Here's an essay I wrote for Honors Seminar. I thought it turned out pretty well. (Wouldn't it be great if Dr. Ford found this online and then said that I must have stolen the essay from this JJF fellow?)

------------------------------------------------

Compare and contrast two books: one that Adler would regard as “light reading” and one that he would regard as worthy of marking up. Indicate the primary differences between these books in terms of their diction, level of discourse, insight, purpose and scholarship.

In this essay I will be looking at two of my favorite books. For light reading I will examine All Creatures Great and Small by James Herriot and for heavy I will examine Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. I will contend that although they are somewhat similar and both of great value, they differ primarily in the areas of presentation and attention to objections.

The first and most striking thing about these two authors is their similarity. Both are British men of some education. Both men lived through and were dramatically affected by the Second World War. Both present a way life, or a way of looking at life: Lewis the Christian view of life and Herriot the rural farmer of 1930’s-40’s England. And both of them present their view with great enthusiasm, being themselves convinced that it is indeed a good way to live life.

Where, then, do they differ? The primary difference can be seen in the way that the author goes about presenting his view of the world. Lewis rushes his topic head-on: his purpose is clear from the beginning, his points are easily outlined and discussed, and he very much takes the format of a theology teacher in a college classroom: he has important, heavy material to cover and he needs to do it by ten o’clock. There is a logical progression to his arguments that could very easily be put into a power point presentation. In contrast, Herriot is in no hurry at all. He lights a pipe and begins to weave stories which are not even in chronological order and would be a nightmare to power point. No purpose is ever stated and at first it seems there never was one to begin with: you are simply listening to an old man talk about what he has seen over the years. Yet Herriot is saying something, and as you read further you begin to pick it out piece by piece, like piecing a shredded bit of newspaper back together. Slow down he tells us. Life is not about one-upping the Jones’, it’s about hot Yorkshire pudding and satisfying work

So while Lewis pounds his desk and presses forward, using only a short illustration here and there, Herriot is nothing but illustration: a huge painting which you are watching him draw. This is why Herriot takes a lot more pages to say not nearly as much as Lewis does (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

Perhaps we can think of Lewis as a mathematician: he is describing something in as hard a way as he can. He measures angles and writes his proofs on the chalkboard, and when a student has a question or disagreement, he stops all and addresses that issue. All the while Herriot is standing before an easel drawing his vision of the world and we are merely watching him, with little or no influence on what he does, for ultimately he is not doing it for us and does not particularly care if we agree with him.

This can be seen in Lewis’ almost continual attention to objections. In fact chapter 2 of his work is titled “Some Objections”. He regularly stops and tells us what his opponents have to say about his points and shows us where or how their reasoning is wrong. His main purpose in writing is to convince us. From his perspective these objections are very much worth noting, for they have the potential to render his efforts fruitless.

Herriot, meanwhile, is not in the business of convincing anyone. Objections to his view of life are almost never mentioned and very rarely addressed. When he does answer them it is not in the format of How this objection is based on a misunderstanding of the following principles but the same format he uses throughout: story. He takes us with him to a small part of the painting that shows people living according to a different vision, walks us down a street or two and then returns us to his vision without so much as a comment on what we just saw.

So who has written the better book? Both are vitally important. The painting gives us a vision of what the math has proven. Neither is much use without the other. The math gives us faith in what we are doing, but who can pursue a mathematical formula as a way of life? What does it really look like? A painting is needed to show us. Yet a painting without the math is against our nature to pursue, for how can we know that this vision can be made into reality? We must have both.

This, then, is the critical difference: that of the mathematician and the painter. Heavy reading is written to prove something, while lighter has been written because it is something the painter has thought beautiful or useful and he simply hopes that we find it so as well.