Music for Perelandra

This is a really beautiful piece and it really does sound like Perelandra to me. Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBkTseuJd2k

Perelandra/Paradise Lost: Satan

So, I could not get away from thinking about our lovely class time spent talking about Lewis’ Satan (Unman) in Perelandra and Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost. We talked about the fact that Lewis, although he seemingly defended Milton’s Satan to other critics, he did not actually agree with Milton’s humanistic portrayal of Satan. Lewis believed that Milton’s Satan demonstrated too much of a rational intelligence. So, we get the opposite of this rational intelligence in Perelandra, and see Satan as a very animal-like being whose rationality can only extend so far. It’s as if the Unman sometimes hits a roadblock in the brain, or something, and cannot get around it. For instance, during the night when he continuously says “Ransom…Ransom…Ransom…” almost like a computer glitch; he has no better way to battle at the moment. Actually, I would say Lewis’ Satan demonstrates qualities of a person with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Just saying…

However, I think it is important to notice one major factor about the two Satan’s; Milton’s Satan has just fallen and Lewis’ Satan is several thousand years from his fall. Think about, if Adam was the sum of all human wisdom and knowledge and we are his descendants affected by his fall, how much more so would there be a difference between Satan as he was initially after his fall and thousands of years later? Because really, humanity has only regressed since Adam and Eve; we have not progressed. If Lewis had been portraying Satan not long after he had fallen from Heaven he might would have seemed more like Milton’s Satan. However, because sin causes deterioration or regression, it only makes sense that Lewis’ Satan acts so irrationally, animalistic. So, to argue that Lewis’ Satan or Milton’s Satan is more realistic really has to be considered within the context of Satan’s fall from heaven.

Ooops...Did we do that?

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film2746

This website lists all of the mistakes that were made by the production crew as the were filming The Lord of the Rings. There is some pretty funny goofs listed there if you are interested in going back to see them all.

Enjoy.

Christ Permiates Tolkien's Middle Earth

I love Tolkien, period.

CS Lewis gives you a symbol (Aslan), makes him a lion, gives a chuckle, and says, "Want to guess who this is supposed to be, haha, snort. Tolkien thinks more of you and as Lewis comes down to your level to talk to you, Tolkien comes down but then lifts you up his level. Tolkien respects your intelligence, your grasp of subtelty, and basically your ability to comprehend great eternal truth without being spoon fed like a baby.

In the Chronicles of Narnia CS Lewis' Christ figure is obvious; it is Aslan the Lion who is the Son of the Emperor beyond the Sea (Lion of the tribe of Judah; Son of God). In The Lord of the Rings, Christ is not isolated to one individual, I believe, and he is not supposed to be. Tolkien infuses the good in Middle Earth with the distant but yet distinctly real light our Lord. Christ is not Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo, or any of the others...yet I believe he can be distinctly discovered in all of the characters.

In Aragorn the obvious symbolism of Christ as King is apparent and yet Aragorn cannot be Christ, he is flawed and marred just like all men in Middle Earth. Yet, it is clear that Christ's power of kingship rests on him. He provides healing, he walks through the very gates of death, and he commands allegiance by an example more powerful than any words. Truly, the Messiah as King can be seen in the life of Aragorn. Gandalf glimpses Christ as Prophet, and plays a prophetic intermediary role throughout the epic while Aragorn is assuming his identity and while Frodo is seeking to destroy the Ring. Gandalf is not perfect either having a certain love for the halflings' weed and not always being the most patient individual in the world. Yet, Gandalf wields power on behalf of the good like the great prophets of the Old Testament and is used to encourage the people the stand firm. Frodo to me displays Christ as Priest, Frodo must sacrifice himself and all that he has to destroy the Ring, the symbol of universal sin and the power the evil one has over all men (Sauron is not Satan though, but only a minion which is interesting to me). Frodo will covet the Ring and he will believe false counsel, but in the end his clear sacrfice in giving up the Ring and ending the power of Sauron cannot be ignored.

The minor characters also take on various aspects of Christ and his connection to his world. The Elves (who are presented as part of the good) show God's affinity for his natural creation. The dwarves show God's affinity for resourcefulness and creativity. The halflings show God's love for the relationship and simplicity. Christ and the Gospel can be seen throughout the Lord of the Rings (though imperfectly), in my view, because Tolkien intended to blanket it with so much you did not notice he was doing it.

That makes him greater, in my view, than CS Lewis and a whole lot less bizzare the Charles Williams.

Tolkien: the Speechless Philologist

Thinking back to Thurdsay's class, I can't help but be delightfully overwhelmed at the depth of truth found in the pages of Middle Earth. Every time I return there, I discover a new treasure that I had passed by before. One that I found (or that Dr. Mitchell helped us see) keeps echoing throughout my mind...

Some things must be said in myth because they now can be said no other way. We've lost our capacity to hear. We're separated by a gap, living in the shadows...

Rarely have I before viewed mythology as depiction of reality. I have always been drawn to it, believing that it may depict portions of truth through fantasy, but have not considered it to be necessary. I believed the myths were in addition to the truth, not supportive of it. Now I realize that I live in a blind, deaf world where we are stumbling around in the shadows, separated from the light. There are no absolutes, no morals; we have faith in nothing and are incapable of love. J.R.R. Tolkien crafted Middle Earth as a world that may draw us back. After the creatures of the shadows have wounded us, we may still be healed if we are found by the hand of the Healer-King...

Tolkien was not only an incredible scholar of languages, but a creator of them. As a philologist, he understood not only the structure, but the power of words. Some of the most beautiful passages I've ever read in literature are words shaped by Tolkien; but some of potent passages found in The Lord of the Rings (especially in The Return of the King) are the moments when Tolkien's characters say nothing. When Dr. Mitchell asked us Thursday what our favorite part of The Return of the King would be, immediately my mind went to one such instance.

In Chapter 1 of Book 6, Sam has determinde to rescue the unconcsious Frodo from the orcs in Cirith Ungol. The brave hobbit is ready to fight unto death against the orcs, but before he reaches the tower, he is stopped by an enemy. It is not orcs, but a dark will that keep Sam from Frodo.

Just as he was about to pass under its great arch, he felt a shock: as if he had run into some web like Shelob's, only invisible. He could see no obstacle, but something too strong for his will to overcome barred the way. He looked about, and then withing the shadow of the gate he saw the Two Watchers....immovable, and yet they were aware: some drreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them.

The three-bodied, vulture-faced statues that are enveloped in the shadows will not allow Sam to pass. He tries again, but their will forces him back. Then Sam remembers...

...he drew slowly out the phial of Galadriel and held it up. Its white light quickened swiftly, and the shadows under the dark arch fled. The monstrous Watchers sat there cold and still, revealed in all their hideous shape. For a moment Sam caught a glitter in the black stones of their eyes, the very malice of which made him quail; but slowly he felt their will waver and crumble into fear.

This moment in the quest is for me one of intense conflict. Tolkien sets the stage well; Sam now carries the weight of the enire world around his neck and on his will to push on through the impossible. He has decided that "he was not large enough to to bear such a burden." His decision to follow Frodo also keeps him from bending to the Ring, for "it was the love of his master that helped most to hold him firm." Sam has decided to surrender, to love, to be faithful, to dwell in the light even in the world of shadows...even though it could be his death. He is denied entrance to the one way he can fulfill his purpose; and he refuses to turn back. I can imagine a tiny hobbit, underneath a sky full of darkness in a land of shadow and ashes, reaching inside his clothing and pulling out the phial of light. Throughout all of Mordor, only here in this tiny hand is one glimmer of true beauty. It is not light from a consuming fire or an destructive volcano, but from a world beyond the earth. The dark creatures of Sauron are forced to remember the power greater than their master, who has done all he can to forget. In moments like this, Tolkien reconciles the separation between the hell of Mordor and the heaven of the beauty above it, and he does not bring this moment to pass by having Sam speak an incantation or proclaim words of courage; he simply holds the light high. And the will of the Watchers crumbles.

This is what Tolkien does with mythology. He does not write the truth in the way that it is expected to be declared. He holds the light of truth up high with his fantasy; when those who have been dwelling in the shadows realize it, the must either run deeper into the darkness or draw near to the light. Tolkien's trilogy penetrates the shadows of the 20th century. The philologist in many instances throughout the quest leaves his characters speechless, as well as those who read their story. When it came to the truth, Tolkien may not have given speeches or written apologies for it. Instead, he sat down and wrote a myth that built a bridge over the gap. Tolkien's light is bright enough for even our blinded eyes to see; the music of Middle Earth has been ringing for decades now and will continue to play in the ears of those that can hear nothing else. He brings the deaf and blind to the house of healing, where Truth is King.

Frodo of the Nine Fingers

This is for comic relief. There was a "Lord of the Rings" that was made in either 1978 or 1980. Anyway, this is a song called "Frodo of the Nine Fingers," and I thought that you might enjoy it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW_ocZLaRdI

Horray for Fairy-Stories!

I rather enjoyed the supplemental reading to Tolkien. I think it was my first semester here that Mrs. Fobes talked about the “willing suspension of disbelief.” I don’t honestly remember what we were talking about, but I fell in love with the phrase then. Honestly, if you think about it, there are so many ridiculous movies and books in the world that, in order to believe them, one has to say “okay. I know this isn’t real, but for the sake of not doing anything overly school-related, I’ll pretend like this could happen.” Well, Tolkien apparently does not like this phrase. After reading his take on what it really means to will yourself to believe something, I think I like his perspective better.
He is talking about how children are willing to believe something for the sake of believing it. Instead of putting on the “willing suspension of disbelief,” Tolkien says that “what really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful ‘sub-creator’” because he “makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter” (36) In this secondary world, orange grass is acceptable or a Hobbit can really exist and he can destroy a ring that a giant eyeball has been searching for for years.
A second thing that I liked was that fairy-stories are good for kids because it allows their imaginations to grow (and Chesterton did say that those with imaginations are not the mad men). Tolkien makes a point of saying that fairy-stories are good for adults, too, because they “offer also, in a peculiar degree or mode, these things: Fantasy, Recovery, Consolation, all things of which children have, as a rule, less need than older people” (44). Yes, most older people do need to escape from their lives sometimes, and yes, most older people (myself included) do enjoy a happy ending. There are times when it would be great to escape from death, but death allows us to see what is truly important in our lives. We don’t usually value things until we don’t have them anymore, and I don’t really think that the Hobbits knew what they meant to each other until they are separated forever. At the end of “Return of the King,” Frodo decides to go with Bilbo to the Grey Havens. Sam does not want him to go but Frodo explains that “when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them” (Tolkien 338). He says this because, though he may not necessarily want to leave his friends, he has done all that he can to assure that they have a happy ending even though he does not get one. What he does get, though, is seemingly eternal life. Because we never hear of his death, only that he is leaving forever, he gets eternal life in the imaginations of most who read of his journeys. I think that Tolkien wanted to include that fairy-stories include consolation because we are consoled that Frodo gets to be a hero in his own little story. It’s nice to know that, in the secondary world, at least, people get the endings that they deserve.

Influence of Chesterton

On C.S. Lewis: Chesterton's The Everlasting Man, an apologetic book, played a key role in the conversion of C.S. Lewis. Lewis wrote in Suprised by Joy "Then I read Chesterton's Everlasting Man and for the first time saw the whole Christian outline of history set out in a form that seemed to me to make sense . . . I already thought Chesterton the most sensible man alive 'apart from his Christianity'. Now, I veritably believe, I thought that Christianity itself was very sensible 'apart from its Christianity.'"

On Tolkien: Tolkien talks about Chesterton's influence on his formulation and conception of nature, supernature, and mythology.

On Mohandas Gandhi: In 1909 Mohandas Gandhi read one of Chesterton's news columns and was deeply affected by it, translated it into Gujarati, and wrote a Hind Swaraj based on it that gave a shape to Indian national self-determination.

On Martin Luther King, Jr.: Often quoted or paraphrased many authors, one often being Chesterton.

On Alfred Hitchcock: He read"A Defence of Penny Dreadfuls" and "A Defence of Detective stories" as an adolescent which would later provide him with ideas for the formation of his own style and vision when he was an apprentice filmmaker.

On Ernest Hemingway: In his short story "The Three-Day Blow" featured characters talking about how they wished that they could meet Chesterton, wishing he was there with them now.

And there are many, many more that can be found at http://augustine.livejournal.com/7853.html where I found most of the information.

Perfection

When considering Perelandra, you notice a change in the actions of Ransom. In a perfect world, Ransom doesn't seem to do the things he would normally do on Earth, which happens to be sinful things, or things which might destroy the innocence if done on Perelandra. So really my question is, are the actions of Ransom changed because he is surrounded by perfection in turn making him perfect for the time, or is it just the Eldil, maybe even Maleldil, giving him perfection in order that he not ruin the perfection of Perelandra. For example, the fruit. He tastes this amazing fruit, but for some reason does not think it would be right for him to have another one just so he could taste it again. On earth he would have, here he does not. And another is that he has no sexual desire for the lady, even though she is naked and is the most beautiful woman he had ever seen. Is this because there is no sin, therefore he does not sin, or is it because he is being intentionally held back from sinning in order that Perelandra might be preserved from sin?

Taking On or Trading

"...when Christ or St. Paul, or whoever said bear, or whatever he Aramaically said instead of bear, he meant something much more like carrying a parcel instead of someone else. To bear a burden is precisely to carry it instead of." - Stanhope: Descent Into Hell, ch. 6.

"Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." - Paul the Apostle: Galatians 6:2

Stanhope talks about literally taking on someone else's burden, in this case, a fear. My question with this is in bearing Pauline's burden, or yoke, was she completely free, or did they trade yokes?

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." - Jesus Christ: Matthew 11:29-31

It seems that in taking on the yoke of Jesus that we traded ours for his. We took on the yoke of His lightness and easiness, and He took on our sinful yoke.

So maybe this is stretching something, but it's just a question to think about. When bearing one another's burden, is it one person bearing another person's burden so that they have none, or is it two people, or more, bearing each other's burden, so as to take the specific pressure off of that person, even though a burden is still being carried, just a different one? And does the burden seem less for you in knowing that you are relieving your brother of that burden?

The Un-man Unveiled

The first appearance of the Un-man is slightly disconcerting. Weston’s monologue, occasionally interrupted by Ransom’s well conceived disagreeings, reached its peak when he proclaimed himself one with the universe. At this point Weston became the Un-man. Weston began to struggle for control and the Un-man won the battle by taking over Weston’s weakened defenses. The first act of the Un-man was to undo Weston. The man no longer posses control over his own body, or even over his own mind. The Un-man was his undoing

Another instance in which the Un-man undoes the natural order of creation is seen in chapter nine. Ransom awakes to find a line of dead or dieing frog-like creatures strewn upon the ground. Upon seeing this Ransom thinks, “It would have been better, or so he thought at that moment, for the whole universe never to have existed than for this one thing to have happened” (94). The Un-man has now begun to undo not only human life but creation as well. As Satan gained mastery over Eve, creation fell around her. So now the Un-man, attempting to dethrone the Queen, is also attempting to destroy her kingdom. The animals under her protection have been placed in danger by the Un-man’s presence, and she is unaware of the danger. Only Ransom, who has seen this type of destruction upon Thulcandra, can stop the fall of another civilization, and as the Un-man sits upon the mound of bodies, Ransom decides to guard against the threat that has been brought upon Perelandra.

The battle for the future begins with rest. A warrior must have the energy to fight, and energy is gained by sleep. If Ransom has a hope to win this battle, he must rest. However, evil never sleeps, and the Un-man is evil. The Un-man attempts to weaken our Warrior and undo Ransom before he has a chance to fight. By keeping Ransom awake, the Un-man is undoing Ransom’s humanhood. No sleep will defeat a man. So, tired and desperate, Ransom comes to the realization that Spiritual Warfare is not only a mental fight, but it is also a physical battle that be won with strength of might. Ransom begins to box with the evil that is attempting to destroy this Utopian existence. It takes all of Ransom’s strength and energy, but in the end, he stands victorious over the incinerated body which once belonged to Edward Rolles Weston.

Ransom’s fight with the Un-man is Lewis’ attempt to emphasize that World War Two was not the only physical battle that the soldiers and humans of the era had to fight. In order for us to defeat Satan, we must physically defeat him. Gaining energy from our rest and standing upon the promises of God, we take the battle to Satan. We may be beaten and bruised in the end, but ultimately, Satan has already been flung into the Lake of Fire, just as the Un-man was flung into the volcano.

I was reading C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, and something he wrote really connected for me with Williams' Descent into Hell. In The Great Divorce, a busload of people, including Lewis, ride from Hell to Heaven. They get out and look around, trying to decide if they want to stay there or return to Hell. They all meet someone from their lives on Earth who tries to persuade them to choose Heaven. Everything that is beautiful and good in Heaven, though, is painful to the people from Hell--the grass hurts their feet, the light is too bright, etc. Lewis meets George MacDonald in Heaven, and as they watch one man refuse his wife's pleas to choose love and Heaven, Lewis asks why the woman cannot go into Hell to save her husband. MacDonald explains that the tremendous good of Heaven, contained in the woman, could not fit into Hell, and neither could she ever make herself small enough to enter Hell. MacDonald says, "For a damned soul is shrunk, shut up in itself. Good beats upon the damned incessantly as sound waves beat on the ears of the deaf, but they cannot receive it. Their fists are clenched, their teeth are clenched, their eyes fast shut. First they will not, in the end they cannot, open their hands for gifts, or their mouth for food, or their eyes to see."
Still, these people are not unreachable. "Only the Greatest of all can make Himself small enough to enter Hell. For the higher a thing is, the lower it can descend...only One has descended into Hell." This passage really helped me to understand what was playing out in the Williams' novel. As the souls of the characters, especially Wentworth, turn in upon themselves, they are incapable of truly loving or connecting with other humans, just as the man in Heaven is incapable of accepting his wife's love and forgiveness. There is only one, the Greatest, who is able to descend low enough to reach this kind of person. In Williams, that person is Stanhope, and Williams goes one step further in that his "greatest" character is able to give that ability to others who are willing. Still, both for Williams and Lewis, the soul always chooses its damnation. The MacDonald in The Great Divorce says, "There is no spirit in prison to Whom He did not preach."