John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2006-10-25 12:27:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Orwell and Lewis
I never knew that Geo Orwell reviewed Jack Lewis. Here, as a historical curio, is the famous dystopia-writer's view of Lewis' famous dystopia.

The Scientist Takes Over

 

review of C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength (1945) 

by George Orwell 

 

Manchester Evening News, 16 August 1945

Reprinted as No. 2720 (first half) in The Complete Works of George Orwell, edited by Peter Davison, Vol. XVII (1998), pp. 250–251

 

 

On the whole, novels are better when there are no miracles in them. Still, it is possible to think of a fairly large number of worth-while books in which ghosts, magic, second-sight, angels, mermaids, and what-not play a part.

Mr. C. S. Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength” can be included in their number – though, curiously enough, it would probably have been a better book if the magical element had been left out. For in essence it is a crime story, and the miraculous happenings, though they grow more frequent towards the end, are not integral to it.

In general outline, and to some extent in atmosphere, it rather resembles G. K. Chesterton’s “The Man Who Was Thursday.”

Mr. Lewis probably owes something to Chesterton as a writer, and certainly shares his horror of modern machine civilisation (the title of the book, by the way, is taken from a poem about the Tower of Babel) and his reliance on the “eternal verities” of the Christian Church, as against scientific materialism or nihilism.

His book describes the struggle of a little group of sane people against a nightmare that nearly conquers the world. A company of mad scientists – or, perhaps, they are not mad, but have merely destroyed in themselves all human feeling, all notion of good and evil – are plotting to conquer Britain, then the whole planet, and then other planets, until they have brought the universe under their control.

All superfluous life is to be wiped out, all natural forces tamed, the common people are to be used as slaves and vivisection subjects by the ruling caste of scientists, who even see their way to conferring immortal life upon themselves. Man, in short, is to storm the heavens and overthrow the gods, or even to become a god himself.

There is nothing outrageously improbable in such a conspiracy. Indeed, at a moment when a single atomic bomb – of a type already pronounced “obsolete” – has just blown probably three hundred thousand paople to fragments, it sounds all too topical. Plenty of people in our age do entertain the monstrous dreams of power that Mr. Lewis attributes to his characters, and we are within sight of the time when such dreams will be realisable.

His description of the N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments), with its world-wide ramifications, its private army, its secret torture chambers, and its inner ring of adepts ruled over by a mysterious personage known as The Head, is as exciting as any detective story.

It would be a very hardened reader who would not experience a thrill on learning that The Head is actually – however, that would be giving the game away.

One could recommend this book ureservedly if Mr. Lewis had succeeded in keeping it all on a single level. Unfortunately, the supernatural keeps breaking in, and it does so in rather confusing, undisciplined ways. The scientists are endeavouring, among other things, to get hold of the body of the ancient Celtic magician Merlin, who has been buried – not dead, but in a trance – for the last 1,500 years, in hopes of learning from him the secrets of pre-Christian magic.

They are frustrated by a character who is only doubtfully a human being, having spent part of his time on another planet where he has been gifted with eternal youth. Then there is a woman with second sight, one or two ghosts, and various superhuman visitors from outer space, some of them with rather tiresome names which derive from earlier books of Mr. Lewis’s. The book ends in a way that is so preposterous that it does not even succeed in being horrible in spite of much bloodshed.

Much is made of the fact that the scientists are actually in touch with evil spirits, although this fact is known only to the inmost circle. Mr. Lewis appears to believe in the existence of such spirits, and of benevolent ones as well. He is entitled to his beliefs, but they weaken his story, not only because they offend the average reader’s sense of probability but because in effect they decide the issue in advance. When one is told that God and the Devil are in conflict one always knows which side is going to win. The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid. However, by the standard of the novels appearing nowadays this is a book worth reading.


=============================================================================================================
Mr. Orwell (or mr. Blair, take your pick) makes interesting comments, but only one really betrays the typical limitations of his secular philosophy: "When one is told that God and the Devil are in conflict one always knows which side is going to win. The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid. "

So says a man who has never struggled against evil, either with or without supernatural aid.  (I do not count taking up arms for one brand of totalitarianism against another, its twin.)

Come now: is Milton's PARADISE LOST without drama? We know Adam is going to win, don't we? He has supernatural aid in his stuggle against the devil, doesn't he? Or how about little Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom? The One Ring would not have come to him if he were not meant to have it. That means a mysterious supernatural fate is assuring him of victory in his struggle against Sauron, right? Ergo there is no drama in the story. The miracle of Gandalf's resserection, the miracle of Aragorn raising and commanding the Hosts of the Dead--all this robs the tale of interest, right? There is no drama in the ILIAD, look at all those gods peopling the tale; and none in CINDERELLA, because how can a girl with a fairy godmother lose?

Bah. What utter humbug Orwell says. Some people suffer from fairy-story depravation, or something, and hence do not know what real life is about.



(Post a new comment)


[info]partywhipple
2006-10-25 05:01 pm UTC (link)
not only because they offend the average reader’s sense of probability

huh? Does Orwell not realize that more people believe in God (or gods) than not. By a wide margin? It amuses me when Atheists who blame non atheists of living in a fantasy world are, themselves, living with their heads in the sand.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fpb
2006-10-26 02:52 pm UTC (link)
Suppose he meant that the average reader, whether or not he believes in God, does not expect Him to take personal charge of one particular struggle in one particular place?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lordbrand
2006-10-25 08:43 pm UTC (link)
Has the man never heard of theodicy?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fpb
2006-10-26 02:53 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I would like to know how you consider the idea of theodicy to be even relevant to this particular novel or review.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lordbrand
2006-10-26 03:14 pm UTC (link)
"When one is told that God and the Devil are in conflict one always knows which side is going to win. The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid. "

Who says the direct appearance of an angel or a divine figure - even apparently advocating for the characters - means evil won't have its victories? Orwell seems to be confusing the matter of whether God *could* win with whether or not the *characters* can or will win. It's not about God winning or losing, but the characters, their actions, and their fates.

I think it's entirely relevant.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fpb
2006-10-26 03:42 pm UTC (link)
I still do not understand. I understand theodicy to mean a justification of the justice of God in front of the scandal of an imperfect world. I do not see how what you say has to do with the age-long debate about the goodness and omnipotence of God.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lordbrand
2006-10-26 04:15 pm UTC (link)
Orwell seems to be assuming that having some angelic advocates mean you automatically win. That there's no drama. No uncertainty.

Well, if he's also assuming a just and good and omnipotent God, the mere existence of evil opponents makes his statement a bit awkward.

That God allows for evil should be more than enough cause for dramatic uncertainty even when divine aid shows up. God doesn't necessarily fight every battle for the heroes nor grant a guarantee on their success. Plenty of pain and suffering exist for good men - and in tales with good men who associate with the divine.

It's curious that he'd suggest otherwise.

Especially when the central story of Christianity involves so much suffering in the presence and to the person of Jesus himself. While one could say that this was a "win" against the Devil - it surely was not without drama.

And if evil is allowed under a good and just and omnipotent God, then why assume that the presence of divine aid robs a tale of drama? In fact, since the tangible appearance of the supernatural is not a requirement for God to stop evil, why assume that this appearance makes the result of the conflict inevitable?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-10-25 09:46 pm UTC (link)
So says a man who has never stuggled against evil, either with or without supernatural aid.

I don't know how fair that is as a general point, but in this specific case it clearly fails. George Orwell knew about, and participated in, struggles against evil.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2006-10-26 04:10 pm UTC (link)
My mistake. Let me retract the comment and substitute one equally as arch: "As a man who struggled against evil, he should have known better."

I know that Orwell read (and disliked) G.K. Chesterton--he should have been aware of Chesterton's dictum that the whole terrifying romance of Christianity is the possibility of failure and damnation. Christians see the world as if every man's life is hanging by a thread of clinging by fingernails to a cliff. The outcome simply is not certain.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fpb
2006-10-26 04:30 pm UTC (link)
Actually, Orwell was very ambivalent about Chesterton. He was ideologically repelled by Catholicism - there are one or two passages in his essays in which he implies that killing a Cardinal would be a good thing - and his experience of fighting Franco had not made him think any better of it. (Lewis was also strongly against Franco.) But he was very taken with GKC's social ideas, and he had a strong appreciation of his talent. It is my view that if he had lived another ten years, he would probably have come to understand the Christianity of his opponents, perhaps even embrace it. His allusions to Chesterton in his essays have mostly, as far as I can remember, a wistful "if only he was a Socialist" feel about them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Good to hear
[info]johncwright
2006-10-31 08:58 pm UTC (link)
That makes me feel better about Orwell. Thank you for so saying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]xander25
2006-10-26 11:00 am UTC (link)
Perhaps having read neither "That Hideous Strength" or "1984", I shouldn't comment. However, I really dislike George Orwell. One of my friends once tried to convince how much better "1984" was compared to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". One of the arguments was that "1984" was more terrifying than "Brave New World". The State in Orwell's utopia employ physical means to control it's citizens. In "Brave New World", they are controlled through more subtle means. Firstly, anytime anyone feels unhappy or distressed they simply imbibe a pill that lets them go into their own fairy-tale-land away from whatever it was that was bothering them. Secondly, the attempt to rob man of any and all passions, the condemnation by the World Controllers of monogamy being a prime example. In other word's in Orwell's dystopia the state controls man's physical body...in Huxley's dystopia the World Controllers control (or rather destroy) man's soul. In 1984, one can still rebel...at least they have souls. In Brave New World, even this was robbed from them. Mr. Huxley displays a better understanding of humanity than Georgie does.

The individual who comes away from "Brave New World" ends up asking questions such as, "What does it mean to be human?" The person who comes away from "1984" may very well end up uttering all kinds of conspiracy theories, trying to point out "Big Brothers" where they may or may not actually exist. No measuring stick is presented as to ascertain when "Big Brother" has been established.

Why do I bring this up? I would suppose that George Orwell lacked the moral vision that Aldous Huxley and C.S. Lewis had. Aldous Huxley did not go out of his way to debunk traditional values. Though, later as the answer for the questions posed in his dystopia, Huxley proposed mysticism (I'm somewhat amused that Lewis's "Abolition of Man", a work that even a non-Christian can enjoy, provided far better answers). For all of his flaws, he at least understood that things such as love and honor were worthwhile. The thing about fairy-tales is that in presenting to us evil spirits and benevolent gods they help us grasp these concepts which logic can only point to.

(Reply to this)


[info]fpb
2006-10-26 02:50 pm UTC (link)
So says a man who has never stuggled against evil, either with or without supernatural aid

From which I gather that you do not consider Uncle Joe Stalin and his merry men evil. Or perhaps you were not thinking when you wrote that - because if one man in the twentieth century ever fought tangible evil, with all the means at his disposal, that man was Eric Blair. I agree that his opposition to the use of the supernatural is ideological, but I do not agree that it is foolish - I think that something about That Hideous Strength resonates to the charge of being undisciplined, of bringing in elements from all sorts of areas and all anyhow. If you remember, that was also the charge that Tolkien made against the Narnian stories.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2006-10-26 04:21 pm UTC (link)
I retract the comment. Nonetheless, the snide comment that introducing God into the tale automatically robs it of drama and tension is silly, and it is the kind of silliness familiar to me, for I said such emtpy-headed things back when I was an atheist myself. Is there no drama in the Book of Job? Is there no drama in HAMLET?

But I agree that HIDEOUS STRENGTH has a somewhat undisciplined and wandering structure--Jane Studdock's clairvoyance never actually helps the Good Guys; Mark Studdock's treason never actually harms them; the main characters never actually do the thing itself which leads to the downfall of the Bad Guys.

I would extend the comment to the other Space Romances of Lewis. OUT FORM THE SILENT PLANET consists of one kidnapping, a somewhat pointless period of wandering on the foreign world, a scene where certain speaches are made for the purpose of (justly) mocking HG Wellsian ideas, and then an Eldil Ex Machina ending. PRELENDRA consists of a similar set of explorations of the Eden of Venus, a set of speeches, and a sudden murder. Plot was not this writer's strong suit.

MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY has a much tighter plot, and a hectic pace, that Lewis did not match.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

[info]johncwright
2006-10-26 07:35 pm UTC (link)
I stand by my comment. Not to be too fussy, but Janet's visions lead them to spend a night in the rain looking for Merlin, they find the empty tomb, and see him in flight on horseback. Returning to St. Anne's the Warlock goes there of his own power. There is no internal evidence in the text to suggest that her visions were in any way needed for the final result.

Ditto with Mark's newspaper story. Nothing in particular comes of it: we do not read of a specific character who is convinced, or of an event that happens that would not have happened had the article not been written. It is presented merely as part of the process of Mark's corruption---character development, not plot.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

[info]carbonelle
2006-10-27 07:17 am UTC (link)
Erm... Did you miss the bit about "hanging by one's fingernails," the which you wrote earlier--?

The conflict isn't whether or not England will be saved (that's the secondary, "B" plot), but whether or not Jane and Mark will be. For which the visions and the treason are both fairly important.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

[info]carbonelle
2006-10-29 02:11 am UTC (link)
It must be the hat...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Conflict, yes; plot, not so much.
[info]johncwright
2006-10-27 02:51 pm UTC (link)
Mrs. Edwards, I humbly submit to you candid judgment that "conflict" in and of itself is not a plot at all. This book is mostly character development (or, in the case of corruption, character abortion) surrounded by fictionalized versions of discussions of the ideas in ABOLITION OF MAN. Conflict, yes; plot, not so much.

By a "plot", I mean a sequence where each event is inevitable or understandible reactions to a previous event. For example, Jane need not have had a second vision about Merlin. The events of Merlin waking and seeking out St. Annes would have been the same. Jane need not have suffered the vision where she saw the goddess (and dwarves) representing erotic love make a mess of her room. That event could have taken place either earlier or later. Nothing different would have happened if Mark had or had not written his newspaper article for the NICE, or if it had happened later. The decision by Frost and Wither to subject Mark to the Objectivism Room occurs as an arbitrary decision on their part, with no previous event forcing the decision. The death of Hengist could have happened either or later, or been another enormity by NICE, or have been left out entirely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Conflict, yes; plot, not so much.
[info]carbonelle
2006-10-29 05:51 am UTC (link)
But... how then do you describe novels in which the suspense is driven entirely by some internal question: Is he mad? Will he be damned, or saved?

Obviously, most novels that explore such frontiers have also an extrinsic series of actions which drive forward an associated plot-line. And yes, it's true that many of the actions in That Hideous Strength are irrelevant to the plot, "will N.I.C.E. or our heroes win the day?"

But are they irrelevant to whether or not Jane and Mark become what their Maker intended for them to be--?

Jane's vision doesn't make any difference to the recruitment of Merlin and the thwarting of the Fairy et. al. , but it marks a turn in her submission to Ransom and to God (by accepting the vision and putting it to the service of the group at St. Anne's) and to her rejection of materialism. The vision of dwarves and the goddess represent the consumation, the "falling action:" She will not be a "Susan" but a "Lucy" after all. (Hmm... Now there's a though. I wonder... But I digress.)

A Doylist note: C.S. Lewis was a great admirer of wossname... drat... Charles Williams' novels of "theological suspense" it's possible that influenced THS's structure and focus. (I'd have to do rather more research than I'm prepared to put out just now--so if you don't think this likely or reasonable--never mind)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Conflict, yes; plot, not so much.
[info]johncwright
2006-10-30 03:16 pm UTC (link)
"But... how then do you describe novels in which the suspense is driven entirely by some internal question: Is he mad? Will he be damned, or saved?"

Character-driven rather than plot-driven.

I should hasten to add that there is many a school of thought that finds plot-driven novels to be not weighty: Hitchcockian plot twists, or "Mission Impossible" style narratives that concentrate on deceptions and sudden revelations usually star somewhat stock and flat characters, even though, in terms of plot, they are the tightest.

My favorite series, and also the most literate of SF, is not plot driven: SHADOW OF THE TORTURER by Gene Wolfe. Severian's meeting with the Undine or with the Green Man, for example, might have happened before or after, or been left out entirely, without it changing the rest of the narrative, or Dr. Talos' play, or the scene in the Lazaret. (I am mentioning favorite scenes of mine.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Conflict, yes; plot, not so much.
[info]carbonelle
2006-10-31 11:03 pm UTC (link)
Fair enough.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-10-31 11:30 am UTC (link)
Perelandra did so have a plot. The set of speeches are fights for the soul of Eve, which is what the murder is about too. In fact, Perelandra is very much in the style of your Golden Age where rational debate with evil is a key part of the plot. The difference with Lewis--and this may be why you dislike the book and refuse to see its wholeness--is that rational debate is not enough.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]johncwright
2006-10-31 08:56 pm UTC (link)
With all due respect, I submit that you are talking about character development, not plot. There are only three plot actions (1) Randsom arrives on Venus (2) Randsom debates the Un-Man (3) Randsom pursues and kill the Un-Man. Randsom could have murdered Weston either a day earlier or later, with no change in the rest of the scenes.

"Plot" refers to how tightly connected each scene is with its temporal sequel. If nothing can be changed without changing all the later scenes, that it a tight plot. If much can be changed, that is a loose plot.

PRERELENDRA, a book I like, has a loose plot. Another book I like, NIGHT LANDS by Wm Hope Hodgson has almost no plot at all; any of the eerie encounters in the Night with the various fell beasts could be swapped with any other.

CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY by Heinlein has a tight plot: Thorby cannot be a Free Trader before he is slave, or Guardsman after he is a Magnate. The events could not be swapped around. DOOR INTO SUMMER has an even tighter plot: it is a detective story where the clues must occure in the proper order. WORLD OF NULL-A by A.E. van Vogt, oddly enough, has the tighest plot of all. No chapter could be plucked out of its place and put down in the middle of another.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]carbonelle
2006-10-27 07:14 am UTC (link)
I have always considered that to be a poor judgment on Tolkien's part: He was comparing his rigorous mythologising, "the mythos of England" with Lewis's seemingly undisciplined variety.

But Lewis was writing fairy tales, and that the "fairyland of England." The English child's fairyland is as much Beatrix Potter and Father Christmas as it is Nymphs and Satyrs from one's schoolboy Latin.

Narnia hangs together beautifully, if one doesn't expect it to be what it is not.

But I agree with you on That Hideous Strength.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

[info]carbonelle
2006-10-29 02:10 am UTC (link)
Well... their were many silly people on MereLewis. I was one of them, at times!

Were you on MereLewis? If yes, may I inquire: When--?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

[info]carbonelle
2006-10-29 06:02 am UTC (link)
Ah well... ships that passed in the night :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jordan179
2006-11-01 07:30 pm UTC (link)
Narnia was sort of like a medieval Christian world. In medieval Christianity, scholars and fabulists got to have the cool entities from Classical mythology exist by (variously) claiming them for God or the Devil, or (sometimes) un-Saved-but-not-really-evil (like Dante's Virtuous Pagans who lived in the Better Part of Hell). This allowed a lovely chaos of creatures which, alas, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation disallowed by being all remorselessly logical and deciding that all the entities of pagan myth were either Demons or Superstitions (depending on which theologian one talked to).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]agrumer
2006-11-02 08:08 pm UTC (link)
John, Orwell fought alongside the Reds in Spain, against the fascists.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Oops.
[info]johncwright
2006-11-02 09:03 pm UTC (link)
You have to excuse me. I always get fascists and communists mixed up. One wears brown shirts and one wears red shirts? Is that the difference between them?

In that case I will uncorrect the correction and retract the retraction above.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oops.
[info]agrumer
2006-11-03 02:22 am UTC (link)
There really are differences. I wouldn’t want to live under either a fascist or a communist regime, but there are differences. Off the top of my head (I’m not actually a scholar of this stuff): Communism is an internationalist movement with intellectual underpinnings, strongly associated with labor movements, and tending towards hostility to religion and capitalism. Fascism is a nationalist reaction to communism, a failure mode of democracy, anti-intellectual in character, strongly associated with racism and sexism, and hostile to, well, just about everyone, but willing to tolerate capitalism in the service of the state.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

National Socialist German Workers Party not socialist?
[info]johncwright
2006-11-03 11:29 pm UTC (link)
I fear you are mistaken on almost every point.

Fascism is nationalist socialism, and was most certainly strongly associated with labor unions. The name of the Nazi party was (Wait for it!)the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The Italian version followed similar lines, supporting syndication of unions and management under government auspices.

The economic theory of the Fascist was socialist, merely not Marxist. Nazism in Germany also combined elements of romanticism and pseudo-Darwinist race-theory. The race theory was as intellectual as Marx's comical attempt to sound intelligent mangling Hegel, I can assure you of that. As for the anti-intellectual character of Russian socialism, I will speak but one name: Lysenko.

Whoever told you Fascism was 'sexist' but that Communism was not perhaps could give some examples? The word sexist does not have any real meaning in a society where nobody votes and no one has rights.

Hatred of capitalism in the opening decades of the 20th Century lent itself naturally to Jew-hatred, because the system of private banks that funded states in Europe were, by and large, Jewish families, the Rothschild. Even so admirable a person as GK Chesterton, whose distaste for Capitalism spring from his dislike of modernism, comes across to the modern reader as an semi-anti-Semite because, being an anticapitalist, he denigrated the banking families, which happened to be Jewish.

Antisemitism which was MORE common in Russia than in Germany. Germany had been among the more tolerant of communities toward the Jews, and Russia the well known enemy of Jews for countless years. The Lenin and Stalin Jew killings exceeded the holocaust in Germany by an order of magnitude.

The hostility of the Nazis toward religion is sufficiently well documented: thousands of Catholics were sent to the death camps, priests and pastors of Calvinist and Lutheran stock. Wedding and ceremonies previously Christian were replaced, at least among the SS, with Wagnerian pseudo-pagan ceremonies, vowing great vows to the Volk and to the Spirit of Germany.

I do not recall a similar church-hatred among the Italians. For that matter, the Jew-hatred was less among the Italians: I do not recall it being part of their version of socialism.

The hatred of Nazism toward Capitalism was sufficient to abolish private industry in all but name. Owner's names were still on the factories, but they had been reduced to functionaries of the Party, and wages, prices, output, working conditions, product lines, quotas, were all set by the Party. The Jews did slave-labor. This was not a free market in theory or practice, but the opposite.

The Nazi demand for 'living room' was based on a socialist economic fallacy, called the fallacy of autarky, which says economies where all natural resources are found within national boarders will prosper.

I could go on, but I am out of room. The only difference between German socialism and Russian socialism was that one was nationalist, one was internationalist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…