I now move on to the most important factors to consider in evaluating my premise that C.S. Lewis might have been the most erudite person in history.
The accompanying graphic is inspired by Bloom’s Taxonomy, but its purpose is different. I propose this framework be used for the task of assessing “erudition.’ I spent many years in management consulting, and this sort of “conceptual framework” is what consultants do. I do not see this framework as profound in the slightest. It is a nothing more than a basic framework for charting steps in a hypothetical “erudition” process. These steps include:
- Reading
- Comprehension
- Retention
- Cognition
- Creativity
The purpose of this framework is not profundity, but clarity. I hope you find it helpful.
I have already completed my assessment on the first step in the hierarchy: “Literary Reading.” My hypothesis is this: C.S. Lewis read approximately 20,000 books during his life, and he read broadly across five major fields of learning: Literature, Philosophy, Religion, Linguistics and History.
As I said earlier, the number of books read is not the most important thing in this analysis. We now arrive at what is the most important thing: comprehension.
Beginning with the next post, I introduce a series of three commentaries on “comprehension”, then I will move on to a series of commentaries on “retention,” and lastly to a set of reflections on Lewis’ achievement. In my opinion, these are the three primary factors in assessing Lewis’ credentials as the most erudite person in history. I hope to convince you my premise is plausible.
If you look closely at the accompanying graphic, you will notice that “comprehension” precedes “retention” in the hierarchical sequence. Benjamin Bloom, in his Taxonomy, did the opposite. It seems to me one needs to “comprehend” something before one can commit that something to memory.
Regardless of the correct sequence, I do believe that “comprehension” and “retention” are closely related, and in certain ways they are inter-dependent. How do I mean?
First, I remember “cramming” for finals in college. I slammed every possible bit of hyper-speed reading into my brain the night before the exam, only to spew it out the next day in a “blue book”. This “rote memory” approach may have produced a passing grade on the test, but two weeks later the information so imparted was dearly departed.
In this analogy, my long-term retention is entirely driven by my initial comprehension. If I wish to recall knowledge five years from now, then I must comprehend that knowledge today. Rote memory has little to do with comprehension. By this analogy, comprehension clearly has an impact upon retention.
Second, I have had the experience of reading something complex one day, understanding it fully that same day (perhaps even a month later). But then, two years from later forgetting the essential details of the previously grasped insights.
It is frustrating to say: “I know something about this topic, for I read a great book on it last year. But I cannot now recall what it was that I knew.” Unfortunately, comprehension is not necessarily forever. By this analogy, retention clearly has implications for comprehension.
It works both ways. They are interdependent. It is good to have a mind capable of comprehending complex subject material. But it is better to have a mind capable of retaining that information over the long term.
For your frame of reference as we move through the segments on comprehension and retention, please keep in mind the following societal norms. Research conducted in recent years by the National Endowment for the Arts has revealed that the normal level of comprehension of the typical “Voracious” reader (100 books read per year) is approximately 60% and retention is only 30%.
For the typical “Moderate” reader (12 to 13 books per year) the normal level of comprehension is about 40% and retention is a surprisingly low 15%.
Lastly, for the 43% of Americans who never read a single book of “good literature” for the remainder of his or her life after graduation from high school the normal levels of comprehension and retention are. . . well, irrelevant.
As you can imagine, Comprehension and Retention are the keys to erudition.
The final two steps of my “erudition framework” are “Cognition” and “Creativity”. These two steps correspond to the final question in my analysis: “What did Lewis do with all that knowledge?”
To be sure, C.S. Lewis accomplished great works with his prodigious erudition. Perhaps one way to think of these two steps is that “Cognition” (reason) corresponds to what Lewis was doing at The Socratic Club, whereas “Creativity” (innovation) relates to his writing over thirty books in nearly twenty different genres of literature.
Lewis read profusely and with unparalleled concentration
Before I move on to “Comprehension” there is one other important aspect of Lewis’ reading process that merits consideration. My analysis of his reading habits up to this point has been focused on the number of books read, and the breadth of his reading. I have said nothing about his reading mentality.
Another very important factor in Lewis’ reading process is his power of concentration. Put another way, how intently did Lewis attend to his reading? His ability to maintain focus was key to avoiding endless distractions that would have slowed his pace of reading, or disrupted his comprehension, or impeded his ability to register new knowledge within his mental archives.
It is reported that Lewis spent countless hours reading books in the Bodleian Library. Oxford academic Helen Gardner would sit near Lewis in the Duke Humfrey’s Library on many occasions. Once, in awe and admiration, she made the following observation:
“One sometimes feels that the word ‘unreadable’ had no meaning for him. To sit opposite him in Duke Humphrey when he was moving steadily through some huge double-columned folio in his reading for his Oxford history was to have an object lesson in what concentration meant. He seemed to create a wall of stillness around him.”
It was as if no distraction could lure his attention away from the book he was reading. Lewis himself made a corroborating comment:
“If only you could smoke, and if only there were upholstered chairs, the Bodleian would be one of the most delightful places in the world.”
It is amazing how he could absolutely rivet his mind on the task at hand. How else could he have read 5,000 to 6,000 books from the 16th century? Can there be any doubt this ability to focus had a significant impact upon his level of erudition?
That is not quite how I remember it when I sat in the Herman B Wells library in Bloomington. Perhaps some of you also knew full well the immutable force that pulled me away from my textbooks. I wanted to master the material, but the opportunity to watch coeds walk by was simply irresistible.
Reading in a college library can be an arduous task, sort of like reading in a foxhole . . . but then Lewis did that too.
Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17
Erudition Series Index
