I recently read Perelandra by C.S. Lewis. It's basically a retelling of the Eve Temptation story, set on the Planet Venus. The tempter is not a snake: he is an evil man almost completely possessed by Satan. Another human man has been sent to Venus in order to protect Eve and help her resist temptation. The Venus Adam is MIA throughout most of the book.
Now, the good human eventually comes to the conclusion that he cannot out-argue the satan-man. So he sets out to kill him instead, physically. They engage in strenuous physical combat and the good man wins. Lewis was definitely not a pacifist, so this solution is entirely consistent with his personal beliefs.
However, I am a pacifist, in a certain context. I don't believe physical violence is God's will for conflict resolution, even in a broken and fallen world. So I find the physical combat troubling. Especially because there is something I consider a significant factor that the good man fails to use.
Whenever the two men are away from the Venus Eve, the satan-man kills and tortures animals. Yet the good man never points this out to the Venus Eve. He never says, hey, come look at what this supposedly nice man is doing to your beloved animals. It seems to me that that would've been a very effective argument. And a peaceable one. The Venus Eve had the power to send both men away.
So why didn't Lewis write the book that way? Who knows. Perhaps he wanted to have a physical combat. Perhaps he considered it some kind of bad form to tell on the evil satan-man. Still, I think it's an intriguing question.
5 comments:
Considering the book of Revelation, great armies and battles seem to be indicated at the end of time. It is possible, of course, that these are metaphors, but the metaphors do get a point across: there is war between good and evil, and evil will be destroyed.
Perhaps Lewis was also using metaphor. Many of these things are somewhat beyond our ken, and metaphors make them more understandable to us.
In Perelandra, however, it is clearly not a metaphor. The good guy, Ransom, very clearly tries to avoid a physical fight and clearly comes to the conclusion that the physical fight is the only solution, is, in fact, the desired solution.
Again, that is perfectly within Lewis's theological stance.
Doesn't answer why Ransom wasn't a little more cunning and thoughtful in his argument, especially when there was plenty of evidence of the satan-man's evil laying about.
But Perelandra is itself a metaphor. I don't know why Ransom wasn't more cunning. On the other hand, most people don't give Satan much credit for the evil he brings. They are much more likely to blame God.
I do agree that it would be a no-brainer to show Eve the mutilated animals. I need to go back and read the book again.
Well, I think, based on C.S.Lewis' comments on pacifism, that regardless of whether it's a metaphor or not, he deliberately intended the physical violence to be understood as physical violence. In that sense, Ransom is an incorrect metaphor for Jesus, despite the fact that he crushes the head of the Un-Man and is wounded permanently on the foot.
Here's my thought: even though Lewis clearly believed that physical violence was at times acceptable, even he left open a possible alternative to violence. As a pacifist, I believe that God always provides a way to stop evil non-violently. It's interesting that I see that in Lewis' story. Maybe it's just me putting my own spin on things, maybe not.
Elaine, Ransom could not tell Eve about the animals without doing what Satan wanted, that is to awaken Eve to that which she was not ready to understand correctly. Remember, Satan was twisting everything Ransom said. Specifically, he could not stay awake to counter Satan's arguments, and finally realized that he had to give himself totally to the job of removing the tempter. Satan is the one who attacks relentlessly, and even revitalizes a dead body to continue the attack. No doubt Satan would have accused Ransom of killing the frogs.
Post a Comment