Impala Publishers Blog Page

My ordered library copy of The Company They Keep: C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien as Writers in Community, (2008), by Diana Pavlac Glyer, is now to hand - see C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, Wednesday, June 23. 2010. Diana is today more frequently know as simply "Diana Gyler". Her Wikipedia entry tells us that "Pavlac" is not her maiden name (though it doesn't tell us what that was). Rather it comes from Diana 's former marriage to to Ross Pavlac, chairman of the 40th World Science Fiction Convention.

Just a few days ago Diana experienced a major earthquake, 5.6 magnitude or so, at her home in California; but she's currently at Mythcon 41, the convention of the Mythopoeic Society, held July 9-12 2010 at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.

The dust jacket of The Company They Keep sets out the purpose of the book -

'This important study challenges the standard interpretation that [C.S.] Lewis, [J.R.R.] Tolkien, Charles Williams, Owen Barfield, and the other Inklings had little influence on one another's work .... [Diana Glyer's] analysis not only demonstrates the high level of mutual influence that that characterized this writers' group but also provides a lively and compelling picture of how writers and other creative artists challenge, correct, and encourage one another as thery work together in community.'

In her Introduction, Diana Glyer tells how she and a group of friends in high school became enchanted by J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. They couldn't stop thinking about Tolkien's imagined world; they gave each other names taken from the book.

The teenage Diana read Tolkien's The Hobbit, and then more Tolkien. She discovered the magical worlds created by C.S. Lewis - Narnia, Malacandra, Perelandra, Glome on so on. She went on to read Charles Williams's The Place of the Lion.

Despite the strong family resemblance shared by these and other books written by the Inklings group, Diana Glyer found that the standard literary interpretation was that these writers had no influence on each other. An early and influential view was given by Humphrey Carpenter in his The Inklings: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien and Their Friends, (1978). There Carpenter writes ( p.160) -

'It must be remembered that the word 'influence', so beloved of literary investigators, makes little sense when talking of their association with each other' ... 'Tolkien and Williams owed almost nothing to the other Inklings, and would have written everything they wrote had they never heard of the group'

In this Carpenter, and other writers on the Inklings, have followed the Inklings themselves. C.S. Lewis wrote in one letter written late in life,

'I don't think Tolkien influenced me, and I am certain I didn't influence him'

and in another letter Lewis went even further -

'No one ever influenced Tolkien - you might as well try to influence a bandarsnatch'

Tolkien wrote in one letter of Charles Williams - 'I do not think we influenced one another at all! Too 'set', and too different'

Robert Havard as well, another faithful attender of the weekly Inklings meetings, dismissed the notion of mutual influence.

Such are the views which Diana Glyer attacks in her important book.

Links

Diana Pavlac Glyer - Wikipedia

Here's another Club game that I played in the past season, to add to the one I gave in A game from the 2009/10 season, Friday, June 25. 2010. Notes by Fritz 8 (in italics) and myself.

RVH [i.e. Royal Victoria Hospital] Hendersons v Bangor Winston
2 Feb 2010

White O'Neill, Brendan
Black O'Fee, James
English Opening, "The Clamp"

1. c4 Nc6
A response to the English Opening that I play quite often. If 2. d4, then 2 ... d5 with a Chigorin Defence; or on an English move like 2. Nf3 or 2. g3, then 2. e5 with a "Reversed Sicilian" English.

2. f4 A novelty for Fritz which doesn't have this 2nd move for white in its opening book. This seems to be what's called "The Clamp", supposedly on Black's moves 2. d5 and 2. e5. Someone [Andrew Martin?] must have recommended it in a DVD, since I encountered it before this game.

2 ... e5
I'm advancing a centre pawn anyway.

3. fxe5 Nxe5
With the exchange, White has a pawn majority in the centre. But Black has a piece well-placed there and the domicile of White's King already looks draughty.

4. d3
Defends c4.

4 .... Bc5

5. Nf3
If 5. d4 with a seeming pawn fork, 5 ... Qh4+ begins an attack and wins the d-pawn.

5 ... Nxf3+
6. exf3
Black has lost his well-placed N, but White has a permanent structural weakness at f3.

6 ... d5
A tewmporary sac of the other centre pawn to open lines.

7. cxd5 Qh4+
8. g3 Qd4
9. Qe2+ Ne7
10. Nc3 Bd7
(10... O-O 11. Bf4 Nxd5 12. Be5 with a slight advantage to Black)

11. Bd2
(better is 11. Bf4 !? O-O 12. Be5 with equal chances)

11... O-O
with advantage to Black

12. O-O-O Nxd5
Smoothly regains the pawn

13. Qe4 Ne3
14. Qxd4 Bxd4
[This bishop has become] {A valuable piece}

15. Re1
(15. Bxe3 Bxe3+ 16. Kc2 c5 with advantage to Black)

15... Rfe8
Fritz recommends (15... Nxf1 16. Re4 Bxc3 17. Bxc3 Bh3) with a winning advantage to Black

16. Ne4
Fritz considers that (16. h4) is better although Black retains an advantage

16... Nxf1
Black has secured a winning advantage, according to Fritz

17. Rexf1 Bb5
Fritz suggests (17... Bh3 !? with a winning advantage). The manoevre (pointed out by Eddie Whiteside after the game) wins an exchange.

18. Kc2 f5
19. Nc3 Bc6
20. h4 Re6
21. Rh2 Rae8
22. Bf4 b5
23. a3 Bb6
Fritz prefers the continuation (23... a5 24. a4 b4 25. Nb5 Bxb5 26. axb5 with a winning advantage to Black)

24. Kd2 a5
25. Re2 ?
A blunder. Fritz suggests (25. b4 !? with only a slight advantage to Black {and White could well hope to play on})

25... b4
winning a piece

26. Ne4
White choses to lose his piece in this way. Fritz gives the move a ? and suggests (26. Rxe6 bxc3+ 27. bxc3 Rxe6 28. h5 still with a decisive Black advantage)

26... fxe4
Fritz gives the line (26... Bxe4 $6 27. dxe4 bxa3 28. bxa3 fxe4 29. fxe4 Rxe4 30. Rxe4 Rxe4 31. Rc1 with only a slight advantage to Black)

27. fxe4 Bb5
Fritz suggests (27... Rd8 {seems even better} 28. Kc2 Bb5 29. Rf3 with a decisive Black advantage)

28. e5
Fritz gives (28. a4 {hoping against hope } Bxa4 29. Be3 when Black's advantage remains decisive)

28... Rd8
29. Rf3 Bd4
30. axb4 axb4
31. Ke1 Ra8
32. Kf1
(32. Be3 {cannot undo what has already been done} Bc6 33. Rf4 Bxe5 still with a winning advantage)

32... Ra2
Fritz thinks that 32... c5 is better, making the winning task even easier for Black 33. g4

33. Kg2
(33. Be3 would be desperation} Bc6 34. Bxd4 Bxf3 35. Rd2 still wiunning for Black)

33... Bc6
Fritz gives the continuation (33... Bc6 34. Be3 Rxb2 35. Rxb2 Bxb2), and adds that 33... Bxb2 succumbs to 34. Rff2 Bxd3 35. Rxb2 Be4+ 36. Kg1 Rxb2 37. Rxb2 $19). But White, a rook down, has had enough. So

34. Resigns 0-1

Blog Link

A game from the 2009/10 season, Friday, June 25. 2010