Well Trained Mind Readers discussion

Here is the thread for our next read beginning March 1st! Here's a basic overview:

"Lewis wrote Surprised by Joy over a period of seven years (1948 – 1955), intending it to be a particular account of his conversion rather than a general autobiography. The book chronicles Lewis’ early life from 1898 – 1931, and in it we are largely presented with an adult perspective on the younger Lewis. The title is taken from a poem by Wordsworth which begins:

Surprised by Joy – Impatient as the Wind
I turned to share the transport – Oh! with whom But Thee, deep buried in the silent tomb.

The Times Literary Supplement, in its review of Surprised by Joy (1995) said: “The tension of these final chapters holds the interest like the close of a thriller. Nor is this lessened by the fact that the spiritual experiences here recorded follow – intellectually, at least – no common pattern. Few other Christians can have been convinced by just such strategy; few ever could be. God moves, indeed, in a mysterious way, and this book gives a brilliant account of one of the oddest and most decisive end-games He has ever played.”

adapted from Walter Hooper’s “C.S.Lewis: A Companion and Guide”

I'm just going to make up a rough reading schedule here because I'm also reading some of Lewis' letters that correspond with his biography so I might post some here.

Schedule

March 1 - 8 Chapters 1 - 3
March 9 - 15 Chapters 4 - 7
March 16 - 23 Chapters 8 - 11
March 24 - 31 Chapters 12 - 15

Oh, thanks for being so organized. (I need an assistant in my life to organize for me.) In all seriousness, this will be most helpful!!!!!

"God moves, indeed, in a mysterious way, and this book gives a brilliant account of one of the oddest and most decisive end-games He has ever played.."

The "endgame" metaphor is new to me. If God plays chess with man, who can checkmate Him? :)

Nemo wrote: "The "endgame" metaphor is new to me. If God plays chess with man, who can checkmate Him? :) ..."

It sounds somewhat goofy, doesn't it .... the whole concept of God playing "games". I didn't notice "tension" in the final chapters when I read it. And what was that about few Christians being convinced by such a strategy? I don't know why it was so odd, to me it was simply personal. God doesn't have a production mill for converts where every conversion appears the same or in a familiar form. My guess is that the Times was going for literary effect and trying to make the biography sound like a best-selling novel, which does it a disservice. I was looking around for a synopsis and chose that one because a few people had mentioned the "unusualness" of the biography and I felt on one level it spoke to that uniqueness. But they are rather heavy-handed in their analysis.

Hooper is obviously a big fan of Lewis. By "few other Christians can have been convinced by just such strategy", he is probably referring to the intellectual stature of Lewis. A unique and penetrating mind requires something special to be convinced. But I agree with you, every conversion is unique and personal to God.

Have you found any analysis by an atheist?

I did some looking but only found one that more takes issue with Lewis' characterization of atheism, than an actual review of the book. It's probably not helpful to post their comments. Since it's a biography, I suspect Lewis is speaking about his experience with atheism, and they are taking him out of context. I don't think it's helpful going down those rabbit trails.

I did once read an atheist review of his Mere Christianity which was quite interesting although I can't remember the details. But often critics don't understand what they're critiquing, which all becomes somewhat fruitless. I'm sure the argument could be made the other way as well.

If you find something useful, please post it. Because it's Lewis' personal experience, it's probably going to be more difficult to find an atheist perspective but I'm sure there's one out there for someone with much better internet searching skills than mine. I'll keep looking though! :-)

Cleo wrote: "I did some looking but only found one that more takes issue with Lewis' characterization of atheism, than an actual review of the book. It's probably not helpful to post their comments. Since it's ..."

I think this is a moot point. Atheism varies for atheists. There are some atheists that now take part in meetings every week in something called Sunday Assembly, but there are atheists who are vehemently opposed to this.

This is first and foremost a memoir, so very much Lewis' experiences. There are plenty of Christians who don't agree with Lewis' ideas about Christianity. People everywhere and in everything seem to develop various subgroups with different opinions.

Personally, I don't see this book as hard and fast statement on atheism, theism or Christianity, but rather Lewis' personal thoughts, feelings and journeys through them.

I should add that I have a B.Th., so naturally have my own set of views, but that I spent a long time as an agnostic, etc, so I'm coming to this book from a different perspective than other people. I'm more concerned, after faith, about love and doctrine (and love being the most important part that is so often missed, but also that is so often defined differently by different people both in and out of Christianity) than he seems to be by the end of this.

What Lewis and I have in common, albeit from very different paths, is that we went from being primarily intellectually oriented to faith oriented, and so both would be in the group who find that logic and reasoning end up leading them away from atheism, even if there was more to it than just that.

Karin wrote: "There are some atheists that now take part in meetings every week in something called Sunday Assembly, but there are atheists who are vehemently opposed to this...."

Wow, I had no idea. It sounds like non-religious people who intrinsically want to be religious.

Your experience sounds very interesting, and I'm sure you can give us some insight into his experience, even though, as you said, there are differences between your two journeys.

While there are those who disagree with Lewis, I find it quite amazing how he seems to cross all boundaries to a certain extent. Catholics read him, Orthodox read him, even atheists read him. I'm not sure if I can think of an apologist with such a wide influence.

In reading his letters, I've noticed that right from an early age, Lewis saw issues clearly and had quite forceful opinions. As a teenager, he comes across somewhat ..... not arrogant, but a little cocky. I suppose he developed his graciousness at a later date. ;-)

Cleo wrote: "... I find it quite amazing how he seems to cross all boundaries to a certain extent. Catholics read him, Orthodox read him, even atheists read him. I'm not sure if I can think of an apologist with such a wide influence.."

My first thought is St. Augustine, whom I find more accessible than Lewis. But Lewis is no doubt more widely read than Augustine.

Karin wrote: "I'm more concerned, after faith, about love and doctrine (and love being the most important part that is so often missed, but also that is so often defined differently by different people both in and out of Christianity)...."

Just out of curiosity, how would you define love?

Nemo wrote: "My first thought is St. Augustine, whom I find more accessible than Lewis. But Lewis is no doubt more widely read than Augustine. ..."

Fascinating ....... why do you find Augustine more accessible than Lewis?

I know the Orthodox like Augustine but find some problems with certain parts of his doctrine. I personally don't know any Christian friends who have read him, but perhaps that says more about my friends than Augustine. ;-) As for Catholics, of course, he's da bomb!

Cleo wrote: "why do you find Augustine more accessible than Lewis? ."

Augustine's writings exude warmth and compassion. I get the impression that he would be very approachable in person, but I can't say the same of Lewis, which is why I'm here to learn more about him. :)

Nemo wrote: "Karin wrote: "I'm more concerned, after faith, about love and doctrine (and love being the most important part that is so often missed, but also that is so often defined differently by different pe..."

There is more than one kind of love, so that gets complicated. But the overall love that Christians are to have I define with these 15 things (yes, from Scripture, but it seems to be the most comprehensive one I've found so far) I think many people of other faiths or even without faith would agree with at much, if not all, of this (this doesn't include eros, or sexual love, or a few other types of love:) I'm putting it in a list to keep it short.

Love is:
patient
kind
does not envy
does not boast
is not proud.
does not dishonor others
is not self-seeking
is not easily angered
keeps no record of wrongs
does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth
always protects, always trusts [that has to be put in context, since we aren't supposed to be gullible and stupid], always hopes, always perseveres

never fails.

That said, I don't think any of us does this perfectly since we're not perfect, but it's something to work toward and grow in.

Karin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Karin wrote: "I'm more concerned, after faith, about love and doctrine (and love being the most important part that is so often missed, but also that is so often defined differently by..."

I guess most Christians are familiar with the passage on Love in 1 Cor. 13, but I'm curious if and how, as you see it, Lewis' definition of love is different your own or other people in Christianity.

Nemo wrote: "Augustine's writings exude warmth and compassion. I get the impression that he would be very approachable in person, but I can't say the same of Lewis, which is why I'm here to learn more about him. :) ..."

I find Lewis more accessible, but my true introduction to him was in a university course, so I was able to watch a video about him and then study a number of books of his in succession. Certainly that gave me a more personal feel for him. When I read his works, I always feel like we're having a conversation (except perhaps less with his biography). As I mentioned above, he has a universality so he must connect well with readers on some level. With Augustine, for me he was less accessible than Lewis, but more accessible than I expected. There was probably an intellectual barrier that I experienced, which wasn't a problem for you (the last third of his Confessions was difficult), but he did lay out his whole life, which does allow the reader to get to know him on this level in a deeper way than Lewis, if you compare the two "biographies". Lewis says in his preface to SBJ that it is not an autobiography, nor a confession like Rousseau or Augustine, and gets less like a biography as it goes. What is it then? Can we define it?

Do you relate to people more on an emotional or intellectual level?

Okay, I said I'd post a couple of letters by Lewis. This one is written when he's sick in the sanatorium at Malvern, only 5 days from his fifteenth birthday.

" My dear Papy,

I am sorry to hear that you are 'thinking long', but, as you know, there is a good reason for the absence of letters as this is the first day I have been able to write. As you say, I have a lot of things to talk about and the first is Smugy's half term report.

I must confess that I was very disappointed in it. But I should have, expected it all. For, the fact of the matter is about this Greek Grammar, that I know very little indeed: and the consequence of this is that what the rest of the form are running over in a sort of casual way for the third or fourth time, I am often learning for the first time in my life. This of course makes it rather difficult to keep up with the running. Then again, there are a lot of points of Greek grammar which I learnt up in furious haste at Cherbourg in the last few moments before the exam --- and of course forgot again. These have to be faced with a half knowledge which is worse than ignorance, because it only muddles one's brain. But all these things should come right in time; as I flatter myself I am not cursed with 'an inability to grasp the elements' of any reasonable subject. As for the place in form, I was prepared for it to be poor, as the general standard of the form is rather beyond me --- seeing that with the exception of the other scholars it consists of people who have filtered through to Smugy's care just at the end of their Malvern career. However, I get on well with Smugy and really that is half the battle.

You need not have been so worried about my temporary indisposition. It is only one of those trifling, although irritating chills to which I am subject in the winter months. Anyway, the worst of it is over now, as I am up in my room at the San. today. The San. is about the most curious place I have ever been in. I arrived here a week ago on Friday and was placed in a bed in a large and many windowed apartment, in one corner of which a fire was cheerfully engaged in belching forth dense clouds of smoke, which rendered it well nigh impossible to see or breathe. Conquering a natural terror of at once becoming unconscious in such an atmosphere, I resigned my self to sleep that night --- but not for long. I soon discovered to my cost that the room in which I had been deposited was directly over the kitchen. I was apprised of this fact by the musical efforts of the domestic staff, whose vigorous and unwholesome concert was prolonged far into the night. But the funniest thing about this place is the noises that one hears in the morning. I really cannot imagine what the staff do. Judging from the loud peals of laughter and the metallic clangs which strike my ears before breakfast daily, they engage in hand to hand combat with the fire irons.

After a short period of the smoky room I was removed to a smaller but much more comfortable chamber where I still remain. Here my only trouble is the determined 'quacking' of a body of geese imprisoned somewhere in the neighbourhood.

As for your kind enquires about the approaching natal gift. I have made up my mind that I should like 'The Rhinegold and the Valkyries' to match the 'Siegfried and Twilight of the Gods' which I have got. I think however that the purchase of the book had better be deferred until Xmas when I can talk to my friend Carson in person.

I am glad to hear that W. (Warnie) is coming down at the end of the term as it is nicer travelling 'in comp.' than alone. I must stop now. How are you yourself keeping these days?

your loving
son,
Jack

LP IV: 104-5

Cleo wrote: "..With Augustine, for me he was less accessible than Lewis, but more accessible than I expected. There was probably an intellectual barrier that I experienced, which wasn't a problem for you..."

There was a time when Augustine was so widely read that even a low-class inn keeper can quote him in conversations. Remember Thénardier in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables? It is not so much intellectual barrier as the change of popular attitude toward the "classics" that has made them less "accessible" to us. Lewis did his part to re-introduce the Christian classics to his readers.

Do you relate to people more on an emotional or intellectual level?

I think you have a good guess of the answer already. :) Generally speaking, I rate the highest those authors whose writings both stimulate the mind and warm the heart. Augustine is one of them. But I can't/don't relate to Lewis on an emotional level, not yet at least.

Nemo wrote: "Karin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Karin wrote: "I'm more concerned, after faith, about love and doctrine (and love being the most important part that is so often missed, but also that is so often defined ..."

NB I am having a migraine, so if this sounds scattered or incoherent, I always feel like my IQ drops about 50 points during one (this is a figure of speech, naturally). It also means I may have trouble putting things into words (well, this is nothing new; some things in life seem to defy words for me).

Most people I meet put love in one main category and include feelings as a basis. The definition I was saying is more of a decision based love in many ways. So this definition of love means you love EVERYONE, but it doesn't mean all forms of love, such as sexual love or other forms of love found in certain relationships. Most people I meet lump all of those together.

I really didn't see a lot of love defined or even exhibited by most of Lewis's book, rather a wading through his life from childhood, his education, the trials and tribulations he went, things he observed, his intellectual growth.

He was primarily concerned with joy, not love, and I found that rather intriguing, particularly as he separated JOY from enjoyment, which is something I agree with theologically. A rather simplistic separation between what constitutes joy vs happiness is that joy in an "inside" job, independent of circumstances, whereas happiness is more of an "outside" job, dependent on circumstances. Naturally, we experience both internally, but happiness is less likely to last.

What I got from this book, and one of the things that brought it up from one to two stars (I just don't enjoy his style of writing, etc) was his insight into joy vs happiness/enjoyment; whether or not he realized it as he was growing up or the understanding came later and he superimposed it on his experiences and emotions earlier is difficult to say, given that it was a memoir written in the 1950s when he was well past this journey.

I

Karin wrote: "He was primarily concerned with joy, not love, and I found that rather intriguing, particularly as he separated JOY from enjoyment,"

I was actually surprised, if not a little disappointed, by Lewis' definition of "joy". It seems to be much closer to unfulfilled longing than happiness.

LP IV: 111

Here an excerpt that gives an example of Lewis' character and adds some humour .... he's still in the Sanitorium:

"For three days during this week I have had a companion .... one Waley of the School House, who had a boil on his arm and talked an amazing amount of agreeable nonsense. I pretended to be interested in and to understand his explanation of how an aeroplane engine works, and said 'yes' and 'I see' and 'really' at suitable intervals. I think I did all that was required very well.

However I am very pleased that he's gone, as I find my own society infinitely more agreeable than his, and prefer Tennyson to lectues, however learned, on aeronautics. That's just the perversity of fate. Anyone else who'd been down here alone for a fortnight would have been longing for a companion and of course wouldn't get one, while I, who have been thoroughly enjoying the solitude, (so rare a blessing at school), must have not only a companion, but a talkative one, dumped down. However it was only for three days ....."

This is an except from a letter from the tutor Kirkpatrick with regard to Warren Lewis, whom he tutored in preparation for his entry into Sandhurst. Lewis and his brother are definitely two different characters:

"You ask me as to his abilities. They seem to be good enough. But observe, a question of that nature cannot be answered in the abstract, for the will power, the moral element is involved. You never know what you can do until you try, and very few try unless they have to. Warren had a nice easy time, but no more so than the other fellows he associated with, many of whom were so well off that it did not matter from the economic point of view if they ever did anything or not. Years of association with such boys must have an effect in modifying the outlook. I do not see anything wrong with Warren apart from this slack, easy going quality. He has been blessed by Nature with two of her best gifts --- good health and good nature. But it is too late now to make him interested in knowledge. The day for that has gone by ........"

Nemo wrote: "There was a time when Augustine was so widely read ........ It is not so much intellectual barrier as the change of popular attitude toward the "classics" that has made them less "accessible" to us. . ...."

Yes, definitely. I absolutely agree with your statement. Even not so long ago, rural farmers were familiar with The Iliad.

When I spoke of an intellectual barrier, I meant personally ........ it can be difficult to focus on the tone of a work when every single (working) brain cell is doing all it can simply to draw basic meaning from the text.


Nemo wrote: "I think you have a good guess of the answer already. :). ...."

Yes, I thought I did too, but you never know with people; they can often surprise you. ;-) I was interested because I wouldn't have characterized Augustine as warm and compassionate. Engaging, yes; passionate, yes; intellectual, yes; clear-sighted, yes; but not warm or compassionate. I was trying to determine if it was my perception (or lack of it because my brain was overloaded), or simply how you engaged with the book.

Nemo wrote: "I was actually surprised, if not a little disappointed, by Lewis' definition of "joy". It seems to be much closer to unfulfilled longing than happiness. ..."

It is definitely unfulfilled longing rather than happiness. Why was it disappointing? In comparing the two, for me the former was more impacting. What is happiness? Can it be universal? And of course, what makes one person happy might make another person unhappy. But with Sehensucht, or this unfulfilled longing, it is an emotion or feeling that while felt by everyone, fundamentally has its centre in the same thing --- the Creator. I love nature and I absolutely feel that longing when I'm hiking in the woods and I hear the birds and see the trees and listen to perhaps leaves crunch along the ground. Do I long for a tree? No. A leaf? No But the presence of them incites a longing that may not be understood, but nevertheless is there.

Lewis in his The Pilgrim's Regress gives some quotes that may elaborate on this topic:

"This every soul seeketh and for the sake of this doth all her actions, having an inkling that it is; but what it is she cannot sufficiently discern, and she knoweth not her way, and concerning this she hath no constant assurance as she hath of other things." PLATO

"Whose souls, albeit in a cloudy memory, yet seek back their good, but, like drunk men, know not the road home." BOETHIUS

"Somewhat it seeketh, and what that is directly it knoweth not, yet very intentive desire thereof doth so incite it, that all other known delights and pleasures are laid aside, they give place to the search of this but only suspected desire." Hooker - Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity

Oh, and I found this preface, which gives further illumination: http://www.whitworth.edu/Academic/Dep...

Cleo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I was actually surprised, if not a little disappointed, by Lewis' definition of "joy". It seems to be much closer to unfulfilled longing than happiness. ..."

It is definitely unfulfil..."

Perhaps, but then often people find that faith is the fulfillment of the longing they have always had; that that's what they in fact were longing for, but it took them time to find it.

But in this journey to Christianity where he finds joy, it is something akin to happiness, but something you have even when you aren't happy, that helps sustain you, usually hand in hand with hope.

What bothers me more about Lewis, is that is faith is largely intellectual and his joy, while I agree isn't the same as happiness (naturally, joy can be synonymous with it depending on how you're using it, much like both stride and amble are synonyms to walk, but they are quite different forms of walking involving very different mindsets and we get totally different mind pictures of how someone is moving, etc, by the word chosen).

Faith can have an intellectual component, of course, and certainly intellectuals with faith have that, but there is usually more to it than that.

But, if you are to take Christian joy as it appears in Scripture, and this is supposed to be his journey to becoming a Christian (he says so) then joy is separate from happiness, but it isn't just an unfulfilled longing, and it often ties in with hope. You don't see any sort of hope in Lewis's finding of joy.

Cleo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "There was a time when Augustine was so widely read ........ It is not so much intellectual barrier as the change of popular attitude toward the "classics" that has made them less "acce..."

I would characterize Augustine as compassionate, for two main reasons. First, "He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness." Because of his own weaknesses, Augustine was keenly aware of our common need of grace and compassion. Second, he was compassionate in his dealings with everyone who came into contact with him. I see this in his letters as well as his sermons.

Cleo wrote: "... It is definitely unfulfilled longing rather than happiness. Why was it disappointing? In comparing the two, for me the former was more impacting. ..."

Augustine writes that the whole of Christian life is a holy longing. I was disappointed not by Lewis' experience of longing, but by the lack of "surprise" in his narrative. I had expected a surprise party, so to speak, but it never came. Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "surprise".

I stumbled upon this article on the friendship between Lewis and Tolkien, and other essays on Lewis. Might be of interest to his fans.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/hist...

Thank you for this link, Nemo. I have Duriez's Inklings biography on my radar; I was waiting for a couple of other people to read it first to see if I wanted to invest the time. It sounds like it's an interesting read.

I always have to laugh about Tolkien's annoyance at Lewis' somewhat disorganized "slap-dash" construction of the Narnia series. I think I know what he means and I see it again in his Space Trilogy. It's become more of a Lewis-quirk for me though, and doesn't bother me.

The article reminded me that I still need to read Charles Williams' The Place of the Lion. Sigh! I might get buried under my books soon and need someone to pull me out. I've started this read but I need to step it up. I have some time tomorrow so hopefully I can get some quality reading done.

About his time at "Oldie's":

"Oldie's wife died; and in term time. He reacted to bereavement by becoming more violent than before; so much so that Wee Wee made a kind of apology for him to the boys. You will remember that I had already learned to fear and hate emotion; here was a fresh reason to do so."

I love how Lewis is so honest. It perhaps explains, Nemo, why you have some trouble connecting with him .....???

In his letters to his father, Lewis doesn't go into any detail about the struggles he had at school with regard to the social aspect of it. He does tell some things about the other boys, but mostly he's quite a matter-of-fact. It's only at the end where you can tell that he's pushing hard to be taken out and placed with Kirk.

He does, however, make general negative comments, and interestingly mentions that the public schools are so bad that he doesn't think they'll last long ...... :-Z

Cleo wrote: "In his letters to his father, Lewis doesn't go into any detail about the struggles he had at school with regard to the social aspect of it. He does tell some things about the other boys, but mostly..."

He does mention in the book that it was hard to talk with his father because his father would interpret things his own way (it's been a while since I read those passages), and I wonder if this is partly why he didn't communicate those struggles. Another factor is that men really didn't talk much about that sort of thing in their generations, particularly at the time Lewis as going to school.

Karin wrote: "But, if you are to take Christian joy as it appears in Scripture, and this is supposed to be his journey to becoming a Christian (he says so) then joy is separate from happiness, but it isn't just an unfulfilled longing, and it often ties in with hope. You don't see any sort of hope in Lewis's finding of joy. ..."

I know what you mean but I saw the beginning of "hope" coming afterwards. You notice the last chapter is titled "The Beginning". We are shown how he came to Christ, which was definitely an intellectual conversion and has been for many people. The intellectual conversion is quite fascinating for me (re: homeschooling, have you ever seen or read anything by Jay Wile [of Apologia Science]? His conversion was intellectual.) We have so many emotion-driven Christians around nowadays that I'm very interested in those who have a different experience. I wonder, in fact, if Lewis' experience was actually more historically common ....???

Karin wrote: "He does mention in the book that it was hard to talk with his father because his father would interpret things his own way (it's been a while since I read those passages), and I wonder if this is partly why he didn't communicate those struggles. Another factor is that men really didn't talk much about that sort of thing in their generations, particularly at the time Lewis as going to school. ..."

That's a really good question. I get the impression that certain things bothered Lewis, but he would slough it off, just as children are wont to do. I imagine he was aware that he owed his father for his education and didn't want to become too burdensome with his requests or complaints, especially if nothing could be done about the complaints. I do think with maturity, Lewis realized more how very bad some of those situations were, and when you read SBJ, he is definitely adding adult emotions and observations that most likely simply weren't felt or seen as a child. The tone of his letters seem quite content, and even the few I've read written to his brother seem positive. They both are happy to go home at the end of terms, but in those days, I think people simply endured more with a calmer spirit.

Cleo wrote: "Karin wrote: "He does mention in the book that it was hard to talk with his father because his father would interpret things his own way (it's been a while since I read those passages), and I wonde..."

Children do tend to think things are normal and not speak of them, of course. But there are many things children are being taught to speak up about now that we weren't taught to speak up about them when I was growing up.

But there was more of a tendency to squelch free communication.

Cleo wrote: " ..."You will remember that I had already learned to fear and hate emotion; here was a fresh reason to do so."

I love how Lewis is so honest. It perhaps explains, Nemo, why you have some trouble connecting with him .....??? "

In some regards, Lewis reminds me of Glenn Gould. They both are sensitive to cold, and wear heavy coats even in the summertime. Both communicate themselves extremely well through a media, but few know them well as a person.

Cleo wrote: "We have so many emotion-driven Christians around nowadays that I'm very interested in those who have a different experience. "

Define "emotion-driven". :)

Nemo wrote: "In some regards, Lewis reminds me of Glenn Gould. They both are sensitive to cold, and wear heavy coats even in the summertime. Both communicate themselves extremely well through a media, but few know them well as a person. ..."

Well, we've had quite a storm here without a number of trees down and our power out, so I've had to set up at a coffee shop nearby to get on Goodreads.

I found this interesting article (reviewing the book, Remembering C.S. Lewis: Recollections by Those Who Knew Him) with further insights into Lewis: http://www.hatrack.com/svu/tolkien_le...

After reading, I wondered how many of us allow ourselves to be knowable in a deep way. For those who don't want to read the whole article, it agrees that it was hard to get to Lewis' deeper feelings and emotions but it also says that he was, funny, kind, generous, liked to laugh, liked to socialize, liked intellectual conversation, liked to hear and tell funny stories and jokes, was intellectually superior but never acted like a snob, loved animals, and many other wonderful qualities.

So with all these admirable qualities, why is C.S. Lewis considered private and someone who guarded his feelings? Is it true, or is it simply because in our culture now we expect everyone to expose their deepest experiences and emotions to everyone, with a psychological understanding that it's some sort of cathartic experience, or that somehow it will make us more whole as a person, or more connected to others? Why should we show everyone who we are? For what purpose? And these are questions, not statements ...... I am thinking aloud ... :-)

Nemo wrote: "Define "emotion-driven". :) "

Oh, Nemo! You're making me define my sweeping generalizations ...... ;-) I'll be back to answer ...... I'm losing battery and I need to get back to see if my power is on yet ...... but I will return!

Here is a further definition of Lewis' "Joy" or Sehensucht, from his The Weight of Glory:

“In speaking of this desire for our own far off country, which we find in ourselves even now, I feel a certain shyness. I am almost committing an indecency. I am trying to rip open the inconsolable secret in each one of you—the secret which hurts so much that you take your revenge on it by calling it names like Nostalgia and Romanticism and Adolescence; the secret also which pierces with such sweetness that when, in very intimate conversation, the mention of it becomes imminent, we grow awkward and affect to laugh at ourselves; the secret we cannot hide and cannot tell, though we desire to do both. We cannot tell it because it is a desire for something that has never actually appeared in our experience. We cannot hide it because our experience is constantly suggesting it, and we betray ourselves like lovers at the mention of a name. Our commonest expedient is to call it beauty and behave as if that had settled the matter. Wordsworth’s expedient was to identify it with certain moments in his own past. But all this is a cheat. If Wordsworth had gone back to those moments in the past, he would not have found the thing itself, but only the reminder of it; what he remembered would turn out to be itself a remembering. The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshipers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never visited.”

Cleo wrote: "Here is a further definition of Lewis' "Joy" or Sehensucht, from his The Weight of Glory:

“In speaking of this desire for our own far off country, which we find in ourselves even now..."

The more I read of Lewis' description of "joy", the less I understand why he was "surprised" by it. It is a good description nevertheless.

Cleo wrote: "So with all these admirable qualities, why is C.S. Lewis considered private and someone who guarded his feelings? ."

Those qualities don't contradict each other. Do they? :)

Nemo wrote: "Define "emotion-driven". :) ...."

To qualify, these are my personal observations ..... I find in my experience with Evangelical Christians churches (and others) are presently more interested in fun, and feeling, and how faith can make them feel better about themselves. There is very little emphasis on training (self-control), scriptural literacy (is that a term?) and they have become more seeker friendly, which means that you are catering to people's emotions, as that is generally how our culture is driven. So when I find someone who has actually thought out his faith, using reason and deliberation, it's very appealing to me. Not that fun and emotion are all bad; there is certainly a place for them, but when they begin to become the foundation of your faith, that faith starts to become untenable and explanations for it, confused. I wish my experience was different.

Nemo wrote: "Those qualities don't contradict each other. Do they? :) "

Do you mean that the article is only mentioning the positive qualities of Lewis? There was someone who said, as he got to know him better, he'd sometimes see bursts of anger, but my point was that Lewis showed more positive qualities for people to get to know him than most people do. Do we need to know bad qualities of people for them to be 'real'?

Nemo wrote: "The more I read of Lewis' description of "joy", the less I understand why he was "surprised" by it. It is a good description nevertheless. ..."

From reading the bio (and perhaps I'm influenced by other readings), I would say that Lewis is not necessarily surprised by it, but surprised by the explanation for it. He said he was the most reluctant convert. And, knowing Lewis' intellectually ability, I would think it would be hard to surprise him with anything, so it's not too much of a stretch to believe that he was surprised not so much by Christianity itself, but by the light it shone on everything else.

Cleo wrote: "when I find someone who has actually thought out his faith, using reason and deliberation, it's very appealing to me. Not that fun and emotion are all bad; there is certainly a place for them, but when they begin to become the foundation of your faith, that faith starts to become untenable .."

Descartes believes that, if anyone does not know the reason for his faith, he is not a true Christian. No wonder you rated his Meditations 5 stars. :) On the other hand, Pascal writes, "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know". Lewis calls people who suppress their emotions like the Stoics, "men without chest".

I haven't met anyone who can't give a reason for his/her beliefs, however unreasonable they may seem to me. So my experience may be different from yours, and that's why I'm curious what you meant by "emotion-driven".

Cleo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Those qualities don't contradict each other. Do they? :) "

Do you mean that the article is only mentioning the positive qualities of Lewis?.."

No, I was simply saying that there is nothing wrong with being private. It's a personality trait that is neither positive nor negative. One can be both private and admirable.

You don't have to be close to Lewis to know that he has a temperamental side. For example, he doesn't hesitate to call people "imbecile" for making what he considers literary mistakes. He is a human being after all. :)

Nemo wrote: "I haven't met anyone who can't give a reason for his/her beliefs, however unreasonable they may seem to me. . ..."

I would agree with what you said above. I only meant that my experience is their faith can be based on emotion without reasoning behind it. They may know what they believe and why intrinsically, but they aren't able to communicate it. Lewis, on the other hand, is able to communicate it well (intellectually), but as Karen mentioned at least, the emotion ("hope") doesn't come through. I think we need both but if faith becomes driven solely by one (or the other) I foresee problems. I'm rushing out here but I hope that explains it better.

Cleo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Define "emotion-driven". :) ...."

To qualify, these are my personal observations ..... I find in my experience with Evangelical Christians churches (and others) are presently more int..."

It depends on the church. Some do both, but not everyone freely avails themselves of everything. There are churches that focus a lot on show, loud music and so on, too.

But what I look for is a combination of love and Bible teaching as the two most important things in that order. However, given my B.Th. and my years of study, I don't go primarily for biblical literacy. That said, I like to see it done. My home "church" is different, but there are none here.

Speaking of this, I need to pick it up again, but I'm part way through Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church which discusses some of these entertainment and fun points.