Sunday, September 24, 2017

That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis






I heard music on the radio from a composer I did not previously know.  His name is Simon Laks and he was a Polish composer who was sent to Birkenau-Auschwitz concentration camp during WWII. While there he became the head of the prisoner's orchestra there.  Here is a link to his Sonata for Violincello and piano the 3rd movement.


Some of you have read so much or listened to so much music, do you feel an excitement when you come across an author or composer you've never read or listened to before?  I know as we age that becomes rarer which makes the excitement all the more acute when it happens.  Please share your personal experience and the music or author you "discovered."







That Hideous Strength (Space Trilogy #3)That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


When I first read That Hideous Strength, it was my least favorite of Lewis' Science Fiction trilogy. Now I believe it is my favorite.

Evil forces have gathered for a showdown on Earth. We have seen some of this in the first two books but now the "bent" Eldil and their minions are showing their hand in hopes of destroying Earth.

It is insightful to see how much the evil Eldil hate mankind, because, of course, they hate mankind's Maker.

They are a pragmatic sort, however, and tell whatever lies, power hungry, perverse men are willing to swallow to achieve that end.

Our story starts out with a young couple, Jane and Mark. Jane and Mark are a modern, progressive couple and they have no patience with old fashioned notions of women and men's roles. Jane's ambition is to finish her thesis and Mark's ambition is to join the "inner ring" at the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments or N.I.C.E. for short.

This starts the trouble because Mark is invited to join N.I.C.E. He thinks. They certainly have invited him and have intimated that they want him, but for what? He cannot get a definite answer as to what his occupation would be or that he is even hired. When he demands clarity, he is warned that he will offend the director. Anxious to please, Mark subsides.

Meanwhile, Jane is having some very non progressive, non modern dreams. They are strange and disturbing and it seems they have something to do with an ancient man lying in a tomb.

All is not as it seems, to coin a phrase. It turns out the institute is not interested in Mark but want Jane. Her dreams will tell them the location of this mysterious man. Why do they want him? They believe he possesses power that will help them control the world.

At least that is what the men think. In reality, it is the Eldil who want the man to help them destroy the world. They play on certain men's lust for power to achieve their ultimate goals.

Lewis creates a brilliant expose on human nature and our reality on a metaphysical level.

Each person is a type and Lewis reveals their nature by narrating their thoughts to the reader. We smile and sometimes laugh in acknowledgement because we recognize ourselves and others in the different characters. We also are filled with loathing as we recognize the perversity and arrogance that characterizes so many people in our world.

I especially appreciate his descriptions of the men at N.I.C.E. Each one wants something from the Eldil. One wants superior knowledge and scientific advancement; another seeks supernatural experiences, a third wants freedom to experiment on animals and humans for his personal increase in knowledge and biogenetic engineering. Not one cares how many people they expend to achieve their selfish goals and they see the Eldil as a means to their own ends without considering that they are actually meeting the Eldils' ends.

In the end each of them find themselves, their person, individuality, and finally their soul, absorbed by the Eldil.

Dr. Ransom, the man who traveled to the planets in the first two books, is keeping a group of people safe from N.I.C.E in his house. These are the few that have not either capitulated to N.I.C.E.'s side or been jailed. Jane, at first unwillingly, then later most willingly joins them.

Ransom informs his small group that the scientists and professors at N.I.C.E. do not realize that the Eldil hate them as much as they hate everyone else and as soon as their usefulness is gone, these "intellectual" men will find themselves deserted and finally destroyed.

There are moments of real horror. The Head of the institute turns out to be exactly that; the decapitated head of a criminal who was executed in France. One scientist obsessed with creating life from dead men, like his own Frankenstein, has invented a method to infuse the head with saliva, blood, and oxygen. The Head then speaks and gives orders.

This is scary enough but worse revelations about the Head are around the corner and I won't reveal anything else so as not to spoil it for the reader.

There are also turning points. This happens primarily in Jane and Mark who at first are against Ransom's side and his group in that they dismiss them as antiquated and backwards in their "old fashioned" thinking about morals or believing in a Spiritual world. Both come around as they personally experience undeniable evil.

Mark's conversion is the best part. He transforms from being a self-absorbed toady to seeing N.I.C.E. for what it really is and no longer fears rejection of the "inner circle" or losing his job. Once he becomes fearless, he stops thinking only of himself and the reader sees Mark become more fully a man, more fully human as though the character change fleshes him out to where previously he was merely a thin out line of a person.

I should point out that not all Eldil are evil. As we learn in the first book, Out of the Silent Planet, most Eldil are good. Only the ruling Eldil of planet Earth is "bent" as the good Eldil call it.

And we eventually learn that Earth is not completely deserted by good Eldil. They are also here on Earth. They have traveled from other planets to battle the evil Eldil, something the bent Eldil did not anticipate.

I find the whole story a perfect analogy to the battle going on Earth now between good and evil.

And, as with all of Lewis' work. The reader is never deserted. We are reassured that good and the Author of good conquers evil. And again, we learn to love Lewis' characters as much as Lewis obviously loved people and consequently made lovable reflections of humans in his stories. We love them because we see them around us.

Lewis once said of Nathaniel Hawthorne that "he shows the darkness in men without ever providing light to pierce that darkness" (I am paraphrasing because I wrote it down from memory).

Lewis succeeds in piercing the darkness with his light-suffused stories.



View all my reviews

17 comments:

Mudpuddle said...

read this trilogy in my salad years several times and just regarded it as a rather good sci fi story... but, as you've indicated, it has wider suggestions than that... i should reread it for better comprehension; i suspect Lewis had something important to say and i'm still not sure precisely what it was... tx for the illuminating post, Sharon...

Brian Joseph said...

Great review Sharon. I remember really liking this book. It has been awhile since I read it.

Where I disagree with some of the philosophy is that I think that being progressive, and embracing modernity, does not go hand in hand with abandoning ethics and morality. Being rational and moral means rejecting traditions of the past that were harmful, such as bias and discrimination, but at the same time embracing basic morality. For instance, it is wrong to experiment on humans. When it comes to gender roles and relationships it means rejecting discrimination against women, but also understanding that most people will choose to establish monogamous relationships where fidelity to one's partner is required as well as beneficial.

I also love discovering new music, composers as well as authors.

Have a great week!

Stephen said...

I find it interesting that Lewis regarded desire to be in the Inner Circle -- not just in this novel, but in real life -- as the most pernicious of evil, far more troublesome than lust or more obvious vices. The desire for status may be more subtly corrosive, I suppose.

In regards to music, about ten years ago I discovered a you-tube recording of two teen girls singing a cover of a song in the woods. Their cover of Tiger Mountain Peasant Song helped build a reputation for the girls, soon to be called "First Aid Kit", and they released a CD of their own work. These days they wear fancy dresses and sing in massive auditoriums, but I only listen to those first recordings -- the ones with two kids in flannel shirts, singing to a guitar.

Fred said...

Sharon--excellent review. It's been a while since I last read the Space Trilogy. Perhaps it's time for a reread.

CS Lewis started but never finished, unfortunately, another story about Dr. Elwin Ransom, "The Dark Tower." It's in a collection titled _The Dark Tower and Other Stories_.

Sharon Wilfong said...

HI Mudpuddle. What do you mean by "salad years'? Does that mean young? Lewis always insisted that his stories were not allegories, but they certainly give good insight into the human mind and what often motivates mankind.

Sharon Wilfong said...

Hi Fred. I did not know that Lewis had another story about Ransom. I would love to find it and read it. See? Now you've got me excited about a book I did not know about.

Sharon Wilfong said...

Hi Stephen. I'm listening to them right now. Their harmony is superb. Thanks for introducing me to them. I'm adding them to my Spotify collection.

Sharon Wilfong said...

Hi Brian.

I should probably not have used those terms since C.S. Lewis did not. I was trying to describe how Jane and Mark viewed themselves. They certainly saw themselves as "modern" although the term "Progressive" was not used then.

I do believe that some people have different definitions of what morality and ethics mean. In some parts of the world it is considered "moral" to eat your enemy. Some countries have a large percentage of their population in prison for breaking the "morals" established by the state.

What some people may consider immoral today was considered moral yesterday. And vice versa.

I'm not sure I agree with you about most people choosing monogamous relationships. In the US 80% of black children are born out of wedlock (before the Civil Rights era it was only 19%) and 40% of white children are. 90% of single mom's are living under the poverty line. They are not doing what is beneficial to them or the rest of us as they become an increasing tax burden.

You say it is wrong to experiment on humans and yet that is what embryonic testing does.

I don't think people are less evil today just evil in different ways.

Because human nature hasn't changed and there is a moral compass built into everyone that hasn't changed either. Which is why someone can be an atheist and still be a moral or ethical person.

I think women are discriminated against today but by a different group of people. As a woman who does not agree with N.O.W. or N.A.R.A.L. or other feminist groups who seem to have a stranglehold on defining femininity (and now we have transgender men dictating to us what it means to be female), I don't feel as if I have a voice in the public arena.

And why can we look back at history or around the world and know when people are being immoral? Even those people know the truth; God designed them to know the truth (Romans 2:15; Jeremiah 31:33) It's as Stephen says below, their selfish desire overpowers their desire to be good.

The question is "why"? I believe the answer lies in the book of Romans 1:28.

Thanks for commenting on my blog. As always you make me consider why I believe the way I do!

Take care, Brian and have a good week.

Stephen said...

I'm glad you enjoy them! One of my favorite pieces makes me think of autumn for some reason. It used to be on Youtube, but disappeared...some loyal FAK friend posted. it on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/6718395

Another group I discovered recently was the Avett Brothers, through their version of "In the Garden". (A girl I was dating introduced me to them...I gave her Wendell Berry in exchange. I hope it was a fair exchange!)

Avett Bros:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDUlgKH59mE

Mudpuddle said...

yes, young...

Anonymous said...

Well, I have not read this trilogy, and I don't think I have heard Laks before, but I'm listening now and really enjoying the piece. My son is sure to know of him, so I'll pass along the link to him. Thanks for the introduction, Sharon!

Sharon Wilfong said...

Wow! The Avett Bros are fantastic! I'm subscribing to their channel.

On a humorous side note: After listening to First Aid Kit I listened to Abba's version of Chiquitita. My bird really loved Agnetha's voice. She started singing along.

Sharon Wilfong said...

Now, being the language neurotic that I am, I must find the origin of this expression...unless you originated it...(is originate a word?)

Sharon Wilfong said...

Hi Marcia. I only just learned of Laks. He is a great discovery.

Brian Joseph said...

Hi Sharon - I just want to add, that there are certainly some variations on morality based on culture and time period. But as you point out, there is a a built in moral compass. I think that human nature pushes us towards ethical certain norms and it always has. I think that the moral relativists deny those norms.

I think that there is something similar going on with monogamous relationships. There will be variations. Monogamous relationships will be less popular in some places. I agree that this is bad for the overall good of society. But such relationships will never disappear and will always be the "norm". We will always look at non - monogamy as a variation.

On a side note, I hear a lot of women, and minority folks, who do agree with certain liberal beliefs who have told me that they feel left out of public conversation. I am liberal but I object to some of what is coming out of the left these days. The dismissal of dissenting ideas is one of the things that I object to.

Brian Joseph said...

Hi Sharon - I just want to add, that there are certainly some variations on morality based on culture and time period. But as you point out, there is a a built in moral compass. I think that human nature pushes us towards ethical certain norms and it always has. I think that the moral relativists deny those norms.

I think that there is something similar going on with monogamous relationships. There will be variations. Monogamous relationships will be less popular in some places. I agree that this is bad for the overall good of society. But such relationships will never disappear and will always be the "norm". We will always look at non - monogamy as a variation.

On a side note, I hear a lot of women, and minority folks, who do agree with certain liberal beliefs who have told me that they feel left out of public conversation. I am liberal but I object to some of what is coming out of the left these days. The dismissal of dissenting ideas is one of the things that I object to.

Sharon Wilfong said...

It's a good topic for discussion, Brian. Everyone deserves a voice in the public arena and we need to listen to each other with respect.

There's seems to be a push with extremists, such as Anti-Fa who want to strong arm anyone who is not on their team and I'm concerned that its going to cause some push back.

I hope it is something that can be resolved in a peaceful manner.