Book Wars

"To mind the inside of a book is to entertain one's self with the forced product of another man's brain. Now I think a man of quality and breeding may be much amused with the natural sprouts of his own."

-Lord Foppington in The Relapse

More likely than not, any of my classmates from Romanticism have posted on a similar topic. However, as I sat reading for that class I couldn't help but notice the connections between Ralph Waldo Emerson and Charles Lamb. The quote above is the opening quote in Lamb's "Detached Thoughts on Books and Reading." It struck me as odd because it seemed as though Emerson himself would say that very thing. In Emerson's mind books are not unalterably good because reading cn encourage imitation. The activity of reading books allows for someone else's imagination to take charge of your own. Emerson viewed this as a very dangerous activity. I am of the same mind to a certain extent. I think that all of us who write have experienced what Emerson is cautioning against (at least to some extent). There have been times when I sit down to write, inspired by some "genius and creative" idea of some kind, only to read back over the work later and realize that it is the product of someone else's thought that I had read previously. I think that reading can be dangerous simply because it is very deceiving just how much we assimilate unaware. And how can we not assimilate the things we read? For an hour, a day, a week we immerse ourselves in another world and in another person. We often hear of reading as an escape or rather as an experience. This can be a very, very good thing, but it can also be a detriment. In the short time that we fit into someone else's shoes and walk around in them in another world, we are being molded and shaped. Though we can't always tell when we put down a book, we have been changed, however small those changes may seem. More often than not they are so small that they remain an undetected part of us.

So what does this mean for our creativity? Is it always tainted? Is any work really and truly original? Perhaps. I cannot say for sure, but I believe it is silly so say that anything comes out of a vaccuum. So while I agree with Emerson's arguments about reading and imitation, I also believe that imitation is not necessarily a bad thing. Some of the greatest works ever written have been influenced by those that came before. Genius need not be born from nothing. To say that is to underestimate the human mind and imagination altogether. There is something to be said for being derivative and not original. I could write something completely original and it could concievably be the worst thing ever written in the english language. Originality should not be the only thing that makes a work great.

In his essay, Charles Lamb argues for the use of books. He states "At the hazard of losing some credit on this head, I must confess that I dedicate no inconsiderable portion of my time to other people's thoughts. I dream away my life in others' speculations. I love to lose myself in other men's minds. When I am not walking, I am reading; I cannot sit and think. Books think for me." (505).

I shudder to think about Emerson's reaction upon reading something like this. This is essentially the exact thing that he feels is wrong with reading books. To lose oneself on the minds of other men, is a very dangerous idea in the mind of Emerson. Lamb was obviously not a bad writer, nor an unoriginal one, so what does this mean for Emersons argument?