Talk:Perelandra

(2004)

Delinked the (unwritten) Space Trilogy article - the articles on the individual volumes contain enough analysis that an article on the trilogy taken as a whole would be superfluous. Also, as noted in the articles, the volumes are so different that a full exegesis would be literary criticism, which is not appropriate for wikipedia. 209.149.235.254 16:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, there is now a Space Trilogy article, so I spoze this article ought to have some reference to it... Ellsworth 16:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

... And it does. Ellsworth

Please avoid critical essays

To the anonymous editor who recently added a large amount of non-NPOV critical speculation: I've deleted most of it (see text below), but we can talk about it. Please see Talk:That Hideous Strength#Please avoid critical essays (I'm guessing you're the same anonymous editor). The part at the end about parallels with Tolkien is, I think, less problematic, but I'm paraphrasing it and moving it to Space Trilogy since it isn't just about this book.

Deleted text follows. The second paragraph is the one that really violates WP:NPOV; the first paragraph is just an overly detailed paraphrase of part of the book, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. ←Hob 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

deleted text follows

---

God manages at once both to make Ransom feel very guilty (by not acting he would become the second Pilate, who lets God be crucified again) and greatly flatter his ego ("the eldila of all worlds, the sinless organisms of everlasing light, were silent in Deep Heaven to see what Elwin Ransom of Cambridge would do"). Of course Ransom in the end agrees to do it. (While the idea of killng Weston originally disturbes and frightens him, Ransom had been at the Somme - so the killing of other human beings is not a completely new experience for him...)

Lewis manages to carry the scene of God talking to a man and commanding him, a theme obviously inspired by the Bible, in a way which makes it credible to a modern reader. One can feel that if God existed, and if He tried talking to and reasoning with a mid-Twentieth Century man who is not only a Christian but also a scientist trained in rational thinking, that might be how He would go about it. Reading the scene can be an interesting and moving experience also for a complete non-believer - which is a testimony to Lewis' writing talent.

---

end deleted text

At least what is now appearing is better than the text which was there before I interefered, which made the killing of Weston into Ransom's own idea, and that is a very big misrepesentation of what Lewis wrote. Still, this text

• (quote) Prompted by a divine voice, Ransom realizes that if the naïve Queen accepts Weston's arguments, the Fall of Man will be re-enacted on Perelandra, requiring drastic action by God to redeem the world ("not a second crucifixion but an even more appalling sacrifice"). After lengthy arguments illustrating various approaches to temptation, Weston appears to be winning and Ransom turns to physical violence, fighting his opponent bare-handed and finally killing him in a subterranean cavern.

is not quite correct either. Ransom did not need a Divine voice to tell him what would happen if the Queen succumbs to Satan/Weston's arguments. He is a Christian and knows his Bible. He tries his utmost to persuade her by argument, but Satan is more clever and also does not need sleep. The Divine voice is needed solely in order to make Ransom stop talking and move over to using physical force. He does not want to do it and argues with God for a whole chapter (one of my favorites) but in the end of course is persuaded, mainly by a guilt feeling because if he does not kill Weston, God will have to let himself be crucified again or something worse.

Please take care to correct this (if I try I might stray into critical essay writing again).

Adam Keller - Israel

P.S. I think one of the things Lewis was trying to do was to replay Biblical themes in modern settings. For example: an academic from Cambridge becomes a Prophet (i.e. a man to whome God directly speaks and who can even talk back and argue with God). Or in That Hideous Strength, the events of the Tower of Babylon repeat themselves in the banquet held by a bureacratic British organization of the mid-Twentieth Century, and afterwards an English university town is destroyed by Divine wrath as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Lewis in my view wanted to give a clear message to his readers: when you read the Bible as Christians don't think that such things are something from the distant past, and nowadays being religious is just something abstract and insubstantial. God is still there, Satan is still there, and such things can happen also to you or to people you know. If saying this in Wikipedia is "essay writing" that's a pity becuase I think it can help people understand what kind of man and of writer Lewis was. The point is that Lewis knew how to convey it in modern terms. For example, a professor from Cambridge, even if he is a religious believer, needs first to be presuaded that this voice which he hears in the night is really God and not just a delusion (a persuasion which an an ancient Hebrew tribesman needed much less). God does it very neatly, using Ransom's specialty as a philologist (you have to read the book itslef, it is too complicated to summerise). Natuarally, of course, God could fit himslef to people of all millieus and all cultures, especially if you assume that he created everybody in the first place. But I wish there was some way to coinvey at least a bit of this to people who did not read the book but are interested enough to open the Winkipedia website.

Adam Keller —19:17, 11 January 2006‎

2010

Just a footnote (from a class at Lehigh University), C.S. Lewis took frequent long walks with J.R. Tolkein where they discussed topics related to their trilogies in progress. Each approached the WWI era horrific clash between good & evil and also the Biblical views of the prophets & book of Revelations & captured their essences in these great works. Many parallels can be drawn between these great friends, & their art.

Tom Hoffman 8-21-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianXXX777 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(2006)

How does Ransom receive communication from Mars? (first para of spoiler)
—13:57, 21 January 2006

Oyarsa Terminology

Early in the article the ruling spirit of Mars is referred to as if it is the only Oyarsa, when each of the planets is governed by an Oyarsa. Also, later, when referring to the spirits of Mars and Venus together, the plural Oyeresu should be used.
—10:31, 15 November 2006‎ 24.178.85.121

Evolution?

I would like to call attention to a passage that might give a hint of Lewis' beliefs on evolution. While crossing the sea, Ransom sees a human-like sea animal and speculates that the Green Lady might have been "descended from them on the physical side". In other words, God had animals evolve on Perelandra, then intervened to give a soul and other gifts (the "spiritual" and more important side) to one species to create the Green Lady and her husband. And the same on Earth? CharlesTheBold 12:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC) CharlesTheBold

I think Lewis goes quite a good deal into his beliefs about Evolution in Mere Christianity---and they do indeed reflect what we have about it here. But, seeing as in Perelandra the topic is only somewhat touched upon (and even then only vaguely), I think it might be better to include a reference to this on the [Mere Christianity] page.Corbmobile 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dumbasslike

This is a cute neologism, and even though it gave me a chuckle, I still think it's out of place. I hope "asinine" will be a reasonable comprimise. Corbmobile 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ Rob^Talk 01:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)