As interest in Owen Barfield grows, we aim to meet the need for a scholarly introduction to his thought. Our primary purpose is to present an overview, analysis, and synthesis of Barfield’s most salient ideas in a manner that will be of interest to neophytes and initiates alike. Barfield’s work can, at times, be difficult to understand; C. S. Lewis put it well when he described Barfield’s style of argument as “dark, labyrinthine,” and “pertinacious.” But Lewis ardently promoted Barfield’s work because he knew that people who willingly walk in those dim and winding corridors are, in time, richly rewarded by the bright light at their end. We offer the present work in service to those who wish to undertake this adventure. While the present book will help those readers who wish to engage Barfield for the sake of achieving a greater understanding of and appreciation for other writers who have been associated with or influenced by him, we aim first and foremost to present Barfield as a profound and original thinker in his own right.
Lotta pressure being the first review on Goodreads *laughs nervously and tries not to throw up*
Having never read any Owen Barfield, this little book accomplished what I take to be its goal: making me for sure want to read some Owen Barfield.
I got little nuggets of significance from this overview, but the overarching theme was Barfield's linguistic work in connection with his theory of consciousness (stay with me folks.) I found the best example that he gives to be when he highlights in his book "Poetic Diction" the fact that the words "Wind" and "Spirit" in John 3:8 are actually the same word used in the Greek. In that simple example alone (that we in the English language would separate out the material word from the metaphysical/spiritual, but not John in his language) tells you something of the world-view behind the language.
This book helped me understand poetry better, how even I suffer from a scientism/materialism framework, and opened up interest into another inkling that I previously had very little knowledge of at all.
Occasionally the authors employed intellectual jargon without explaining anything, to the point where it seemed like missing the point of the book entirely. But it was minimal and for the most part they explained and provided great examples where Barfield did not. Also an editor would be great for those pesky grammar errors.