Talk:The Space Trilogy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: (fourth book)

message: 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)
thread_title: (more untitled talk)

message: 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)
thread_title: Story behind the triology

message: Last hour I reorganized the article. In the same revision (I now regret), i also 
# extended  to cover the first omnibus edition explicitly and 
# 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)
thread_title: Reorganize

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unconscious loanwords? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled addition by anon-IP 27/Feb/2021