Cette Hideuse Puissance

I've been reading this series for the past few months, with the end goal of getting to this book and finding out what all the fuss was about. You see, late last year, I ran a survey on my blog, and in that survey, That Hideous Strength was overwhelmingly voted my readers' favourite book of all time. Now that I've finally finished it, I can tell you that, although I enjoyed the series overall, this was hardly my favourite part... much less my favourite book of all time!

This is a story in which it's very difficult to figure out what's going on. And just when you think you finally know, something happens to pull the rug out from under you and leave you scratching your head all over again.

It seems to have something to do with King Arthur and Merlin, which is a mythology I know very little about, so half the references were lost on me. Also, while the Christian themes are still present, they're not nearly as obvious as they were in the first two books, and this one definitely feels the most like "fiction".

In many ways, this is a completely different book from the first two. Indeed, for a good 30% of it, it seems to have no connection whatsoever to the rest of the series, and you find yourself wondering where your favourite characters are or what's been happening since the events of [b:Perelandra|100924|Perelandra (The Space Trilogy, #2)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388623162l/100924.SY75.jpg|3148586]... it does become apparent, but it takes a really long time before you realise you do, in fact, have the right "That Hideous Strength".

What adds to that feeling, and what I think took me by surprise the most, is the length of this book. The first two books in this series are little more than novellas, and so I was expecting another two- or three-day read in That Hideous Strength. Not so: this one's quite the tome. It's nothing like the first two at all.

In truth, my rating is probably somewhere around 2.3 or 2.4 stars; the book was "just okay", but there were parts of it I enjoyed - just not enough for me to honestly say I liked it as a whole. I chuckled, for example, at many of the jokes about the differences between men and women, and I enjoyed revisiting the idea (touched on in Perelandra) of there being lots of different genders, and how "gender" and "sex" are two very different things. And it was nice to see that the women in this story were real, believable people, not "cookie cutters" who only do just what society expects.

Maybe I'm being a little harsh because I'm comparing this final part of a trilogy to the first two. But honestly, what should I be comparing it to?

Click here to find out where you can get your hands on a copy: books2read.com/u/mBOoNy

C. S. Lewis doesn't just write to tell a story. He has a whole philosophy to communicate--one which he would call "Christian." I'm not a Christian but am often a sympathizer and enjoy a nice philosophy sometimes, though I prefer it when it doesn't take over the story. I forgive a morality tale from a certain level of concern with morality.

This is book 3 of Lewis's "space trilogy" and is the most interestingly written of the three. The main characters are often well drawn and not merely stand-ins for political or philosophical/religious positions (though minor characters fail in this way).

I enjoyed it despite serious disagreements with Lewis's point of view. I have a fantasy that I could convince him of my position were it possible to sit down with him and talk it out.

He takes a position that objectivity and thus science implies a lack of values and is taking the world, or at least the England of the mid 20th century, on a disastrous course. Objectivity is achieved (according to N.I.C.E. training procedures) by learning to block out and ignore one's feelings. One needs to learn to act without, for example, friendship, fear, or religious awe, which are merely the product of brain chemicals. (This idea in some ways resembles the Buddhist concept of non-attachment but the similarity is actually superficial.) Objectivity out of control leads to overvaluing Earthly Life and forgetting about the hereafter and God. Morality, objectively, is just chemicals and must be overcome.

The story is about the struggle to keep the N.I.C.E from destroying humanity with science and their lack of values (though they are actually manipulated by Satan's evil values.)

It's disturbing to google a quote from the book and have it show up on right-wing websites, but it's also interesting to see Lewis's sophisticated thought being appreciated by a political wing associated with anti-intellectualism.

As an important plot point, the "liberal media" manipulates the public to accept the unacceptable. This is beautifully written though I am politically closer to Orwell, who also writes how language is used to coerce thought.

Lewis's good guys share housework across gender lines but believe a wife must obey her husband. Lewis's bad guys include a Lesbian who can only carry out her role because the objective people have learned to suppress their "natural feelings" against this sexual abomination.

Lewis's bad guys want to substitute treatment of criminals for punishment because, like the Soviet Union, they understand this gives them more power over them--they can be locked up forever in hospitals. I suppose his brand of Christianity sees forgiveness including the sinner paying his debt to society (i.e. being punished.)

Lewis is on record (elsewhere) as saying it is scientism, not science he sees as a problem but as someone who recently enjoyed reading The Martian, I'm not sure Lewis is clear on the difference. It is notable that the downfall of the bad guys is only possible because, through space travel, they have rendered inoperable the seventh law which says that Maleldil will not send down the Powers until the end times. In other words, they started it and He has not forbidden the Powers to hit back (this is the defense of a big brother when the little brother complains to Mom).

Wither (deputy director of the NICE) is so objective that he speaks in non-committal corporate speak. His dialogue, a mixture of vagueness, generalization, innuendo, unfinished sentences, and formal politeness is a joy to read. Similarly, I loved the gibberish spoken by those under Merlin's spell. Lewis and I agree that language is important. (Ransom is, after all, a philologist)

In the end, the bad guys appear to kill each other so it looks like it's not really anyone's fault (none of the good guys breaks the commandment "Thou shalt not kill") though, in fact it is all happening under orchestration of "the Powers." Perhaps, not being human, the Powers are not bound by the ten commandments. Still, you'd think a Christian would be more forgiving than requiring them to die.

I've just finished reading [b:That Hideous Strength|100933|That Hideous Strength (The Space Trilogy, #3)|C.S. Lewis|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1348645618s/100933.jpg|964487] again. I've lost count of how many times I've read it, at least six or seven times, and each time I find something new.

It has been described as C.S. Lewis's attempt at a Charles Williams novel, and that is a fairly accurate description. The first time I read it, as a teenager, a lot of the literary allusions went right over my head. Mr Fisher-King, for example. I first became aware of the significance that when reading a novel by [a:Robert Holdstock|72538|Robert Holdstock|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1374526882p2/72538.jpg], either [b:Mythago Wood|126192|Mythago Wood (Mythago Wood, #1)|Robert Holdstock|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1308639607s/126192.jpg|121534] or [b:The Fetch|3920088|The Fetch|Laura Whitcomb|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347514519s/3920088.jpg|3965558], and the significance escaped me there too at first. Now I've been reading a bit more Arthurian literature, and suddenly a lot of the references make more sense, just as reading [b:The Mabinogion|455219|The Mabinogion|Unknown|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1334993150s/455219.jpg|162739] helped to make sense of [b:The Owl Service|83829|The Owl Service|Alan Garner|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328875903s/83829.jpg|80927].

But the book that made a lot of things fall into place this time round was [b:The Cult of Rhodes|5370054|The Cult of Rhodes Remembering an Imperialist in Africa|Paul Maylam|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1332826772s/5370054.jpg|5437568], which I read about three months ago, and reviewed here The cult of Rhodes.

Right at the end of That hideous strength Professor Dimble is talking about Logres and Britain. In Lewis's mythology, and one could perhaps say in the Inklings' mythology, Logres is Britain's better half, or better self. Each nation has, as it were, a guardian angel and a tempting demon, and in the case of England the former is Logres and the latter is Britain.

Dimble describes this as a haunting:

How something we may call Britain is always haunted by something we may call Logres. Haven't you noticed that we are two countries? After every Arthur, a Mordred; behind every Milton, a Cromwell; a nation of poets, a nation of shopkeepers; the home of Sidney -- and of Cecil Rhodes.