Charles talked and wrote a great deal about the practice of "exchange". It was one of the root rules of the Company. One made a pact and picked up the other person's fear or grief or pain and carried it oneself. This was the theory at any rate. The trouble was that, while the theory was irrefutable, the practice was apt to be dubious.... but how, I asked myself, was I to "present myself shyly to Almighty God in exchange for..."?
Letters to Lelange (Kent State UP), Page 54
Arthur C Clarke & C.S. Lewis
In 1956 Clarke moved to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to pursue his hobby of scuba diving. That's the year when C.S. Lewis told Kathryn Lindskoog that the best science fiction book, in his opinion, was Clarke's ‘Childhood's End’. (Lewis didn't happen to mention that he and Clarke were acquainted, and that he had a close friend named Joy Gresham who was a friend of Clarke's.) About ten years later Clarke mentioned Lewis in an article called ‘Armchair Astronauts’ in Holiday magazine:
"Less sympathetic to our aims was Dr. C. S. Lewis, author of two of the very few works of space fiction that can be classed as literature – ‘Out of the Silent Planet’ and ‘Perelandra’. Both of these fine books contained attacks on scientists in general, and astronauts in particular, which aroused my ire. I was especially incensed by a passage in ‘Perelandra’ referring to 'little Interplanetary Societies and Rocketry Clubs'...
An extensive correspondence with Dr. Lewis led to a meeting in a famous Oxford pub, the Eastgate... Needless to say, neither side converted the other. But a fine time was had by all, and when, some hours later, we emerged a little unsteadily from the Eastgate, Dr. Lewis' parting words were, 'I'm sure you're very wicked people-but how dull it would be if everyone was good.'
"Less sympathetic to our aims was Dr. C. S. Lewis, author of two of the very few works of space fiction that can be classed as literature – ‘Out of the Silent Planet’ and ‘Perelandra’. Both of these fine books contained attacks on scientists in general, and astronauts in particular, which aroused my ire. I was especially incensed by a passage in ‘Perelandra’ referring to 'little Interplanetary Societies and Rocketry Clubs'...
An extensive correspondence with Dr. Lewis led to a meeting in a famous Oxford pub, the Eastgate... Needless to say, neither side converted the other. But a fine time was had by all, and when, some hours later, we emerged a little unsteadily from the Eastgate, Dr. Lewis' parting words were, 'I'm sure you're very wicked people-but how dull it would be if everyone was good.'
Why did Sauron create the One Ring...
... and What Were Its Powers?
It was part of Sauron's scheme to ensnare and enslave the users of all the rings of power and so control the Noldor of Middle-earth. Sauron planned for the domination of all of Middle-earth and he needed/wanted to control the Elves to complete this plan. This was the reason for the forging of the One Ring. Sauron went to Orodruin, Mount Doom, to forge the Ruling Ring, and by putting a large part of his own inherent power into the Ring he created a means by which he could enslave the users of the rings:
"And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow. And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them."
[The Silmarillion]
Sauron took quite a risk in placing a major portion of his own power into an item that could be taken from his control. This is exactly what happened at the end of the Second Age when the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron and Isildur cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. Separated from his power, Sauron was vanquished and seemingly disappeared from Middle-earth. Tolkien's view on the use of power is revealed in another one of his Letters:
"The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one's life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to 'philosophise' this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps rather potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalised and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one's direct control."
[The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #121)
It was part of Sauron's scheme to ensnare and enslave the users of all the rings of power and so control the Noldor of Middle-earth. Sauron planned for the domination of all of Middle-earth and he needed/wanted to control the Elves to complete this plan. This was the reason for the forging of the One Ring. Sauron went to Orodruin, Mount Doom, to forge the Ruling Ring, and by putting a large part of his own inherent power into the Ring he created a means by which he could enslave the users of the rings:
"And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow. And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them."
[The Silmarillion]
Sauron took quite a risk in placing a major portion of his own power into an item that could be taken from his control. This is exactly what happened at the end of the Second Age when the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron and Isildur cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. Separated from his power, Sauron was vanquished and seemingly disappeared from Middle-earth. Tolkien's view on the use of power is revealed in another one of his Letters:
"The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one's life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to 'philosophise' this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps rather potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalised and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one's direct control."
[The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #121)
The C.S. Lewis Petition
We the undersigned are concerned about the apparent irregularities in the posthumous C.S. Lewis canon, first investigated in a computer study by C.F. Jones of the University of Florida in 1986, described by Kathryn Lindskoog in The C.S. Lewis Hoax in 1988, and confirmed in 1991 by A.Q. Morton of the University of Glasgow, leading forensic authority on literary forgery. We are concerned because both the complex "Literary Detective" alphabetical analysis by C.F. Jones and the vastly more complex cumulative sum chart sentence analysis by A.Q. Morton refute the authenticity of The Dark Tower. We are also concerned because of A.Q. Morton's report that the central forty percent of the 1990 C.S. Lewis essay "Christian Reunion" clearly matches the statistical pattern of Walter Hooper's writing rather than that of C.S. Lewis.
We are concerned about Kathryn Lindskoog's unanswered charge that the following posthumous works published from 1966 to 1991 have faulty provenance, and we are also concerned about the charge that they all exhibit unLewisian style, taste, beliefs, or values.
For a list of signatories, see http://www.lindentree.org/petition.html (Unfortunately this link has now been removed)
We are concerned about Kathryn Lindskoog's unanswered charge that the following posthumous works published from 1966 to 1991 have faulty provenance, and we are also concerned about the charge that they all exhibit unLewisian style, taste, beliefs, or values.
For a list of signatories, see http://www.lindentree.org/petition.html (Unfortunately this link has now been removed)
The C.S. Lewis Hoax
When THE C. S. LEWIS HOAX was published in 1988 it immediately aroused a tumult of praise and protest.
Five Stars
The WEST COAST REVIEW OF BOOKS (otherwise known as BOOKS/100 REVIEWS ) reviewed well over 3000 books from 1984 to 1989, but only 28 received five-star reviews. One of the 28 was The C.S. Lewis Hoax. Here are selections from that review:
"The 'Mere' Christian, C. S. Lewis, is unique: he was a scholar among scholars, self-described as an 'academic prig,' yet he is an international best-selling author. But Kathryn Lindskoog has similar claims to virtuosity; she is an academic researcher of redoubtable powers, but she also writes English that is satisfying for its own sake...
"Her story is dramatic: she asserts, with impressive documentation, that much of what has been published by or about Lewis since his death has been fabricated, seemingly for the personal aggrandizement of his literary executor, the personable Anglican priest Walter Hooper. In particular, she discredits the posthumous Lewis novel The Dark Tower, and succeeds in making plausible suggetions as to when, by whom, and under what inspiration it was in fact written... The irregularities -- to use a mild word -- that she establishes are shocking...
"This small book is a masterpiece of both research and writing; even those with little interest in literature will appreciate the strength and subtlety of the arguments, and the clarity (and charity!) of the style."
Five Stars
The WEST COAST REVIEW OF BOOKS (otherwise known as BOOKS/100 REVIEWS ) reviewed well over 3000 books from 1984 to 1989, but only 28 received five-star reviews. One of the 28 was The C.S. Lewis Hoax. Here are selections from that review:
"The 'Mere' Christian, C. S. Lewis, is unique: he was a scholar among scholars, self-described as an 'academic prig,' yet he is an international best-selling author. But Kathryn Lindskoog has similar claims to virtuosity; she is an academic researcher of redoubtable powers, but she also writes English that is satisfying for its own sake...
"Her story is dramatic: she asserts, with impressive documentation, that much of what has been published by or about Lewis since his death has been fabricated, seemingly for the personal aggrandizement of his literary executor, the personable Anglican priest Walter Hooper. In particular, she discredits the posthumous Lewis novel The Dark Tower, and succeeds in making plausible suggetions as to when, by whom, and under what inspiration it was in fact written... The irregularities -- to use a mild word -- that she establishes are shocking...
"This small book is a masterpiece of both research and writing; even those with little interest in literature will appreciate the strength and subtlety of the arguments, and the clarity (and charity!) of the style."
What do the Inklings have to teach us today?
Above all, and by example, it is the strength and beneficent power of the human spirit. Here we have... very different men, each with his own vision, and finding expression for it in very different ways. And yet there is a secret and subtle accord that unites them, not only in their personal friendship, but in all the interplay of circumstances that brought them together, and sparked recognition between them...”
Gareth Knight: “The Magical World of the Inklings”, Postscript.
Gareth Knight: “The Magical World of the Inklings”, Postscript.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
