BR, NOTES FOR LIONEL BRITTON, [16 JUNE 1948]
BRACERS 55666. MS. McMaster
Proofread by K. Blackwell

Britton.

I do not know why Read thought this book would infuriate philosophers; it certainly does not infuriate me. On the contrary, its philosophy is closely similar to that of my still unpublished Human Knowledge — even sometimes in small details, as in how we know a shadow to be ours (p. 450). The whole conception of the relation of the world to private experience is the same as my own.

The book interested me, and I read on without reluctance. But I found myself most interested in the least ambitious parts. I liked the advice to make a synopsis of 100 words, then 10 chapters etc., and to make analyses of existing books. I did exactly this in adolescence, for my style of book. I was less convinced by the advice to analyse 1000 thrillers before writing one.

But when it comes to “inspiration at will”, I confess I am unconvinced. You say (p. 20) that one can become Shakespeare right away. Reviewers will say “then why don’t you?” If you are sufficiently brave and sincere, you will say you have done so, but reviewers may still be sceptical.

I don’t agree that general ideas are the essence of genius in imaginative work. Take e.g. “Sabrina fair” in Comus. Shaw should not be instanced as having a scientific outlook (p. 313); he is anti-scientific and anti-rational.

I don’t agree with what is said about “ideas” on p. 221. A general idea is primarily a general word; a word is a class of closely similar particulars. What is called “abstraction” consists in obviously similar reactions to not obviously similar stimuli — e.g. instances of the word “animal” on seeing either a mouse or an elephant.

p. 405. I don’t agree that the more general the more imaginative. The most general mental activity is symbolic logic, but I shouldn’t call it the most imaginative.

p. 476. Your world of “particles” is too like Democritus or Epicurus. In quantum theory “particles” hardly occur. This is not, as parsons pretend, an abandonment of materialism in the only important sense, but only of “substance”.

I like p. 473ff.

In sum, I am not convinced that you have caught “imagination” in your net, or provided a recipe for masterpieces. Regretfully, I do not think the book would have very many readers. I think, also, that your tone is too much that of an omniscient teacher, and that a more controversial tone would be less irritating to those who disagree.

Bertrand Russell.