What do you think?
Rate this book
The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and Their Friends
Drawing on unpublished letters and diaries, the author examines the friendship between and the social and literary gatherings of Lewis, Tolkien, and Williams who laughingly called themselves the Inklings
287 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1978
116 people are currently reading
7076 people want to read
About the author
Humphrey Carpenter
98 books87 followersHumphrey William Bouverie Carpenter was an English biographer, writer, and radio broadcaster. He is known especially for his biographies of J.R.R. Tolkien and other members of the literary society the Inklings. He won a Mythopoeic Award for his book The Inklings in 1982.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 300 reviews
September 9, 2024
🌳 A fascinating and eccentric crew and too bad the bulk of Christianity isn’t like that anymore. Williams wrote the most arcane supernatural thrillers that remain incredibly bizarre, noir and good. Lewis must be remembered for creative theology, Narnia, his sci-fi and the heartfelt honesty of A Grief Observed. Tolkien we know well - one ring to rule them all. There are others. A fav line of Lewis the Northern Irishman - upon hearing someone get preachy that people have to get serious about their faith, he rolls his eyes and groans: “It always translates as no more cake and ale!” Then downs his pint of IPA🍺or stout🍻and fires up his tobacco pipe.
July 27, 2022
I loved reading this book. I actually bought it myself from a bookstore in Oxford in England when I was there on a trip with my family. There are a lot of interesting details about Tolkien in here that I deeply appreciated. I highly recommend this book for fans of both Lewis and Tolkien.
August 18, 2023
Overall, it’s worth reading if you are studying Lewis. He does talk about the other men (for example, there were also some interesting details about Warnie and John Wain that I hadn’t seen before). But it’s half an Inklings discussion, and half a biography of C. S. Lewis. The author admits this early on, and I was prepared for it. But there’s certainly room for more detailed scholarship on the Inklings, as this book left open quite a few gaps. For Lewis and Williams, it’s a treasure. If I were studying Tolkien or any of the other Inklings, I would be disappointed in the lack of detail about any of the other men.
First there’s small bios of Lewis, Tolkien, and Williams. Then in the middle there’s a description of a foe Inklings meeting, in that the author puts together a sample of what he thinks an Inklings meeting could have been like (based on what he knows these men talked about), but it didn’t actually happen. We’ll never know exactly what these men said, as there’s no real transcripts. This pretend conversation was quite good, in that it felt authentic and contained a lot of interesting content.
I was a little confused by how often Carpenter turned back to Charles Williams after that, as if the man were a mystery he wanted to unpack. Later in the book he does seem to re-center his writing, and there are details on the developing careers of each of the main three men, and how this changed the dynamics between Inklings in later years. As one would expect, Owen Barfield, Neville Coghill, and Hugo Dyson all make appearances. But they are merely brushed over. They barely get their own paragraphs, much less their own chapters.
Tolkien got the least amount of page time of the three. That’s likely because of Carpenter's separate biography of Tolkien: J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography, which I enjoyed reading some years ago.
Originally published in 1978, this book seems to be the first and foundational work on Inklings studies. I bet that all other Inklings-type books sprouted from this one. I would be curious to see what further observations more recent scholars have come up with.
Similar books:
Published in 2007: The Company They Keep: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as Writers in Community. The condensed version published later is Bandersnatch: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and the Creative Collaboration of the Inklings in 2015.
Published in 2009: The Inklings of Oxford: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and their Friends
Published in 2015: The Oxford Inklings: Their Lives, Writings, Ideas, and Influence
Published in 2015: The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams
Published in 2016: A Well of Wonder: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and The Inklings
Published in 2017: The Inklings and King Arthur: J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, C. S. Lewis, and Owen Barfield on the Matter of Britain
First there’s small bios of Lewis, Tolkien, and Williams. Then in the middle there’s a description of a foe Inklings meeting, in that the author puts together a sample of what he thinks an Inklings meeting could have been like (based on what he knows these men talked about), but it didn’t actually happen. We’ll never know exactly what these men said, as there’s no real transcripts. This pretend conversation was quite good, in that it felt authentic and contained a lot of interesting content.
I was a little confused by how often Carpenter turned back to Charles Williams after that, as if the man were a mystery he wanted to unpack. Later in the book he does seem to re-center his writing, and there are details on the developing careers of each of the main three men, and how this changed the dynamics between Inklings in later years. As one would expect, Owen Barfield, Neville Coghill, and Hugo Dyson all make appearances. But they are merely brushed over. They barely get their own paragraphs, much less their own chapters.
Tolkien got the least amount of page time of the three. That’s likely because of Carpenter's separate biography of Tolkien: J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography, which I enjoyed reading some years ago.
Originally published in 1978, this book seems to be the first and foundational work on Inklings studies. I bet that all other Inklings-type books sprouted from this one. I would be curious to see what further observations more recent scholars have come up with.
Similar books:
Published in 2007: The Company They Keep: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as Writers in Community. The condensed version published later is Bandersnatch: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and the Creative Collaboration of the Inklings in 2015.
Published in 2009: The Inklings of Oxford: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and their Friends
Published in 2015: The Oxford Inklings: Their Lives, Writings, Ideas, and Influence
Published in 2015: The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams
Published in 2016: A Well of Wonder: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and The Inklings
Published in 2017: The Inklings and King Arthur: J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, C. S. Lewis, and Owen Barfield on the Matter of Britain
March 14, 2021
A very interesting and well-researched book mostly on Lewis and his friendship with Tolkien + other contemporary writers some of whom I knew nothing about before.
February 21, 2016
A slightly rambling account of the Inklings, focusing mainly on C. S. Lewis, with Tolkien and Charles Williams as supporting actors. It's always pleasant to spend time with these people (even if Charles Williams was certifiably insane). The only issue I have with this book is the strangely detached and critical attitude Humphrey Carpenter takes with respect to C. S. Lewis's writing. This happens in the last quarter of the book, completely unexpectedly, and it cost this book its five star rating. Honestly, I'm not that interested in what Humphrey Carpenter says about Lewis's writing. I've read most of it, and I have my own opinions, thank you very much.
Not as good as his biography of Tolkien, which is definitive.
Not as good as his biography of Tolkien, which is definitive.
March 15, 2023
It’s 1942. America has just entered the Great War against fascism. Winston Churchill is Prime Minister and has just made an alliance with FDR and Stalin. And you’ve just been invited to a local pub in Oxford nicknamed ‘The Bird and Baby’. A group of professors who meet every Tuesday and Thursday night wave you over. Charles Williams the poet is arguing with a notable theologian. Warne Lewis has brought a bottle of scotch and is handing out glasses. Hugo Dyson and Owen Barfield are discussing a philosophy known as ‘final participation’ where one can be fully united with nature. A man you’ve seen on television debating certain religious talks is in the center reading his latest serial of what he calls ‘Screwtape’. But another man who’s been quiet the whole time, emerges from his darkened corner into the dim bar lights, takes his pipe out of his mouth and says, “Welcome to our literary club of practicing poets… The Inklings! Hwaet! We inclinga!” The man bites his pipe and awaits your reply, his name is Tolkien.
Who were the Inklings? Were they just a group of friends who discussed their latest writings? Or were they a cloistral group of dark academia scholars that met in secret?
In the late-1940s, John Waine often came to the Inklings on Thursday nights, and some years later he wrote of them, “This was a circle of instigators, almost of incendiaries, meeting to urge one another on in the task of redirecting the whole current of contemporary art and life.”
These dabblers in ink, or incendiaries as it were, comprised of C. S. Lewis, and J. R. R. Tolkien, but eventually went on to include Charles Williams, and so many others. Humphrey Carpenter evolves his personal historical narrative from this basis, and does so smashingly! There are only a few historians in my opinion that can actually step into the shoes of their figures, and Carpenter seems an expert at it. Including real narratives in some of their Thursday night meetings, you just have this overwhelming feeling that you’re present, in the room with these literary giants, that you know them and you want to buy them a coffee.
These giants met at the Eagle and Child pub, nicknamed the Bird and Baby, twice a week from the 1930s to 1950. So notable was their meetings that an author of indie mysteries included in his book, “There goes C. S. Lewis, it must be Tuesday!” But who were they really?
“During the war, his [Charles Williams] two closest friends from the working men’s college were killed. At the time, Williams was greatly distressed, that they should have sacrificed themselves as it seemed on his behalf. Worse still, because of his growing habit of ignoring conventional distinctions of time and space, he couldn’t feel that their deaths were something that could have happened elsewhere and in the past and were now over. To him, the whole thing was constantly happening. The clink of teacups at his own breakfast table, seemed to him to be the tin mugs passing from hand to hand while dying men were crying for drink in no man’s land. This may seem like a casual poetic fancy, but it was not. Such was his imagination that he could feel it acutely.”
“…Tolkien encountered romantic love at an early age. When he was 16, he fell in love with a girl of 19. A fellow orphan who lived in his Birmingham lodging house. But he and Edith Bratt were soon separated by his guardian. And in later adolescence Tolkien was thrown back on friendship with others of his own sex. So much so, that by the time he was reunited with her, he had as it were, lost touch with her and had devoted the greater part of his deepest affection to his male friends.”
In the book, Carpenter constantly steps in the shoes of C. S. Lewis and Charles Williams, but never Tolkien. In near every chance Carpenter has to talk more in depth of the man, he refers you to read his earlier work, ‘J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography’. It is in this earlier work where Carpenter steps into Tolkien’s shoes, but as for this read it just seems out of place not to have done so. This is probably the only issue I found with the book as a whole.
Did the Inklings have to have membership of a special club to be admitted to their ‘Poet Society’? “What remains that can be called a common Inklings attitude? Certainly it seems a significant link that Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams all wrote stories in which myth plays an important part. But each of the three uses myth in quite a different way. Williams takes the already existing ‘Arthurian myth’ and uses it as a setting for metaphysical odes. Lewis uses the Christian “myth” and reclothes it for his didactic purposes. Tolkien invents his own mythology and draws stories of many different kinds from it… There is of course the belief shared by Tolkien and Lewis that myth sometimes can convey truth in a way that no abstract argument can achieve, an idea certainly shared by Williams.”
So who were these Inkings? “They were Lewis’s friends. A group gathered round him. And in the end, one does not have to look any further than Lewis to see why it came into being. He himself is the fox!”
Who were the Inklings? Were they just a group of friends who discussed their latest writings? Or were they a cloistral group of dark academia scholars that met in secret?
In the late-1940s, John Waine often came to the Inklings on Thursday nights, and some years later he wrote of them, “This was a circle of instigators, almost of incendiaries, meeting to urge one another on in the task of redirecting the whole current of contemporary art and life.”
These dabblers in ink, or incendiaries as it were, comprised of C. S. Lewis, and J. R. R. Tolkien, but eventually went on to include Charles Williams, and so many others. Humphrey Carpenter evolves his personal historical narrative from this basis, and does so smashingly! There are only a few historians in my opinion that can actually step into the shoes of their figures, and Carpenter seems an expert at it. Including real narratives in some of their Thursday night meetings, you just have this overwhelming feeling that you’re present, in the room with these literary giants, that you know them and you want to buy them a coffee.
These giants met at the Eagle and Child pub, nicknamed the Bird and Baby, twice a week from the 1930s to 1950. So notable was their meetings that an author of indie mysteries included in his book, “There goes C. S. Lewis, it must be Tuesday!” But who were they really?
“During the war, his [Charles Williams] two closest friends from the working men’s college were killed. At the time, Williams was greatly distressed, that they should have sacrificed themselves as it seemed on his behalf. Worse still, because of his growing habit of ignoring conventional distinctions of time and space, he couldn’t feel that their deaths were something that could have happened elsewhere and in the past and were now over. To him, the whole thing was constantly happening. The clink of teacups at his own breakfast table, seemed to him to be the tin mugs passing from hand to hand while dying men were crying for drink in no man’s land. This may seem like a casual poetic fancy, but it was not. Such was his imagination that he could feel it acutely.”
“…Tolkien encountered romantic love at an early age. When he was 16, he fell in love with a girl of 19. A fellow orphan who lived in his Birmingham lodging house. But he and Edith Bratt were soon separated by his guardian. And in later adolescence Tolkien was thrown back on friendship with others of his own sex. So much so, that by the time he was reunited with her, he had as it were, lost touch with her and had devoted the greater part of his deepest affection to his male friends.”
In the book, Carpenter constantly steps in the shoes of C. S. Lewis and Charles Williams, but never Tolkien. In near every chance Carpenter has to talk more in depth of the man, he refers you to read his earlier work, ‘J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography’. It is in this earlier work where Carpenter steps into Tolkien’s shoes, but as for this read it just seems out of place not to have done so. This is probably the only issue I found with the book as a whole.
Did the Inklings have to have membership of a special club to be admitted to their ‘Poet Society’? “What remains that can be called a common Inklings attitude? Certainly it seems a significant link that Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams all wrote stories in which myth plays an important part. But each of the three uses myth in quite a different way. Williams takes the already existing ‘Arthurian myth’ and uses it as a setting for metaphysical odes. Lewis uses the Christian “myth” and reclothes it for his didactic purposes. Tolkien invents his own mythology and draws stories of many different kinds from it… There is of course the belief shared by Tolkien and Lewis that myth sometimes can convey truth in a way that no abstract argument can achieve, an idea certainly shared by Williams.”
So who were these Inkings? “They were Lewis’s friends. A group gathered round him. And in the end, one does not have to look any further than Lewis to see why it came into being. He himself is the fox!”
October 25, 2019
Carpenter, Humphrey. The Inklings.
Humphrey Carpenter tells the story of the group of Christian literati who worked in the university setting in pre-World War II England. It isn’t simply a snapshot of different inklings (e.g., Lewis, Tolkien, Williams, Barfield). The chapters form a relatively continuous narrative with Lewis at the center.
Carpenter isn’t afraid to explore some ambiguous and sometimes troubling aspects of their personal lives. Unfortunately, as I will show below, he either ignores some evidence and overcooks other lines of evidence. Nonetheless, the book is a real “page-turner.”
Charles Williams
Williams is the most bizarre of the Inklings. He was probably the closest thing to a true genius or savant. He had a photographic memory of pretty much every key quote in English literature--and he chanted them during lectures. Williams considered himself a Christian--of a sorts. That points to the problem. I think Williams was more interested in the “initiatory” aspects of Christianity than the faith itself. That could explain why Williams was drawn towards cults like the Golden Dawn.
How do you explain away Williams’ involvement in Crowley’s cult? I don’t think you really can. To be fair, Williams left Crowley and disavowed the sex magick in Crowley’s religion. Still, anyone who was involved with Crowleyism needs several good exorcisms, just for safe measure.
Carpenter fails to mention one thing, though. In his book Witchcraft Williams called it a “perversion of the soul,” which suggests a stronger stand against it than Carpenter allows.
“We are the Companions of the Co-inherence.” Williams took a key aspect of Trinitarianism and Christology and applied it to anthropology. To risk oversimplification, the two natures of Christ coinhere (perichoresis, circumcessio) with each other while retaining their properties. Can humans do something similar? Obviously, they cannot on the DNA level, and the marital act is probably the only thing similar on the physical level. Can they do so on the “soul” or “spirit” level? Maybe. It might work something like this:
1) We must first reject all horrors of nominalism (that vomit of hell) and atomistic ontologies.
2) The human “self” is a series of concentric circles, with the “will” or the “heart” at the center and the “soul” as encompassing all within (though never reduced to any single aspect, pace the false teaching of Christian physicalism).
3) Ergo, the Soul has a social dimension. It is porous. This porousness allows an interpenetration on the spiritual level.
I think Williams took it much farther and in a more dangerous way. Williams took St Paul’s admonition to “bear one another’s burdens” as taking someone else’s pain and physically bearing it. Besides the obvious, I don’t know what else to say. I don’t think it works that way. And it’s just weird.
The Women of the Inklings
CS Lewis (pre-conversion) made some uncomfortable by his boarding with “Ms Moore” when he was a young student. I don’t think there was anything sexual about it, though. Moore had her own young children and she needed help around the house. In any case, the servants never gossiped, which they would have had there been anything going on. Ms Moore, by all accounts, had the intellect and personality of a stump. The pictures of her present her (at best) of being quite matronly.
Most of Charles Williams’ problems with women were entirely of his own making. He waited nine years to marry his fiancee. Sometimes there are good reasons for so long a wait. I can’t think of any that would apply here. Williams also had an intellectual infatuation with one of his students. There is no evidence it went beyond the mental, and the sexual aspect doesn’t seem to be foremost in Williams’ mind. It was still unhealthy and sinful and created more problems for him. Williams also had this unhealthy tendency to collect female followers. That couldn’t have helped his his family life, though.
Tasting the Allegory
Lewis’s savage rejection of T.S. Eliot’s poetry struck a chord with me. I always wanted to like Eliot because he seemed to stand for Tradition and Culture. His poetry was just….grating. All Modernist poetry is bad. Lewis goes so far to say, “What I am attacking in ‘Neo-Angular’ is a set of people who seem to me to be trying to make of Christianity itself one more high-brow….bourgeois-bating fad. T. S. Eliot is the single man who sums up the thing I am fighting against” (quoted in Carpenter 49).
What does a text of literature mean? Lewis counters by noting that might not always be the best question. Take one of Lewis's own works, That Hideous Strength. It is a perfect novel. It is perfect in every respect. While there are deep truths in it, the key issue is not "what does it mean," but can you taste the truth and beauty in it?
Humphrey Carpenter tells the story of the group of Christian literati who worked in the university setting in pre-World War II England. It isn’t simply a snapshot of different inklings (e.g., Lewis, Tolkien, Williams, Barfield). The chapters form a relatively continuous narrative with Lewis at the center.
Carpenter isn’t afraid to explore some ambiguous and sometimes troubling aspects of their personal lives. Unfortunately, as I will show below, he either ignores some evidence and overcooks other lines of evidence. Nonetheless, the book is a real “page-turner.”
Charles Williams
Williams is the most bizarre of the Inklings. He was probably the closest thing to a true genius or savant. He had a photographic memory of pretty much every key quote in English literature--and he chanted them during lectures. Williams considered himself a Christian--of a sorts. That points to the problem. I think Williams was more interested in the “initiatory” aspects of Christianity than the faith itself. That could explain why Williams was drawn towards cults like the Golden Dawn.
How do you explain away Williams’ involvement in Crowley’s cult? I don’t think you really can. To be fair, Williams left Crowley and disavowed the sex magick in Crowley’s religion. Still, anyone who was involved with Crowleyism needs several good exorcisms, just for safe measure.
Carpenter fails to mention one thing, though. In his book Witchcraft Williams called it a “perversion of the soul,” which suggests a stronger stand against it than Carpenter allows.
“We are the Companions of the Co-inherence.” Williams took a key aspect of Trinitarianism and Christology and applied it to anthropology. To risk oversimplification, the two natures of Christ coinhere (perichoresis, circumcessio) with each other while retaining their properties. Can humans do something similar? Obviously, they cannot on the DNA level, and the marital act is probably the only thing similar on the physical level. Can they do so on the “soul” or “spirit” level? Maybe. It might work something like this:
1) We must first reject all horrors of nominalism (that vomit of hell) and atomistic ontologies.
2) The human “self” is a series of concentric circles, with the “will” or the “heart” at the center and the “soul” as encompassing all within (though never reduced to any single aspect, pace the false teaching of Christian physicalism).
3) Ergo, the Soul has a social dimension. It is porous. This porousness allows an interpenetration on the spiritual level.
I think Williams took it much farther and in a more dangerous way. Williams took St Paul’s admonition to “bear one another’s burdens” as taking someone else’s pain and physically bearing it. Besides the obvious, I don’t know what else to say. I don’t think it works that way. And it’s just weird.
The Women of the Inklings
CS Lewis (pre-conversion) made some uncomfortable by his boarding with “Ms Moore” when he was a young student. I don’t think there was anything sexual about it, though. Moore had her own young children and she needed help around the house. In any case, the servants never gossiped, which they would have had there been anything going on. Ms Moore, by all accounts, had the intellect and personality of a stump. The pictures of her present her (at best) of being quite matronly.
Most of Charles Williams’ problems with women were entirely of his own making. He waited nine years to marry his fiancee. Sometimes there are good reasons for so long a wait. I can’t think of any that would apply here. Williams also had an intellectual infatuation with one of his students. There is no evidence it went beyond the mental, and the sexual aspect doesn’t seem to be foremost in Williams’ mind. It was still unhealthy and sinful and created more problems for him. Williams also had this unhealthy tendency to collect female followers. That couldn’t have helped his his family life, though.
Tasting the Allegory
Lewis’s savage rejection of T.S. Eliot’s poetry struck a chord with me. I always wanted to like Eliot because he seemed to stand for Tradition and Culture. His poetry was just….grating. All Modernist poetry is bad. Lewis goes so far to say, “What I am attacking in ‘Neo-Angular’ is a set of people who seem to me to be trying to make of Christianity itself one more high-brow….bourgeois-bating fad. T. S. Eliot is the single man who sums up the thing I am fighting against” (quoted in Carpenter 49).
What does a text of literature mean? Lewis counters by noting that might not always be the best question. Take one of Lewis's own works, That Hideous Strength. It is a perfect novel. It is perfect in every respect. While there are deep truths in it, the key issue is not "what does it mean," but can you taste the truth and beauty in it?
March 27, 2022
My initial disappointment at not finding what I thought was enough Tolkien on the pages was assuaged by the sheer pleasure of reading Carpenter's writing. It just pulled me along, until 2am on some nights!
I am always awed by biographers who can do this. David McCullough is another. I mean, we all know how this is going to end! But the getting there, that is the thing. And in this, it was expertly done. Not a single loose thread was left hanging, not a single person was introduced who didn't have some bearing on the story in some way. We don't get to actually meet the vile house mistress (Mrs. Moore? something like that) because she obviously didn't factor into the Inklings, but then we do meet Helen at the end, when for all intents and purposes the Inklings are done.
It was almost heartbreaking at the end, too, but I applaud Carpenter for such a lovely narrative. We got to go walking, we got to feel the often tiring life of a don, and in one chapter, we even got to attend an imaginary Inklings meeting! Good thing Warnie kept a diary.
It is interesting that the fallacy is that the Inklings met at the Eagle and Child always, when in fact they didn't meet there for the Thursday night meetings, which was when most of the readings took place. Also interesting that a great deal of the final years of work on Lord of the Rings was not read at Inklings meetings, for one reason or another. I wish Tolkien had said more about that in his Letters.
I am almost annoyed at myself for reading this as I was finishing the Letters, but then again, not really. I needed more time with these guys, and I needed it right away. But now I am done with both. Sigh. I guess I need to search out more collections of letters.
Pity that future generations won't have them. I think of that all the time.
Highly recommend. Worth revisiting, even.
As to my initial disappointment with Lewis, I find that many of the quotes I marked were from him. To whit: "We must realise, as Williams would say, that we live in each other. But in purely practical terms, were we meant to know so much about the sufferings of the rest of the world? It seems to me that modern communications are so fast - with the wireless and the newspapers and so on - that there's a burden imposed on our sympathy for which that sympathy wasn't designed."
Wow, does this speak to the situation we are in or what? The war in Ukraine, updating every 10 minutes. Climate change, a million facts at your fingertips. Who was made for this?
The other thing this reminds me of is that I wasn't aware before of Charles Williams, even though I had probably heard of him in passing. I might have to see if I can find any of his works.
I am always awed by biographers who can do this. David McCullough is another. I mean, we all know how this is going to end! But the getting there, that is the thing. And in this, it was expertly done. Not a single loose thread was left hanging, not a single person was introduced who didn't have some bearing on the story in some way. We don't get to actually meet the vile house mistress (Mrs. Moore? something like that) because she obviously didn't factor into the Inklings, but then we do meet Helen at the end, when for all intents and purposes the Inklings are done.
It was almost heartbreaking at the end, too, but I applaud Carpenter for such a lovely narrative. We got to go walking, we got to feel the often tiring life of a don, and in one chapter, we even got to attend an imaginary Inklings meeting! Good thing Warnie kept a diary.
It is interesting that the fallacy is that the Inklings met at the Eagle and Child always, when in fact they didn't meet there for the Thursday night meetings, which was when most of the readings took place. Also interesting that a great deal of the final years of work on Lord of the Rings was not read at Inklings meetings, for one reason or another. I wish Tolkien had said more about that in his Letters.
I am almost annoyed at myself for reading this as I was finishing the Letters, but then again, not really. I needed more time with these guys, and I needed it right away. But now I am done with both. Sigh. I guess I need to search out more collections of letters.
Pity that future generations won't have them. I think of that all the time.
Highly recommend. Worth revisiting, even.
As to my initial disappointment with Lewis, I find that many of the quotes I marked were from him. To whit: "We must realise, as Williams would say, that we live in each other. But in purely practical terms, were we meant to know so much about the sufferings of the rest of the world? It seems to me that modern communications are so fast - with the wireless and the newspapers and so on - that there's a burden imposed on our sympathy for which that sympathy wasn't designed."
Wow, does this speak to the situation we are in or what? The war in Ukraine, updating every 10 minutes. Climate change, a million facts at your fingertips. Who was made for this?
The other thing this reminds me of is that I wasn't aware before of Charles Williams, even though I had probably heard of him in passing. I might have to see if I can find any of his works.
January 4, 2016
Humphrey Carpenter seems to have a penchant for group biographies. I recently read his excellent book on Evelyn Waugh and his friends, The Brideshead Generation, and now I've finally managed to track down a copy of The Inklings. As with The Brideshead Generation, Carpenter does focus more on one member of the group, C.S. Lewis, than on the others, for, as he argues, "the Inklings owed their existence as a group almost entirely to him." He gives some details about the life of Tolkien (of whom he has written a separate biography) and more about Charles Williams, but it's in the depiction of the Inklings as a group that Carpenter really shines.
The pivotal chapters of the book present Carpenter's description of an imaginary meeting of the Inklings and his analysis of what drew the group together. I usually don't approve of too much dialogue in a nonfiction book, as it tends to sound made-up and inauthentic, but Carpenter does an excellent job. It helps knowing that the dialogue is taken from the Inklings' actual writings (in fact, I recognized a lot of what Tolkien had to say from his letters). These chapters are compelling and convincing reading; the heady atmosphere of debate and discussion is brilliantly portrayed, making this essential reading for anyone interested in Lewis, Tolkien, and the Inklings. (I came out of it wanting to read more by and about Williams, myself.)
The pivotal chapters of the book present Carpenter's description of an imaginary meeting of the Inklings and his analysis of what drew the group together. I usually don't approve of too much dialogue in a nonfiction book, as it tends to sound made-up and inauthentic, but Carpenter does an excellent job. It helps knowing that the dialogue is taken from the Inklings' actual writings (in fact, I recognized a lot of what Tolkien had to say from his letters). These chapters are compelling and convincing reading; the heady atmosphere of debate and discussion is brilliantly portrayed, making this essential reading for anyone interested in Lewis, Tolkien, and the Inklings. (I came out of it wanting to read more by and about Williams, myself.)
September 14, 2023
I expected it more to talk about Inklings, but it was more a collective biography of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams with only several chapters directly talking how Inklings operated. I understand it, this way it was way easier to write nice number of pages and characters of the writers were important for the working of the group itself. Still, I liked it to some degree but wasn't that pleased. Criticism of all the writers seems to me to be more fair in this book than is some other instances of the same author (Carpenter).
July 18, 2021
Solid, thought-provoking look at some of the most important Christian writers of the 20th century and what brought them together.
September 30, 2021
Date read: 01 Sep - 20 Sep 2021
Rating: 3/5
This book has a very interesting premise, to create a group biography of these writers is an impressive undertaking. Tolkien, Lewis and Williams were part of a very interesting group, especially considering how much the works they wrote differed from the standard of the 20th century.
I'm obviously familiar with Tolkien's works, and I have a passing knowledge of Lewis' Narnia books, but aside from that I don't know much about their lives. This is partly why I wanted to read this book.
However, "The Inklings" is less of a group biography and more of a "Lewis and the people he interacted with" biography. To be fair, Carpenter tell the reader about this from the get go. He has previously written extensively about Tolkien's life, so he only includes the relevant parts of the man's life in this book.
The bulk of this book was focused on C.S. Lewis' life and his creative evolution, and it covered great swaths of his life and how he changed both as a writer and as a man. It talked about his progression from childhood superstitions to atheism and back to religiousness. I found it interesting how he went from dogmatically atheistic to almost dogmatically Christian.
The parts of how Lewis was influenced by his brother and his friends was fascinating. It seems Lewis was, as Tolkien said, a very impressionable man. He was especially impressed by Charles Williams.
Williams is impressive in his own right if for nothing else, then for the volume of his works. The man was a writing machine. Of all the Inklings, it seems he wrote the most "books". He was also religious, which drew Lewis in, but he was also heavily interested in the more occult aspects of Christianity.
Now, here's the thing. These elements are all very interesting in and of themselves. However, my problem is that I heavily dislike Lewis as a person. Reading about his almost bullying mannerisms was not something I cared for. I was also mostly disinterested in his works, and as such spent large portions of the book reading with half my brain.
I want to make it clear that was not the book's or the writer's fault. It was simply my disinterest in the person being written about. Carpenter was not writing completely sympathetically towards Lewis. He does make some connections and slight judgements about Lewis' behavior, but remains mostly impartial and objective.
So, bottom line, if you're interested in Lewis and his works, this would be an interesting read. If instead, you're more interested in Tolkien or perhaps don't care about Lewis all that much, either skip this book or prepare to roll your eyes at some nonsense.
Rating: 3/5
This book has a very interesting premise, to create a group biography of these writers is an impressive undertaking. Tolkien, Lewis and Williams were part of a very interesting group, especially considering how much the works they wrote differed from the standard of the 20th century.
I'm obviously familiar with Tolkien's works, and I have a passing knowledge of Lewis' Narnia books, but aside from that I don't know much about their lives. This is partly why I wanted to read this book.
However, "The Inklings" is less of a group biography and more of a "Lewis and the people he interacted with" biography. To be fair, Carpenter tell the reader about this from the get go. He has previously written extensively about Tolkien's life, so he only includes the relevant parts of the man's life in this book.
The bulk of this book was focused on C.S. Lewis' life and his creative evolution, and it covered great swaths of his life and how he changed both as a writer and as a man. It talked about his progression from childhood superstitions to atheism and back to religiousness. I found it interesting how he went from dogmatically atheistic to almost dogmatically Christian.
The parts of how Lewis was influenced by his brother and his friends was fascinating. It seems Lewis was, as Tolkien said, a very impressionable man. He was especially impressed by Charles Williams.
Williams is impressive in his own right if for nothing else, then for the volume of his works. The man was a writing machine. Of all the Inklings, it seems he wrote the most "books". He was also religious, which drew Lewis in, but he was also heavily interested in the more occult aspects of Christianity.
Now, here's the thing. These elements are all very interesting in and of themselves. However, my problem is that I heavily dislike Lewis as a person. Reading about his almost bullying mannerisms was not something I cared for. I was also mostly disinterested in his works, and as such spent large portions of the book reading with half my brain.
I want to make it clear that was not the book's or the writer's fault. It was simply my disinterest in the person being written about. Carpenter was not writing completely sympathetically towards Lewis. He does make some connections and slight judgements about Lewis' behavior, but remains mostly impartial and objective.
So, bottom line, if you're interested in Lewis and his works, this would be an interesting read. If instead, you're more interested in Tolkien or perhaps don't care about Lewis all that much, either skip this book or prepare to roll your eyes at some nonsense.
March 29, 2025
Not a bad book. Carpenter made a 175pg book into a 250 pg book
January 1, 2023
Greatly enjoyable. Already being a Tolkien and Lewis nerd, this book makes one feel as though he knows them personally. It also encouraged me to investigate the works of Charles Williams.
Most space is given to Lewis, appropriately, as he was the nucleus of the Inklings, but all are given fair attention.
Most space is given to Lewis, appropriately, as he was the nucleus of the Inklings, but all are given fair attention.
October 12, 2024
In brief: five well deserved stars!!!
much light shed on "The Inklings"...
Wonderfull written, never dull or boring...
I only can it highly recommend to all my Goodreads friend.
If you are remotedly interested in C. S. Lewis and his books, then go for it!!!
You will not regret it, worth the reading time!!!
Dean;)
much light shed on "The Inklings"...
Wonderfull written, never dull or boring...
I only can it highly recommend to all my Goodreads friend.
If you are remotedly interested in C. S. Lewis and his books, then go for it!!!
You will not regret it, worth the reading time!!!
Dean;)
February 21, 2025
2.5 / 5 ⭐
July 17, 2024
Fantastic overview of a deeply influential group
May 27, 2019
Informativo y didáctico a la par que algo pesado. Hubiera sido mucho más interesante si estuviese novelado
October 4, 2023
October 2023 — Bumped my rating up to four stars. Just me being my usual subjective self here. The things that jumped out at me this time were more cheerful. I particularly liked Carpenter's thoughts on Lewis's boyish side (though I thought it odd that he contrasted it with his Chestertonian side, since Chesterton seems to me to have a hearty supply of boyishness). Carpenter recaps the scene of Mark Studdock chasing the serial story from volume to volume of the old periodical. That set my thoughts on a tangent: Jane went to Mansfield Park, Curdie, and Shakespeare's sonnets because she needed to embrace femininity, domesticity, and romance to become a true woman. But Mark went to the once-abandoned serial story because he needed to embrace boyhood in order to become a true man.
February 2022 — Why am I leaving this book feeling so sad? Partly, I suppose, because it ends with Lewis's death (and barely mentions Tolkien's and Warnie's after that), but I think it has more to do with the things that interrupted their life — some serious, some petty. In The Four Loves, Lewis describes how a circle of friends expands to include newcomers in a way eros cannot. But Lewis was oblivious to the fact that, right before his eyes, his own circle was not so elastic, and that the introduction of Williams pushed Tolkien, especially, away. And his refusal to talk to his friends about personal matters allowed him to make bad assumptions about things like the Williamses' marriage and, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say, make bad decisions regarding his own marriage. The whole notion that friendship must exclusively be a side-by-side relationship rather than a face-to-face relationship is a bad one. If friends are only co-workers or co-fans, then there is nothing left that makes their relationship distinctly friendship. If you do not occasionally turn face-to-face with your friends, you cannot make the most of who they are in enjoying whatever it is that you are both generally facing out toward. And if you do not know your friend, you can spend decades shoulder to shoulder without ever truly coming alongside. In short, friendship that is not to some degree face-to-face isn't any kind of love at all...it's just a utilitarian arrangement.
Williams disappointed me greatly. He fancied himself a bit of a spiritual guru, and a lot of other people (including Lewis) fancied him a bit of a spiritual guru, and a LOT of women fancied him a bit of a spiritual guru. He spent a lot of effort thinking theological thoughts and writing theological words, but he did not love his wife. That, in terms of any sort of spiritual leadership, is an unforgivable sin. Doubly so for someone who calls his views romantic theology. Triply so for someone who propounds a theory of substituted love but does not love his own wife as he loves himself. I still appreciate his novels, but I now know to be much more suspect of some of the theory underpinning them.
Carpenter had already written a bio of Tolkien, so we got very little of him here.
The reader didn't seem to know a blessed thing about his topic. He mispronounced everything from Michal to Moria to Orual and a whole lot in between.
February 2022 — Why am I leaving this book feeling so sad? Partly, I suppose, because it ends with Lewis's death (and barely mentions Tolkien's and Warnie's after that), but I think it has more to do with the things that interrupted their life — some serious, some petty. In The Four Loves, Lewis describes how a circle of friends expands to include newcomers in a way eros cannot. But Lewis was oblivious to the fact that, right before his eyes, his own circle was not so elastic, and that the introduction of Williams pushed Tolkien, especially, away. And his refusal to talk to his friends about personal matters allowed him to make bad assumptions about things like the Williamses' marriage and, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say, make bad decisions regarding his own marriage. The whole notion that friendship must exclusively be a side-by-side relationship rather than a face-to-face relationship is a bad one. If friends are only co-workers or co-fans, then there is nothing left that makes their relationship distinctly friendship. If you do not occasionally turn face-to-face with your friends, you cannot make the most of who they are in enjoying whatever it is that you are both generally facing out toward. And if you do not know your friend, you can spend decades shoulder to shoulder without ever truly coming alongside. In short, friendship that is not to some degree face-to-face isn't any kind of love at all...it's just a utilitarian arrangement.
Williams disappointed me greatly. He fancied himself a bit of a spiritual guru, and a lot of other people (including Lewis) fancied him a bit of a spiritual guru, and a LOT of women fancied him a bit of a spiritual guru. He spent a lot of effort thinking theological thoughts and writing theological words, but he did not love his wife. That, in terms of any sort of spiritual leadership, is an unforgivable sin. Doubly so for someone who calls his views romantic theology. Triply so for someone who propounds a theory of substituted love but does not love his own wife as he loves himself. I still appreciate his novels, but I now know to be much more suspect of some of the theory underpinning them.
Carpenter had already written a bio of Tolkien, so we got very little of him here.
The reader didn't seem to know a blessed thing about his topic. He mispronounced everything from Michal to Moria to Orual and a whole lot in between.
September 12, 2022
This book was first published in 1978. I believe that I added this book to my listening list on Audible when I discovered it was available free. And I found listening to this book interesting because of the inside it gave me about life in the upper echelon of the British educational world of Cambridge and Oxford.
I am only vaguely interested in the books of CS Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien but it was interesting to hear a little bit about their lives and interactions most in the first half of the 20th century.
I am only vaguely interested in the books of CS Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien but it was interesting to hear a little bit about their lives and interactions most in the first half of the 20th century.
September 13, 2023
An excellent summary of all things Inklings, with a biographical focus on C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and J.R.R. Tolkien.
July 28, 2020
i read this one slowly, but not because it wasn’t fascinating and thorough. i’d hand it to anyone who’s heard of lewis and tolkien’s camaraderie and wouldn’t mind spending an evening up in their rooms at magdalene, smoking pipes and getting to know them and their friends. (there were a lot of things i thought i knew about the inklings but didn’t really.)
thanks for it, ashley.
thanks for it, ashley.
August 6, 2012
Absolutely superb. Carpenter has written a fascinating biography of a very misunderstood literary group. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and many others (including Lewis's brother, Warnie, and Tolkien's son, Christopher in later years) met regularly in Lewis's Magdalen rooms in Oxford to discuss philosophy and theology, as well as to read aloud their most recent literary endeavors. In one chapter, Carpenter draws from diaries and letters in order to recreate what might have been a 'typical' Inklings meeting. This chapter seemingly brings these men back from the dead - so alive and real were these people to me... So invested was I in the conversation that many times I wanted to chime in and add my own opinion. I have learned so much from this book. C.S. Lewis (who was known to friends as 'Jack') was, for me, merely the author of the Narnia series - books I had read and cherished as a child. Jack Lewis, however, was a deeply conflicted man - a sworn atheist turned dogmatic Christian. Although much of his philosophy is vastly unappealing to me, Carpenter gives one the sense that Lewis, above all else, was a fierce and loyal friend. Afterall, Lewis was the man who brought many of these seemingly disparate authors together. Charles Williams, a man I had honestly never heard of, was greatly admired and loved by Lewis, if not by Tolkien. Williams, whose fame never reached great heights, lived a fascinating life - made all the much more interesting by his involvement with the Golden Dawn (the same society Yeats was a part of) and his compassionate philosophy. Tolkien's ideas regarding myth and dedication to what he deemed the 'holy task of subcreation' spurned the writing of the Lord of the Rings - a series which took him over ten years to finish. If not for Lewis's enthusiastic praise and criticism, it is doubtful whether Tolkien would have even finished the series. I am now more excited than ever to take a class in the fall revolving around this iconic Oxford group. I am greatly looking forward to reading their works with the new knowledge this book has bestowed on me.
Read
November 16, 2023A deep dive into the lives and works of the men associated with the "Inklings," the Oxford literary and drinking society that included now world famous authors C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. I read it over thirty years ago, but still recall thinking the less famous Charles Williams comes across as perhaps the most interesting character on the scene. A less conventional Christian than the other members, one perhaps more in the Blakean mold, Williams was also a friend of the modernist T.S. Elliot, who attended a meeting of the Inklings as his guest, rather to Tolkien and Lewis's distaste. Another occasional associate was the arch-reactionary E.R. Eddison, author of The Worm Ouroboros and the Zimiamvian trilogy--an indication of just what a small world the foundational fantasists of early 20th century Britain inhabited.
The Inklings provides an intriguing examination of literary influence, male camaraderie, and perhaps religious conservativism striving, in vain, to maintain itself against the onslaught of the forces of modernity. It also offers an illuminating depiction of an influential epoch now fading from living memory. I recommend it to anyone interested in the personal and social context from which the writings of Lewis and Tolkien emerged.
The Inklings provides an intriguing examination of literary influence, male camaraderie, and perhaps religious conservativism striving, in vain, to maintain itself against the onslaught of the forces of modernity. It also offers an illuminating depiction of an influential epoch now fading from living memory. I recommend it to anyone interested in the personal and social context from which the writings of Lewis and Tolkien emerged.
January 25, 2016
This was really interesting, though I feel it focused a lot more on C.S. Lewis than on the others and I would have liked a little more balance. But it still made for a great read.
January 3, 2019
While this book focuses mainly on C. S. Lewis, other prominent members of the Inklings are also in the spotlight. Most entertaining were the chapters discussing Charles Williams, a person I knew NOTHING about before reading this book. I can't say that what I learned left a particular favorable impression either. His interest in Tarot cards, his membership in the Order of the Golden Dawn (comparable to Freemasonry), and his preoccupation with the occult are disturbing to me. I still want to give his writing a chance, but I'm going in with both eyes open! Regardless of my negative impressions taken from this book, he was a very interesting person, and I'd like to learn more about him.
Tolkien is mentioned less than Lewis or Williams because Humphrey Carpenter had already written a detailed biography of his life. I found his relationship with Lewis fascinating. They weren't the jolly best pals I'd always envisioned (this book broke down many of my assumptions!).
Before I read this book, I thought I was fairly acquainted with C. S. Lewis the man. Now I'm certain I wasn't. His personality was very complex, too complex to be detailed in a book like this (I come away almost certain he was INFP, as is popularly believed). I'd like to learn about him too, preferably by reading more of his books.
I look forward to reading Carpenter's book on Tolkien.
BTW, I came upon this book almost by chance in a wonderful used book shop in Chestertown. I had been keeping my eyes open for it, but found it in the sci-fi section, next to the Lord of the Rings! That's one reason I love shopping for books "in person." You never know what you'll find or where you'll find it.
Tolkien is mentioned less than Lewis or Williams because Humphrey Carpenter had already written a detailed biography of his life. I found his relationship with Lewis fascinating. They weren't the jolly best pals I'd always envisioned (this book broke down many of my assumptions!).
Before I read this book, I thought I was fairly acquainted with C. S. Lewis the man. Now I'm certain I wasn't. His personality was very complex, too complex to be detailed in a book like this (I come away almost certain he was INFP, as is popularly believed). I'd like to learn about him too, preferably by reading more of his books.
I look forward to reading Carpenter's book on Tolkien.
BTW, I came upon this book almost by chance in a wonderful used book shop in Chestertown. I had been keeping my eyes open for it, but found it in the sci-fi section, next to the Lord of the Rings! That's one reason I love shopping for books "in person." You never know what you'll find or where you'll find it.
February 7, 2024
I think it's so amazing we have a glimpse into the life of some amazing writers. This was not a short term group, but they met weekly and for years. Sharing each others stories and thoughts over the years it started as a group of only a few and grew to include so many writers and thinkers. Just a touch of sadness here and there but a truly enjoyable read.
January 26, 2024
Expected more from this well advertised composite biography; some good bits on Tolkien and Lewis, in particular the accounts of the Inkling gatherings and their reading sessions; but overall the narrative starts out slow, the tone is flat and tedious; a more positive writing style factoring in the goings-on in interbellum Britain and its connection to world events would benefit the story.
September 29, 2020
It is often inspiring to learn more about those whom one admires. The Inklings gave me a window into the life of men who have contributed so much to our literary world. After reading this book, I am motivated to read and write more.
December 24, 2008
I never heard of Charles Williams but he's nearing the top of the if-i-could-meet-anyone-in-the-world-list...
the most fascinating biography(ies) i've read, ever! but i haven't read too many. made me laugh to the point where i had to put the book down! i think the thing i'm learning from the book and it wasn't meant to teach this: one must not be afraid to be wholly passionate. perhaps one will find himself feeling quite alone, but that shouldn't determine one's love for something because whatever it is, it may be fully deserving of such a passion.
finished. and took a lot longer than i thought because, like the critic said: every sentence is packed with meaning! loved the part of how the author makes up a scene on a typical Inklings Thursday night! also, didn't know Lewis could brandish a sword and that he did so freely with his students! one time even drawing blood!
this book made me laugh and cry. I think one of the only non-fiction books to make me do both so easily.
the most fascinating biography(ies) i've read, ever! but i haven't read too many. made me laugh to the point where i had to put the book down! i think the thing i'm learning from the book and it wasn't meant to teach this: one must not be afraid to be wholly passionate. perhaps one will find himself feeling quite alone, but that shouldn't determine one's love for something because whatever it is, it may be fully deserving of such a passion.
finished. and took a lot longer than i thought because, like the critic said: every sentence is packed with meaning! loved the part of how the author makes up a scene on a typical Inklings Thursday night! also, didn't know Lewis could brandish a sword and that he did so freely with his students! one time even drawing blood!
this book made me laugh and cry. I think one of the only non-fiction books to make me do both so easily.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 300 reviews