Path: ultra.sonic.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.walltech.com!HSNX.wco.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!europa.clark.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!aristos.demon.co.uk!aristos.demon.co.uk!sam From: Sam Dodsworth Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: An Experiment in Criticism Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:19:01 +0100 Organization: Annexia Free Press Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <33A75FF6.4892@flash.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk [158.152.230.146] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.01 <7c0azr3XvpMr4dZzpifF$I+pPf> Lines: 39 Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.books.cs-lewis:8037 In article <33A75FF6.4892@flash.net>, Darol and Debbie Klawetter writes >I recently finish reading Lewis's _An Experiment in Criticism_. The >experiment is to reverse the method of typical evaluative criticism: >rather than judging the quality of a reader by the quality of what he >reads, Lewis proposes to judge the quality of the book by how it is >read. If a book invites good reading by even just a few readers, this >alone should cause one (however distasteful the book is to him) to >hesitate before calling the book trash. Lewis defines good reading as >that which is attentive, receptive, and often appreciative of artifice. >A good book is one that can bear good reading and deliver something >of value to the receptive, obedient reader; a bad book is one that >cannot. > >For those of you who have read this small book, what do you think? It >convinced me that Lewis was a generous literary critic and not given to >the snobbery that is found in many of the well read. It reveals Lewis as >one who values highly the subjective in the act of reading, though >without descending into the utter subjectivism of the deconstructionist. >How would some of you critique deconstructionism in the light of _An >Experiment in Criticism_? > I've not read 'An Experiment in Criticism' but from your summary I'd certainly agree with your assessment of Lewis as a critic. You can see something of the same attitude in his essay on Science Fiction, or even in the fact that he was willing to write about SF at all. On the other hand, there's a sudden jump in the last sentence of your summary: we've gone from 'a good book invites good reading' to 'a good book invites good reading and delivers something of value'. Does Lewis do this? If so, he's spoiled rather a promising argument. I'm also suspicious of the idea of an 'obedient' reader - criticism seems to me to require a certain distancing of the critic from the text, and I'm concerne that this distancing might count as 'disobedience'. As for deconstructionism...might one argue that, by demphasizing the nominal subject of what's being read, deconstructionism encourages 'good' (attentive and receptive) reading of any text? -- Sam Dodsworth