Into the Woods

The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings. Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski. Published June 2, 2015, by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 656 pages.

I have long been fascinated with how in the world J.R.R. Tolkien managed to produce The Lord of the Rings. A year or so ago, I read his letters. Last June, a new book was released that adds a tremendous amount of scholarship not only to the writing of The Lord of the Rings, but also to Tolkien’s literary group, the Inklings, and to Tolkien’s biography.

This book focuses on four members of the Inklings — J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, and Charles Williams. Barfield and Williams are not nearly as well known as Tolkien and Lewis, of course.

How much fun they all must have had! They met regularly at a pub in Oxford, read from their works in progress, drank, smoked, ate, and butted heads up a storm. Part of the fascination for me is Oxford life. Oxford University has been a center of the intellectual life of the English-speaking people for almost a thousand years. The university press publishes an astonishing 6,000 books a year. And of course in my own post-apocalyptic novels it is Oxford from which the intellocracy is drawn that sets out to remake a post-apocalyptic world.

I have never been able to read C.S. Lewis’ books. My criticisms are much like Tolkien’s (though Tolkien and Lewis got along pretty well most of the time). Lewis’ books are oozing with Christian didacticism and allegory. Lewis was a proselytizer. He was glib. He was argumentative. His personal life was a mess. Though Lewis was not a fundamentalist, there are strong fundamentalist elements of his personality. For much of his life, he was virulently anti-Christian. Then he went through a transformation. As my old friend Jonathan Rauch wrote in one of his first books, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, fundamentalist personalities have a hard time with gradual, steady, evolutionary personal growth. Rather, they undergo sudden transformations and reversals, rejecting their former selves and heading in a whole different direction. Lewis was like that. To me he was not an interesting person, or an interesting writer.

J.R.R. Tolkien was very different.

It’s important to remember that it has been almost 100 years since Tolkien and other Inklings underwent their formative experiences as young men in the trenches in World War I. The war was an enormous existential challenge to those who lived through it. Then, in middle age, they went through it again with World War II. Oxford at the time was a kind of center of Christianity, a reaction, I believe, to the existential challenges of living in the first half of the 20th Century. They needed a state-of-the-art, Oxford-smart Christianity to make sense of their times.

Not all writers write for the reason Tolkien wrote — to try to find meaning in his life and in the times in which he lived. Tolkien always denied (not least, perhaps, to distance himself from didactic writers like Lewis) that there was anything allegorical in The Lord of the Rings. And yet it’s easy enough to see how his life shaped the story he told — a great struggle by the common folk against a great evil, his hatred for modernity and for machines, his love of untrampled nature, his belief in the power of myth, and his love for the English language.

Though by all accounts Tolkien truly loved ordinary people and loved to talk with them on his long country walks, he was not above calling them “orcs,” when, for example, they cheered for retribution against the Germans. The Inklings were not saints. They argued. They competed for the same academic posts and sometimes went in for a bit of backstabbing. They held grudges at times — sometimes for decades, in Lewis’ case. Lewis’ love life was a disaster (the splendid films “Shadowlands” give a very limited and one-sided view of Lewis and his brother Warnie).

Tolkien, however, comes across as the most likable of the Inklings, the Inkling with the soundest character. And of course it is Tolkien whose literary theory I find most appealing.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post Are You Sure, Ursula, in which I questioned whether Ursula K. Le Guin knows what she’s talking about when she charges Amazon with the crime of controlling what Americans read and dumbing down American publishing. As part of my argument, I mentioned local public libraries, in which books by a single author fill one, two, and often three shelves. These industrial authors dominate the stacks.

I was in a library today and took 25 photos of examples of this. Those 25 photos were just a sample, because I was in a hurry to get to an appointment. I’ve attached only one sample photo to this post. More would be redundant.

Who are some of these industrial authors? I recorded some of their names and looked them up on Wikipedia:

Clive Cussler has published more than 60 novels.

W.E.B. Griffin has published 38 novels under his own name, but he also has published under 11 pseudonyms.

Gilbert Morris has published more than 100 novels.

James Patterson’s books have sold more than 300 million copies.

Anne Perry has published around 90 novels.

Tracie Peterson has published around 90 novels.

Karen Robards has published about 50 novels.

Stuart Woods has published about 65 novels.

Danielle Steele has published more than 100 novels and has sold more than 800 million copies.

Stephen King has published at least 54 novels and has sold about 350 million copies.

Karen Kingsbury has published about 55 novels and has sold 13 million copies.

Robin Cook‘s novels have sold about 400 million copies.

I have never read a single book by any of these authors and never will. But industrial novels like this fill more than half the shelf space in our local libraries. Industrial authors obviously make a killing for the publishing industry. They hog the shelf space and push other authors out of the libraries. Their dominance of the publishing industry greatly reduces the odds that new authors will be published, read, and discovered by the reading public. How is any of this Amazon’s fault? This has been going on for years.

If you look at the bindings on these industrial books, you’ll find that the editions often are the same size, with the same cover design. They are meant to be identifiable as a set on library shelves. The author’s name on the spine often is more prominent than the title. In other words, it’s a brand.

Nobody could possibly write 100 good books. In fact, I question whether most people could even write 100 books at all. I suspect that, in many cases, ghost writers are doing the work.

Whether this is the fault of the publishing industry, or whether the public’s bad taste is at the root of it, is probably a chicken-and-egg question. The phenomenon also reminds us of the bell curve. Most people are pretty much just like other people, and weirdos like me live out on the fringes of the bell curve. This does puzzle me, though, because I would have thought that people who read are more individuated than that. Clearly I’m wrong.

In any case, I cannot see how Amazon can be blamed. In fact, I buy far more books from Amazon because of it, since I can’t find anything to read at public libraries.