#i think c.s. lewis falls in the alcott trap too sometimes

[thelonelybrilliance]

too often I think we view a "Story" as a "Lecture" (often aided and abetted by authors who conflate the two). I'm not sure exactly how to put this but I observe it in so many classics--not to mention modern works. It seems there will be endless intepretations of what the author of a work is trying to "Teach" us instead of considering what story they are telling us. (And yes, perhaps some of this is coming to mind because I just completed Tolkien's translation of Beowulf and his commentaries, in which he objected to certain moralistic emendations to the original text by other authors, even those closely contemporaneous to the mysterious "author" of Beowulf).

Now, I think there is a lot to learn from a good Story, but not always (not often) because the author is setting out "Lessons." For example, there are many things to "learn" from Pride and Prejudice, and I would say that some of the areas covered are right & wrong, manners & rudeness, human whims and inconsistencies (to quote Lizzy herself). But the "Story" (despite it being the genesis of many romantic "Tropes") is really about the individual characters that Austen created for that story and that story alone. You can't, and shouldn't, necessarily relate to them exactly, or be able to trace a pattern of Proper Conduct from following or opposing their examples as if they were how-to guides for romance, wealth, decorum, life. They are also, if we separate ourselves from our familiarity with the text, not predictable. Darcy proposed to Elizabeth the second time, not becuase it was the right thing to do, or the only thing to do (indeed, Elizabeth thinks he won't because "men don't"). Darcy proposed again because he was Darcy--and he, Darcy, loved Elizabeth. Likewise, we watch Elizabeth react to her circumstances with both good and bad choices, but the point is not that each choice was prescribed to make a moral stand, or teach us how to act in our own lifes. Rather, her choices made sense for her character, the character we've been shown living and breathing on the page. Just becaues we've derived tropes, patterns, and even moral lessons from a great work like P&P doesn't mean there is such rigidity and unformity in the text. It's a great work in part because it does not follow one single formula.

As a contrast, one of my greatest frustrations with Little Women is how often it feels that Alcott is fighting her story by shoe-horning in moral lessons that she feels it is necessary for the audience to derive. She even explicitly breaks the fourth wall (if you want to call it that) to deliver the occasional lecture to her reader on how to behave. When the girls make mistakes in adolescence or adulthood, the lens is almost always pulled back so that the author can show how they erred, and spell out how they will be punished for their missteps. Personally, I find this approach to have a detrimental effect on art. While I believe that art can and should assist in the formation of our characters, if it is hamstrung from the start by its many Morals and Lessons, it will ultimately fail to inspire me.