Will Vaus - Discussion Questions

		Discussion Questions

Will Vaus is the founder of C. S. Lewis Societies in Columbia, South Carolina, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Harrisonburg, Virginia. In the tabbed box below you will find introductions and discussion questions for a number of books by and about C. S. Lewis which Will has used in C. S. Lewis Society meetings. Feel free to use them for yourself or your group.

What Others Are Saying . . .

"I teach AP English at a Christian school in Tampa. I was so excited to find your website that I had to write and tell you! My juniors read Mere Christianity this summer, and we've studied a chapter of The Screwtape Letters. My seniors are reading Out of the Silent Planet this month. . . . C. S. Lewis is an amazing author to study. Your study guides are excellent. I am going to print them up for use as we study."

Krista McGee

A Grief Observed

A Preface to Paradise Lost

God in the Dock

Jack

Letters to an American Lady

Introduction

A Grief Observed was written by C.S. Lewis following the death of his wife Helen Joy Davidman Gresham in July 1960 from cancer. As Lewis himself says in chapter IV of AGO the book was written as a "defense against total collapse, a safety valve." Douglas Gresham, Lewis's step-son, tells us that Lewis did not originally intend to publish his jottings about his experience of grief. However, upon reading through it some time later Lewis changed his mind and thought that his writing about grief might be helpful to others going through similar experience.

Lewis originally published AGO under the pseudonym of N.W. Clerk and it was only after his death that the executors of his literary estate decided to publish the book under Lewis's own name. N.W. are the initials for "Nat Whilk" which is the Old English for "I know not whom." Clerk is the Old English for "scholar." Thus the pseudonym means "I know not what scholar." Walter Hooper tells us that Lewis originally submitted the manuscript to his literary agent Spencer Curtis Brown under the name Dimidius which is the Latin for "Halved," a revealing statement about the one-flesh nature of marriage and how Lewis felt truncated after Joy's death. Curtis Brown, in order to maintain Lewis's anonymity, sent the manuscript to Faber, who had not previously published any of Lewis's books. T.S. Eliot, who was working for Faber at that time and who knew Lewis, immediately recognized the writing. It was Eliot who suggested that a plausible English pen name be used. Lewis selected the name "N.W. Clerk," combining "Nat Whilk," a pen name he had used before, with Clerk. Lewis also uses the letter "H," being the first initial of his wife's first name, to refer to his spouse in order to preserve his anonymity.

Hooper says that the reason Lewis used a pseudonym was so as not to embarrass or upset his friends, many of whom did not approve of the marriage or attend Joy's funeral. Chad Walsh traces the reason for Lewis using a pseudonym to Lewis's characteristic delicacy. Lewis was reticent to talk or write about his personal life. The issue goes way back to one of Lewis's earliest publications entitled, The Personal Heresy. In that book Lewis wrote:

The poet is not a man who asks me to look at him; he is a man who says ?look at that' and points; the more I follow the pointing of his finger, the less I can possibly see of him . . . I must make of him not a spectacle but a pair of spectacles.

Even Lewis's autobiography, Surprised by Joy, leaves out many personal items of interest from Lewis's life which would normally be included in an autobiography.

It has been debated whether or not AGO is autobiographical or not. In an essay entitled C.S. Lewis and C.S. Lewises Walter Hooper claims that Lewis told him the book was not autobiographical.⁶ Hooper's recall of Lewis's statement to him, or more likely, simply his own view on the matter, has changed since the publication of that essay. In a more recent book on Lewis Hooper clearly treats AGO as autobiographical. Perhaps no one will ever know why Hooper ever maintained that AGO was not autobiographical. Hooper has tried to claim, at other times, that Lewis never consummated his marriage with Joy. Perhaps Hooper was embarrassed by the very frank references to Lewis and Joy's sexual relationship in AGO. One thing is for certain, now that Douglas Gresham has written on the subject of his mother's relationship to Lewis, the autobiographical nature of AGO can no longer be seriously doubted. Gresham writes:

A Grief Observed is true and therefore it is valuable to all who read it. It cost Jack great pain and yet rewarded him with deeper understanding. I find it hard, even to this day, to read, for I was there when he wrote it and I was a part of his agony and he a part of mine.

Another false notion about Lewis which Douglas Gresham corrects is the idea that Lewis had never known any real pain until the death of Joy, the idea that in writing The Problem of Pain Lewis was merely acting as an arm-chair theologian. This false view of Lewis is suggested in the movie Shadowlands with screenplay written by William Nicholson. Gresham gets closer to the truth when he writes about Lewis that:

. . . pain was not an experience with which he was unfamiliar. He had met grief as a child, he lost his mother when he was nine years old. He had grieved for friends lost to him over the years, some lost in battle during the first World War, others to sickness.

He had written also about the great poets and their songs of love, but somehow neither his learning nor his experiences had ever prepared him for the combination of both the great love and the great loss which is its counterpoint.

Lewis knew pain before the death of his wife, though the pain after her death was certainly greater than any he had ever experienced. The amazing thing about C. S. Lewis was that he was able to turn his own personal pain into a source of help and hope for many others who have trod the way of grief.

Discussion Questions

With his wife's death, the intensity of Lewis's love and grief brought on emotional and spiritual struggles that almost made his earlier faith seem simplistic. Do you see this as a weakness of faith, or does the honest expression of his struggles?unafraid to voice even his most severe doubts--show a profound trust in God?
In the first chapter of AGO Lewis wrote that he was not in much danger of ceasing to believe in God but that: "The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him." What "dreadful things" was Lewis in danger of believing as a result of Joy's death? Have you ever felt this way about God?
With his well developed theology of suffering, why do you think Lewis had such great difficulty accepting God's hand in his own bereavement? Were his earlier views inadequate to confront real grief? Was he previously writing beyond his ability to believe? Is proper theology ever sufficient by itself?
Lewis wrote about his love-relationship with Joy that it left "no cranny of heart or body unsatisfied." He then went on to argue that: "If God were a substitute for love we ought to have lost all interest in Him." What do you think Lewis meant by this statement? Do you think his argument for the existence of God is a convincing one? Why or why not?
Lewis says, "It is hard to have patience with people who say, ?There is no death,' or ?Death doesn't matter.'" Have you noticed yourself or others trying to side-step the reality of death? How? What effect do you think this has on those who are grieving the death of a loved one?
If you have experienced the loss of a spouse, or someone else close to you, do you identify with what Lewis wrote in AGO? In what way? How has Lewis's writing helped you to cope with grief?
Lewis suggests that "all that stuff about family reunions ?on the further shore' ... is all unscriptural, all out of bad hymns and lithographs." What does Lewis mean by this statement? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
What do you think of the ideas of Purgatory and prayers for the dead which are raised indirectly by Lewis in this book?
After reading AGO do you now think that Lewis lost his faith in God after the death of his wife? And if so, did he regain faith? Why or why not?
What do you think of Lewis's statement: "Your bid--for God or no God, for a good God or the Cosmic Sadist, for eternal life or nonentity--will not be serious if nothing much is staked on it."?
In chapter III of AGO Lewis states that in the matter of suffering a perfectly good God is hardly less formidable than a "Cosmic Sadist." What did Lewis mean by this? Do you think he is right? Why or why not?
Lewis uses the analogy of a drowning man to describe the frantic reaching out for God performed by the person going through grief. The drowning man and the frantically grieving man cannot be helped because they clutch and grab. Do you find this analogy helpful? Encouraging? Or discouraging? Why?
What do you think of Lewis's view that bereavement may not be the truncation of the growing marriage relationship but one of its phases, not the interruption of the dance, but the next figure?
What do you make of Lewis's experience that the less he mourns Joy the nearer he seems to her? If you have lost a loved one was this the case for you or for other bereaved people you know?
In the final chapter of the book Lewis says, "Grief is like a long valley, a winding valley where any bend may reveal a totally new landscape." What new landscapes, or insights, has AGO revealed to you about Lewis, about grief, about God, about yourself?
At the end of the book Lewis takes Plato's cave analogy and applies it, in his own words, to the situation of grief. What does Lewis learn through the contemplation of this idea in his situation? What hope does it offer?
Lewis says that God is the great iconoclast. What does he mean by this? How does this transform Lewis's view of grief?

Introduction

C. S. Lewis read Paradise Lost for the first time when he was nine years old. By the time Lewis was sixteen years old, and a student of W. T. Kirkpatrick in Surrey, John Milton had become one of his favorite authors. Lewis even composed a poem, Milton Read Again (in Surrey), later published in Spirits in Bondage. The poem begins:

Three golden months while summer on us stole

I have read your joyful tale another time,

Breathing more freely in that larger clime

And learning wiselier to deserve the whole.

What is most amazing is that C. S. Lewis was an atheist when he wrote those lines. Eventually Lewis came to realize that all of his favorite authors had Christianity in common, and he too became a follower of Christ.

Lewis's interest in Milton only grew stronger once he became a lecturer in the English School at Oxford University. As a Fellow of Magdalen College, Lewis taught a course on "The Text of Milton's Comus" to B.Litt. students in the Trinity Term of 1930. And in the Hilary Term of 1937 he gave a series of lectures in the English School on "Milton and the Epic Tradition".

In 1939 Lewis's great friend, Charles Williams, came to live in Oxford. Lewis arranged for Williams to lecture on Milton. Williams' second lecture on February 5, 1940, in the Divinity School, stirred Lewis to the core of his being. Williams lectured nominally on Comus but really on the virtue of chastity. Lewis felt that here at last was a university being used for learning. He thought that, perhaps, no greater lecture had occurred in that lovely hall, with its delicate fan vaulting, for hundreds of years. Williams later contributed an Introduction to the 1940 edition of The English Poems of John Milton published by Oxford University Press. This too made a deep impression on Lewis.

C. S. Lewis probably would have written A Preface to Paradise Lost without the influence of Williams, but Williams' example spurred him on. What really pulled the trigger and caused Lewis to produce his fourth work of literary criticism was an invitation from the University College of North Wales to deliver the Ballard Mathews Lectures during their session of 1941-42. While Lewis wanted to respond positively to the invitation he was, at first, reluctant. This was due to the fact that he had just committed to a lectureship in theology to members of the Royal Air Force. In the end there was no conflict between the two commitments. By the end of October 1941 Lewis had written his Preface and selected the highlights to deliver in three lectures in Wales on December 1-3, 1941. Lewis's Preface was published by the Oxford University Press the following year.

One review was typical of the response to Lewis's Preface: "The book is one of very great moment indeed, and is, in fact, much more than an essay on Milton; it is above all the kind of criticism, of which it is an almost perfect instance, that is immensely valuable and important. What is this kind? It includes, but is not exhausted by, a serious effort to rethink a writer's thoughts with him, to understand and for the moment to share his presuppositions (by a suspension of disbelief, if need be), to get out of one's own skin by history and to get into his. This is already to be released in some degree from contemporaneity and the domination of fashion and party-cries. It is also to begin to understand, whether one approves of it or not, what has been the cultural achievement of Christianity in Europe." (V. G. Turner SJ, The Tablet, 181, 9 January 1943, p. 20)

Discussion Questions

C. S. Lewis begins his Preface with a characteristic Lewisian paragraph: "The first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know what it is?what it was intended to do and how it is meant to be used. After that has been discovered the temperance reformer may decide that the corkscrew was made for a bad purpose, and the communist may think the same about the cathedral. But such questions come later. The first thing is to understand the object before you: as long as you think the corkscrew was meant for opening tins or the cathedral for entertaining tourists you can say nothing to the purpose about them. The first thing the reader needs to know about Paradise Lost is what Milton meant it to be." What does Lewis suggest Milton meant Paradise Lost to be? What similarities and differences do you see between Lewis's writing style in his scholarly books and his more popular works?
In chapter II Lewis takes issue with T. S. Eliot. "Mr. Eliot says bluntly and frankly that the best contemporary practicing poets are the only ?jury of judgement' whose verdict on his own views of Paradise Lost he will accept." Why does Lewis take exception to Eliot's view? Do you think Lewis wins the argument?
What does Lewis mean by primary and secondary epic? What examples does he give of both?
In chapter IX Lewis writes, "To enjoy our full humanity we ought, so far as is possible, to contain within us potentially at all times, and on occasion to actualize, all the modes of feeling and thinking through which man has passed. You must, so far as in you lies, become an Achaean chief while reading Homer, a medieval knight while reading Malory, and an eighteenth century Londoner while reading Johnson." How does this apply to reading Paradise Lost? What do you think of this approach to literature? How can this same approach help us in our spiritual life?
In chapter X Lewis quotes Addison, "The great moral which reigns in Milton is the most universal and most useful that can be imagined, that Obedience to the will of God makes men happy and that Disobedience makes them miserable." Then Lewis concludes, "If you can't be interested in that, you can't be interested in Paradise Lost." Why, do you suppose, Lewis is trying to get his readers interested in Paradise Lost? What did you think of Lewis's explanation of Milton's theology in this same chapter?
In chapter XI Lewis writes, "The Hierarchical idea is not merely stuck on to his poem at points where doctrine demands it: it is the indwelling life of the whole work, it foams or burgeons out of it at every moment. He [Milton] pictures the life of beatitude as one of order?an intricate dance, so intricate that it seems irregular precisely when its regularity is most elaborate." How do you respond to this hierarchical idea? How do you think Lewis responded?
Why do you think Lewis spends multiple chapters exploring and explaining Milton's theology?
In chapter XIII Lewis explains why Satan is the best drawn of Milton's characters. It is because "he is incomparably the easiest to draw." Why does Lewis maintain this is the case? Do you agree?
In chapter XIV Lewis writes, "For human beings there is often an escape from this Hell, but there is never more than one?the way of humiliation, repentance, and (where possible) restitution. For Milton's devils this way is closed. . . . They know they will not repent. That door out of Hell is firmly locked, by the devils themselves, on the inside." Does this statement remind you of something Lewis says elsewhere?
In chapter XVIII Lewis writes, "What would have happened if instead of his ?compliance bad' Adam had scolded or even chastised Eve and then interceded with God on her behalf, we are not told. The reason we are not told is that Milton does not know. And I think he knows he does not know: he says cautiously that the situation ?seemd remediless' (919). This ignorance is not without significance. We see the results of our actions, but we do not know what would have happened if we had abstained. For all Adam knew, God might have had other cards in His hand; but Adam never raised the question, and now nobody will ever know. Rejected goods are invisible." Though Milton did not write about "the fall averted" Lewis did in two of his stories. What stories did Lewis write in order to make "rejected goods" visible? Do you think Lewis was successful?

Introduction

God in the Dock is a collection of essays and a few letters written by C. S. Lewis, spanning from the 1940's right up until his death in 1963. These essays deal, for the most part, with theological and ethical topics. This collection was gathered and edited by Walter Hooper, Lewis's secretary for a short while at the very end of Lewis's life. God in the Dock was first published in 1970. The title of the book is taken from Lewis's essay by the same title in which Lewis says,

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock. (p. 244)

Discussion Questions

How would you answer Lewis's argument against Naturalism: "If thought is the undesigned and irrelevant product of cerebral motions, what reason have we to trust it?" (p. 21)
How would you answer Lewis' statement and question, "I can understand the man who denies the miraculous altogether; but what is one to make of the people who admit some miracles but deny the Virgin Birth?" (p. 31)
What do you think of Lewis's statement: "The controversy about faith and works is one that has gone on for a very long time, and it is a highly technical matter. I personally rely on the paradoxical text: ?Work out your own salvation . . . for it is God that worketh in you.' It looks as if in one sense we do nothing, and in another case we do a damned lot. ?Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.' but you must have it in you before you can work it out. But I have no wish to go further into it, as it would interest no one but the Christians present, would it?" (p. 55) Do you think Lewis came down more on the Protestant or the Roman Catholic side of this question? Why?
What do you make of Lewis's statement: ". . . the Christian story is precisely the story of one grand miracle, the Christian assertion being that what is beyond all space and time, what is uncreated, eternal, came into nature, into human nature, descended into His own universe, and rose again, bringing nature up with Him." (p. 80)
Do you agree or disagree with Lewis's assertion: "What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects - with their Christianity latent?" (p. 93) Do you think Lewis followed his own advice? How or how not?
What do you think of Lewis's statement: "Because we love something else more than this world we love even this world better than those who know no other."? (p. 150)
Lewis says, "?What are we to make of Christ?' There is no question of what we can make of Him, it is entirely a question of what He intends to make of us. You must accept or reject the story." (p. 160) How do you respond to this?
In response to an objection to something he wrote in Mere Christianity Lewis wrote: "It is true, I do not understand why it is vulgar or offensive, in speaking of the Holy Trinity, to illustrate from plane and solid geometry the conception that what is self-contradictory on one level may be consistent on another. I could have understood the Doctor's being shocked if I had compared God to an unjust judge or Christ to a thief in the night; but mathematical objects seem to me as free from sordid associations as any the mind can entertain." (p. 182) Do you enjoy Lewis's dry sense of humor that he often uses to make a point?
What do you think of Lewis's assertion that "Conversion requires an alteration of the will, and an alteration which, in the last resort, does not occur without the intervention of the supernatural."? (p. 221)
How would you summarize Lewis's argument against priestesses in the Church? (pp. 234-239) Do you agree or disagree with Lewis's argument? Why?
Do you think Lewis's analysis is accurate when he says that "The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock."? (p. 244)
What do you think of Lewis's analysis of his own conversion? "But I feel my decision was not so important. I was the object rather than the subject in this affair. I was decided upon. I was glad afterwards at the way it came out, but at the moment what I heard was God saying, ?Put down your gun and we'll talk." (p. 261)
Do you agree or disagree with Lewis's statement: "Since the Fall no organization or way of life whatever has a natural tendency to go right."? (p. 284)
Do you agree or disagree with Lewis that we have "no right to happiness"? (pp. 317-322) Why? Does this supposed "right to happiness" justify divorce? Why or why not?
What do you think of Lewis's belief "that what unites the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic against the ?Liberal' or ?Modernist' is something very clear and momentous, namely, the fact that both are thoroughgoing supernaturalists, who believe in the Creation, Fall, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, and the Four Last Things. This unites them not only with one another, but with the Christian religion as understood ubique et ab omnibus."?
Which essay is your favorite in this collection? Your least favorite? Why?
What do you still have questions about from this book?
What do you want to think further about from this book?
What do you want to put into practice from this book?

Introduction

Jack: A Life of C. S. Lewis was written by George Sayer, a former pupil of C. S. Lewis at Oxford University, and later friend and sometime participant in the Inklings, the literary group which grew up around C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien beginning in the 1930's. Jack has been hailed by many Lewis scholars as the best biography of Lewis to date. This is probably true for at least five reasons:

It is written by someone who knew Lewis rather intimately, first as a student, and later as a friend. And so we have in this book an eyewitness account of the life and times of this great Oxford scholar and author. Through first-hand accounts Mr. Sayer not only introduces us to C. S. Lewis, but to many of Lewis's friends and colleagues: Mrs. Janie King Moore, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, Joy Davidman, Ruth Pitter, and many others.
At the same time, Jack, has a certain level of objectivity which is not as much present in the official biography written by Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper. The original edition of the Green/Hooper biography was published in the early 1970's. Sayer brings together a number of resources and insights which were not available to Green and Hooper when they first wrote the official biography of Lewis. Jack is obviously the product of very careful and accurate research as well as first-hand knowledge.
As a teacher of English for many years at Malvern College Sayer obviously developed his own excellent prose style. This book is as much a joy to read for itself as it is, through it, to learn more about C. S. Lewis.
Mr. Sayer was raised and lived his entire life in a similar atmosphere to that of C. S. Lewis. Sayer knows the places of Lewis's life as well as the people. He understands the times and the milieu in which Lewis came to worldwide recognition and he is able to communicate that sense of place and time to the reader.
Finally, while Mr. Sayer is sympathetic in his portrayal of Lewis as teacher and friend, he does not write without a discerning eye with regard to Lewis's life and work. Here is no haphazard book of hagiography, but a carefully considered assessment of the life and work of one of the most popular Christian authors of all time.

Discussion Questions

How did you find Mr. Sayer's personal relationship with C. S. Lewis impacting this biography?
How did Lewis's family background and upbringing influence the man that he became?
Why do you think Mr. Sayer entitled chapter 3 "Into Bondage"? What influence did Lewis's early schooling at Wynyard, Cherbourg, Campbell and Malvern have on the direction of his life?
What events do you think most contributed to Lewis becoming an atheist?
Why do you think Lewis's days at Great Bookham were such a highlight of his early life?
How do you think Lewis's service during WWI was similar to or different from the experience of other young men his age? What life-long marks do you think this war left upon his life?
What do you make of Lewis's relationship with Mrs. Moore?
How do you see Lewis's love of philosophy during his early years at Oxford coming out in his later writing?
What impact do you think Lewis's years of poverty and struggle to get a job had on his later life and writing?
How do you think Lewis's life as a fellow and a tutor shaped his life and writing? How did Lewis's re-conversion to Christianity influence his outlook on his job?
What people, events and discoveries were influential in Lewis's return to Christian faith?
How do you see Lewis's love of nature and walking coming out in his books?
What led to the formation of the Inklings? What influence do you think this group had on the literary output of the individual members? What do you think we can learn from the Inklings about the importance of true friendship?
Why do you think Lewis wrote his cosmic trilogy? Do you think he succeeded in accomplishing what he set out to do?
What impact do you think WWII had on the writing and success of C. S. Lewis as a popular author?
How do you think Lewis's BBC talks and his lectures to the RAF influenced his style of writing?
What was the response of Lewis's colleagues to the expression of his faith? What do you think we can learn from Lewis in this regard?
How do you think Lewis's writing of Miracles and his debate with Elizabeth Anscombe at the Socratic Club influenced the future course of Lewis's writing? Do you agree or disagree with Sayer's view on this subject? Why?
Why do you think Lewis wrote The Chronicles of Narnia? Do you agree with Mr. Sayer that these books will be the best and most long remembered of all Lewis's writing? Why or why not?
What influence do you think Lewis's tortuous relationship with Mrs. Moore and his brother Warren's alcoholism had upon him personally and upon his writing?
What do you make of Lewis's life-long friendship with Arthur Greeves? Why do you think Lewis kept up his contact with Greeves?
What do you think of Lewis's relationship with Joy Davidman Gresham? How is the relationship portrayed in Jack similar or different from that portrayed in the movie Shadowlands? What influence do you think Joy had on Lewis's mature writing?
Do you think Lewis lost his faith after the death of his wife? Do you think that he wanted to die or found it difficult to go on living?
How do you think reading helped Lewis through some of the difficult times in his life? What do you think of his statement: "In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in a Greek poem, I see with a thousand eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself: and am never more myself than when I do."?
In what ways do you think Lewis grew in his Christian faith from 1931 until his death in 1963?
What new insight did this book give you into the man, C. S. Lewis, or into your own spiritual journey?

Introduction

In his book C.S. Lewis: The Man and His Achievement John Peters writes:

Lewis's influence spread far beyond the confines of Oxford and Cambridge Universities where he spent the whole of his professional and working life. There were many reasons for this. In the first place there was the effect of his teaching and lecturing. Secondly, there was the publication of his scholarly works, articles, reviews, sermons, religious volumes, science fiction, and of the Narnia Chronicles. A third factor, though not so widely appreciated, was his vast correspondence with adults ? of all ages, temperaments, cultures, religions and backgrounds ? and children throughout the world. Letters addressed to him arrived relentlessly at Magdalen [Oxford], Magdalene [Cambridge], and ?The Kilns', and were all dealt with as soon as he possibly could, his replies being written in his own handwriting. Since his death on 22^nd November 1963 in Oxford, three volumes of his letters have been published: (1) Letters of C.S. Lewis, edited by W.H. Lewis (1966); (2) Letters To An American Lady, edited by Clyde S. Kilby (1969); (3) They Stand Together: The Letters of C.S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves 1914-63, edited by Walter Hooper (1979).

It should also be noted that since the publication of Peters' book, more volumes of Lewis's letters have been published. The first is Letters To Children, edited by Lyle W. Dorsett and Marjorie Lamp Mead. The second is Letters/ C.S. Lewis/ Don Giovanni Calabria/ A study in friendship, translated and edited by Martin Moynihan. And now we have the three volumes of The Collected Letters, each volume consisting of approximately one thousand pages!

Peters goes on to write about Letters To An American Lady that it ...

. . . contains more than a hundred letters written between 26^th October 1950 and 30^th August 1963 (within three months of his death). They were written to a woman who died in 1978. These letters are as good an indication as any of his almost saintly willingness to answer even the most trivial of enquiries. Some of the letters are very brief indeed, or as he put it, ?just a scrape of the pen', and it is apparent that this lady wrote to him with great (some would say obsessive) regularity and without any real appreciation of the demands on his time. Her letters followed him everywhere, even on holiday, as one of his replies headed ?Somewhere in Eire' (dated 18^th August 1956) shows.

Who was this American lady and how did she come in contact with Lewis? Her name was Mary Willis Shelburne of Washington, D.C. She was put in contact with Lewis in 1950 by some other correspondents of his, Mr. and Mrs. Kilmer, also of Washington, D.C. The Kilmers had eight children and Lewis dedicated The Magician's Nephew to the Kilmer family. Many of Lewis's letters to the Kilmer children can be found in Letters to Children.

Clyde Kilby describes Mary Willis Shelburne as follows:

A widow four years older than Lewis, she was described by one friend as "very charming, gracious, a southern aristocratic lady who loves to talk and speaks well." Once financially independent, she had fallen upon privation and, what was worse, serious family problems. . . . About the time the correspondence began she turned from the Episcopal Church to the Roman Catholic. Twice she has been so near death that the last rites of the church were administered. . . . She is a writer of reviews, articles, poems and stories.

What was the character of Mary Willis Shelburne and her letters? Walter Hooper tells us that:

Her own letters were filled with complaints about her family and friends, but Lewis, who thought her ?a very silly, tiresome, and probably disagreeable woman' knew she was also ?old, poor, sick, lonely, and miserable.' For this reason he always took time to answer each of them with letters that are perfect gems in their way.

John Peters agrees with this assessment when he writes:

Humanity, common sense, honesty all shine through his [Lewis's] letters; they reveal him as a courteous person who would, for example, take the trouble to explain at some length why he had left a lady's [Mary Willis Shelburne's] letter unanswered . . . The lady in question wrote frequently and, perhaps, even pestered him so that his forbearance and patience are all the more commendable.

In addition to the letters, Lewis assisted Shelburne financially, arranging through his American publishers a small stipend for her which continued until her death. Lewis also encouraged the Kilmers to minister to her needs. On February 17, 1961 Lewis wrote to Hugh Kilmer about Mrs. Shelburne:

I have done, and am doing, what I can for her with advice and a little money. But a little help and friendship from co-religionists on the spot is badly needed. Could you or anyone in your circle?perhaps a really nice nun?get in touch with her and lend a hand?

What is the value of these letters to the study of Lewis and his work? Lewis's letters in general, and specifically those to Mary Willis Shelburne, give us great insight into Lewis the man. John Peters writes of Lewis's letters . . .

Taken together with his published works, they may be regarded as part of that ?special mission' Lewis performed for those who were ?slowly finding their way towards some sort of Christian orthodoxy'. . . . These letters may also be regarded as ?parallel autobiography', preserving as they do much detail about Lewis's life. Their importance appears in the extensive use made of them by Roger Green and Walter Hooper in the official biography. The letters offer deep insights into the character, temperament, and personality of a remarkable man of God.

Finally we must ask, "Why did Lewis write these letters?" In his latter years Lewis loathed letter writing. With all his other duties and activities Lewis could easily have justified pitching such letters as those from Mary Willis Shelburne into the waste bin. So why did he write some 136 letters to an American lady whom he would never meet? Clyde Kilby answers that question as follows:

The main cause was that Lewis believed taking time out to advise or encourage another Christian was both a humbling of one's talents before the Lord and also as much the work of the Holy Spirit as producing a book. John Wesley somewhere in his journal during the days when vast crowds were hearing him says that on a given night he preached to only one poor sinner at the inn. Lewis had the same dedicated attitude, the belief that one's days and his talents are given him not for private expenditure but to be used in all lowliness within the will of God. Though the flesh abhorred it, he mortified the flesh.

Discussion Questions

Green and Hooper write in their biography of Lewis, "Even the actual recipient of his Letters to an American Lady (1967) is less believable than the imaginary Malcolm with whom his creator argues and shares reminiscences, and whom he sometimes needs to comfort." Do you agree with this assessment? How do the letters to Malcolm and those to the American lady compare in other ways? Which did you enjoy reading more? Why?

In his letter of November 10^th 1952 Lewis writes, "I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories." What do you think Lewis means by this statement? Do you agree with Lewis's statement about those at the center of various Christian denominations? What about those at the center of theistic religions?

In his letter of July 10, 1953 Lewis reveals something of his attitude toward the monarchy. In speaking of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II Lewis writes, "You know, over here people did not get that fairy-tale feeling about the coronation. What impressed most who saw it was the fact that the Queen herself appeared to be quite overwhelmed by the sacramental side of it. Hence, in spectators, a feeling of (one hardly knows how to describe it)? awe? pity? pathos? mystery. The pressing of that huge, heavy crown on that small, young head becomes a sort of symbol of the situation of humanity itself: humanity called by God to be His vice-gerent and high priest on earth, yet feeling so inadequate. As if He said, 'In my inexorable love I shall lay upon the dust that you are glories and dangers and responsibilities beyond your understanding'. Do you see what I mean? One has missed the whole point unless one feels that we have all been crowned and that coronation is somehow, if splendid, a tragic splendour...." What do you think Lewis means by this? Does this in some way make the monarchy necessary or helpful to our understanding of our relationship to God? How is this mitigated, or not, by the present state of the British monarchy?

What do you think of Lewis's comments on the devotional life in his letter of February 20, 1955? "I don't think we ought to try to keep up our normal prayers when we are ill and over-tired. I would not say this to a beginner who still has the habit to form. But you are past that stage. One mustn't make the Christian life into a punctilious system of law, like the Jewish [for] two reasons (1) It raises scruples when we don't keep the routine (2) It raises presumption when we do. Nothing gives one a more spuriously good conscience than keeping rules, even if there has been a total absence of all real charity and faith."

What do you think of Lewis's comments on suffering in his letter of April 26, 1956? "Of course we have all been taught what to do with suffering: offer it in Christ to God as our little, little share of Christ's sufferings, but it is so hard to do. I am afraid I can better imagine than really enter into, this. I suppose that if one loves a person enough one would actually wish to share every part of his life; and I suppose the great saints thus really want to share the divine sufferings and that is how they can actually desire pain. But this is far beyond me. To grin and beat it and (in some feeble, desperate way) to trust is the utmost most of us can manage. One tries to take a lesson not only from the saints but from the beasts: how well a sick dog trusts one if one has to do things that hurt it!"

What do you think of Lewis's statement about forgiveness in his letter of April 15, 1958? "I had been a Christian for many years before I really believed in the forgiveness of sins, or more strictly, before my theoretical belief became a reality to me. I fancy this may not be so uncommon." And what do you think of this statement in his letter of July 21^st 1958? "The feeling of being, or not being, forgiven and loved, is not what matters. One must come down to brass tacks. If there is a particular sin on your conscience, repent and confess it. If there isn't, tell the despondent devil not to be silly." What has your experience of God's forgiveness been like?

What do you think of Lewis's comments about old age and the resurrection in his letter of September 30, 1958? "We must both, I'm afraid, recognise that, as we grow older, we become like old cars, more and more repairs and replacements are necessary. We must just look forward to the fine new machines (latest Resurrection model) which are waiting for us, we hope, in the Divine garage!"

What do you think of Lewis's comments about death in his letter of June 7^th 1959? "What a state we have got into when we can't say 'I'll be happy when God calls me' without being afraid one will be thought 'morbid'. After all, St. Paul said just the same. If we really believe what we say we believe, if we really think that home is elsewhere and that this life is a 'wandering to find home', why should we not look forward to the arrival. There are, aren't there, only three things we can do about death: to desire it, to fear it, or to ignore it. The third alternative, which is the one the modern world calls 'healthy' is surely the most uneasy and precarious of all."

What do you think of what Lewis says about grief in his letter of September 24, 1960? "As to how I take sorrow, the answer is 'In nearly all the possible ways'. Because, as you probably know, it isn't a state but a process. It keeps on changing?like a winding road with quite a new landscape at each bend. Two curious discoveries I have made. The moments at which you call most desperately and clamorously to God for help are precisely those when you seem to get none. And the moments at which I feel nearest to Joy are precisely those when I mourn her least. Very queer. In both cases a clamorous need seems to shut one off from the thing needed. No one ever told me this. It is almost like 'Don't knock and it shall be opened to you'. I must think it over."

What do you think of Lewis's thoughts on poverty in his letter of December 10, 1962? "Who, after all is less independent than someone with 'a private income' every penny of which has been earned by the skill and labour of others? Poverty merely reveals the helpless dependence which has all the time been our real condition. We are members of one another whether we choose to recognise the fact or not."

What insights have these letters given you into C.S. Lewis the man?

Letters to Malcolm

Mere Christianity

Miracles

Out of the Silent Planet

Perelandra

Introduction

C. S. Lewis attempted to write a book on prayer as early as 1953 for on January 5 of that year he wrote to Don Giovanni Calabria, "I invite your prayers about a work which I now have in hand. I am trying to write a book about private prayers for the use of the laity, especially for those who have been recently converted to the Christian faith and so far are without any sustained and regular habit of prayer. I tackled the job because I saw many no doubt very beautiful books written on this subject of prayer for the religious but few which instruct tiros and those still babes (so to say) in the Faith. I find many difficulties nor do I definitely know whether God wishes me to complete this task or not." Then Lewis mentioned the book again to Calabria on 17 March 1953. But by 15 February 1954 he wrote to another correspondent, Sister Penelope, "I have had to abandon the book on prayer; it was clearly not for me."

Only a 45 page manuscript of this early attempt at a book on prayer still survives. One thing is clear from this early manuscript: Lewis did not want to come off like he was teaching other people about prayer. Lewis felt like he was still in the learning stages himself. Why then, did Lewis think he should write a book about prayer at all? As he put it in that early manuscript: "Many of the things we learned at school were first explained to us successfully not by masters but by other boys. One inky fourth former can make another inky fourth former understand what an adult cannot make him understand. The two boys speak the same language and have the same difficulties. . . . There are, in fact, certain kinds of help you can get only from a person on your own level. That is my only excuse for writing a book on prayer." (Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis Companion & Guide, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996, pp. 378-379.)

Thus Lewis had difficulty finding the right form for what he wanted to say. His early attempt came off too "preachy" from his own perspective. Then in the spring of 1963 the form suggested itself: an imaginary correspondence between himself and a friend, Malcolm, about prayer. With the right format in mind the book flowed from Lewis's pen in March and April of 1963. By 22 April he wrote to Mary Willis Shelburne: "I've finished a book on Prayer. Don't know if it is any good." By 16 May Lewis was able to tell his publisher, Jocelyn Gibb, that the book was with the typist. When Gibb received the manuscript a few weeks later he wrote back to Lewis: "Respect and admire you as I do, this Letters to Malcolm . . . has knocked me flat. Not quite; I can just sit up and shout hurrah, and again, hurrah. It's the best you've done since The Problem of Pain. By Jove, this is something of a present to a publisher!"

Gibb asked Lewis to write something for the blurb on the flyleaf of the book, but Lewis always struggled with what he called "blurbology". Still, a couple of Lewis's suggestions did make their way on to the flyleaf of the first edition. Lewis wrote to Gibb:

I'd like you to make the point that the reader is merely being allowed to listen to two ordinary laymen discussing the practical and speculative problems of prayer as these appear to them; i.e. the author does not claim to be teaching..
Would it be good to say 'Some passages are controversial but this is almost an accident. The wayfaring Christian cannot quite ignore recent Anglican theology when it has been built as a barricade across the high road'?

Since the book was first published, down to this day, readers have wondered who Malcolm really was. This fact only betrays the reality that Lewis was just as good at imaginative letter-writing in 1963 as he was when he wrote Screwtape in the early 40's. But sadly, this was to be the last of Lewis's imaginary letter-writing, or for that matter, the last of any writing from his pen. C. S. Lewis died on November 22, 1963, the same day as the assasination of President John F. Kennedy and the death of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World. Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer was published posthumously in 1964. The reviewer for The Times (30 January 1964), p. 15, spoke for many readers when he said, "Only Screwtape will be glad that Mr Lewis has written his last letter."

Topical Index by Letter

Corporate Prayer/Liturgy
Ready-made & Home-made Prayers
Asking Prayers of the Saints, When & Where to Pray, The Role of the Body in Prayer
Why pray when God knows all? What should we pray about?
Festoons to The Lord's Prayer
Religion & Guilt
Petitionary Prayer
The Serious Business of Prayer
Does prayer change God?
Prayer: Part of the Tapestry of Providence
The Prayer of Faith
Levels of Prayer, Intercessory Prayer
The Soliloquy of Prayer
Practicing The Presence of God
Breaking Through The Fourth Wall
The Use of Images
Thanksgiving & Adoration (Looking At & Looking Along)
Penitential Prayer
Holy Communion
Forgiveness, Prayers for the Dead, Purgatory
The Duty of Prayer
"Liberal Christians", Heaven, Resurrection of the Senses

Discussion Questions

What do you think of Lewis's statement about liturgy: "I think our business as laymen is to take what we are given and make the best of it. And I think we should find this a great deal easier if what we were given was always and everywhere the same."?

Which manner of prayer do you think Lewis valued most and why: ready-made or home-made prayers? Which do you value most? Why?

What do you think of what Lewis has to say about asking prayers of the saints?

What do you think of Lewis's statement: "Those who have not learned to ask Him for childish things will have less readiness to ask Him for great ones."?

Which of Lewis's festoons on The Lord's Prayer do you find most helpful? Why?

Lewis writes, "I sometimes pray not for self-knowledge in general but for just so much self-knowledge at the moment as I can bear and use at the moment; the little daily dose." How does this help to deal appropriately with the "vague sense of guilt" we all feel from time to time? Do you find Lewis's approach helpful?

Why does Lewis say that we cannot properly remove petitionary prayer from Christianity? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

What do you think of Lewis's statement: "The 'hiddenness' of God perhaps presses most painfully on those who are in another way nearest to Him ..."?

What do you think of Lewis's answer to the question: "Does prayer change God?" Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Lewis writes, "If there is Providence at all, everything is providential and every providence is a special providence." Do you believe that God is involved in all events? Why or why not?

Regarding the prayer of faith Lewis writes, "For most of us the prayer in Gethsemane is the only model. Removing mountains can wait." What do you think?

Lewis suggests there is a certain ease in intercessory prayer that we ought to be wary of. "It's so much easier to pray for a bore than to go and see him." Which is easier for you ? praying for yourself or for others? Why? Where do you most need to grow in prayer?

What do you think of Lewis's concept of prayer as soliloquy, God speaking to himself through us?

Lewis writes, "We may ignore, but we can nowhere evade, the presence of God. The world is crowded with Him. He walks everywhere incognito. And the incognito is not always hard to penetrate. The real labour is to remember, to attend. In fact, to come awake. Still more, to remain awake." How does Lewis's concept of practicing the presence of God, which he borrows from Brother Lawrence, transform the practice of prayer? Has this ever worked for you?

What does Lewis have to say about "putting himself in the presence of God"? Does Lewis's practice of remembering the "stage set" and seeking to address the "Author of the play" help you in any way?

Lewis says that mental images play an important part in his prayers but that he must "kiss them as they fly." What part do mental images play in your own prayers? Do you find certain images helpful? Are some not helpful? Explain.

What do you think of Lewis's practice of making every pleasure into a channel of adoration? Have you ever done this? Has this helped you to make prayer more a part of your moment-by-moment existence?

Lewis writes, "Wrath and pardon are both, as applied to God, analogies; but they belong together to the same circle of analogy?the circle of life, and love, and deeply personal relationships. All the liberalising and 'civilising' analogies only lead us astray. Turn God's wrath into mere enlightened disapproval, and you also turn His love into mere humanitarianism. The 'consuming fire' and the 'perfect beauty' both vanish. We have, instead, a judicious headmistress or a conscientious magistrate. It comes of being high-minded." What do you think? Does Lewis's reasoning help you to engage more effectively in petitionary prayer?

Lewis writes about Holy Communion, "Yet I find no difficulty believing that the veil between the worlds, nowhere else (for me) so opaque to the intellect, is nowhere else so thin and permeable to divine operation. Here a hand from the hidden country touches not only my soul but my body. Here the prig, the don, the modern in me have no privilege over the savage or the child. Here is big medicine and strong magic." What does Lewis mean? Do his thoughts make Holy Communion more meaningful to you? Why or why not?

What do you think of Lewis's concept of prayers for the dead and Purgatory? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Lewis writes, "The painful effort which prayer involves is no proof that we are doing something we were not created to do. If we were perfected, prayer would not be a duty, it would be delight. Some day, please God, it will be." What do you think of this? Does this encourage you in your prayer life? Why and how?

What do you think of Lewis's concept of "the resurrection of the senses"? What does Lewis mean by this? Do you agree with his view? Why or why not?

Introduction

On February 7, 1941 Dr James W. Welch, Director of Religious Broadcasting for the BBC, wrote to C. S. Lewis asking him if he would be willing to help them in their task of religious broadcasting. Welch had been very impressed with Lewis's Problem of Pain. Jack immediately wrote back accepting the invitation and suggesting a series of talks on objective right and wrong. Next, Jack heard from Eric Fenn, Dr Welch's assistant, suggesting a series of four Wednesday evening talks in August or September 1941.

Lewis invited Fenn to lunch with him in Magdalen College, Oxford and they arranged for a voice test on microphone. It was the first time C. S. Lewis had heard a recording of his own voice. He wrote to his friend Arthur Greeves after the event:

I was unprepared for the total unfamiliarity of the voice; not a trace, not a hint, of anything one could identify with oneself-one couldn't possibly guess who it was.

Lewis eventually gave the first four talks live over the BBC airwaves in August 1941. The discipline of these 15-minute talks, no more, no less, must have enhanced Lewis's ability to boil down complex subjects into a few sparkling analogies or metaphors. The talks proved to be so popular that Lewis was deluged with letters from both adoring and irate listeners. Thus Lewis gave a further talk on "Answers to Listeners' Questions" which later became the chapter "Some Objections". This only served to fuel the fire under the letter writers and so began the vast correspondence Lewis was to patiently endure for the rest of his life. Again, he wrote to Arthur Greeves, this time describing the letters he was receiving from listeners:

I had an enormous pile of letters from strangers to answer. One gets funny letters after broadcasting-some from lunatics who sign themselves ?Jehovah' or begin ?Dear Mr Lewis, I was married at the age of 20 to a man I didn't love'-but many from serious enquirers whom it was a duty to answer fully.

The first series of talks led to a second, delivered live in January and February 1942 on the topic: What Christians Believe. Jack asked four people from different Christian communions for critique of this second series of broadcast talks, prior to delivery, to see if there was any disagreement among them. He wanted to insure that what he was saying represented "mere Christianity" as much as possible. These two series of talks were published in July 1942 under the simple title: Broadcast Talks.

One famous passage from the broadcast talks, about Jesus being either a lunatic, God or the devil, was abbreviated in the subsequent book. In the original talk Lewis had a very illuminating section in which he said:

Of course you can take the line of saying He [Jesus] didn't say these things, but His followers invented them. But that's only shifting the difficulty. They were Jews too: the last people who would invent such a thing, the people who had never said anything of the sort about Moses or Elijah. That theory only saddles you with twelve inexplicable lunatics instead of one. We can't get out of it that way.

Once again Lewis was overwhelmed with responses to these talks. He asked the BBC to print some of his responses in their own periodical The Listener in order to lighten his own correspondence load. But nothing worked. The flood of mail continued.

In September and November of 1942 Jack gave yet another series of BBC talks, this time on the topic: Christian Behavior. These were published in 1943 under the same title. Then from February to April 1944 Jack gave his final series of BBC talks on Christianity. This series was published in October 1944 under the title: Beyond Personality. Most of these talks were delivered live; in fact, only one recording of Jack's BBC talks on Christianity still survives, on the topic of The New Men.

Lewis's various broadcast talks, once published in book form, received many enthusiastic reviews. The following from Time and Tide was characteristic:

Mr C. S. Lewis has made the kind of public return to the ancient faith which infuriates other intellectuals. If only these undeniably intelligent laymen had kept quiet about their change of direction, they might have been endurable. But they have not kept quiet . . . An uncompromising, tonic little book.

It has been said that these war time talks over BBC radio made C. S. Lewis's voice the most recognizable in all of Britain during the war, second only to Winston Churchill. All of these talks were eventually revised, amplified and collected in the one volume entitled Mere Christianity, published in 1952.

Discussion Questions

What is the main theme of Mere Christianity and what do you think was Lewis's purpose in writing the book, or in giving the original talks over the BBC?
Do you think Lewis succeeded in presenting to the world "mere Christianity"? That is, has Lewis succeeded in presenting what all Christians have at all times and in all places believed? Why or why not?
Do you think Lewis's argument for the existence of God based upon the existence of the Moral Law is credible? Why or why not?
What do you think of Lewis's statement: "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."? (p. 46)
At the end of his chapter on "The Shocking Alternative" Lewis wrote: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ?I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." In examining the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, are Lewis's options the only ones open to us? If not, what other conclusion might one arrive at? Which option seems most credible to you and why?
In his chapter on "Hope" Lewis wrote: "Most people, if they had really learned to look into their own hearts, would know that they do want, and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world. There are all sorts of things in this world that offer to give it to you, but they never quite keep their promise. The longings which arise in us when we first fall in love, or first think of some foreign country, or first take up some subject that excites us, are longings which no marriage, no travel, no learning, can really satisfy." In this passage Lewis touches on the themes of heaven and unfulfilled longings, themes which appear over and over again in his writings. Do you think that the unfulfilled longings which Lewis talks about prove that there is a heaven and that there is God? Why or why not?
Lewis was a master of the art of illustration, analogy, parable. What is your favorite illustration from Mere Christianity and why?
What is your favorite passage from Mere Christianity and why? Would you mind reading that passage to the group?
What effect, if any, has reading Mere Christianity had upon your personal life and your relationship with God?

Introduction

On May 13, 1943, Dorothy Sayers wrote a letter to C.S. Lewis complaining that there were not any up-to-date books about miracles. She also stated that she felt Lewis himself was the man to remedy the situation. Apparently Lewis agreed with her because he began writing Miracles a few weeks later. George Sayer tells us that Lewis found this book difficult to write because, when he began it, his own ideas about miracles were not quite clear. Lewis was still working on the book during the long vacation of 1945 just after the death of his friend Charles Williams. Sayer also tells us that, though there is no sign of Williams' influence in the book, Jack once said to him that he felt Williams was nearby, helping him to finish it.

Miracles was published by Geoffrey Bles in 1947. Its publication coincided almost exactly with Bishop E.W. Barnes' Rise of Christianity in which he tried to explain away the miraculous.

Lewis's central argument in the book is that Naturalism contains a great self-contradiction. Lewis quotes Professor Haldane in support of his view: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." If the Naturalists are right and Nature is all there is then this begs the question, "Where does reason come from?" Lewis posits that Reason can only come from outside of Nature. If Nature is all there is then there is no purpose behind the existence of the universe. If there is no purpose then there is no Reason. If there is no Reason then all arguments for or against Naturalism are nonsensical and thus invalid.

Lewis's argument for the self-contradiction inherent in Naturalism received criticism from Elizabeth Anscombe, later professor of philosophy at Cambridge. The criticism came in the form of a debate during a Socratic Club meeting in Oxford on February 2, 1948. The particular statement in the first edition of Miracles to which Miss Anscombe objected was Lewis's statement that "we may in fact state as a rule that no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes." Anscombe insisted that a distinction should be made between irrational causes (such as passion, self-interest, obstinacy, and prejudice) and non-rational causes (such things as brain tumors, tuberculosis, and mental fatigue). She asked Lewis to clarify what he meant by the word "valid". Anscombe also distinguished between the ground of a conclusion (the reasons a man would give if asked to explain why he thinks such and such) and the cause of a conclusion (brain tumors, prejudices, or whatever makes him think as he does). Lewis admitted in the course of debate that his use of the word valid was unfortunate.

After the debate Lewis was dejected. He told George Sayer that he felt his argument for the existence of God had been demolished. But Lewis did some further thinking on the whole issue of Naturalism and the end result was that he re-wrote chapter III of Miracles for the 1960 Fontana paperback version.

Some Lewis scholars maintain that after the debate with Anscombe Lewis made a deliberate decision to no longer write any strictly theological or apologetic works. Sayer maintains that Lewis told him, with regard to Miracles, "I can never write another book of that sort." But obviously, after Lewis thought the matter through, he did not thoroughly give up on classical apologetics because he did re-write that chapter in Miracles and that only a few years before his death. Though Lewis was humbled by the encounter with Anscombe he did not in any way lose faith and he continued to stand by his early defenses of the Christian faith up to the time of his death.

While Miracles still contains many of Lewis's own homespun illustrations it appears to have been written for a more scholarly audience than Mere Christianity. The book is very closely reasoned and therefore presents some challenging reading for the average student of theology and apologetics. Lewis obviously seeks to address Naturalists and Pantheists in the first part of the book, desiring to remove as many obstacles as possible to a thoroughgoing acceptance of Christian Supernaturalism. Unfortunately, Lewis does not address the position of panentheism, the idea that God is both immanent in the world and also transcendent. Perhaps the chapters on The Grand Miracle and the Miracles of the Old and New Creation offer the most spiritual nourishment for those who have grown up in the Christian Church.

This reader believes that Miracles will clearly prepare the mind of any intelligent reader to accept the possibility of miracles. But human reason will only take a seeker for truth just so far. There is still the leap of faith which must be made into the loving arms of the Miracle-worker.

Discussion Questions

What do you think of Lewis's statement in the first chapter: "Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into texts: we know in advance what results they will find, for they have begun by begging the question."?
How is it that Naturalism automatically rules out the possibility of miracles? How does Supernaturalism allow for the possibility of miracles without insisting upon it?
What is the cardinal difficulty of Naturalism according to C. S. Lewis? Do you agree with Lewis's view? Why or why not?
What do you think of Lewis's statement at the end of chapter 4: "No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement on the words of Genesis, that ?In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth.' I say ?radical' improvement, because the story in Genesis--as St. Jerome said long ago--is told in the manner ?of a popular poet,' or as we should say, in the form of a folk tale."?
How are Naturalists inconsistent when it comes to morality? Do you agree with Lewis that Supernaturalism provides the only firm grounds for morality?
How does Lewis refute the idea that people in "olden times" believed in miracles "because they didn't know the laws of Nature."? (See chapter 7.) Does Lewis's argument clarify this issue for you? Why or why not?
Why does Lewis say that the size of the universe is irrelevant to the question of miracles? (See chapter 7 again.) Do you agree? Why or why not?
Why does Lewis say that it is inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature? What illustrations does Lewis give of this principle? (See chapter 8.) What do you think?
What do you think Lewis means by saying that only Supernaturalists really see Nature? If you are a Christian, did you have a different response to the natural world after you became a Christian? If so, tell us about it.
Why is it that there can be no true Christianity without miracles? Are you now, or have you ever tried to be, a Christian without believing in miracles? If so, tell us about your experience.
Why is it that we can never get rid of anthropomorphic images when talking about God or spiritual realities? Do you think it is important to hold on to the images used in Scripture to describe God? Why or why not?
How do you feel about Lewis's statement at the end of chapter 11, "There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (?Man's search for God'!) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?"?
What does Lewis mean when he says: "Theology offers you a working arrangement, which leaves the scientist free to continue his experiments and the Christian to continue his prayers."? What do you think?
How is the difficulty of "the Supernatural descending into the Natural" overcome in the person of every man? (See chapter 14.) Does Lewis make the Grand Miracle of the Incarnation seem more "fit" to you? Why or why not?
How are the Christian miracles different from "mythological miracles"? (See beginning of chapter 15.)
According to Lewis, what is the difference between miracles of the Old Creation and miracles of the New Creation? Which biblical miracles fall into each category? Does Lewis's categorization of miracles help you in thinking about them? Why or why not?
Does Lewis's statement that "in all these miracles alike the incarnate God does suddenly and locally something that God has done or will do in general" make the miracles of the Bible more credible to you? Why or why not?
How does Lewis defend the idea of the bodily resurrection of Christ and of the resurrection of the body in general? How are the resurrection and the ascension of Christ inextricably tied together? Does Lewis make these doctrines more credible to you? Why or why not?
How do you feel upon reading Lewis's final paragraph in chapter 16? Does it fill you with any desire to participate in the resurrected life? What other story in Lewis's writings does this remind you of?
Why does Lewis suggest that we might NOT want to witness a miracle ourselves? How do you feel about this?

Introduction

C.S. Lewis wrote his first science-fiction novel, Out of the Silent Planet in 1937 and it was first published in 1938. Also in 1938, Lewis wrote to one of his students, Roger Lancelyn Green, about his motivation to write the book:

What immediately spurred me to write was Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men [1931] and an essay in J.B.S. Haldane's Possible Worlds [1927], both of which seemed to take the idea of such travel seriously and to have the desperately immoral outlook which I try to pillory in Weston. I like the whole inter-planetary idea as a mythology and simply wished to conquer for my own (Christian) point of view what has always hitherto been used by the opposite side.

According to George Sayer, one of Lewis's biographers, Lewis was fascinated with the space-travel thriller since boyhood. After becoming a Christian, Lewis had a deep desire to develop his own space-travel novel from a Christian perspective. Concerned that such books were rare, Lewis made the following proposal to his friend, J.R.R. Tolkien:

We shall have to write books of the sort ourselves. Supposing you write a thriller that's a time journey--you have such a strong sense of time--and I write one that's a space-journey.

Sayer tells us that Tolkien and Lewis took the bargain seriously. However, Tolkien's story, The Lost Road, was not published at that time. Lewis's book was at first rejected by J.M. Dent and Sons, but subsequently was accepted by the Bodley Head. Even then Lewis's book did not sell well until after he became famous for his Broadcast Talks and The Screwtape Letters.

On July 9, 1939 Lewis answered some questions for Sister Penelope, one of his correspondents, about the book. This letter gives us further insight into some of Lewis's motives for writing and the reception which the book received:

The letter at the end is pure fiction and the "circumstances which put the book out of date" are merely a way of preparing for a sequel. But the danger of "Westonism" I meant to be real.

What set me about writing the book was the discovery that a pupil of mine took all that dream of interplanetary colonisation quite seriously, and the realisation that thousands of people, in one form or another depend on some hope of perpetuating and improving the human species for the whole meaning of the universe -- that a "scientific" hope of defeating death is a real rival to Christianity. At present, of course, the prospect of a war has rather damped them: which shows that whatever evil Satan sets on foot God will always do some good or other by it. I don't think even "for believers only" I could describe Ransom's revelation to Oyarsa: the fact that you want me to really proves how well advised I was merely to suggest it.

You will be both grieved and amused to learn that out of about sixty reviews, only two showed any knowledge that my idea of the fall of the Bent One was anything but a private invention of my own! But if only there were someone with a richer talent and more leisure, I believe this great ignorance might be a help to the evangelization of England: any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people's minds under cover of romance without their knowing it.

By 1945, when Lewis addressed a group of Anglican priests and youth leaders, he had further developed this idea of "smuggling in theology under the cover of romance". At that time he said,

We must attack the enemy's line of communication. What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects -- with their Christianity latent.

This is precisely what Lewis set out to accomplish in the science fiction genre of literature with his space-travel trilogy. The effect of Lewis's "baptized" science fiction on his readers is told in a letter which Dorothy Sayers wrote to Lewis on December 21, 1953 about a young friend of hers:

He told me how, in his undergraduate days, he read Out of the Silent Planet with great enjoyment, accepting it quite simply as a space-travel story until quite suddenly near the end (not, I think, until Ransom had got to Meldilorn) some phrase clicked in his mind and he exclaimed: "Why, this is a story about Christianity. Maleldil is Christ, and the Eldila are the angels!" He said it was a most wonderful experience, as though two entirely different worlds had suddenly come into focus together, like a stereoscope, and it's a thing he can never forget.

In his book, A Severe Mercy, Sheldon Vanauken tells the story of his introduction to C.S. Lewis through reading Out of the Silent Planet:

It was fortunate that I chose to read that C.S. Lewis science-fiction triology first, for, apart from being beautiful and enthralling, it made me conscious of an alliance with him: what he hated (That Hideous Strength) I hated and feared. Much more important, perhaps, the triology showed me that the Christian God might, after all, be quite big enough for the whole galaxy. Nothing was proved except that, quite reasonably, He might be big enough; but, in fact, an insuperable difficulty -- that of Christianity's being only a local religion -- was overcome.

Vanauken later became a Christian, then, subsequently, fell away from "the Obedience", as he called it, for a period of time. In his "Afterward on the Genesis of A Severe Mercy", Vanauken describes how Out of the Silent Planet led him back into the Obedience:

Then one October night I was comfortably reading a detective story in bed. Suddenly in mid-page I was seized by an urgent desire to reread the first Lewis book I'd ever read, Out of the Silent Planet. I fetched it and read the first page, which had nothing significant upon it. Nevertheless, by the time I reached the bottom of that page, I was back in the Obedience. I prayed. God was first.

One of the most captivating aspects of Out of the Silent Planet is the incredible beauty described by Lewis. Writing in 1937, Lewis was certainly ahead of his time, especially when it came to describing the glory of the heavens. Clyde Kilby, in The Christian World of C.S. Lewis, notes how Scott Carpenter, the second American to circle the earth in space, said, "The colors glowed vigorously alive with light."

However, even those who love Lewis's writing are not without criticism for Out of the Silent Planet. Clyde Kilby felt that Out of the Silent Planet was not dominated by a single idea as was the later Perelandra. And George Sayer felt that this otherwise magnificent piece of science fiction suffered from the weak characterization of Ransom. Sayer believed the reason for this was that Ransom, was to some extent, a self-portrait of Lewis who was, at that time, shy of writing about his own spiritual or private life. Though Ransom is not a fully developed character in Out of the Silent Planet, we catch glimpses of his inner nature: his fear, his tendency to self-absorption when left alone, his struggle to be courageous. And if Ransom is not fully developed in this novel, by the end of Lewis's space trilogy, this reader, at least, cannot help but be satisfied with Lewis's work at character development.

On the whole, Out of the Silent Planet is well worth the read for its fascinating plot and haunting beauty, as well as for its spiritual implications. Lovers of science fiction will most likely be glad to discover this addition to the genre. And those who don't necessarily care for science fiction, but who love Lewis's work, will be intrigued to discover how he uses this genre for his own spiritual ends.

Discussion Questions

It would appear that Lewis put a good bit of himself, as well as a good bit of J.R.R. Tolkien, into the character of Ransom. Ransom is thirty-five to forty years of age (the age Lewis was when he wrote OSP). Ransom dresses with a particular kind of shabbiness (like Lewis). He is a philologist (like Tolkien). He is a fellow of an English University (like Lewis and Tolkien). Ransom enjoys walking tours, whiskey and tobacco (like Lewis). He is an anti-vivisectionist (like Lewis). Ransom served in the War (like Lewis and Tolkien) and he is a Christian (like Lewis and Tolkien). Do you think Lewis's writing technique in this regard detracts from or enhances the development of Ransom as a character? Why? Is Ransom an interesting character to you? Why or why not?
What do you think of Weston's philosophy of life, that anything which is done to individual people now is justified if it serves to perpetuate the human race in the future? Do you see any traces of this philosophy in our contemporary society?
What do you think of Ransom's reflection on p. 32 -- "But Ransom, as time wore on, became aware of another and more spiritual cause for his progressive lightening and exultation of heart. A nightmare, long engendered in the modern mind by the mythology that follows in the wake of science, was falling off him. He had read of 'Space': at the back of his thinking for years had lurked the dismal fancy of the black, cold vacuity, the utter deadness, which was supposed to separate the worlds. He had not known how much it affected him till now--now that the very name 'Space' seemed a blasphemous libel for this empyrean ocean of radiance in which they swam. He could not call it 'dead'; he felt life pouring into him from it every moment. How indeed should it be otherwise, since out of this ocean the worlds and all their life had come? He had thought it barren: he saw now that it was the womb of the worlds, whose blazing and innumerable offspring looked down nightly even upon the earth with so many eyes--and here, with how many more! No: Space was the wrong name. Older thinkers had been wiser when they named it simply the heavens ..." ?
OSP, among other things, is full of descriptions of the sheer beauty of Malacandra. How did some of these descriptions affect you as you read the book? Would you read one of these descriptions for our group?
How well do you think Lewis achieves the feat of creating a whole new world that is at once believable as well as intriguing and delightful? What is one of your favorite aspects of Malacandrian life?
One of the key concepts of OSP is that Thulcandra, Earth, is the silent planet. What do the Malacandrians mean by this? What do you make of this whole idea?
The Hrossa call Weston and Devine "bent" men. Do you think this is a helpful description? Why? Do you think this is an accurate description of all human beings? Why or why not? Ransom often displays a sense of shame in regard to his people and his planet. Why is this the case? Would you feel the same way if you were in Ransom's shoes?
What do the eldila, and Oyarsa in particular, add to your understanding, or imagination, when it comes to your view of angels? Do you believe in the reality of angels? Why or why not?
Another underlying theme in OSP is that of "pleasure." What do you think of the hross' statement that "a pleasure is full grown only when it is remembered"? (p. 73) Elsewhere Lewis has said that the one prayer that God never answers is "Encore!" Do you think the hrossa ever say, "Encore!" Do human beings do this? Why do you think there is such a difference between the two species?
On p. 75 Hyoi says to Ransom, "I do not think the forest would be so bright, nor the water so warm, nor love so sweet, if there were no danger in the lakes." Does this statement suggest to you one reason why God may have allowed evil to exist in the world? What do you think about this?
Lewis's constant theme of "longing," "desire," "joy," "sensucht," is quite present in OSP. On p. 103 Lewis says that Ransom "thought only of the old forests of Malacandra and of what it might mean to grow up seeing always so few miles away a land of colour that could never be reached and had once been inhabited." Does reading this or any of the rest of OSP fill you with any kind of longing? For what? What do you think the old forests of Malacandra correspond to in our world?
Oyarsa tells Ransom that Ransom has been afraid of him and running from him even though he has been calling Ransom. What spiritual reality do you think this corresponds to in our world? Has this ever been true of you?
What do you think were the "wonders" which Ransom showed to Oyarsa? (p. 142)

Introduction

C. S. Lewis once said:

"The starting point for my second novel, Perelandra, was my mental picture of the floating islands. The whole of the rest of my labours in a sense consisted of building up a world in which floating islands could exist. And then of course the story about an averted fall developed. This is because, as you know, having got your people to this exciting country, something must happen." (Quoted in Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: Companion & Guide, New York: HarperCollins, 1996, p. 220.)

While Perelandra began from a picture in Lewis's mind, it also began from an idea he wanted to illustrate. The basic idea which Lewis seeks to illustrate in Perelandra is that of Paradise Retained. The idea of writing a novel about this subject may have risen out of Lewis's lectures on Milton's Paradise Lost. In his Preface to Paradise Lost Lewis wrote:

"What would have happened if instead of his 'compliance bad' Adam had scolded or even chastised Eve and then interceded with God on her behalf, we are not told. The reason we are not told is that Milton does not know. And I think he knows he does not know: he says cautiously that the situation 'seemd remediless' (919). This ignorance is not without significance. We see the results of our actions, but we do not know what would have happened if we had abstained. For all Adam knew, God might have had other cards in His hand; but Adam never raised the question, and now nobody will ever know. Rejected goods are invisible." ( C. S. Lewis, A Preface to Paradise Lost, London: Oxford University Press, November 1942, p. 123.)

What Lewis seeks to do is make those rejected goods visible. Perelandra, like The Chronicles of Narnia, is based upon a supposal. What if there is intelligent life on other planets? And what if that intelligent life on one planet is unfallen? Will it remain so? What is essential to retaining Paradise? These are the questions Lewis seeks to answer through this novel.

The literary influences upon this novel are several. The picture of the floating islands probably was influenced by Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men. "In early days on Venus men had gathered foodstuffs from the great and floating islands of vegetable matter . . ." (Chapter 13, Section I) Picturing Tor and Tinidril as having green bodies was an idea Lewis got from Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy written in 1621. We can also detect in Perelandra the influences of Wagner and Dante. On October 29, 1944 Lewis wrote to a correspondent, Charles Brady:

". . . you just missed tapping my whole Norse complex -- Old Icelandic, Wagner's Ring and (again) Morris. The Wagner is important: you will see, if you look, how operatic the whole building up of the climax is in Perelandra. Milton I think you possibly over-rate: it is difficult to distinguish him from Dante & St Augustine. (Tinidril in her second appearance owes something to Matilda at the end of Purgatorio)." (The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Volume II, p. 630.)

Lewis once referred to his friend, Charles Williams', literary style as "clotted glory". The same could be said of Lewis's style in some of his books, especially That Hideous Strength, which owes a lot to the influence of Williams. But what Lewis does with the polyglot of influences in Perelandra is uniquely his own work. Who else has imagined with near perfection what temptation and a Fall averted might look like on another planet?

Lewis began writing Perelandra some time in 1941. The first written reference to Lewis's writing of this novel is contained in a letter to Lewis's friend, Sister Penelope, on November 9, 1941:

"I've got Ransom to Venus and through his first conversation with the 'Eve' of that world: a difficult chapter. I hadn't realised till I came to write it all the Ave-Eva business. I may have embarked on the impossible. This woman has got to combine characteristics which the Fall has put poles apart -- she's got to be in some ways like a Pagan goddess and in other ways like the Blessed Virgin. But if one can get even a fraction of it into words it is worth doing." (Collected Letters, Volume II, p. 496.)

On May 11, 1942 Lewis wrote again to Sister Penelope:

"The Venus book is just finished, except that I now find the two first chapters need re-writing. I will send you a typed MS as soon as it is typed and you can report on it to Reverend Mother for her consent to the dedication." (Collected Letters, Volume II, p. 520.)

Lewis dedicated this book to the community of Anglican nuns of which Sister Penelope was a member: The Community of St. Mary the Virgin at Wantage, England, not far from Oxford. Per Lewis's request, the dedication line simply reads: "To some ladies at Wantage". This dedication proved difficult for a later Portuguese translator of the book and thus was rendered, rather humorously: "To some wanton ladies"!

Perelandra received a number of good reviews after it was published in April 1943. More than one reviewer thought that the matter of Perelandra would have been better handled in verse; how ironic for Lewis who at one time longed to be a great poet and who actually began writing Perelandra in verse! Despite this critique Leonard Bacon perhaps most succinctly summed up Lewis's achievement: "'Perelandra' is the result of the poetic imagination in full blast . . . The reader is taken into an Eden with the dew on it, where not unnaturally the only rational inhabitants are a thoroughly interesting Eve and perhaps the only endurable Adam in literature." (Quoted in C. S. Lewis: Companion & Guide, p. 229.) Most importantly, Perelandra was Lewis's favorite among his own books along with Till We Have Faces.

Discussion Questions

What do you think of Lewis putting himself as a character into Perelandra? Do you think Lewis put more of himself into his own character or the character of Ransom?
Do you think Lewis's portrayal of supernatural beings, the eldils, is believable? Why or why not?
One of Lewis's minor themes in Perelandra is summed up in the question: "Were all the things which appeared as mythology on earth scattered through other worlds as realities?" What do you think of this idea?
What is your response to Lewis's descriptions of the flora and fauna of Perelandra? How do these descriptions make you feel?
5. Lewis writes about Ransom in chapter four: "Looking at a fine cluster of the bubbles which hung above his head he thought how easy it would be to get up and plunge oneself through the whole lot of them and to feel, all at once, that magical refreshment multiplied tenfold. But he was restrained by the same sort of feeling which had restrained him over-night from tasting a second gourd. He had always disliked the people who encored a favourite air in the opera??That just spoils it' had been his comment. But this now appeared to him as a principle of far wider application and deeper moment. This itch to have things over again, as if life were a film that could be unrolled twice or even made to work backwards . . . was it possibly the root of all evil?" What do you think of this idea?
What do you think of Lewis's characterization of Tinidril? Lewis describes the Green Lady as a cross between a goddess and a Madonna. Do you think Lewis has achieved the characterization he wanted?
What do you think of Lewis's development of the character of Weston? Is Lewis's description of demon possession believable? What do you think of the final end of Weston, the Un-man? Was this the best way to end the struggle between good and evil? The only way?
What do you think of Weston/The Un-man's temptation of Tinidril? How does it compare to the serpent's temptation of Eve in the Garden?
What is the significance of the Fixed Island in Perelandra and why has Maleldil forbidden Tor and Tinidril to stay on it over night? (See chapter seventeen.) To what do the fixed islands in Perelandra correspond in Genesis?
Based upon your reading of Perelandra how do you think Lewis would view the account of human temptation in Genesis? Do you think Lewis would view the Genesis account as history, myth, or both?
How is the following statement by Tinidril descriptive of Lewis's approach to story-telling: "But if I try to make the story about living on the Fixed Island I do not know how to make it about Maleldil."?
What do you think of Tinidril's statement: "To walk out of His will is to walk into nowhere."?
What is the significance of the name "Ransom"? What is the meaning of the wound in Ransom's heel? How is Ransom like Christ? How is he unlike Christ?
What do you think of the following statement: "You might say, if you liked, that the power of choice had been simply set aside and an inflexible destiny substituted for it. On the other hand, you might say that he had been delivered from the rhetoric of his passions and had emerged into unassailable freedom. Ransom could not, for the life of him, see any difference between these two statements. Predestination and freedom were apparently identical. He could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on this subject."?
What do you think of Ransom's hatred for the Un-man toward the end of the book and Lewis's statement: "Then an experience that perhaps no good man can ever have in our world came over him?a torrent of perfectly unmixed and lawful hatred.... The joy came from finding at last what hatred was made for."?
In chapter fourteen Lewis says that Ransom's "starvation for light became very painful. He found himself thinking about light as a hungry man thinks about food?picturing April hillsides with milky clouds racing over them in blue skies or quiet circles of lamp-light on tables pleasantly littered with books and pipes." What does Ransom's starvation for light prove? What would Lewis say human hunger for something more than the natural realm proves?
What do you think of Lewis's view of Gender as expressed in chapter sixteen? "Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings."
What do you think of Lewis's view of revelation/inspiration expressed in these words: "The universe is one?a spider's web wherein each mind lives along every line, a vast whispering gallery where (save for the direct action of Maleldil) though no news travels unchanged yet no secret can be rigorously kept."?
What was your reaction to the final scene on the mountaintop in Perelandra? Does this story fill you with awe, longing, something else?
What has been the overall impact on you from reading Perelandra and the other two books of Lewis's space trilogy if you have read them all?

Reflections on the Psalms

Surprised by Joy

That Hideous Strength

The Abolition of Man