by mjmann » February 8th, 2006, 10:10 pm
I have now finished Jack's Life. While I am satisfied that I have not wasted my time with this book, I can't help but feel that it would have been more appropriate as an article in a magazine or newspaper. Quite simply, when it comes to Lewis's life pre-the Gresham marriage, Gresham really doesn't add much more than you could find in A. N. Wilson, Humphrey Carpenter or whoever. There is the odd anecdote here and there but not much. To his credit, Gresham does not engage in the kind of pseudo-Psychologising that, say, Michael White indulged in in his recent biography of Lewis. If he does not know the truth of a matter (e.g. why Lewis took care of Mrs Moore) he says so. So far as Lewis's life after his marriage to Joy Gresham is concerned, Douglas Gresham is equally vague. I mentioned earlier a negative review of Lenten Lands at Amazon.co.uk. The reviewer said that Gresham spent most of his 10 years as Lewis's stepson(to be) at boarding school and only got to know the great man during the summer. This book proves it. Either that or Gresham is very respectful of Lewis's privacy, which makes his decision to write a biography very odd indeed.
The vagueness of Jack's Life is a key feature of it. Events are glossed over or ignored altogether. In the case of the former you can count most of Lewis's books. It is astonishing to say but Gresham offers no significant opinion on any of them. Regarding the latter you can count Lewis's sexual predilections in the 10s and 20s, his ruthlessness as a debater or residue religious bias. Perhaps that is not such a bad thing. However, Gresham's construction of Lewis as a living Saint (in the manner, say, of Mother Theresa or Pope John Paul II) would mean more if did not dealt with the whole Lewis and not just the parts that he happened to like.
One last point, Gresham at one point calls J. R. R. Tolkien 'narrow minded' and in the context of the discussion, just about gets away with it, however, he then goes on to suggest that Lewis knew more about mythology than Tolkien. This I am not so sure of. I only refrain from saying 'is not true' because I do not know what either men read in this subject. However, given Tolkien's mythological interests, I do find it hard to agree with Gresham's statement. It would be very interesting, however, to find out what other people think.
When all is said and done, I do recommend this book. It is a hagiography but has been written by one who was close to Lewis - in spirit if nothing else (he was 18 when C. S. L. died). - and so may be read with profit by anyone who is interested in understanding C. S. Lewis.