“I would say that every book should be entertaining. A good book will be more; it must not be less. Entertainment, in this sense, is like a qualifying examination. If a fiction can’t provide even that, we may be excused from inquiry into its higher qualities.”
Does Lewis define what makes writing entertaining? Because that's what I need to know.
"If entertainment means light and playful pleasure, then I think it is exactly what we ought to get from some literary work. . . . If it means those things which 'grip' the reader of popular romance--suspense, excitement and so forth--then I would say that every book should be entertaining."
It's interesting to encounter something like Lewis's literary criticism. I'm not sure it's as easy to pigeonhole readers as Lewis does, but his ideas are definitely thought-provoking.
He puts a lot of work into defining in the rest of the book, but I agree that there are gradations that would make implementing something like this very challenging.
Sabatini was one of my favourite writers when I was younger. My father read him in Dutch when he was younger. When I brought my first one home from the used book store, he reread it in English. He did the same with The Three Musketeers. I loved Scaramouche, and Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk, and Fortune’s Favourite. They were entertaining, and that’s all I was looking for.
Unfortunately, I'm guilty of both escapism and intellectuallism's joint faults of using books. Most, if not all, of my fiction reading is for escapism. In fact, I don't think I've ever really read fiction without the need to 'relax' and escape my own life. I also read non-fiction books mostly to improve my knowledge but find it a bit hard to enjoy them and get lost in them.
I don’t think Lewis would be mad at you. I think he’d just say you’re missing out. That just means you’re in the same position as a kid about to open up a ton of Christmas presents and discover new things. Lucky you!
And the point of most non-fiction is knowledge-growth. Memoir is one of a few exceptions. I wouldn’t feel bad about that. :)
You're right. Thanks for this article, it makes me conscious of things I've never really thought of as a problem which may be a problem. I guess escapism through Fiction is the reason why, when my life was in a bad place, I would binge read fiction, abandoning my work many times and then feel bad at the end of the day.
I liked how you clarified both extremes and broke down your and Lewis's thoughts!
I personally would think that it isn't wrong to make oneself pick up a book because it's a 'classic' - after all, if a lot of people have found something special in what the book had to say, it's worth seeing what it's about, and sometimes readers - at least me - need a push to go for books I wouldn't pick up at random. But of course the point can tip over where then you read with the expectation that it 'should' be something special instead of reacting with your own thoughts as you go through it.
I don't know if this is in the same book, but C.S. Lewis also connected this concept to how history looks back on previous works and how damaging the literary humanism movement was (which lines up with your analysis of intellectualism well). I'd saved a quote from Lewis's "English Literature in the Sixteenth Century" and thought of this moment where he compares a medievalist view and a humanist view to a "child" and a "learned commentator" reading Homer (pg. 26-27):
“The [humanist reader] never really cares about the siege: he is too interested in literature, literature conceived almost exclusively as style, and style values chiefly as a model for imitation. This “literariness” was destined to introduce a serious change in our whole attitude to great writers…In Pope the great poets have the place we should expect: they are present because they are famous. But in Chaucer it is not the poets but their subjects that have the fame…Poets are, for Chaucer, not people who receive fame but people who give it. To read Virgil sets you thinking not about Virgil but about Aeneas, Dido, and Mezentius.”
The primary concern, like you mentioned, is reading with an open mind to see what the book is actually trying to say, but Lewis also brings up the point that some authors put too much of themselves into works when they should leave themselves out of it. You've mentioned escapism, but have you encountered a book where the author's desire for intellectualism was apparent enough that it distracted from the story?
So much good stuff to respond to here, but I definitely want to hit that last question while I'm rushing around getting work done.
I think philosophical rants in The Brothers Karamozov hindered the story a little for me, didacticism in Father Brown, and so many weird crazy literary techniques in Infinite Jest. All were forgiven by the time I finished reading the book, but I definitely agree that intellectualism can distract from the story.
This article GETS it. Thank you so much for introducing us to this work of Lewis's. I've been struggling for some time to articulate these ideas to my friends, and to see them here laid out in such clarity is a relief and a joy all at once, haha -- the problem of excessive escapism and excessive intellectualism is still as common today as in Lewis's time, it seems.
Thanks for the kind words. Glad it resonated. Such a good book! I definitely recommend reading it and with a highlighter in one hand for sure. Makes it easier to reference it again and again which you will inevitably do.
“I would say that every book should be entertaining. A good book will be more; it must not be less. Entertainment, in this sense, is like a qualifying examination. If a fiction can’t provide even that, we may be excused from inquiry into its higher qualities.”
Does Lewis define what makes writing entertaining? Because that's what I need to know.
As you wish:
"If entertainment means light and playful pleasure, then I think it is exactly what we ought to get from some literary work. . . . If it means those things which 'grip' the reader of popular romance--suspense, excitement and so forth--then I would say that every book should be entertaining."
It's interesting to encounter something like Lewis's literary criticism. I'm not sure it's as easy to pigeonhole readers as Lewis does, but his ideas are definitely thought-provoking.
He puts a lot of work into defining in the rest of the book, but I agree that there are gradations that would make implementing something like this very challenging.
Sabatini was one of my favourite writers when I was younger. My father read him in Dutch when he was younger. When I brought my first one home from the used book store, he reread it in English. He did the same with The Three Musketeers. I loved Scaramouche, and Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk, and Fortune’s Favourite. They were entertaining, and that’s all I was looking for.
.
I noticed Anathem in your list; a good book.
Might I recommend Cryptonomicon by the same author.
Will add it!
Unfortunately, I'm guilty of both escapism and intellectuallism's joint faults of using books. Most, if not all, of my fiction reading is for escapism. In fact, I don't think I've ever really read fiction without the need to 'relax' and escape my own life. I also read non-fiction books mostly to improve my knowledge but find it a bit hard to enjoy them and get lost in them.
It's safe to say that I have a lot of work to do on my reading culture.
I don’t think Lewis would be mad at you. I think he’d just say you’re missing out. That just means you’re in the same position as a kid about to open up a ton of Christmas presents and discover new things. Lucky you!
And the point of most non-fiction is knowledge-growth. Memoir is one of a few exceptions. I wouldn’t feel bad about that. :)
You're right. Thanks for this article, it makes me conscious of things I've never really thought of as a problem which may be a problem. I guess escapism through Fiction is the reason why, when my life was in a bad place, I would binge read fiction, abandoning my work many times and then feel bad at the end of the day.
It served the purpose you needed it for then.
I liked how you clarified both extremes and broke down your and Lewis's thoughts!
I personally would think that it isn't wrong to make oneself pick up a book because it's a 'classic' - after all, if a lot of people have found something special in what the book had to say, it's worth seeing what it's about, and sometimes readers - at least me - need a push to go for books I wouldn't pick up at random. But of course the point can tip over where then you read with the expectation that it 'should' be something special instead of reacting with your own thoughts as you go through it.
I don't know if this is in the same book, but C.S. Lewis also connected this concept to how history looks back on previous works and how damaging the literary humanism movement was (which lines up with your analysis of intellectualism well). I'd saved a quote from Lewis's "English Literature in the Sixteenth Century" and thought of this moment where he compares a medievalist view and a humanist view to a "child" and a "learned commentator" reading Homer (pg. 26-27):
“The [humanist reader] never really cares about the siege: he is too interested in literature, literature conceived almost exclusively as style, and style values chiefly as a model for imitation. This “literariness” was destined to introduce a serious change in our whole attitude to great writers…In Pope the great poets have the place we should expect: they are present because they are famous. But in Chaucer it is not the poets but their subjects that have the fame…Poets are, for Chaucer, not people who receive fame but people who give it. To read Virgil sets you thinking not about Virgil but about Aeneas, Dido, and Mezentius.”
The primary concern, like you mentioned, is reading with an open mind to see what the book is actually trying to say, but Lewis also brings up the point that some authors put too much of themselves into works when they should leave themselves out of it. You've mentioned escapism, but have you encountered a book where the author's desire for intellectualism was apparent enough that it distracted from the story?
So much good stuff to respond to here, but I definitely want to hit that last question while I'm rushing around getting work done.
I think philosophical rants in The Brothers Karamozov hindered the story a little for me, didacticism in Father Brown, and so many weird crazy literary techniques in Infinite Jest. All were forgiven by the time I finished reading the book, but I definitely agree that intellectualism can distract from the story.
This article GETS it. Thank you so much for introducing us to this work of Lewis's. I've been struggling for some time to articulate these ideas to my friends, and to see them here laid out in such clarity is a relief and a joy all at once, haha -- the problem of excessive escapism and excessive intellectualism is still as common today as in Lewis's time, it seems.
Thanks for the kind words. Glad it resonated. Such a good book! I definitely recommend reading it and with a highlighter in one hand for sure. Makes it easier to reference it again and again which you will inevitably do.