romantics without rebellion
TRANSCRIPT
1/1/2016 Book review of Carol Zaleski & Philip Zaleski's The Fellowship | Open Letters Monthly an Arts and Literature Review
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/romanticswithoutrebellion/ 1/8
By Thomas Berenato No Comment
Home » Arts & Life, Fiction, Politics & History, criticism, biography
Romantics without Rebellion
The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J. R. R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis,Owen Barfield, Charles Williams By Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015
This is a long book about the limitations of art. It treats with maximum sobriety thelifelong entanglement of four fantasists—with each other and with their troubled times. Taken separately, the “literarylives” of its protagonists are largely unremarkable. Taken together, as here, they make for a rough magic. However goodthese writers are, this book suggests that they were better talkers, and their “fellowship,” forged in a continualconversation, is its theme. Their table-talk, an intermittent affair of decades’ standing, may well prove to be their mostlasting work, a fancy, in W. H. Auden’s words, of “the greatest grandest opera rendered by a very provincial touringcompany.” Their group-biographers have now staged a revival, a new production for the IMAX age. The images aregrainy, the colors lurid, the accents outdated, but the voices ring out.
The company sing in chorus of, in Auden’s words again, “the perfected Work which is not ours.” Christians all, of varyingdegrees of orthodoxy, the Inklings were blessed by and rejoiced in that wholly other Life, from which they felt themselvesdivided by an emphatic gulf. A sense of mutual unworldliness banded them together at the edge of the void (two worldwars, the secular blur of Marx and Freud), into which they pitched their merry melodies. Their second-breakfast triumphsat bookstore and box office serve only to deepen the abyss. The fantasy-industrial complex sprung up around their writingshas muffled their deep song. This book repeats the sounding joy of their original relationship: palaver over pipe and mugby a roaring fire in rooms at Magdalen College, The Eagle and Child, and the Lamb & Flag.
The literary critic Desmond MacCarthy called the biographer “an artist under oath,” a storyteller bound to tell the truth andnothing but. As joint-biographers of the Christian writers who called themselves the Inklings, Philip and Carol Zaleskihave taken a double vow: to tell the truth about a group of artists who have vowed to tell the Truth. This task takes tact, andthe Zaleskis are up to it, thanks perhaps to their dogged devotion to both the truth and the Truth, whatever its distortions bythe Inklings themselves. “Let us note in passing,” they write, “that this is one of the difficulties and pleasures of studying
HomeAboutContacts and SubmissionsSupport OLM
Search...
1/1/2016 Book review of Carol Zaleski & Philip Zaleski's The Fellowship | Open Letters Monthly an Arts and Literature Review
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/romanticswithoutrebellion/ 2/8
the Inklings; Christians all, they offer, along with expected twentieth-century psychosocial explanations for behavior,unexpected spiritual ones…” The Inklings’ life-stories are thrice overdetermined: first by God, the Author in Eternity; nextby themselves (The Inklings did not hesitate to review each other in print.); and then by the gossip, fanned by their fans,that has spread like a sect of magic toadstools around the Inklings and of which this cinder-block of a book is the mostequanimous—if not even the most recent. The Zaleskis insist that all these forms of biographical and autobiographicalexplanation “must be taken, at least provisionally, on faith—or, at a minimum, faithfully recorded.” If this group biographycan be taken as evidence of their faithfulness, and of their faith, the Zaleskis should be put forward as candidates forcanonization. They have pulled off a wizardly synthesis of Entish ambition and hobbitish intimacy.
Just who were the Inklings? In a word, friends. In another, fellows. Yes—clubbable Christian scribblers to a man. Electiveaffinities, especially of the chummy manly variety, are the not-so-secret subject of this study, the ideal of “fellowship” itsred thread. Before you start nodding, or nodding off, the epigraph from Augustine gives it away on the dedication page:nemo nisi per amicitiam cognoscitur. The crucial question our authors pose is: Whither the boon companionship ofyesteryear? Might hobbitry hold a clue?
The root and fruit of the fellowship under consideration here is the same:conversation, which the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins once called “the flower of the best Oxford life.” The Zaleskis call it“thrashing out the truth through verbal play.” It is hard to imagine the Inklings assembling today—certainly not, as of yore,in the Bird and Baby, now a smoke-free tourist trap. Good fellows need nooks to meet well, and few spaces today, publicor private, escape the glare of the smartphone screen. The philosopher Michael Oakeshott, a contemporary countryman, feltit “not improbable” that conversation “(where talk is without a conclusion)…gave us our present appearance, man beingdescended from a race of apes who sat in talk so long and so late that they wore out their tails.” Half a century on we’re toobusy covering our backs.
“There’s no sound I like better than adult male laughter.” That’s C. S. Lewis, arch-Inkling, sounding for all the world likeColonel Kilgore of “I-love-the-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning” fame. Friendship, for Lewis, was “the greatest of worldlygoods…the chief happiness of life.” Lewis was ten years old when Kenneth Grahame published The Wind in the Willows,and in manhood he seems to have emulated the globetrotting Sea Rat, who, for all his intrepidity, relishes the “jolly timeson shore…as much as any seafaring.” Listen to Lewis hold forth on the adventure of talk:
Those are the golden sessions…when our slippers are on, our feet spread out towards the blaze and our drinksat our elbows; when the whole world, and something beyond the world, opens itself to our minds as we talk;and…all are freemen and equals as if we had first met an hour ago, while at the same time an Affectionmellowed by the years enfolds us. Life—natural life—has no better gift to give. Who could have deserved it?
Here we hear what Wordsworth called “a man speaking to men.” Or rather, since Lewis never amounted to much as a poet,a man speaking about speaking to men. Cultured chit-chat was much more in Lewis’s line, and few modern writers havesmall-talked their way into the souls of more men, women, and children. Compare Catherine Earnshaw in WutheringHeights: “…the thing that irks me most is this shattered prison, after all. I’m tired, tired of being enclosed here. I’mwearying to escape into that glorious world, and to be always there; not seeing it dimly through tears, and yearning for itthrough the walls of an aching heart; but really with it, and in it.” This is the sound of a woman who never let a nicetyescape her lips in her life. And one, it must be added, without a friend in the world. Lewis outlived this emotional epoch—long enough to memorialize it. “Joy,” Lewis concluded, contorting Wordsworth’s concept, exists only in the aspiration toit. That glorious world is not a “state,” the Zaleskis explain, but “an arrow pointing to something beyond all states,something objective yet unobtainable—at least during our earthly existence.”
1/1/2016 Book review of Carol Zaleski & Philip Zaleski's The Fellowship | Open Letters Monthly an Arts and Literature Review
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/romanticswithoutrebellion/ 3/8
Does this constitute tergiversation? Is this the sound of someone who has given up on Joylong ago but still refuses to admit it? Just another self-deceptive slogan—“Woe is Joy”—along the lines of “WAR ISPEACE”? Since we are dealing here with an artist, or, at least, a man with oft-articulated artistic ambitions, our judgmentof his Joy must follow from an encounter with his artworks. Do they bring Joy, or just joy? The Zaleskis speak ofsomething they call “ordered innocence” to characterize the traditionalism of the Inklings. William Blake deemedsomething he called “Unorganized innocence” to be “an impossibility.” Perhaps the sound of adult male laughter is thiscontradiction in terms incarnate.
“Escape,” for J. R. R. Tolkien, the other well-known Inkling, was anything but a dirty word. “Why should a man bescorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home?” he asked. “Or if he cannot do so, he thinks and talksabout other topics than jailers and prison-walls?” The twentieth century taught Hans Morgenthau, a German contemporary,that “people not only strive for freedom and are willing to die for freedom but that they also strive for order and are willingto die for order.” The Zaleskis make the case for seeing Tolkien as neither a naïve optimist, with a head full of Faërie, nor adour pessimist, down on bombs and tape recorders, but as a realist, whose profound pessimism was founded on an equally“indomitable hope.” They suggest that both sides of this worldview, light and dark, were twin-born in the grave of hismother, who had brought him with her into the Catholic Church in June 1900, four years before her death from diabeteswhen Tolkien was twelve.
“Escape from Death” was Tolkien’s great theme, and he sought it in what he called “subcreation,” the artistic imagination’sconjuration of secondary worlds. Far from frivolous, such a quest was for him sobriety itself, its enjoyment the mark of thehighest sanity. A fiercely held faith underwrote this brazen claim of Tolkien’s: that the quest would terminate—suddenlyand unexpectedly, but just as certainly—in what he called a “eucatastrophe.” This is Tolkien’s term for the miraculoussight—a regular occurrence in fairy stories—of life being snatched from the jaws of death: the moment, as the Zaleskis putit, when “joy breaks into the primary world.” Tolkien can be counted a “realist” insofar as he gets us “there and backagain,” to the extent that his quest for joy begins and ends in the “primary world” we all know all too well. His great featwas to imagine into existence a secondary world so “real” that the wide detour into faery feels like the shortest route home,to the joy of the hearth where a real blaze warms our weary feet. The tip-to-stern subcreation of a joyful secondary worlddemanded of Tolkien nearly his entire life. Long after it was published—finally—in full, the sprawling project of recovery,retrieval, and rehabilitation cried out to its author for further elaboration, the task that consumed his last years.
Asked why he went to such trouble with Baggins or Boromir or Bombadil, Tolkien might well have cited Montaigne’sfamous defense of friendship: “Because it was he, because it was my selfe.” Montaigne’s essay goes on: “There is beyondall my discourse, and besides what I can particularly report of it, I know not what inexplicable and fatall power, a meaneand Mediatrix of this indissoluble union….I think by some secret ordinance of the heavens, we embraced one another byour names.” This hits the heart of the matter: Like the other Inklings, Tolkien found friendship with words. “Tolkienexperienced words as a maddening liquor, a phonic ambrosia, tastes of an exquisite, rapturous, higher world,” the Zaleskiswrite. This immediately allied him with far and away the most interesting Inkling, Owen Barfield, who believed, withMaupassant, that words have a soul. Language, for Barfield, is evolving, in step with human consciousness, into an evermore “perfect medium of companionship.” We can befriend words, even love them, in confidence that they will return thegesture many times over. This is the pleasure of philology.
1/1/2016 Book review of Carol Zaleski & Philip Zaleski's The Fellowship | Open Letters Monthly an Arts and Literature Review
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/romanticswithoutrebellion/ 4/8
Barfield also believed, with Blake, that “Opposition is true friendship.” Thismight serve as an apt motto for the Inklings’ dealings with each other down the decades. Lewis’s “mere Christianity”defined itself against the tory Catholicism of Tolkien on the one hand and the anthroposophical bent of Barfield’s creed onthe other. Few knew until well after his early death of the deviations from orthodoxy indulged by the kinky sex-magusCharles Williams. But beyond the bounds of their tight-knit friend-group, just how oppositional were the Inklings really?Summing up at the end of their book, the Zaleskis convict the circle of “the heresy of the Happy Ending.” The sentence?To delight and dazzle children of all ages till Kingdom come. But what is there among the legendaria for the adults amongus? Those of us who have long since traded our invisibility rings for wedding bands? Is the best we can do to rummagethrough it in hope of scaring our kids to sleep with the help of Smaug, or boring them to bed with Screwtape?
The Zaleskis label their fellowship “Romantics without rebellion.” This phrase bears a moment’s consideration. Just whatdoes a Romantic without his rebellion look like? One answer: a sentimentalist. Walter Benjamin defines the sentimentalistas someone who applies a principle—for instance, analogy—to pin down a felt relationship—for instance, friendship—andlets things stand so far so good. Lewis’s invocation of capital-“A” “Affection” in the course of his account of friendship isjust one example of his fatal abstraction of feeling from form. Equality and freedom do not form a natural analogy withfriendship. After all, observed Blake, “It is easier to forgive an Enemy than to forgive a Friend.” Tolkien’s panoramic viewof Fellowship gives a greater glimpse of the internal ambiguities that afflict affection among so-called friends. Even somemembers of Charles Williams’s “Companions of the Co-inherence” showed belated awareness of the sticky wicket intowhich they let themselves be led by their charismatic leader.
Romanticism without rebellion is a symptom of at once too much and not enough imagination. Enthusiasm abounds, but,as Blake would say, it remains insufficiently “organized.” It holds itself aloof from the business of critique. The Inklings’contemporary T. E. Hulme called this sort of romanticism “spilt religion.” It comes of not giving evil its proper due, an oddomission for a group of men whose youth and maturity were branded by a pair of world wars. A clear countertype to“disorganized” imagination can be found in the art of another contemporary, David Jones, a half-Welsh Londoner whoconverted to Catholicism after extensive service as a private soldier in the First World War. In 1956 Jones read Lewis’sspiritual autobiography Surprised by Joy, published the year before, and declared himself “astounded” to discover therethat Lewis’s childhood reading had been “virtually identical” to his own. In spite of their (in Jones’s phrase) “sharedbackgrounds,” the Inklings would never venture anything like the formal innovations in their respective media that wonJones a range of admirers from W. H. Auden to Louis Zukofsky. In 1937 Jones dedicated his first book, the war epic InParenthesis, “to the enemy front-fighters who shared our pains against whom we found ourselves by misadventure.”Reading at length about the Inklings, one gets the sense that if ever any one of them had found himself anywhere “bymisadventure,” none of his friends would have been the wiser for it.
____Thomas Berenato is a PhD student in English at the University of Virginia; this is his first review for Open LettersMonthly.
Related:
Find out more about Danisi andJackson's biography of Meriwether
Lewis by reading Steve Donoghue's informing review: "but we know what kind of a book Danisiand Jackson have written: meaty, entertaining, and best of all, definitive."
Review of Meriwether Lewis
1/1/2016 Book review of Carol Zaleski & Philip Zaleski's The Fellowship | Open Letters Monthly an Arts and Literature Review
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/romanticswithoutrebellion/ 5/8
Tweet
1Like
Leave a comment!
Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also Comments Feed via RSS.
Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.
Name
Mail (will not be published)
Website (optional)
You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <deldatetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.
Post Comment
Random Posts
Peter Beagle's classic The LastUnicorn turns 50. Alice Murphy
reviews.
Book Review: The Last Unicorn
The valiant young hero of ElspethCooper's debut novel must flee from a
Church that condemns his growing energy-powers as evil ...
Book Review: Songs of the Earth
1/1/2016 Book review of Carol Zaleski & Philip Zaleski's The Fellowship | Open Letters Monthly an Arts and Literature Review
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/romanticswithoutrebellion/ 6/8
More articles »
Book Review: The Big Book of Sherlock Holmes Stories
A legendary editor assembles the biggest collection of Sherlock Holmes parodies, pastiches, and homages evercollected in one volume
Book Review: “Forward, My Brave Boys!”
A richly-detailed new history traces one Confederate volunteer infantry through the course of theCivil War
Donate
Make a contribution
Follow Us!
Latest Popular Comments
Our Editions, OurselvesJanuary 1, 2016
The Books We Want in 2016January 1, 2016
Slaves in the Empire of IntellectJanuary 1, 2016
1/1/2016 Book review of Carol Zaleski & Philip Zaleski's The Fellowship | Open Letters Monthly an Arts and Literature Review
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/romanticswithoutrebellion/ 7/8
Previous Issues
Previous Issues Select Month
Subscribe to the OLM Newsletter
Subscribe now!
Categories
Categories OL Weekly
Authors
Latest Tweets
Happy New Year! In celebration, we have a shiny new issue for you. https://t.co/CkO81c2S07 - posted on01/01/2016
If you've enjoyed reading Open Letters Monthly this year, think about supporting our work.https://t.co/u8KAeDfkQg - posted on 12/31/2015
While you're all out frolicking, we're busy putting together our first issue of 2016! And maybe frolicking a little atthe same time! #HNY - posted on 12/31/2015
As the year winds down, the editors at Open Letters Monthly reflect on their best reads of 2015.https://t.co/yQnA8ghfT9 - posted on 12/30/2015
(refresh random posts)
Pages
AboutContacts and SubmissionsSupport OLM
Most Commented
Taxonomy and GraceSecond Glance: Astonish Us
1/1/2016 Book review of Carol Zaleski & Philip Zaleski's The Fellowship | Open Letters Monthly an Arts and Literature Review
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/romanticswithoutrebellion/ 8/8
In Defense of the Memory TheaterAgainst the WindAttainted: The Life and Afterlife of Ezra Pound in Italy
Most Popular
PAX LudorumIt’s a Mystery: “Half of the future is buried in the past”Attainted: The Life and Afterlife of Ezra Pound in ItalyThinking God Knows What: James Joyce and TriesteGuest Movie Review: Savages
Powered by WordPress | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Valid XHTML and CSSArthemia Premium by ColorLabs & Company