Review of a review of “The Third Inkling”

 

Lucasta Miller

Lucasta Miller has written a review over on the Independent entitled “Grevel Lindop, Charles Williams: The Third Inkling: ‘Oxford’s other fantasy figure.'” The subtitle of her post is “A beautifully written biography sheds light on CS Lewis and Tolkien’s fellow Inkling.”

 

I am delighted that this review exists. Any review is a good thing; any way of getting the word out about The Third Inkling is grand.

However, there are several errors of fact in this review, and many misleading phrases. I want to correct them here, even while I thank Ms. Miller for calling her readers’ attention to Lindop’s book and to Charles Williams.

• First, Ms. Miller writes that “the social texture of the Oxford circle …less well known” than their fantasy writings. Well, that’s probably true; but it needn’t be, with the proliferation of biographies about Lewis and Tolkien, Diana Glyer’s two books about the Inklings in community, and many others studies both scholarly and popular. I think that constantly saying “We don’t know enough about the Inklings” can be counter-productive.
• Second, Miller calls Lewis and Tolkien “two dusty dons.” I’m not sure what makes them “dusty.” Lewis did tend to be covered in ashes from his pipe. But the phrase “two dusty dons” is insulting and misleading. Lewis and Tolkien were young once, let’s not forget, and always brilliant, lively, social people with large circles of students, friends, and acquaintances. They were well aware of and in touch with the trends of the times. They were progressive. They weren’t the kind to sit around gathering dust.
• Next, “talking animals”? I can’t remember talking animals anywhere in CW’s works. Am I forgetting?
• Williams wrote “incessant spiritual allegory.” No. He frequently ceased from spiritual allegory. In fact, I can’t recall one single allegory in all his works. No, sorry. No allegory at all. Of course his works had spiritual applicability, but that’s another matter entirely. And he also wrote loads of thrilling novels, personal poems, biographies, and works of literary criticism, none of which could be mistaken for spiritual allegory even by someone who uses “allegory” sloppily to signify “a work that has a deep meaning.”
• “As a child, he created a fantasy kingdom, Silvania, to provide much-needed escapism” from his troubles. He did create this fantasy world, but providing this psycho-analytic reason is a perfect example of the intentional fallacy. We don’t know exactly why he created it. And such a use of the word “escapism” ignores Tolkien’s excellent work in “On Fairy-stories,” which is surely relevant for any discussion of the Inklings’ fantasy worlds.
• “Williams was an autodidact.” This is mostly wrong and misleading. Williams went to primary school and secondary school. His father and mother also taught him a great deal. Then he did a program that we would probably call “dual enrollment” that allowed him to start at University College London in his last year of secondary school. Then he matriculated at University College London as an undergraduate.
• “As a child, he created a fantasy kingdom, Silvania, to provide much-needed escapism” from his troubles. He did create this fantasy world, but providing this psycho-analytic reason is a perfect example of the intentional fallacy. We don’t know exactly why he created it. And such a use of the word “escapism” ignores Tolkien’s excellent work in “On Fairy-stories,” which is surely relevant for any discussion of the Inklings’ fantasy worlds.
• “Unable to afford the fees for University College London….” He did go to University College London, for about two years. Then money ran out and he had to leave. This wording suggests he did not attend at all.
• “…he rose through force of personality to become an editor at Oxford University Press…” While his personality was certainly a factor, his skill as an editor was more important in his promotions.
• “In 1940, he arrived to give his first lecture flanked by Lewis and Tolkien. Its subject was the “sage and serious doctrine of virginity” as outlined in Milton’s masque Comus.” No, that was his second lecture.
• “…he was just emerging from a tortured 14-year extra-marital affair, which was erotically played out through the canings he dealt his mistress….” He was not really emerging from the affair. It went on in one form or another all his life. What he did with Phyllis, while certainly of an S&M nature, probably doesn’t amount to “canings.” And while there was an intensely sexual nature to their relationship, Phyllis was not his mistress. It was far stranger than that.
• “In 1915, he was initiated into the Fellowship of the Rosy Cross…” No. That was in 1917.
• “…becoming a self-styled guru…” He never used the word “guru” for himself.
• “One of his techniques for seeking control was to give them new names. Lois Lang-Sims, aged 26 to his 50-odd, was rechristened ‘Lalage the slave girl.'” Yes, but she chose the name herself.
• “When she later saw him by chance in the street he blushed to the roots of his hair.” No. It was on the subway.

So, there are my corrections. I believe accuracy is important. However, I am also glad that this review exists at all, and I hope that many more appear all over the internet and print media. Spread the word!