sign of churchmanship. But it may well have influenced the style of service he chose to attend. As I understand it, C.S.Lewis really disliked the sound of the organ.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Lewis appealed (and appeals) to a particular group of Christians across the "party lines" - educated, informed, safe. His apologetics books are not the easiest to understand for those whose formal education is limited.

What some have described above as traditional MOTR anglicanism reflects his views and practice pretty well. I think he had more time for RCC's than he did methodists, baptist or Congregationalists. Yep he is quoted in evangelical circles but perhaps conveniently overlooking some of his more (ahem) unorthodox views for inhabitants of that particular country (e.g views on Purgatory). It's the conversion you see for them -- but perhaps even that is not quite as so often explained.

He'd be pretty uneasy (IMHO) with anything lower than MOTR churches as expressed in contemporary worship.

I'm not a fan although of the evo persuasion - for me it's not content as such but the style which puts me off. Never been keen for example on allegory as an apologetic tool: say it as it is mate. In the Bible it's ok for me but elsewhere it doesn't somehow hit the mark. I'm too lazy I expect ......

His voice, together with J B Priestly's was the kind of reasoned comforting words on the wireless during world war 2 that guided people to think about the wonderful new world they would have when it was all over. One man's reasoning is anothers propoganda.

[ 05. September 2012, 05:16: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Disliking an organ isn't necessarily a sign of churchmanship; he might have not liked the sound quite literally. It might've been too loud for his taste, or he just didn't find it appealing as an instrument.
I don't recall saying that disliking the organ was a sign of churchmanship. But it may well have influenced the style of service he chose to attend. As I understand it, C.S.Lewis really disliked the sound of the organ.

Though oddly enough, he seems to have enjoyed bagpipes (while admitting he couldn't tell one tune from another).

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think it was part of Lewis' genius that when he went after "Mere Christianity" he really did manage to distil essentials that many different denominations could regard as essentials. And he carefully argued forcefully for them, thus endearing himself to many different Christians.

Consequently he was well regarded during my evangelical youth (although most would have recoiled if they heard him discuss purgatory), and seems well regarded among MOTR Anglicans. Catholics seem to also find much of appeal in his writings, and I understand some Swedenborgians have also been tempted to claim him for their own.

I can't help thinking that he would resist any attempts to pin down his churchmanship as anything more than an arbitrary detail, and I wonder what he would have made of any attempt to commemorate him in a regularized way.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Exclamation Mark, the Narnia books are not allegory, nor is the 'Sci-Fi trilogy', nor is 'Till We Have Faces'. The only allegory Lewis wrote is 'The Pilgrim's Regress', which is almost incomprehensible nowadays, not to say unreadable; hardly a representative work,

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Exclamation Mark, the Narnia books are not allegory, nor is the 'Sci-Fi trilogy', nor is 'Till We Have Faces'. The only allegory Lewis wrote is 'The Pilgrim's Regress', which is almost incomprehensible nowadays, not to say unreadable; hardly a representative work,

The Great Divorce? Though I suppose that's more metaphor than allegory.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Disliking an organ isn't necessarily a sign of churchmanship; he might have not liked the sound quite literally. It might've been too loud for his taste, or he just didn't find it appealing as an instrument.
I don't recall saying that disliking the organ was a sign of churchmanship. But it may well have influenced the style of service he chose to attend. As I understand it, C.S.Lewis really disliked the sound of the organ.
Though oddly enough, he seems to have enjoyed bagpipes (while admitting he couldn't tell one tune from another).

Maybe he'd have liked the organ more if it was normally played outdoors from a good distance away, too.

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Exclamation Mark, the Narnia books are not allegory, nor is the 'Sci-Fi trilogy', nor is 'Till We Have Faces'. The only allegory Lewis wrote is 'The Pilgrim's Regress', which is almost incomprehensible nowadays, not to say unreadable; hardly a representative work,

Oh, I quite liked 'The Pilgrim's Regress'!

I came to Lewis's writings whilst converting to Christianity when a student in the 1980s, so they will always have a special place for me amongst Christian books.

I had not read any of the 'Narnia' books as a child. So I started with 'Mere Christainity' (Thanks, Richard K., for lending me that!). Then I got really into his apologetics and bought and read most of them in a short space of time. I remember liking 'TPR' quite a lot, and 'The Great Divorce'.

I eventually read the 'Out of the Silent Planet' trilogy as well. I still think 'That Hideous Strength' is the best book he wrote. Only then did I read the 'Narnia' series. Weird, eh?

[ 05. September 2012, 10:03: Message edited by: Alaric the Goth ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Lewis himself said that the Narnia books were not allegory, but I've always felt that this is somewhat disingenuous. With there being so many close parallels between the books and events in the Bible (right down to the High King being called Peter) allegory is the term that springs to my mind at any rate.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

PS Alaric, I can't remember if you've read any Charles Williams. If That Hideous Strength is your favourite Lewis you may well enjoy Williams. It is widely thought that Ransome in that book is modelled on Williams; in the first two he is thought to have been modelled on Tolkien.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Lewis himself said that the Narnia books were not allegory, but I've always felt that this is somewhat disingenuous. With there being so many close parallels between the books and events in the Bible (right down to the High King being called Peter) allegory is the term that springs to my mind at any rate.

He called them "supposals", i.e. supposing how Christ might reveal himself in different types of world.

I'd never thought of High King Peter being a direct connection to the fisherman formerly known as Simon. (That really would be Catholic ...) Anyway, Peter never disowns Aslan!

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
I'd never thought of High King Peter being a direct connection to the fisherman formerly known as Simon. (That really would be Catholic ...) Anyway, Peter never disowns Aslan!

No, I'm not seeing that either. (And Peter is not my favourite Pevensie. He's rather priggish.)

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
He was not a partisan anglo-catholic and would have rejected the term, but he fitted in with it.

That makes sense. [Smile]

I know loads of evangelicals who 'revere' Lewis. I am one of them! (Proud to be a fangirl of both him and Tolkien!) I don't always agree with Lewis, and -- unlike Tolkien -- his imaginative fiction can be rather dogmatic and preachy (apart from 'Till We Have Faces', which is brilliant), but he has had a huge impact on my imagination ... particularly the way I view the reality of Heaven. That's all thanks to Lewis. [Smile]

I also found 'The Great Divorce' a helpful book: it has passages of great beauty and startling spiritual insight.

It's not surprising to me that evangelicals like Lewis: 1) evangelicals love Narnia, and 2) Lewis was a great defender of orthodox faith. Also, most open evangelicals are aware of Lewis's Anglo-Catholicism and are not bothered by it. He is viewed with far more suspicion by Calvinist types, it seems. [Biased]

One of the best glimpses of Lewis is in Sheldon Vanauken's autobiographical novel 'A Severe Mercy', in which he documents how he and his wife met Lewis in Oxford during the 1940s. It's a wonderful glimpse of the man: jovial and booming, loving a good pie and a good cigar, and very kind and compassionate. One of my favourite quotes is when he tells Vanauken that "I suspect the Holy Spirit is after you ... I doubt you will get away!"

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I read a lot of C S Lewis's stuff in the 80's - including the collections of his essays and shorter items and I found them rather helpful at the time (although I suspect that I would ask rather more questions of them now).

But I have to say that I now find that he is beginning to look pretty "dated" - even his "classic" books (Screwtape Letters, Prayer: Letters to Malcolm and the Four Loves). I don't want to minimise his impact on Christian thought in the 50's and 60's especially, but I'm beginning to get rather puzzled as to why he continues to be held in such esteem, especially by evangelicals. My suspicion is that this is in part because he comes from a period when (in the UK at least) Christianity was much more taken seriously by the wider population and Biblical criticism was far more easily dismissed.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't want to minimise his impact on Christian thought in the 50's and 60's especially, but I'm beginning to get rather puzzled as to why he continues to be held in such esteem, especially by evangelicals. My suspicion is that this is in part because he comes from a period when (in the UK at least) Christianity was much more taken seriously by the wider population and Biblical criticism was far more easily dismissed.

Yes, I'd agree, and there's also a simple sentimental factor. Perhaps as the UK (and other countries) become less familiar with Christianity, the Narnia books become more and more treasured as a way for children (and adults) to discover something about the magic and wonder of God.

I didn't grow up in a Christian household but I read the Narnia books and became enamoured of the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time. I agree, some of his works look very dated now, but I suspect a lot of people still hang want to hang on to the man who gave us Reepicheep and Lucy and Pegasus... He's part of the family.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Wasn't part of Lewis's point in choosing the title 'Mere Christianity' that he deliberately did not want to align himself with any faction? He was very scathing about those divisions. It's clear he didn't reckon much to apostate or semi-apostate clergy, of whatever churchmanship but unlike most other tendencies, I don't think the MCU, as was, has ever tried claim him as one of them. Any other tendency that is trying to claim him now as one of themselves, is whistling in the wind.

Going back to the OP, though, I think CCP may be going slightly further than the CofE as a whole, in simply referring to the whole list as 'Saints Days'. To misquote Prof Joad, it depends what you mean by saint. The CofE does not have a mechanism for canonisation. The lectionary does not say that all the names recommended for commemoration, as examples or respect, are 'saints' in the canonised sense. If it did, that might be interpreted as saying officially that X, Y and Z are just waiting up there in heaven to receive your requests for intercession.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I think that there is a considerable difference between Lewis as Narnia creator and Lewis is a Christian apologist and writer.

Narnia remains one of the greatest achievements of 20th century novel writing, not least for the fact that what is ostensibly a series of children's books has such a powerful depth. Just compare the Narnia books with anything from Enid Blyton (pretty much a contemporary) and you'll see how ground-breaking and innovative Lewis was. Yes - the books are dating now, but still hold up remarkably well.

But you can't take his reputation and achievements in the Narnia series and then use it to claim that his Christian books have a similar genius. In their time, they were sometimes good and at times very good. But they don't have the same lasting significance as Narnia.

I do think that part of this is evangelical nostalgia for the "good old days" when life was simple and you didn't have to fret overly about homosexuality or multi-faith cultures. Lewis represents a society that has now pretty much died and will not be brought back again.

But I have no problem with him being included in any semi-official Anglican canon of significant 20th century Christians who can be remembered and honoured through the year - much like people such as Jerzy Popiełuszko, Oscar Romero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Janani Luwum. He influenced a lot of people and that should not be forgotten or belittled.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

Been thinking aver the last day or so about why I love Lewis so. Despite inevitably disagreeing with him over certain doctrines, I have found some of his fictional work to powerfully speak to me at various points in my life. I think he was a man of great humanity, and therefore had the knack of piercing through to how we all are deep down.

Incidentally, I am sure he says in the intro to The Great DIvorce that it has nothing to do with Purgatory (more to do with spiritual journeys, and the reasons people have for rejecting God) but I don't have a copy to hand, so cannot check.

Either way, as free evangelical, i couldn't care less whether he was canonised or not.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

Wait. Hang on.

The CofE still declare saints!?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No, not really. See what Enoch says, three or four posts up.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
I'd never thought of High King Peter being a direct connection to the fisherman formerly known as Simon. (That really would be Catholic ...) Anyway, Peter never disowns Aslan!
No, I'm not seeing that either.

High King above all other Kings in Narnia? And called Peter? I find it hard to see that as co-incidence (and I'm no advocate of the authority of the Pope).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I was far, far more taken with Tolkien as a child than I was with Narnia, and re-reading The Lion etc ten years ago, I thought it strangely derivative.

My younger sister was recommnded Mere Christianity for her confirmation. It was the first work of theology that gripped me. It now looks crude and bullying at times. (I was confirmed into State Shinto, so there was no theological content at all.)

I find The Screwtape Letters fascinating, but the work for which he stands out, not least because it rejects his shallow triumphalism is A Grief Observed.

[ 05. September 2012, 16:26: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I was listening to the Books-on-Tape edition of Screwtape last week (read dramatically by John Cleese--most excellent acting job! Check it out!) and was appalled by how sexist he was.

But what I think keeps us fans -- well, okay what keeps me -- coming back is how good a writer he was. The man could turn a phrase better than Mata Hari could turn an ankle.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

To modern ears, everyone was sexist in 1942. Nobody had really thought of it. So their ears had not been sensitised to it. It would be many years before they would be.

As a comment it's interesting, but if it's a criticism, it's comparable to criticising Dickens for not mentioning the electric light.

It's perhaps an equally interesting thought as to what in 70 years time will sound dreadful to people living then, to which we are oblivious.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

All true, Enoch. I was just (for what little it was worth) giving my own subjective impression.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think The Screwtape Letters do include the most appallingly sexist passage in the whole of Lewis. On the other hand, I think they also contain materials with which to criticise Lewis' sexism.

On the whole, I'm inclined to think that criticism of Lewis' sexism is overplayed. Certainly it makes awkward appearances throughout his work - it's one of the many flaws in the curate's egg that is That Hideous Strength. Still when it comes down to it, there are many things you can say about Narnia; but it is not guilty of the assumption that girls can't be the protagonists of stories. And in that regard I think Narnia is more feminist than, say, Harry Potter.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
sexism is... one of the many flaws in the curate's egg that is That Hideous Strength.

Would you like to go into more detail, Dafyd? You may be right, but I was never struck by sexism in this book so much as heterosexism. It is reminiscent in this respect of every novel by Charles Williams that I have seen (although not as bad).

But I forgive him, because it's otherwise one of my favorite Lewis books. In its description of an out-of-control corporate nightmare steeped in fraud and abuse of language, I think it has even more to say to us now than when it was written.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Exclamation Mark, the Narnia books are not allegory, nor is the 'Sci-Fi trilogy', nor is 'Till We Have Faces'.

I'd be interested in what your reasons are here. Perhaps Lewis didn't claim he was writing allegory but few perhaps do make the admission as it seems to spoil the whole point of it.

Many others make the claims for him, and reading the books on my conversion in the 1970's (and with my children 10 years later), that's the place I got to with them. Theyt just seemed so transparently allegorical, so why bother?

It's all down I'm sure Tbh to my personal experience and prejudice.

I came and come at the books with a dislike for allegory as a literary device. It's true that I was already sceptical of smug, safe,middle class churches (and all the "stuff" that surroiunded them), when I did come to faith in the 1970's. Lewis's writings seemed to perpetuate that kind of world - a world I thought was changing or needed to be changed as it somehow passed by and failed to resonate with the real needs of the kind of people I lived with. Oxford Don to Cambridge Council Estate seemed an unbridgeable void.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I've recently read the entire series of Richard Hannay books, by John Buchan (to my shame, I've only recently discovered that "The Thirty Nine Steps" was just the first book in the series).

On the one hand, you can still read them as excellent adventure yarns (and books like "Greenmantle" and "Mr Steadfast" compare well with "39 Steps") - but you also have to read them as books written in a particular era which reflect the commmonly held opinions and prejudices of that era. So Hannay frequently expresses racist opinions that we would find unacceptable today. And even the (few) strong women in the stories tend to come over all girly and feeble whenever a man is in the room.

All this doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't read the books - simply that you have to make allowances for the time it was written and read them with a discerning mind. I would suggest that the same be said for C.S. Lewis. He was a man of his time and his books should be read in that manner.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
sexism is... one of the many flaws in the curate's egg that is That Hideous Strength.

There is a good deal in the book about the female protagonist having rather humdrum academic ideas, and having lost her enthusiasm for writing her thesis/book on John Donne. Coupled with the explicit criticism of her having missed the due date for conceiving a child who should have solved the world's problems, the effect is very strongly of sexism. Lewis was quite hot on women's need for maternity. In I think The Screwtaper Letters Screwtape comments that having children is the only creativity women need. OK, the Devil is a liar! But that was certainly Lewis's attitude. Who knows what women who couldn't have children were supposed to do! Or why women are given gifts if they are not to use them... I suspect there is a dead horse in the offing here.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I'm sorry to be a pedant, but you do realise, I hope that the term Curate's egg means that something which is so hopelessly tarnished as to be entirely useless for the original function?

In the original Punch cartoon, the Bishop notices that the curate's egg is bad and tells him. "Oh, no, my Lord," says the Curate, "I assure you that parts of it are excellent!"

The cartoon is titled "True Humility" and is generally thought to show how people of the time were inclined to paper over the cracks of truly awful situations by finding silly positives.

I also love the story (which may or may not be true) that the final issue of Punch had the cartoon with this label: "Bishop, this fucking egg is off!"

Anyway, to say that Lewis' work is a Curate's Egg is a polite way to say that it is fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed.

[ 06. September 2012, 07:28: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
In the original Punch cartoon, the Bishop notices that the curate's egg is bad and tells him. "Oh, no, my Lord," says the Curate, "I assure you that parts of it are excellent!"

The cartoon is titled "True Humility" and is generally thought to show how people of the time were inclined to paper over the cracks of truly awful situations by finding silly positives.

I think that might be over-subtle. It's more obviously about diffidence of the inferior who wants to keep in with his boss - and possibly even then about the need some clergy feel always to be nice rather than truthful.

quote:

I also love the story (which may or may not be true) that the final issue of Punch had the cartoon with this label: "Bishop, this fucking egg is off!"

I hadn't heard that one. Nice thought.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Narnia? And called Peter? I find it hard to see that as co-incidence (and I'm no advocate of the authority of the Pope).

I obviously read Narnia with my evangelical filters on. [Biased]

This had honestly never occurred to me before. And I can see all kinds of other obvious parallels in Narnia, including the Anti-Christ and Judgement Day in The Last Battle!

If that's really the analogy Lewis was drawing, it surprises me. I've always known he tended towards Anglo-Catholicism (although he was never partisan about his churchmanship) but he and Tolkien once had a serious spat in which Tolkien accused Lewis of being anti-Catholic (although that might say more about Tolkien than Lewis!)

Perhaps it was a Freudian slip on Lewis's part, or something. Tolkien got all huffy about how patchworky Narnia is as an imaginary universe (in contrast to his meticulously imagined Arda). What do we make of Father Christmas turning up in 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'? [Big Grin]

Not that I care. [Smile]

I do prefer Middle-earth, but Narnia is still charming. [Smile]

I've never read That Hideous Strength (keep planning to do so) but I have come across the sexist passages and they do make me go [Eek!]

But Charles Dickens couldn't write women for toffee. And I still think he was a great writer. By the same token, there is much in Lewis that I love, and will always love.

I do love Perelandra - Lewis's imagination is just gorgeous - although the portrayal of Green Lady is, yes, tinged with sexism. But, IMO, he redeems his past sexism with his brilliant Till We Have Faces - his most mature work of imaginative fiction.

I agree that A Grief Observed is a powerful antidote to shallow triumphalism. I find it very harrowing to read, but it's a powerful and important book.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
If that's really the analogy Lewis was drawing, it surprises me. I've always known he tended towards Anglo-Catholicism

I don't think having Peter as the founder of the Church is especially Anglo-Catholic. If Lewis had gone on with a story line about Peter's descendants assuming his authority there might be more to it.

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
But Charles Dickens couldn't write women for toffee.

Nor Jews. But the social commentary remains powerful despite that.

There is a cringe-inducing analogy about a negro with shiny white teeth in Mere Christianity I find painful. But Lewis was a product of his time, as described above regarding women, and it was ignorance rather than malice.

I agree about a grief observed. It is not well-written by any classical standard, but it is harrowing reading and communicates powerfully.

[ 06. September 2012, 09:31: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think having Peter as the founder of the Church is especially Anglo-Catholic. If Lewis had gone on with a story line about Peter's descendants assuming his authority there might be more to it.

You are quite right, of course. [Smile]

quote:
Nor Jews. But the social commentary remains powerful despite that.

I agree.

quote:
Lewis was a product of his time, as described above regarding women, and it was ignorance rather than malice.

Yup. As I said before, I think his reactionary views on women in general changed after his marriage to Joy (who, from all accounts, was hardly a shrinking violet).

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
[QUOTE]What do we make of Father Christmas turning up in 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'?

Frankly:

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
(although that might say more about Tolkien than Lewis!)

Well, imitation is supposed to be the sincerest form of philately.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
[QUOTE]What do we make of Father Christmas turning up in 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'?
Frankly:

Fair enough, although that seems a somewhat harsh response to a book written to enchant eight year olds ...!

[Paranoid]

I'm guessing you didn't see the 2005 movie then. [Biased]

My inner eight-year-old loved it. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
(although that might say more about Tolkien than Lewis!)

Well, imitation is supposed to be the sincerest form of philately.

I've always thought so. [Smile]

Although I didn't realise that Lewis and Tolkien were stamp collectors. [Angel]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

EM, when I say the Narnia books, the Space Trilogy, etc are not allegories, I mean they are not works in which each and every character and object stands for some moral or theological quality. That is the case with The Pilgrim's Regress, which can hardly be understood unless you know something of Lewis' own spiritual journey. It is, if you like, Surprised by Joy written as an allegory - Lewis' Apologia Pro Vita Sua in the style of The Pilgrim's Progress. More, I think, a personal Apologia than a work of Christian apologetic.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I think Lewis's ideas about women were very strongly colored by his own life experiences.

His own mother died when he was ten. She was apparently an excellent mother; when Lewis talks about how important it is for a woman to be a mother, he was probably thinking of her.

Then after he took his Oxford degree, he lived for years with a woman who was the mother of one of his army buddies who was killed in France. This woman appears to have been remarkably silly, and Lewis's friends wondered how he could bear to live with her. Her daughter, who wasn't much better, also lived with them.

So he had these two experiences--the excellent mother, probably idealized after her death, and these two silly women he lived with in Oxford.

After his marriage, he changed somewhat, but not completely. In A Grief Observed he tells of a conversation with his wife. He told her she had the mind of a man. She asked whether he would like to be told that he had the mind of a woman. In his account he says that this was an excellent riposte, but the implications did not appear to have sunk in.

Moo

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
But, IMO, he redeems his past sexism with his brilliant Till We Have Faces - his most mature work of imaginative fiction.

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Yup. As I said before, I think his reactionary views on women in general changed after his marriage to Joy (who, from all accounts, was hardly a shrinking violet).

It's worth pointing out that Joy helped him plan Till We Have Faces. That book, as well as The Horse and His Boy, reflect his acquaintance with Joy and his "new" understanding of how a feminine woman could be strong intellectually and morally.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Oh, that's very interesting, Lothiriel. Thanks. [Smile]

Makes a lot of sense.

(He dedicated Till We Have Faces to Joy, didn't he? Don't have book on hand to check).

I am wondering how much of Orual is Joy. [Smile]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
There is a good deal in the book about the female protagonist having rather humdrum academic ideas, and having lost her enthusiasm for writing her thesis/book on John Donne.

The twentieth century enthusiasm for John Donne was another of Lewis' pet hates.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
There is a good deal in the book about the female protagonist having rather humdrum academic ideas, and having lost her enthusiasm for writing her thesis/book on John Donne. Coupled with the explicit criticism of her having missed the due date for conceiving a child who should have solved the world's problems, the effect is very strongly of sexism. Lewis was quite hot on women's need for maternity.

As are quite a few feminists themselves nowadays, as I recall.

What stands out for me is how the novel, on the other hand, deflates male self-importance. Mark was a disgusting brownnose. His wife was a much better person than he was. Out of ambition (more lust for power and status than for money, although the latter certainly interested him too) he let himself be flattered, manipulated, tempted, and toyed with by the NICE, thinking that he was the cat's meow and headed on a fast track for the coveted Inner Circle of its administration. But they saw through him even before he was hired. His talents were mediocre and he was rather lazy to boot. In reality, the only reason they gave him the time of day was in order to get to her. She eluded their grasp because she was too principled, saw through them, and knew better.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, not really. See what Enoch says, three or four posts up.

Oh, quite right then. Now I feel daft, but I suppose at least reality has come back to accord with my expectation again.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
High King above all other Kings in Narnia? And called Peter? I find it hard to see that as co-incidence (and I'm no advocate of the authority of the Pope).

To me the clincher is Peter being given charge of the gates at the conclusion of 'The Last Battle'.

Having said that I'd never thought of Lewis as 'catholic'; MOTR at most.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
Having said that I'd never thought of Lewis as 'catholic'; MOTR at most.

What is 'MOTR'? [Confused]

Having lurked at SoF for a little while before posting, I thought I'd decoded all the acronyms! But I've yet to see this one explained.

I thought we'd established that Lewis was pretty much a High Churchy Anglican. He was never a Roman Catholic, as one mistaken fellow evangelical once tried to tell me. He refused to accept that his info was inaccurate!

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Middle of the Road maybe? I think it refers generally to the parts of the Anglican church which are not Anglo-Catholic, not Charismatic, not Evangelical, not particularly Liberal.

All the bits that are left when you take out all those fractions

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Ah, OK. Thanks. [Smile]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
High King above all other Kings in Narnia? And called Peter? I find it hard to see that as co-incidence (and I'm no advocate of the authority of the Pope).
To me the clincher is Peter being given charge of the gates at the conclusion of 'The Last Battle'.

I'd missed that link - thank you.

And I'm always amazed when people rate Till We Have Faces as Lewis' finest. To me, it is the most boring thing he ever wrote. Then again, I'm often wrong.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm always amazed when people rate Till We Have Faces as Lewis' finest. To me, it is the most boring thing he ever wrote. Then again, I'm often wrong.

I agree, and Perelandra comes a close second, but many critics rate it very highly, too. You and I are just hopeless philistines. [Biased]

I guess it's a situation like the two kinds of fans of Scriabin's piano music: a given aficionado tends to prefer either the odd-numbered or the even-numbered piano sonatas. Ne'er shall the twain meet.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And I'm always amazed when people rate Till We Have Faces as Lewis' finest. To me, it is the most boring thing he ever wrote. Then again, I'm often wrong.

Some people don't dig subtle and thoughtful. People who prefer car crash movies to classic literature, for instance. Perhaps you are one of those?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I suppose I must be. The only more boring Lewis I can think of is The Pilgrim's Regress.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
If that's really the analogy Lewis was drawing, it surprises me. I've always known he tended towards Anglo-Catholicism
I don't think having Peter as the founder of the Church is especially Anglo-Catholic. If Lewis had gone on with a story line about Peter's descendants assuming his authority there might be more to it.

It does place him at least toward the Catholic end, as the determined protestants I've encountered have always claimed that Jesus refers to himself as the rock upon which the church will be built, which seemed to be reaching a bit to me.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Trying hard to see the world as Lewis would have seen it in his time, and remembering some of what he said about the churchmanship foibles of his day, I think MOTR is a more reliable guess.

I don't think he'd have wanted to be associated with any of the three more self-identifying factions in the CofE, as they were in his day.

He clearly did not reckon much to what I've described above as 'apostate and semi-apostate clergy', i.e. liberals as they were between 1920 and 1940.

Nor, as they were in that period, were the self-identifying anglo-catholics nor evangelicals very appealing. The one, with its Anglo-Catholic Congresses, thought it was on the brink of a great catholic revival but 'presented' as people who think Lowther Clark explained the basics of all that was needful to be a good priest. The other would have appeared less concerned with saving faith and more with the sort of regulation of society associated with Joynson Hicks as Home Secretary. Both were firmly convinced that God was as obsessed as they were with the technicalities of what clergy wore, what they did with their hands at Holy Communion, whether their interpolations into the liturgy were necessary or illegal and arguments for and against the 1928 Book.

I also doubt that calling one of the children Peter has any significance at all. It only would have, if one could identify comparable significances in the names of the others.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And I'm always amazed when people rate Till We Have Faces as Lewis' finest. To me, it is the most boring thing he ever wrote. Then again, I'm often wrong.
Some people don't dig subtle and thoughtful. People who prefer car crash movies to classic literature, for instance. Perhaps you are one of those?

Me too - I'm with LC on this one.

I think it's the only Lewis book I have ever had to force myself to finish.

Of course, all authors have their off days.

Despite my veneration for Evelyn Waugh, I threw Brideshead Revisited away after a few pages, not only because it was boring, but because it was ineffably silly.

It was reassuring to learn that Malcolm Muggeridge, another Waugh admirer, also found it unreadable.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Even Shakespeare nods. Every time I see or read Two Gentlemen of Verona I want to slap him. Not a bearable character in the lot.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

In Mere Christianity Lewis said that many people come to Christianity without coming to a particular denomination. He advised such people to wait patiently until it was clear to them which church was right for them.

Moo

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Despite my veneration for Evelyn Waugh, I threw Brideshead Revisited away after a few pages, not only because it was boring, but because it was ineffably silly.

Lewis didn't like BR, either. I don't know how he felt about Waugh in general.

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Some people don't dig subtle and thoughtful. People who prefer car crash movies to classic literature, for instance. Perhaps you are one of those?

Some people just don't like the book. Including me. It doesn't mean I do not like things that are "subtle and thoughtful", it means my taste is not the same as yours. I would certainly not put Till We Have Faces in the category of Classic Literature. Just my opinion.

FWIW, though it is not what the thread is about, I do strongly recommend his The Discarded Image for anyone interested in medieval Literature or who just wants to understand how folks in medieval Europe saw their world.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suppose I must be. The only more boring Lewis I can think of is The Pilgrim's Regress.

I really liked "Till We Have Faces". The Perelandra stuff, on the other hand, is something I can definitely live without. I re-read them a few years ago to see if I still thought the same, but they'll never be on my top reading list.

I have a book somewhere of his short stories which contains "The Dark Tower", an unfinished novel which is a fascinating read. I can't help wondering, though, whether it would be quite as gripping if he had finished it and the reader was no longer free to speculate on how it might turn out.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
But those evangelicals (again, speaking of the ones I know) who know his apologetics and other writings, such as the space trilogy, appreciate his political conservatism as much as they do his theological stance.

Wow. Irony. The stuff I see in the Space Trilogy (and in many of his other works) in many ways goes against a lot of modern US political conservatism. (I know what you mean, though. I've known people who seem to have just glossed over that stuff the same way they do his drinking and smoking...)

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Re the canonization of Jack:

I love Lewis. He's arguably the Earthly person who did more to convert me to Christianity than any other. I actually like many passages that many other people dislike.

And, therefore, I think his own words should be considered in this matter.

...

And, crap, I can't find the quote right now online, but it goes something like being glad there isn't a scheme for canonization in the Church of England, because it would be such a hotbed of conflict. Can anyone else find this thing? I think it was in Letters to an American Lady or the like. As it's 1:45 am now I have to go make a very, very, very late dinner, so I can't keep digging... [Frown]

...

Dug through L.t.a.A.L. with no luck. Maybe other letters. :/ Re that book, though, regarding conservativism in politics, I did run across this:

"What you have gone through begins to reconcile me to our Welfare State of which I have said so many hard things. “National Health Service” with free treatment for all has its drawbacks . . . But it is better than leaving people to sink or swim on their own resources."

and

"I am sorry to hear of the acute pain and the various other troubles. It makes me unsay all I have ever said against our English “Welfare State”, which at least provides free medical treatment for all."

Anyway, since Jack didn't seem to want there to be a setup for canonization in the C of E, then it seems to me that canonizing him would not be very kind to him. I don't recall it being about canonization in itself, but the whole probability of the conflict and dissension which would result. (Personally, I'm not terribly fond of the quasi-canonization of people in some of the texts mentioned in the thread when I've encountered it, even though they may have been very saintly people.)

(Can someone find that quote? I know it exists!)

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
But those evangelicals (again, speaking of the ones I know) who know his apologetics and other writings, such as the space trilogy, appreciate his political conservatism as much as they do his theological stance.
Wow. Irony. The stuff I see in the Space Trilogy (and in many of his other works) in many ways goes against a lot of modern US political conservatism. (I know what you mean, though. I've known people who seem to have just glossed over that stuff the same way they do his drinking and smoking...)

Several times in different ways he expressed his horror of socialist collectivism. Some of this comes through in That Hideous Strength.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
But those evangelicals (again, speaking of the ones I know) who know his apologetics and other writings, such as the space trilogy, appreciate his political conservatism as much as they do his theological stance.
Wow. Irony. The stuff I see in the Space Trilogy (and in many of his other works) in many ways goes against a lot of modern US political conservatism. (I know what you mean, though. I've known people who seem to have just glossed over that stuff the same way they do his drinking and smoking...)
Several times in different ways he expressed his horror of socialist collectivism. Some of this comes through in That Hideous Strength.

Not sure I can follow this. I have a horror of socialist collectivism, but I also have a horror of modern US political conservatism as it appears from over here.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

By "socialist collectivism" I assume you mean "working together for a common goal"?

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
By "socialist collectivism" I assume you mean "working together for a common goal"?

I don't know if you're asking me or Enoch, but what I meant by the phrase, in relation to Lewis's apparent stance, is collectivism forced upon unwilling or unaware participants. He talks somewhere (and I wish all my books weren't packed away for a move) about the mistaken belief in totaliarian regimes that the state is more important than individuals. And in That Hideous Strength, you see the collectivism in NICE, supported by a hoodwinked government, trampling over individuals in the name of a "greater good."

But I think where some conservatives err in reading Lewis is thinking that because he doesn't like totalitarianism that he is a complete individualist. I think it's in Mere Christianity that he says that a Christian must be neither a totalitarian nor an individualist -- there is need to work together on common goals.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
By "socialist collectivism" I assume you mean "working together for a common goal"?

Obviously.

The term has never been used to refer to anything else.

Has it?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have a horror of socialist collectivism, but I also have a horror of modern US political conservatism as it appears from over here.

And in 1954, Jack said, "As for [Joseph] McCarthy I never met anyone, American or English, who did not speak of him with horror. A very intelligent American pupil said "He is our potential Hitler"."

I cannot imagine he would approve of the terrifying direction politics has taken on the right currently.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
A very intelligent American pupil said "He is our potential Hitler"."

Intelligent?

Sounds more like hysterical, mindless, adolescent hyperbole.

It is possible to despise McCarthy, while at the same time recognising that his power was illusory, as demonstrated by his abrupt collapse once he took on the allegedly "fascist" Army, and that the function of the endless invocation of "McCarthyism" is to distract attention from the radical chic veneration by far too many "liberals" from the 1930s to the 1950s of the infinitely worse Stalinism.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

It wasn't illusory for the people McCarthy viciously attacked. "No decency," indeed.

(Of course, the point here is not whether the pupil was correct in hindsight about McCarthy's potential power, but that Lewis was not the kind of conservative some people might claim.)

[ 10. September 2012, 08:42: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have a horror of socialist collectivism, but I also have a horror of modern US political conservatism as it appears from over here.
And in 1954, Jack said, "As for [Joseph] McCarthy I never met anyone, American or English, who did not speak of him with horror. A very intelligent American pupil said "He is our potential Hitler"."

I cannot imagine he would approve of the terrifying direction politics has taken on the right currently.

Nor can I. Lewis's conservativism was mild compared to that of some current-day right-wingers I know who mistakenly imagine that he would agree with them.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
the function of the endless invocation of "McCarthyism" is to distract attention from the radical chic veneration by far too many "liberals" from the 1930s to the 1950s of the infinitely worse Stalinism.

The function of the endless invocation of Stalinism in the 1930s to 1950s is to distract attention from what the heirs of McCarthy are doing now.

The 1950s are over. They were over half a century ago. I'm pretty sure, Kaplan Corday, that you weren't even alive in the 1950s. You do not genuinely care about whom liberals were venerating in the 1950s. Nobody alive today genuinely cares whom liberals were venerating in the 1950s. What people care about today is the fact that Obama's minimal health care reforms are making a tiny dent in the profits of the insurance industry; and the insurance industry think they can solve this by duping people into terror at the prospect of Uncle Joe and his tanks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is possible to despise McCarthy, while at the same time recognising that his power was illusory

Bullfuckingshit. His power destroyed many a career. That he wasn't omnipotent doesn't prove his power was illusory.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is possible to despise McCarthy, while at the same time recognising that his power was illusory
Bullfuckingshit. His power destroyed many a career. That he wasn't omnipotent doesn't prove his power was illusory.

We are talking in the context of whether he was a potential American Hitler.

Not only was his capacity to become anything like a fuhrer of the US illusory, but anyone who believed that it was possible was bullfuckingshit delusional.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is possible to despise McCarthy, while at the same time recognising that his power was illusory
Bullfuckingshit. His power destroyed many a career. That he wasn't omnipotent doesn't prove his power was illusory.
We are talking in the context of whether he was a potential American Hitler.

Not only was his capacity to become anything like a fuhrer of the US illusory, but anyone who believed that it was possible was bullfuckingshit delusional.

You should say what you mean. If you say "his power was illusory" in any context, it means he had no power.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm pretty sure, Kaplan Corday, that you weren't even alive in the 1950s. You do not genuinely care about whom liberals were venerating in the 1950s.

If you're thinking of starting out as a psychic, don't give up your day job.

First, I am a boomer, and I was in fact around (as a child) in the fifties - not that that is remotely relevant one way or the other.

Secondly, mirabile dictu, unlike the current ahistorical generation I do genuinely care about how people thought in the past.

I have just finished reviewing a new book on Australian sympathisers with Hitler during the 1930s and 1940s, which in my simplicity I found quite sobering and concerning.

In the same way, any sane person is disturbed at the number of Western "useful idiots" who supported, or at least rationalised and normalised, communist totalitarianism.

Robert Conquest, who exposed it at the time, was going to write a book called "I Told You So, You Fucking Fools", but probably no-one would read it because it would be about those olden days, which of course can teach us nothing.

quote:
the insurance industry think they can solve this by duping people into terror at the prospect of Uncle Joe and his tanks.

OK, I think I've got it: the insurance industry is threatening Americans that if they introduce a health insurance scheme, Joseph Stalin will rise from the dead and lead his tanks across the sea to the United States.

Haven't heard or seen anything about it, but if you say so......

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm pretty sure, Kaplan Corday, that you weren't even alive in the 1950s. You do not genuinely care about whom liberals were venerating in the 1950s.
If you're thinking of starting out as a psychic, don't give up your day job.

First, I am a boomer, and I was in fact around (as a child) in the fifties - not that that is remotely relevant one way or the other.

Secondly, mirabile dictu, unlike the current ahistorical generation I do genuinely care about how people thought in the past.

I have just finished reviewing a new book on Australian sympathisers with Hitler during the 1930s and 1940s, which in my simplicity I found quite sobering and concerning.

In the same way, I am scarcely the first person to be disturbed at the number of Western "useful idiots" who supported, or at least rationalised and normalised, communist totalitarianism.

Robert Conquest, who exposed it at the time, was going to write a book called "I Told You So, You Fucking Fools", but probably no-one would read it because it would be about those olden days, which of course can teach us nothing.

quote:
the insurance industry think they can solve this by duping people into terror at the prospect of Uncle Joe and his tanks.
OK, I think I've got it: the insurance industry is threatening Americans that if they introduce a health insurance scheme, Joseph Stalin will rise from the dead and lead his tanks across the sea to the United States.

Haven't heard or seen anything about it, but if you say so......

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm pretty sure, Kaplan Corday, that you weren't even alive in the 1950s. You do not genuinely care about whom liberals were venerating in the fifties

If you're thinking of starting out as a psychic, don't give up your day job.

First, I am a boomer, and I was in fact around (as a child) in the fifties - not that that is remotely relevant one way or the other.

Secondly, mirabile dictu, unlike the current ahistorical generation I do genuinely care about how people thought in the past.

I have just finished reviewing a new book on Australian sympathisers with Hitler during the 1930s and 1940s, which in my simplicity I found quite sobering and concerning.

In the same way, I am scarcely the first person to be disturbed at the number of Western "useful idiots" who supported, or at least rationalised and normalised, communist totalitarianism.

Robert Conquest, who exposed it at the time, was going to write a book called "I Told You So, You Fucking Fools", but probably no-one would read it because it would be about those olden days, which of course can teach us nothing.

quote:
the insurance industry think they can solve this by duping people into terror at the prospect of Uncle Joe and his tanks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
OK, I think I've got it: the insurance industry is threatening Americans that if they introduce a health insurance scheme, Joseph Stalin will rise from the dead and lead his tanks across the sea to the United States.

Haven't heard or seen anything about it, but if you say so......

Metaphor is TOTALLY lost on some people.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
OK, I think I've got it: the insurance industry is threatening Americans that if they introduce a health insurance scheme, Joseph Stalin will rise from the dead and lead his tanks across the sea to the United States.

Haven't heard or seen anything about it, but if you say so......
Metaphor is TOTALLY lost on some people.

What?

You mean he didn't intend it literally?

It's not fair the way you quick-witted youngsters take advantage of us ageing baby-boomers, leading us on like that!

For shame!

(Apologies, incidentally, for stuffing up the editing of my last posts).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
First, I am a boomer, and I was in fact around (as a child) in the fifties - not that that is remotely relevant one way or the other.

Secondly, mirabile dictu, unlike the current ahistorical generation I do genuinely care about how people thought in the past.

I was wrong about your age.

Nevertheless, the use of the past as fodder for cheap moralising or self-congratulation is not being genuinely historically minded.

quote:

quote:
the insurance industry think they can solve this by duping people into terror at the prospect of Uncle Joe and his tanks.
OK, I think I've got it: the insurance industry is threatening Americans that if they introduce a health insurance scheme, Joseph Stalin will rise from the dead and lead his tanks across the sea to the United States.

It's not as if it's much of an exaggeration of the scaremongering that's going on.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Metaphor is TOTALLY lost on some people.
What?

You mean he didn't intend it literally?

Is English your first language?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Also -- potential Hitler is not the same as already actually active Hitler. Before anyone followed him, Hitler's power would have been "illusory" too.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Also -- potential Hitler is not the same as already actually active Hitler. Before anyone followed him, Hitler's power would have been "illusory" too.

Pardon my mixed metaphor, but you are clutching at straws and splitting hairs.

There was never the remotest possibility of McCarthy's emulating Hitler, and Lewis's student's comparison of the two displayed the same mentality as that of teenagers who claim that their parents and teachers are fascists.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Nevertheless, the use of the past as fodder for cheap moralising or self-congratulation is not being genuinely historically minded.

It is possible to see history as an exercise in describing and explaining while maitaining an attitude of moral neutrality or relativism, and therefore refraining from moral judgement.

I myself make no claims to extra-sensory powers, so for all I know that is your attitude, and in discussing phenomena such as McCarthyism and Hitlerism, you would say nothing about their goodness, badness or otherwise.

If that is in fact the case, then your characterisation of me is justified, because I unapologetically assert that both, along with veneration of Stalin, were wicked and wrong.

If not, then not, because tu quoque.

[ 12. September 2012, 09:37: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Metaphor is TOTALLY lost on some people.
What?

You mean he didn't intend it literally?

Is English your first language?

Why yes, indeed it is, so when I read about tanks and Joseph Stalin I know exactly what those words mean.

In travelling to America, do the tanks float, or carry an air supply, or use long snorkels as they cross the sea bed?

And was Stalin preserved like Lenin when everyone thought he was dead, or cryogenicaly frozen like Walt Disney?

Help me out here, mousethief.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

He. Didn't. Intend. It. Literally.

It was a point about scaremongering and invoking -- directly or indirectly -- bogeymen from the past.

It just doesn't seem that difficult to me.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
bogeymen from the past.

I'm still confused.

The only one of these beings of which you speak of whom I am aware is Fungus the Bogeyman.

Is he going to help Stalin lead the amphibious tanks?

Incidentally, there is something wrong with your computer, because it put a fullstop/period between each of the words in the first sentence of your last post - you might like to get that checked out.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Ah, I see. You're not interested in Purgatorial discussion. Good day, then.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Pardon my mixed metaphor, but you are clutching at straws and splitting hairs.

Whether or not I'm splitting hairs, I assure you that am not grasping at straws, and I will thank you to not try to claim knowledge of my innermost thoughts. [Smile]

Personal attacks belong in Hell, not Purgatory.

quote:
There was never the remotest possibility of McCarthy's emulating Hitler, and Lewis's student's comparison of the two displayed the same mentality as that of teenagers who claim that their parents and teachers are fascists.

Obviously, we'll have to disagree on this.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0