Thanks for this, Doc. I did read all three in my youth, but I fear I was too young to get from them what I should have; I was not yet mature enough for science fiction where the science was sociology. Must pick them up again.
Glad you enjoyed it :) I promise the Lewis/Orwell essay is getting done this week. Or next... it keeps getting long then suddenly length 0 as I start over.
I never knew this trilogy existed till a year or two ago, and I kind of wonder what would have happened differently with my life if I had read them young, like "Narnia was our bedtime story" young. Growing up with a lot of "satanic panic" and otherwise very questionable Christians really did a lot to put me off religion in general. I am not naturally prone to religiosity, but Lewis makes a hell of a compelling case I find.
And sorry, I am sleepy and I think I am missing the acronym joke. Please explain to tired old man? :P
Sorry, I was too arch. You refer to THS twice as ”That Horrible Strength”, not “Hideous”, and I was suggesting that it was caused by going into the acronym and back out, as in the joke where translating English to Russian and back transforms “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” into “The vodka is good but the meat is rotten.”
Thanks for pointing that out. I find I am really bad with names in general, and reading books on the Kindle tends to exacerbate that because I never see the cover after I start. So normally I would pick up the book and see "That Hideous Strength, by C.S. Lewis" every time, and have it slowly driven into my skull even if I never speak the words aloud to another human. Instead I turn on the Kindle and see only "The Space Trilogy Omnibus" at the top of the page and go merrily on my way.
I did the same thing in an earlier essay, referencing "Illiberal Reformers" and mixing up Thomas Leonard and Leonard Reed. Having David Henderson point that out in a private email was kind of mortifying.
I wish I could blame good vodka or bad meat, but yea, it was a lot closer to "That [h word meaning bad] Strength" being all my brain took away from the title page :D
I have studied a bit of the science "outside the box." Lewis's description of Mars and Venus is more closer to the Verifiable facts than the spin from NASA. The spaceship as described appears to employ a very simple aspect of physics. This is the same aspect of physics that permits "space" to be inhabited by the appropriate life forms. The Trilogy appears to be both revelatory and prophetic. My great mystery about the series is where he got his information from.
“That Horrible Strength”? Did the use of the acronym cause you to play Telephone with yourself? :-)
(I jumped to the end to say this so I don’t forget. Now back to read what you have to say!)
Thanks for this, Doc. I did read all three in my youth, but I fear I was too young to get from them what I should have; I was not yet mature enough for science fiction where the science was sociology. Must pick them up again.
Glad you enjoyed it :) I promise the Lewis/Orwell essay is getting done this week. Or next... it keeps getting long then suddenly length 0 as I start over.
I never knew this trilogy existed till a year or two ago, and I kind of wonder what would have happened differently with my life if I had read them young, like "Narnia was our bedtime story" young. Growing up with a lot of "satanic panic" and otherwise very questionable Christians really did a lot to put me off religion in general. I am not naturally prone to religiosity, but Lewis makes a hell of a compelling case I find.
And sorry, I am sleepy and I think I am missing the acronym joke. Please explain to tired old man? :P
Sorry, I was too arch. You refer to THS twice as ”That Horrible Strength”, not “Hideous”, and I was suggesting that it was caused by going into the acronym and back out, as in the joke where translating English to Russian and back transforms “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” into “The vodka is good but the meat is rotten.”
Oh, goddamnit, I didn't even notice!
Thanks for pointing that out. I find I am really bad with names in general, and reading books on the Kindle tends to exacerbate that because I never see the cover after I start. So normally I would pick up the book and see "That Hideous Strength, by C.S. Lewis" every time, and have it slowly driven into my skull even if I never speak the words aloud to another human. Instead I turn on the Kindle and see only "The Space Trilogy Omnibus" at the top of the page and go merrily on my way.
I did the same thing in an earlier essay, referencing "Illiberal Reformers" and mixing up Thomas Leonard and Leonard Reed. Having David Henderson point that out in a private email was kind of mortifying.
I wish I could blame good vodka or bad meat, but yea, it was a lot closer to "That [h word meaning bad] Strength" being all my brain took away from the title page :D
I have studied a bit of the science "outside the box." Lewis's description of Mars and Venus is more closer to the Verifiable facts than the spin from NASA. The spaceship as described appears to employ a very simple aspect of physics. This is the same aspect of physics that permits "space" to be inhabited by the appropriate life forms. The Trilogy appears to be both revelatory and prophetic. My great mystery about the series is where he got his information from.