High and Low Brows
Posted: May 03, 2020 10:36 am
C.S. Lewis's essay “High and Low Brows” is one of my favorites. In it, he debunks the notion that there is a difference in kind between “literature” (i.e. high brow literature) and novels which are mere popular entertainments.
The crux of his argument is a fear that knowledge of and love for “high brow” literature will be seen as an accomplishment rather than as a delight. In the past (Lewis writes) English literature was not taught in schools; Greek and Latin were accomplishments beaten into boys with a hickory stick – English literature was discovered on its own. This has changed. We now teach the literature of our mother tongues in schools, and give grades to those who can read it and comment on it.
Of course “genre fiction” is generally considered “low brow” - including the novels Lewis wrote. Fantasy, science fiction, mystery, etc. would all be considered "low brow” – and yet some clearly “high brow” literature shares many “genre” features. The Iliad and the Odyssey are adventure stories and fantasies. I suppose Dante could be considered a fantasy writer. Magical realism would be considered “high brow” as well.
I suppose it is natural for literature “professionals” to promote difficult literature. How else are their credentials and expertise to be verified, if not by reading, enjoying, and understanding literature which defies the less well-educated? English Lit. PhD.s can caparison themselves in the jargon of their craft, and analyze works which defy the understanding of the hoi palloi. In a sense, there is nothing wrong with this. Learning to enjoy difficult literature expands and improves one's taste – just as learning to read the Iliad in the Epic Greek expanded the taste of Lewis and his cohorts. But (I think) we need not decry the popular or the easy.
I have learned to like Bleu cheese, wine, and anchovies, which I disliked as a child. Does that suggest that I should disavow my love of peanut butter and pizza? I continue to love the Narnias (and The Jungle Books, The Treasure Seekers, Wind in the Willows, etc.) despite also enjoying “To the Lighthouse” and “Ulysses”. Love for the approved literary canon is not some sort of test of one's credentials that can be enhanced by a distaste for genre literature, or children's literature.
It wasn't so long ago that ALL novels were considered "low brow". The popular entertainments of the past (Shakespeare, for example, or Dickens) have morphed into high brow literature, in part because they have stood the test of time, and in part because, as they have aged, they have become more difficult (in the case of Shakespeare, at least). But surely "difficulty" cannot be the test of "true literature". There must be some other standard.
The crux of his argument is a fear that knowledge of and love for “high brow” literature will be seen as an accomplishment rather than as a delight. In the past (Lewis writes) English literature was not taught in schools; Greek and Latin were accomplishments beaten into boys with a hickory stick – English literature was discovered on its own. This has changed. We now teach the literature of our mother tongues in schools, and give grades to those who can read it and comment on it.
Of course “genre fiction” is generally considered “low brow” - including the novels Lewis wrote. Fantasy, science fiction, mystery, etc. would all be considered "low brow” – and yet some clearly “high brow” literature shares many “genre” features. The Iliad and the Odyssey are adventure stories and fantasies. I suppose Dante could be considered a fantasy writer. Magical realism would be considered “high brow” as well.
I suppose it is natural for literature “professionals” to promote difficult literature. How else are their credentials and expertise to be verified, if not by reading, enjoying, and understanding literature which defies the less well-educated? English Lit. PhD.s can caparison themselves in the jargon of their craft, and analyze works which defy the understanding of the hoi palloi. In a sense, there is nothing wrong with this. Learning to enjoy difficult literature expands and improves one's taste – just as learning to read the Iliad in the Epic Greek expanded the taste of Lewis and his cohorts. But (I think) we need not decry the popular or the easy.
I have learned to like Bleu cheese, wine, and anchovies, which I disliked as a child. Does that suggest that I should disavow my love of peanut butter and pizza? I continue to love the Narnias (and The Jungle Books, The Treasure Seekers, Wind in the Willows, etc.) despite also enjoying “To the Lighthouse” and “Ulysses”. Love for the approved literary canon is not some sort of test of one's credentials that can be enhanced by a distaste for genre literature, or children's literature.
It wasn't so long ago that ALL novels were considered "low brow". The popular entertainments of the past (Shakespeare, for example, or Dickens) have morphed into high brow literature, in part because they have stood the test of time, and in part because, as they have aged, they have become more difficult (in the case of Shakespeare, at least). But surely "difficulty" cannot be the test of "true literature". There must be some other standard.