Category: History

C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien & Naomi Mitchison

On By robstroudIn Advice to Writers, Books, C.S. Lewis, Christian Life, Christianity, Classics Worth Revisiting, Great Authors, History, J.R.R. Tolkien, Literature, Marriage, Modern Life, Narnia, Publishing, Reading, Roman History, Writing2 Comments

Have your feelings about particular authors changed over time? C.S. Lewis’ attitude toward the work of prolific novelist Naomi Mitchison illustrates this type of progression.

Mitchison’s work possesses a direct link to another Oxford Inkling – J.R.R. Tolkien – whose Fellowship of the Ring she read in proof and favorably reviewed. Brenton Dickieson provides a priceless letter written by Tolkien to Mitchison in 1954.

Naomi Mary Margaret Mitchison was a Scottish novelist who lived more than a century (1897 – 1999). She penned more than ninety books, primarily historical fiction, and including science fiction.

With the outbreak of the First World War, Mitchison joined a Voluntary Air Detachment in a London hospital. (Other familiar women who served in a VAD included Agatha Christie and Amelia Earhart.)

Politically she identified as a Socialist. She was sufficiently leftist that George Orwell regarded her as unsuited for writing anti-Soviet materials for the United Kingdom during the Cold War.

Mitchison’s brother, J.B.S. Haldane, did not equivocate on his radical views, announcing his position as a Marxist. He was a scientist and his atheism brought him into serious disagreement with the Christian views of C.S. Lewis. (I will devote my next post to that interaction.)

Coincidentally, artist Pauline Baynes (who also worked with C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien), provided the illustrations for at least one of Mitchison’s children’s books, Graeme and the Dragon. This quick review offers a concise synopsis and discussion of “the charming illustrations [which] go a long way toward making this a fun read.”

An additional coincidence: the same year Lewis published The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Mitchison also published a fantasy novel for children. The Big House involves time travel and some occultic themes associated with Halloween, etc.

For a thorough synopsis of The Big House and comparison to Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, check out this essay from the University of Glasgow. (That reviewer’s preference is clearly for Mitchison’s more complex approach with its themes related to class struggle.)

C.S. Lewis’ Perspective on Naomi Mitchison

I cannot locate any mention of C.S. Lewis by Mitchison, but he did mention her in passing in several pieces of correspondence. In essence, he praised her skill, but was put off by her graphic use of violent imagery.

In a 1932 letter to Arthur Greeves, he writes:

I thought we had talked about Naomi Mitchison before. I have only read one (Black Sparta) and I certainly agree that it ‘holds’ one: indeed I don’t know any historical fiction that is so astonishingly vivid and, on the whole, so true.

I also thought it astonishing how, despite the grimness, she got such an air of beauty–almost dazzling beauty–into it. As to the cruelties, I think her obvious relish is morally wicked, but hardly an artistic fault for she could hardly get some of her effects without it.

But it is, in Black Sparta, a historical falsehood: not that the things she describes did not probably happen in Greece, but that they were not typical–the Greeks being, no doubt, cruel by modern standards, but, by the standards of that age, extremely humane.

She gives you the impression that the cruelty was essentially Greek, whereas it was precisely the opposite. That is, she is unfair as I should be unfair if I wrote a book about some man whose chief characteristic was that he was the tallest of the pigmies, and kept on reminding the reader that he was very short. I should be telling the truth (for of course he would be short by our standards) but missing the real point about the man–viz: that he was, by the standards of his own race, a giant. 

Still, she is a wonderful writer and I fully intend to read more of her when I have a chance.

C.S. Lewis echoed his concern in a 1942 letter to another of his regular correspondents, Sister Penelope. “I gave up Naomi Mitchison some time ago because of her dwelling on scenes of cruelty. But I recognise real imagination and a sort of beauty in the writing.”

In 1951, C.S. Lewis congratulated author Idrisyn Oliver Evans (1894–1977) on the publication of The Coming of a King; A Story of the Stone Age. Ironically, speculative fiction set in this ancient era, referred to as “Prehistoric SF,” was also the setting of works such as H.G. Wells’ Story of the Stone Age series, which you can read here. Naomi Mitchison also dabbled in the prehistoric field. Lewis wrote to Evans: 

I congratulate you. And I think it is a great thing to put that idea of the Stone Age – which is at least as likely to be the true one – into boys’ heads instead of Well’s or Naomi Mitchison’s. It’s all good. The marriage customs are amusing . . . I hope it will be a great success. 

In 1959, C.S. Lewis provided some wise counsel to a young, aspiring author. The American student was contemplating a volume about the Roman subjugation of Gaul, which Lewis encouraged.

A story about Caesar in Gaul sounds very promising. Have you read Naomi Mitchison’s The Conquered? And if not, I wonder should you? It might be too strong an influence if you did (at any rate until your own book is nearly finished). On the other hand, you may need to read it in order to avoid being at any point too like it without knowing you are doing so.

I don’t know what one should read on Gaul. Apart from archaeological finds (Torques and all that) I suppose Caesar himself is our chief evidence? He will be great fun and I hope you will enjoy yourself thoroughly.

Which side will you be on? I’m all for the Gauls myself and I hate all conquerors. But I never knew a woman who was not all for Caesar – just as they were in his life-time.

C.S. Lewis’ most significant mention of Naomi Mitchison occurs in his brief 1943 essay, “Equality.”

It delivers a brilliant discussion of the subject, one that merits full reading. He commends one of Mitchison’s insights into inequality – although, ironically, she relates it to eroticism.* (You must read it in full context to understand how it supports his independent argument.)

This last point needs a little plain speaking. Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal. But Mrs. Naomi Mitchison has laid her finger on the real point. Have as much equality as you please – the more the better – in our marriage laws, but at some level consent to inequality, nay, delight in inequality, is an erotic necessity.

Mrs. Mitchison [in The Home and a Changing Civilization] speaks of women so fostered on a defiant idea of equality that the mere sensation of the male embrace rouses an undercurrent of resentment. Marriages are thus shipwrecked.

A final reference to Mitchison brings us back around to my early note that she reviewed Fellowship of the Ring. C.S. Lewis refers to her review in his own, suggesting that she has not gone quite far enough in her praise.

Nothing quite like it was ever done before. ‘One takes it,’ says Naomi Mitchison, ‘as seriously as Malory.’ But then the ineluctable sense of reality which we feel in the Morte d’Arthur comes largely from the great weight of other men’s work built up century by century, which has gone into it.

The utterly new achievement of Professor Tolkien is that he carries a comparable sense of reality unaided. Probably no book yet written in the world is quite such a radical instance of what its author has elsewhere called ‘sub-creation.’

Sadly, Naomi Mitchison was less enamored with the subsequent volumes in The Lord of the Rings . . . but this post has already condensed more than enough information.

* An article in Michigan Feminist Studies notes how Naomi Mitchison’s recurrent references to sexual themes distracted from broader matters throughout her literary career.

Despite Mitichison’s attempts to move the discussion of her body of work from the salacious, it is the frank and open inclusion of sexuality that continues to intrigue her critics and reviewers. Racy, heated passages of Mitchison’s historical novels inspired comment from poet W.H. Auden in the 1930s (“Monstrous Sex: The Erotic in Naomi Mitchison’s Science Fiction”).

The essay’s thesis is what one might expect in a journal devoted to contemporary feminism.

I intend to demonstrate that the ribald sexuality of Mitchison’s work registers as more than merely provocative. Sexual encounters between female characters and aliens, as well as those between women, threaten an imperialising capitalism that dictates who may be loved in a gendered, racialised order.

Famous People You’ve Known

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, Christian Life, History, Modern Life9 Comments

How many famous people have you met? Perhaps more than you realize, when you consider how in our expanding and complex world a person can achieve relative fame in a given field, while remaining anonymous to most.

Fame is a pretty lame measure of a person’s character or “worth.” Contemporary society lavishes it on “entertainers,” primarily from sports and a variety of media. Even in these highly visible fields, though, there is so much competition for attention that only an anointed few gain recognition beyond their personal fans.

The subject of notoriety is on my mind now due to the traditional January publications of lists of those who passed during the previous year.

I was surprised to see the names of two people I had met and conversed with on World Magazine’s 2024 account. And only a small number of you will recognize either of their names. After all, a figure’s prominence is frequently restricted to a particular audience, and fame, after all, is notoriously fleeting.

Fame, or notoriety, is not the true measure of a man or woman. In fact, as C.S. Lewis wrote, “even posthumous fame depends largely on accident” (English Literature in the Sixteenth Century).

David Soul was an actor and singer who starred in Starsky & Hutch. His song “Don’t Give Up on Us” topped the Billboard charts.

I met Soul back in the late 70s, when he spoke at an environmental conference. His father was also a Lutheran pastor. We were able to chat for a while at several points during the conference.

The other individual I saw on the list was a man I got to know far better.

Jim Otto was a center for the Oakland Raiders. As a teen and young adult, I was impressed by his Hall of Fame performance, and the fact that he never let an injury keep him from playing. In fact, Otto never missed a game during his 1960-1974 football career.

And then there was his unique jersey number, in honor of his name – 00. Here’s what NPR said about this exceptional athlete who had continued actively supporting the Raiders after their relocation to Vegas, and up to this very year:

Otto joined the Raiders for their inaugural season in the American Football League in 1960 and was a fixture on the team for the next 15 years.

He never missed a game because of injuries, competing in 210 consecutive regular-season games and 308 straight total contests despite undergoing nine operations on his knees during his playing career. His right leg was amputated in 2007.

“He’s a warrior,” former Raiders quarterback Rich Gannon once said. “When you think of the old-time, tough Raider, you think of Jim Otto.”

Of course, like all premier athletes who are genuinely good people, Otto may have been a true warrior on the field, but he remained an unpretentious and compassionate person in everyday life.

I got to know him when we served together on a planning team for a major Christian conference in Sacramento. I even visited him in the hospital, along with his own pastor, while he was having back surgery in Los Angeles.

Fame is not Always Beneficial

Fame is not, of course, intrinsically positive. In our modern era, people often gain it for disturbing reasons. And many of those who sought it end up resenting its demands and desiring anonymity.

I would commend to you a prayer I prayed as I composed this post: Thank you, Lord, for shielding me from fame. 

Naturally, if you do happen to find fame unavoidable, you can use it for good purposes, like promoting worthwhile causes. But count me as one of those who is utterly content in simply being trusted (and perhaps even respected), by those who know me best.

We’ll close with another profound thought offered by C.S. Lewis. In a 1949 letter to his friend Don Giovanni Calabria, Lewis described how he felt his literary skills decreasing. And, in genuine humility, he ponders whether it might be a divine blessing for him to lose the public renown which had become a burden.

As for my own work, I would not wish to deceive you with vain hope. I am now in my fiftieth year. I feel my zeal for writing, and whatever talent I originally possessed, to be decreasing; nor (I believe) do I please my readers as I used to. I labour under many difficulties. . . .

These things I write not as complaints but lest you should believe I am writing books. If it shall please God that I write more books, blessed be He. If it shall please Him not, again, blessed be He. Perhaps it will be the most wholesome thing for my soul that I lose both fame and skill lest I were to fall into that evil disease, vainglory.

The great irony here is two-fold. Not only has C.S. Lewis’ reputation continued to grow since his passing, so has Father Calabria’s. In fact, after his own death, Lewis’ friend was canonized a Roman Catholic saint.

I have no doubt that had he been asked if he deserved such an honor, he would have vociferously objected. That is because one essential quality of Christian discipleship is humility. In the Vatican description of his life, it notes “he served all, offering himself to do the most humiliating and courageous tasks.”

Now that is an example well worth following.

C.S. Lewis & Gluttony

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, Christian Life, History, Military Musings, Modern Life, Theological Matters13 Comments

Gluttony. If you were guilty of committing this sin, would you admit it? How, in fact, can we determine whether we (much less someone else) is a glutton? 

And, even if we do fit the description of a glutton, is it all that bad? I mean, it’s not like it is nearly as bad as any of the other so-called “seven deadly sins,” right?

Perhaps C.S. Lewis can offer some illumination on this subject? Our investigation could lead us to a curious, yet edifying, discovery. Just as it enlightened the author of “Ok Google, Who’s Fatter, Me or C.S. Lewis?”

Like many of us, in his prime C.S. Lewis did not consider himself beset with the problem of gluttony. Historically, people have been more physically active when they are young – at least that was true before “addiction” to screens, keyboards and game controls became endemic.

Even a quarter century ago this trend was being seriously studied, as in “Computer Use and Physical Inactivity in Young Adults: Public Health Perils and Potentials of New Information Technologies,” which appeared in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine.

As the capacities of the new information technologies for delivering targeted, tailored health behavior change programs are developed, the issues for physical activity promotion will become particularly salient.

The emerging paradox is that this new behavior setting for physical activity program delivery is also a setting that strongly promotes long periods of sedentariness.

C.S. Lewis, obviously, lived prior to the ravages of this plague. Yet, he was not immune to the temptations of the Seven Eight Deadly Sins, as identified by the Desert Father Evagrius Ponticus.

As already mentioned, C.S. Lewis did not consider himself particularly vulnerable to gluttony. This is illustrated by a witty (and fascinating) postscript to a letter written to his lifelong friend Arthur Greeves in 1930.

P.S. When I said that your besetting sin was Indolence and mine Pride I was thinking of the old classification of the seven deadly sins: They are Gula (Gluttony), Luxuria (Unchastity), Accidia (Indolence), Ira (Anger), Superbia (Pride), Invidia (Envy), Avaricia (Avarice).

Accidia, which is sometimes called Tristicia (despondence) is the kind of indolence which comes from indifference to the good – the mood in which though it tries to play on us we have no string to respond.

Pride, on the other hand, is the mother of all sins, and the original sin of Lucifer – so you are rather better off than I am. You at your worst are an instrument unstrung: I am an instrument strung but preferring to play itself because it thinks it knows the tune better than the Musician.

GULA – J.A.G.
LUXURIA – J.A.G., C.S.L.
ACCIDIA – J.A.G.
IRA – C.S.L.
SUPERBIA – C.S.L.
INVIDIA – C.S.L.
AVARICIA – (neither, I hope)

Two decades later, C.S. Lewis would make a related observation in a letter to his friend Don Giovanni Calabria. Apologizing for the delay of his correspondence, Lewis wrote:

Nothing else was responsible for it except the perpetual labour of writing and (lest I should seem to exonerate myself too much) a certain Accidia [sloth], an evil disease and, I believe, of the Seven Deadly Sins that one which in me is the strongest – though few believe this of me.

Gluttony is Not Synonymous with Being Overweight

I meet few people who do not wish that they weighed a few pounds less than they do. That would include the elder C.S. Lewis. Listen to his self-description in a letter to a young admirer in 1954.

Self-effacing, as always, he said he was nothing special to behold: “I’m tall, fat, rather bald, red-faced, double-chinned, black-haired, have a deep voice, and wear glasses for reading . . .” (I hope this is not the only dimension of Lewis that I come to resemble more as the years pass by.)

The United Kingdom and Ireland have an historically odd manner of assessing a person’s weight. I suspect there is a bit of intentional obfuscation involved when they use the archaic measurement of “stone” rather than pounds or kilograms. 

As Britannica says, “the stone is still commonly used in Britain to designate the weights of people and large animals.” Ironically, babies are not weighed this way, presumably because few of them weigh a full stone – fourteen pounds – at birth.

In the military it was important to remain below your maximum allowable weight. This becomes a problem for a fair number of folks (a dilemma with which I’m personally familiar).

Due to the aforementioned problem with sedentary activities, meeting these height and weight guidelines has become a serious issue for many young recruits.

Still, gluttony is not synonymous with weighing more than is healthy for us. Not so, according to a great column at Intellectual Takeout.

It’s typical to associate gluttony with overconsumption, or, an excess of food or drink. But according to C.S. Lewis, that’s only one form the vice takes. The broader definition of gluttony is any inordinate desire related to food or drink. That includes overconsumption, but it also includes overselectivity regarding the type or quality of food and drink.

Derek Rishmawy discusses this Lewisian distinction as well. 

I have to admit that I struggle with gluttony. Yet those who know me probably wouldn’t suspect it. Indeed, I’m tempted to deny it myself because I don’t tend to have a weight issue . . . All the same, this is a sin I’m beginning to realize I need to be increasingly watchful against.

Of course, that confession only makes sense when you understand that there’s more than one way of being a glutton. I’ll let C.S. Lewis explain what I mean.

He cites Screwtape’s letter to his demonic protégé reveling in one of the seldom noticed “victories” of humanity’s Enemy.

One of the great achievements of the last hundred years has been to deaden the human conscience on that subject, so that by now you will hardly find a sermon preached or a conscience troubled about it in the whole length and breadth of Europe.

This has largely been effected by concentrating all our efforts on gluttony of Delicacy, not gluttony of Excess. Your patient’s mother . . . She would be astonished . . . to learn that her whole life is enslaved to this kind of sensuality, which is quite concealed from her by the fact that the quantities involved are small.

But what do quantities matter, provided we can use a human belly and palate to produce querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern? (The Screwtape Letters)

Now, there is something for us to examine in our own lives.

As for those troubled by their physical weight (be it higher or lower than they would like), I discovered an entertaining site where you can find out how much you would weigh on any of the other planets in our solar system.

Exploratorium lifted my spirits by informing me that on Mars I would weigh a mere 96.1 pounds! And best of all, that’s less than seven stone!

The illustration above is based on a detail from The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things painted c. 1500 by Hieronymus Bosch.

God as the Author of Creation

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, Cartoons with a Message, Christian Life, Christianity, History, Interfaith Issues, Ministry, Modern Life, The Bible, The Future, Theological Matters11 Comments

Satan is powerless versus Christians, especially those who know he exists. Yet, vis-à-vis unbelievers, he “prowls around like [an invisible] lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5). Christian “immunity” to Lucifer’s power, if not his temptations, is due to the indwelling presence of God’s Holy Spirit.

Still, for every human being, whatever their personal belief, the Devil is no mere cartoon, with whom to be trifled. I discussed this briefly in my previous post, “Only God Can Create,” which you might want to read before continuing here.

As for humanity’s vulnerability to the Devil’s influence, the consensus in paradoxically-labeled “enlightened” cultures is that he doesn’t even exist. Sadly, this cosmic lie even tricks self-described “Christians.”

This illusion plays directly into his purposes, as C.S. Lewis described in The Screwtape Letters. Screwtape, a senior demon, instructs his protégée Wormwood in the preferred method of dispelling human wariness about Evil.

The fact that “devils” are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.

Ironically, the populations of less Westernized cultures possess some immunity to this deception. Even in their traditional religions, there is a keen awareness of the existence of evil presences. In the words of The African Study Bible, “we Africans understand instinctively the stories of angelic visitations, spiritual warfare, and demonic oppression that are in the Bible.”

Christians believe in God, not the Devil. While the Scriptures attest to the personal identity of this fallen angel, acknowledgment of his existence is not salvific (i.e. it is not essential to salvation). Thus, C.S. Lewis is correct in his 1944 essay “Answers to Questions on Christianity” when he writes:

No reference to the Devil or devils is included in any Christian Creeds, and it is quite possible to be a Christian without believing in them. I do believe such beings exist, but that is my own affair.

Supposing there to be such beings, the degree to which humans were conscious of their presence would presumably vary very much. I mean, the more a man was in the Devil’s power, the less he would be aware of it, on the principle that a man is still fairly sober as long as he knows he’s drunk. It is the people who are fully awake and trying hard to be good who would be most aware of the Devil. It is when you start arming against Hitler that you first realize your country is full of Nazi agents.

Of course, they don’t want you to believe in the Devil. If devils exist, their first aim is to give you an anaesthetic – to put you off your guard. Only if that fails, do you become aware of them.

On the Matter of Creative Power

Only God can create. That was the core message of our previous discussion. C.S. Lewis recognized, as do biblically-grounded believers, that Satan is merely a sinful, fallen being, little different from humanity in that regard. This truth shatters the pagan philosophy of dualism, or the misguided notion that two equal and opposite forces (e.g. good and evil) exist in some sort of equilibrium. 

In “The Seeing Eye,” C.S. Lewis described the way in which God is beyond his creation. 

Looking for God – or Heaven – by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare’s plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters . . . Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady Macbeth. . . .

If there were an idiot who thought plays existed on their own, without an author . . . our belief in Shakespeare would not be much affected by his saying, quite truly, that he had studied all the plays and never found Shakespeare in them. . . .

My point is that, if God does exist, He is related to the universe more as an author is related to a play than as one object in the universe is related to another. If God created the universe, He created space-time, which is to the universe as the metre is to a poem or the key is to music.

To look for Him as one item within the framework which He Himself invented is nonsensical. If God – such a God as any adult religion believes in – exists, mere movement in space will never bring you any nearer to Him or any farther from Him than you are at this very moment. You can neither reach Him nor avoid Him by travelling to Alpha Centauri or even to other galaxies.

Mark Twain’s Divinized Satan

I had intended to mention Samuel Clemens in my previous article, as one who advanced the assertion that Satan possesses creative ability. Whether Twain regarded the Devil as an actual entity is certainly debatable. What is undeniable, however, is his devoted defense of Lucifer.

As Twain famously wrote in his autobiographical writings, “But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?” 

Mark Twain was (in)famous for his atheism, or his agnostic antipathy of the Christian understanding of our Creator. Not content to disbelieve, Samuel Clemens actively worked to undermine Christian faith. One of his books, Letters from the Earth, had to be printed posthumously, due its irreverent (or blasphemous) nature.

It bears a superficial resemblance to C.S. Lewis’ amazing Screwtape Letters – insofar as both fictional works present themselves as demonic correspondence. 

The similarity ends there. While Lewis provides keen insight into Evil’s tactics in wreaking havoc in human lives, Twain’s letters present Satan in a positive, even noble, light.

Letters from the Earth is only one of Mark Twain’s anti-Christian works. The Mysterious Stranger is one of his most bizarre. It evidences his long-term preoccupation with Satan, in that it was composed (in various versions) between 1897 and 1908.

The first serious rendition, The Chronicle of Young Satan, was completed in 1900. I mention it here because there is a scene in which the Devil “creates” a miniature world. Obviously it errs in attributing to Lucifer the power to create life – but to its credit, it does reveal Satan as a capricious, vain, cruel, and compassionless lord.

In 1985 a claymation film was released titled The Adventures of Mark Twain. It features the mock scene from Chronicle of Young Satan. It is quite disturbing. However, if one is curious about the subject, and wishes to be forearmed regarding such deceptions, you can view the excerpt here.

Especially for those who do choose to view Twain’s portrayal of the Devil in his fictional “youth,” I desire to end our current discussion on a positive note.

Claymation was also the medium for a long-lived Christian television series. Davey & Goliath, the story of a regular kid and his dog, ran between 1964 and 1975. Many of the episodes can be seen here.

And finally (and forever), we can celebrate with C.S. Lewis the wonder that this world we currently inhabit will not be God’s sole creation. In fact, because of Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice, we can look forward to a new cosmos, untainted by sin.

The New Testament writers speak as if Christ’s achievement in rising from the dead was the first event of its kind in the whole history of the universe. He is the “first fruits”, the “pioneer of life”.

He has forced open a door that has been locked since the death of the first man. He has met, fought, and beaten the King of Death. Everything is different because He has done so. This is the beginning of the New Creation: a new chapter in cosmic history has opened (Miracles).

C.S. Lewis, Stereotypes & Polarization

On By robstroudIn Advice to Readers, Advice to Writers, C.S. Lewis, C.S. Lewis & the Inklings, Cartoons with a Message, Military History, Modern Life, Writing11 Comments

Do you think in terms of stereotypes? Be careful before answering, since nary an adult is free of them. (Case in point, you may well have preconceptions or prejudices about a writer who would use the word “nary” in an opening sentence.)

Stereotyping is common, despite the fact most of us would disavow its use. Most of us would agree with C.S. Lewis who described how stereotypes bar us from embracing new knowledge. In his inaugural lecture on the faculty of Cambridge University, he cautioned that “a stereotyped image can obliterate a man’s own experience” (“De Desciptione Temporum”).

Oddly, while most of us would intuit that thinking stereotypically is a pattern for “the less intelligent,” it appears the reverse is true. According to one study,

Superior cognitive abilities are often associated with positive outcomes, such as academic achievement and social mobility . . . However, our work shows that some cognitive abilities can have negative consequences – specifically, that people who are adept at detecting patterns are especially quick to learn and apply social stereotypes.

Fortunately, although “people with better pattern detection abilities are at greater risk of picking up on and applying stereotypes about social groups,” there is still hope for those “afflicted” with cognitive skill. Fortunately, “these individuals are better able to diminish their stereotyping when presented with new patterns that challenge existing stereotypical associations.”

Another study argues that “our brains want our expectations to be supported . . . Because of that reward engagement, we can start becoming addicted, in a way, to stereotyping.” The researchers offer this suggestion for combatting the addiction: “simply understanding that this happens is an important way to check those assumptions and not let them influence your judgment.”

Generalizing by way of stereotypes can indeed be addictive, if its endemic presence in western culture is any indication. In America, for example, if there is ever a season when nasty stereotypes run unbridled, it is during political campaigns. Especially during presidential elections, where a person of faith would hope to witness the greatest amount of compassion and earnest intercession for God’s guidance.

Stereotypes give way to even uglier projections when we come to despise others. Several years ago I wrote an article about how wartime propaganda often strives to portray a nation’s enemies as evil, and unworthy of treatment in a humane way. It is titled “Demonizing Our Enemies & Dehumanizing Ourselves.”

When nations war, it is in the interests of the leaders of the opposing causes to engage their people in that effort heart, mind and (if possible) soul. A soldier who cognitively recognizes the need for fighting, but does not  possess a visceral animus for the foe, will only be a half-hearted warrior.

On the other hand, if rulers can generate a mental and emotional disgust, or even hatred, for the enemy, they have a winning formula. Soldiers who not only understand their cause, but also desire the utter destruction of their opponent, are single-minded in their purpose. Such fighters win wars.

You can see this sort of us/them polarization during peacetime too, even in non-election years. Sadly, it seems to be manifesting more and more frequently. And, surprisingly, it appears to have become just as common within national populations, as in international contexts. The results can be catastrophic, which is why First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt pled: 

Pit race against race, religion against religion, prejudice against prejudice. Divide and conquer! We must not let that happen here.

Stereotyping the Inklings

Although none of the Inklings have been spared, I believe C.S. Lewis has been the subject of the worst stereotyping. (I have an educated suspicion why that is true.)

Diana Pavlac Glyer has an excellent article which addresses this injustice head on.

There’s a rumor going around that C. S. Lewis was an irritable introvert, isolated and lonely and scared to death of girls. Maybe it all comes from some grim stereotype of smart people or college professors or, maybe, published writers.

That whole image is completely wrong. Lewis wasn’t an introvert. Or a loner. No – he was a large man with a booming voice, a hearty laugh, a robust enjoyment of everyday life. And that is why he was a man with friends.

At A Pilgrim in Narnia, Brenton Dickieson dispels another common misperception of the great author – that he was narrow-minded. 

So much of C.S. Lewis’ uniqueness comes down to his sheer love of diversity. He loved variability, colour, the exchange, the alienation of encounter and unity with others. His weird dystopia That Hideous Strength was, in many ways, a protest against the tendency of totalitarianism to create monoculture by erasing the individual. . . .

Lewis loved difference and diversity and freedom of expression–doctrines in danger in today’s culture war. It doesn’t take long within any of today’s major social movements to find out that diversity is fine and great as long as everyone acts like us or looks like us or thinks like us or uses the same secret words we use.

Most readers of Mere Inkling would be exceptions to the rule that human beings (especially those with “superior cognitive abilities”) default to stereotyping. Most of you, I sincerely believe, share my appreciation for respectful conversation and debate with others who do not share my opinions. 

Such interaction – with unique individuals, and not cardboard caricatures – often result in my own growth. And I dare to hope that those with whom I dialog might also feel the same.

C.S. Lewis, Liturgy & a Dash of Theology

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, Christian Life, Christianity, Church History, History, Latin, Ministry, Modern Life, Music, The Bible9 Comments

C.S. Lewis wrote: “There is no subject in the world (always excepting sport) on which I have less to say than liturgiology” (Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer).

In Christian usage, the word “liturgy” – derived from leitourgia, and translated “work of the people” or “work for the people” – corresponds to the public worship service.

For some, “liturgy” is regarded as a negative word. It may evoke, in such cases, a sense of sterile ritual or what the Scriptures refer to (in the King James Version) as “vain repetitions” (Matthew 6). The irony is that human beings generally prefer familiarity, and almost all worship is essentially liturgical. 

Nondenominational churches sometimes claim they do not possess a liturgy. In truth, every nonspontaneous worship experience possesses liturgical elements. They may be simple – a welcome or greeting followed by music, prayer, the reading of a Bible passage, often followed by some form of sermon or reflection. Oh, and for American Protestants at least, it appears most consider “announcements” are essential to worship services.

The particular elements vary, but the “liturgical” aspects, normally occur in the same sequence at regular services.

C.S. Lewis was a faithful member of the Church of England. He was also respectful of tradition, and genuinely content with the Book of Common Prayer. While he did not prefer conventional church hymnody, he acknowledged that it blessed others. In “The Classical Anglicanism of C.S. Lewis,” the author says Lewis challenged “the assumptions of a liberal theology which undermined the Church’s confidence in its proclamation” of the Gospel. However, he continues, Lewis “was no reactionary.”

C.S. Lewis loved the simplicity of church worship in its unostentatious form. That was one reason he faithfully attended services at his modest local parish. He referred to himself as a “very ordinary layman.” This was his humble confession, although there was precious little about the scholar that was “ordinary.” Still, he was reticent to comment on ecclesiastical subjects where he possessed no expertise. Thus his complacency with time proven liturgical matters, and his academic disinterest in commenting on them formally.

This, of course, did not apply to theological truths such as the doctrinal core of “Mere Christianity.” C.S. Lewis was deeply troubled by challenges to historic Christian orthodoxy. His devotion to the faith he had once rejected forced him to come to its defense when theologians diverged from “the path of life” (Psalm 16).

In 1959, C.S. Lewis delivered an address now entitled “Fern Seed and Elephants.” It is profound. [You can listen to a reading of “Fern Seed and Elephants” at C.S. Lewis Essays.]

Invited to speak to some clergy about the threat of liberal theologies undermining the Christian faith, Lewis begins by acknowledging his lack of formal theological training.

I am a sheep, telling shepherds what only a sheep can tell them. And now I begin my bleating.

Many of us who have attended seminary, can attest to his fear that what passes for illumination is too often the opposite.

I find in these theologians a constant use of the principle that the miraculous does not occur. Thus any statement put into our Lord’s mouth by the old texts, which, if he had really made it, would constitute a prediction of the future, is taken to have been put in after the occurrence which it seemed to predict.

This is very sensible if we start by knowing that inspired prediction can never occur. Similarly in general, the rejection as unhistorical of all passages which narrate miracles is sensible if we start by knowing that the miraculous in general never occurs.

Now I do not here want to discuss whether the miraculous is possible. I only want to point out that this is a purely philosophical question. Scholars, as scholars, speak on it with no more authority than anyone else. The canon ‘If miraculous, then unhistorical’ is one they bring to their study of the texts, not one they have learned from it.

If one is speaking of authority, the united authority of all the biblical critics in the world counts here for nothing. On this they speak simply as men; men obviously influenced by, and perhaps insufficiently critical of, the spirit of the age they grew up in.

In Lewis’ The Great Divorce, he describes just such a theologian. If you would like to read my article on this subject, “Confused Clerics: The Landlord’s Stewards in C.S. Lewis’s The Pilgrim’s Regress,” just click on the article’s title.

C.S. Lewis ends his essay “Fern Seeds and Elephants” with a sort of apology. Yet, despite his reluctance to venture into the ecclesiastical realm, he shares the compulsion of the Prophet Jeremiah to speak truth. The prophet, who suffered greatly for his faithfulness, said “If I say, ‘I will not mention [God], or speak any more in his name,’ there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot” (Jeremiah 20).

Missionary to the priests of one’s own church is an embarrassing role; though I have a horrid feeling that if such mission work is not soon undertaken the future history of the Church of England is likely to be short.

More Liturgical Wisdom from C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis did not begin his vocation as a voice of reason for the clergy when he wrote this essay. On the contrary, his concern for the erosion of sound theology began much earlier. A decade earlier he weighed in on a public discussion of arbitrary liturgical changes in the church. Lewis’ concerns at that time remain valid, more than seventy years later.

Sir,– I agree with Dean Hughes that the connection of belief and liturgy is close, but doubt if it is ‘inextricable.’ I submit that the relation is healthy when liturgy expresses the belief of the Church, morbid when liturgy creates in the people by suggestion beliefs which the Church has not publicly professed, taught, and defended.

If the mind of the Church is, for example, that our fathers erred in abandoning the Romish invocations of saints and angels, by all means let our corporate recantation, together with its grounds in scripture, reason and tradition be published, our solemn act of penitence be performed, the laity re-instructed, and the proper changes in liturgy be introduced.

What horrifies me is the proposal that individual priests should be encouraged to behave as if all this had been done when it has not been done.

One correspondent compared such changes to the equally stealthy and (as he holds) irresistible changes in a language. But that is just the parallel that terrifies me, for even the shallowest philologist knows that the unconscious linguistic process is continually degrading good words and blunting useful distinctions. Absit omen!

Whether an ‘enrichment’ of liturgy which involves a change of doctrine is allowable, surely depends on whether our doctrine is changing from error to truth or from truth to error. Is the individual priest the judge of that? (Church Times, 1 July 1949).

In The Screwtape Letters, an experienced devilish tempter is training a subordinate. In Letter XVI, he discusses attending a church with which his target “is not wholly pleased.”

Laying aside the matter of the futility of ever finding a perfect church – after all, they are made up of people – the letter cautions us about some of the criticisms related to the topic at hand. Since many aspects of Screwtape’s vile advice relate to our own vulnerabilities, I will close with an admittedly lengthy excerpt from the correspondence.

My dear Wormwood, You mentioned casually in your last letter that the patient has continued to attend one church, and one only, since he was converted, and that he is not wholly pleased with it. May I ask what you are about? Why have I no report on the causes of his fidelity to the parish church? Do you realise that unless it is due to indifference it is a very bad thing?

Surely you know that if a man can’t be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighbourhood looking for the church that ‘suits’ him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches. The reasons are obvious. In the first place the parochial organisation should always be attacked, because, being a unity of place and not of likings, it brings people of different classes and psychology together in the kind of unity the Enemy [in Screwtape’s case, the Enemy to whom he refers, is God] desires. The congregational principle, on the other hand, makes each church into a kind of club, and finally, if all goes well, into a coterie or faction.

In the second place, the search for a ‘suitable’ church makes the man a critic where the Enemy wants him to be a pupil. . . . [One nearby congregation boasts a] Vicar is a man who has been so long engaged in watering down the faith to make it easier for a supposedly incredulous and hard-headed congregation that it is now he who shocks his parishioners with his unbelief, not vice versa. He has undermined many a soul’s Christianity. His conduct of the services is also admirable. In order to spare the laity all ‘difficulties’ he has deserted both the lectionary and the appointed psalms and now, without noticing it, revolves endlessly round the little treadmill of his fifteen favourite psalms and twenty favourite lessons. . . .

[While encouraging church shopping], all the purely indifferent things – candles and clothes and what not – are an admirable ground for our activities. We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials – namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples.

You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the ‘low’ churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his ‘high’ brother should be moved to irreverence, and the ‘high’ one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his ‘low’ brother into idolatry.

And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility.

C.S. Lewis & Assassinations

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, Christianity, Church History, Classics Worth Revisiting, History, Islam, Military History, Modern Life, Roman History, Theological Matters13 Comments

The brilliant author C.S. Lewis died on the same day that an American president was assassinated. The violent death of John F. Kennedy in November of 1963 eclipsed Lewis’ own passing, so many people were unaware of it for some time. Yet on that autumn day, both Camelot and Narnia lost their inspirations.

Unfortunately, Kennedy’s shooting was not the only political assassination that was connected in a manner to C.S. Lewis’ life. Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria was the heir apparent to the throne of Austria-Hungary. A nineteen year old political activist cold-bloodedly murdered the archduke and his wife, Sofie.

Franz and Sophie had married for love, despite her inadequate social rank, which resulted in a morganatic marriage. In recent years such unions have become more common, but at the time, it was a serious matter. The archduke was forced by his uncle, the emperor, to accept that their descendants would never have a right to the throne.

In a convoluted fashion, Ferdinand’s death nearly led to C.S. Lewis’ own. The 1914 assassination was the spark that set the globe on fire during the First World War. And, during that grim conflict, C.S. Lewis was severely wounded by an artillery shell that killed friends standing nearby.

“The Causes and Impact of Political Assassinations” was published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. It begins with the fact that “political assassinations have been part of social reality since the emergence of communal social frameworks . . .” And so, since social frameworks will forever exist, they continue.

Humanity’s Violent History

Assassination has been a relatively common practice throughout human history. This shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows the sad story of Abel and his angry brother, Cain. 

Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, was killed attending the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra (no, not that Cleopatra). Later Cleopatra, as a widow, would be assassinated herself by one of her unsuccessful suitors.

Three centuries later, Julius Caesar was murdered by the political elite of Rome, who feared his growing influence. And in 453, one of Rome’s greatest enemies, Attila the Hun, was arguably murdered on his wedding night by his new bride, Ildico.

Several assassinations are recorded in the Bible. Over such a lengthy and turbulent historical period, that is unsurprising. The two excerpts below have links to the fuller accounts.

[Canaanite general] Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. And Jael came out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord; turn aside to me; do not be afraid.” So he [entered] the tent, and she covered him with a rug. . . . And he said to her, “Stand at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is anyone here?’ say, ‘No.’” But Jael the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness (Judges 4).

Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa did not observe the sword that was in Joab’s hand. So Joab struck him with it in the stomach and spilled his entrails to the ground without striking a second blow, and he died (2 Samuel 20).

As a sort of counterbalance to these “positive” instances – elimination of Israel’s enemies – you may want to read about King David’s condemnation of the assassinations of his political rivals, men to whom he would have extended mercy. When two brothers sought a reward for murdering King Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, David declared “when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood at your hand and destroy you from the earth?” (2 Samuel 4).

All told, however, there was much violence in the ancient world. As C.S. Lewis’ wife, Joy Davidman, wrote in Smoke on the Mountain: An Interpretation of the Ten Commandments in Terms of Today:

How the ancient Jews did slaughter! They killed in hot blood and in cold; they killed for loot, for God, and for fun. . . . The tribes killed . . . by political assassination as when Ehud stabbed King Eglon in his fat belly . . . [The graphic story of Eglon’s assassination is detailed in Judges 3.]

Another historically consequential assassination occurred in the year 661, when Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib was slain with a poison-coated sword while praying in the Great Mosque of Kufa. This incident caused Islam to separate into two major denominations, and Sunni-Shia relations continue to be contentious.

In the modern era, political murders remain unabated. Vladimir Putin  may be the current master of the deadly art. Even discounting the growing number of “suicides” among his advisers and generals following his ill-advised invasion of Ukraine, we have the case of Alexei Navalny. Navalny was one of Putin’s critics who in 2020 survived poisoning with Novichok nerve agent. Nevertheless, imprisoned in the arctic, he later died under extremely suspicious circumstances. 

In the western hemisphere, the recent attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump invites a review of the danger of serving in that particular office. Despite the (obvious) risk of inviting non-Americans to mock the United States, consider a few facts.

  • Since 1789 (when the office was established) we have had 45 presidents
  • Four sitting presidents have been assassinated while in office
  • Three other presidents (one while in office) were wounded in assassination attempts

Assassination During the Protestant Reformation

In C.S. Lewis’ landmark tome English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, recalls a peculiar passage from the History of the Reformation of Religion within the Realm of Scotland. The author, John Knox refers to the murder of Scotland’s last pre-Reformation Roman Catholic cardinal. It would be more than four centuries before the Pope appointed another.

In the cast of [Knox’s] mind, too, there is something not unlike Tacitus’ sombre pungency, though Knox’s humour, as becomes a countryman of Dunbar, is more boisterous and ferocious.

Sometimes, indeed, it is so ferocious that we should not recognize it at all if we were not told; as when after describing the murder of Cardinal Beaton down to the last grim detail of packing the corpse in salt (‘the wether was hote’) he proceeds, ‘These things we wreat mearelie: but we wold that the reader should observe Goddis just judgementis.’

He was apparently afraid lest the fun of the thing might lead us to forget that even an assassination may have its serious side.

Quite true. An assassination, even of a despised ruler such as Adolf Hitler, remains a serious matter.

Military Hymns & Ents

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, C.S. Lewis & the Inklings, Christianity, Church History, History, J.R.R. Tolkien, Middle Earth, Military History, Modern Life, Theological Matters12 Comments

The United States is schizophrenic about its religious heritage, and the armed forces provide us with today’s example. Most people, including veterans themselves, are unaware of the fact that while we have official songs for the different branches of the armed forces, we don’t have any official hymns.

C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, both combat veterans, were quite familiar with martial music. However, as members of a (nominally) Christian kingdom, neither would have been uncomfortable with explicitly Christian elements in their military’s hymnody. Across the ocean in the former colonies, it’s a different matter. 

Here, the confusion about the “official” status of religious military hymns abounds because spiritual hymnody has been part of our nation’s martial history ever since the colonies decided to band together and seek independence. Yet, some consider that to be unlawful.

The rejection of music expressing faith in God can be attributed to the modern crusade against such hymns by strident anti-theists. Many in this camp are practicing atheists, who misinterpret the two clauses of the First Amendment which the nation’s founders did not consider mutually exclusive. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

Since most of the creators of the Constitution – and the majority of American citizens up to this day – have been theists (believing in a Supreme Being), it is self-evident that they did not intend to exorcise all expressions of faith from the public forum. Some states, in fact, already had their own “established churches when the First Amendment was ratified.”

Up until this generation, generic references to a heavenly Father or a benevolent Creator have traditionally remained welcome at civic events.

Even the non-Christian Thomas Jefferson (who argued against religious establishment) was essentially a Deist, acknowledging “the god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time . . .”

Jefferson even edited the New Testament Gospels, deleting “objectionable passages” and producing his personally-sanctioned Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. 

So, What about the Music?

My goal is not to discuss the First Amendment per se – though I included the introductory note above for the benefit of the many international readers who find their way to Mere Inkling.

Rather, I wish to discuss the premise above, that America celebrates generally secular martial music, while remaining wary of military hymnody with religious themes. 

Ironically, soldiers throughout the nation’s history passively assumed that the songs they heard at rallies and civic events had the government’s tacit imprimatur, that was questionable. Take the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” for example. Composed in 1861 by abolitionist Julia Ward Howe, Union soldiers would have been shocked to learn that some would deem its use in the ranks as a violation of the First Amendment.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal;”
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.

Modern Military Hymns

The Department of Defense hosts a website titled Guide to U.S. Military Bands and Music. It describes the wide repertoire of military musicians. 

Whether you like jazz music, a marching band or orchestra music, the U.S. military has you covered. Each branch of the military boasts a diverse offering of musical talent that serves for ceremonial purposes but also for entertainment and outreach. Check out these bands to stay in tune with military music.

One Christian hymn has deep roots in the military community. The song traditionally referred to as “The Navy Hymn” in America, originated in Britain. It is also used by the French. Its maritime themes make it popular in civilian communities as well. 

Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm does bind the restless wave,
Who bids the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
O hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in peril on the sea.

O Savior, whose almighty word
The winds and waves submissive heard,
Who walked upon the foaming deep,
And calm amid the rage did sleep;
O hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in peril on the sea.

“There exist a myriad of alternate verses to the hymn. One, for example, was written by David B. Miller in 1965 and specially dedicated to naval submariners.”

Musicians were not just present for official ceremonies and off-duty entertainment. They could also inspire the troops in the violent din of battle. More common in distant ages, even in twentieth century Europe, we find a dramatic illustration.

In the military archives of the Irish Republican Army, Michael J. Crowley described the inspiration provided by the brigade’s musician in the heat of the battle called the “Battle of Crossbarry” and the “Crossbarry Ambush,” by the IRA and the Brits respectively.

From the opening shot of the engagement, our piper, Florrie Begley of Brandon, played warlike airs on the bagpipes until the last shot was fired.

The illustration above provides an idealized portrait of military musicians bravely facing enemy fire. “The Spirit of ’76,” painted for the centenary of the American Revolution, met with tepid enthusiasm during the 1876 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. However, it rose in popularity when it subsequently toured the country.

For centuries, armies used music as the means to communicate the military orders of the day to soldiers. The high pitch of the fife and the sharp sound of the drum allowed messages to be heard at great distance . . .

Leaping from the Revolution to the twenty-first century, the recently birthed United States Space Force now has a hymn. Well, sort of. It is an unsolicited hymn composed by a former Air Force officer. You can hear “Creator of the Universe” here.

For more space music, check out the official anthem of “the mighty watchful eye.” Some consider this proposed anthem far more inspiring.

My personal favorite is the version of the Space Force Anthem proposed by its original, cinematic commander, General Naird, played by Steve Carell. (Carell even plays his own fife in the episode.)

The Middle Earth Military March

Howard Shore composed a powerful soundtrack for Lord of the Rings. Yet he wasn’t the first to create music for the great saga. One Tolkienist writes:

My first contact with Tolkien-inspired music dates back to the late 1980s . . . I was watching TV with my parents seeing a performance of Military Bands. Later I would discover that it was the Dutch composer Johan de Meij’s Symphony No. 1 (The Lord of the Rings) I’d heard.

From among the ranks of the Inklings, only one writer wrote an explicit military song. J.R.R. Tolkien provided the timeless Ents with a somber marching song as they face the powers of Isengard.

We come, we come with roll of drum: ta-runda runda runda rom!
We come, we come with horn and drum: ta-rūna rūna rūna rom!

To Isengard! Though Isengard be ringed and barred with doors of stone;
Though Isengard be strong and hard, as cold as stone and bare as bone,
We go, we go, we go to war, to hew the stone and break the door;
For bole and bough are burning now, the furnace roars – we go to war!
To land of gloom with tramp of doom, with roll of drum, we come, we come;
To Isengard with doom we come!
With doom we come, with doom we come!

If you have a moment, you will likely enjoy the performance of this song as arranged by Clamavi De Profundis.

Tinker Bell, the Inklings, and Disney

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, Classics Worth Revisiting, Films, Great Authors, Humor, J.R.R. Tolkien, Likely Useless Trivia, Literature, Middle Earth, Modern Life, Mythology, Narnia, Nature, Publishing, The Future, Writing4 Comments

Poor Tinker Bell. The political prejudices of our day have caught up with the sparkling fairy, and relegated her to a significantly reduced presence in the Disney universe.

Inside the Magic reported “Tinker Bell seems to have left Walt Disney World and is now on her way back to Neverland following a recent change at Walt Disney World Resort.” You can read the tragic tale on their site.

. . . once more, Disney’s animated classic, Peter Pan (1953), is under scrutiny, with Disney issuing a statement regarding Captain Hook and Tinker Bell as characters with potential concerns.

Linking poor Tink to a murderous pirate seems a bit of a stretch, and she has not been fully banished, but she has definitely been demoted. According to TMZ, Disney alleges the company’s “own people felt she wasn’t a good role model for girls in the 21st century.”

Well, eventually she too will be in the public domain, like Mickey Mouse. Actually, her literary portrait as introduced in the play, coincidentally just entered the public domain this year (2024)!

However, should you reside in the United Kingdom, beware that in 1988, the copyright holder, Great Ormond Street Hospital, was granted the rights to Peter Pan “in perpetuity.”

The Creator of Tinker Bell & Peter Pan

Tinker Bell is one of the most memorable characters in Neverland, the creation of James Matthew Barrie (1860-1937). He was a prolific Scottish writer and is best known for his 1911 novel, Peter and Wendy – which initially debuted in the form of a stage play in 1904, as Peter Pan; or, the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up.

Peter Pan was actually introduced to the world as a baby in The Little White Bird. Tinker Bell does not appear in the novel, but the following description of J.M. Barrie’s fairy mythology is quite fanciful.

One of the great differences between the fairies and us is that they never do anything useful. When the first baby laughed for the first time, his laugh broke into a million pieces, and they all went skipping about. That was the beginning of fairies.

They look tremendously busy, you know, as if they had not a moment to spare, but if you were to ask them what they are doing, they could not tell you in the least. They are frightfully ignorant, and everything they do is make-believe.

They have a postman, but he never calls except at Christmas with his little box, and though they have beautiful schools, nothing is taught in them; the youngest child being chief person is always elected mistress, and when she has called the roll, they all go out for a walk and never come back.

It is a very noticeable thing that, in fairy families, the youngest is always chief person, and usually becomes a prince or princess; and children remember this, and think it must be so among humans also, and that is why they are often made uneasy when they come upon their mother furtively putting new frills on the basinette.

Barrie continues, describing how infants are simply following fairy “ways” when they misbehave, and they naturally experience “exasperation, because we don’t understand [them], though [they are] talking an intelligible language . . . fairy.”

Returning to the person of Tinker Bell herself, she outgrew her supporting role as, in the words of her creator, “a common fairy.” She was literally a tinker, who died following the departure of Wendy and her brothers from Neverland. 

Presumably, some of the gatekeepers at Disney would have preferred that the affection of the crowds had not restored her to life. 

The Inklings

The Imaginative Conservative offers an interesting take on C.S. Lewis’ view of fairies. I quote a portion related to our present subject.

Lewis treats the subject of fairies in . . . The Discarded Image. . . . After explaining the medieval understanding of the heavens and planetary systems, Lewis turns to what he calls the Longaevi. He avoids the term “fairies” because it is “tarnished by pantomime and bad children’s books with worse illustrations.” (Probably referring to Barrie’s popular play and Princess Mary’s Gift Book – the book from which Elsie and Frances clipped the pictures they used in their fake photos.)

Jane Douglass, an American actress and playwright, contributed a fascinating essay to C.S. Lewis at the Breakfast Table, and Other Reminiscences. One wonderful portion of “An Enduring Friendship” describes Lewis’ thoughts about the possible dramatization of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. 

C.S. Lewis deemed the prospect absurd on its face, saying “I believe plays should be plays, poems, poems, novels, novels, stories, stories, and certainly the book you mention is pure narrative.” So much for a partially surviving 1967 series, the 1979 animation, the 1988 BBC television series, and the cinematic version(s) which began in 2005. Oh, and there is the matter of the impending Netflix telling which remains a closely guarded secret. Douglass continued with a reference to Disney.

He repeated his dread of such things as radio and television apparatus and expressed his dislike of talking films. I said I quite understood this, and that nothing would distress me more than that he should think that I had in mind anything like the Walt Disney shows; I hoped nobody had suggested the book to Mr. Disney.

This seemed to relieve Mr. Lewis to such an extent that I thought perhaps Mr. Disney had been after the book, but of course I did not ask. And in his usual generous way, Mr. Lewis said, “Too bad we didn’t know Walt Disney before he was spoiled, isn’t it?”

Author Jim Denney has a nice article on “What C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien Thought of Walt Disney” in which he describes parallels between the live of Lewis and Disney and concludes, “you might think that, with all that C.S. Lewis and Walt Disney had in common, they might have been mutual admirers – but that was not the case.”

Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs debuted in the United States in 1937 and in the United Kingdom in 1938. . . . A few months later, Lewis went to see it again, this time with his good friend (and fellow Oxford professor) J.R.R. Tolkien.

Coincidentally, Tolkien’s first novel The Hobbit had been published in September 1937, just three months before the American debut of Snow White.

Their greatest disappointment was in Disney’s utterly comical take on dwarves and the absence of the slightest air of “the mythic nobility of the dwarves from Germanic folklore.”

Although Snow White is itself a fairy tale, fairy characters are not to be found in the film. In the same way, J.R.R. Tolkien referred to the Lord of the Rings as a “fairy story” for adults, yet they do not appear to dwell in Middle Earth.

In fact, according to The Encyclopedia of Arda, “the name ‘Faerie’ belongs to an early period of Tolkien’s writings, and is never seen in The Lord of the Rings, but it does survive in a single usage in the earlier book The Hobbit.” And even in that case, it refers not to a population, but to a place.

On the Effect of Tinker Bell

Tinker Bell’s significance in the world is not confined to literature, or the interests of children. There is a brilliant application of her legend which has been transposed into the psychological realm. 

It’s call the “Tinker Bell Effect,” and “Be(lie)ve It or Not,” from Psychology Today, offers the following description.

One theory manifesting connections among belief, psychology, and mythology is the Tinkerbell effect named for the fairy Tinker Bell of Peter Pan whose resuscitation depends upon the audience expressing their belief in fairies through clapping . . .

The Tinkerbell effect refers to those things that exist only through imaginative acts and because people believe in them. The Reverse Tinkerbell effect maintains that, somewhat paradoxically, the more people believe in something the more likely it is to disappear. 

In their article, the psychologists parenthetically offer an additional application of Tinker Bell’s nature to their area of study. (It actually appears in the paragraph above, where I replaced it with an ellipsis.)

(because she is so small that she can only hold one feeling at a time, Tinkerbell is also a model for mood disorders and difficulties with emotional self-regulation)

Fascinating. It seems to me this insight opens the door to further literary exploration of the Tinker Bell Phenomenon that would be of interest to writers and literary critics alike. I close with my proposal for a new label for an ancient plague afflicting fictional works. If it interests any scholars among you, I invite you to develop it further and claim it as your own.

Tinker Bell (var. Tinkerbell) Crippling Character Creation Complete Content Complexity Phenomenon: The invention of fictional characters who lack depth and bear no resemblance to real people. Literary tropes that are often referred to as one-dimensional or “flat” characters. (See nearly all Marvel supervillains.)

P.S. – Feel free to abbr. the admittedly verbose proposed title; keeping in mind most readers prefer brief reads.

Individualism, License Plates & C.S. Lewis

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, C.S. Lewis & the Inklings, Christian Life, Humor, Military History, Military Musings, Modern Life, Potentially Useful Trivia, Words5 Comments

One of the peculiar things about the United States is the extreme degree to which people are driven to stand out from the crowd. We are able to do this with our automobiles, for example, in a rather odd way.

C.S. Lewis was immune to the temptation discussed here, since he was never a fan of cars, as I discussed in “C.S. Lewis & Automobiles.”

In his autobiography, Lewis declared “I number it among my blessings that my father had no car, while yet most of my friends had, and sometimes took me for a drive.” Those who are curious about Lewis’ dichotomy concerning vehicles, should refer to that post.

I don’t know how many other countries do this, but in most of the United States states, people have the option of getting random numbers and letters on their license plates – or opting for so-called vanity plates.

These individually emblazoned metallic placards perform a sort of Third Estate heraldic device. They often include variations on surnames or words significant to the bearer.

Obviously, offensive words are prohibited, but they are frequently quite creative. Here are a few examples: SO 4CHN8 and its opposite, EN-V ~  GONA B L8 which is probably an insufficient excuse to the cop who pulls you over ~ IBMEUBU with its live and let live philosophy versus URAMESS ~ UH AS IF from California, of course ~ IOU DAD from a grateful child ~ BWAHAHA and the clearer message from Vermont, BBRRRR ~ TWOCUTE can either refer to attractive twins, or to an illiterate narcissist ~ BBQ=LUV celebrates a common American favorite ~ and, this provocative phrase ITS A SIN. Hundreds more examples are online if you’re curious.

It’s fascinating that Americans will pay often exorbitant surcharges to individuate their auto plates. Especially in light of the fact that we already have different plates for each of the 50 states and a Federal District (for our national capital), as well as others for Territories and Protectorates. Prepare yourself. Seriously, prepare for a shock.

All of the 8,331 License Plates in America

States now offer a vast menu of personalized plate options for a dizzying array of organizations, professions, sports teams, causes and other groups.

Such plates typically include a surcharge to support the theme identified on each choice, as for Maryland’s Beekeepers, Barbershop Quartet Singers, or the Baltimore Bicycling Club. And we mustn’t forget their plate promoting the museum of the B&O Railroad (of Monopoly fame).

How can we arrive at that unbelievable number? Well, consider Illinois, for example. They boast no fewer than forty different options related to military alone. Hawaii has the fewest overall varieties at fourteen. Maryland, likely desperate for revenue, actually has nine hundred and eighty-nine. I am curious why they bothered to stop short of an even thousand.

Add to that the fact that nineteen states do not require a license on the front of the car, which invites the substitution of an individualized alternative. Consequently, there are statutes ensuring “most states also require that you do not mount your plate upside down.” In many of these, you would be legally allowed to mount decorative or business plates, but not alternative license plates, misleadingly different from your true registration.

Individuality run amok. The chaos sadly seems strikingly American.

Which brings me to the reason I was thinking about this unusual topic. Heading to church on Sunday I saw a plate with a curious message. It was one of my state’s options for Fire Fighters. The message it bore consisted of just three letters: UGH.

What does that convey to you? Since it appeared on a vocational emblem, my thought is that it reflects the feelings of someone who has grown tired of their profession. The best construction I can imagine is someone frustrated by the fact that after every fire they suppress there will come another. Resulting in a sense of futility or ennui. If you interpret it differently, please let me know.

I mean, we’ve all had ugh-days. But to feel ugh enough about life to indelibly express it this way . . . well, all I could do was hope it was an unconventional joke, and offer a quick prayer for the driver, in case it wasn’t.

C.S. Lewis offered many insights about our God-given individuality and uniqueness. Individualism, as a driving force, however, is something different. I recently read a wonderful article about how Lewis assessed individualism’ interplay with collectivism – two relentless forces in many Western cultures. “C.S. Lewis on Individualism, Equality and the Church” focuses on a World War Two speech delivered at Oxford and published as “Membership.”

Our personal uniqueness is not accidental. As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Problem of Pain,”

[God] makes each soul unique. If He had no use for all these differences, I do not see why He should have created more souls than one. Be sure that the ins and outs of your individuality are no mystery to Him; and one day they will no longer be a mystery to you.

In contrast, hyper-individualism is normally deleterious. Yet, the fact that God regards us as precious, irreplaceable beings, and calls each of us by our personal name, is wondrous news. It can accomplish two things related to the discussion above: (1) it puts personalized license plates in their proper perspective, and (2) it reminds us that even though we occasionally feel frustrated or despondent, our overall life attitude should never be summed up with an ugh.

Editor’s Note: In the interest of journalistic transparency, yours truly, while experiencing many moves, has participated in the automotive bacchanalia described above. Twice I secured military-related plates, Alabama’s Desert Shield/Desert Storm veterans and Illinois’ POW/MIA remembrance commemorations. In addition, while stationed in Guam, I secured plates with my surname.

I have asked my children to have me hospitalized for dementia should I ever decide to order our Washington State J.P. Patches Pal license plate. The reasons for that decision are obvious.