Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work

by Michael P. Farrell

Many artists, writers, and other creative people do their best work when collaborating within a circle of like-minded friends. In a unique study, Michael P. Farrell looks at the group dynamics in six collaborative circles, and gives vivid narrative accounts of the French Impressionists; Sigmund Freud and his friends; C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and the Inklings; social reformers Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony; the Fugitive poets; and the writers Joseph Conrad and Ford Maddox Ford.

Genres: Business, Sociology, Biography, History, Nonfiction, Relationships, Writing

336 pages, Paperback

First published September 15, 2001

Reviews

[jasmine sun · Rating 3 out of 5]

loved the intro & core framework; rest felt repetitive and dry

[Lucas Gelfond · Rating 4 out of 5]

read on and off for awhile. I found the ideas in here fascinating/fairly novel, but -1 star because I think this leans a little bit academic / dry at points and could certainly be shorter. Incredibly compelling analysis of how/why collaborative circles form and incredible attention to detail te some of these relational dynamics / in analyzing the correspondence of participants. Worth reading although most of the really compelling content in here comes out in the intro / conclusion imo

[Brenton · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book, a great study and some good storytelling. Diana Pavlac Glyer's work takes this theory and turns to the Inklings and Creative Collaboration.

[Kathleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Farrell's work is academic, and this book is structured like a formal study and not pop science. But his material is anything but dry! In Collaborative Circles, Farrell probes the temperaments and neuroses of prominent artists, scientists, and activists attempting to revolutionize their fields. It's incredible to read quotes from the personal letters of C.S. Lewis, Claude Monet, Sigmund Freud, Susan B. Anthony, and the like as they negotiated their working relationships with other strong personalities in their circles. Their pettiness, impatience, and tantrums actually magnify the impressive nature of each groups' collective achievements... notably their ability to inspire each other to new heights in spite of pointed conflict (the existence of which can be smoothed over in superficial histories).

I found particularly interesting Farrell's hypotheses around dyads as the most productive relationships within creative groups. Although the Impressionists, Inklings, and Fugitive Poets met to formally exchange ideas in a group context, it was the private pairings between Renoir
& Monet, Tolkien & Lewis, and Davidson & Tate where deeper "instrumental intimacy" was established. Farrell uses theories from psychology - backed by the astonishingly similar words that the artists themselves used to characterize their partnerships - to posit that by sympathetically mirroring each other, both individuals were freed from obligation to self-critique. By assigning this responsibility to a trusted co-creator, they felt secure enough to imagine, exchange, and refine even more radical ideas than either would have originated alone. It was these new ideas, honed in pairs but then shared back to the circle, that ended up characterizing each group's innovative final vision. Count me as supremely jealous for not having found this partner yet.

I prefer Collaborative Circles to Organizing Genius, a more popular book on a similar theme I read last year. Farrell's work profiled in greater detail the first person experiences of each individual participating in the collaborative effort, which I felt did better to illuminate (rather than lionize) some members' dysfunctional personality elements. To Farrell, a collaborative circle is less something you can engineer but rather something you recognize and nurture: a perfect storm of imperfect people, provided they fill complementary roles, can align for a time to generate historic impact.

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sociological case studies of mostly informal peer groups and pairs within groups, largely modeling creative discussion groups as "deliquent gangs" looking at group process stages and fluid roles. Probably oversimplifies and categorizes from a few examples, but the case studies with emphasis on group dynamics are interesting enough for the variety of historically famous groups he studies.