teganlt's review against another edition
5.0
The goodness of a work of literature is not to be found in the text per se, but in the kind of reading the text invites. Non-literary readers "use" books whereas literary readers "receive" books. The difference is between treating the reading activity as a means to some other end (e.g. vicarious wish-fulfillment, the text's teaching of certain putative truths) and treating the activity as an end in itself. We should expect a book to be worth reading if good readers enjoy it, and not so worthwhile if it seems only to be used. Importantly, it is not a literary demerit for a book to be used so long as it may still be received; that is, the presence of readers who use a text tells us nothing about whether it may in fact be received.
stay_truetoyourshelf's review against another edition
3.0
I learned a lot, but it isn’t my usual style of reading so it was hard to read. I will definitely be putting a lot of this into practice with my future reviews. I also had to look up a lot of words, because the diction was either archaic or in another language entirely, which slowed me down a lot. But this overall was a very interesting and thought-provoking read.
davehershey's review against another edition
4.0
How do you, or should you, read a book? Often we criticize books by saying some are good and some are bad. So if you are someone who likes a "bad" book, the rest of us can condescendingly look down on you (such as those of you who like Twilight). Lewis argues that this is wrong, that we should think more about how one reads. His criticisms often hit close to home. He argues that many read when they are bored or just to pass the time. Such persons read to get to the event, to get the gist of the story. I know I've read like this at times. Part of me thinks mediums like Goodreads itself contribute to this because my goal ends up being finishing the book (and the next book) so I can have a long list of books read. Maybe the problem is that long list I want to read! Either way, here we "use" the book for our own ends.
In other words, if you read a classic book like Crime and Punishment or Moby Dick but only do so to check it off the list, you don't get any credit, in Lewis' book. Or if you, as I have done, read through a heavy theological or philosophical tome looking for just that one (or dozen) quotes that you can come back to later to either post on social media or use in a sermon, you've missed the point too.
Lewis argues that better reading receives the book. Here the goal is not to use it for our own ends but to experience it. In reality, such reading can end up being any book. There may be people out there who read all the wrong books in all the right ways. Thus, for Lewis, you can't really criticize what others are reading. Perhaps someone out there is reading Twilight and being deeply moved by the experience of it. Okay, maybe not Twilight! But I do recall an article a few years back mocking adults for reading young adult fiction (The Hunger Games, the Fault in Our Stars, etc.). I suspect Lewis would have words for that author. How do we know at least some of those people are not truly experiencing these books in the right way?
Another thing Lewis said that was challenging was that if you try to read all the right books you become subject to your culture. So you read what is the highly acclaimed book by critics today and scoff at something else. In a few decades, what you scoffed at could be considered the classic and what was seen so highly today could be ignored. The point here is simply, read what you like. But as you read what you like, do not just do it to check the box, but truly enjoy it.
How do you know you are reading in that right way? One thing Lewis points out is those that read in the wrong way rarely reread. Reading books in the right way demands a rereading. I've enjoyed rereading Tolkien and Lewis as well as Marilynne Robinson and others. I am challenged to go reread some of those books I checked off my list but maybe rushed through just a bit.
Finally, there is a reason this is low on the list of Lewis books people have read. He refers to a lot of authors, many of whom I never heard of. Its like a paper or speech delivered in a certain time and living far from that time, the references are missed. It is not as approachable or timeless as Mere Christianity or Till We Have Faces (his best work of fiction, btw). That said, it is worth your time. It also relates well to Tolkien's work On Fairy Stories.
In other words, if you read a classic book like Crime and Punishment or Moby Dick but only do so to check it off the list, you don't get any credit, in Lewis' book. Or if you, as I have done, read through a heavy theological or philosophical tome looking for just that one (or dozen) quotes that you can come back to later to either post on social media or use in a sermon, you've missed the point too.
Lewis argues that better reading receives the book. Here the goal is not to use it for our own ends but to experience it. In reality, such reading can end up being any book. There may be people out there who read all the wrong books in all the right ways. Thus, for Lewis, you can't really criticize what others are reading. Perhaps someone out there is reading Twilight and being deeply moved by the experience of it. Okay, maybe not Twilight! But I do recall an article a few years back mocking adults for reading young adult fiction (The Hunger Games, the Fault in Our Stars, etc.). I suspect Lewis would have words for that author. How do we know at least some of those people are not truly experiencing these books in the right way?
Another thing Lewis said that was challenging was that if you try to read all the right books you become subject to your culture. So you read what is the highly acclaimed book by critics today and scoff at something else. In a few decades, what you scoffed at could be considered the classic and what was seen so highly today could be ignored. The point here is simply, read what you like. But as you read what you like, do not just do it to check the box, but truly enjoy it.
How do you know you are reading in that right way? One thing Lewis points out is those that read in the wrong way rarely reread. Reading books in the right way demands a rereading. I've enjoyed rereading Tolkien and Lewis as well as Marilynne Robinson and others. I am challenged to go reread some of those books I checked off my list but maybe rushed through just a bit.
Finally, there is a reason this is low on the list of Lewis books people have read. He refers to a lot of authors, many of whom I never heard of. Its like a paper or speech delivered in a certain time and living far from that time, the references are missed. It is not as approachable or timeless as Mere Christianity or Till We Have Faces (his best work of fiction, btw). That said, it is worth your time. It also relates well to Tolkien's work On Fairy Stories.
storytimed's review against another edition
4.0
OK so. Naomi Kanakia referenced C. S. Lewis's An Experiment in Criticism & I was so interested in the excerpt that I went and read that first http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/PDFs/Experiment_CSL.pdf
Put simply, it's an effort to categorize not good and bad books but good and bad reading
He defines that as
- using: a self-centered consumption of the book for whatever reason (fantasizing, ego, pornography, etc.)
- receiving: a full-hearted surrender to the experience of the book and where it has to take you (very Christian of him)
Good literature is literature that permits and invites the "receiving" experience; bad literature is literature that does and cannot
AND TO BE FAIR I began with a self-centered consumption of Lewis's work, because I wanted to use it to dunk on people I didn't like from fandom
I mean most of this book is C. S. Lewis being a bitch (delightful), but I do think he's genuinely trying to develop his own theory of reading based on what reading has given him, and what he feels that reading has the power to do
What I object to is his idea that the best way to read is pure and complete surrender to a book based on authorial intent
I want to dig him up and get into an argument with him about death of the author!!
I mean, I agree with 90% of what he's saying about approaching a book in good faith and without prejudice, but my model is less like, let the book gently ravish you and more of an Roger Ebert/Ruth Reichl "examine what the book is attempting to achieve, and judge it based on those standards instead of your own personally constructed rules"
I am being a bit uncharitable to him here, though. He does make caveats that 1) unliterary reading and escapism can and must exist side by side with literary reading and escapism and 2) the eventual purpose of his argument is to claim that any book that can be read in a literary manner (that can deeply influence its reader, that can be held close to the reader's heart and reread and experienced throughout their lifetime) cannot be condemned on a literary level
Which is very sweet actually
& he does make me examine my own purposes and methods of reading - for one, he is very harsh on people who don't reread & just consume and throw books away
& I will be the first to admit I'm not much of a rereader! Or a re-anything. I don't even typically visit the same restaurants multiple times unless they're in my neighborhood. But that's actually more because of practicality and economics than anything else. I reread fic and articles quite often, but because I can very easily pull them up on my laptop
I borrow books from the library, which makes them more difficult to reread on a whim
But it is true that much of the time, when I'm reading I'm not trying to access a transcendental experience. I really like it if I happen upon a book that I read in a literary fashion that will live rent-free in my mind, but upon further consideration I've realized that I read books in the same way I explore cities
I'm making my way through the neighborhoods, trying to make the foreign streets familiar., marking all the landmarks down in my little catalog. But to what purpose am I exploring? When I get into a new fandom, it's really easy to browse through everything I think is worth reading in the tag & then come back to my favorites if I like, but the literary landscape is so sprawling that I'm never really going to feel like I've mastered any particular genre
Having read a lot is really nice when people ask me for recommendations, because I can give them really nice directions, and it's also really lovely to be able to discuss the same book with other people who've read it or see when books are in conversation with each other
But I haven't really gotten the benefits & joy of rereading myself, and I feel like I'm missing out!
So anyway my goal this year is to (along with Read More Books instead of getting caught in idle screentime) reread more books. I'm already rereading Georgette Heyer's Cotillion and enjoying it immensely. Heyer is a delight
Omg wait also I forgot to note Lewis's reason for reading, which is to experience a kind of expansion/abnegation of the self & experience the mind of another. The way he talks about it is very Christian and also kind of submissive?? But I think his general purpose is pretty sound
Unliterary reading (for pure pleasure, or excitement, or pornography) is just as sound, but I do think that like.......... he is right that literary reading will stay with you for longer, and become part of your emotional, moral and rational landscape in a way that unliterary reading often doesn't
Put simply, it's an effort to categorize not good and bad books but good and bad reading
He defines that as
- using: a self-centered consumption of the book for whatever reason (fantasizing, ego, pornography, etc.)
- receiving: a full-hearted surrender to the experience of the book and where it has to take you (very Christian of him)
Good literature is literature that permits and invites the "receiving" experience; bad literature is literature that does and cannot
AND TO BE FAIR I began with a self-centered consumption of Lewis's work, because I wanted to use it to dunk on people I didn't like from fandom
I mean most of this book is C. S. Lewis being a bitch (delightful), but I do think he's genuinely trying to develop his own theory of reading based on what reading has given him, and what he feels that reading has the power to do
What I object to is his idea that the best way to read is pure and complete surrender to a book based on authorial intent
I want to dig him up and get into an argument with him about death of the author!!
I mean, I agree with 90% of what he's saying about approaching a book in good faith and without prejudice, but my model is less like, let the book gently ravish you and more of an Roger Ebert/Ruth Reichl "examine what the book is attempting to achieve, and judge it based on those standards instead of your own personally constructed rules"
I am being a bit uncharitable to him here, though. He does make caveats that 1) unliterary reading and escapism can and must exist side by side with literary reading and escapism and 2) the eventual purpose of his argument is to claim that any book that can be read in a literary manner (that can deeply influence its reader, that can be held close to the reader's heart and reread and experienced throughout their lifetime) cannot be condemned on a literary level
Which is very sweet actually
& he does make me examine my own purposes and methods of reading - for one, he is very harsh on people who don't reread & just consume and throw books away
& I will be the first to admit I'm not much of a rereader! Or a re-anything. I don't even typically visit the same restaurants multiple times unless they're in my neighborhood. But that's actually more because of practicality and economics than anything else. I reread fic and articles quite often, but because I can very easily pull them up on my laptop
I borrow books from the library, which makes them more difficult to reread on a whim
But it is true that much of the time, when I'm reading I'm not trying to access a transcendental experience. I really like it if I happen upon a book that I read in a literary fashion that will live rent-free in my mind, but upon further consideration I've realized that I read books in the same way I explore cities
I'm making my way through the neighborhoods, trying to make the foreign streets familiar., marking all the landmarks down in my little catalog. But to what purpose am I exploring? When I get into a new fandom, it's really easy to browse through everything I think is worth reading in the tag & then come back to my favorites if I like, but the literary landscape is so sprawling that I'm never really going to feel like I've mastered any particular genre
Having read a lot is really nice when people ask me for recommendations, because I can give them really nice directions, and it's also really lovely to be able to discuss the same book with other people who've read it or see when books are in conversation with each other
But I haven't really gotten the benefits & joy of rereading myself, and I feel like I'm missing out!
So anyway my goal this year is to (along with Read More Books instead of getting caught in idle screentime) reread more books. I'm already rereading Georgette Heyer's Cotillion and enjoying it immensely. Heyer is a delight
Omg wait also I forgot to note Lewis's reason for reading, which is to experience a kind of expansion/abnegation of the self & experience the mind of another. The way he talks about it is very Christian and also kind of submissive?? But I think his general purpose is pretty sound
Unliterary reading (for pure pleasure, or excitement, or pornography) is just as sound, but I do think that like.......... he is right that literary reading will stay with you for longer, and become part of your emotional, moral and rational landscape in a way that unliterary reading often doesn't
lusimusi's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
I'm curious about what this author would think of booktok
agmmckay4's review against another edition
Ooof, I'm struggling to get through this one. And every time I'm like "This is tough," Lewis is like "These are all the reasons why you think this is tough you unliterary man" (always man). It's very rude of him really.