Reading C.S.: Out of the Silent Planet
July 16th, 2007 | by Scott |Now we are getting somewhere. Lewis’ fifth published work is the first novel in his Space Trilogy. Released in 1938 readers would have to wait 6 and 8 years respectively for the final two installments.
In the book, Ransom is on a walking tour through the English landscape. He is abducted and taken to the planet Malacandra (Mars). Escaping from the clutches of his captors, Ransom is able to spend time with the life forms on this planet.
I hesitate to say too much about the content of the book because I encourage all of those who have not read it to pick it up. It is a slight book that can be read easily in an evening.
Suffice it to say that as Ransom spends time on Malacandra he learns much about not only this alien planet but his own as well. He learns that Earth is referred to as Thulcandra or “The Silent Planet.” Earth is silent to the other planets because the lord of Thulcandra had become “bent” or “evil.” The evil lord of Thulcandra then turned his sights on other planets. To protect the other planets the Maleldil had bound him to his own planet. In a hat-tip to the incarnation we are told that Maleldil “dared terrible things, wrestling with the Bent One in Thulcandra.”
One of the major themes of this work is the danger of making Science an idol. Lewis does not attack Science in and of itself. Instead, the danger is allowing the pursuit of Science become an end unto itself. The attempts to propagate the human race despite the cost that it wreaks upon others is an ultimate evil.
In the stunning exchange that brings the novel to its climax we see a chilling reminder of the dangers of expansionism and man’s blood-thirst for supremacy. Penned 70 years ago it would almost seem to be plucked out of some contemporary mouths. It even seems similar to what has been said recently by people in power:
To you I may seem a vulgar robber, but I bear on my shoulders the destiny of the human race. Your tribal life with its stone-age weapons and bee-hive huts, its primitive coracles and elementary social structure, has nothing to compare with our civilization–with our science, medicine and law, our armies, our architecture, our commerce, and our transport system which is rapidly annihilating space and time. Our right to supersede you is the right of the higher over the lower (emphasis added).
All in all, it is a penetrating and engrossing read that has contemporary applications for us. Genocide, war, and wanton destruction of others, regardless of their status, level or location is a hallmark of our “bent-ness.”
It’s interesting that when this book was first released many readers were confused and unsure of what the meaning was. The meaning, to me, is all too clear in this day and age.
Grade: A
12 Responses to “Reading C.S.: Out of the Silent Planet”
By Greg on Jul 16, 2007 | Reply
I was recently reading a coffee table books of photographs of Africa. The text made several references to a time with Africa or African people or culture was “untouched” or “pristine”.
Anytime I read crap like that I am reminded of the Space Trilogy (especially That Hideous Strength, ooh I can’t wait till you get there). What that coffee table author is saying is: “The beings in this picture are less than people. When people got to Africa they ruined everything. But before people got there, these less-than-people were pristine and untouched.”
“Our right to force you to stay primitive against your will, or to condemn you for your desire for economic/technological progress, is the right of the higher over the lower.”
We don’t have to want to destroy cultures to be in contempt of them.
By Scott on Jul 16, 2007 | Reply
“We don’t have to want to destroy cultures to be in contempt of them.”
Great point. You can make the argument that Devine’s desires are achievable regardless of whether or not the hnau are destroyed. But it’s a contempt just the same. One where the Oyarsa relegated Devine to being irredeemable.
By Greg on Jul 16, 2007 | Reply
Yes, it’s contempt all the same. Whether it’s in the name of destroying cultures or preserving them, if we don’t acknowledge that the people involved are fully ‘people’, fully worthy of consideration and respect in their own right, then we are in contempt of them.
Some multicultural statements, such as that in the coffee table book I mentioned, make this error. Also, a ‘charity’ mindset towards people in need–a ‘those poor people’ mindset–leans toward this error.
By Scott on Jul 16, 2007 | Reply
I think that speaks to a problem that exists in a lot of our short-term mission work and other charitable endeavors: it’s “us” helping “them” rather than just “us.”
By mommaria on Jul 16, 2007 | Reply
again, though I don’t see my comment. I say try “till we have faces” by C.S. Lewis. changed my world.
By Scott on Jul 17, 2007 | Reply
I have it. But it wasn’t written until 1956 so I have 16 years to go.
By JTB on Jul 19, 2007 | Reply
Did anyone notice the posthuman moment in this book? (Hint: it comes at the end.) Just wondering. You know, my little personal obsession.
Anyhow, what stood out most to me in my recent re-read was the consistent emphasis on Order, and a picture of a very heirarchical Order at that, where each kind of creature has its assigned place and function according to its nature. This kind of vision of the world makes me very uncomfortable, and I struggled with it through the whole book. Did anyone else feel this way? (And do I need to explain why I get the heebie-jeebies from it?)
By JTB on Jul 19, 2007 | Reply
P.S. I do, of course, understand the Lewis’ neo-Platonic philosophical leanings have a lot to do with the above.
By Scott on Jul 19, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know if I picked up on the posthuman moment or not. If I did I didn’t recognize it as such.
However, I did notice the very striated order among the hnau. I can easily understand why it would bother you. The more I reflect on it it is somewhat troublesome.
Lewis did believe that Hierarchy was man’s natural pre-fallen state. Of course, that doesn’t truck well with a fallen world and centuries of sexism and racism that such hierarchy brings.
By JTB on Jul 22, 2007 | Reply
The posthuman moment was brief. It comes when Weston is blustering nonsense in his self-defense before the Oyarsa of Malacandra. He claims that he has done everything in service of the future of (hu)mankind, and completely accepts that whatever that future may be, it will be unlike current humanity in form. Interestingly, the pronouncement of Oyarsa in response is that although this is kind of warped, it’s more dysfunctional than totally evil…so Weston’s (warped) allegiance to the posthuman is deemed (sortof) moral.
By Scott on Jul 23, 2007 | Reply
And hence the Oyarsa deems Weston still redeemable while Devine is not?
Great thoughts.