As might be expected, I have a more complicated opinion on this, so I guess this can be my now-annual single long post. There is, of course, more to this than just good guy/bad guy - my apologies to both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Tolkien, and my apologies to the forum for a dreary and heavy response to a light-hearted discussion. For those with little time, here's the cut to the ending:
My response to Lewis (and Tolkien) would be (as it is with many such statements):
"Yeah...maybe...but...both you guys are smarter than that..."
and here's the long version:
It's a pithy quote (if glib, but then quotes are the memes of yesteryear!) but the argument re: escapism goes back to the realism/naturalism vs. genre/fantasy arguments from a time when people and artists still believed that creative output could actually change minds and opinions in the real world, in real time/history, to real immediate effect - for the "better" or at least towards an ideology (of course your opponent is the one with an "ideology", you always just have a common-sense idea) - and so fiction that emphasized the fantastic (not in a basic way, as it had always been a part of writing from the beginning, I'm talking in a mass-scale way, churn-it-out genre production - "sensation novels", "penny-dreadfuls", "dime novels" written to specifically target and sell to a cultivated demand) was seen as betraying these higher goals through distraction, repetition and quotidian reassurance (ironically enough, that latter is the same charge that popular writing of the time undergoes currently, but this from a more "enlightened", but generally entertainment/fantasy-friendly critical establishment). You might not agree with that idea but there it is - not the machinations of blue-meanie ivory-tower authoritarians (as Lewis then "fully understood it" - so no mediation there) but the then-current manifestation of a discussion/argument that had been ongoing (in different forms as each expression mode and cultural monopoly was expanded/replaced) since at least the end of the 18th Century. Lewis probably hated that this realist/important vs. fantastic/escapist argument was being voiced at that moment (and was in its ascendancy) by those of a political bent different than his own, but then if it was a century earlier his own Christian-themed writing would have been the one in the cultural driver's seat and he would have been just as intolerant of the scandalous, spiritually-degrading Gothic novel, no doubt.
And, hey, Lewis and Tolkien won, right? While the current stressing of examination of cultural privilege in our mass entertainments might bring some of the actual, complicated arguments from the beginnings of Modernism (that I'm just glossing here - Is simple entertainment a valid goal? What are the creator's responsibilities to a culture? etc.) back into focus in the cultural arena, I kind of doubt it - the primary birthright of Western Culture is endless entertainment (read escapism): we want our sugary breakfast cereal (sometimes with bran flakes in it, true, so we can feel good about it, but generally sweet, enjoyable and with an immediate rush, although followed by a crash, empty calories, and an addictive desire for repetition) - and rarely our healthy oatmeal (which, when daringly tasted, is surprisingly good and nourishing, but mostly lacking an immediate rush and complex enough to forestall an addictive desire for immediate repetition) and we want it almost all the time (on 800 channels, in HD, on our phone). And those who produce the cereal that sells the most will be rewarded the most (sadly, this mindset has now bled into our news and reporting - see Neil Postman AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH). Anyone that tries to suggest a balanced deployment of cereal to oatmeal ratio is an ivory tower elitist, a snob, a literati or just ignorant of some dismissive postmodern "theory adopted as easy truth" (the late 20th/early 21st century has succeeded in nothing else if not the art of reducing an opponent's argument to pithy memes and buzzwords, the better to ignore said argument and keep consuming) because such a person makes us question our choices. And since our second birthright is, of course, the right to never feel bad about anything we enjoy, never doubt it, never be unsure ("I may not know art, but I know what I like" is presented as the default statement, when it's really only half of the equation, in my opinion), this is verboten.
Put another way, I didn't believe the professors who told me genre fiction was crap (actually, in truth, I never met one who held this position, but I guess they are out there) but I didn't believe the lazy and disgruntled genre authors (or fans) who tried to convince me Lit was just a boring, elitist sham, either. This has not presaged an easy existence for me (although, oddly, it has made me perfectly suited to be an editor - whodathunk it?). There is much use and value in Escapism, and there is much use and value in Art - and there is much danger and waste in both as well (but perhaps not equally?) and much intellectual danger and cultural waste in lazy blanket statements. I love Genre and I love Literature (yes, I do believe they exist and are reasonably separate things) and if people could get beyond the easy reductions encapsulated in the vaguest echoes of these century-old arguments and actually engage the ideas being presented about the uses and values of creation, engage them as being valid for consideration and respect (if not automatic agreement with), we would all be much better off (for one thing, genre writers wouldn't find themselves re-inventing the wheel, or repeating themselves, quite so much - but then that reduces output of product, and product is undervalued in the current market, so more needs to be produced, not less....). It all really comes down to personal, subjective aesthetic philosophies anyway, and very little "truth" - but examining inconsistencies in personal philosophies is always the most uncomfortable of pursuits.
But then, this whole post is TLDR, professorial, didactic and over-thought, and thus ignorable. [Insert cute movie reference gif here - but not *too* obscure or old...]. So....
My response to Lewis (and Tolkien) would be (as it is with many such statements):
"Yeah...maybe...but...both you guys are smarter than that..."
