Ship of Fools: C S Lewis

Thread: 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=024637

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I am enjoying reading Rowan Williams little book about Narnia, The Lions World.

I love the Narnia books. I enjoyed C S Lewis' science fiction trilogy. However I have not really got into his apologetic Christian works. I tried but never finished Mere Christianity.

It's about these works I start this thread. Am I missing out by not having read any.

Has anyone a favourite, and what is good about it?

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Till We Have Faces is by far the best fiction he ever wrote. An Experiment in Criticism is the best nonfiction.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Faces sharply divides people. Some (like Timothy) love it. Others (like me) can't stand it.

My personal favourite, after the Narnia series, is The Great Divorce. Lots of stuff that prompts me to live a better live, and a wonderful evocation of the joys of heaven.

[ 25. January 2013, 11:47: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am enjoying reading Rowan Williams little book about Narnia, The Lions World.

I love the Narnia books. I enjoyed C S Lewis' science fiction trilogy. However I have not really got into his apologetic Christian works. I tried but never finished Mere Christianity.

It's about these works I start this thread. Am I missing out by not having read any.

Has anyone a favourite, and what is good about it?

Ooh! Interest piqued. ++Rowan and CS Lewis, what's not to love?

When I get back to something approaching normal life again when my father settles a bit, I'll go digging in Hodges Figgis for it. Bricks and mortar bookshops for the win..plus they have good coffee.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

His fiction has worn much better than the apologetics. One of my closest friends is spiritually seeking to go deeper in Christianity but found Mere Christianity to be somewhat hectoring. The Great Divorce, the Ransom trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and the blood and thunder of That Hideous Strength) are his best fusion of didactism and fiction.

Till we have Faces is wonderfully odd, a distinct change in tone and I can understand how it may not work for some. Think of it as his White Album after the Sgt Pepper of the Chronicles of Narnia.

In conjunction with Lewis, do also read Tolkien, the seven "spiritual shockers" of Charles Williams, George MacDonald's "Phantastes" and "Lilith" and as much of William Morris's "Well at the World's End" and "The wood beyond the world" as your taste for 19th Century archaicisms can stand. Also as a palate cleanser James Stephen's The Crock of Gold. Just because. You will have a pretty good insight into Lewis and his world view through those. And a few months of damn good reads.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Faces sharply divides people. Some (like Timothy) love it. Others (like me) can't stand it.

I really liked it. However, I haven't been able to motivate myself to read it more than twice in several years, so not one of my favourites. What was it you didn't like about it?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

It's years since I read it, so I can't remember it clearly. I think I disliked the main characters, and found the whole thing dull and dreary.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
His fiction has worn much better than the apologetics. One of my closest friends is spiritually seeking to go deeper in Christianity but found Mere Christianity to be somewhat hectoring.

I agree. In my late teens and early twenties, as a newish Christian I devoured his apologetics. They were essential in my Christian formation and establishing a Christian worldview. But now, as I've taken a postmodern turn and come under the influence of, for example, N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg, and Brian McLaren, Lewis's apologetics seem quite dated--and he does tend to hector and even scold. For someone wanting to "go deeper" in the 21st century, Wright's Simply Christian and The Challenge of Jesus might be better choices.

As for Lewis's fiction, I have mixed opinions. Narnia is--well, no words to describe it--it opened the kingdom of God to me when I was a heathen child. It is deeply ingrained in my soul, and the stories and imagery are wonderful, but they're not always well crafted (I share some of Tolkien's criticisms of them). But I re-read them over and over.

I'm not fond of the space trilogy, but then I don't usually like space fantasy. The Great Divorce is good, with intriguing theology and powerful images, although again not entirely well crafted. Till We Have Faces is certainly his best fiction to my mind. I'm not sure I like it, having read it only once [mental note -- must read again], but it's his best, most mature, most polished writing.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I love the Narnia books.

How could anyone not? I picture a child aged 5-105 staring into space wondering if Aslan might exist.

And I admit I read these threads with a perverse hope someone will accuse Lewis of 'conservatism'. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think the devotional writing and the semi-fiction is generally better than the apologetics. By semi-fiction I mean things like Screwtape and the Great Divorce, and so on. That said, I don't find Lewis' argumentation distasteful in the way some people do.

Almost all his criticism is good, with the possible exception of Preface to Paradise Lost. I'd say Studies in Words is better than Experiment in Criticism though.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Hi!

My favourite theological book by Lewis is The Great Divorce. I find it very powerful and poetic.

I greatly enjoy Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, but have never been able to get into That Hideous Strength - the Merlin stuff is weird, and Lewis's sexist attitude to the heroine gets on my nerves. [Biased]

I think Till We Have Faces is brilliant. His best, and least preachy, work of imaginative fiction. [Smile]

And of course I love Narnia! - flaws and all.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Hi!
[everything]
And of course I love Narnia! - flaws and all.

Ditto, except for Perelandra I struggle with. In Hideous strength I find the portrayal of the NICE and the takeover is effective, and Merlin not too bad it's just the goodies.

Till we have faces makes me tired&emotional for hours afterwards. It's probably emotionally manipulation, but done right.

[ 25. January 2013, 23:17: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Most people don't read Lewis's literary criticism, but it's a joy to read. I love his essay on John Donne, but that's not the only one well worth your time to read.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

There are aspects of Lewis that drive me up the wall but, at his best, he's magnificent. I found The Problem of Pain very helpful. I don't feel the need to re-visit it, though I still cherish the comment that, if your best friend pushed you down the stairs and, when challenged on it later, said he'd done it in order that the suffering refine your soul (I may be paraphrasing), he might well be right about that last bit, but he would certainly no longer be your best friend.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

My lovely bride (C. or Zeke on the Ship - mother of our daughter Willow) and I have both read The Great Divorce, Peralandra and of course all of the Narnia books. Peralandra would be a good book for my niece who wants to be an astrophysicist colonising Mars. Perhaps I'l send her a copy for her birthday: she will be 16 on the 29th of this month. We are both RC and though CS was C of E, she may well enjoy it anyway!

Posted by flags_fiend (# 12211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think the devotional writing and the semi-fiction is generally better than the apologetics. By semi-fiction I mean things like Screwtape and the Great Divorce, and so on.

I'm also a fan of CS Lewis, and I particularly enjoy his semi-fiction. I think the Great Divorce is possibly my favourite Christian book, I found that it made me think around a lot of what was written. I think generally semi-fiction is quite a helpful style as it isn't telling you what to think, but just opening thought processes in your mind about the topic. In the same way I found the screwtape letters helpful (and in some places entertaining). Although, I do actually enjoy his apologetics work too...

With Narnia, as an adult, I came to appreciate the horse and his boy the most. I do wonder if this book in the series appeals more to adults, as I found it was the book I could most relate to.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

I too have been a fan of C S Lewis since Narnia in my childhood. I rediscovered it when reading the books to my children. On this re-reading, I was very struck by what I later learned was known as Puddleglum's Wager,--wait, isn't it based on Pascal's Wager??? which I can't remember..of Pascal I remember that he has God say to the searcher something like, you wouldn't be searching for me if you hadn't already found me...and then the pice of paper found in the lining of his coat with some sort of vision of fire...---anyway, when Puddleglum (In The Silver Chair) defies the witch and tells her he will try to live as much like a Narnian as he can even if there isn't really any Narnia, follow Aslan's way even if there may not be an Aslan etc--of course re-reading it as an adult this resonated far more for me than it had as a child, and I thought I'd discovered it for myself! Until I learned it's a well-known part of Lewisian oeuvre and many other adults also cherish it.

As a child I liked The Horse and HIs Boy least! I think because it doesn't (as I recall? could be wrong) have the back-and-forth between our world and Narnia that was so magical...the way there is a whole other dimension out there that you could suddenly be pulled into from a railway platform or though a wardrobe....

I've read the science fiction trilogy, much of his literary criticism, and lots of the apologetics...I can see Mere Christianity has its hectoring moments but I still think it's brilliant. I love his letters too. Til We Have Faces I read and seem to recall didn't fully understand --must give it another try. The Great Divorce I don't think I've read--must do so.

I admire the A N Wilson biography though not sure I agree with his interpretation of the relationship with Mrs Moore....

Lewis was and is a treasure.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by flags_fiend:
With Narnia, as an adult, I came to appreciate the horse and his boy the most. I do wonder if this book in the series appeals more to adults, as I found it was the book I could most relate to.

I especially like the chapter where Shasta is lost in the fog and suddenly realizes that Something Large (Aslan) is walking beside him. Aslan's explanations of how he has guided the events of Shasta's life is comforting.

Moo

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

He could be a bully and he never bothered to come to terms with any artistic or philosophic ideas after 195 except to mock them.

But I'd forgive almost anything for A Grief Observed and indeed The Screwtape Letters.

Screwtape is interesting in so far as Lewis was not exactly a humble apologist or scholar, but all the human faults he analyses in Screwtape must come from an awareness of the workings of his own heart.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Screwtape is interesting in so far as Lewis was not exactly a humble apologist or scholar, but all the human faults he analyses in Screwtape must come from an awareness of the workings of his own heart.

In Surprised by Joy he said that he was tempted to commit all the sins he talked about.

Moo

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
He could be a bully and he never bothered to come to terms with any artistic or philosophic ideas after 195 except to mock them.

195 should read 1915. Sorry. I think where Lewis lead me astray was in thinking Christianity could be proved intellectually, irrespective of religious experience.

I certainly took to heart his advice just to soldier on in your parish church (he didn't say that, but that's what he meant) and not wobble round trying to find somewhere that fits. However we do need to be fed by more than just fulfilling our duty (important though that unfashionable virtue is).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Have any shipmates read Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis by Michael Ward? If so, do you reckon it's nonsense or that he's onto something?

A reminder, Ward's theory is that Lewis gave each book in the Narnia series its flavour from one of the Sun, the Moon and the five planets that have always been known, in accordance with medieval cosmology.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
But I'd forgive almost anything for A Grief Observed and indeed The Screwtape Letters.

You simply MUST find the recorded version of Screwtape read by John Cleese. Just fabulous.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
As a child I liked The Horse and HIs Boy least! I think because it doesn't (as I recall? could be wrong) have the back-and-forth between our world and Narnia that was so magical...the way there is a whole other dimension out there that you could suddenly be pulled into from a railway platform or though a wardrobe....

That's interesting because it's always been my favorite -- because of all of them it's closest to pure fairy tale.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Yes, it is, and I love fairy tale in its place. But I felt that the Narnia series wasn't the place for it! As I said, it was the conjunction of the ordinary world and the "magical" one that I loved the books for--as also (in a different way) A Wrinkle in Time and in a different way again E Nesbit's work.

The idea that just behind--parallel with?--underneath?--alongside? --our world, there is another, more beautiful one....

basic spiritual yearning, I guess.

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Have any shipmates read Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis by Michael Ward? If so, do you reckon it's nonsense or that he's onto something?

A reminder, Ward's theory is that Lewis gave each book in the Narnia series its flavour from one of the Sun, the Moon and the five planets that have always been known, in accordance with medieval cosmology.

Yes, I was convinced by it. I particularly like the idea that fellow academics of his day criticised his Narnia books for being such an apparently random collection of seven stories, and he never explained to anyone the logical framework linking them together, which is blindingly obvious when you see it. That in itself is a Lewis style parable for life.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
The idea that just behind--parallel with?--underneath?--alongside? --our world, there is another, more beautiful one....

Yes, which has its own stories that do not depend on our world. I think it's almost a flaw in the Chronicles that all of the stories make reference to our world. We're told there were hundreds of years of peace and prosperity, with many wonderful things happening, during which there was no intercourse between our world and theirs. But we are not given any of them.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I read "Planet Narnia" and wasn't convinced. Or, as an alternate response, felt that if true, I wasn't at all happy at having had hidden stuff I couldn't recognise pushed at me.
It doesn't, apparently, fit with what Lewis himself said about the process of composition, either.
I would imagine that Charles Williams (If you don't get along with Hideous Strength, probably a no) would have spotted the astrological references if there, and no-one has yet cited him as a witness in support.
Having decided I didn't either go along with it, or want to go along with it, I gave it away to Oxfam. Having seen comments here, I now feel I want to reread it to check on my first feelings.
I've got his poems, with the one on the planets which triggered the book, and don't find all the associations particularly obvious, especially with THAHB and TMN.
It does occur to me that he could have had ideas which belonged to a particular set of planetary properties in his mind while writing particular books without actually intending them to be a theme or message within those books from the beginning of the series. As someone weaving might use a set of colours which are available for one length (for example from shearing Jacob's sheep), and then a variant set for the next, using them as appropriate within a pattern, but not setting out for a particular set of colours from the start.
I took against Faces for a trivial teenage reason, and really should reread it (I still have it). As the eldest of three sisters, every flipping book using traditional structures was designed to get at me. I really did not like the way Orual is supposed to accept her journey being so hard when Psyche, for no apparent reason, has it so easy. This is probably a complete misunderstanding, but when one spends the night after a dance crying silently while one's sister is crowing about the boys who danced with her, it's not easy to take on board that this is what God wants for one. (There weren't any boys in the right age range, for which I can blame Hitler, or the whole of early 20th century history.)
Incidentally, I would add George MacDonald's "Princess and the Goblin" and "Princess and Curdie" to the reading list. For children, but interesting, none the less.
On the strength of intimations of things Lewis had read, I tried Olaf Stapledon (read all the way through one, a struggle) and E.R.Eddison, gave up on the third.
"The Crock of Gold" is a joy - I have collected some other Stephens work, but not had time to read it yet. I had not thought about it with regard to Lewis at all. I had not.

[ 27. January 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

Simplistically:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - Jupiter, king, celebration, Christmas
The Magician's Nephew - Venus, new birth, creation, love
Prince Caspian - Mars, war, conflict
Voyage of the Dawn Treader - the Sun ('the dawn treader'), gold, dragons
The horse and his boy - Mercury, the messenger
The Silver Chair - the Moon, watery marshes, silver, madness
The last battle - Saturn - old age, deterioration, the end
Perhaps Charles Williams didn't get it. Or if he did, he wasn't saying. Whatever.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I haven't read Planet Narnia as I'm automatically suspicious of over complicated explanations for anything. (But ++Rowan thinks highly of it, so maybe I should have a go. Looking at your summary, redder, it sounds like an odd ordering as well. In order of writing it would be:

Jupiter
Mars
Sun
Moon
Mercury
Venus
Saturn

Is this a medieaval ordering of the planets?

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

I don't think there was any particular medieval order to the planets, except that Sol (the sun) was thought to be superior to Luna (the moon), and Jupiter was thought to be the king of the planets because it's the biggest.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Or rather the brightest. I doubt they knew it was the biggest.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Looking at your summary, redder, it sounds like an odd ordering as well. In order of writing it would be:

Jupiter
Mars
Sun
Moon
Mercury
Venus
Saturn

Is this a medieaval ordering of the planets?

I doubt it. Jupiter and Saturn usually went together. More likely: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, then Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. There wasn't any hard and fast rule about this but it would be unlikely that Jupiter and Saturn would be separated in the order of planets.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or rather the brightest. I doubt they knew it was the biggest.

Venus is the brightest, not Jupiter.
In principle, ancient astronomers had the mathematics to work out the relative sizes of the planets; the question is whether they were able to measure the difference in apparent size in the sky accurately enough.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't think there was any particular medieval order to the planets, except that Sol (the sun) was thought to be superior to Luna (the moon), and Jupiter was thought to be the king of the planets because it's the biggest.

They knew roughly how close the planets were to Earth. They were a bit wobbly about Venus and Mercury since they mistakenly believed they went round the Earth. But the order is Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't think there was any particular medieval order to the planets, except that Sol (the sun) was thought to be superior to Luna (the moon), and Jupiter was thought to be the king of the planets because it's the biggest.

How did they know Jupiter is the biggest? It appears considerably smaller than Venus or Mars.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Venus is the brightest, not Jupiter.

Jupiter is consistently bright, whereas Venus varies according to its phase and position in the glow of the sun - not that anyone knew the phase reason until the telescope. Venus at its brightest is indeed brighter than Jupiter, but doesn't look it when it's close to the horizon. The description of a celestial body rising to challenge the ruler of the heavens and then falling in Isaiah is probably of Venus.

I wouldn't say that Jupiter looks smaller than Mars. either to the naked eye, or through my not very powerful telescope, even when Mars is at its closest.

I think some of the idea of Jupiter as ruler came from its slow passage around the sky, by comparison with Venus nipping up and down the ecliptic. I assume that Mercury was thought to be closer than Venus because it moved less far from the horizon, but it seems odd that they thought M & V went round the Earth because they are never seen away from the Sun, round the back, at night (though Venus gets pretty high).

There were some scholars who suggested that, while the Sun and the outer planets went round the Earth, M & V went round the Sun. (Martianus Capella, Johannes Scotus Eriugena.) This would make more sense of what is actually observed, and would give the order Moon, Venus, Mercury, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. As there was a tradition (I read once, can't find it, supposed to be Jewish) that the planet Saturn, or its angelic ruler, brought messages from heaven to pass on at its conjunction with Jupiter, as well as ruling over ends of things, that makes a more logical order, as well.

Holst has yet another order, omitting Sun and Moon, so I suppose that artistic choice allows for any order you like. But I'm still not convinced about Lewis having started with the scheme in mind. And it would be very easy to make TMN and THAHB the other way round with regard to Mercury and Venus. Mercury being assiciated with magic, and Venus both bringing Aravis and Shasta together, and stirring up war through Rabadash.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

The fact that the ancients named the planet Jupiter indicates that they knew it was large.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The fact that the ancients named the planet Jupiter indicates that they knew it was large.

I don't see how. They could have called it Jupiter for any number of reasons.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I liked The Horse and His Boy a lot as a child because of Bree and Hwin. I still like it, partly for the bits about riding and the Horse characters and partly because of Aravis - one of the best female characters Lewis ever created. Not that she has much competition, now I come to think of it.

But my favourite Narnia book nowadays is The Silver Chair. I wasn't so keen on it as a child - the underground bits were Too Scary. And you really need to be grown up to appreciate Puddleglum properly (IMNSHO).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't think there was any particular medieval order to the planets, except that Sol (the sun) was thought to be superior to Luna (the moon), and Jupiter was thought to be the king of the planets because it's the biggest.
They knew roughly how close the planets were to Earth. They were a bit wobbly about Venus and Mercury since they mistakenly believed they went round the Earth. But the order is Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

There is also another astrological ordering connected to the days of the week: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn.

The astrological order came first, the Latin names of the days were based on the astrology, then Germanic languages like English copied the Latin names but replaced some or all of them with references to their own gods.

Still doesn't fit the stringy theory about the books. I guess someone just said "Oh there are seven of them it must be numerologically significant"! But it looks like bollocks to me.

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :

I love the Screwtape Letters. It's so incisive, such an accurate account of my own sins and temptations. I've learned a lot from it, and find new things in it each time I reread it. It's also entertainingly written.

I like Narnia a lot, especially the bit in the Silver Chair with Puddleglum being on Aslan's side even if there's no Aslan to lead it. I also find Mere Christianity and Miracles helpful; they were especially influential on my thinking shortly after I became a Christian.

I think the Planet Narnia stuff is nonsense, and it's ironic that it should be directed at Lewis's work. He wrote essays ranting about how critics read all sorts of clever interpretations into authors' works which the authors never intended, and don't stop pushing those theories even if the author is still alive and refutes them, as happened with the theory that Tolkien's Ring represented the nuclear bomb. I think he even wondered what silly theories people would impute onto his own books after he was dead [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

He wrote somewhere that some of the theories about his works were so ingenious that he wished he had thought of them himself.

Moo

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Somewhere I have read that there is a pattern of counting round the planets and the years which imposes the weekday order. I am not sure where. It might be in Byrhtferth's Enchiridion, based on work by Bede. (Why did he name it in Greek, instead of the Latin "Manual", or the perfectly good English "Handbook"?) It's something to do with the 19 year Easter cycle, I seem to recall. It's rather peculiar, something like Euler's knight's tour of a chess board, in that the week doesn't fill up in the order expected. Not by me, anyway. Which is why I can't completely remember it, only its existence.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

An attempt to reconstruct this process brought me to the way that the week originated with the Babylonians who had a lunar year.
If you start on a Sunday, and count 354 days, you arrive at Thursday. Next, Monday, then Friday, Tuesday, Saturday and finally Wednesday. Which seems a daft order for the planets. It isn't brightness, speed of movement, apparent distance or anything logical. So that must be the wrong method.

[ 31. January 2013, 18:42: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Which seems a daft order for the planets. It isn't brightness, speed of movement, apparent distance or anything logical. So that must be the wrong method.

We're talking about astrology here! Its allowed to be daft. Categorising planets according to some half-forgotten ancient numerological scheme is par for the course.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I suppose it is possible in an astrological sense to make an order from the Sun, most powerful, through Jupiter, the king of the gods, to the Moon, most powerful female, to Venus, another powerful female, to Mars, Saturn, the less powerful, and Mercury, who has the clearing up the rubbish jobs. Decreasing importance.

Doesn't help with explaining why Planet Narnia is bunk.
Or consoling me for not being able to afford the two astronomy books with annotations inside the covers about ruling angels and similar stuff in writing which, I now know, looked rather like Lewis's. I'd like to be able to identify it one way or another. That no-one has popped up with them as evidence suggests that it wasn't his.

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

Having read the book, I believe the planet Narnia theory. Any notional planetary order's completely irrelevant to that.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Just to point out, I have read it, as well.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am enjoying reading Rowan Williams little book about Narnia, The Lions World.

I love the Narnia books. I enjoyed C S Lewis' science fiction trilogy. However I have not really got into his apologetic Christian works. I tried but never finished Mere Christianity.

It's about these works I start this thread. Am I missing out by not having read any.

Has anyone a favourite, and what is good about it?

Strange as it may sound, I don't think you are. I've read all the Narnia books, and some of his apologetics, and all the important points he makes in his non-fiction books seem to appear somewhere in the Chronicles of Narnia.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't think there was any particular medieval order to the planets, except that Sol (the sun) was thought to be superior to Luna (the moon), and Jupiter was thought to be the king of the planets because it's the biggest.
They knew roughly how close the planets were to Earth. They were a bit wobbly about Venus and Mercury since they mistakenly believed they went round the Earth. But the order is Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
There is also another astrological ordering connected to the days of the week: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn.

The astrological order came first, the Latin names of the days were based on the astrology, then Germanic languages like English copied the Latin names but replaced some or all of them with references to their own gods.

Still doesn't fit the stringy theory about the books. I guess someone just said "Oh there are seven of them it must be numerologically significant"! But it looks like bollocks to me.

This discussion led me back to Dante (something always does!) [Smile]

In the Paradiso, Dante's ascent through the spheres is in this order:
The Moon / Mercury / Venus / The Sun / Mars / Jupiter / Saturn / (followed by The Fixed Stars & The Primum Mobile, making 9 in all. Dante's carefully worked out scheme seems to be in line with Copernican astronomy as it was understood in Dante's time.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

I've been re-reading A. N. Wilson's Lewis biography and during the process (Wilson PROVES Romans 2:1 [Big Grin]

) read how he had reconverted to theism.

It made me glad, somehow.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I'm probably odd in that I'd never heard of his fiction (Narnia, etc.) but somehow knew of him via his apologetics.

The dear man was very helpful to me during my big life crisis (repentance, conversion, ???). The Problem of Pain was revolutionary to me, and answered a lot of questions. But it should never be read without also reading A Grief Observed, IMHO.

I love The Great Divorce not so much for its depiction of the afterlife, but as a parable for the here-and-now. I wonder if that wasn't really his aim; in the The Weight of Glory he notes that we've never met a mere mortal; everyone we meet is to be, one day, either an everlasting splendor or a horror surpassing our worst nightmares, and in our every interaction with them, we push them toward one destination or the other.

It's those thing which ought to be so basic to us as people that I had to learn. And now I use them to try to keep my rudder straight!

Posted by Izdaari (# 12432) on :

It's not the most enjoyable of his books or the best written, but Surprised by Joy is the most important to me because of the role it played in leading me back into the Christian fold after straying from it into near-atheism in my teens. Lewis' account of his struggles in trying to avoid conversion made me think about my own, and wonder "...maybe it is true after all". [Eek!]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0