I just spent the weekend at Mythcon–a short, digital version of the normally weird and wonderful long weekend of scholarship and fan fun. Many of the parts of Mythcon that I love were still featured, including thoughtful and engaging panels, longer feature paper sessions to work out more complex ideas, and a bright and eclectic symposium of true lovers of imaginative literature and film. It was at Mythcon where I have met so many life-long nerd friends–and where I first launched my archival work that suggests that Lewis conceived of The Screwtape Letters as a part of the same fantasy universe as The Ransom Cycle (see here). I really love this community.
And I enjoyed the mini-con–though for this particular conference, I long to be there in person. Just as Mythcon has a tendency to encourage its participants to dust off dusty lyres and return again to fallow manuscripts when they return home, one never thinks the same again about the game of golf after Mythcon.
Honestly, I was just pleased to be able to connect at all. At this year’s online mini-conference there was a good deal of buzz about the Mythopoeic Awards. With four categories of awards (Adult lit, Children’s lit, and a Scholarship Award each for Inklings Studies and Myth and Fantasy Studies), and with five finalists in each category, the Mythopoeic Awards have a tendency to fill my TBR pile to overflowing–especially as it was a very strong slate of finalists.
While the fantasy awards are great, it’s the scholarship awards that I’m always paying attention to, especially in the Inklings Studies category (whose shortlist will, one day, contain a book with my name on the cover). Past winners include many of the scholars that we have mentioned here, including Clyde Kilby, Walter Hooper, Kathryn Lindskoog, Humphrey Carpenter, Paul Ford, Tom Shippey, Peter Schakel, Joe Christopher, Christopher Tolkien, Doug Anderson, George Sayer, Charles Huttar, David Downing, Verlyn Flieger, Michael Drout, John Garth, Janet Brennan Croft, Diana Glyer, Dimitra Fimi, Michael Ward, and Grevel Lindop, with his recent biography of Charles Williams.
Lately, these awards have been pretty hot.
In 2018, I had a chapter in a book edited by Sørina Higgins, The Inklings and King Arthur, which won the Mythopoeic Scholarship Award in Inklings Studies–shockingly edging out Jane Chance’s resourceful, Tolkien, Self and other: This Queer Creature (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), Lisa Coutras’ pace-setting Tolkien’s Theology of Beauty: Majesty, Splendor, and Transcendence in Middle-earth (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), and two masters in the field: Verlyn Flieger’s There Would Always Be a Fairy Tale: More Essays on Tolkien (Kent State University Press, 2017) and Christopher Tolkien’s beautifully designed and edited volume of one of his father’s greatest tales, Beren and Luthien (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017). In 2019, Verlyn Flieger’s book took the category, deservedly so (with respect to Catherine McIlwaine’s gorgeous exhibition book, Tolkien: Maker of Middle-earth and Jonathan S. McIntosh’s Thomistic theology of Tolkien, The Flame Imperishable). In 2019, Inklings scholar Dimitra Fimi took the fantasy award with Celtic Myth in Contemporary Children’s Fantasy: Idealization, Identity, Ideology.
Because there wasn’t a Mythcon in 2020, the 2020 finalists and winners were sort of bundled together with expectations about 2021. For the 2020 awards, it is not clear to me how they may have chosen out of these five excellent Inklings studies books:
- Amy Amendt-Raduege, “The Sweet and the Bitter”: Death and Dying in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (Kent State University Press)
- Dimitra Fimi & Thomas M. Honegger, eds., Sub-creating Arda: World-building in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Work, its Precursors and its Legacies (Walking Tree)
- Kirstin Jeffrey Johnson & Michael Partridge, Informing the Inklings: George MacDonald and the Victorian Roots of Modern Fantasy (Winged Lion)
- Catherine McIlwaine, Tolkien: Maker of Middle-earth (Bodleian Library)
- John Rateliff, ed., A Wilderness of Dragons: Essays in Honor of Verlyn Flieger (Gabbro Head)
Of that group, The Sweet and the Bitter won out, and it is a resourceful and deep study. The Fantasy Studies award category was equally strong:
- James Gifford, A Modernist Fantasy: Modernism, Anarchism, and the Radical Fantastic (ELS)
- Maria Sachiko Cecire, Re-Enchanted: The Rise of Children’s Fantasy Literature in the Twentieth Century (University of Minnesota Press)
- C. Palmer-Patel, The Shape of Fantasy: Investigating the Structure of American Heroic Epic Fantasy (Routledge)
- Ebony Elizabeth Thomas, The Dark Fantastic: Race and the Imagination from Harry Potter to The Hunger Games (New York University Press)
- Mark J.P. Wolf, ed., The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds (Routledge)
Gifford won that category. My vote was for Thomas’ The Dark Fantastic–and I would place it at the top of my list of Fantasy Studies volumes of the decade–and I am enjoying C. Palmer-Patel’s structuralist study. So it pleased me to see the shortlist of awards come out this weekend and include both C. Palmer-Patel and Ebony Elizabeth Thomas for a second run:
Mythopoeic Scholarship Award in Myth & Fantasy Studies
- The Metamorphoses of Myth in Fiction since 1960 by Kathryn Hume.
- Gods and Robots: Myths, Machines, and Ancient Dreams of Technology by Adrienne Mayor
- The Shape of Fantasy: Investigating the Structure of American Heroic Epic Fantasy by C. Palmer-Patel
- The Dark Fantastic: Race and the Imagination from Harry Potter to The Hunger Games by Ebony Elizabeth Thomas
- Fantasies of Time and Death: Dunsany, Eddison, Tolkien by Anna Vaninskaya
I have heard that Vaninshkaya’s study is great, and Kathryn Hume is always thoughtful, so we’ll see how that category goes.
But it is the Inklings Studies award shortlist that I find the most telling:
Mythopoeic Scholarship Award in Inklings Studies
- John M. Bowers, Tolkien’s Lost Chaucer (OUP)
- Oronzo Cilli, Tolkien’s Library: An Annotated Checklist (Luna)
- John Garth, The Worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien: The Places That Inspired Middle-earth (Princeton UP)
- Catherine McIlwaine, ed. Tolkien: Maker of Middle-earth (Bodleian)
- John Rateliff, ed. A Wilderness of Dragons: Essays in Honor of Verlyn Flieger (Gabbro Head)
Five strong books with striking individual identities that also work as a collective resource kit for Tolkien scholars and fans alike.
I have never picked the winner in these photo-finish races, so I will not begin prognosticating now. I will note the link. “Inklings Studies,” narrowly conceived, includes Tolkien father and son, Charles Williams, Owen Barfield, the Lewis brothers, and a handful of more minor writers. Given the way the Inklings grew as writers and how we have grown as a fan community, we would not be surprised to find scholarly material about George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton, Joy Davidman, or Dorothy Sayers in that list. Strikingly, though, every book on the list is a Tolkien studies volume–though the Verlyn Flieger festschrift could have included a Lewis study or two, given her lifetime of work. It did not, however, and the list stands as a testimony to the strength of recent Tolkien studies.
However, we must admit that it is not a terribly recent phenomenon. As I argued in my series, “Why is Tolkien Scholarship Stronger than Lewis Scholarship?“, Tolkien studies strength over Lewis studies–not to mention the degree to which Williams and Barfield are under-studied–goes back for some years. There are exceptions in the last decade, but they simply prove the rule–and it has been a thin decade at that.
I made a quip at the mini-Mythcon that I hope one day a Lewis studies volume would be strong enough to warrant a nomination. Historically, there have been noted Lewis studies by Doris T. Myers, Walter Hooper, Kathryn Lindskoog, Lionel Adey, Don King, Peter Schakel, Diana Pavlac Glyer, Michael Ward, Sanford Schwarts, Robert Boenig, John Bremer, and Monika Hilder, as well as good biographies by Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, Alistair McGrath, Alan Jacobs, and George Sayer. So, worried that I was being overly facetious, I clarified that there were some good recent Lewis studies books, just not ones of exceptional argument, depth, or contribution to the field. It is still a tough admission to make. The publication of this award shortlist is just another confirmation that Tolkien scholarship continues to shine in ways that Lewis scholarship simply does not.
Why is this? I have offered three articles composed of a dozen reasons why I think that Lewis scholarship (as a whole) is not as strong as Tolkien scholarship (as a whole):
- Why is Tolkien Scholarship Stronger than Lewis Scholarship? Part 1: Creative Breaks that Inspired Tolkien Readers
- Why is Tolkien Scholarship Stronger than Lewis Scholarship? Part 2: Literary Breadth and Depth
- Why is Tolkien Scholarship Stronger than Lewis Scholarship? Part 3: Other Factors
There is very little shade thrown on my field in those pieces, and I still struggle to fully understand the difference. I followed that up by editing a piece by Connor Salter (see “Lewis and Tolkien among American Evangelicals“), and a resource pack to make all readers into better scholars (if they want to make their field stronger: “5 Ways to Find Open Source Academic Research on C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and the Inklings.” Perhaps these resources will help.
However, really the best thing I should do is write a study of C.S. Lewis that warrants a Mythopoeic scholarship award nomination. And then I have no one to blame but myself when the 2024 shortlist appears!
Precisely (in relation to your final comment). Please do so, or there will most certainly be no one else to blame!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the best way to fill a hole is to fill it. It turns out, though, writing a brilliant book isn’t as easy as one might think.
Much as I love Lewis, I think there’s more depth in Tolkien’s work. Sorry, but there it is. So there’s more for Tolkien scholars to grapple with.
Of course I want your book to win the 2024 award though 😀
Well, we’ll see on both points. I did talk about depth and breadth in one of those pieces.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a really big difference – there are (so far as I’ve ever heard) nothing re.the Ransom cycle or Narnia n any way comparable to the body of posthumousiy-published Arda-related materials (and who knows just what still unpublished, the way Christopher sometimes talked about what he selected…).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perhaps “A Compass for Deep Heaven: Navigating the C. S. Lewis Ransom Trilogy” will make the shortlist for next year? That, and Michael Ward’s “After Humanity: A Guide to C. S. Lewis’s ‘The Abolition of Man.”
Perhaps! It is an award that recognizes collected volumes and resource books. I am quite enjoying “After Humanity” at this moment.
Pingback: Tolkien Studies Projects Sweep the Mythopoeic Scholarship Award Shortlist in Inklings Studies (Trying Not To Say “I Told You So”) – The Urban Fishing Pole: Cigar Blogger, Lifestyle
Pingback: Tolkien Studies Projects Sweep the Mythopoeic Scholarship Award Shortlist in Inklings Studies (Trying Not To Say “I Told You So”) – Glyn Hnutu-healh: History, Alchemy, and Me
One response to this would be encouragement – not least by example – of more, detailed ‘inter-Inklings’ scholarship, like the attention which has been paid to the possible – indeed, likely – debts of both Lewis and Tolkien to their timely ‘discovery’ of the novels of Charles Williams, especially The Place of the Lion. (One follow-up there, would be, would we have the Planet Narnia structure Fr. Dr. Ward discerns as we have it, without The Place of the Lion?)
I suspect a lot of such ‘inter-Inklings’ scholarship would particularly concern Tolkien and Lewis – like the attention already given to both Lewis and Tolkien’s experiences in the Great War (or even my own provocatively-titled paper about (among other things) the Father Christmas letters,’ “Tolkien’s Narnia”?’).
Might we teasingly suggest that there would be much more of this, already, if a lot of Tolkien scholarship were less ‘ Arda-centric’? (As they say on exam papers, ‘Discuss’.)
A worthwhile playful-serious question in that context is, how ‘Tolkienological’ and how ‘Ardalogical’ is how much Tolkien scholarship – and how attentive to Tolkien as ‘ostensible Ardologist’? The latter seems a feature of Tolkien’s creative work since the earliest days (e.g., giving Old English titles to poems – as if they were translations of hitherto unknown Old English texts?) – but how much of an extra boost may Lewis’s 1929 ‘Lay’ commentary (happily published by Christopher) have given this (already ‘bandersnatchily’ firm?) tendency?
It’s a good question, David. I do think there is something great in the Inklings connection–even more than has been drawn out so far. I think it is a field of great possibility, and I slowly gather the threads together in my own basket for something in the future.
But I don’t want to be anti-that other stuff! I think we can have the one without losing the other.
My field is theology rather than literature, though the intersection of literature and theology is one of my interests, so I have nothing like your grasp of the field, but i wonder if there is anything comparable to Inklings Studies in other studies of 20th-century English literature. How well, for example, do Bloomsbury Studies compare to Inklings studies, in terms of number of scholars, conferences, journals etc? Their literary contemporaries generally seemed to regard them as lightweights, but the growth in Inklings Scholarship in the 21st century seems to indicate a different direction. And that is what struck me most about your article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Steve, I think of 20th c. literary figures, only T.S. Eliot has more scholarly work than Tolkien, but I don’t know the data on it. I would presume that Lewis is pretty high up there in terms of sheer number of papers and books. I still remain somewhat unsatisfied–not because the 50 best ones are good, but because I wish there were 100 best ones and of those 20 were even better.
Pingback: Good C.S. Lewis Studies Books That Did Not Win the Mythopoeic Award: Part 1: C.S. Lewis on Theology, Philosophy, and Spiritual Life | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Good C.S. Lewis Studies Books That Did Not Win the Mythopoeic Award: Part 2: C.S. Lewis Biographies | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Good C.S. Lewis Studies Books That Did Not Win the Mythopoeic Award: Part 3: Literary Studies on C.S. Lewis | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Good C.S. Lewis Studies Books That Did Not Win the Mythopoeic Award: Part 4: C.S. Lewis Reception Studies | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The C.S. Lewis Studies Series: Part 5: Recent and Foundational Studies on Lewis and Gender | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The 2021 Mythopoeic Awards Winners | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The C.S. Lewis Studies Series: Where It’s Going and How You Can Contribute | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: A Brace of Tolkien Posts for his 130th Birthday (#TolkienBirthdayToast) | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The Idiosopher’s Razor: The Missing Element in Metacritical Analysis of Tolkien and Lewis Scholarship | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The Literary Life in Dorothy L. Sayers’ Murder Mystery, Whose Body? (1923) | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: A Brace of Tolkien Posts for his 131st Birthday (#TolkienBirthdayToast) | A Pilgrim in Narnia