Diana Glyer's The Company They Keep: C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien as Writers in Community argues, in the face of almost unanimous scholarly opinion, that the members of the informal Oxford club known as the Inklings greatly influenced one another's writing. To accomplish this feat, she offers the reader at least two wonderful gifts: a new tool for thinking about the Inklings and a creative treatment of the idea of "influence." Along the way, she invents a new category of literary influence and sparks hopes of an ongoing conversation with other Inklings scholars.
Those Who Have Nothing Can Share Nothing: The Inklings as a Writer's Group
"Is there any pleasure on earth," C. S. Lewis famously and rhetorically asked, "as great as a circle of Christian friends by a good fire?"
Two observations on this quotation in light of Glyer's work. First, Lewis makes the statement in the context of a letter describing to another friend, Dom Bede Griffiths, what an evening with the Inklings was like. Second (and quite important in this regard), Lewis declares two sentences earlier, "What I owe to them all is incalculable."
These data factor into Glyer's overall argument that the Inklings were not just "a circle of Christian friends by a good fire" (contra Humphrey Carpenter, The Inklings) nor a faith-based sleeper-cell plotting subversion in the midst of pagan Oxford (on which more in a moment). Glyer offers a fresh way to look at this now-famous coterie of remarkable men by providing the opportunity to consider the Inklings specifically as a writer's group.
To make her case, Glyer cites her research into such legendary writer's fellowships as the Bloomsbury Group, the Transcendentalists, the Brideshead Generation, and the Lost Generation, (xviii) along with her own experience as a member of such fellowships. In these instances, she discovers, the members of the circle - and the critics - took influence for granted. In light of these facts, "the emphatic denial of influence expressed by Inklings scholars and by the Inklings themselves just didn't make any sense to me." Her book, she explains, attempts to reconcile the quandary of "the persistent claims that the Inklings did not influence one another and my sense that they must have." (xviii-xix)
Glyer's method consists of in-depth research into the concept of influence, drawing particularly from the work of Karen Burke LeFevre. In her study, Glyer discovers four specific roles played by writers who work in concert: resonators, opponents, editors, and collaborators. (40) She then writes one chapter for each role-designation and argues from primary sources that the Inklings served one another in this way.
Space does not permit - nor does the book require - an in-depth review of each section. It is enough to say that Glyer's arguments are clear, compelling, and readable. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this overall structure is that Glyer contributes a sixth category of her own, "Referents," to round out LeFevre's five. Referents means "writing about each other" and she makes the bold (but, once made, stunningly obvious claim) that "literary reference is a form of influence in its purest sense: without the presence of the other individual, these allusions, tributes, character studies, and works would not exist. " (167)
Glyer makes it plain that the core of what went on among the Inklings was the reading and critiquing of one another's writing. Warren Lewis has recorded his brother's famous method of calling an Inklings evening to order: "Well, has nobody got anything to read us?" (17) In other words, the members could only share anything (i.e., Christian friendship by a good fire, certain unpopular scholarly, religious, and cultural views) by virtue of having something specific to share, their latest article or poem or chapter. By opening up the possibility of seeing the Inklings as primarily a writer's group, and then analyzing their work in the same way one would the work of other similar sets, Glyer makes plain much that might otherwise seem obscure about them.
Of Bandersnatches and Semantics: Redefining and Rehabilitating "Influence"
"No one ever influenced Tolkien - you might as well try to influence a bandersnatch." This line from C. S. Lewis' May 15, 1959 letter to Charles Moorman has been considered the last word on the subject of influence amongst the Inklings. But it isn't. It isn't even the last word in that letter, or even that paragraph. Immediately before Lewis writes, "Charles Williams certainly influenced me and I perhaps influenced him." Immediately afterward Lewis says of Tolkien, "We listened to his work, but could affect it only by encouragement." These statements, forming as they do a sort of cage for the bandersnatch, demonstrate Glyer's creativity in dealing with the concept of influence.
She rightly complains that "Influence Studies" (Really? That's an actual Thing?) limit "influence" to "similarity." And while That Hideous Strength may be a Charles Williams novel written by C. S. Lewis (Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Biography [San Diego: Harcourt Brace, 1974], 174.), Narnia and Middle Earth have very little in common. If similarity defines influence, Lewis' remark about Charles Williams proves its presence among the Inklings. If one sets aside similarity, Lewis' statement about encouraging Tolkien fits Glyer's category of "Resonator" and thus proves the presence of influence again. By pointing out the multifaceted ways in which one writer can influence another, Glyer counters even the Inklings' own statements on the subject. If it is indeed true that That Hideous Strength is a Charles Williams novel written by C. S. Lewis, it is equally true that The Lord of the Rings is a J. R. R. Tolkien novel that could not have been written without C. S. Lewis!
Glyer also attempts, in her final chapter, "Creativity: Appreciating Interaction," to rehabilitate the whole idea of influence. She argues from history that the term only became pejorative after the Renaissance. In a brief but highly informative review of Western literature, Glyer makes the case for influence as a legitimate - and indeed a vital - part of the creative process.
Inner Rings and The Lord of the Rings: The Inklings as Subversives
A few brief observations and I have done. First of all, I am intrigued by considering Glyer's arguments in light of the views expressed by Malcolm Guite of Cambridge in the introductory lecture of his series, "The Inklings: Fantasists or Prophets?" (For the entire, highly valuable series, see http://malcolmguite.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/the-inklings-fantasists-or-prophets-the-complete-set/.) Guite commends Glyer's work in moving beyond Carpenter's reigning "just friends" take on the Inklings, and agrees with her about their mutual influence, but goes on to argue that the group saw themselves in conscious and deliberate reaction against the high modernism that ultimately won the day. It would be a great favor to Inklings students if some enterprising blogger (say William O'Flaherty's "All About Jack" or Lancia Smith's "Cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful) would bring the two together for an MMA smackdown on the subject.
Next, there is the matter of Glyer's notes. If you are one of those readers who habitually skips footnotes, this book is a good place to begin breaking that habit. Glyer's notes are extensive and informative and one who does not read them has not truly read the book. I could find it in my heart to wish that they were actual FOOT-notes, coming at the bottom of the page, instead of less-convenient END-notes appearing at the close of each chapter, since this results in a lot of bothersome page-turning and page-marking, but that is a mere quibble.
Finally, Glyer provides a series of biographical sketches on each Inkling. Since the dynamic duo of Lewis and Tolkien (rapidly morphing these days into the Fab Four with the renewed attention being given to Charles Williams and Owen Barfield) occupy so much attention, it is useful to have these brief insights into those who provided such rich texture to the group.
In all, The Company They Keep is not a book to be missed. Those already well-fleshed in Lewis-Tolking-Williams-Barfield-Inklings will find new information and old information in new settings. Those who may have read a few things by one or two of the authors will find this book a helpful introduction into the rich context out of which some of their favorite books grew.
No comments:
Post a Comment