I'm not talking about something he wrote, say some fiction or non-fiction, that was especially good intrinsically for writing's sake. No, in a lecture he made a statement that is of considerable worth for writers. Here it is.
What are the key-words of modern criticism? Creative, with its opposite derivative; spontaneity, with its opposite convention; freedom, contrasted with rules. Great authors are innovators, pioneers, explorers; bad authors bunch in schools and follow models. Or again, great authors are always 'breaking fetters' and 'bursting bonds'. They have personality, they 'are themselves'.
This comes from the lecture titled "Christianity and Literature", which was read to a religious society in Oxford. It was originally published in Rehabilitations and Other Essays (Oxford 1939). I have it in a book titled The Timeless Writings of C.S. Lewis, which is a recent reprinting of some collected lectures and articles by Lewis published in separate volumes.
I find Lewis' words to be particularly insightful, instructing, and inspiring for an aspiring author, one who is planning to write secular works with a Christian worldview underpinning them. It is not convention that marks the great author, but spontaneity; not works patterned after someone else's but creativity, perhaps also or better stated as originality. Great authors should break fetters and burst bonds.
This is something I must look at in my own writings. Am I bursting bonds, breaking fetters? Seeking not to bunch in a school but rather be an innovator, a pioneer, an explorer? I sort of think so, because I haven't really sought to pattern my work after anyone, and, perhaps, my lack of learning in the great literature that preceded me means I don't know a whole lot about those who I might pattern after.
True, as much as I love Robert Frost a lot of my poetry sounds Frostian. On-line critics have said as much, always in a good way. As to the mechanics of my prose, so far no one has said "You sound like ———." The ideas I have for novels don't seem to easily fall into genres. The Alfred Cottage Mysteries are almost cozy mysteries--except they won't always involve a murder, and Alfred, while an amateur detective, will be solving crimes of years past, not of the present.
Documenting America is neither history nor politics, but rather a mix, and I think unlike anything I've seen before. Will it sell? We'll soon see.
At writers conferences and on writer/agent blogs I keep seeing advice such as: follow the genre rules. Lewis would say "Innovate. Break the fetters of genre. Be spontaneous."
I'm going to be thinking long and hard about this advice from Lewis. Well, he wasn't purposefully giving advice for writers. He was defining what he thought were the characteristics of great writers. I think I'll have more to say about this over the coming days.
Showing posts with label C.S. Lewis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label C.S. Lewis. Show all posts
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Sunday, September 12, 2010
New Books or Old Books
Each age, it is found, must write its own books; or rather, each generation for the next succeeding. The books of an older period will not fit this. Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The American Scholar" 1837
Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. C.S. Lewis, Introduction to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius, 1944
So, two eminent scholars seem to disagree! Why am I not surprised. Emerson says read the modern books. The generation right before you, after they observed the world and digested it, shared the knowledge they had for my generation. C.S. Lewis says not so; read first the old books, then if you have time and inclination read the modern as well.
This came up because, at my last foraging in a thrift store, I found the Athanasius book. I might not have bothered with it except I have an interest in the early Christian writings, and thought this slim paperback would be a welcome addition to my reference library. Also, in 2005 I first read a seminary paper by my son-in-law on Athanasius' de Incarnatione Verbi Dei. I didn't understand it, put it down, picked it up again almost exactly a year later, didn't understand it, put it down again, etc., until finally I was able to glean enough from it to understand it (I think) the discussion and write a review. When I saw the book I thought, "I've read about this writing of Athanasius; now I have the chance to read it in modern translation."
When I got it home I read the Introduction. C.S. Lewis' words stood in stark contract to what I remembered reading in Emerson. "The American Scholar" is actually the only essay of RWE's I've gotten all the way through. Others I've picked up and put down, but that one I really liked. Emerson's words had seemed true to me. That's why every American generation writes another biography or two of George Washington, and why the shelves of our local libraries are constantly rotating books, selling off those more than fifty years old and replacing them with newer distillations of the same subject.
Lewis has more to say about this than does Emerson. He goes on to discuss the importance of reading the original sources. Commentaries on Plato are more confusing than Plato, he writes. Just read Plato. He's not so hard to understand in modern translation. Since that is exactly what I am attempting to do with the Athanasius book, I could understand Lewis' remarks. And, as a writer I'd better figure out how to write materials for the next generation while at the same time directing them to the old books.
We'll see how this goes. I've read about fifteen of the 95 pages of Athanasius, and sort of understand what he's saying. I haven't gotten to the meat of his argument yet. Of course, when he began by saying, "In our former book", I had to divert to various on-line sources to see what that book was and what it is all about. That led me to some letters he wrote. That led me to some biographical materials, and even a compilation of his works. The tentacles of research are at work.
It is taking me much concentration to read De Inarnatione. I can't do it while also watching television, or even while that noise is on in the house. I can't read it if I'm also thinking of articles to write or blog posts to post or bills to pay or work issues the morning will bring. So I may not finish it quickly, may even put it aside and go to some other book in my reading pile. We shall see. The experiment is on.
Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. C.S. Lewis, Introduction to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius, 1944
So, two eminent scholars seem to disagree! Why am I not surprised. Emerson says read the modern books. The generation right before you, after they observed the world and digested it, shared the knowledge they had for my generation. C.S. Lewis says not so; read first the old books, then if you have time and inclination read the modern as well.
This came up because, at my last foraging in a thrift store, I found the Athanasius book. I might not have bothered with it except I have an interest in the early Christian writings, and thought this slim paperback would be a welcome addition to my reference library. Also, in 2005 I first read a seminary paper by my son-in-law on Athanasius' de Incarnatione Verbi Dei. I didn't understand it, put it down, picked it up again almost exactly a year later, didn't understand it, put it down again, etc., until finally I was able to glean enough from it to understand it (I think) the discussion and write a review. When I saw the book I thought, "I've read about this writing of Athanasius; now I have the chance to read it in modern translation."
When I got it home I read the Introduction. C.S. Lewis' words stood in stark contract to what I remembered reading in Emerson. "The American Scholar" is actually the only essay of RWE's I've gotten all the way through. Others I've picked up and put down, but that one I really liked. Emerson's words had seemed true to me. That's why every American generation writes another biography or two of George Washington, and why the shelves of our local libraries are constantly rotating books, selling off those more than fifty years old and replacing them with newer distillations of the same subject.
Lewis has more to say about this than does Emerson. He goes on to discuss the importance of reading the original sources. Commentaries on Plato are more confusing than Plato, he writes. Just read Plato. He's not so hard to understand in modern translation. Since that is exactly what I am attempting to do with the Athanasius book, I could understand Lewis' remarks. And, as a writer I'd better figure out how to write materials for the next generation while at the same time directing them to the old books.
We'll see how this goes. I've read about fifteen of the 95 pages of Athanasius, and sort of understand what he's saying. I haven't gotten to the meat of his argument yet. Of course, when he began by saying, "In our former book", I had to divert to various on-line sources to see what that book was and what it is all about. That led me to some letters he wrote. That led me to some biographical materials, and even a compilation of his works. The tentacles of research are at work.
It is taking me much concentration to read De Inarnatione. I can't do it while also watching television, or even while that noise is on in the house. I can't read it if I'm also thinking of articles to write or blog posts to post or bills to pay or work issues the morning will bring. So I may not finish it quickly, may even put it aside and go to some other book in my reading pile. We shall see. The experiment is on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
