Sam Bitzer Tolkien and Lewis

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.

In chapter 7 of That Hideous Strength, Jane talks to the director about her struggling marriage with Mark, where the conversation shifts to the definition of equality. The director and Jane realize that their definitions of equality differ. To Jane, her definition of equality is that “it was in their souls that people were equal”(145), arguing that equality cannot be achieved unless people were equal at heart, holding the same values rather than being materially and physically equal. Conversely, however, the director opposes her viewpoint, contending that in one’s soul is “the last place where they[people] are equal”, and that equality comes from “laws” and “equality of incomes”(145), arguing that groups who both suffer together or thrive together are uniformly equal. This implication leads to a slippery slope in which it is both fair and necessary for others to give up something in order to suffer together; an action which the director proposes achieved equality. Jordan Petterson, in his forward for Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, mentions a similar strive for  “morally justifiable enforcement of economic equality” attempted under the Soviet Union. It was the Soviets plan to implement equality by forcing the redistribution of even the “most pitiful more” that one had over another in an attempt for equality. This forced people to give up even the smallest possessions which others may not have; destroying the years that people spent attempting to climb society’s social ladder. This seemingly righteous attempt at equality, however, was only “masking” the Soviet Union’s “ great evil in virtue”, all in an attempt to control an entire population. Peterson describes this attempt for a utopian society has hubris, as well an excuse to torment and torture others in the name of equality. Overall, this sentiment from the director in That Hideous Strength follows the same beginnings as the syllogistic path the Soviets used to create their tumultuous and corrupt society.

C.S Lewis uses That Hideous Strength as an allegory to explain his theses in The Abolition of Man, putting his ideas into a more literary form through the novel. Using N.I.C.E  to represent a controlling power, Lewis once again emphasizes the inherent problems with attempts to control nature because it will only create exacerbated flaws in man-kind. Lewis once again brings forth the idea of taking “over the human race” in order to “recondition it”(That Hideous Strength  39), in an attempt to make modern society more efficient. By definition, this act would be an attempt to overcome nature. Changing human behavior could be done by changing the “biochemical conditioning” by “direct manipulation of the brain”, in order to re-education the population and create “a new type of man”(40). To N.I.C.E, this would allow the eradication of the genetic unfit, creating a superior version of humans. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis hints at the extreme techniques that humans will undergo in order to conquer nature, rather than accepting nature as a part of our environment and being in a cohesive state with it. As mentioned in The Abolition of Man all of nature’s “apparent reverses” caused by men have “troubled [nature] no more”(Abolition of Man 69) than any attempt before it, and have only led to more suffering and negative consequences. This reverse of nature is the exact scenario which he illustrates in That Hideous Strength, once again standing up against the overuse of science. As Lewis explores the topic of conquering nature, his thesis that trying to do so will cause a “tyranny or an obedience”(73) which will in turn conquer man rather than nature, becomes a forefront topic in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.