Texts:
- C.S. Lewis, “Myth Become Fact,” in God in the Dock (as well as other selections, if you are curious), and Chapter V: Myth, from An Experiment in Criticism (PDF on Connect)
Discussion Leaders: Justin Carless and Kathryn Ney
Discussion Questions:
- Hartt describes Lewis’s works as a direct iteration (or “imitation”) of the Christian myth cycle, whereas for Tolkien, “sub-creation is refraction of the fecundity of God’s own creative endeavors” ( Hartt 27). How does Tolkien’s position on the “myth” of Christianity contrast to that of Lewis, and how do their positions relate to the work of art itself? How does this influence their writing and world-building? You might want to consider some of Tolkien’s philosophies in “On Fairy Stories” in comparison to Lewis’s conversion (in Surprised by Joy, as quoted in McGrath), as well as Tolkien’s definition of “myth” versus Lewis, who most famously described myth as “breathing a lie through silver.”
- Lewis is very careful not to rigidly define what he is calling a ‘myth’, going so far as to say what may be a myth to one man may not be to another. By doing so he places the emphasis of definition upon the relation that story has to the receiver. Is there any desire for a definition planted in form? How do we feel about Lewis’s similar thoughts directed toward religion and the faith experience?
- Consider the dichotomy that Lewis draws between modernity (scepticism, “materialism,” obstinacy, myopia) and belief (“open-mindedness,” vision, purpose). Do you agree with his argument(s)? Some other contrasts you might want to consider include those of “magic” and “miracles,” “seeing” and “believing,” “teaching,” or “dogma” and “story.”
- Lewis states that the words of a myth are utilitarian in nature, serving to convey the information of the myth. In this way it is not necessary that the actual script be pleasing to the eye or ear of the reader. Do we agree with this statement with the texts that we have read this term? Is the simplicity of Roger Lancelyn Green’s text detrimental to his adaptation of Arthurian legend?
- This question is somewhat tangential to the readings; however, it is brought up in C.S. Lewis, Defender of the Faith that Lewis was passed up for the Merton professorship of English Literature at Oxford. The paper then somewhat facetiously asserts “someone who writes popular books, it was whispered, couldn’t be a real academic” is there still a sense of this ‘snobbery’ in academia today? Is there a connection between works designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (or those that serendipitously find themselves in this position) and a lack of depth worthy of academic inspection? How does this relate to or fly in the face of our conceptions of myth and their enduring, nigh-universal quality?
