What the Inklings had that other Writing Groups Lack

The pitfalls of working with others without a shared vision

Photo by Ashkan Forouzani on Unsplash

There is an allure to working with others, unless one is curmudgeonly and misanthropic to the point of total social isolation that one has not been seen in years and having changed in appearance so much, they are unrecognizable, sometimes even to themselves.

The ability of members to get along with one another is a reflection of the individuals themselves, especially if we’re speaking to the idea of being open and honest in our writing, which is what true writing and art, in dedication to the muse, is all about.

For some months, I’ve been working my way through “The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings” by Carol and Philip Zaleski. Not one for book biographies—I’ve often preferred film when it comes to biopic explorations—I’ve found the language to be a delight to read, as much as I’ve enjoyed learning about the exploits of two of my favorite authors—C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien—as well as not only the other members of the Inklings who came through those Oxford rooms over the twenty years the group existed, but the works they read, wrote, and were influenced by, as well as their personal lives. Their failures and follies as people make them all the more human, rather than simply mythic creatures we uphold as intellectual giants whose spark has yet to really be answered, in terms of Christian literary prowess, in our present day. If you disagree, please feel free to leave a comment below. I enjoy a good, spirited debate and conversation.

The Zaleskis’ point out that what made the Inklings a great.

Taking from the Zaleski’s book, (Ch. 9, pgs. 194-195), the proto-Inklings formed under the view of Edward Tangye Lean, meeting in his Oxford suite during the year of 1932.

“Lean’s original design for the group did much to ensure its longevity. Each meeting, as Tolkien recalled it, consisted of members reading aloud ‘unpublished compositions’—Tolkien read his poem ‘Errantry’ at one gathering … —followed by ‘immediate criticism’ from others. This method differed from that of other Oxford literary circles of the day. …”

That being, the other circles consisted of “schmoozing”, polished papers and literary chitchat that were commonplace to other groups.

“Lean’s innovative emphasis upon work in progress was a brilliant advance that sowed the seeds of its own success: as long as members continued to refine existing works or turn out new ones … the group would have momentum. Each meeting led to the next as naturally as one sentence follows another.”

The members also had a distinctive drive to write, create, banter, argue, discuss, and explore not only what they were writing, but had a genuine love for learning and brought their great knowledge, creativity, passion, and academic skill to these meetings.

One does not need to be a cultured academic to write. But in order to stretch one’s horizons, one does need to read, and read aplenty—literature, criticism, poetry, prose, science, philosophy, theology.

---

The rest of this post discusses the pitfalls of writing groups that can lead to issues in cohesion, namely having other motives than writing, sensitivity to criticism, and even your own ego, can prevent good work from being started, fixed, or completed. To read the rest, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

---