Scan barcode
Reviews
The Company They Keep: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as Writers in Community by Diana Pavlac Glyer
maximum_moxie's review against another edition
4.0
Extraordinarily thorough and clear chronicle of the Inklings' influence on each other. Where the book really shines is the author's apologia for collaboration and influence as an inherent and beneficial part of creativity, not a weakness or distraction.
hayesstw's review
5.0
Several books and articles have been written about the literary group known as the Inklings, but this is one of the best and most informative.
The Inklings were a group of friends who met in Oxford to read to each other, and criticise each other's work. There were 19 members of the group, though they were not all present at every gathering, and joined and left at various times. At the core of the group was C.S. Lewis, and most of the other members were his friends. Among the most active members were C.S. Lewis's brother Warren Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and Owen Barfield. The book has an appendix listing all 19, with a potted biography of each.
Glyer shows how the members of the group influenced one another, and challenges the view of many scholars that there was no such influence. She notes that an entire generation of scholars was discouraged from studying or asserting mutual influence among the Inklings when C.S. Lewis warned a correspondent who asked about influence among the Inklings that he should not "waste time" on a "barren field". Glyer argues that there was a tendency to confuse influence with imitation. "In claiming that Tolkien was not influenced by Lewis, for example, scholars typically mean that his sub-created world does not resemble Malacandra and his creative aesthetic is different from that which envisioned Narnia."
The Inklings were not a literary school with a common point of view, and they sometimes disagreed vehemently over the merits of each other's works. Tolkien disliked Lewis's Narnia stories, Hugo Dyson poured scorn on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Nevertheless, they did influence one another, not merely in the comments on the work that was read, but in joint literary endeavours, in dedicating their work to each other, reviewing each other's work, and occasionally recommending it to publishers.
The negative attitude towards influence is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is a result of post-Enlightenment individualism, where there is an excessive concern for originality and "genius". Barfield explained that the concept of independent creativity emerged well after the Renaissance. Before the Renaissance "genius" is a spirit-being other than the poet himself, and they would say "he has a genius". After the Renaissance the inspiration is seen as part of the poet himself and we say "he is a genius".
Lewis and Tolkien agreed that if they wanted to see the kind of stories they liked, they would have to write them themselves, and this influenced Lewis to write his space trilogy, though Tolkien never completed his contribution, which was to be based on time. To children who wrote to ask Lewis to write more Narnian stories, he replied that he had no more to say, but there was plenty of room for them to contribute their own.
Glyer concludes "I am persuaded that writers do not create text out of thin air in a fit of personal inspiration. I believe that the most common and natural expressions of creativity occur as part of an ongoing dialogue between writers, readers, texts, and contexts. This truth is exemplified by the weekly meetings of the Inklings. It is manifest in their relationships with family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances. And it is expressed in many of their own statements about the creative process. As Williams reminds us, an emphasis on isolated individuals must give way to an interactive view of life, culture and creativity."
I think Glyer makes a very good case for this, and I recommend this book to anyone who has enjoyed reading anything written by the Inklings. It gives new insights into their lives and their works.
The Inklings were a group of friends who met in Oxford to read to each other, and criticise each other's work. There were 19 members of the group, though they were not all present at every gathering, and joined and left at various times. At the core of the group was C.S. Lewis, and most of the other members were his friends. Among the most active members were C.S. Lewis's brother Warren Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and Owen Barfield. The book has an appendix listing all 19, with a potted biography of each.
Glyer shows how the members of the group influenced one another, and challenges the view of many scholars that there was no such influence. She notes that an entire generation of scholars was discouraged from studying or asserting mutual influence among the Inklings when C.S. Lewis warned a correspondent who asked about influence among the Inklings that he should not "waste time" on a "barren field". Glyer argues that there was a tendency to confuse influence with imitation. "In claiming that Tolkien was not influenced by Lewis, for example, scholars typically mean that his sub-created world does not resemble Malacandra and his creative aesthetic is different from that which envisioned Narnia."
The Inklings were not a literary school with a common point of view, and they sometimes disagreed vehemently over the merits of each other's works. Tolkien disliked Lewis's Narnia stories, Hugo Dyson poured scorn on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Nevertheless, they did influence one another, not merely in the comments on the work that was read, but in joint literary endeavours, in dedicating their work to each other, reviewing each other's work, and occasionally recommending it to publishers.
The negative attitude towards influence is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is a result of post-Enlightenment individualism, where there is an excessive concern for originality and "genius". Barfield explained that the concept of independent creativity emerged well after the Renaissance. Before the Renaissance "genius" is a spirit-being other than the poet himself, and they would say "he has a genius". After the Renaissance the inspiration is seen as part of the poet himself and we say "he is a genius".
Lewis and Tolkien agreed that if they wanted to see the kind of stories they liked, they would have to write them themselves, and this influenced Lewis to write his space trilogy, though Tolkien never completed his contribution, which was to be based on time. To children who wrote to ask Lewis to write more Narnian stories, he replied that he had no more to say, but there was plenty of room for them to contribute their own.
Glyer concludes "I am persuaded that writers do not create text out of thin air in a fit of personal inspiration. I believe that the most common and natural expressions of creativity occur as part of an ongoing dialogue between writers, readers, texts, and contexts. This truth is exemplified by the weekly meetings of the Inklings. It is manifest in their relationships with family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances. And it is expressed in many of their own statements about the creative process. As Williams reminds us, an emphasis on isolated individuals must give way to an interactive view of life, culture and creativity."
I think Glyer makes a very good case for this, and I recommend this book to anyone who has enjoyed reading anything written by the Inklings. It gives new insights into their lives and their works.
e_austin's review against another edition
5.0
I cannot say enough to recommend Glyer's book to anyone interested in Inklings studies. Thoroughly researched, carefully constructed, and engagingly written, it is an achievement which justly deserves the praise and respect it has received.
The Company They Keep takes a deep dive into the question of precisely how Tolkien, Lewis, and the others in their circle did (or did not) influence each other. Glyer identifies a trend in Inklings studies which seemed to deny great influence between the writers. While this trend was itself trying to correct some false notions, Glyer shows that downplaying influence too much is unhelpful, and indeed untrue. To demonstrate this, she not only analyzes a bevy of examples of collaboration amongst the Inklings, but she also looks critically at our greater cultural notions about influence and creativity.
Glyer shows that, in many ways, the modern view of influence is too narrow. We tend to place great emphasis on the idea of solitary genius, failing to comprehend just how much each creator depends on a supporting community to produce any great achievement. As a visual artist who has always loved working with other creatives, I greatly appreciated this aspect of the book. Not only did Glyer help me think more deeply about the Inklings and their nature as a group, but she also expanded my thinking on the nature of influence itself. I know the analysis of collaboration and community I encountered here will benefit me greatly in both academic and artistic endeavors in the future.
On a final note, I want to say again what an example of academic achievement this book is. In a rather serendipitous alignment of events, I happened to read this work while at the same time entering (rather gingerly) the world of research and research writing. In this area, The Company They Keep is an excellent example of technique to observe, learn from, and emulate. Glyer presents her arguments meticulously and is very considerate of her readers. The level of scholarship and skill evident in every page may be a bit daunting, but ultimately I found it extremely inspiring. I don't really plan to ever write a book, but I have other personal artistic and academic goals. I came away from this book encouraged that I may one day achieve those goals, if I go at them with a similar passion, patience, and persistence (and stay connected to my own creative communities).
The Company They Keep takes a deep dive into the question of precisely how Tolkien, Lewis, and the others in their circle did (or did not) influence each other. Glyer identifies a trend in Inklings studies which seemed to deny great influence between the writers. While this trend was itself trying to correct some false notions, Glyer shows that downplaying influence too much is unhelpful, and indeed untrue. To demonstrate this, she not only analyzes a bevy of examples of collaboration amongst the Inklings, but she also looks critically at our greater cultural notions about influence and creativity.
Glyer shows that, in many ways, the modern view of influence is too narrow. We tend to place great emphasis on the idea of solitary genius, failing to comprehend just how much each creator depends on a supporting community to produce any great achievement. As a visual artist who has always loved working with other creatives, I greatly appreciated this aspect of the book. Not only did Glyer help me think more deeply about the Inklings and their nature as a group, but she also expanded my thinking on the nature of influence itself. I know the analysis of collaboration and community I encountered here will benefit me greatly in both academic and artistic endeavors in the future.
On a final note, I want to say again what an example of academic achievement this book is. In a rather serendipitous alignment of events, I happened to read this work while at the same time entering (rather gingerly) the world of research and research writing. In this area, The Company They Keep is an excellent example of technique to observe, learn from, and emulate. Glyer presents her arguments meticulously and is very considerate of her readers. The level of scholarship and skill evident in every page may be a bit daunting, but ultimately I found it extremely inspiring. I don't really plan to ever write a book, but I have other personal artistic and academic goals. I came away from this book encouraged that I may one day achieve those goals, if I go at them with a similar passion, patience, and persistence (and stay connected to my own creative communities).
More...