C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien...
Mark Sidarous
they were mutually in? Any anecdotes? I seem to remember reading
somewhere that Lewis had a severe dislike for some of Tolkien's works,
especially, the Hobbit. I think Lewis said it sucked (in the
eloquent verbiage he is such a master of) and that it wouldn't sell or
something...
As an avid fan of both writers, this is a topic that I find fascinating.
Any info would be good.
____________________________________________________________________
--Mark--
/\
\/
/\ Any man's death diminishes me because I am
<>< ><> involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know
\/ for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
/\
\/
Margaret Dean
> : Anyone have any information on the close relationship and the 'club'
> : that they were mutually in? Any anecdotes? I seem to remember
> : reading somewhere that Lewis had a severe dislike for some of
> : Tolkien's works, especially, the Hobbit. I think Lewis said it
> : sucked (in the eloquent verbiage he is such a master of) and that it
> : wouldn't sell or something...
>
> The "club" is the Inklings. Lewis *loved* the Lord of the Rings cycle,
> but Tolkien disliked the Narnian Chronicles. I am sure that the others
> on this group would be able to give you more information....
How about a book recommendation? Look for THE INKLINGS by Humphrey
Carpenter (who also wrote far and away the best biography of Tolkien, and
helped edit Tolkien's LETTERS for publication).
--Margaret Dean
<marg...@erols.com>
Danny Pitt Stoller
: Anyone have any information on the close relationship and the 'club' that
: they were mutually in? Any anecdotes? I seem to remember reading
: somewhere that Lewis had a severe dislike for some of Tolkien's works,
: especially, the Hobbit. I think Lewis said it sucked (in the
: eloquent verbiage he is such a master of) and that it wouldn't sell or
: something...
The "club" is the Inklings. Lewis *loved* the Lord of the Rings cycle,
but Tolkien disliked the Narnian Chronicles. I am sure that the others
on this group would be able to give you more information....
--
"Gentlemen of the jury, I am grateful and I am your friend,
but I will obey the god rather than you...."
- Socrates
Danny Pitt (no hyphen) Stoller
215-386-6975
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dap
Sackett17
Middle-Earth" which is illustrated by the Brothers Hildebrandt. I don't care
much for the illustrations, but the text is very informative about Tolkien's
life, and goes into extensive detail about the relationship between Tolkien,
Lewis and the Inklings.
George
Jordonfree
>: they were mutually in? Any anecdotes? I seem to remember reading
>: somewhere that Lewis had a severe dislike for some of Tolkien's works,
>: especially, the Hobbit. I think Lewis said it sucked (in the
>: eloquent verbiage he is such a master of) and that it wouldn't sell or
>: something...
>
>The "club" is the Inklings. Lewis *loved* the Lord of the Rings cycle,
>but Tolkien disliked the Narnian Chronicles. I am sure that the others
>on this group would be able to give you more information....
H.G.Wells was also a club participant. That was a heck of a club.
Ariel
Michael Martinez
H.G. Wells?
I don't believe Tolkien ever even met the man. Charles Williams was
another member of the Inklings. Major Warren Lewis (C.S. Lewis' brother),
R.E. Havard, Owen Barfield, and Hugo Dyson were all members of the group,
which was more an informal collection of friends than a club.
There are various FAQs about the Inklings which I've indexed at THE WHITE
COUNCIL (http://www.xenite.org/boards/tolkien/jt_board.htm). One of them,
IIRC, has a fairly complete list of all the people associated with the
Inklings through the years.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Andrew Rilstone
Mark Sidarous <sida...@students.uiuc.edu> writes
> I seem to remember reading
>somewhere that Lewis had a severe dislike for some of Tolkien's works,
>especially, the Hobbit.
Vice versa. Lewis admired The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings "this
side idolatry"; indeed, Tolkien said that LOTR would not have been
written without Lewis's encouragement. The third volume of "History of
Middle-earth" includes Lewis's commentaries on Tolkein's early
mythological poetry.
OTOH, Tolkien had a very low opinion of the Narnia books: he didn't
approve of allegory of the type Lewis was using, thought that the mixing
of mythologies and the conscious anachronisms were a bad idea, and,
well, just generally didn't like them very much.
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
*******************************************************************************
"Then shall the realm of Albion come to great confusion"
*******************************************************************************
Andrew Rilstone
<jordo...@aol.comA.Jordon> writes
>H.G.Wells was also a club participant.
H.G Wells frequently turned up to meetings at Oxford in the 1930s and
40s with Lewis and Tolkien. The main reason he came was to chat with G.K
Chesterton and W.B Yeats. William Morris occasionally bought a round of
drinks, particularly on days when Olaf Stapleton was visiting. Charles
Dickens only came on special occasions, but he sometimes brought his
friend George Eliot along. On one occasion, William Shakespeare was
supposed to be the visiting speaker, but pressure of rehearsals caused
him to cancel, and send Homer along as last-minute replacement.
Sheesh.
Dan Hartung
<and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19990129213453...@ng125.aol.com>, Jordonfree
><jordo...@aol.comA.Jordon> writes
>>H.G.Wells was also a club participant.
>
>H.G Wells frequently turned up to meetings at Oxford in the 1930s and
>40s with Lewis and Tolkien. The main reason he came was to chat with G.K
>Chesterton and W.B Yeats. William Morris occasionally bought a round of
>drinks, particularly on days when Olaf Stapleton was visiting. Charles
>Dickens only came on special occasions, but he sometimes brought his
>friend George Eliot along. On one occasion, William Shakespeare was
>supposed to be the visiting speaker, but pressure of rehearsals caused
>him to cancel, and send Homer along as last-minute replacement.
Wait ... a ... minute. Homer couldn't come because Bart was still in
diapers and Marge couldn't manage by herself.
James Porter
regularly in Oxford. Lewis supported Tolkien and liked his work
Mark Sidarous wrote in message ...
>Anyone have any information on the close relationship and the 'club' that
>somewhere that Lewis had a severe dislike for some of Tolkien's works,
>eloquent verbiage he is such a master of) and that it wouldn't sell or
>something...
>
sharon m homer-drummond
the letters between the members and also between individual members and
outside fans, friends and family at Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL which has
a library devoted to them. It also has the largest collection of their
writings, and scholarly work about them. As to Lewis disliking The
Hobbit, I have my doubts about that, but don't have any specific
knowledge.
Michael Martinez
>They were members of the Inklings. You can find the largest collection of
>the letters between the members and also between individual members and
>outside fans, friends and family at Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL which has
>a library devoted to them. It also has the largest collection of their
>writings, and scholarly work about them. As to Lewis disliking The
>Hobbit, I have my doubts about that, but don't have any specific
>knowledge.
Lewis did everything he could to promote THE HOBBIT. He himself wrote an
enthusiastic review of the book for THE TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT.
Andrew Rilstone
<Mic...@xenite.org> writes
>Lewis did everything he could to promote THE HOBBIT. He himself wrote an
>enthusiastic review of the book for THE TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT.
Which has always seemed to me to be just slightly naughty; reviewing
your friends books....
Mike Scott Rohan
from Andrew Rilstone <and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <794u8c$4ru$5...@camel29.mindspring.com>, Michael Martinez
> <Mic...@xenite.org> writes
> >Lewis did everything he could to promote THE HOBBIT. He himself wrote an
> >enthusiastic review of the book for THE TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT.
> Which has always seemed to me to be just slightly naughty; reviewing
> your friends books....
Not at all. Far better to have someone who likes and understands the
book tell you why, than giving it to somebody who might well be
completely out of tune with it, or is actively hostile. Lewis himself
pointed this out when his friendly enemy J.B.S.Haldane gave one of
his books a scathing review. The same editor, stirring, then sent
Haldane's next book to Lewis. Lewis refused to review it, for the
above very good reasons
The only reason for objecting is assuming that the reviewer is
automatically going to be dishonest and "logroll" for his friend. In
my experience it doesn't usually work that way. You get the odd wave
of hype for a particular book or author, but it's usually a sort of
conspiracy of intellectual fashion than direct bias. Dave Langford,
the multiple Hugo-winning columnist and reviewer, is one of my oldest
friends, I was best man at his wedding, but that doesn't spare me the
odd flaying if he thinks I've earned it. He cunningly avoids a return
shot by not writing anything I get to review, but that's life.
Besides, in the writing business so many people know one another that
if you cut out friends you'd never get any well-known reviewers.
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown -- The Castle of the Winds -- now a Bookwatch SF bestseller
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Tony Durran
> > Which has always seemed to me to be just slightly naughty; reviewing
> > your friends books....
>
> Not at all. Far better to have someone who likes and understands the
> book tell you why, than giving it to somebody who might well be
> completely out of tune with it, or is actively hostile. Lewis himself
> pointed this out when his friendly enemy J.B.S.Haldane gave one of
> his books a scathing review. The same editor, stirring, then sent
> Haldane's next book to Lewis. Lewis refused to review it, for the
> above very good reasons
>
> The only reason for objecting is assuming that the reviewer is
> automatically going to be dishonest and "logroll" for his friend.
"Contre Sainte Beuve" by Proust gives a number of reasons why this can be a
dangerous practice. Most of them involve how the critic sees the character of the
writer. If the critic knows the writer well he may see in latter's work
pretentiousness that exist only in the character of the man, he may understand
through previous conversations concepts which the writer inadequately explained in
the book and not realise the weakness etc. Knowledge of the man may affect
perception of the book unconsciously like this, or more consciously with
favouritism, prejudice, or self-aggrandisement.
> Besides, in the writing business so many people know one another that
> if you cut out friends you'd never get any well-known reviewers.
This is of course unavoidable. In any circle those who do and those who critique
are often so closely intertwined the relationship between can become quite
complex, bordering on, but hopefully never quite, the incestuous. ;o)
Tony
Lammit
>they were mutually in? Any anecdotes?
Well, while my wife was studying at Oxford (Oooooooh!!), she was taken to a pub
called "The Eagle and Child" that was reputedly where the club met on
occaision. I even got a T-shirt. How do you feel about that?
Lance
M Phillips
>Mark Sidarous wrote in message ...
>they were mutually in? Any anecdotes?
I'd get the book The Inklings (by Humphrey Carpenter?), as it's all about
their group.
Martin
Mike W. Perry
>probably beyond saving. There are too many different myths and ideas
>clashing in one story argued Tolkien, and Lewis should have known better
>than to write a book that features Father Christmas, evil queens, talking
>animals, and children all at the same time.
I can think of numerous conversations I have had with small children in
which they displayed this same "failing." They've yet to develop all the
mental "boxes" into which adults sort things. Mixing Father Christmas in a
story with fauns and talking animals is just the way they think.
Perhaps that's one reason why children love Lewis' stories so much, while
Tolkein's fans tend to be adults.
--Mike Perry
Will Swinson
>OTOH, Tolkien had a very low opinion of the Narnia books: he didn't
>approve of allegory of the type Lewis was using, thought that the mixing
>of mythologies and the conscious anachronisms were a bad idea, and,
>well, just generally didn't like them very much.
You can say that again. According to the book I'm reading right now "The Man
Who Created Narnia: The Story of C.S. Lewis" (Anyone ever read it)
"Tolkien was scathing saying that the book was not only a failure, but
probably beyond saving. There are too many different myths and ideas
clashing in one story argued Tolkien, and Lewis should have known better
than to write a book that features Father Christmas, evil queens, talking
animals, and children all at the same time. Lewis was of course hurt by
these critisicisms from a trusted friend. It was only the positive words and
love for the book from other friends that saved this clasic; otherwise Lewis
may well have given in to Tolkien's attack and even thrown the book away. We
might never have had The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe".
Any feedback? What do you suppose made him so bitter? Do you think he
resented how quick Lewis was able to write them after Tolkien had spent may
years on LOTR?
May Aslan Be With You.
Your affectionate Lewis Maniac,
Will Swinson
Chris McClinch
Actually, I think it had far more to do with Tolkien despising conscious
allegory in all its forms. He saw The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as too
didactic and too transparently allegorical.
>
>May Aslan Be With You.
>
>Your affectionate Lewis Maniac,
> Will Swinson
>
>
>
--
Chris McClinch
cmcc...@vt.edu
---------------
For beginner's information, check out
http://webdesigns1.com/asw/articles/beginner.html
---------------
and since I pose naked on brownstud.com and you don't, I'm
right;-)
-- Scott Bryant
sharon m homer-drummond
The did have a very honest relationship by both of their accounts, and
often critiqued each other. It may have been tactless, but two of the
prof.'s at my alma mater who researched Tolkien (and got to meet him and
work with him for awhile) said he was somewhat irrascible.
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Will Swinson wrote:
>
> >OTOH, Tolkien had a very low opinion of the Narnia books: he didn't
> >approve of allegory of the type Lewis was using, thought that the mixing
> >of mythologies and the conscious anachronisms were a bad idea, and,
> >well, just generally didn't like them very much.
>
>
> You can say that again. According to the book I'm reading right now "The Man
> Who Created Narnia: The Story of C.S. Lewis" (Anyone ever read it)
>
> "Tolkien was scathing saying that the book was not only a failure, but
> probably beyond saving. There are too many different myths and ideas
> clashing in one story argued Tolkien, and Lewis should have known better
> than to write a book that features Father Christmas, evil queens, talking
> animals, and children all at the same time. Lewis was of course hurt by
> these critisicisms from a trusted friend. It was only the positive words and
> love for the book from other friends that saved this clasic; otherwise Lewis
> may well have given in to Tolkien's attack and even thrown the book away. We
> might never have had The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe".
>
> Any feedback? What do you suppose made him so bitter? Do you think he
> resented how quick Lewis was able to write them after Tolkien had spent may
> years on LOTR?
>
Andrew Rilstone
<will...@yahoo.com> writes
>Any feedback? What do you suppose made him so bitter? Do you think he
>resented how quick Lewis was able to write them after Tolkien had spent may
>years on LOTR?
I don't think he was "bitter"; I think he just didn't like them. I think
his criticisms are valid, although I don't agree.
Mike Scott Rohan
from sharon m homer-drummond <home...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> contains
these words:
> Does it have to be bitterness. Maybe he honestly believed what he said.
> The did have a very honest relationship by both of their accounts, and
> often critiqued each other. It may have been tactless, but two of the
> prof.'s at my alma mater who researched Tolkien (and got to meet him and
> work with him for awhile) said he was somewhat irrascible.
I've heard the same. He could be -- can't we all? But so could Lewis,
and incredibly pompous too, which Tolkien by and large wasn't. He was
a smallish brisk man, Lewis large and ponderous (much larger than
Anthony Hopkins!), and I am told the two would snap at each other
like terrier and Great Dane, but still as friends.
john bennett
could not bring himself to write or speak publicly about his friend. I don't
have his actual words; they were quoted in an article in the (London) Sunday
Telegraph - 7-2 -99.
John Bennett
Andrew Rilstone
<mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>I've heard the same. He could be -- can't we all? But so could Lewis,
>and incredibly pompous too, which Tolkien by and large wasn't. He was
>a smallish brisk man, Lewis large and ponderous (much larger than
>Anthony Hopkins!), and I am told the two would snap at each other
>like terrier and Great Dane, but still as friends.
I love the story in Tolkien's letters about how "ascetic Mr. Lewis"
consumed three pints at lunch time and then had the audacity to say that
he was going easy for Lent.
Douglas Gresham
>You can say that again. According to the book I'm reading right now "The Man
>Who Created Narnia: The Story of C.S. Lewis" (Anyone ever read it)
>
>"Tolkien was scathing saying that the book was not only a failure, but
>probably beyond saving. There are too many different myths and ideas
>clashing in one story argued Tolkien, and Lewis should have known better
>than to write a book that features Father Christmas, evil queens, talking
>animals, and children all at the same time. Lewis was of course hurt by
>these critisicisms from a trusted friend. It was only the positive words and
>love for the book from other friends that saved this clasic; otherwise Lewis
>may well have given in to Tolkien's attack and even thrown the book away. We
>might never have had The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe".
>
>Any feedback?
Yes: Don't believe everything you read. Tollers reaction to the LWWW has
been blown out of all proportion. He did not like the book true, but he
was not "scathing"; more, humorously dismissive. And Jack was not the
least bit concerned about the book, merely a little disappointed that
Tollers could not see what he was doing in it. Jack had no qualms about it
at all, and while Tolkien did not like it, almost everybody else did. The
converse was true about Tolkien's LOTR by the way, very few people liked
it at first hearing other than the Inklings and some of them disliked it,
some of them intensely. It was Jack's encouragement that kept Tollers
going on it when he was about ready to give it up altogether (it had been
rejected by 11 publishers). The whole story of Jack and Tolkien "falling
out" with each other is rubbish, made much of by sensation-seeking
biographers. They did see less of each other after Jack married my mother,
and Tolkien was regretful of this (as also was Jack, regretful of the
necessities which brought it about), but really, that is about as far as
it went. The Tolkiens were among those who offered me a home when Jack
died. Incidentally, although I did not know him well, I never found
Tolkien to be irascible as has been reported in this ng. Kindly, gentle,
humorous yes but I saw no irascibility. That does not mean that he wasn't
so, merely that I never witnessed it.
Don't believe what you read in books all the time. particularly about
Jack. Most of the books are often wrong, some of them, sometimes,
diabolicly so. Fred Paxford used to say that something must be true
because he had heard it on the radio, now people seem to believe that
things must be true if they are written in books. Hah!
Blessings,
Doug.
Andrew Rilstone
>Yes: Don't believe everything you read. Tollers reaction to the LWWW has
>been blown out of all proportion. He did not like the book true, but he
>was not "scathing"; more, humorously dismissive. And Jack was not the
>least bit concerned about the book, merely a little disappointed that
>Tollers could not see what he was doing in it. Jack had no qualms about it
>at all, and while Tolkien did not like it, almost everybody else did. The
>converse was true about Tolkien's LOTR by the way, very few people liked
>it at first hearing other than the Inklings and some of them disliked it,
>some of them intensely. It was Jack's encouragement that kept Tollers
>going on it when he was about ready to give it up altogether (it had been
>rejected by 11 publishers).
According to Humphrey Carpenter, Unwin, the publishers of the Hobbit,
specifically suggested that Tolkien wrote a "sequel", which turned out
to be The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien wanted to see "The Silmarillion"
published alongside LOTR, but Unwin were reluctant to do this. He
temporarily tried to take the book to Collins instead, but when they
procrastinated, he returned it to Unwin.
Carpenter make no mention whatsoever of the nine other publishers. His
story seems to make sense; it is hard to see why the Tolkien family
would have withheld this information from his official biographer.
> The whole story of Jack and Tolkien "falling
>out" with each other is rubbish, made much of by sensation-seeking
>biographers.
A little hard to see Carpenter and George Sayer as sensationalists,
methinks. Even the generally hostile A.N Wilson doesn't talk about a
"falling out" or a "quarrel" between the two men, merely a "cooling" of
the relationship. Say Wilson: "Tolkien's admiration and (in a way)
fondness for Lewis was never to die, the friendship itself was dying."
>
>Don't believe what you read in books all the time. particularly about
>Jack. Most of the books are often wrong, some of them, sometimes,
>diabolicly so. Fred Paxford used to say that something must be true
>because he had heard it on the radio, now people seem to believe that
>things must be true if they are written in books. Hah!
But Doug, those of us who are students of Lewis without having had the
privilege of knowing him have only got books to go on. George Sayer, who
knew Lewis well, says one thing; you, who also knew him well, say a
different thing: we read the books and form an opinion, or a composite
picture. That's all we can do. It's always, and by definition, different
and inferior from first hand knowledge of the actual man. But it's all
we've got.
Mike Scott Rohan
from Douglas Gresham <d...@iol.ie> contains these words:
Incidentally, although I did not know him well, I never found
> Tolkien to be irascible as has been reported in this ng. Kindly, gentle,
> humorous yes but I saw no irascibility. That does not mean that he wasn't
> so, merely that I never witnessed it.
Pleasant to have such an authoritative contribution, Doug! It must be
a bit galling to have so many people pronouncing confidently about
people you knew so well.
Most of what I know of Tolkien came from ex-pupils and colleagues,
who found him argumentative, but cheerfully so. The "irascibility", I
think, boiled down to a certain very understandable impatience with
interviewers and other media people, especially as he got older, and
non-functioning students. Witness his remarks, reported in Carpenter,
in favour of the "dull stodges" of Leeds who were at least prepared
to do some work, as opposed to certain Oxford geniuses. Even then he
could be very kind. I remember being told by one woman, who had
failed an important exam and expected to be sent down, that she was
greeted with sherry and the cheerful assurance that "my dear girl,
everyone fails *that*!"
> Don't believe what you read in books all the time. particularly about
> Jack
[snip]
now people seem to believe that
> things must be true if they are written in books. Hah!
That was always the case. Nowadays it's if they're played by Anthony Hopkins!
Blessings in return,
Bruce N. Hietbrink
<mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <7a66ns$enn$1...@news2.news.iol.ie>
> from Douglas Gresham <d...@iol.ie> contains these words:
>
> now people seem to believe that
> > things must be true if they are written in books. Hah!
>
> That was always the case.
Especially in medieval days, as Lewis discussed in _The Discarded
Image_.
Bruce Hietbrink