A friend sent me a copy of this essay by C.S. Lewis, in which the world-renowned novelist and essayist opines about the power of Story and puts his significantly-smarter-than-mine brain to the task of analyzing story qua Story.
It's left me a little underwhelmed.
I know that part of it is that I don't understand what he's getting at. Not being familiar with Lewis' work (I've read Screwtape Letters and a Narnia book or two, but that's about as far as I got), I'm also not familiar with his allusive tendency or repetitious manner. I found his particular style somewhat disdainful of that which he didn't like, and some of his conclusions were, at best, underdeveloped.*
That being said, he brings up a couple of really good points that reminded me to be a little less judgmental of people's tastes. For example, he mentions the tendency to underestimate another's intellectual ability because of what one chooses to read about.
When it comes to literary taste, there's agreed upon schlock, likely schlock, it kinda depends, good, and hard to argue that isn't amazing. In other words, it's a spectrum. And unlike a handful of really important things in life, personal taste is subjective, personal, and--provided it isn't damaging real life people--basically harmless. I mayn't like Twilight, but I have to remember that for many people--my wife included--it does provide a "profound experience" which can't be claimed any other way.
I liked that about Lewis' essay.
I just wish I could have understood what he meant by Story.
See, I've enjoyed this adage from E.M. Forster quite a bit: "The king died and then the queen died is a story. The king died, and then queen died of grief is a plot." The point, from what I gather, is that a story is placing things in sequence. A plot is showing those connections. So when Lewis says "Story", I'm assuming he's talking about events transpiring. But that's all one. An encyclopedia entry can be about events transpiring. What elevates storytelling? What makes capital-S Story so important?
It's likely I didn't understand his argument, because I left not understanding his point. I never saw a clear definition that helped me to follow the course of his logic. I agree that changing details--as he said, of Mr. Toad, for example--can fundamentally change something. So is it in the detail where Story sleeps? But that can't be right--not universally. Hamlet's age is a detail, but it hardly pertains to the play, and where it does, it can also be suspected as having changed from beginning to end. Then again, Othello loses some of its most potent connections when the detail of his race is omitted, so maybe that's a point in Lewis' favor.
But even so, I still don't know what he's getting at with Story. I'm a huge fan of literature--I hope that's obvious--and I love telling my own stories. I've done so for almost all of my life. I recognize some terms can be slippery, but how does Story interact with story? I feel like he's touching on Platonic Forms, in some ways, because of that capital-S, but that simply leaves me feeling more confused.
I don't have any great ending planned for this one. I'm at a bit of a loss, because I know Lewis' reputation among his fans as being a decisive, clear thinker and writer, but I felt bogged down in his approach and somewhat confused throughout. Maybe I need to get smarter.
----
* I'm thinking particularly about his comments about cinema, which smacks of snobbery. But I have to cut Lewis some slack: Cinema is now a century old, and it has made some incredible gains. It has discovered ways in which it can tell stories, relying on its own medium, that no other medium can. I find videogames in a similar position: The potential for entirely new ways of telling story are constantly being explored, though usually on the periphery, out of sight of the cookie-cutter, run-and-gun genres that litter the videogame landscape. But, regardless of when this was written, cinema was, for Lewis, such a nascent form of storytelling that he can be forgiven for misunderstanding its power and purpose.
It's left me a little underwhelmed.
I know that part of it is that I don't understand what he's getting at. Not being familiar with Lewis' work (I've read Screwtape Letters and a Narnia book or two, but that's about as far as I got), I'm also not familiar with his allusive tendency or repetitious manner. I found his particular style somewhat disdainful of that which he didn't like, and some of his conclusions were, at best, underdeveloped.*
That being said, he brings up a couple of really good points that reminded me to be a little less judgmental of people's tastes. For example, he mentions the tendency to underestimate another's intellectual ability because of what one chooses to read about.
But if I am right in thinking that there is another enjoyment in Story besides the excitement, then popular romance even on the lowest level becomes rather more important than we had supposed. When you see an immature or uneducated person devouring what seem to you merely sensational stories, can you be sure what kind of pleasure he is enjoying? It is, of course, no good asking him. If he were capable of analysing his own experience as the question requires him to do, he would be neither uneducated nor immature. But because he is inarticulate we must not give judgement against him. He may be seeking only the recurring tension of imagined anxiety. But he may also, I believe, be receiving certain profound experiences which are, for him, not acceptable in any other form.I think of the no-longer-relevant Twilight series. What Matt Inman analyzes as the weaknesses of the novel (this is a not safe for work analysis) is actually its strength. The main character ("Pants" in Inman's version) is devoid of particularly solid characteristics, which allows for readers to project into the book more fully. This is insulting to Inman (and many others), but it goes back to Lewis' point: "But [she] may also, I believe, be receiving certain profound experiences which are, for [her], not acceptable in any other form." It's not a bug, it's a feature.
When it comes to literary taste, there's agreed upon schlock, likely schlock, it kinda depends, good, and hard to argue that isn't amazing. In other words, it's a spectrum. And unlike a handful of really important things in life, personal taste is subjective, personal, and--provided it isn't damaging real life people--basically harmless. I mayn't like Twilight, but I have to remember that for many people--my wife included--it does provide a "profound experience" which can't be claimed any other way.
I liked that about Lewis' essay.
I just wish I could have understood what he meant by Story.
See, I've enjoyed this adage from E.M. Forster quite a bit: "The king died and then the queen died is a story. The king died, and then queen died of grief is a plot." The point, from what I gather, is that a story is placing things in sequence. A plot is showing those connections. So when Lewis says "Story", I'm assuming he's talking about events transpiring. But that's all one. An encyclopedia entry can be about events transpiring. What elevates storytelling? What makes capital-S Story so important?
It's likely I didn't understand his argument, because I left not understanding his point. I never saw a clear definition that helped me to follow the course of his logic. I agree that changing details--as he said, of Mr. Toad, for example--can fundamentally change something. So is it in the detail where Story sleeps? But that can't be right--not universally. Hamlet's age is a detail, but it hardly pertains to the play, and where it does, it can also be suspected as having changed from beginning to end. Then again, Othello loses some of its most potent connections when the detail of his race is omitted, so maybe that's a point in Lewis' favor.
But even so, I still don't know what he's getting at with Story. I'm a huge fan of literature--I hope that's obvious--and I love telling my own stories. I've done so for almost all of my life. I recognize some terms can be slippery, but how does Story interact with story? I feel like he's touching on Platonic Forms, in some ways, because of that capital-S, but that simply leaves me feeling more confused.
I don't have any great ending planned for this one. I'm at a bit of a loss, because I know Lewis' reputation among his fans as being a decisive, clear thinker and writer, but I felt bogged down in his approach and somewhat confused throughout. Maybe I need to get smarter.
 |
| Nah. I'm probably already there. Just like Homer. (Source) |
----
* I'm thinking particularly about his comments about cinema, which smacks of snobbery. But I have to cut Lewis some slack: Cinema is now a century old, and it has made some incredible gains. It has discovered ways in which it can tell stories, relying on its own medium, that no other medium can. I find videogames in a similar position: The potential for entirely new ways of telling story are constantly being explored, though usually on the periphery, out of sight of the cookie-cutter, run-and-gun genres that litter the videogame landscape. But, regardless of when this was written, cinema was, for Lewis, such a nascent form of storytelling that he can be forgiven for misunderstanding its power and purpose.