James Carlson #12: On Stories

 In C.S. Lewis’s essay On Stories he concludes that the purpose of stories is to serve as an analogous substitute for life so as to get a better understanding of life’s ceaseless on-goings. Lewis asserts that the “internal tension in the heart of every story between the theme and the plot constitutes, after all, its chief semblance to life” (Lewis 19). Stories are used as a vehicle to arrive at the truest truths of reality through applying the thematic scope of fiction. With these stories, people better understand themselves due to the conflicts of the fiction and, moreover, can better interpret the priorities of life. The compare and contrast relationship between stories and reality give both a more definitive and worthwhile meaning for the individual experiencing said stories and reality. This concept reiterates the overall power and influence behind myth and further supports the epistemological theories we discussed in class.                    

James Carlson #11: On Stories

The experience of stories, as C.S. Lewis portrays in his essay “On Stories” is a deeper and more profound subject than is given credit by most people. Lewis argues that stories have a power to them that goes beyond the cultivation of mere, individual excitement but rather a capability to delve into the realm of the universal human experience. It is stated within Lewis’s essay that stories have the capacity “to present, in fact, as an institution one permanent aspect of human experience” (Lewis 10). After reflecting on this theory, I personally concur with its conclusion. When I reflect on what makes me personally engaged within a general story being read/shown/spoken etc. it is not so much the presence of danger and death within the story but an ambiguous element of depth that speaks to me personally as an individual. The story represents certain thematic qualities or concepts I find appealing due to my own personal perspective of live. I believe that these elements that resonate with me are difficult to entirely identify but it is the degree of their presence in stories that entices me to certain stories in particular. It is this subconscious communication that motivates me to read.

James Carlson #10: The Ethics of Elfland

G.K. Chesterton’s chapter “The Ethics of Elfland” in his book Orthodoxy addresses the subjectivity of the societally perceived objective truths in relation to the foundational truth of individual “visions” (Chesterton). Chesterton makes the revolutionary claim that “the vision is always solid and reliable. The vision is always fact” (Chesterton). At first, this statement seems impossible but after reflecting on its relevance to the power of myth I see the validity of the statement. I believe that personal perspective is, by nature, subjective but subjectivity and objectivity are matters of degrees and are two sides of the same coin. Just as cold is the absence of heat so too objectivity is the absence of objectivity. The nature of this concept harkens back to the previous discussions we have had in class regarding the ontological. What exists in reality is very much based upon the ineffable, individual experience of the person in particular. The stories we read, or rather the truths we come to experience and accept, are based upon what we subconsciously but inevitably choose.

James Carlson #9: On Fairy Stories

Fairy stories, or rather faery stories, are difficult to define.  J.R.R. Tolkien’s essay “On Fairy Stories” addresses this. The thing I found most interesting in this essay was the defining element of magic for fairy stories. Tolkien states “faerie itself may most nearly be translated by Magic  -- but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power” (Tolkien 43). What makes fairy stories so difficult to define, in my opinion, comes from this abstract definition of magic. While the magic may be used sparingly or profusely, its presence is enough for Tolkien to define the story as that of a fairy story. What is most compelling about this theory is the vast literary territory it covers. With such a loose interpretation, stories from C.S. Lewis are just as much fairy stories as H.G. Well’s pieces. But if anything, I believe the intent of the author and the interpretation of the reader are what best define a story.

James Carlson #8: Narration as a Paradigm of Human Communication

After reading Walter R. Fisher’s chapter “Narration as a Paradigm of Human Communication” from his book Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action there was a quoted line from his texted that really resonated with me. A philosopher named Alasdair Maclntyre wrote: "Man is in his actions and practice, as well as in his fictions, essentially a storytelling animal” (Fisher 2). This statement, after reflected upon, seems to accurately portray human beings or rather either interaction with one another. Individuals literally use stories to convey meanings, messages and ideals through the interactions of the characters they textually demonstrate. Even when stories are not being applied, it seems that people use story elements to communicate with other people by explaining the context of the subject matter and sequentially progressing through its delineation. People inherently and inevitably compose a story whenever they communicate with one another. With Stories, in a larger more literal context, individuals may accurately communicate with the ideas of the author as well as perceive the personal meanings and ideals of themselves.

James Carlson #7: Myth became Fact

C.S. Lewis defends the fundamental elements of Christian doctrine in his essay “Myth became Fact” by illustrating the essence of faith and belief. The main argument of Lewis’s essay is as follows:

“The myth (to speak [Corneus’s] language) has outlived the thoughts of all its defenders and of all its adversaries. It is the myth that gives life. Those elements even in modernist Christianity which Corineus regards as vestigial, are the substance: what he takes for the real modern belief' is the shadow” (Lewis 64).  

It seems that the belief in the doctrine, for Lewis, is only the side affect rather than the substance. The “myth” or rather the Christian doctrines themselves have a substance all their own that transcends the influences of its followers and criticizers. Despite the constant generations that have pasted before and after the Christian doctrines of the Bible, the subject matter is still influential, still alive. While I am not particularly religious, I believe in the power of myth and its transcendental properties in relation to people. The persistence of these doctrines over the whims of society attests to the power of belief and experience over the rational scrutiny of scholars. People’s “modern belief” comes secondary to the subject that inspires that belief. Christian teachings may be more fluid on the basis of societal discernment but the fount from which those teachings spring still stands resolute, firm and influential.