I received an email from a reader who is concerned about variations between published texts of a couple of Narnia chronicles. He’s looking at HarperCollins Kindle Editions and Macmillan paperback printings. I’ll reproduce the variants below, putting deviations in bold. Meanwhile, do you know anything about the textual history of this book? Did CSL publish variant versions? Were there differences between the British and American first editions? Is there manuscript evidence to suggest variant readings? Thanks for any info you can share!
Magician’s Nephew, Kindle:
He bowed his great head rather sadly, and breathed into the Magician’s terrified face. “Sleep,” he said. “Sleep and be separated for some few hours from all the torments you have devised for yourself.”
Magician’s Nephew, Paperback:
He bowed his great head rather sadly, and breathed into the Magician’s terrified face.“Sleep and be separated for some few hours from all the torments you have desired for yourself.”
Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Kindle:
In a few moments the darkness turned into a grayness ahead, and then, almost before they dared to begin hoping, they had shot out into the sunlight and were in the warm, blue world again. And all at once everybody realized that there was nothing to be afraid of and never had been. They blinked their eyes and looked about them. The brightness of the ship herself astonished them: they had half expected to find that the darkness would cling to the white and the green and the gold in the form of some grime or scum. And then first one, and then another, began laughing. “I reckon we’ve made pretty good fools of ourselves,” said Rynelf. Lucy lost no time in coming down to the deck…
Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Paperback:
In a few moments the darkness turned into a greyness ahead, and then, almost before they dared to begin hoping, they shot out into the sunlight and were in the warm blue world again. And just as there are moments when simply to lie in bed and see the daylight pouring through your window and to hear the cheerful voice of an early postman down below and to realize it was only a dream: it wasn’t real, is so heavenly that it was very nearly worth having the joy of waking, so they all felt when they came out of the dark. The brightness of the ship astonished them: they had half expected to find that the darkness would cling to the white and the green and the gold in the form of some grime or scum. Lucy lost no time in coming down to the deck…
I have to throw my two cents into the ring, to mix a couple of metaphors, and share my initial thoughts about the trailer for The Rings of Power that dropped today. I hadn’t thought about the show in months, then I spoke about it a couple of days ago without knowing that a trailer was due out soon. I’ve got to say, in spite of all my angst about the first season, this preview kind of thrilled me.
But not necessarily for the right reasons.
[Side note: I haven’t read or watched any commentaries or breakdowns yet. Thought I’d toss some fresh thoughts here first.]
First, I’m utterly delighted to see these beautiful, sweet, hard-working, talented actors again in all their costumed glory. In real life, they’re kind and considerate people, and I find them compelling on screen, even when they’re given really, really bad dialogue–okay, sometimes the lines in season one were so bad that they quashed even this energetic cast. But I’m excited about some of what I see. Warrior Elrond looks promising. Celebrimbor’s turn towards the fiery forge is stirring.
It felt very much like being back with a bunch of old friends, friends I thought lost forever, for another adventure.
(And may all my lost friends be gathered together again in love some day).
Next, I do greatly enjoy the guessing game of trying to figure out exactly what’s going on, which bits of the lore they’re disfiguring–ahem, I mean adapting–in each scene, who’s who and what’s what and where’s where, what they’re going to emphasize, how they’ll surprise us, and all that sort of thing. It’s a little like reading a murder mystery, except this time it’s the text that been murdered…. Let’s try that sentence again. It’s a little like reading a murder mystery, but the murders haven’t happened yet, and there’s a chance they might be averted, but then again, we know how the story ends, so the thrill and the horror is watching how we get there, one step after another, through vivid landscapes, while wearing fabulous shoes.
Also, I totally get the sense of re-entering a beloved fantasy world. No, it’s not Tolkien’s world, not to me, but I don’t really care about that. It’s some other imaginary, magical, dangerous world, and that’s good enough for me. I love being in a place where the significances merely hinted at in our world are deepened and brightened. Archetypes come to life.
Finally, there’s the unhealthy way that evil is presented as attractive, sexy, dangerous, and alluring. This tendency began in the first season, of course, by drawing us into thinking Halbrand was charming and maybe not a supervillain? and then portraying him as incredibly hot at the moment of wickedness revealed. This is a bad trend in TV, I’d say. We don’t need evil to be made more attractive. I’m already tempted enough to the dark side, thank you very much. But now we’re going to get Saubrand/Halron in a “fair form,” looking lusciously elvish, those smoldering eyes calling out their invitation from under chiseled brows, and yikes. Not good. I hate that casual flick of his hands, so stylish, that lays waste to a vast valley, probably killing many in the process. It’s evil, it’s wicked, and it’s made to look so tasty. I don’t think we need more of that on screen these days, and I think it’s tied into all the problems with the problem of evil that this show has dug itself into.
“Darkness will bind them” is interesting: Showing the three hands with the elvish rings right after that suggests two things. First, the wearers of the elvish rings will bind themselves together in a pact to fight against the darkness, so that’s good, right? Second, they will, against their knowledge, be bound by the darkness, compelled to serve it whether they will or no.
[Do we think they’re going to have Celebrimbor wear Narya? We didn’t have Cirdan in Season One that I can remember.]
Of course, I certainly do have 1001 questions. What’s the composite-snake-monster? [Is Sauron like a Treebeard-meets-Chthulu mashup in one of his unfairest forms?] And the composite-moth-cloud-monster? [I guess that’s Slim Shadey and the Death-Moth Ladies again] And the drowning lady or under-sea-creepy-doll-monster? What’s with a dwarf [?] playing with handfuls of rings? I guess that’s Narvi? But the dwarves only ever got seven rings. Or is that a Man, with the nine? And what’s with the eagle, and the giant zombie swordfish? Are Arondir and Isildur working together now? What’s Adar up to? Please don’t tell me we get another ride of the Rohirrim, although Elrond’s helmet is nice.
I’m not optimistic about the writing, though. “He worms his way inside your mind, and the rest of him slithers in”?? What the heck does that mean? You can’t have “the rest” when some part hasn’t been mentioned. Ugh. Syntax, people. Maybe part of that sentence has been left out of the trailer, but I rather doubt it. At least there’s no sign of the mithril plot in this trailer. There’s no sign of Celeborn either, or Bronwyn, or the Halflings (maybe that’s Nori blowing about in a sandstorm in Rhûn?).
I’ll close with this: AHA! “I think he has been here among us all along” says somebody [Bronwyn?]: Does that mean the theory is correct that we’ll revisit Season One and watch it rewritten by a whole bunch of Sauron’s guises acting on events in ways we didn’t guess the first time around? Kind of a Life of Pi re-interpretive move? That would be good, because anything we could do to rewrite Season One could only be an improvement, eh? Hope springs eternal and all that. I don’t have much hope these days, but I do enjoy escaping into another realm. That’s all I ask of this silly show.
Yes, indeed: I do know that the new trailer for Rings of Power has dropped. I’ll try to watch it and post about it this evening after work. Meanwhile, the C.S. Lewis Study Center has given me permission to post the audio for my two sessions that were recorded at the Center this past Saturday. So here you go:
You’ll have to request permission to access the files. It’s best if you use an email address I can recognize; otherwise, please contact me so I’ll know who you are. Cheers!
I’m delighted to announce that, following the success of C. S. Lewis: Writer, Scholar, Seeker, The Teaching Company has asked me to produce another course! This one will be a twelve-lecture video contribution to The Great Courses catalog, and it’s entitled The Inklings: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Others. Here’s the description:
If you could time-travel back to a small Oxford pub or to a professor’s rooms in the 1930s or ’40s, you might overhear a reading from an early draft of The Lord of the Rings. Or a lively discussion about wardrobes and spaceships. You might even see distinguished men howling with laughter while trying to read bad poetry with straight faces. These were the Inklings: writers, teachers, thinkers whose books are still loved by many today. In this course, you’ll learn about the complicated friendship of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, as well as the writing group gathered around them. You’ll learn how some of the world’s most cherished characters and stories were influenced by both the encouragement and the sharp criticism of fellow Inklings. Your professor will explore the lives and works of Lewis, Tolkien, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams, and others who may not be as familiar. You will come away with a new understanding and appreciation of these authors, their writings, and the power of community.
We’re looking at a tight turn-around for delivery, because they want to get this out in 2025. Here’s the schedule:
June 7th, 2024: extended topics due (one paragraph per lecture) July 8th: first working session (video call with editor, producer, and IT coordinator) August 9th: first two lectures due August 20th: Practice Session #1 November 18th: Drafts of the next five lectures January 27th, 2025: Drafts of the last five lectures March 3rd: final scripts after all revisions February 10th: Practice Session #2 And then we’ll film later in the spring of 2025. Whew!
Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking twice at the C.S. Lewis Study Center in Northfield, Massachusetts. The Study Center is a beautiful, rambling old Victorian house that’s slowly being converted into event spaces, library rooms, study nooks, and scholarly retreats. My “Double Session” was as follows: 10:30 am The Inklings & King Arthur: J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, C.S. Lewis, & Owen Barfield on the Matter of Britain
1:30 pm “The Rings of Power” A Dialogue with Dr. Sørina Higgins and Jordan Key
Both talks were extremely rewarding. In the first, the attendees were extremely engaged, contributing thoughts, asking questions, supplying answers, and generally collaborating with me to cover the material in a lively, efficient way. We brainstormed Arthurian objects, names, and events, then I gave an impromptu tiny history of the development of Arthurian literature. Next, we went over some of the Inklings’ works that interact with the King Arthur stories, digging into That Hideous Strength in particular. We closed with some speculations on why this story-complex is so frequently adapted, so popular, and so enduringly relevant.
(At the same time, my NY Times app was sending me breaking news headlines, and I found them to be surprisingly in sync with the main concerns of Arthuriana. But that’s another post.)
Over lunch, I was able to share more details about Charles Williams’s Arthurian experiments, especially his gynecomorphical geography.
The second talk was a dialogue, moderated by host Scott Key, between myself and a film-studies major and creative writer, about Amazon’s Rings of Power show. It went really well! I was dubious, because RoP is so intimately interconnected, for me, with the worst betrayals and suffering of my life, and the show really stinks, but the conversation was fabulous. It was (IMO) professional, balanced, thorough, and super fun. I wouldn’t mind watching Season 2 now.
Recordings of these talks are currently available to my patrons, and I think at least one will eventually be freely available on the CSL Study Center website.
I had a great time getting to know new people, enjoying the beauty of the geographical surroundings, and re-visiting a couple of topics I haven’t though much about for a while. Thanks to Mary and Scott Key for their hospitality!
I am happy to announce the release of “Sørina Higgins on Modernist Drama and Ceremonial Magic,” an Oddcast Episode of the SHWEP (Secret History of Western Esotericism Podcast). Here’s host Earl Fontainelle’s description:
Sørina Higgins has looked deeply into the Modernist stage, with a view to understanding the interrelations between the triad of Modernism – drama – the esoteric. Sørina’s research set out to answer several questions: How many modernist playwrights (English and Irish, between 1890 and 1945) were initiates in Occultist societies? How many of these were involved in ceremonial magic? Did that magic influence their plays, and, if so, how?
The answers make for a fascinating interview. We set out a few terms of discourse (‘Modernism’, ‘Occultism’, and ‘the Esoteric’) and then dive into a number of case-studies of ceremonial magic on the stage, including the works of William Butler Yeats, Arthur Edward Waite, Charles Williams, and Aleister Crowley, and featuring a host of supporting characters from the Occultist demi-monde. We also discuss the problem of ‘revealing the secrets’ in the context of initiatory drama, and where, precisely, the difference between initiatory, Occultist drama and ceremonial magic might lie.
What do you think? Are there points you wish I’d described differently or expanded upon? Do you have questions for me after listening to this chat? Thanks for your thoughts!
Yeats’ Countess Cathleen at the Irish Literary Theatre, Dublin. Florence Farr plays Aleel, the Druid poet-seer.
I’m the first to admit that I don’t understand most of what Charles Williams wrote. I rely on Sørina Higgins to figure out the hard parts and explain them. So when even she has a puzzle, where is there to turn? This came up in Sørina’s blog yesterday. She asked for suggestions about mystical connections […]
There’s an impressive podcast called The SHWEP (The Secret History Of Western Esotericism Podcast), Exploring the Forgotten and Rejected Story of Western Thought, that’s a scholarly, chronological look at all things esoteric, occult, and hermetic in the European and American mind. It’s a slow crawl: It’s up to Episode 186 and has reached Proclus (400s A.D.). Topics include “Platonism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, the Kabbalah, alchemy, occultism, magic, and related currents of thought,” as the website says. The host, Earl Fontainelle, is a gracious and learned conversation partner, with a terrifying amount of knowledge and a lovely podcasting voice.
I’ve wanted to be on the podcast for a long time and, indeed, first talked to Earl about the possibility four years ago. We decided to wait until I’d finished the PhD, but we didn’t want to wait until the year 2768 for my episode, which is when it would occur in the chronological scheme if the current pace continues. Thankfully, for those of us who haven’t mastered immortality through the transmutation of sexual energies, there’s The Oddcast, which pops in non-chronological topics of interest now and again.
So today Earl and I talked for, oh, maybe an hour and a half. (We tried last week, but apparently Mercury in retrograde killed my internet connection. Today went smoothly, in spite of my having the flu!). We covered many of the main points of my dissertation, including competing definitions of Modernism, the ‘occult,’ and ‘esotericism.’ We looked at the point where modernism, magic, and theatre overlap, especially as they mutually influenced and changed one another. Of course, we spent a great deal of time talking about Yeats and Williams, but we also got some Crowley and Alex Sullivan/Mathews in there, too. We wondered where the lines are, if any, between theatre and ritual, between magic and miracle, between an esoteric ceremony and a church service, between pagan invocation and Christian mysticism. We talked about the delicate balance of teaching “truth” while keeping secrets.
It was a wide-ranging, surprisingly well-organized conversation, and I’m looking forward to when it’s released. I’ll be sure to post it here. Meanwhile, Stay Esoteric!
I’ve just reread The Place of the Lion in preparation for a lecture I’m giving about it at Smith College on Monday in Carol Zaleski’s class. Each time I read it, I try to complete the lists of Angelic Orders, Platonic Virtues, and earthly animal emanations. Williams must have left it incomplete on purpose, don’t you think? But why? And can you fill in any of the ones I’m missing? Here’s what I’ve got:
And the what of the other animal-emblems he mentions throughout? The Horse, Wolf, Tortoise, Elk, Bear, and Ox? What of Humility, Fierceness, Patience? Where do they fit in? Your thoughts are welcome!
Hello, friends. If you’re here, chances are you like the works of the Inklings and their ilk. May I recommend a podcast to you? It’s called The Inklings Variety Hour, and it’s run by my friend Chris Pipkin. It’s one of those leisurely conversations with lots of folks who like the same kinds of books that we do, with many cool guests and a wide range of topics. There are close readings of books, poetry explications, interviews, discussions of creative writing and writing in community, and more. If you like it, please consider leaving a positive rating on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you!
The Oddest Inkling 