I think we agree here. And I love your examples. I need to read that book! I’ve been looking for it at used bookstores. It shouldn’t be this hard to find. haha
I definitely agree that we sometimes have to work hard. Maybe the best way to phrase the difference is to say that the pragmatist works to find what they expect to find or works hard to use the book for something other than the book was intended. A receptive reader still has to work hard to receive and assess and analyze and understand. I agree I could have gotten into the weeds on that better.
Zombies. Pragmatists mistake the social experience of coffee for a caffeine delivery exercise tantamount to swallowing no-doze. And it's even worse with literature.
I'm currently reading "Lilith" by George MacDonald. If ever there was a potent and fulfilling story that had precisely zero actionable takeaways, "Lilith" would make the short list.
Uncle Andrew very much fits the stereotype of the "mad" scientist who is rejected or perceived to be rejected because of what he sees as his unique scientific vision.
Yes, very much so. And yet I wonder if you see the same irony here that I do. If the reading experience should be one of pure immersion in the story, and I agree that is should, are either The Magician's Nephew or Piranesi good examples of the sort of story that can be enjoyed in this way, or are they both examples of philosophical novels in which the plot and the characters are contrived to present a philosophical argument, which, insofar as it is a good philosophical argument, has utility but is not pure experience.
Now, to be sure, I largely agree with the philosophy they express, as I am highly amused by Lewis's revisiting of this idea in Out of the Silent Planet, when Ransom tries to translate Weston's imperialist rant into terms that exist in the language of unfallen creatures. I think a philosophical novel is a great way to explore certain philosophical ideas. But the way one receives such a novel, its utility to the reader, are very different from how one receives an ordinary story, of the sort that Lewis seemingly advocates for in An Experiment in Criticism.
In other words, does either novel actually provide the type of experience that they argue we should enjoy in a novel? Or do we value them more for the argument they make than as examples of the thing they argue for?
I've thought about this myself. But it doesn't bother me much, and I enjoy these novels very much. To avoid pragmatism, all I have to do is stay open. If Lewis or Clarke want to share something with me, great! I want to hear it and think about it and experience it (providing characters stay true to themselves and the story is internally consistent and enjoyable). I think the danger is when we go into these novels with our own notions of what we'll find and demand some pre-defined usefulness from them. If I find a bit of delightful and well-executed philosophy in there, that suits me fine.
No, it doesn't bother me much either. While I do think that the pragmatists want every novel to be a philosophical novel, that does not mean that you have to be a pragmatist to enjoy a philosophical novel.
But the ubiquity of the political novel today (the debased form of the philosophical novel) does get me wondering about how these aspects of the novel interact. One of my favorite novels is The Grapes of Wrath, which Steinbeck wrote in a fit of rage over the treatment of the Okies that was occurring as he wrote. And yet, for the most part, the novel itself sticks to telling the story of the Joad family. Steinbeck makes his point without ever stating it, by simply showing us a convincing portrait of human experience. I think it is a novel with only two real flaws, one being Tom Joad's speech and the other the awkward attempt as symbolism when Rose of Sharon feeds a starving man from her breast. Grapes of Wrath is undoubtedly a political novel, but it achieves it power and its lasting reputation by eschewing all the tropes of a political novel and simply telling a real human story.
And so when I look at something like the translation scene in Out of the Silent Planet, I say to myself, yes, that was fun, it made me laugh, and it made an important philosophical point -- it did not spoil the book for me at all -- and yet I wonder, could it have been done more subtly? And if it had been, would we rank and remember Out of the Silent Planet as we rank and remember The Grapes of Wrath? And for that matter, if The Magician's Nephew had been more subtle about its philosophical argument, would I rank and remember it as fondly as I do The Voyage of the Dawn Treader?
Ah, yeah, good points. If we’re talking didacticism, then it seems that every good author has at least a couple of close brushes with it. Lewis has many, and he often gives in.
I think the best solution to wanting to write a philosophical/political novel is to set the scenario, drop in a character, and just tell what happens next, splitting your mind between storyteller and activist. At the end, maybe you can go back and edit in a little activism, but when it’s storytelling time you gotta tell the story.
When I consider that Lewis was writing for children, I honestly haven’t considered how much leeway that gives him or whether it should give any at all. Should we be just as focused on story with children as with adults, or can we fudge it a bit more. As you are an ardent Narnia fan, I wonder what you think of this, but based on your thoughts here, I think maybe you’d prefer we hold children’s lit to the same standards?
Sounds like we’re very much on the same track as each other.
I think the problem with philosophical and political literature generally is that we are very forgiving of it when we agree with it philosophically or politically, and very critical of it when we don't. Whereas a great story is a great story.
Some parents and some children are appalled when they discover that Lewis was slipping in Christian theology in a children's story. Christians, on the other hand, are delighted that he does so. But I can't help thinking of the passage in The Abolition of Man in which Lewis says that parents would rightly object if they sent their children to the dentist and had them come back with their teeth untouched but their heads stuffed full of the dentist's theories on bimetallism.
Of course you could argue that Narnia books both fix their teeth and stuff their heads full of bimetallism, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Narnia book to any parent, or to my grandchildren. But still, I note the seeming inconsistency.
Except, did Lewis REALLY write just for children? Or did he simply recognize that children would be open to the stories--and the parents might catch the philosophy/lesson as they passed through?
"Lewis cites Tolkien in declaring that fairy tales were 'accidentally' associated with children, having, “gravitated to the nursery when it became unfashionable in literary circles, just as unfashionable furniture gravitated to the nursery in Victorian houses.' In reality, it’s in the fantasy literature that we find a sense of sub-creating a world and the tales that inhabit it that both reveal and delight. And, Lewis does also admit that he is accenting the fantasy story because he finds it more compelling than the straight stories. 'The fantasies did not deceive me,' he says, 'the school stories did. All stories in which children have adventures and successes which are possible, in the sense that they do not break the laws of nature, but almost infinitely improbable, are in more danger than the fairy tales of raising false expectations.'"
I had to stop early, as I’ve not partaken Piranesi. However, I wanted to concur that Lewis produced such rich character moments in Nephew. His reach back explanation of Andrew’s strange (to the reader) point of view in Chapter 10 is among my favorite: “Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.” I have to ask myself if I’m doing that from time to time.
I really enjoyed this, despite not having read Piranesi and unsure whether i read The Magician's Nephew (I think i remember starting it - but it was from a library and I decided to read the others first).
You asked for tips and I thought I must have some - but mostly they seem well known really. Children's books especially come to mind - both written perhaps more freely for story but also read in a time less framed by pragmatism (hopefully - though that's not necessarily the case).
But my difficulty made me think the thing I really want to say - it occurred to me that in my memory, no matter how pragmatic I am being, that deep down all the stories and books sit there somehow diluting any pragmatism by osmosis, seeping their higher sense into my days, waiting to be more fully realised as you suggest, connecting to the grander narratives of life. Maybe that is why so many seemed so near.
I love that! That’s such a beautiful way to relate to books.
And I think that’s a big difference between healthy readers and pragmatists. They both get something out of the book, but the pragmatist wants it now, and the healthy reader is willing to wait.
"According to Lewis, some readers of literature are unable to fully appreciate a story because they always have an ulterior motive for reading it. They believe there has to be a moral or a way for them to show off how well read they are. Or they have to be able to escape into it and to forget their present woes. Whatever the use, there has to be some use. Otherwise, why read it?" <-- this paragraph owned me. Well done and thanks for giving me a lot to think about.
Oh I love this essay! Comparing the search for knowledge to reading for the sake of getting something of it, what a great analogy. gave me a lot to think about! and I never thought about the connection of Ketterley and Uncle Andrew!
For your Thriftbooks list: Christopher Priest's "Inverted World" and Charles Portis' "Masters of Atlantis." Coming into both, I had absolutely zero expectations. They both were amazingly, astoundingly good, and taught me things I'd never known before. I'd recommend them both to anyone.
I think we agree here. And I love your examples. I need to read that book! I’ve been looking for it at used bookstores. It shouldn’t be this hard to find. haha
I definitely agree that we sometimes have to work hard. Maybe the best way to phrase the difference is to say that the pragmatist works to find what they expect to find or works hard to use the book for something other than the book was intended. A receptive reader still has to work hard to receive and assess and analyze and understand. I agree I could have gotten into the weeds on that better.
Thank you for your kind words!
Zombies. Pragmatists mistake the social experience of coffee for a caffeine delivery exercise tantamount to swallowing no-doze. And it's even worse with literature.
I'm currently reading "Lilith" by George MacDonald. If ever there was a potent and fulfilling story that had precisely zero actionable takeaways, "Lilith" would make the short list.
As soon as I saw "Lilith" in your comment, I felt the whispers of a thousand million pragmatists in pain at the thought of anyone reading that book.
At work, bringing it up is conversationally equivalent to slapping the trashcan lid knowing there are hornets in there.
Loved this! Loved Piranesi!
Uncle Andrew very much fits the stereotype of the "mad" scientist who is rejected or perceived to be rejected because of what he sees as his unique scientific vision.
Right? Funny how this type often ends up with a victim complex.
Yes, very much so. And yet I wonder if you see the same irony here that I do. If the reading experience should be one of pure immersion in the story, and I agree that is should, are either The Magician's Nephew or Piranesi good examples of the sort of story that can be enjoyed in this way, or are they both examples of philosophical novels in which the plot and the characters are contrived to present a philosophical argument, which, insofar as it is a good philosophical argument, has utility but is not pure experience.
Now, to be sure, I largely agree with the philosophy they express, as I am highly amused by Lewis's revisiting of this idea in Out of the Silent Planet, when Ransom tries to translate Weston's imperialist rant into terms that exist in the language of unfallen creatures. I think a philosophical novel is a great way to explore certain philosophical ideas. But the way one receives such a novel, its utility to the reader, are very different from how one receives an ordinary story, of the sort that Lewis seemingly advocates for in An Experiment in Criticism.
In other words, does either novel actually provide the type of experience that they argue we should enjoy in a novel? Or do we value them more for the argument they make than as examples of the thing they argue for?
I've thought about this myself. But it doesn't bother me much, and I enjoy these novels very much. To avoid pragmatism, all I have to do is stay open. If Lewis or Clarke want to share something with me, great! I want to hear it and think about it and experience it (providing characters stay true to themselves and the story is internally consistent and enjoyable). I think the danger is when we go into these novels with our own notions of what we'll find and demand some pre-defined usefulness from them. If I find a bit of delightful and well-executed philosophy in there, that suits me fine.
No, it doesn't bother me much either. While I do think that the pragmatists want every novel to be a philosophical novel, that does not mean that you have to be a pragmatist to enjoy a philosophical novel.
But the ubiquity of the political novel today (the debased form of the philosophical novel) does get me wondering about how these aspects of the novel interact. One of my favorite novels is The Grapes of Wrath, which Steinbeck wrote in a fit of rage over the treatment of the Okies that was occurring as he wrote. And yet, for the most part, the novel itself sticks to telling the story of the Joad family. Steinbeck makes his point without ever stating it, by simply showing us a convincing portrait of human experience. I think it is a novel with only two real flaws, one being Tom Joad's speech and the other the awkward attempt as symbolism when Rose of Sharon feeds a starving man from her breast. Grapes of Wrath is undoubtedly a political novel, but it achieves it power and its lasting reputation by eschewing all the tropes of a political novel and simply telling a real human story.
And so when I look at something like the translation scene in Out of the Silent Planet, I say to myself, yes, that was fun, it made me laugh, and it made an important philosophical point -- it did not spoil the book for me at all -- and yet I wonder, could it have been done more subtly? And if it had been, would we rank and remember Out of the Silent Planet as we rank and remember The Grapes of Wrath? And for that matter, if The Magician's Nephew had been more subtle about its philosophical argument, would I rank and remember it as fondly as I do The Voyage of the Dawn Treader?
Ah, yeah, good points. If we’re talking didacticism, then it seems that every good author has at least a couple of close brushes with it. Lewis has many, and he often gives in.
I think the best solution to wanting to write a philosophical/political novel is to set the scenario, drop in a character, and just tell what happens next, splitting your mind between storyteller and activist. At the end, maybe you can go back and edit in a little activism, but when it’s storytelling time you gotta tell the story.
When I consider that Lewis was writing for children, I honestly haven’t considered how much leeway that gives him or whether it should give any at all. Should we be just as focused on story with children as with adults, or can we fudge it a bit more. As you are an ardent Narnia fan, I wonder what you think of this, but based on your thoughts here, I think maybe you’d prefer we hold children’s lit to the same standards?
Sounds like we’re very much on the same track as each other.
I think the problem with philosophical and political literature generally is that we are very forgiving of it when we agree with it philosophically or politically, and very critical of it when we don't. Whereas a great story is a great story.
Some parents and some children are appalled when they discover that Lewis was slipping in Christian theology in a children's story. Christians, on the other hand, are delighted that he does so. But I can't help thinking of the passage in The Abolition of Man in which Lewis says that parents would rightly object if they sent their children to the dentist and had them come back with their teeth untouched but their heads stuffed full of the dentist's theories on bimetallism.
Of course you could argue that Narnia books both fix their teeth and stuff their heads full of bimetallism, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Narnia book to any parent, or to my grandchildren. But still, I note the seeming inconsistency.
Except, did Lewis REALLY write just for children? Or did he simply recognize that children would be open to the stories--and the parents might catch the philosophy/lesson as they passed through?
"Lewis cites Tolkien in declaring that fairy tales were 'accidentally' associated with children, having, “gravitated to the nursery when it became unfashionable in literary circles, just as unfashionable furniture gravitated to the nursery in Victorian houses.' In reality, it’s in the fantasy literature that we find a sense of sub-creating a world and the tales that inhabit it that both reveal and delight. And, Lewis does also admit that he is accenting the fantasy story because he finds it more compelling than the straight stories. 'The fantasies did not deceive me,' he says, 'the school stories did. All stories in which children have adventures and successes which are possible, in the sense that they do not break the laws of nature, but almost infinitely improbable, are in more danger than the fairy tales of raising false expectations.'"
https://www.cslewis.com/reading-childrens-stories/
I had to stop early, as I’ve not partaken Piranesi. However, I wanted to concur that Lewis produced such rich character moments in Nephew. His reach back explanation of Andrew’s strange (to the reader) point of view in Chapter 10 is among my favorite: “Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.” I have to ask myself if I’m doing that from time to time.
Such a good point, right? We are truly our own worst enemies. Let me know what you think of Piranesi if you do read it!
I think books like Summer Lightning by PG Wodehouse would baffle a pragmatist. Just pure, lighthearted fun.
Anything by him would!
I agree with you - I believe Piranesi will be regarded a 21st century classic when the next century rolls around. It's time to read it again!
I really enjoyed this, despite not having read Piranesi and unsure whether i read The Magician's Nephew (I think i remember starting it - but it was from a library and I decided to read the others first).
You asked for tips and I thought I must have some - but mostly they seem well known really. Children's books especially come to mind - both written perhaps more freely for story but also read in a time less framed by pragmatism (hopefully - though that's not necessarily the case).
But my difficulty made me think the thing I really want to say - it occurred to me that in my memory, no matter how pragmatic I am being, that deep down all the stories and books sit there somehow diluting any pragmatism by osmosis, seeping their higher sense into my days, waiting to be more fully realised as you suggest, connecting to the grander narratives of life. Maybe that is why so many seemed so near.
I love that! That’s such a beautiful way to relate to books.
And I think that’s a big difference between healthy readers and pragmatists. They both get something out of the book, but the pragmatist wants it now, and the healthy reader is willing to wait.
I liked this article a lot. Well done.
Thanks!
CES would not have approved.
CES?
"According to Lewis, some readers of literature are unable to fully appreciate a story because they always have an ulterior motive for reading it. They believe there has to be a moral or a way for them to show off how well read they are. Or they have to be able to escape into it and to forget their present woes. Whatever the use, there has to be some use. Otherwise, why read it?" <-- this paragraph owned me. Well done and thanks for giving me a lot to think about.
I’m glad you liked it. I was particularly proud of that bit. Feels good to know it hit home for someone.
Oh I love this essay! Comparing the search for knowledge to reading for the sake of getting something of it, what a great analogy. gave me a lot to think about! and I never thought about the connection of Ketterley and Uncle Andrew!
Isn’t that connection wild? It was the last thing I was expecting when I started reading Piranesi.
“The Lions of Al-Rassan” by Guy Gavriel Kay, and I think it is a pragmatist’s bane.
For your Thriftbooks list: Christopher Priest's "Inverted World" and Charles Portis' "Masters of Atlantis." Coming into both, I had absolutely zero expectations. They both were amazingly, astoundingly good, and taught me things I'd never known before. I'd recommend them both to anyone.
Thanks! Adding them now. I'm especially intrigued by the title of the first.
How can people?
I read fantasy and fiction so I can turn off my brain and enjoy the story.
It's also why I write fantasy, so people can enjoy it without having to think too hard.
We might disagree, then, on the point of literature. Though we both do agree that it should be enjoyable.