Talk:The Space Trilogy

Untitled

2012-05-25 i have provided some headings and whitespace for old talk (and imported a trivial subpage). Before the last item of "(more untitled talk)" is a break between 2009 and 2011. -P64

(scope)

Does the eldila article need to be moved here? --JerryFriedman 22:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would vote "yes"; it's hard to imagine that the eldila article could ever be expanded beyond a stub, so it's probably better as a subsection of this article. I would think the same applies for Hrossa, Seroni and Pfifltriggi too, come to think of it. — Matt 22:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just as two points make a line, two votes make a consensus. :-) My feeling is that we could shorten the glossary, since some of the terms are defined more fully in the eldila article. However, now that you mention the Hrossa etc., I'd put those under Out of the Silent Planet, since they're not in any of the other books. Maybe with a heading. --JerryFriedman 00:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a shot. I'm not satisfied with the repetition of information between the Eldila section and the glossary. Maybe we should delete the "Eldil" and "Oyarsa" entries in the glossary (and in that case the mention of Christian terminology too) and then "Oyarsa" under Out of the Silent Planet should link to the Eldila section.

Also, it seems to me that all the Oyéresu, not just Mars and Venus, resemble the corresponding gods or the astrological versions of the planets. Maybe that line should be changed. --JerryFriedman 01:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lewis states it quite explicitly in "Hideous Strength". Speciffically he mentions that Jupiter (I don't remember his Old Solar name) is so majestic that it is no surprise that the old Greeks and Romans confused him with God. Adam Keller

Good point (and I don't remember Jupiter's name either, but Google tells me it's Glund).

(fourth book)

However, though I thought your speculations on a possible fourth book were interesting and reasonable, I don't think they belong here. I'm going to delete them unless you or somebody convince me not to. "Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts", not of speculations. If they're published in some peer-reviewed place, we could mention them, though I'd argue that it should be in a very brief summary if at all. —JerryFriedman 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to The Dark Tower, then it is certainly a "fourth book." It's concepts, as well as several characters (Ransom, for example). However, it is more likely that The Dark Tower was intended as a sequel to the first book - Out of the Silent Planet, written before (and separately from) the remainder of the series - than as a continuation of the trilogy. This view is backed up by Walter Cooper's preface to "The Dark Tower and Other Stories," (copyright 1977, published by Harcourt Books) page 8, when he states that "I believe . . . he had in mind the possibility of a sequel to Out of the Silent Planet in which Ransom would play some part and in which time-travel would figure pretty largely - as is evidenced by the obvious tie-up between the alst sentence of Out of the Silent Planet and the opening sentence of The Dark Tower." --Tim4christ17 09:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the section I deleted was about a possible book set on the moon, including the destruction of the moon prophesied in the Book of Revelation. You can see the section if you look back at the history. The Dark Tower (1977 novel) is mentioned in the article. —JerryFriedman 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(rearrange)

I think some of this article needs to be rearanged. There has to be some indication of what "field of arbol" and whatnot is before you start reading about how the universe is setup.
—03:58, 6 September 2006‎ DrChristmas

Merges?

I have tagged Oyarsa and Hnau as possible merges back into this page. I don't think they stand effectively on their own. What say you all? —ScouterSig 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are instances elsewhere in Wikipedia, where literary works, and the fictional universes in which they are set, have separate entries. I'm thinking here of the entries for Oceania (Nineteen Eighty-Four), Middle-earth, Land of Oz and Earthsea.

That is not a good/adequate standalone argument, per Wikipedia:Other things exist.

I.e., those other examples may also be wrong.

However, it may be the case that there are perfectly valid independent reasons to have separate articles for Oyarsa, Hnau, etc.

I personally think that separate articles aren't needed for these, but either way is okay with me.

-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

An entry along these lines for the Field of Arbol could incorporate and merge many of the existing stubs relating to the space-trilogy. Josephus (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem so extensive that it could not be included here. Certainly anyone looking for information on Lewis' fictional solar system is likely to go first to articles on his books or series, rather than to fictional place names. And other than Malacandra and Perelandra, the planets that is, there isn't enough material for a detailed treatment.

I suggest retaining Malacandra and Perelandra as separate articles; put all material regarding sorns, hrossa, pfifltriggi etc. under Malacandra; and put any general material on hnau or eldila or oyeresu in the overall Space Trilogy article.RandomCritic (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The flaw in the above suggestion is that Malacandra does not exist as a separate article, but only as a redirect to The Space Trilogy, if there is insufficient material for a Field of Arbol page there is no logic in having separate pages for worlds within that setting, which could be incorporated into a single page for the whole system.

While it may be true that many would first go to the overall Space Trilogy article, not all of these will be interested in a detailed discussion of the setting. For that reason it makes sense to have a literary account of the books, and a separate link from there to the settings.

Also fictional treatments of the solar system as a whole, which give a whole alternate nomenclature for the planets are sufficiently scarce to justify a more developed treatment of this particular example. Josephus (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Could all the minor information be merged into the Arbol article? Then there would be three "sets" of articles: 1) The books, anchored by the main series page, 2) the characters (Ransom and Weston), and 3) The Field of Arbol, which would include all of the information on hnau, eldil, oyarsa, planet names, etc. That would stabilize the information and inter-linking between pages. —ScouterSig 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oyarsa was recently prodded. I've changed the article to a redirect (to The Space Trilogy) so that anyone wants to merge the information elsewhere can retrieve it from the history. In this case, because the information is relevant to Cosmographia (Bernard Silvestris) as well as the Space Trilogy, I'm inclined to believe that it should be preserved somewhere, but I'll leave it to the C. S. Lewis experts to determine the best place for it. Deor (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(more untitled talk)

thank you: like patrick mcgohan in the preisoner, lewis is telling of the reality of the planet going deeply into the age of kali: led by possessed minds that look human, but are not: fidel castro, chavez, ahmaminejad, etc. all they want to do is destroy. it's really not fiction, like animal farm was not fiction: it's whats really going on. j gonzalez larramendi
—16:48, 20 March 2009‎ 199.119.0.202
(the entire contents of a subpage whose speedy deletion i request at the same time -P64 2012-05-25)

Other uses of the term include the term as used by some Christians[citation needed]: -- I am an example
64.139.38.226 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)JH

It has been a couple of decades since I have read the space trilogy, interesting but a tad disturbing. The combination of science fiction and some elements of fantasy is not objectionable, though combining some Christian and pagan elements is questionable, although not unprecedented in European Christianity. I was mostly disturbed by the torture scene in That Hideous Strength.- Griffonclaw
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffonclaw (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Story behind the triology

Maybe some of this info could be added in the artcile:

"Early in their relationship, in 1936, after Tolkien had written the children's story The Hobbit, the two men had a momentous conversation about their desire to bring such stories to a wider audience (see below, at the end of this interview, for Duriez's re-creation of that conversation). They actually decided to divide the territory—Lewis would take "space travel," Tolkien "time travel." Tolkien never got around to finishing his time-travel story, concentrating instead on his more "adult" trilogy, in which he placed hobbits in the context of his Silmarillion stories. But Lewis did write his space books: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength."

Link: J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis: A Legendary Friendship 84.210.60.115 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eldilia Description

I'm dubious of the first sentence in the Eldilia section: "The eldila (singular eldil) are super-human extraterrestrials, 'multi-dimensional energy beings' in standard science-fiction terms."

1) Can that be shown to be a "standard science-fiction term?"

2) Does Lewis give any indication that Eldilia are multidimensional?

3) "Extraterrestrial" is an inappropriate term, as Lewis is quite clear that not only are they not terrestrial in any sense, their presence on a planet is disorienting and imposes a non-terrestrial frame of reference.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.248.24 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and excise the 2nd clause of the sentence, and add the word "pillar" to the last sentence of that paragraph. 207.38.248.24 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes in agreeance with you, don't know of this being a standard term. Not really sure what "multi-dimensional" means here. Probably too open to misunderstanding to use it without any explanation, and I am not sure of Lewis using this term. On 3. yes you are quite right, the eldila are not quite properly classed as extra-terrestrials. Intelligences perhaps? Oyerseu are tutelary (ruling) spirits. Eldila seems to be the collective name for all the non-human intelligent creatures in the three stories.

"For Ransom had met other things in Mars besides the Martians. He had met the creatures called eldila, and specially that great eldil who is the ruler of Mars or, in their speech, the Oyarsa of Malacandra. The eldila are very different from any planetary creatures." (Perelandra page 1) DMSBel (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Reorganize

Last hour I reorganized the article. In the same revision (I now regret), i also

1. extended {{infobox book series}} to cover the first omnibus edition explicitly and
2. revised the lead sentence with a Note about the omnibus titles and series name, ref ISFDB.

Summary of reorganization:

• Group the three novels blurbs (from the lead) with "The Dark Tower" and some bibliographic data (from the bottom) as 1. Contents
• Group six sections (combining Language and Glossary as "Old Solar") together as 3. Fictional universe
• Group "Parallels with other [written] works" and "The Space Trilogy in other media [entirely popular music]" as 4. Parallels and adaptations

I also renamed the remaining bibliographic data "Further reading" because neither book is mentioned in prose or in a reference.

This leaves former section 1 simply renumbered, 2. Influences and approach. Some of the "Parallels" now in 4.1 Other written works should be covered up here because they concern origins of the trilogy --Influences on Lewis. Some belongs down in section 4 where I have left all of it. Some of the section headings are poor, including some which I have improved or provided.

Belatedly I chose to stop with reorganization and report this much in Talk space where several 2011 comments suggest that there are interested onlookers. (But I did not undo tasks #1 and #2, which brought me here. They are combined with the major re-org, i'm sorry to say.)

P.S. ISFDB, now referenced in the Note, provides bibliographic data (and some cover images for us to view) for numerous or "all" editions. --P64 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unconscious loanwords?

Has anyone else noticed that there are certain words in Richard Adams' Watership Down that may be unconsciously loaned from The Space Trilogy?

- Lewis: eldil - Adams: elil

- L: hross - A: hlessi

- L: pfifltrigg - A: pfeffa

- L: sorn - A: zorn

The meanings are different, but still... Harjasusi (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Rainbow Mars?

Although I have edited WP for a minute, there are still MANY things that I don't understand. That said, I see the last item included in the "V-T-E" link box at the end of the article, titled "Space Trilogy : CS LEWIS", under category "Other", is an active link to Rainbow Mars. When clicked, links to a book by Larry Niven. Is this correct? Rags (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ragityman: from that article I gather that Niven incorporated characters or races from Lewis‘s Space Trilogy, among others, into his Rainbow Mars, so I assume that’s why it appears there (this type of box is called a navigation template, or navbox for short, BTW). I think it’s pretty common for dramatizations, spin-offs, and such derivative works to be included in this kind of template (note that it’s under “Other”); these are intended to be a convenience, as an alternative to navigating the category system (see The Space Trilogy category, which is linked in the very last box on the page). You can get to the best place to discuss the entry by clicking the little T in the “V-T-E” you noticed.—Odysseus1479 02:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Odysseus. I guess I knew some of that at some time in the past.

Your name seems familiar. I don't edit WP as often as I once did, and my memory gets worse as I age, but I believe you've helped me before. If so, glad to know you're still keeping on. if not, good to make your acquaintance!Rags (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Number

Just a gnomish quibble, but unless I hear a good reason not to, I intend to correct. In subsection 4.2, Popular music, the word 'band' can be either singular or plural. Same is true of pronouns 'who,' 'whom,' & 'whose.' But they cannot be BOTH singular AND plural within the same sentence. Such usage is questionable even in the blogosphere. We can do better. (I won't address issues of laundry listing and OR at this time, but...) Rags (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

There needs to be a section about how these books were received. Richard75 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Untitled addition by anon-IP 27/Feb/2021

I would classify these stories not as Science Fiction, but as Anti-science Fiction. Likewise I reckon that both the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are Fantasy, as is the entire Harry Potter series. But both Tolkien and Rowling write more moral stuff than the Christian Bible. C.S.Lewis does NOT. Incidentally, the genuine scientist Fred Hoyle wrote some genuine Science Fiction, and also a collection of Fantasy stories including a contest for a night of passion with Aphrodite, with both Satan and God as unsuccessful competitors.71.178.246.42 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)