Upcoming Ursula K. Le Guin Course at Signum University: Recall John Garth, Maximilian Hart, Kris Swank, and Myself on Ursula K. Le Guin, Language, Tolkien, and World-building (Friday Feature)

“Ursula Le Guin’s map of Earthsea, a primary piece of world-building by name-making” John Garth

Happy Friday my fellow wayfarers! I am recalling this post from the first edition of the grad course at Signum on Ursula K. Le Guin with the ever-brilliant Kris Swank. I am not teaching this deep-dive course this summer–though I have a lecture-discussion role at one point in the term. I love Kris’ approach to Le Guin as a “world-builder”–a shaper of speculative universes that are as dynamic, alluring, and provocative as her characters, storylines, and poetic prose have always been.

I admit this post is a bit indulgent. I am not able to go to MythMoot XI in June. The theme is, “The Resilience of Imagination,” and I am sad to miss it. Thus, remembering my Le Guin teaching and writing is somewhat of a consolation.

In preparation for the 2021 course, I read through Le Guin‘s entire bookshelf with an online reading group (including her essays, which were formative for me). I continue to be fascinated by her work, having been drawn into the fantasy Earthsea series as a child and young adult. Le Guin fascinates others, as well. Since she passed away, Mythlore has released a full special issue dedicated to Le Guin (see the free articles here), a Ursula K. Le Guin Prize for Fiction has been announced, and a peer-reviewed annual scholarly journal has launched, UKL: The Journal of Ursula K. Le Guin Studies. It’s all very cool. 

Thus, here are the details on Kris’ Signum course and some resources that are connected to the original launch. Kris has written a thoughtful and accessible piece about “Ursula’s Bookshelf.” I’ve also tucked some of my Le Guin reflections in with hyperlinks, here and there. You can also check out my reviews and articles, such as:

Be well, 
Brenton

Ursula K. Le Guin: Worldbuilder by Kris Swank (details here)

Ursula K. Le Guin (1929-2018) described herself as “A Citizen of Mondath,” that country of the imagination where live the storytellers, the mythmakers, and the singers. In this survey of her works, we will study Le Guin’s own use of story, myth, and song to build unique worlds at the heart of her fiction: the far-flung Hainish Universe, the intimate islands of Earthsea, the disparate states of the Western Shore, and others. We will examine her literary theories of science fiction and fantasy as vehicles for myth, archetype, and character, and as locations for the exploration of gender, politics, the environment, race, culture, religion, and power. Finally, we will examine how her views evolved over time as she revisited and re-visioned the worlds she had built, and how her legacy empowers other authors to build worlds of their own.

John Garth, “Ursula Le Guin, the language of Earthsea, and Tolkien”

Always thoughtful, writerly historian John Garth posted an article on his website about Le Guin and language. While Le Guin has more fully worked out implications of her Hainish world and its names, the idea of language runs deeply through Earthsea. Garth asks whether there could be a tribute to Tolkien embedded in Le Guin’s classic fantasy novel, A Wizard of Earthsea. I was skeptical at first about Garth’s winsome answer, but found the article brought a number of things together for me. “Ursula Le Guin, the language of Earthsea, and Tolkien” is worth reading not just for the thought experiment but for what the experiment produces when it comes to constructed language invention.

I encourage you to read this piece and John’s other work on imaginative literature, including his books on Tolkien.

Thesis Theater and Paper: Maximilian Hart, “Draconic Diction: Truth and Lies in Le Guin’s Old Speech” (Full Video and Full Paper Link)

I was pleased in 2021 to be the second reader for an exciting project by one of Signum University’s bright MA students. Beginning with curiosity about “Old Speech” in Ursula K. Le Guin‘s Earthsea series, under the supervision of Kris Swank, Maximilian Hart has pulled together a paper that draws on linguistic theory, Platonism, and Taoism in a conversation between Le Guin and the theories of language and story of the InklingsC.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and the oft-forgotten but ever-present Owen Barfield. And, best of all, there are dragons–and the question about whether dragons can deceive in Old Speech. If you enjoy Le Guin’s work, or if you are curious to see the Inklings as thinkers in writers in dialogue with a later speculative fiction writer, you can see the full video from Signum’s Youtube page below, and you can find the full paper here.

Maximilian Hart, “Draconic Diction: Truth and Lies in Le Guin’s Old Speech”

Thesis Abstract

Ursula K. Le Guin’s Earthsea series enters an ongoing dialogue about the nature of language; in it, she proposes a language spoken by dragons and wizards, “the Old Speech,” a language fundamentally unlike our human languages. It is a language in which it is impossible to lie, a language which is simultaneously descriptive and generative: to say the name of a thing is to have the thing come to be. This Old Speech is what the ancient poetic unity of language—to use Owen Barfield’s terms—might look like: a language in which the Tao, the underlying reality of a thing, is named in every word, a language in which every word is a narrative and true. However, dragons, not the titular, and ostensibly central, wizards, are the true poets of Earthsea; the dragons are the ones who see with a poet’s eye and who are actually capable of wielding the Old Speech in its ancient, unified, fully poetic sense, a sense which encompasses all shades of meaning and existence and narrative in one word. Le Guin’s Old Speech, then, can best be understood as a true language of Barfieldian ancient unity, and the dragons are not liars but poets practicing their art.

For the PDF of the paper, click here.

About the Presenter

Maximilian Hart is a high school English teacher and has been a student at Signum University since 2016. His academic focus is currently on studying the works of Ursula K. Le Guin and her approaches to language. When he’s not reading books for class or his own high school students’ papers, he’s spending time with his wife and children or pretending to improve at chess or woodworking.

About Signum Thesis Theaters

Each of our master’s students writes a thesis at the end of their degree program, exploring a topic of their choice. The Thesis Theater is their opportunity to present their research to a general audience, and answer questions. All are welcome to attend!

Posted in News & Links | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

“To rail is the sad privilege of the loser”: C.S. Lewis and the Future of our Words

I was in a room on campus this week with English literature scholars from different disciplines. One of them tried to find words for C.S. Lewis‘ relationship with “politics.” “Lewis wasn’t political…” he began, and then added after a pause, “in that sense.” My colleague did not need to define what “that sense” was. Lewis was always making social commentary and had his own values and perspectives. Still, any self-critical reader today will have trouble making Lewis lay comfortably alongside any single political platform. It would be a challenge even for Procrustes, with his cunning engineering mind, to fit the sheets for any partisan bed prepared for Lewis.

Not that people don’t try. I have heard that an advocacy group has provided arguments for their men’s movement with Lewis’ essay, The Abolition of Man–about how we can lose our humanity unless we think critically about education and technology. Now, I find The Abolition of Man to be a challenging text. Still, can any reader not know that Lewis is talking about the social species Man–humankind, homo sapiens, children of Adam and Eve, you get the idea–and not whatever masculine, muscular, rugged vision of maleness they are inviting local men to envision.

It’s not that I mind men moving. I am one–a man, that is–and I move from time to time. What I struggle with is the eradicated space between that activist’s keyboard and Lewis’ lectern, as if Lewis’ ideas came from the printed book or computer screen. It’s the literary version of the school child who answers the question “Where does milk come from?” with the obvious answer, “The Store!” As readers, we can sometimes forget the space-time dislocation–though Lewis never ceased challenging readers to recognize that other-when and other-where authors used words differently and had different worldviews. We must learn to appreciate those minds to understand the text. Still, I have trouble believing that any philanthropic cause would twist the text’s meaning to their purposes–or that, if it is ignorant leadership, such a movement would move very far. Certainly, I am misinformed.

Still, it happens in less obvious ways. There is some cringe-worthy commentary on Lewis and the creation-evolution debate that twists him into unrecognizable works of geometric lawn art. Usually, though, social appropriators chop Lewis up into little bits. This annoyed him. Thus, when Kathryn Lindskoog shared her criticism of his work with Lewis, he commended her for realizing:

“… the connection, or even the unity, of all the books–scholarly, fantastic, theological–and make me appear a single author not a man who impersonates half a dozen authors, which is what I seem to most” (Oct 29, 1957 letter to Kathryn Stillwell).

One of the reasons it was refreshing to have this local literary conversation was because Lewis was treated as an integrated whole. They never even thought, it seems, to treat Lewis the Apologist in isolation from Lewis the Fantasist or Literary Historian. Even more importantly, Lewis’ theology, morality, cultural criticism, artistic expresses, and habits of the mind were all treated together with his literature.

Since then, I have been thinking about the consistent, artistic critique Lewis makes of culture–including that social-political commentary that is hard to streamline in party terms. Lewis crumbles the foundation of what “everyone” knows–whether common sense, academic trends, or political inner circle wisdom–and then redesigns the architecture of thought from the ground up. He does not always do it perfectly, but this two-step movement of intellectual renovation attracts me.

As this was on my mind, I started reading Lewis’s essay in Selected Literary Essays on Joseph Addison (1672-1719). an Enlightenment-era public intellectual. Addison co-founded The Spector magazine, a public-facing philosophical and literary daily that aimed “to enliven morality with wit, and to temper wit with morality” (see here). Rather than a vague “Lewis wasn’t political in that sense” approach, in this essay, Lewis brings the Whig-Tory battle of the 18th-century English political scene to the front of the discussion. Today’s left/right-liberal/conservative binary only helps a little in understanding the divide, depending on your view of the monarchy in British law. Addison was a Whig, and Lewis contrasted him to popular Tory writers Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift (the other Swift, not Taylor).

Lewis is primarily interested in the rhetoric that era writers used in public debates. Addison’s party won the social-political long game, Lewis argues, because while Tories are railing at their enemies–often hilariously or satirically–Addison is reshaping the public image of his enemies into amiable old men who are fading with ancient days into the past. The contrast of approaches is intriguing:

“A satiric portrait by Pope or Swift is like a thunderclap; the Addisonian method is more like the slow operations of ordinary nature, loosening stones, blunting outlines, modifying a whole landscape with ‘silent overgrowings’ so that the change can never quite be reversed again. Whatever his intentions, his reasonableness and amiability (both cheerful ‘habits’ of the mind) are stronger in the end than the Tory spleen. To rail is the sad privilege of the loser” (“Addison,” Selected Literary Essays).

“To rail is the sad privilege of the loser.” A punchy line for today’s cage-match social discourse no less than 18th-century Tory-Whiggery or Lewis’ WWII England when the essay was written.

Still, we must admit that as writers, Swift and Pope have outlasted Addison–at least in the popular reach of modern classics. What kind of legacy do we want: literary or social?

Lewis would say that is a historical accident, in this case, for vehement opprobrium reveals subterranean desperation:

“When authors rail too much (we may allow them to rail a little) against public taste, do they perhaps betray some insufficiency?” (“Prudery and Philology,” Present Concerns)

Lewis occasionally railed too much–such as in a Curmudgeonly Christmas essay when he was under tremendous personal pressure. A careful reading of The Last Battle, for example, shows that when characters descend to verbal insults, unfettered vitriol, ill-drawn caricatures, tribal protectionism, or noisy reproach, they are characters who either have limited vision or are actively trying to blind others. Literature that betrays the “accent of the angry belle-lettrist railing” (“Addison,” Selected Literary Essays) is not a good look for the thinking writer.

Thus, I am going to take Lewis’ comment on “railing” at others as a prophetic critique. I won’t be silent to social injustice, theological insipidity, or dishonest scholarship. However, increasingly, I want to live in the Internet of Awesome rather than the Digital Dungeons of Christian Twitter, TikTok battles, or YouTube polemic. I will not spot every troll lurking in the Instagram comments, but at least I can try.

And, who knows? I, too, may have misjudged the shape of Lewis’ waiting bed in the spare room.

Posted in Reflections | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

The New York C.S. Lewis Society Student Essay Contest

I thought this was some news worth sharing! The New York C.S. Lewis Society is hosting a Student Essay Contest this spring. The New York C.S. Lewis Society was founded in 1969, six years after Lewis passed away. Besides monthly meetings, they also produce CSL: The Bulletin of the New York C.S. Lewis Society–a society newsletter that never fails to provide enjoyment and profit for the reader. In each issue, you will find news, reviews, and book notes, but also an academic essay and some occasional features, like Dale Nelson–who has contributed from time to time on A Pilgrim in Narnia–and his “Jack and the Bookshelf” series (now numbering into the 50s in number). The essays are consistently smart and readable while retaining a folksy society feeling.

I was pleased to be one of the guest speakers in the past, and I’m excited to share this new initiative. The full details are in the PDF linked below. However, here are some of the key points of interest:

Eligibility:
High School Students: 1,500-3,000 words (Prize: $300, publication, one-year membership)
College Students: 2,000-5,000 words (Prize: $500, publication, one-year membership)

Deadline: June 29, 2024

Other Prizes: The top five finalists in each category will be publicized in the Society’s bulletin and given a one-year membership in the New York C.S. Lewis Society. Students enrolled in a college or high school (public, private, or home school) are eligible. Winning essays will be announced at the November meeting of the Society.

Posted in Reflections | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Shadowy Steps through Hellish Fog: Amy Baik Lee’s Refreshing Invitation in This Homeward Ache

In his evocative and soul-revealing re-imagining of the spiritual life in the irreconcilable ecosystems of heaven and hell, The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis tells a lie.  

As I described last week, The Great Divorce is a travel-journey philosophical novella. Like Dante, the author-as-protagonist journeys from hell to glance, even briefly, at the bright lands of deepest heaven. Lewis’ hell is a gloaming suburb of near-nothingness, a ghostly, misty, insubstantial realm of despondency and despair. By contrast, heaven is wild and vivid, with a bright, penetrating light and landscape. Lewis’ cosmos is terrestrial rather than celestial, but the object is the same. As Lewis wrote of Dante’s Divine Comedy, it is about the

“imaginative interpretation of spiritual life” (Preface to Paradise Lost, 111).

Lewis’ Beatrice (or one of them, anyway) is a bus driver who transports hellish day-trippers to the front lawn of heaven. As Lewis takes his seat on the bus, an obscure, self-absorbed scholar sits beside him. Lewis then writes:

“Realising with a shudder that what he was producing from his pocket was a thick wad of typewritten paper, I muttered something about not having my spectacles…” (ch. 1).

It is a small lie, granted, but it makes hell seem murkier for a moment.

I have to admit that it is a lie that tempts almost everyone who spends much time in professional literary lands. Almost monthly, I am offered a book for peer assessment or academic journal review, or asked to give advice on a manuscript. Once upon a time, I defended my stance not to write bad book reviews. As the scholarly stakes increased, however, that luxury slipped away from me. Of my last three published reviews, one was critically positive, one deeply negative, and an anthology with a mix of the two. Those latter two—combined with a hard “no” to an editor on a scholarly book and an editor passing over a book I gave a solid “yes”— made me lose heart. I’ve passed on almost every request since, mumbling something indistinct about not having my reading glasses.

Thus, when I got a request to review a book in the “Inspirational” category from the epicentre of American Christian publishing, This was a hard pass. I decided to ignore the request.

Then I took a glance. The author was Amy Baik Lee, a name I knew from the Rabbit Room newsletter and (I think) connected to the Anselm Society. She and I had also chatted a bit online about links between C.S. Lewis and L.M. Montgomery. So, I took the risk and opened the request.

What I found was an endearing letter from the author—which she followed up with the loveliest handwritten note I’ve received in some time. Intrigued, I looked at an eBook sample and discovered three things.

First, wherever the book was made, its subject was right in the centre of what I have been thinking about. This Homeward Ache is captured well in the subtitle: How Our Yearning for the Life to Come Spurs on Our Life Today. In 2020, I was preaching a 10-part series in our church called “Remembering Heaven.” This theme was precisely what I was trying to do, and made me retroactively envious of Lee’s phrase, This Homeward Ache. Unfortunately, an apocalypse happened—which is always inconvenient when you are preaching about heaven—and my project kept adapting to the social distance. Still, Amy and I seemed to share the same literary and theological friends—including C.S. Lewis—and I felt drawn to the content.

Second, after reading only a few pages, I knew that the writing was thoughtful and descriptive—which I would expect of any writer on this topic. Deeper than that, though, the prose was careful, precise, intricate, even—this was not just writing but craft. It revealed a text that had the reflective weight of years and literary friendship behind it.

And as I read, I discovered that in concert with the subject itself, the prose was refreshing. It was a life-giving meeting of form and content. I used up most of my pencil marking up passages that resonated within me:

Something I had only sensed in times of great grief and great wonder had me in its grasp, and I had no name for it (8).

Piercing is a word I try to use sparingly to describe Homeward longing, mostly because I suspect I’d become a one-word writer if I gave it free rein. This ache is undeniably a sharp-edged joy… (37).

I am missing the wholeness of a world that I have only ever experienced in shards…. I understand, then, that I am Homesick indeed, and that the long is chronic. I walk about—and write—like a woman with an open wound and a dressing that never seems to stay. This thing gets everlastingly in the way of my living and yet fuels its very core (56-58).

Narnia opened my eyes to the immediate presence of another reality alongside my tangible one—and the call I have as a human being to engage in both. It is in this world, with its breaking news reports and quotidian library corners that “we have battle and blazing eyes, / And chance and honour and high surprise” (67-68, quoting Chesterton).

My mental map is gradually taken up more by blank spaces than the crowding of dots (88).

And so on, through the end.

Third, the book is beautifully designed—and I love beautiful books whose skin matches their innards. So I asked them to send it along.

I have not been well, as I talked about earlier this year. I would like to properly review This Homeward Ache, but I only have the ability to write the introduction. At the moment, I’m not capable of expressing my wish that Part 1, the author’s background story, was longer. And I can’t express why ch. 5, “Return to the Meadow,” was the most delightful chapter, or that ch. 9, “With Temporary Homes,” was the most helpful to me as it brought together the previous three chapters on exile, wandering, and pilgrimage.

A beautiful book deserves a beautiful review. But if I delay the review any longer, I will never write a word.

Instead, all I can do is speak simply to my experience of reading This Homeward Ache. I read it slowly through the winter, page by page. If I was not up for a full chapter, I read a section, giving myself the freedom to close the book for a walk or a nap whenever I felt like it was needed. Duty is the wrong posture towards soulful refreshment and self-care—not least when, like The Great Divorce and Lewis’ other images of longing for heaven, the book is about giving our spiritual imaginations their head.

As I read This Homeward Ache, even through this hellish post-covid fog, or whatever it is, I found myself healing. I read a little, and I was able to read a little more. If they can cease obsessing about their own fears and injuries, even for a moment, the miserable, feeble ghosts of The Great Divorce are invited to follow their longing to go deeper in and higher up. As they journey in a land of goodness that is “harsh to the feet of shadows” (ch. 5), they begin to grow more substantial. Their feet begin to toughen up as they acclimatize to the unbending realness of heaven. In a similar way, This Homeward Ache drew me out of myself, little by little, into a fuller reality of this tangible world of email requests and front sunporch couches that exist in parallel to Narnia.

And, because I could see more clearly in this land, my own world, I have been able to return with fresher eyes and tougher souls in my pilgrimage to Narnia.

Amy Baik Lee has caused me to be more careful of the literary requests that find their way toward me. It is a privilege, not a cause for shuddering. And who knows where such a path may lead?

Posted in Reflections | Tagged , , , , , , | 8 Comments

C.S. Lewis and the Total Eclipse of the Heavens, with An Unauthorized Book-Jacket Description of The Great Divorce

Well, it has been quite some time since I wrote my “I’m still here but just exhausted” blog post. I am still here! I am less exhausted, but the tumbling forward of incomplete work continues. Moreover, though I’m making excellent progress on the last stages of a book, I can’t seem to write short, snappy thoughts and smart mini-essays.

To put it briefly, I’m struggling with brevity.

But the heavens are on my mind today. A total eclipse will fall on Prince Edward Island soon. My wife and I are headed west with dark glasses to see how close we can get to Totality. As Lewis was a speculative fiction writer fascinated with the heavens, I thought a briefish note about C.S. Lewis and Solar Eclipses would be interesting.

The scrupulous editors at Wikipedia tell me that no Total Solar Eclipse was visible from the United Kingdom between 1724 and 1925, when it skipped across the Hebrides in the north. Other off-centre kinds of solar eclipse events happened again in 1954 and 1959, but this time most of the UK experienced partial eclipses. I see nothing in any of Lewis’s writings that suggests that Lewis knew about the events in 1925, 1954, or 1959.

Closer to home, in Jun 29, 1927, there were 24 seconds of Totality in North Wales/Northeast England, meaning that Lewis’s home of Belfast would have had a partial eclipse. Lewis’s father, Arthur, would have been unlikely to break his routine to see the light and shadows, and his brother, Warren, was in (or on his way to) Shanghai. On Jul 9, Lewis writes to Warren:

“I have no difficulty in imagining a day grey and drizzling as an English November ‘seeing as how’ we have lived under such days for a week or so, relieved by the mutterings of a chronic thunderstorm. The popular theory is that the weather is all ‘caused by the eclipse’, the eclipse which has been ‘news’ in the papers long before and after its occurrence: or as Rose Macaulay wd. say, it produced ‘amazing crowds’ and in them were ‘many well dressed women’. Unfortunately it was not visible from Headington. What I can’t understand is why, if the moon is constantly revolving round the earth, it gets directly in the light of the sun only once in a century or so: I shd. have imagined that it would happen about twice a year. None of the elaborate explanations in the papers touch this point, so I suppose it must just be given up.”

I don’t know what the inverted commas mean in this passage at some points, but it is a lovely combination of flawed folk knowledge, unhelpful media, and Lewis’s limitations in scientific understanding. After all, there had not been a total eclipse in England since the early 18th century, nearly 200 years. Lewis chose not to Google the answer, but I did. It turns out that I have been having trouble thinking fourth dimensionally, as the Doc would remind me. I can envision orbits overlapping, but I had not considered the nearness or farness of the moon in that orbit.

The closest to a total eclipse where Lewis lived and worked in England during his lifetime was at dawn on Feb 15, 1961. Lewis was lecturing at Cambridge on Spenser’s Faerie Queene in the season, commuting back and forth from Oxford. I can’t see even a hint of it in his correspondence or anything remarkable in his writings of the period. One of these period pieces is The Discarded Image, published in 1964, a few months after he died. I do not know what months he was working on this book, but it brings together decades of his Oxford and Cambridge lectures, which were designed to prepare students to read medieval poetry by teaching them about the medieval worldview. In a precursor essay from the mid-50s, “Imagination and Thought in the Middle Ages,” Lewis writes about how medieval folk viewed what was happening in the intentionally designed geocentric heavens:

Nor were those high regions dark [in the medieval imagination]. The darkness in which the stars (for us) are set is merely the darkness of the long, conical shadow cast by the Earth when the sun is below our feet. They knew, from their theory of lunar eclipses, that the apex of this dark cone must fall well above the moon. Beyond that apex the higher heavens are bathed in perpetual sunshine. In a sense, no doubt, we should say the same. But then we are aware (as they, I think, were not) of the part played by the air in diffusing sunlight and producing that bubble of luminosity which we call day; we have even, in stratospheric ascents, gone high enough to see the blue curtain grow thin at the zenith so that blue turns to black and the night of space almost shows through. They knew that, up yonder, one was above the air, in whatever they meant by aether; they did not know that one would see the sun flaming in a black pit. They thought on the contrary that they would be floating (for Milton is here a medieval) in

those happie climes that lye
Where day never shuts his eye,
Up in the broad fields of the skye. (Milton, Comus, lines 976-8)

Lewis works out this thought about medieval cosmology in his late 30s SF novel, Out of the Silent Planet. Indeed, he quotes this very passage in the space voyage part of the novel, where there is some neat play between light, shadow, and darkness. For all that Lewis was not scientifically minded—and he openly admitted to not caring that much about precision in his science fiction writing—there is a slip of paper in the archive where Lewis sketches out the complexities of getting a ship home from Mars when Earth is now on the other side of the sun. The space voyagers (like me and Lewis with regard to eclipses) fail to calculate the orbit of the moon, and their return voyage is in peril.

Lewis uses eclipses as an analogy in letter VII of Letters to Malcolm, which I believe he began in earnest in 1962. However, I don’t see much more thought about it. Even the above passage is about lunar eclipses, not solar. However, as I thought about the bright heavens and the earth’s umbra, I thought about The Great Divorce. In my fight with brevity, I have written a description of the speculative (after)worlds of heaven and hell in the WWII-era book, which I kind of like. So I hope this unauthorized book-jacket description works to add light (and not shade) to today’s events and Lewis’ literary cosmology.

An Unauthorized Book-Jacket Description of The Great Divorce

I have made no secret of my abiding interest in Lewis’ strange dream-vision novella, The Great Divorce. I keep finding my way back to this Dante-like version of a medieval idea turned into a literary experiment. “Let us suppose,” Lewis posits, “that the souls suffering in hell might have a day trip to heaven.” We then follow one of these tourists from hell to heaven as he walks through a travelogue of character encounters about the choices we make. Though it is a book about the afterlife, it is truly about the ways we curate the habits of our hearts and minds in the here and now.

Lewis’ hell in The Great Divorce is a gloaming suburb of near-nothingness, a ghostly, misty, insubstantial realm of despondency and despair. Imagine yourself sitting on a rarely cleaned floor of a smoggy subway station in the middle of the night. You are on hold with customer support, which is trying out their latest AI-generated hold music in the long intervals between nonlinear conversations with the new AI-bot customer assistant who was, incidentally, trained by the Quality Assurance Team from The Office. Add that kind of cold, misty dampness that never quite turns to satisfying, vivifying rain and the sulfuric smell of machines in the deep dark where there is never enough air. Finally, add eternity. Now, you should have a sense of what hell is like in the speculative universe of The Great Divorce.

By contrast, heaven is wild and vivid, with a bright, penetrating light and landscape. The hellish day-trippers are as insubstantial and natural to their environment as a greasy thumbprint on an eyeglass lens. It is so beautiful that it hurts. The land of goodness is “harsh to the feet of shadows.”

The hellish ghosts are invited to stay in heaven, but it is a hostile, untamable, immense, and alien land. In hell, dusk always feels like it will descend into apocalyptic night, the heat death of the universe. In heaven, twilight threatens the first rays of a sun whose life-giving heat and light pierces human hearts and shatters worlds. C.S. Lewis’ heaven is no flannelgraphed after-school special Disneyfied angelically glowing land of lost pets and no regrets.

By observing how the day-trippers react to heaven, we can see in story form what words cannot easily define, which is the Great Divorce between those worlds. Heaven cannot reach hell because its tiniest angels are cosmically huge, like trying to squeeze a mountain into a molecule. And hell simply cannot abide heaven. Thus, the more the ghastly refugees from hell have bound themselves up in their fears and desires, the more repulsed they will be by the unyielding goodness and bright light of heaven.

I love this disturbing book and find myself in many of the characters. It does, especially today, help me imagine the umbra of Totality and the penumbra of indecision in new ways. And if I understand it correctly, The Great Divorce imagines that one of its worlds will eclipse the other.

Note: the song doesn’t quite get it right … it will be better in PEI than Nova Scotia.

Posted in Reflections | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments