In one of our first classes we discussed the tendency to read the personal biography of the author into his story, and how this may alter and potentially taint our conception of the story. Though Lewis himself was adamantly opposed to this, I find it difficult to refrain. How can a story not reflect the attitudes, beliefs, preferences and life experiences of its creator? Even if the author attempts to present in her writing a moral code much different than the one to which she ascribes, the very depiction of this "alternative" code will evidently be the product of the writer (in this case a writer who holds views opposing those presented in the text). In other words, even if the story is written with the intent of presenting an opposing view, that very fact will more likely than not be evident in the final product.
If we cannot draw on the life experiences of the author as we attempt to make meaning of the story, on what can we draw? We can't very well ask the question, "What was Lewis up to?" if we aren't allowed to know or reflect on his personal context. Discussions that at first blush seem to rise completely from the text carry with them assumptions regarding the intent of the author. Many of these assumptions are necessarily based on our knowledge of the author's personal life, experiences and convictions. The settings of long hallways, empty rooms and hours spent indoors are not usual. In light of Lewis' background at Little Lea, however, they seem to us somehow more appropriate, more sensical. The mention of mythical dryads and giants along with talking animals might be seen as just another part of fantasy. In light of Lewis' extensive work in Classics and childhood world of Boxen, though, their presence takes on new meaning. Our knowledge of the author's personal belief system is of even greater interest and importance in our interpretation. Would we so readily see Aslan as a Christ figure if we were unaware of Lewis' Christian convictions? Would we indeed be very interested in the Narnia books at all if it weren't for Lewis' status in the Evangelical Christian world? I doubt it.
I would not go so far as to say that we must study the life of the author in detail in order to glean anything of value from his work, but I would say that proper interpretation and study requires a little background information, whether Lewis approved of it or not. One might argue that the Great Creator himself is best revealed in his creation. Can we not say the same about an author like Lewis?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Being a literature fanatic, my enjoyably deranged mind is encouraging me to post this response.
Let me start with this: original thought is in short supply, and opinionated people such as yourself are certainly and infinitely valuable. You did not blindly follow the presentation of C.S. Lewis' literature evaluation system, but you analyzed and thought about the way you read and interpret. I appreciate that.
While I completely see the difficulty in interpreting a text without mentally inquiring about the author's philosophies and biases, I believe that we must let a good text speak for itself. As readers, we must be careful of wrongly analyzing the literature in light of the author's views. Even if we were correct in our assumptions, we would be doing the author a disservice by jumping to a technically unprovable conclusion. The truth within solid and functional fiction should come from the fiction itself, and not from the suppositions of the reader based upon the author's life.
A text is best read when it stands alone, speaking for itself. If a good author wishes to explicitly or implicitly communicate his or her viewpoint, they should accomplish this within the text, instead of providing supplementary comments or assuming that the reader will do a minimal to extensive amount of background research.
Let me reassure you that I am not merely attempting to be argumentative. I simply want to provide another viewpoint for you to ponder - and I was especially eager to do so in this context, mostly because I see things very differently.
I suppose that "letting a good text speak for itself" is going to look different to different readers depending on both what they bring to the text and what their purpose is in reading it. If one is studying a text for the purpose of learning how to create a story he will view it differently than one who is looking to discern Christian themes who will see it differently than one who simply wants to escape a 9-5 work week.
I do agree that there is great merit in reading a story for the sake of the story and the truths that it intrinsically holds. Suppositions, though arguably fun and easy to make, can in fact be dangerous. And yes, a good story ought to be able to stand on its own, regardless of who its author is.
But certainly, as a lit. fan nonetheless, you must appreciate the cohesion of author and work, the near inseparability of creator and creation when that creation is true in the purest sense.
I agree that creation and creator are fairly inextricable, and I do believe that approaching a text with the author's history and character in mind can incite interesting conversations and considerations.
Some literature can even inspire research, merely because of shock value. For instance, if an author wrote a poem from the perspective of an anti-semitic character, and the work was littered with degrading and offensive remarks, the reader would probably - and hopefully - wonder if the author shares the sentiments of his created character.
All that to say: there are certainly contexts in which knowing background information about the author can positively influence an understanding of a text, especially when you can notice and appreciate authorial remarks like Lewis' references to the evils of school.
Post a Comment